UKC

To me this murder proves 2 things, all our heros and the ones society puts on a pedastool are simply human, and that there are a lot more people close to the edge than we think.

There's my thought for the day. LOL

What do you make of it all? Its not a shock to me, and personally I think there must be more newsworthy stories than this.

In reply to Blizzard: it isn't murder, he has been charged but no verdict as of yet!

In reply to alooker: of course its murder,wether he meant to or not.he has killed someone.

In reply to Blizzard:

Thats not really the definition of murder eh..

In reply to mark s:

He's saying it was manslaughter, he shot her by accident, took her for an intruder.

In reply to Blizzard:

Didn't Jimmy Saville keep his cigars in one of those?

In reply to Blizzard: I'm not sure he has leg to stand on.

In reply to Blizzard:

I am impressed that you can see forward to the verdict in this case. And would agree that most of our heroes are just actually humans like you and me.
Oh And its 'pedestal'. And I'm not really sure what your 'LOL' relates to in this case; are you really laughing out loud at the thought that one person is accused of killing another person?

(and for Mark S; you might want to check out the definition of murder?)

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Why would an intruder be in the bathroom????? And after the first female scream mightn't he have stopped to think??? and wouldn't he have known his girlfriend was in the house???/ I'm not condemning him - just asking questions.........

In reply to Steph-in-the-West:

Those are questions for the court. If you really feel the need to ask them yourself you could write to Oscar yourself and see if he answers. Or you could wait and see.

In reply to Mark Morris:

This really isn't funny in any way sense or form. Someone innocent has lost their life at the hands of the person they loved and who allegedly loved them. I really cannot see how anyone with an ounce of compassion can make a cheap joke out of this. It's not just one life gone - it's two for whatever reason.............Pistorius will never be regarded as that strong human being make the best of his adversity that he once was. His life as he knew it is now over for ever. I'm not defending him, just saying that making pathetic jokes outof something as serious and life changing and life ending as this is crass in the extreme

In reply to Steph-in-the-West:

Sadly Steph, that joke appeared in the first Oscar thread. It wasn't funny then and it isn't funny now.

In reply to Steph-in-the-West:

Sorry, I've no idea, just repeating what I heard on the radio. My point was that it could be murder but killing another person isn't necessarily murder.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Quite right.

In reply to Rampikino:

Surely this is the whole point of a forum (which incidentally is Latin for 'Market Place') it's adiscussion and I am just adding to it. I'm not asking for answers - just jpining in the discussion.....

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

That's not the story any more. His defence team have denied premeditated murder but haven't given an explanation - that intruder thing was in the very first reports yesterday but the SA police have said they've not had any reports of intruders.

In reply to Steph-in-the-West:

It's up to you Steph, your post does have a slight feel about it - ie that you have already made up your mind and are anticipating a court case. Personally speaking I'm not going to speculate on what might or might not have happened.

In reply to Andy Say:

My lol is self depricating as I am simply a no one compared to all these famous people who make the headlines every day.

Thank God I am not famous. I really ought to improve my spelling however. I put my posting up simply to see how many other people share my point of view. Perhaps very few.

In reply to Blizzard:

PS its the press reporting that seems to be making him out to be guilty and they have skewed my opinion.

In reply to Blizzard:

I get the feeling people are settling scores..... behind the scenes he appears to have been the most pleasant of people.

In reply to Indy:

I agree - a lot of people have come out to attest to his 'anger management' issues....

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


The police said on the day they didn't know where that story came from.
Nieghbours heard shouting and he has a history of domestic violence.
Better get his prison regulation legs ready.

In reply to Indy:

The radio reported that his friend said that his fame and success changed him. Pity

In reply to Rampikino:

I haven't made up my mind at all and I will repeat I am just joining the discussion. I am not "anticipating a court case." I have no axe to grind. I sit very very firmly in the camp of innocent until proven guilty BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT. There is going to be a court case - there has to be - even Shipton had a court case.

Sir,

I heard that he wasn't happy with his Valentines present from his burd... a pair of love heart socks!

Anyhow looking forward to the new OJ trial

Albert

In reply to mark s:

The plod in SA seem very keen to steer the media in a partical direction by releasing tittilating bits of information. I have no idea what went on, but people seem very keen to assume it was murder.

In reply to Steph-in-the-West:

Didn't realise that photographing a yeti's footprint was a criminal offence.

In reply to Ridge:

That's what i've been thinking.

In reply to Blizzard:
Is he innocent of murder or will he be proven not guilty of murder, in my mind there is a difference.
We shall see what happens in time, be interesting.

In reply to mark s:

Nonsense. I have had two friends who have killed people. Neither was found guilty of murder - because they were not guilty of murder (or indeed manslaughter). Nobody not in possession of the facts (the press, for instance) should pre-judge these things.

In reply to Moley:

Do you mean "not proven guilty"?

In reply to Robert Durran:
he pointed a gun at someone and pulled the trigger,he knew he was killing someone
guilty as fook.

In reply to mark s:

So did one of my friends. Pistorius may be guilty. He may not be. You do not know the facts and circumstances. You are talking ignorant rubbish.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Have you been reading the press on this issue??? Its almost as if they are claiming he's definately done it. Guilty. Thats the impression I've got. So much for a fair trial.

In reply to Blizzard:

Well I'm not surprised he mistook her for a burglar. apparently it was so dark in the house, he couldn't see two feet in front of him

In reply to mark s: Out of interest if, because of the media hype surrounding this case, the general public's opinion and peception in SA is the same as yours, what do you think the chances are of Pistorius getting a fair trial?

In reply to Aly:

They don't have jury trials in SA

In reply to Rampikino:

I thought it was pretty funny, maybe you've led a sheltered life Laughing at the grim and gruesome is a trade mark of those that have to deal with this sort of thing, it helps to stay sane. I recommend you don't join the services / blue light brigade.

'Funny' depends on perspective, there's no right to 'not be offended'.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

What???? Lost me on this one...................

In reply to jonny2vests:
. I recommend you don't join the services / blue light brigade.

I work with vulnerable adults with mental health problems who are very often discriminated against through ignorance and prejudice

There is every right to be offended - just because you're not offended doesn't make it a right to offend others

In reply to Blizzard:

OJ Simpson all over again without the car chase or the glove.
( or the feet for that matter )

In reply to jonny2vests:

As the son , grandson and brother of generations of nurses , I can confirm the grim humour that goes with he job, it seems to be a way with coping.
Sitting with someone who is dying , as a day job, is not easy to cope with, and I guess, you cope with it within your peer group as best you can, and humour seems to work quite well.

In reply to Steph-in-the-West:

Shipton was a famous Himalayan explorer who, among other things, took photos of an alleged yeti's footprint.
Shipman was a different kettle of fish.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Ah! that would explain it then - over-consumption of fermented grain addled the brain!!!!!

In reply to Jim C:

Yeah, my sister is a nurse, as is her husband, and my Dad was a nurse. They wear the body armour of humour to work every day. Fifteen years as a soldier gave me a similar perspective.

In reply to Steph-in-the-West:

Erm, ok. Why is that relevant?


Go for it. But I was talking about the absence of a right to NOT be offended.


Nonsense. By that logic, nobody could ever do or say anything again, lest it was interpreted by someone somewhere as offensive. Free speech and the choice to be offended or not are luxuries we both enjoy; clearly any offence taken is in purely the domain of the offendee.

That's not the same as directly insulting the less fortunate, or anyone for that matter.

In reply to andy:

His defence team have denied premeditated murder but haven't given an explanation

His defence team, like their client, seem to be well and truly stumped.

In reply to Blizzard:

I'm in South Africa right now. Last week I met someone who said she had personal knowledge of the bloke and she said he's actually quite a nasty piece of work. Somebody else told me last night that he shot his GF through the shower screen, which would rather ruin the burglar story. Others have said he was in court a year ago after a barney with the same GF.

In reply to Rigid Raider:

Impressive, given they'd only been in a relationship for three months.

In reply to jonny2vests:

My view was that it just wasn't funny, frankly. I'm not offended in any way. The use of grim humour as a coping mechanism is well established.

That's very different from simply making a joke about someone's physical disability - that's not a coping mechanism, just cheap.

M

(9 years in the RAF as a recent article points out)

In reply to Rampikino:

My view exactly.

In reply to Rigid Raider:

Jesus Christ, are his whole family in denial??

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/...

He said the entire Pistorius family was "heart and soul" behind the athlete and would do "whatever needs to be done" to help him clear his name.

In reply to Ridge:

I'm amazed how much is coming out.. almost every day new 'evidence' comes out or is leaked to the press.. the latest one this bloodied bat..

Regardless of anything else, he should just get a fair trial.. and at the moment you can see a fair trial being something that is hard to guarentee..

He's a huge celebrity, this is massive news in the UK never mind SA, so the chance of getting unbiased jury members must be decreasing as the days pass..

Look at the difference between this and the guy arrested for April Jones' disappearance, which has been total information lock down..

In reply to Postmanpat:

You can know a person and have a "barney" with them before entering into a relationship with them!

In reply to IainRUK:

ebygomm stated earlier in the thread that they don't have jury trials in South Africa.

In reply to IainRUK:

It would be very hard indeed for a unbiased jury, taking into consideration (as pointed out further up) SA do not have jury trials.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial#South_Africa

In reply to IainRUK:

so the chance of getting unbiased jury members must be decreasing as the days pass..

They don't have a jury system in South Africa. Not sure if that will benefit the defendant or not in this case.

In reply to MJ:

Something tells me that they don't have juries in South Africa...

In reply to Blue Straggler:

How are they going to reach a decision without a jury? Is it the judge who makes the decision?

In reply to Blizzard:

I believe so. There are many different kinds of trial, you know.

In reply to MJ:

Wherever did you get that idea?

In reply to Blizzard: I couldn't see.. some seem to mention a panel.. but either way someone/some people need to decide guilt..

Professionals are probably less likely to be affected by the press.. or even read the tabloids, but it just seems strange to see so much released.. we know where she was shot, how many times, where in the house and lots more.. I just don't think we'd hear that in the UK and for good reason..

I was really impressed with how the North Wales police went into lock down over the April Jones case. A fair trial is a fundamental right, and so it seems strange for so much to come out.

In reply to Rampikino:

Gosh, you chaps are always so reasonable, have you never transgressed? I realise its out of order, but I just can't help having a naughty giggle. Maybe I'm a bad person.

In reply to jonny2vests:

I've laughed at many things in my time. I'm sure some people may consider some of these things out of order. Who knows.

Can't be absolutely certain but I don't think I've found mockery of someone who has no legs to be funny though.

I'll take boring and reasonable over cheap any day.

In reply to Rampikino:

Your problem is you're thinking about it too hard. Sketchy humour is about much shallower than that.

In reply to jonny2vests:

My problem?

What you think of me is about as relevant as my last fart.

In reply to jonny2vests:

Reminds me of an old joke.

Doctor: "We've got good news and bad news I'm afraid"
Patient: "What's the bad news?"
Doctor: "I'm afraid we had to amputate both of your legs"
Patient: "Oh shit what's the good news then?"
Doctor: "Well, the guy in the next bed wants to buy your slippers."

Is than not funny?

E

In reply to Enty:

Dunno, is it?

I don't believe there is a clear line between what is or is not acceptable. There are so many complexities. But I don't think mocking Pistorius for his disability is funny. Others might, I don't.

In reply to Enty: What about only one leg? "Mr Spiggott - you are, I believe, auditioning for the part of Tarzan."

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Yep - a classic sketch.

Did it mock disability though or did it find situational humour in what scenarios it can throw up?

In reply to Enty: Got to agree.. its all a grey area so don't see how people can draw such an arbitary stritch line in the sand.. x OK.. Y bad..

All humour has the potential to offend, close to the bone humour can be some of the funniest..

In reply to Enty:

That's funny. I guess there's almost always a victim in any joke.

In reply to IainRUK:

Each situation on its own merits.

In reply to jonny2vests:

You guys are funny! I dont find Pisorious having a lack of legs funny, but did you look at what I did find funny:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=538914&new=7225292#x7225292

lol

There's nowt as queer as folk so they say

In reply to Rampikino:

Exactly. And just maybe there are things out there that you would laugh at and I would find offensive. Then you'd be cheap, and I'd be, erm, expensive.

In reply to IainRUK: "stritch" I think I may have made that word up.. strict..

In reply to Blue Straggler:

But then she wouldn't be a GF would they?

In reply to Blizzard: not looking good for op, gf was in her nightie and there's a cricket bat involved, and sounds as if he shot her in bed then the bathroom...

In reply to Blizzard:
I was chatting to a UK police officer with a fair bit of experience in murder investigations who was of the opinion that the comments so far from the SA police would have been enough to get a trial stopped in the UK. They've basically come out and said he's guilty, has a history of domestic abuse, the suggestions about an intruder are rubbish etc. which you couldn't say in the UK for fear of biasing a jury.

It is certainly interesting to see how the pre-trial by media is being conducted with the aid of the SA police rather than despite them.

In reply to Reach>Talent: yes just goes to show how anal we are, he killed her, she did not fall down the stairs!

In reply to Reach>Talent:

They've basically come out and said he's guilty, has a history of domestic abuse, the suggestions about an intruder are rubbish etc. which you couldn't say in the UK for fear of biasing a jury.

They certainly seem to have jumped in with both feet.

In reply to MJ:

Yes, not at all stumped by the case.

In reply to dale1968:

Would the right to a fair trial be 'anal' if it were you standing accused, perhaps of something you didn't do or where there were extenuating circumstances? I suppose it's just in cases where the accused is someone else and bang to rights according to gossip in newspapers.

jk

In reply to jkarran: the press are saying steroids have been found at his house.
I think his gold medals are the last thing on his mind when he faces life on his knees in a s.a prison

In reply to jkarran:
Would the right to a fair trial be 'anal' if it were you standing accused, perhaps of something you didn't do or where there were extenuating circumstances?

There are some things though that are important to the fair prosecution of a trial but can't be said, for instance if a police officer were to say "The suspect took us to a field, showed us where he'd dumped the body and how he'd killed them" to the press in the UK before a trial, then bye bye trial as that person can't expect to be trialled by an unbiased jury.

The right to a fair trial is something you can't overstate the importance of but there are certainly times when the law offers too many chances to shoot itself in the foot.

In reply to jkarran: If I was a juror I would not be swayed by the press, and most right minded people would not be, and would be far more interested in the defense and prosecutions take on it.
my some what cack handed response was from the perspective of the know facts, she dead he was there, appears to be nobody coming forward and he has been charged

In reply to dale1968:


Impressive. I'm pretty sure I'd be swayed by what I thought I knew, it seems to be how our minds work. We tend form an opinion early on then defend it in the face of often overwhelming evidence. I guess some people are better able to control this than others. I think I'm a 'right minded person' and I've not taken much interest in the story but I'd definitely be suspicious of my ability to to fairly weigh up the evidence (and only that evidence) presented at trial.


Fair enough.
jk

In reply to Blizzard: I can understand how he could have thought she was a burglar. I got up quietly in the middle of the night so as not to wake the missus. Went downstairs to the kitchen to get a drink to find the kitchen light on and the back door open. As I went towards the back door soemone came in through the door. My fist was back and I nearly punched the missus who was just up late and putting rubbish in the dustbin.. I would have sworn on oath that she had been in the bed when I got up..

Different state of affairs in South Africa where violent burglaries are common place. I am sure that I would shoot first and ask questions later..

In reply to mgco3:

Similar has happened to me an several occasions. Get up to go to the loo, creep out quietly so as not to wake up the misses, open the door, and someone is standing there which shocks the hell out of me, because I thought she was in bed. Adrenaline spikes in the fraction of a second before you realise that its her. Happened at least 3 times that I can remember, probably because the thing that has woken you up is actually her having got out of bed. Having said that, that's not quite the same as hearing a noise coming from the bathroom, and immediately jumping to the conclusion it must have been a break in, and wouldn't otherwise like to comment, because I've no idea what I might feel living in a gated community where people feel the need to have weapons.

In reply to Jimbo W:

... er, yes, and what would be the very first thing you'd think? Surely, Is that the missus? And then, having felt the bed, and found she was not there, I would have concluded that it was most likely her in the bathroom toilet. Not to mention that a toilet in an en suite bedroom is an extremely unlikely entrance route for an intruder to use.

In reply to Jimbo W: Surely with your 9mm under the bed that you thought she was in, it wouldn't be hard to check to see if she was there or alright!

In reply to sleavesley: i'm stumped too...

In reply to sleavesley:


Quite

In reply to Jimbo W:
I dont like jumping to conclusions without knowing the full facts, but the reporting of the circumstances so far seems pretty detailed. Particularly when you look at the floor plan of his apartment.
I do find it hard to beleive you would wake up, assume the noise in the bathroom MUST be a burgler without checking where your partner is and then just fire blindly through the door. Even if you do take into account fear and adreneline.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Indeed.


Presuming that someone would be able to tell it was a bathroom window, yes.

In reply to Jimbo W:

Well the small toilet window next to the bathroom. Whichever, it needed a ladder to reach it. And we haven't heard yet what happened to the alleged ladder ...

In reply to nightmonkeyuk:


Well, according to him, he didn't wake up due to the noise. He supposedly went to the balcony on his stumps to bring in a fan (if true, how high was his eye level to be absolutely sure she was/wasn't in bed), then heard a noise, grabbed his gun without checking definitively where his girlfriend was (which I agree seems pretty odd) and shot through a bathroom door. As a pathologist, of the PMs I've carried out, it is possible retrieve some urine from the bladder. So if the bladder was completely empty, that is weak circumstantial evidence that she might have gone to the loo for that purpose, rather than to get behind a locked door. For me, the most suss thing is that the first people he calls are his brother and lawyer... ...I am pretty damn sure I wouldn't think down those lines, and can't imagine why others would... ...the first thing I'd do would be to call for an ambulance!!!

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Yes of course, you normally go out of the house on your stumps, check the presence of a ladder to confirm an intruder, before coming back upstairs... ...I think the presence of absence of a ladder is pretty irrelevant, there is enough other suspicious factors to be getting on with!

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


You do realise nobody appears to be claiming there actually was a break-in? What has a ladder got to do with anything?
jk

In reply to Jimbo W:

It is Pistorius who has used the 'presence of nearby ladders' as part of his story. i.e that the intruder got hold of one of these 'nearby ladders' (belonging to a nearby property) and moved it to P's upstairs bedroom toilet window. I would think it highly relevant if this alleged ladder was not there when the police arrived.

In reply to jkarran:

That is exactly what P is claiming - that there was an intruder in the bathroom who had been able to get in there by using a ladder. That is exactly what he said yesterday, or perhaps the day before yesterday.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


You're clearly spending more time then me gleaning the details of this case, but are you saying P saw a ladder being used, or had a flash of thought that ladders might be available to use, or post facto said that there were ladders that might have been used to back up his belief in the presence of an intruder, or post facto used the availability of ladders to help justify his belief in the possibilty of an intruder. Either way, the presence of a ladder at a window still seems pretty irrelevant given that there was in fact no intruder.

In reply to Jimbo W:

Just googled.. ..there were ladders near the property, just not up against the wall. Anyway, he wouldn't have known where the ladders were, so its irrelevant.

In reply to Jimbo W:

More or less your fourth suggestion.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Surely he's claiming that's what he thought at the time, not that there actually was a break-in that night.

jk

In reply to jkarran:


Exactly

In reply to jkarran:

Ah, OK. So it all comes down to him making a terrible, mistaken assumption at the time. This seems extremely far-fetched given the absence of Reeva from his bed. Even more far fetched is the idea that the intruder, having somehow got into his bathroom toilet, then (presumably) refuses to answer his challenge from the other side of the door. Are we seriously meant to believe that he was so sure it was an intruder that he just blasted at the door without making any challenge, or checking where Reeva was first? Since that of course is by far the most likely person to be in their bedroom loo ... given that Reeva is no longer in bed ... And, as the prosecution has pointed out, even if his story is true, that still amounts to murder (of an intruder). He hasn't said anything about being threatened by an intruder.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

This is SA.. an intruder in your house isn't a good thing.. life is cheap there.. very high murder rates. Look at the family recently who were robbed, father shot dead, mother raped and shot dead, then the 10 year old lad drowned in scalding water as he was a witness..

It's a reasonable assumption to assume an intruder will want to kill you..

I still, like you, think he was guilty of murdering her knowingly. Pre-meditated, I doubt it. But really dislike this trial by press and the police's general attitude. Look at the steroids story..

We had it in the UK where the life of the landlord of that lady murdered one winter was destroyed by the press, when he was guilty.. guilty or not, a fair trial should be a given, then let people know the truth afterwards, not the police's story of events..

In reply to IainRUK: sorry when he was innocent.. he later successfully sued.. and rightly won.

In reply to IainRUK:

Sure, and that is why he had a gun by (or under) his bed. And presumably he had the bedroom door looked too (though we haven't been told that yet) ... which is why he had to bring up the ladder theory.


Yes, but less reasonable if the intruder is not acting very like a dangerous intruder and hiding in a locked loo.


Yes, I think anger probably has a lot to do with it. ... Though the accounts of two sets of shots 7 minutes apart make the case for premeditation more likely. It seems the first shot/s were fired in the bedroom (prosecution case, based on blood on the bedroom floor).

Well, of course. But the juryless SA system means that it all comes down to one judge (is that right, or is there a bench of judges?) who is hopefully not swayed by what the press thinks.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


You mean what you are assuming is his definitive knowledge of that. Did he definitely know, the police seem to agree with P the bedroom lights were off as P claims, and P claims he was mobile on the stumps of his legs... ...how much could he tell for sure from that height of sight-line? I don't know at all, but you seem pretty sure.


The operating word being presumably


From what I understand of having intruders in your house in SA, is that an encounter is unlikely not to involve guns and possible severe injury. Its different of course, but in Zimbabwe, where I have friends, if you thought you had an intruder in your house, you'd definitely not be waiting to make eye contact before shooting.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth: I thought it was now believed it was just 4 shots.. just in the bedroom..

I had heard/read first in the bedroom.. then in the bathroom.. but more recent reports suggest just the bathroom..

It's not so much just the judge. its the guys life post trial. If he is cleared, unlikely I know, but if he did just make a terrible error that he'lll have to live with for the rest of his life, I don't see why he needs his life torn apart anymore.

To be honest I doubt a lot which came out early on because the police were clearly leaking information, now the policeman himself is also coming out as a dubious character.

The reports of domestic violence etc.. as far as I understand they are actually totally unsubstantiated and ex-girlfriends have come out in support saying that wasn't true..

I'm behind in this though, only 9:30 am here.. so haven't seen too much today..

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Erm... what? You can believe what you like, I don't much care either way. I'm neither defending nor condemning him, I'll wait for the the conclusion of the trial/appeals process before drawing conclusions if it's all the same to you.

The point I was making is that (and to be fair perhaps I misread you) nobody is claiming there was a break-in, one party (Pistorious) is claiming they *thought* there was a break-in, not that there was one.

You said:

In reply to Jimbo W: The thing I found most striking is looking at the floor plan of the bedroom & bathroom is that Pistorius would have had to pass the bed in order to get to the bathroom. He heard the 'noise' from either the bedroom or balcony. How could he have not noticed his partner wasn't in bed or wanted to wake and alert her.

Have to say that personally his version of events seem to be clutching at straws.

In reply to IainRUK:

As you say, he's wrecked his own life, whatever. But the question of truth and conviction is separate from the question of punishment of course. Unfortunately for him, if he is convicted of premeditated murder a life sentence is mandatory, I believe. (Must get back to work!)

In reply to Indy:


Sometimes a ruffled duvet is bulky enough to look like a body, I've certainly had that wonder of whether my wife or kid is under a duvet and not being sure, and that from my 5ft ten. What about from his height on his stumps in the dark, he might have been convinced she was in bed? Nevertheless, overall, I tend to agree with you, but I'n not sure, and wouldn't want to be so sure. My SA friend in the lab here says that the public seems to be reading things differently there.

In reply to jkarran:

I have already conceded that, yes, what he exactly said was that he "thought" (in the heat of the moment) that an intruder had broken in. He said he thought this was possible because he knew there were some ladders "nearby".

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Which is why I was confused by your odd reply regarding the credibility of his story.

jk

In reply to Jimbo W:

That's what I think.. she was a slip of a lass.. under a bulky duvet thrown to one side as he'd got out in the dark.. I think its believable to get that wrong..

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


I think its hard for us in the UK to appreciate quite how brutal criminals in SA can be. I was watching a documentary about policing over there, and it was astonishing how frequently an execution was just a standard (and quite gratuitous) part of the robbery.

We couldn't imagine a reasonable person shooting someone without making some sort of challenge, but I can easily imagine the expectations of a South African being substantially different.

In reply to RCC:

I lived and worked in Port Moresby many years ago though not in a gated community, life was pretty cheap there. Daily random shootings, rapes and car jacking were a normal way of life in the city and its environs. You get into a particular mind set and occasionally jittery if something feels out of place. Dogs were a necessity and there was access to guns, if you ran a pig over though you were advised to take the next flight out. I had a few close shaves out there and I gather its got very much worse since. Shame as it was fantastic country and I had a lot of local friends but the underlying violence and the way you led your life wasn't worth it in the end. Having said that I don't recall anyone shooting their family or loved ones as a suspected rascal.

In reply to RCC:


Its the reason why it is all but de rigueur for doctors to go to SA to gain trauma experience if you are serious about specialising in trauma clinical management and surgery. My dad spent alot of time out there, and used the experience to radically alter trauma management here in the UK... ...helicopters, pre-hospital chest surgery, ATLS etc. One of my colleagues in medical school was previously paramedic from SA, and he had been shot in the course of trying to save someone's life. As people have said, life is alot cheaper there, and if you are in the way of an endpoint, you won't be for long!

In reply to Jimbo W:
+1
Mrs Ridge used to work with a Dr from SA. Absolutely superb at stitching, very steady hand. When she complemented him he pointed out that firefights between rival gangs in A&E was a regular thing, and medics were regarded as fair game.