Oscar Pistorius trial(1000 Posts)
Starting a new thread as as was pointed out on the other thread, it is not an appropriate place to "talk" and continue to "promote" a really poor excuse for a "joke".
Yesterday's post-mortem evidence was awful; if ever there's a way to get across just how unglamorous guns are, post-mortem evidence is a painfully honest way of doing so.
I listened to the trial live today. My main impression? That Darren Fresco consulted with legal experts to ensure his affidavit did not incriminate him, yet left room for questions that weren't explicitly answered. If he'd paid for that input from legal experts, they didn't sew it up nicely and tightly. I got the impression he was a bit of an unwilling witness really, and had problems remembering some things, yet was very insistent on others. Some good journo feeds on twitter that give different flavours and interpretations.
I'll be honest. I hope this was as OP said, an appalling mistake. But equally so many questions, the constant "whys". And so I am sitting on the fence, listening to argument and counter-argument, and waiting for the judge's final decision.
Never have been in a court of law before, are proceedings usually this long, slow, going round in circles, playing cat and mouse?
yes, discussion over lots of technical details are not unusual, esp in a high stakes trial. It's the unsexy side of law, perhaps.
The fact that OP shot 4 times through a door suggests he's a bit trigger happy, at the very least. And it's not that unusual for somebody to be "into guns", and having special ammo may be part of that.
But that doesn't mean it was pre meditated murder (of Reeva, at least). In fact, is one of the charges against him something about gun use anyway?
DH & I were debating whether or how could we shoot an intruder in our homes. I said I'd have to see them directly to know they were a threat & feel compelled to shoot. Doubt I could shoot thru an opaque door.
I keep wondering if OscarP had been drinking or was on sleeping tablets, something that made his thinking groggy & unclear.
I won't comment on the trial but just wanted to comment on the reality of day to day living in South Africa. I've been burgled a couple of times when I lived in the UK, the burglars broke in when I was out, ransacked the place, nicked my car and left me to find the mess. Annoying but no major harm done.
I now live in South Africa. Burglars wait until you are in (because your alarm will be off, your valuables will be in a safe that you will need to open and you can give them the PIN number for your cards). They will most likely have guns, they will happily shoot them (my network of friends is not big as I've not lived here long but I can name 3 people who have been shot in burglaries) at the very least they will tie you up, shoot your dogs, terrify your kids. Rape is a very real possibility. Police reaction times are incredibly slow, calls may not even be answered (hence people use private armed response companies).
I'm not justifying OPs shooting (if indeed he did think it was a burglar) he should do time for that alone, but the fear that people live with here everyday is something that you can't really explain.
I don't think it is that unusual in SA though, and through an opaque door you don't know they haven't got a gun pointed at you.
Interesting idea about sleeping tablets though, would also explain not noticing Reeva wasn't in bed.
Until you find yourself - totally terrified - in that sort of position, you don't know how you'll act. I would imagine that being without legs would make you feel even more vulnerable.
And it's impossible for those of us who don't live in SA to really understand what life is like there.
But surely if you hear someone in the toilet, and you know that your girlfriend is staying over, you would FIRST assume it is her???
Only if you realised that your GF was still in bed with you would you then think you had an intruder.
It just doesn't make any sense. I wonder if they had a row, she locked herself in the bathroom and he tried to shoot the lock off (like in the movies).................
BMW6 - at the trial the forensic evidence reports she ate 2 hours before she was shot. So what happened during those 2 hours - were they sleep or awake?
But did a girlfriend stay over every night?
If it wasn't a regular thing(I don't know) he may have woken in tonight, forgetting someone was with him and presumed it was an intruder.
I'd like to know how often his girlfriends stayed.
I think he said that when he left the bedroom to go to the balcony she was in the bed, so he knew then.
I thought the recent meal evidence was interesting. It shows a completely different scenario from that presented by OP.
Also it is unlikely she would be doing yoga for a while after a meal. You just don't practice yoga on a full stomach. So eating after yoga makes sense. But he said they went to sleep.
I'm waiting to hear evidence about lights being on or off. Was she really that used to his place she would get up and go to loo without turning any lights on? He previously Said it was pitch black which is why he didn't see her. Would she go all the way to loo without at least turning one light on? Possible but unlikely?
Thanks for starting this thread.
Also the argument re fear of intruder doesn't fit with his scenario. All he would have heard (if we believe him) was his gf going for a wee. Just how aggressive/unusual does that sound?
He went back to the bedside to get his gun didn't he?
Just throwing this out there, it's known there was a phone with her, is it possible she used the torch on it to guide her to the loo, rather than switch lights on and disturb OP. Assuming she thought he was still asleep beside her and not out on the balcony?
Nice one Manchester. Yes that could be possible.
I'm surprised there hasn't been a thread about this already.
I know it's early days, but I don't think it's going well for him at all.
I've been puzzling over the light thing for a year!
It was what beCool said about Reeva going to the loo in darkness, it just fell into place.
I really can't see which way it's going at all, the evidence seems to move on a daily basis.
What they manage to recover from the phones will be vital.
A uk criminal lawyer friend tells me it is common practice to get apple involved in unlocking phones, recovering deleted files etc in criminal cases here.
OP does have form for being paranoid about intruders
I could go to the loo in a house I didn't know very well without turning the lights on - I think that's a red herring. And I often use just my screen, not the torch to see my way around.
An expert said on the trial round up on Sky News today that the reason those bullets are used for self defence is that if you are defending yourself against someone who is being violent, a normal bullet might not stop the person from harming you. I suppose because you might not manage to aim straight while they were attacking you?
We recently stayed with my Mil in Cape town and she had a waist height front garden wall and was no longer subscribed to armed response as can't afford it (but still has the sign up). Her neighbours around her had high spikey fences and armed response though. It did make me feel quite vulnerable, although I understand crime in Cape Town isn't as bad as elsewhere in South Africa?
It's a whole different world in SA in terms of crime. I don't think it's unusual to own a gun there. I can't make up my mind whether it genuinely was a case of mistaken identity though or whether there were other factors at play.
According to OP's version of events, didn't identify anyone, mistakenly or otherwise.
How many of the neighbours have said they heard loud arguing for ages? Very unlikely they would have made that up. I suppose he could be denying it because it doesn't look good and still have thought there was an intruder.
when it happened I remember one piece of news stating that after the shooting he called his PR person or lawyer or such before contacting emergency services.
IMO that is not normal behaviour of someone who made a genuine mistake - if true.
I think he lost his temper and the burglar thing is an excuse.
OJ Simpson was found "not guilty" but now we all know that he did it.
If you are rich and have a good lawyer you might just get away with murder, literally.
I don't believe he is innocent.
I don't know how relevant it is that people heard arguing. One of the witnesses lived over 150m away, which suggests that you can hear people in their houses over quite a distance. It could have been anyone arguing.
Also, if they did argue, does that mean he killed her? I argue with my husband but I've never tried to shoot him.
When did we find out that OJ Simpson did it?
Seff: "Also, if they did argue, does that mean he killed her? I argue with my husband but I've never tried to shoot him."
Well, yes, he did kill her. The one fact we know about this case is that OP did kill Reeva Steenkamp.
Ok ok, it's a bit early - you know what I mean.
I thought it was common knowledge that he was found liable for their wrongful deaths (in 1997).
I did see a programme a few years ago about this where a woman (who was a witness in the trial) admitted that she knew more than she had said as she had been seriously threatened. she said that OJ did it but she couldn't say it at the time. (there's that pesky double jeopardy law in the USA)
And he is in prison anyway for other crimes (robbery, kidnapping). he is one bad man
Does the fact that they argued mean he planned to murder her that evening?
if they had been arguing a lot maybe he just had enough.
my parents always argued. a lot. and my dad got quite violent at times.
he got particularly mad when my mum shouted that she'd had enough and she'll divorce him.
that was like a red rag to a bull - his ego just couldn't bear that thought
if Reeva threatened to leave/break up I totally see how OP could've reacted aggressively thinking "I'll stop you before you stop me"
Pre-meditated murder doesn't he made big plans or plotted to kill her. It just means he had intent to kill her at some point - that point could have been losing his temper in the moment before firing the gun.
The prosecution are painting a picture of a trigger happy hot head who was also very concerned about how he is perceived by and represented in the press.
Perhaps the relationship with Reeve had appeal as he got lots of positive press attention as part of a very glamorous couple. They had only been dating for 3 months - who knows how that was working out?
I grew up in SA and even twenty years ago everyone there owned a gun.
I still have lots of friends over there, including one whose dh was shot and killed on his farm and another whose parents were shot during an armed robbery.
But not one person I know over there has expressed the opinion that it would be normal to shoot at someone through a closed door. And everyone I know there without exception has opinionated that that wouldn't be self defense as there was no immediate risk.
His ex testified at the trial that in the past he had woken her when he had believed there to be an intruder. So why not that night? Why go back to the bed, where your girlfriend is apparently sleeping, get your gun and fire it at the closed (so no immediate risk) door, but not wake her first? knowing that the first thing she would wake to would be gunshots?
And if he was that paranoid, there would surely be other evidence in the house of his having blindly fired shots into the dark where he believed intruders to have been?
that story has no credence at all IMO.
Does the fact that they argued mean he planned to murder her that evening?
Who knows - but it would mean OP lied about the events of that night. Which begs the question why would he lie about that?
Is it a fact that they argued? I'm not convinced that has been clearly proven yet.
If they argued so loudly the people down the street could hear them that is some big angry argument. Tempers would be high.
A little reading on the Relationships board on MN shows many many examples where partners turn very aggressive very quickly for very minor "reasons" or seemingly meaningless triggers. It is not uncommon at all.
Seff I was trying to say the same thing as you when I wrote "I suppose he could be denying it because it doesn't look good and still have thought there was an intruder."
when it happened I remember one piece of news stating that after the shooting he called his PR person or lawyer or such before contacting emergency services.
wannaBe I agree.
Also if he was THAT paranoid why no bars on the bathroom window?
I believe the estate he lives on is very secure with a good track record for safety of residents etc too.
It seems it is possible in South African to shoot someone dead who you think is a car thief but who is posing no threat to you at all and to be completely exonerated.
I'm not sure if it makes a difference that this was his daughter rather than girl friend though. They went down the "he has suffered enough" route.
At least three women a day are killed by their partner in South Africa. SA is reported to have the highest incidence of violence against women in the world.
Does his disability factor into this at all? Could he have felt more vulnerable? If we go with the intruder theory, would he have felt more at risk?
If an intruder had shut themselves in the bathroom, you can't be sure that they haven't got a gun pointed at you - shoot or be shot?
There was no intruder. No one was pointing a gun at him. The only gun was his and the only dangerous person was OP. Any "danger" was all in his head. He lives on a gated estate with high security and a great safety track record. The bathroom window was on the first floor.
These are all facts.
To what extent does OP's right to be paranoid and mistaken outstrip his duty not to kill house guests and their right to safety?
One piece of telling evidence is from the testimony of the security guard who phoned OP after the shots were fired. He said, under oath, that he asked if anything was wrong and OP said there was nothing wrong. The guard said that OP was crying as he said it.
I'm sorry but I don't know what you mean by "telling evidence"
would you explain please?
(I slept precisely 2 hours last night.
brain not working)
It seems like he was lying from the outset. Would someone lie after mistakenly shooting someone thinking they were a burglar, or only after doing it on purpose is the question. Could be either as a panic reaction I suppose
I just read Oscar Pistorius was not wearing his prostheses when he broke down a door to reach his girlfriend after he shot her, his murder trial has heard.
The forensic evidence contradicted Mr Pistorius' claim that he was wearing prosthetics at the time.
I don't understand that. Why would he lie about that? Surely he would want to make himself appear more vulnerable to burglars without his prostheses?
"If an intruder had shut themselves in the bathroom, you can't be sure that they haven't got a gun pointed at you - shoot or be shot?" nope that doesn't make sense either. if an intruder had shut themselves in the bathroom the only point of reference they would have would be straight through the door whereas the home owner would be able to stay out of sight of the door and have a gun poised and ready on the off chance they opened it and came out with a gun iyswim. An intruder wouldn't fire through a closed door if they were on the wrong side of it because they would then become the vulnerable ones.
I definitely wouldnt lock or close a door if I was just getting up in the middle of the night to do a wee.
Prosecution I think are arguing that he hit the door with the cricket bat first. So they argued, she locked herself in bathroom, he flew into a rage/was already in a rage and attacked door with bat. When that didn't work he shot through door.
Sounds plausible and fits with the 2 sets of bangs heard by the neighbours. But then how did the door get opened after the shooting? Did he use the cricket bat again to open the door? Then wouldn't 3 sets of bangs be heard?
Zing, after the shots were fired the security guard phoned him and asked if anything was wrong. OP answered that there was nothing wrong.
DoctorTwo- the defence team are desputing that. The security guard in his first statement to police, said OP said "I am ok". The guard has now changed it to "everything is ok".
I still find it difficult to understand why he didn't just say " get an ambulance now" but maybe he had called for help etc, knew they were on thier way and didn't wan the security guards there. I think the phone log will be very telling.
He could have done the same if he realised he had shot her after thinking she was an intruder though?
the defence team are disputing EVERYTHING - that is their job
that is what I remember being said on the news, baseball bat then gun.
thanks, still don't know what's telling about that. sorry.
Either way saying I am OK or everything is OK is odd.
Trouble is I think Roux is more keen on winning than getting to the truth and can argue his way around anything. The police seem to be bungling bafoons . His ex girl friend and mate have been badly hurt. Reeva was a close friend of Darren's long pre Oscar so aren't impartial and would probibly like to see him get his come upence. Neighbours, not sure what to make of them.
Only real chinks so far seem to be time of Reeva,s last meal and was he on stumps when he broke down door. But why would he lie about that?
Did the PM show if they had sex that night. Could be relevent?
it was Valentines Day and she had apparently turn up at 5pm with gift for him (from memory). It was still a new fresh romance/relationship - you would think sex would be a strong possibility that night.
So if they hadn't it could be significant.This wasn't,t mentioned in the twitter feed thingies.
baseball bat then gun The expert today said it was the other way round.
The security guard Roux had the call records to show the guard was wrong. OP called, but was crying and didn't say anything. The guard called him back and he said 'I'm fine' (OP) or 'everything is fine' (guard) depending on who you believe.
I'm only following on live twitter, so must admit I'm a bit confused about the neighbours and who heard what.
It's documented that the security guard told the police, at the time, that OP said "Im fine".
The guard has only now changed it to "everything is fine".
So, its the same person saying two different things.
So did he say he had his prosthetic legs on or off?
I quite like THIS coverage/summary. In the bottom paragraph of the linked article there is a link to a write up on the best case scenario if he is cleared of premeditated murder and they then go down the mistaken belief it was a burglar route.
OP says he was on stumps when shooting, realised it could be Reeva in bathroom and then put legs on before getting cricket bat to smash door down.
again from memory his initial statements and ballistic reports were not matching up - something about trajectory and stuff.
but I should probably stop saying things I remember hearing on the news, ages ago.
unless I remembered correctly and he will have been proven to have lied about it. will see.
But didnt he say before that he shot while on his prosthetics?
you always say what I meant to say, but somehow better.
<zips mouth temporarily>
I read somewhere that she was in touch with another man on the night but that was ages ago i read that.
If he was on his stumps maybe he had lost his temper and jumped out of bed in a rage, but saying he had his legs on maybe he hoped people would think he was calmer, taking time to put on his legs?
My gut feeling is that he is hiding something.
more holes than a colander
I really don't think the burglar story is what went down
I think it would be possible to not remember exactly what was said on a night especially once you've been questioned by police/solicitors etc several times. So not sure it's odd that there's a discrepancy between the guard having said that OP said "I'm fine" and "everything's fine." iyswim.
Iirc the neighbours said they had heard screams between the bangs which had initially been discounted by the defense on account of the fact that Reeva was brain dead from the shots. But if the prosecution is correct and the cricket bat was used first, it would be entirely possible that Reeva screamed as OP tried to smash down the door with a cricket bat before getting his gun and firing it through the door and that what the neighbours heard was first the bat being swung at the door, followed by screaming, followed by gunshots.
If i was at home and heard a noise and my dp's side of the bed was empty i would assume it was him.
Before the trial, it was said to be crucial whether he was wearing his prosthetics or not, as the angle of the bullets through the door would prove which height he was at.
But if the prosecution is correct and the cricket bat was used first - The forensic analyst today (for the prosecution) said that the door was shot first and then hit with the cricket bat.
I read on twitter that OP has recently said that he spoke to Reeva before he got out of bed to move the fan, so that's why he assumed she was still in bed. Haven't seen it anywhere else so not sure about how true that is.
I find it very strange re the iphones - the lock code he has given them for his iphone apparently doesn't work & he doesn't know why. Sounds suspicious doesn't it - like he has given wrong code and is praying they won't be able to access the phone/data.
Come on Apple - work your magic!
<<reminds self it is NOT helpful to get ahead of the evidence>>
Read that too, but if that was the case wouldn't you wisper. Did you hear something in the bathroom?
Think he,s trying to get the let off because he,s suffered enough with all the weeping and retching!
Can see if you've killed your daughter you have given yourself a life sentance of suffering but thinkOP would just think I very got away with it.Thanks Roux
I agree that it may be normal to remember things incorrectly. But as far as the defence is concerned it makes a huge difference.
That's why the lawyers spent ages going over this 2 days ago.
If the guard did initially tell the police Op said "Im fine" then surely that's what should be taken as the truth? I know if I were on a jury, I would take a statement written at the time, rather than what is said in court a year later.
It is morbidly fascinating. I do think he did it deliberately too. It is the story that makes more sense.
I actually don't think he murdered her as in planned to kill her. I think it was either done in rage, as a result of fear. (Things I have read show him to be quite paranoid ). Or to demonstrate his manliness ( look dear I have saved us from the nasty robber!)
Unfortunately the real truth probibly won't come out. I just hope he doesn't go unpunished.
I dont think he planned it but my theory is that they rowed and he lost his temper.
How long is the trial set to last?
I`m afraid it appears to me as though he lost his temper and killed her, for me there are to many `he could haves` in his defence to be plausable. Whether hes convicted I dont know.
Sorry, meant to ask, his phone, is he saying its locked and he cant remember the code? Who has it now?
Surely a phone can be unlocked without the suspect needing to provide the code.
I don't think it makes much difference whether Op said "I'm fine" or "Everything's fine." Neither are a normal thing to say when you just killed your girlfriend
He does seem to have a hot temper. He came second in a race in 2012 and let rip afterwards during an interview about how the guy's blades didn't conform to standard.
I think in this context it would be important like if he said "Im fine" then thats true, he was. If he said "everythings fine" thats very different.
How did OP know the bathroom door was locked?
I agree Hickory there is a huge difference.
He wasn't fine hickory - he was 1. devastated for the loss of Reeva and/or 2. devastated for the implications of what he did to Reeva
His story of it being an accident doesn't seem very likely to me. But I have the strangest feeling he's going to get off...
I think it's quite possible he could have done it in anger and then regretted it later.
I meant that he was phsically safe iyswim
It says on the bbc site that the defence got someone to kneel down and lift up their feet. The person wobbled and the defence said this shows OP couldn't have bashed the door with a cricket bat when on his stumps as he would have been too unsteady. Ridiculous as someone kneeling and lifting their feet is nothing like someone who is used to moving around on their stumps.
Is it likely he will be let off altogether? (I read the story of the rugby player who shot his daughter getting off). I would expect there to be some prison sentence, even if they decide it's manslaughter rather than murder.
too unsteady? no way.
maybe for someone who has legs but tries to walk on their his knees it's wobbly but he lived without lower legs most of his life.
I doubt he'd be unsteady, it's how his been using his body, he must be used to it.
Hmm, I lost my leg just below the knee 14 years ago, I`m very quick putting on my prosthetic leg but it still takes a little time and even I would struggle (although I can, and have) to put it on in the dark as I have to put on my rubber glove onto my stump which has a pole which then fits into the prosthetic and clicks with some help with suction.
So, sorry my point, in the night when I need the toilet I hop, I can probably hop faster then any of you and am very steady, I can go without my lost leg if needs be. Friends that have both amputations can go like the clappers on their stumps, they are much more sturdier than me, as I am somewhat unbalanced.
So, unsteady, nope thats rather insulting, us amputees are rather good at adapting to our situations. I find that a very weak defence.
Did they really try to show someone on their knees in the courtroom? Dear God and I`ll shove a just for patheticness.
I didn't think his story was that implausible. But based on evidence so far, the huge argument and him exploding in a moment of anger seems more likely.
He might be able to move about on his stumps, but keep himself steady when he's swinging a cricket bat at full force is a bit different. If you have seen photos of him without prosthetics, the stumps are really quite small.
Here it is Onestep
OneStepcloser - xpost. Obviously you know more than me, so I'll take my comment back.
Getting someone on their knees in the courtroom was a bit of showboating.
I can't see how they can possibly let him off altogether. To do so would set a huge precedent in terms of what is allowed wrt shooting someone on your property....
thanks for explaining - and that's what I thought as well, it's insulting.
and frankly he is a professional athlete, a runner, him being unbalanced when moving his body in any way is a bad joke IMO
and just to add, there was a clip of a little boy shown on Russel Howard's Good News a while ago - he was born without legs below knees (or no knees even) - and he run surprisingly fast just like that!
(he was getting his shiny new legs and was learning to walk - he was the happiest chap, bless him! )
forgive my ignorance, is it ok to say "born with stumps" or is it rude?
Zing, with stumps is fine I think, I lost my leg in my 20s so slightly different. I can't see my friends being offended by that.
Red, going around on stumps is painful, but so is wearing
prosthetics at times, so most people come home and take them off (same as getting into pjs I guess I hop after six!) but after time the stumps harden and it becomes easier and you get use to it, in fact when you get prosthetic balance is one of the the hardest thing to get use to as however good pros ethics are they are heavier than your original legs, however, I cannot talk for all amputees at all, it may well be very different for OP.
I would be surprised if he put them on in the night. the only reason he might is if he was embarrassed as it was still a fairly new relationship, if you think about it in crude terms even popping to the bathroom would mean he would be a foot and a half shorter, and that can be fairly embarrassing (it took me a fair while to allow Dh to see me without my prosthetic).
Sorry, meant to say, stumps do harden but as it's so close to the bone it would be very painful to use them all the time and cause a lot of problems.
I can't believe this intruder story!
But I think he'd going to get off. The defence are running rings around the prosecution.
To be honest those of you going by what you read or saw on the news are missing huge chunks.
I was a bit wary if televising a trial but it is very interesting and by no means as open and shut as the press portray. And apparently Apple have accessed his phone and found nothing of interest for the prosecution. When you see state expert witnesses concede in court, or hits home to you how much the media has influenced public perception of this case. The judge is calm and alert and I'm pretty sure she won't be swayed by anything other than evidence.
Worth reading the Andrew Harding Twitter feed. I've been at work (v long day) so getting a flavour of things from there.
I would've thought, with this being such a high profile person involved in ? murder case, that the law would be so squeaky clean and above the law. We know it wasn't then, and from the twitter feed it still all sounds rather poorly handled.
So he could've hit the door with the bat on prostheses, and there may be evidence he kicked the door as he stated.
The odd thing about the shots is that they seem clustered near the handle. I wonder if OP was trying to shoot the door open in anger because Reeva had locked herself in, and that OP didn't think of the consequences of firing a gun into a small enclosed space. I don't understand why you'd focus the shots near the handle if you were trying to frighten/hit an intruder.
I saw/a photo of open somewhere, I think in his autobiography of him running around on the beach without him pro thesis ass little boy. Also one of his friend knocked over a lamp whilst staying with OZp just a few months before Reeva was killed. OP ran into the room with his gun on his stumps so he does get around on them. This was an old school friend (boarding school) so probibly not embarrassed to be seen on stumps in front of him.
Did see it took OP years to allow journo,s tophotgraph him without prothesis
Sorry should read OP not open! And his not him!
Agree if you listen to televised trial twitter only gives highlights. And if you read the twitter feeds them what on the news seems like biased sensationalised highlights
Barry Bateman is another twitter feed I follow.
I think that sounds very feasible Bookaboo
He ran into the room with his gun when someone knocked over a lamp because he thought it was an intruder?
Mary21 Agree. Yesterday the defence counsel ripped apart the testimony of his ex-friend, who was involved in two of the additional charges. Pretty heavily involved it would seem. His final comments basically called the witness a liar (after showing photographs to disprove his testimony). This was met with silence from the witness, and interestingly enough, no objection or comment from prosecution advocate. I know what I infer from that.
Yet on the news, it said something like - Pistorius drives at over 200mph. No mention of any other part of that witness's time in court. Baffling.
Reporting is definitely not reflective of what is actually happening in course.
That is also why it is not helpful to speculate on what might have happened. None of us have anything like the facts, nor has the media reported accurately, so I don't understand either the "definitely guilty" or the "definitely innocent" comments.
If he is found not guilty of murder, or guilty of a lesser charge - or if he "gets off" as some people say - then it will be because there is reasonable doubt. And from what I've seen so far, prosecution's case is pretty weak.
Even the "ear witnesses" all heard different things.
We are not even near hearing what the defence witnesses have to say.
As I said before, the judge is highly respected and I am sure she will reach whatever conclusion based on evidence.
ZingSweetMango - I saw a documentary of OP, there was a clip of him running up a sloped garden in his everyday legs, and he was sort of unbalanced. Obviously this is inside a house and not a slope.
So is OP's defence saying first he was on stumps and shot at the door, and then he was on prosthetics and hit the door with the bat?
What is the prosecution saying, that he hit the door with the bat while on stumps, and then put on prosthetics and shot the door?
I can't think of why anyone would lock a bathroom door when using it in the middle of the night?
The most obvious reason would be to either make a secret phonecall without waking the other person & not wanting to be caught half way, or just to hide until a heated moment passes.
Can they check whether or not the toilet or sink or phone was used when she was inside?
Maybe she needed a shit and wasn't comfortable doing it with the door open 3 months into a relationship?
Maybe not, but that would be a valid reason for me. It's been a long while now, but I don't think I was comfortable using the loo in front of DH straight away.
That point alone isn't enough to convince me of guilt, anyway.
The pathologist would know if she had done a poo. Also she would have flushed the loo.
Would a burglar/intruder use the toilet and flush the loo? If OP heard the loo flush that is all the more reason to check if it was Reeva before firing?
So Reeva went to loo turning on no lights, using light from her phone so as not to disturb OP, but when she got there, instead of quietly taking a pee, she made enough noise to terrify OP so dreadfully he thought their lives were threatened and he shot wildly into locked door in self defence?
I don't buy this scenario at all. But this seems to be what OP wants us to believe.
Have we had any information as to whether there was any alcohol or medication in OP's system?
"I don't buy this scenario at all. But this seems to be what OP wants us to believe."
I don't either.
Still too early to say, IMO.
I would also hope that the judge hasn't reached any conclusions yet.
Seff - do you see it as your job to keep reminding us to see both sides of the story at all times?!
My focus is on the sequence of events and I like to comment on how the story and dynamics of that night appear to be taking shape. I am yet to be convinced of the intruder theory.
Yes, agree with BeCool.
On court proceedings - yes they are often slow and long winded although the part I've seen in this case does seem to have a very very slow speaking counsel, more than usual.
Ha, partly! No, I just get frustrated - not really here, but in conversation - at people who have heard a 90 second report on the news and formed an opinion on whether he is guilty or not. I also strongly believe in innocent until proven guilty.
Also, the sequence of events of that night is mainly being presented by the state at the moment, who are the ones trying to prove guilt. Perhaps if it was the other way round, and it was the defence presenting their story first, it would seem like he was totally innocent. I'm not saying you or anyone here isn't capable of coming to your own conclusions, just that both sides are 'biased' (maybe not the correct word), and their accounts should be viewed accordingly.
I hope that makes sense, I'm not sure it does!
Right Seff. I see it like a journey then - and we are commenting as we go along .. is that alright
I'm just trying to look at the evidence best I can and piece together what happened.
Clearly he isn't 'innocent', but it is the prosecutions job to show that he is lying. All all OP has to do is cast a shadow of doubt on each piece of evidence as it is presented - which is fairly easy to do.
OP was the only one there and the only one who knows what really happened. The prosecution have a really tough job.
I don't believe him to be guilty or innocent yet. I do find his story full of holes and lets face it relying on utter utter utter outright incredulous stupidity as a defense is shaky ground.
Even if he is found not guilty of re-mediated murder he is not likely to 'get off'. He will then face manslaughter charges and the standard would be what would the reasonable person do in his position - faced with the noise of you partner going to the loo, no actual threat, all in the head paranoia. No one would be safe in the house with him if this was held to be 'reasonable'
that should say "I don't believe him to be guilty or innocent OF MURDER yet".
They cant convict him though can they if they cannot prove anything. I have my idea what went on and it would explain the holes etc but.... prove it.
And the defense is just ripping people to shreds.
IMO the intruder story is bullshit but i think he will not be convicted.
if not convicted of murder I believe 100% he will be convicted of manslaughter - but whether he will go to jail for manslaughter is questionable.
I'll stick my neck out at this point and say I believe he WILL do some jail time but prob for manslaughter rather than murder.
So Reeva went to loo turning on no lights, using light from her phone so as not to disturb OP, but when she got there, instead of quietly taking a pee, she made enough noise to terrify OP so dreadfully he thought their lives were threatened and he shot wildly into locked door in self defence?
I don't buy this scenario at all.
It was the noise of the bathroom window sliding open that he heard. He said:
"Unbeknown to me, Reeva must have gone to the toilet in the bathroom at the time I brought in the fans, closed the sliding doors and drew the blinds and the curtains.
"I heard the bathroom window sliding open, I believed that an intruder or intruders had entered the bathroom through the bathroom window which was not fitted with burglar bars."
Seff. In admissions on day one state and defence agreed that he had a zero reading for substances and alcohol. So that is not in dispute.
what if he gets away with the self-defense?
I hope he won't, but would he then escape jail-time?
If he does then they have a very different idea of what constitutes self defence over there than we do here!
In the bail hearing he just said he heard a noise in the bathroom so slight change there:
From bail hearing statement - "I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised that someone was in the bathroom. I felt a sense of terror rushing over me.
There are no burglar bars across the bathroom window and I knew that contractors who worked at my house had left the ladders outside."
defending himself from who though?
We've been talking about this with lawyers at work, and I'm fairly sure that there is no legal code for manslaughter in SA? Sky News seems to agree.
I was broken into in the UK on the same day as this happened. It's bizarre how real that has made the whole thing for me. Not that it wouldn't be usually, but it's definitely changed how I thought I'd respond.
the lesser charge in SA is "culpable homicide" and it is the subjective "reasonableness" test - explained quite well here: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26386954
from Wikipedia: in South Africa "Culpable homicide" has been defined simply as "the unlawful negligent killing of a human being". like driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs".
Who goes to the toilet in he dark at 2am and closes and locks the door?!?
This statement "There are no burglar bars across the bathroom window and I knew that contractors who worked at my house had left the ladders outside" works strongly against OP saying he was deeply paranoid and fearful of attack.
He KNEW the contractors left the ladder there, he KNEW the window had no bars yet he didn't get the ladders moved? Didn't ask the contractors to move them/secure them elsewhere when not in use? Suggests he felt a lot more secure on his safe crime free gated estate than he has admitted.
Also he just heard the window sliding open - that can't be that loud a sound. He hears the window being opened but he didn't hear anyone entering the window, or landing on the floor or locking the toilet door or making any other sound. Did he hear Reeva using the toilet? Flushing the toilet? Did he think the burglars broke in to use his loo?
If I were in a fairly new relationship and my new partner was awake and up, (OP was on the balcony and she knew this,) I would close and lock the bathroom door when going to the loo.
I'd say to him "I'm just going to the loo" or something equally exciting - and I wouldn't lock the door if I was feeling safe/normal.
Opal can I ask why? <genuinely interested>
In an en-suite I would think having the light on would be enough information for anyone to know that the only other person in the house was in the toilet.
I meant the whole burglary bullshit is made up to try and sell that it was self-defense.
against a burglar, of course.
Thanks for the thread, very interesting reading, I have been following this trial, be back later to read more.
BeCool. I'm trying not to speculate but it is a possibility that she locked the door after she heard him screaming to an intruder to get out. There is nothing yet to say when it might have been locked
There was a published article where she had written to a local paper a couple of years earlier to outline how intruders had broken in to her family home and she and her mother had locked themselves in one of the rooms - I forget which room. So it cannot be discounted that she locked it when she heard him shout, rather than when she had gone there in the first place.
All the rest, I'm sure, will come up in the next week or so.
zing can I ask why you hope he doesn't "get away with self-defence". Genuine question, as we have only heard about 13 witnesses for the prosecution so far, so surely it is too early to know if his story is implausible.
We can all think about what is reasonable for us, but that doesn't mean it is reasonable for others, especially in a country where violent crime is rife.
And your earlier comment about walking on stumps. Not too difficult perhaps when he was a wee boy, but his legs below the knee are quite thin and do taper, plus he is pretty bulked up on top so I would imagine less easy to walk.
His ex, who testified last week, said he often had to hold onto something to help balance on his stumps. That was said in court.
because I think he killed her in a fit of rage and the burglar story is bullshit.
Here is a link to the bail affidavit, which was on Barry Batemans twitter a reporter from South Africa.
I can't do links so if anyone can repost as link I would be grateful.
There are pictures showing clearly that he was wearing his prosthetics when it happened, Im a bit unclear as to what that means to be honest Wouldnt it just mean that he took time to put them on so not realising that Reeva was not there a little bit odd? If he did it before going onto the balcony then I would imagine he would be fully awake and all senses alert, it couldnt be said that it was a panicked rushed shooting surely? Wouldnt it be more plausible if he was not fully awake?
I wonder what the safety record of his estate is like as well, had there been lots of break ins there?
I must admit that I am only following this via the news and on here and not watching the trial so I`m probably missing great chunks.
Here's the link Free, you just click the "convert links automatically" below this box.
Sorry that doesn't work
See if this does
I am sure I saw somewhere had been no break ins on that estate for a couple of years.
He does seem to have been anxious about it though. Tale of him coming home and thinking washing machine was an intruder. Thought friend knocking lamp over was intruder.
Until this happened he lived 6 months of the year in Italy. I am sure he didn't carry a gun there!
.*onestepcloser*. There are no pictures showing that.
Originally prosecution said it was premeditated as he took the time to put his legs on before shooting. His defence said he didn't and he shot from his stumps.
There has been no evidence led yet to say either way, although the state appear to be conceding that he was on his stumps.
The argument in court yesterday and today was over what happened next. He had said at bail that once he realised she must be the one in the toilet, he put his legs on and then went back and tried to break down the door. The state are now arguing that he broke the door down from the lower height, indicating I think, that he lied about that in his affidavit. It must tie in with the timescales for calling for help, I think.
The state are building up their case slowly, but the defence are picking jokes in everything.
It is very interesting, but I'm not going to call anything until I've heard it all.
One person who claimed to hear an unspecified female voice talking as if arguing, but didn't know who or where it is from certainly does not prove they were arguing.
When the security did their patrol in the hour before, the house was quiet and in darkness. This was from court too, not media speculation
Onestep, if you read the link above, OP says he tried to open the door but couldn't so put his prosthetics on in order to kick the door in. This didn't work either so he then got the cricket bat.
Having read his account it does sound plausible.
And he did phone someone to ask them to call an ambulance, and Netcare(not sure what that is). His response to the guard, saying "I'm fine" does make sense- he had already called for help and didn't need other people there.
Musing out loud here, but usually people with wealth live in places that are very secure (or as much as they can be) so I am a little concerned about the intruder story, not saying it couldnt happen, but it would be fairly unlikely?
See, Im usually one for giving benefit of the doubt, but I`m really struggling.
If anyone is interested, all the proceedings are on you tube, so if you are
sad like me and are fascinated by this,you can watch the different days in court and listen to the actual testimony.
I was really against televising this, but it is done in a very non-showy way and tells you everything without any media slant.
It is a couple of days behind, very, very interesting
AmI there is a photo of him with blood on his prosthetic legs. Though that doesn't prove when he put them on, just that he had them on when he carried her downstairs.
Also there are kick marks on the door, the prosecution forensics didn't notice this when they examined it. Which is rather unprofessional of them.
I'm confused. Are the defence saying that he did have his legs on when he shot her (hence premeditated) but took them off when he bashed the door down
There is no way it could ever be self defence. Even accepting OP's version it's not self defence.
No intruder, no attack, no threat, no danger (from outsiders at least), no evidence of any threat whatsoever. Absolutely nothing to defend himself from.
No defence are saying. Legs off - shot, then panic, legs on then break down door. Which was why Barry Roux brought up the footprint with sock embedded in the varnish as defense are clear he had his legs on when he broke down the door (but not when shooting)
It is the prosecution who are now saying legs off - shot, the legs still off when bashing the door down. This is a complete u turn for the prosecution and it is not clear why they now believe this. As I said it may be to do with the timings of Oscar screaming for help, but their case is not clear yet. Hopefully we will find out in the next few days in court.
Thanks for doing the link excuse
I have seen pretty much all of the trial too and I have to say What Iam is saying is spot on and what has been happening in court.
Can I ask what are people's feelings of OP reactions in court, holding ears, retching and throwing up?
Sorry I ment AmI not IAm.
I think the prosecution have changed their theory for two reasons - they think the marks on the door are too low for OP to have had his prosthetics on when hitting with the bat, and they also now seem to be considering that OP tried to break the door down with the bat before he fired the gun.
Opal can I ask why? <genuinely interested>
Because it's not very attractive to be seen weeing or pooing on the loo.
Here is OP plea
But the "expert" yesterday said the bullets were defininitly fired before the bashing with the bat.
Feel- I was a little synical about the vomiting etc, but when he did it today, I thought it must be genuine. He didn't know those pictures were going to be shown, so it must have been a natural reaction.
Book yes, agree about the low marks, hence the theatrics in court with Col Vermeulen balancing on his knees, showing how to hit the door.
Although he also stated,as the state expert, that the shots were fired first, then the door broken. Which confused me, as when the ear witnesses were on the stand, they seemed to be focussing on what came first, bat or gun. So the Colonel kind of contradicted that.
Which is why I think the prosecution have something up their sleeve - which they must have to be so sure it was premeditated murder.
Free, I don't think he is acting, seeing some pics of his tear stained faced and what looks like puke around his mouth. My take on it, for what it's worth, is that he and his friends have a very easy relationship with guns, are fascinated by them, and like the idea of them.
I suspect none of them have been mature enough to actually think about what damage they do to a human. Actually being made aware of what bullets can do, as well as the pain Reeva must have felt, must be ........actually I can't think of a word here.
Combination of guilt, disgust, grief, horror, shock
And he has always come across as quite young, not very mature. Not sure how I would react.
And he knew the testimony from the pathologist wasn't being broadcast, so I doubt it was done for the sake of the "audience" as some seem to think.
I don't think the Judge would be influenced by his reactions either way
the bullets were definitely fired before the bashing with the bat. Excuse yes the expert did say that as his evidence went on but it seemed at the start that the prosecution were considering the bat came first. That also seemed to fit with their cryptic comments at the start that they would explain how they thought the neighbours had heard the shots but not the bat (because the bat was first).
Feel I think the retching and crying are genuine but I don't think it has any bearing on guilt. There's a New York Times piece which basically says you can be upset and still have deliberately murdered someone and I think that's true. (Not to say OP did deliberately murder Reeva but I don't think his emotional and physical response in court gives any insight one way or the other).
I dont think you tell anything from the retching and crying and burying his head. Whether he killed her on purpose or accident he can still be distruaght and disgusted by his actions either way, that I would think is human nature.
Opal would you stay the night with a bf when you didn't and trust him to let you have a wee/poo in private in the middle of the night? I wouldn't.
re the retching I feel the same as oneStep and AmI
Abusive men can do lots of hand wringing.
Maybe he is wretching and crying because he is thinking of life in a SA prison when he sees those photos/hears the details?
I agree with you all with regards to his reactions.
Not convinced by the crying & vomiting... it's been a while since the event, his lawyers must have pre-warned him, what would come out in court etc.
I think it's self pity/fear of prison.
I'd be crying and puking to at the thought of life in prison too.
BeCool I was talking about someone accidentally coming in when you were in there rather than on purpose. I do quite often accidentally go in the bathroom when my dh is going to the loo, admittedly it is during the day, but I don't think it's an outlandish idea that someone would lock the loo door at night in a newish relationship.
Sometimes the outlandish may be true.
I wonder if Reeva went to the bathroom and opened the window to get some air, then went into the loo. At the same time, Oscar heard the bathroom window as he came in with the fan and closed the balcony door, curtains, etc, panicked and screamed for the intruder to get out, Reeva panicked and thought there was an intruder and so locked the door...
All conjecture and speculation. I am finding it fascinating. But am hugely mindful too that a a lady lies dead, by appalling error or heat of moment or something else.
I think Oscar is sick because he sees what he is responsible for. I don't think he will have been sick at the time, more on adrenaline overdrive. But I think he will have been after. I think he feels culpable. And rightly so. Remorseful. And rightly so. Castigating himself. Rightly so.
That is a plausible possibility jill. Did OP say he called out at all?
He says (at bail hearing) that he called out on way to the bathroom - so she could have heard that and locked the door.
I also think "why didn't he hear her" can possibly be explained by the rush of blood to the ears, by the mixing of noises, by gunshot affecting hearing. An awful horrible desperate mess.
I just don't get why the security guard was so insistent he called Oscar first when the phone records show differently. I don't think there is anything particularly untoward about Oscar calling the Standers before security, given that he is high profile and I am assuming (big assumption!) the arrangement may have been to call them first and they would deal with security.
As we saw at the time, there were a number of sensational - and false - headlines being generated; police talking to the media and giving out or hinting at what subsequently transpired to be false information. Wouldn't you - as the estate manager with a famous person in your walls - want to personally manage any situation arising that involves said famous person, so be the first estate/security person they contact? If there had been a burglary, the estate would have a lot of answering to do.... And Oscar has stated in his original bail application he had been targeted before, he had received death threats. We don't know if they were recent. Yet.
Equally this could be wrong. They could have argued. He could have seen red and lost it.
I agree the number of bullets fired is worrying. However, fear and adrenaline could give that rush. Equally anger and seeing red could give that rush.
My rose-tinted specs hope this was an appalling mistake. My gut instinct at the time was to believe his story, and still is to do so. But I'm very much open to the alternatives, because the truth is imperative in this, and if that is that they argued and he lost it, then he needs to own up to that, because he has to live with what he has done, and live with himself.
I find it odd that he said they went to bed some time after 10pm but the post mortem showed she ate not long before 1am.
It has been somewhat conceded that the eating time window may not be 1am, certainly it had been asserted to assign an element of doubt....
OP has stated that Reeva practiced yoga before going to bed. I've done yoga for years and there is no way you practice yoga on a full stomach or just having eaten.
She may have eaten an early dinner, way before her yoga, but I seriously doubt she would be eating a meal in the hour or 2 (or 3 even) before doing her yoga. Which takes us back to a last meal (by OP's version) at about 7? The forensics are saying 1pm - so out by 5 hours?
It just adds into the "eating" window scenario.
The stomach contents forensics isn't an exact science re timelines, but to be out by at least 5 hours would be very unfortunate.
Or maybe they aren't out.
I am finding myself getting really cross with this trial. There seems to be so much police bungling that getting to the truth whatever that is is going to be impossible.
I think at the end of the day. It will be Oscar shot reeva fact. (Though wouldn't even put it past Roux to try and disprove that too!) Then were his actions those of a reasonablee disabled man.fairly sure Roux will manage to argue they were!
It won't do much for the impression that its fine to go around flashing your gun and shooting your way out of trouble if you are a rich influencial white man.
Also slightly intrigued by his relitives. No sign of his dad. I know they aren't,t supposed to get on but he was there for the bail hearing. He seems incredibly close to his sister. What about Diana his aunt (mums sister)who was their guardian after their mum died and brought Aimee up. She doesn't,t seem to feature. Just Uncle Arnold and the "cousins"
I don't see how anyone can read anything into the locking of the bathroom door, because it's entirely an individual thing. Some people just lock a bathroom door automatically, without thinking about it or particularly noticing that they're doing it. I certainly do.
I imagine a lot of people do, because every time I've given birth there've been great big signs all over the bathrooms telling me not to lock the door in case I need help. I've always locked the door, seen the sign, thought 'oh yeah' and unlocked it again.
I appreciate that's not what everyone does, and I don't think everyone's like me. That's why i don't think anyone can read anything into Reeva's state of mind when locking the door. It may have been intentional, it may not, it may have been habit, fear, embarrassment. This isn't a crime drama where every detail is a plot twist.
Agree Driven. Too many people say "well I would have done X, I definitely wouldn't do Y". But that is irrelevant.
The only think which counts is what OP and Reeva did on that night.
Just because someone says they did something which you wouldn't do, doesn't mean they are lying.
It's impossible to know how evidence is coming across when you can't see the witnesses though. The defence barrister could sound really fierce and dismissive in cross-examination but not really be swaying the witnesses at all.
Calling them liars could as easily be the result of desperation as anything else, and outside US dramas the other side doesn't generally start shouting objections to that-it is what cross-examination is for, presumably.
OP and his father aren't close. Admittedly strange that's he's not there. Is his brother there? I haven't seen him this week (have only seen photos in the paper though)
Shocking evidence about his stolen watch and the him being warned that people might try and take stuff. No wonder his brother turned up with a lawyer to empty his safe.
I must admit (and this has played on my mind all day) I found the photos shown in court and then in the papers today of OP just after the shooting without his prosthetics bloody awful. He hasn't been convicted of anything yet and I thought the media showing them were completely degrading, and humiliating. No prosthetics is like being naked. Was it really necessary for them to plaster that on the media today.
I don't know if he did or didn't kill deliberately just felt that was pretty bloody underhand.
Or is just me!
Just had to get that off my chest. As you were...
I have been watching some of this on the South African TV channel, something at the end of the court session today made me do a double-take. The policeman in the witness box was asked by the defence barrister about his police diary or notebook (the defence also asked the Judge something about that which I didn't hear correctly). The policeman said he didn't have his diary and his notebook was full so he made notes on odd bits of paper at the scene. When asked where these pieces of notepaper are now the policeman stated he had destroyed them. I find this incredible, surely any policeman anywhere knows you do not destroy contemporaneous notes taken at a crime scene? Even if he had transcribed the notes into a notebook later, you still keep the bits of paper to prove the notebook version has not been amended/altered? The police investigation is looking increasingly poor, and that is awful for Reeva, her family and also OP.
On another point entirely, I find the defence barrister's attitude and demeanour difficult, and wonder if that is because trials in SA don't have juries and so they don't have to "perform" to get the jury "on side" as they purely have to convince the judge?
I am not convinced that OP deliberately set out to murder Reeva, but am also finding the alternative scenario hard to comprehend.
Such high profile yet so many basic errors. You'd want to be scrupulous, squeaky clean about every millimetre of detail in this.
Being so lackadaisical does no one any favours at all.
There are a few things that have stood out to me:
1) OP clearly was stable on his stumps to have gotten out of bed and gone out to the balcony and brought fans in.
2) If he could do that in the dark, surely he would have been able to see if Reeva was in bed.
3) If Reeva must have gone to the toilet while he was getting the fans in, she would have no reason not to turn lights on to ensure she did not wake OP. He was already awake
4) If he called for Reeva and she had her phone, would she not have phoned police?
5) If phoning the estate manager was first port of call, wouldn't he have shouted to her to phone him not the police?
6) He went and got the gun from under the bed. If I get something from my bed, dark or not I know if someone is in it. Wouldn't he have lent on the bed to bend down?
ha ha. sorry. Don't mean to laugh... but it's Africa.
lol. This is the norm...
I would think it wouldn't good for the police to tie a man to a car and drag him along until he died. again .... S.Africa!
for the police to open fire on striking workers. .. but again. .. la la S.Africa!
and. . just so you all know. It's would not be weird to open fire on a potential intruder in your home. It is certainly not the first time a loved one has been killed in this manner.
Living in Africa makes it a whole lot easier to lift that CZ75 and empty the magazine of hollow points into someone who was in your house and who, you believed, to be a danger.
Secure complex means nothing. I know people who live in very secure complex and have been woken up with a gun to their head.
I am the ONLY one of 6 siblings who has not been a victim of armed robbery. Imagine living life that. that Fear is very real. Unless you live in SA you cannot even begin to imagine what you would do in that situation. Here , if you get broken into there is seldom a threat to your life. In South Africa .. it's almost a certainly. The mindset is very different.
Did he intend to kill Reeva?
... I don't know
Will he get off?
He was wearing his prosthetics in that picture though onstep? If it's the same one I saw from today where he is shirtless
AfricanExport, I find the restrictions on people living their lives in South Africa difficult to imagine. During a business trip a very good friend of mine took to Jo'burg he was invited out to dinner a short distance from his hotel and said to the people he was meeting "I'll just walk and meet you there" and they were horrified and told him in no uncertain terms that he would be collected by car and taken door to door. All of the fathers at that meal explained to him how none of their children could just "pop out" to the corner shop for a paper and a pint of milk. However, South Africa is not unique in that regard, there are numerous places around the world where life is similar we forget how lucky we are in the UK sometimes.
I have been watching this case very closely.
I will firstly point out I have no legal background and no knowledge of the country or lifestyle.
I will go against the majority and say I don't think OP is guilty of premeditated murder, but that is based purely on gut instinct as all trials I take an interest in and I've not been wrong yet. I will be the first to state that I'm aware that this means noting at all to anyone.
I am finding myself morbidly engrossed in the trial though, I'm not sure if that's normal but I find it fascinating how the evidence is laid out and then picked apart by both parties.
I feel sorry for everyone who had to see the graphic pictures of Reeva's body and injuries. That would have made me sick, but I have a very weak stomach.
Regardless of anything, it's a very sad story and I spend a lot of time thinking of the families and friends of those involved.
Was in meeting most of this morning so couldn't listen properly. Was there an explanation given for the blood on the watch case? Maybe we have to wait for the blood analyst.
Was part of this thread last year along with a few others on here:
so coming back to this thread with interest. I wonder if anyone on that thread has changed their mind about OP.
Whatever your opinion regarding what happened and how the tragedy unfolded that night, it's a fascinating trial and it's not often that we get to see a live trial and barristers at work.
I too wasn't sure about the pistorius picture that was shown. If he was on his prosthetics then he looked very small. If he didn't have the prosthetics on why not? Did the police taken them away as evidence. He was supposed to have them on when the police arrived.
Re the picture, I'm afraid I might well have seen them wrong they were taken at a strange angle, apologies
oh no did not take Dh and dd to point that out to me
It's South Africa, AfricanExport. Not necessarily the same everywhere on the continent
Armchair I haven't read today's twitter feeds yet but did see that photo and I agree the angles are odd!
I was on the threads last year. I'm holding the same opinion as before, but equally sitting on the fence for the outcome.
I was on the thread last year under a previous name. I'm more unsure now to be honest.
I've had lots of names since then but thought I'd revert to this one for the trial.
Just catching up with some of it on You Tube. I usually watch the 9.30 catch up on Sky News in the evenings.
I have to nail my colours to the mast and say I really wanted/want to believe OP's version of events. It's bad enough to accept that a reckless, trigger happy, paranoid OP might have fired off shots into a locked bathroom.
The alternative (that he hunted her down, terrified her and then killed her) is too horrible to contemplate.
It's refreshing to find a thread where the majority of posters have open minds, are interested in facts and evidence and are only spouting media fed, groundless opinions.
I am amazed at the blunders made my SAPS and I wonder of Barry Roux is going to call Hilton Botha as a defence witness.
I am also interested in hearing from the defence witnesses that were awake on the night and what they heard
I still don't understand the people that parrot the "they had a fight and he shot her in a rage". The only reference so far to an argument was one woman, who only heard one voice, couldn't hear what was said and didn't know where it was coming from. Plenty others didn't hear arguments.
I'm also pleased that this thread seems to be more considered then many discussions elsewhere.
I was initially very dubious about the trial being televised, but have changed my mind, with so much speculation it is important to see what is actually happening.
Someone upthread commented on Barry Roux's demeanor. One SA journalists tweeted about those in countries with juries seeming to find Roux "mean", whereas it would appear it's nothing unusual there.
I've just read the two twitter feeds I follow. It truly is sad that incompetence may undermine the whole effort of determining the truth for Reeva's family.
And then extrapolate that to the many victims of crime or burglary or misdeed, and the police's response. It's no wonder people live in fear. It must be terrible to live in and love a country so much that also gives rise to such lack of security and fear for personal safety. <sweeping generalisation> and from reading it isn't necessarily a SA-wide problem, but for the weather in Blighty, I am glad I live in Blighty.
I think guns beget guns, fear begets fear. I'm thankful that is not my life. I really hope this court trial really shows how SAP must pull up their socks and give the public a police force they can rely on, whether poor or rich, white or black.
Quick question, does anyone know if Hilton Botha from the police has been in the witness stand yet (I'm sure he has) if so do you know what date this was please as I missed it.
No he hasn't. Not sure if the prosecution will call him. Gerrie Nel refused to answer today when Barry Roux asked if he was going to be called
No he hasn't but the twitter feeds show Mr Roux is quite determined to put it to the prosecution that they should call this witness.
Oh thank you AmIThat I thought I couldn't find it, I know I have missed a couple of days that I need to catch up on. I hope he is called, I believe Botha is the police office who is up for a murder charge himself.
Thanks Jill I hope he does get called.
7 attempted murder charges. Firing at a car load of suspects. He seems pretty shady
The law is not above the law, sadly.
"Someone upthread commented on Barry Roux's demeanor. One SA journalists tweeted about those in countries with juries seeming to find Roux "mean", whereas it would appear it's nothing unusual there."
That's very interesting, actually. I also guessed that there is also a bit of pressure on Roux and Nel being televised too.
I thought Roux was being very picky and precise (for want of better words) but I suppose that's the job when you're cross examining, and we'll see how he is with witnesses he's calling.
I was also surprised that Botha is still a maybe on the witness list. You would hope that the IO would be at the top of the list.
I get how OP could feel vulnerable on his stumps.
I get that in a country where guns are the norm and crime is a big problem why you would have them.
I get that you would take a gun with you if you thought there was an intruder in your home.
The things I fail to understand are:
If you thought you heard an intruder surly you would check that your partner was ok? Or indeed warn her of the fact that there was someone inside?
Having not checked on the whereabouts of your girlfriend why would you shoot straight away without ruling out that it was her?
Seff I haven't noticed anything untoward about Barry Roux's demeanour. By all accounts, Gerrie Nel is even worse, so we will see when the defence starts to call their witnesses.
Re Botha, the line of questioning yesterday was interesting. Roux made a funny, sly comment about Mr Botha and his interviews. He has given frank and subjective interviews to the press.
Prosecution were reluctant to say whether they were calling him or not, probably to unsettle the defence.
He might even make a valuable defence witness - stranger things have happened.
I still would like someone to say if what I missed re the blood on the watch case.
I'll have to you tube and watch the whole of yesterday, when I get time later on tonight
My thoughts so far is that the defence will say the state rushed to conclusions and have cherry picked the evidence to suit their case. The defence will then put forward their version of events and will make a major point on that OP's account hasn't changed since his affidavit.
However, a lot will hinge on OP's own testimony, particularly the issues of why he didn't check where Reeva was, why did he shoot 4 times?
Dolus eventualis may come in to play, because it could be argued that shooting into an enclosed space 4 times is lethal, regardless of who is in there, here is an excellent post that explains that: constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/oscar-pistorius-criminal-law-101/
So if OP is not convicted of murder, I believe (but am not certain - I'm no law expert) he could still be convicted of culpable homicide, which could result in anything between a suspended sentence to 15 years in prison.
I missed quite a lot yesterday but thought I heard the police say the key was in the outside of the door. Did I mishear or was it poorly translated? Why would the key be in the outside? It makes no sense.
Wintry I was wondering about the blood on the watch case too. Did you find any explanation for it?
So if OP is not convicted of murder, I believe (but am not certain - I'm no law expert) he could still be convicted of culpable homicide, which could result in anything between a suspended sentence to 15 years in prison.
For a brief fraction of a second I interpreted OP with the conventional Mumsnet usage!
Nothing has yet been said about the blood on the watch case, I to am wondering about this.
If I remember rightly the keys were on the inside of the door when OP hit the panel of the door out with the cricket bat he leaned in got the keys and unlocked the door from the outside, which is where the keys were found.
he leaned in got the keys and unlocked the door from the outside, which is where the keys were found
Thanks, FreeLikeABird that makes sense.
BookaBooSue No I didn't. Maybe next week the blood splatter expert will cover it. Presumably they tested to see whose blood it was.
And yes, as Free said, OP said he bashed the door open, reached in for the keys, then unlocked the door from the outside. So not surprising that they were in the outside lock
Regarding the demeanour of Mr Roux, at the start of the trial I felt that he was being very agressive with the witnesses I kept saying "they've already answered that", and thought that if I were on a jury his attitude would turn me against the defendant. However, this is probably because in our jury system the defence do their utmost to get the jury to emphathise with the defendant and try not to alienate the jury. As this is a judge only trial that is obviously not necessary and could be why the SA journalist tweeted as he did and why the people used to a jury system have commented and reacted as they have. Great point about the prosecution barrister it will be fascinating to see how he cross examines the defence witnesses and compare the two. I must say though as the trial has progressed I am beginning "warm" to Mr. Roux more and do appreciate that he is doing a very good job of picking holes in the prosecution evidence (as he should).
I too am very keen to see what Botha says, I would be very shocked if he wasn't called as a witness.
On a purely technical level I am finding comparing a judge only trial to a jury trial very interesting. I have always be an absolute jury trial is the only fair trial kind of person, but someone who has extensive experience of the criminal justice system said to me that if they had a choice they would rather have just a judge decide on their fate, they trust a judge more than a jury which I found quite surprising.
I would agree that this has really made me ponder a jury vs judge trial.
Originally, I would lean towards thinking jury trials are fairer, particularly as jurors are more likely to be "ordinary" people, whereas judges can often seem out of touch.
However, with the internet making keeping sub judice more difficult and with the general public often having a rather skewed view of how the criminal justice system works, I do think judge trials may be fairer. Maybe.
Yes the sad thing is that a jury will no doubt be influenced by other factors. As I said upthread, I was once on a jury for a murder and was shocked at some of my fellow jurors and how they let preconceived notions influence their decision.
I have tried to steer clear of too much twitter in the last year, although I am following several journalists now, but it does strike me how many different interpretations there are of the same information coming from court.
Plus those, and we have had a couple on this thread, who have made up their mind and have decided that their feelings as to what happened (despite a total lack of evidence) are probably right.
We are all entitled to our opinion, though, personally I would rather wait until I hear all the evidence before passing judgement.
I have faith that the judge will make an informed decision
And I am with Armchairdetective in that I hope that Reeva's last moments were quick and as the result of a hothead being reckless. The alternative - well, honestly, who would want to hope that that was true
AmI and GoshAnne I too am waiting to hear all the evidence before passing judgement, I lean more one way than the other but some days the evidence supports one version and other days another.
I thought initially the televised coverage was a mistake, but I have completely changed my opinion on that and think it was a brilliant decision as we get to see the trial completely, not just hear the "exciting" bits reported on the news.
Yes, what emotionsecho said about Roux is a much more eloquent way of saying what I was trying to this morning. But I do think that both him and Nel will have different approaches to questioning each other's witnesses.
As for judge v jury, it obviously depends on how much you feel you can trust an individual judge, and how a judge is chosen for a particular case. With the eyes of the world on this case, I don't doubt that a lot of thought was put into choosing the right judge, which I think she is (not that I know of any other SA judge!). Although I suppose every country has it's share of corruption within the justice system, which would be one of my doubts if we were talking about a change in the UK system.
AmI - but what perturbs me is that people, particularly quite a few in the media, seem to be salivating at the thought of the more horrific scenario and adding their own grisly embellishments, even when they've been proven not to be true.
It's not about them wanting justice to be done, it's something more prurient then that and I find it disturbing.
Agree GoshAnne re the salivating media it's repulsive and in stark contrast to the measured and reasonable discussion on here and with anyone else in rl I have heard discuss the case.
It seems sometimes that it's more about having a good story than caring about justice, or even the fact that a woman died.
Yes, and if you look on FB you'll see Mr F has an open profile and is accepting friend requests from peeps who are patting him on the back. Social media
Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.
As a matter of interest I assume OP doesn't have to take the stand as a Defence witness unless Roux wants to put him up there. However, I'm assuming that the Prosecution can insist he is called to testify or am I'm wrong.
There are so many things about this case that intrigues me. We know OP has a temper, an unhealthy obsession with guns, a reckless streak etc but as far as I'm aware there have been no stories of domestic violence coming out, and no real kiss and tells. So many beautiful women on his arm and no big relationship scandals previously (to my knowledge)
yet the mundanity of his Valentine's evening is puzzling. I always thought if you wanted to cover up the fact they spent the whole night arguing you would talk about how romantic an evening they'd had, not that they went to bed early to read/ practice yoga.
It's the very ordinary ness of this account that makes me think it's plausible. Why would you make up something like that?
Of course there was no alcohol consumed so I guess you couldn't say you spent the evening drinking champagne.
PS post above Armchair reported
I think Barry Roux has said that Oscar will take to the stand. I almost think he has to, if his story is the truth, and if he is to be heard and ? believed (although there are people who will always believe what they want).
I do want to see him on the stand and it will be good to see how he holds up to cross examination.
It was the evening of the 13th. Reeva died on the morning of 14th but the evening they spent together was valentines eve not valentines day.
For a long time I thought it was an odd VD for a young couple in love too.
Anyone familiar with Casey Anthony? She never took the stand, never uttered a word and was cleared...Sometimes letting the lawyers throw up umpteen vaguely plausible alternatives is all that's needed to create doubt...
I'm no expert but I can imagine that if it was unintentional, after the first shot Reeva would have shouted and OP could have realised who was in the loo.
But with the noise of gunshot ringing, what would he have heard?
"If you thought you heard an intruder surly you would check that your partner was ok? Or indeed warn her of the fact that there was someone inside?"
That bit doesn't make sense yet. Nor does it make sense if he didn't hear her scream - if she did scream.
I'm pretty sure the bits that don't make sense will be covered in the coming weeks. If I were Roux I would argue adrenaline and four shots in rapid succession indoors in a small space, blood rushing to ears, probably didn't hear anything.
That will certainly be addressed though
"If I were Roux I would argue adrenaline and four shots in rapid succession indoors in a small space, blood rushing to ears, probably didn't hear anything."
Well only if it's the truth!
Do you know Roux??
If Roux argued 4 shots in rapid succession, surely that would clearly show intent to kill.
Intent to kill an unseen and identified person has got to be culpable homicide at very least. If not
Yes BeCool. The four shots are excessive and do seem to show intent. Will be interesting to hear arguments around this point
I know absolutely zilch about guns, nor would I want to, but there were pictures in the paper before the trial of OP and friends shooting and they had ear defenders on. And this was outdoors so I imagine indoors would be deafening.
a journalist on twitter mentioned seeing a photo file marked lighting conditions. That sounds interesting and should answer questions about what he could see, how dark it was, etc
If the wound to the head was sustained first, then Reeva wouldn't have been able to scream, but that's an if and I'm not sure how easy, or possible, it is to prove which injury Reeva sustained first.
I know nothing about guns, but another question would be how quickly can you fire four shoots with that gun? How spaced out were the four shots?
There is a saying that when you fire a gun at someone, two lives change forever, yours and the person you're aiming at.
But then, if it had been an intruder, would Oscar's life have changed that much? Probably not, rightly or wrongly he may not have even been prosecuted.
So for him (I speculate) the fear and risk of falling prey to intruders would be far greater. Add into that feelings of being vulnerable due to your disability and not being able to protect those with you - I can see where the shoot first mentality comes from.
However, people being mistaken for burglars and shot is hardly rare, I wonder if anyone ever discussed this with Oscar? Or did he just (as many do) vastly and and tragically overestimate his own competence?
"So for him (I speculate) the fear and risk of falling prey to intruders would be far greater. Add into that feelings of being vulnerable due to your disability and not being able to protect those with you - I can see where the shoot first mentality comes from."
I can't see it. And why not check out where Reeva is first or tell her what was on his mind. If he thought she was asleep did he not think that the gun firing off (4 times) would greatly alarm her and that it would have been best to inform her of his suspicions first.
And why did he need to get in the bathroom so badly once he had fired the shots? Did he think she was still sleeping?
Could it be that a man who loved guns was itching to use one. The sunroof incident suggests he was chomping at the bit somewhat. The first time he perceived a threat he used it without thinking through the consequences. I somehow dont think he'd have done it if he was face to face. Somehow did the toilet door being in the way make him momentarily blind to the fact that he was shooting at someone.
Oh and I take your point Be Cool about it being 13th February. I thought it was the 14th for some reason.
goshannegorilla. I think you are absolutely right in what you say about perceived threat.
From the autopsy evidence though I think she was hit in the head after she had fallen, so would presume not hit there first
Animation - don't get me wrong, I obviously don't think it was a logical or sensible form of action, there are "but whys?" written all over it, I was just pondering over what thinking may have been behind his actions.
Armchair - It does seem very trigger happy, I think because he wrongly, tragically, perceived not shooting when threatened to be more risky.
He's far from alone in that, sadly:
The wanting to get in the bathroom was once he realised that Reeva wasn't in bed, IIRC.
The secure estate he lived on was virtually crime free. It had an excellent record. I know a few people that live in SA. They live normal lives in normal houses. They aren't living in a state of fear. And they don't live on secure estates.
Whatever OPs perception of fear was, he was by far the most dangerous person on the secure estate that night.
gorilla I hadn't thought of that, but yes... to shoot into a small bathroom four times, you're surely trying to kill whoever is in there?
Also agree with whoever said it would surely be more frightening for reeva to be awoken by gunshots if she was lying sleeping. DH finds that impossible to believe, as if it was him, the first thing he'd do would be to wake me, tell me not to move & go to investigate/call the police.
YY wake the other person who is with you, get them to call the police/security whatever - it's a logical thing to do.
But that really doesn't mean anything - it has no bearing on what happened this night.
OP is coming across as overwhelmingly stupid - if we are to believe his version of events, his defence is mostly stupidity which he is desperately trying to wrap up as a failed hero, marred by fear, paranoia and bravado.
So now we are getting to the important parts of the prosecution case. Very interesting testimony about blood spatters.
Which channel are you watching it on?
There has been ongoing confusion re Valentines Day for such a long time. It is widely reported that Reeva died on VD and I guess she did - but in the early hours of the morning.
I've long thought what a strange way for a young 'deeply in love' couple early on in their relationship to spend VD.
But although it will be reported for ever that Reeva was shot by OP on VD, the evening they had spent together was VD eve (if such a thing exists).
becool I wonder if the confusion is added to by the photos of the card she'd written & taken over for him. I wonder what they had planned, if op had bought a gift.
Makes it even sadder, that she must have been excited & looking forward to the day etc.
he said she had a gift form him to open in the morning. I haven't seen any photos of card/gift though.
Whilst it is technically accurate to report that this sad sorry mess happened on VD it is misleading. I think many people (including myself and others on the thread) have had moments when they thought "What an odd way to spend VD?" and read stuff into that.
It can be watched on sky 517.
Court adjourned at the moment.
I am listening. (Can't really watch as I'm at work) on my phone. Google ENCA and you can watch live. Or if at work shove headphones in and listen.
becool. The gift and card was on the kitchen work top. A wrapped present, some sweets and a card
I haven't watched any of it live yet - I'm at work during the day and haven't watched any on YouTube. I'm mainly looking at BBC/Telegraph/Guardian reports/twitter feeds and some SA commentary.
As much as we all fancy ourselves as armchair detectives/criminal lawyers, it looks like OP certainly fancied himself as a gunslinger.
Todays testimony certainly paints the picture of OP being a gun obsessed trigger happy wanna be "hero". Who clearly Knew Better!
AmI that is such a terribly poignant image.
I'm wondering how Barry Roux will explain the blood on the wall by the headboard and on the duvet. That to me was a big leap forward for the prosecution. I kind of knew that they had to have something up their sleeve, as the evidence so far has had holes poked through it.
BeCool Do you mean from the testimony of the firearms guy first thing? When I was listening I thought that he'd given the answers to the exam that he knew would be expected to get the licence, but probably didn't follow half of the guidance in practice. I might need to listen to it again, as I missed the cross examination
....really quite disturbing today, reading the Twitter feeds.
Sorry have i missed something... blood on the headboard?
Yes. He's discharging guns in public places, very interested in guns, buying 6 more guns, going code red for a washing machine, and he knew the laws re the use of guns in self defence and otherwise and was happy to break these laws.
His behaviour with guns was escalating and i think today really helped draw these threads together.
The splatter by the headboard and the damage to the bedroom door - it will be interesting what both sides say about those.
Interesting Roux asked about the shots being purposely lower, so I think will argue that OP was aiming to wound, not kill ( although four gunshots seems to counteract that)- dolus eventualis coming into play.
For every expert the state has, I believe the defence has their own expert, this will be a seriously lengthy trial.
How could there be blood on the headboard when the shots were fired in the bathroom
Could be from when he was moving her around.
Thing is, we know the defence version of events, the affidavit was very detailed - I think with the idea that it was released so soon after it happened, before they knew the details of the state's case, therefore if it can't be contradicted, it must be true.
But we don't yet know the prosecution's version of what happened. That seems to be emerging very slowly indeed.
I don't think knowing gun rules is a big issue for the defense to overcome, he says he panicked and panicky people do stupid things.
If you take the Occam's razor view of this (ie that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one), then the most likely account of what happened is: they had an argument, he threatened her, she locked herself in the bathroom out of fear, he shot her dead in a fit of rage.
The intruder explanation requires too many extra questions to be answered (why did he not check whether his girlfriend was in bed or not, why did he not try to ascertain who was in the bathroom, why did he not call out a warning to Reeva, why did he shoot four times rather than just once).
I appreciate Occam's razor isn't the same as "beyond reasonable doubt" but it does offer the advantage that it offers a completely plausible explanation of what happened.
The blood on the wall by the headboard and on the duvet could not have been from him carrying Reeva from the bathroom to downstairs - unless he took her body on a quick tour round the bedroom......
Looks to me like something happened to Reeva in the bedroom first, hence the blood on wall and duvet and marks on the bedroom door.
If she sustained another injury in the bedroom before she was shot in the bathroom, you would think they'd be able to see that injury too.
Could he not have transferred the blood himself? After he got the door open perhaps he went back to the bedroom to get something, his phone maybe? Could rushing whilst I presume a fair amount of blood on him allowed droplets on the wall?
That's a good point OneStep. There's been a lot of talk about taking phones to the toilet. Perhaps he took them in a panic when trying to call for help. Keypads of iPhones not easy to use with wet or slippery hands so he could have grabbed the phones after the fact
Phone analysis might help with that one.
Also. He was a lad that lived alone. Having seen DS's room, blood may have been there for a wee while and not cleaned up ?
It's a big house. I'd be completely astonished if he didn't have a housekeeper or at least a regular cleaner.
I can go for the 'Occam's razorr' view that the simplest explanation is usually correct!
Another question. Did he have a Valentine card and and present for Reeva like she did for him??
I found it hard to follow today as I was just listening and it sounds as if most of the evidence was visual. Will catch up with twitter and you tune when I get home to see what was actually going on in court
She was dressed wasn't she? Not in PJs or whatever
"She was dressed wasn't she? Not in PJs or whatever"
Think she was wearing vest and shorts. Doesn't necessarily mean she wasn't in bed. I wear a vest and trackie bottoms to bed quite often/ always knickers.
I appreciate I'm not glam though!
Who wears PJs in a hot country? Vest and shorts sounds reasonable enough.
"If she sustained another injury in the bedroom before she was shot in the bathroom, you would think they'd be able to see that injury too." perhaps not if it was a head injury which was then obliterated by a bullet.
Her bra was sitting on the top of her overnight bag. The autopsy report said vest and shorts. No mention of underwear which suggests she was dressed for bed.
Also, the blood person hasn't given evidence yet, so none of us can know whose blood was where. Interesting about the hole in the bedroom door. That must have been why they spent so long talking about powder residue yesterday. Maybe seeing if he had fired his air rifle too.
Who wears PJs in a hot country? Vest and shorts sounds reasonable enough
It was 21C in Pretoria at 23:00 on the night Reeva died Vest and shorts seem perfectly reasonable.
I wear vest and shorts or knickers to bed year round - in the UK
Interestingly, her shorts were up because there was apparently a bullet hole in the waistband.
She tried to protect herself with her hands over her head. It the was the 3rd or 4th shot that killed her, i fail to see how he wouldnt have heard her screaming after the first 2 shots.
Has that been stated in court hickory? I was under the impression that they thought the first shot may have killed her.
Yes i never thought of that, so the people who said they heard her screaming.....
From my understanding of today's testimony, there is dispute between the prosecution and defense as to how quickly she was shot, prosecution says there was a gap between 1st and 2nd shot, defense says not (a mention of double tap shots) and that their ballistic expert says otherwise.
According to OP's affidavit "On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police." - so it could be argued that anyone hearing that would pull their pants up very quickly, I'm pretty sure that's what the defense will say anyway.
So I'm not sure how telling the where her clothes were or what position was in would be, because in either scenario, Reeva would be extremely scared in the toilet. I do believe that at the bail hearing, the defense mentioned her bladder was empty - there will be dispute over whether this was due to her going to the toilet (defense version), or it happened after death (prosecution version).
It seems that, at the moment, evidence wise, prosecution and defense are fairly evenly matched. Prosecution do indeed have Occam's razor on their side, the defense will say that nothing the prosecution says disproves OP's version, and will add that the state seem to only have investigated what supports their version.
So, I still think OP's testimony will be key. He will have an extremely experienced prosecutor asking why he didn't do all the obvious things that would have avoided Reeva being shot. It will be interesting to see how his testimony withstands that.
Looking at photos taken during the trial I'm surprised that friends and relatives are allowed to be so close to the accused. There seem to have been several occasions when his sister has been in the dock comforting him.
Seems odd the procescution is nearly finished. What happens then ? Do the defence bring in their witnesses. I saw on Aisliin laings Twitter they may have OP on the stand next week.
The procecution don't really seem to have come up with much yet.
Some neighbours heard screams and gunshots. Some dispute here. Food in stomach points to last meal 2 hours before death. But had been in bed or 5 hours. Blood in bedroom unexplained. Visited porn site in afternoon, not unheard of for young man. Rather too gung ho with guns dispite knowing the rules.
It will be interesting to see what OP has to say but he will have been very well schooled by Roux
And I thought OP was supposed to be deeply religious!
Mary. I don't get what you mean about him being religious.
AmI - I think it's a reference to his browsing history.
Okay. Wasn't sure of the relevance of one to the other. Do evangelical Christians not view open then ? And according to his browser history he was on for approximately one minute. Rather a short visit.
No I was meaning his whole personna. Lack of respect for human life, shooting before the treat was real ?Enjoying guns. Moving very rapidly from one partner to the next. Getting friend to lie for him? The stuff with the girl who he slammed door on he leg that was settled out of court recently. It doesn't fit with his fairly public religious front. Its just a comment.
Interesting Mary, how we interpret things in different ways.
Neither one more valid than the other, but so different
I haven't heard any evidence yet about the perceived threat and disregard for human life. I know the Firearms Trainer covered what should be done, but I've not heard any of the evidence about why he shot at the intruder.
There was a psychologist on the state witness list, so maybe they will be called next week. Until I've heard evidence, though, I'm not calling that one either way.
The shots were low down, which someone on twitter suggested not shots to kill, but then that was someone on twitter, so they probably know as much as me .
Moving from one partner to the next, to me, is preferable to stringing several along at one time. Time will tell if he has been doing that.
The defence did have emails to counteract the ex GF's claim that he had cheated on her.
Getting the friend to lie - well I thought that particular witness had been widely discredited. He couldn't remember what was said, couldn't remember when it was said, and admitted that he was the one who told them all to act normally once it had happened. I'm not sure about that one.
Interestingly, Barry Roux alluded to a statement from Martyn Rooney, who was also at the table, I wonder if his statement suppports OP's version of events.
And the thing with the girl and the door. Well he was arrested and then released the next day without charge. The case that was recently settled was, I believe, opened by him, to sue her for false allegations, loss of earnings, etc. It wasn't her suing him, she was fighting his case against her <prepared to be proven wrong if I have read that incorrectly>
I agree with GoshAnneGorilla's view that at the moment, prosecution and defence are pretty evenly matched.
Gerrie Nel is reputedly brilliant. I wonder if he has kept the best witnesses to last. The ones that will prove the state's case beyond reasonable doubt.
Plus he gets to rip all the defence witnesses to shreds too.
Will be very interesting.
"Getting the friend to lie - well I thought that particular witness had been widely discredited."
The defence look to be attempting to discredit everything and everybody! I don't particularly get a sense of truth seeking on their part. And Pistoriius doesn't exactly come across as a man of integrity.
The thing is lots of young men like women, fast cars, occasional porn and yet most of those don't end up killing anyone. In this country many, many men will be driving their cars too fast, getting drunk or high at parties, being reckless in different ways. The difference is they wouldn't have access to guns or be living in a gun culture but if they were they were they might well dabble in these too.
It sounds as if OP was living a bit of a rockstar lifestyle and I think we tolerate that from our rockstars but not our athletes (except maybe footballers) who are usually more squeaky clean ( hard working, early to bed, good diet, non-drinkers) and have to avoid a lot of reckless situations because they can't afford to be out with injury. They go off and have a round of gold instead of going skiing etc.
You could say that at 27 OP was still acting like a teenager but I think if you become very famous whilst still a teenager and become rich beyond your dreams with little parental guidance (mother dead, estranged father) it would be likely that you wouldn't find growing up in that situation easy.
I believe his brother was involved in a car crash in which someone died- makes me wonder if there's a lot of anger, frustration etc that's coming out in risk taking behaviour.
Not trying to excuse anything that's happened- just trying to understand how it could have gone so wrong.
It's the shooting to kill that particularly doesn't look good on his character. Nothing ethical there.
Armchair. His brother was found not guilty and the crash was caused by a speeding, probably drunk biker. Nothing to do with rage and I think it is a bit off to use that as an example of rage, recklessness in the family. Totally irrelevant.
Armchair. But I agree with the rest of your post.
Sorry you took offence at that. I wasn't meaning to infer that Carl was necessarily reckless more that young men often get involved in accidents etc as a result of tasking risks.
I shouldn't have implied Carl was an angry mnan so I withdraw that. OP has certainly been described as having a short fuse (still doesn't prove anything) I have a short fuse.
I was always a huge OP fan so I certainly dont have any axe to grind with the family. Just saying life must have been pretty tough for three young people entering teenage years without their parents- pure conjecture though
Armchair. Sorry, I didn't take offence, and I apologise if my post came across as harsh, as that was not my intention.
I think what is good about this thread is that (with the exception of one or two posters) people posting are basing their comments on what we are hearing in court, and it is nice to be able to disagree and debate different viewpoints, without getting into name calling and sarkiness.
I am watching the Sky special just now, and I was in tears hearing about Reeva's last moments. Her poor mother having to listen to that.
I wonder if we'll see Hilton Botha next week
Yes just saw the Sky Programme. I just cannot believe that even if you had had the most terrible argument and you were shooting the door in rage/to scare your girlfriend etc you wouldn't stop the moment you realised you'd hit them/ the moment they screamed. Unless it just happened too fast.
Do you have to cock the gun each time you fire or is it possible to fire 4 shots relatively quickly. I think the ballistics guy suggested there was a gap between the shots which would suggest OP knew what he was doing.
There was no attempt to clean up the scene/flush the toilet and OP seemed to call for help/phone people immediately which suggests as soon as it was over he was totally overwhelmed with guilt etc.
It's all so confusing
I hold no brief for Pistorius, but if you get a gun for home defence, and if you think you or your family is in danger from an attacker, then the point of a gun is to shoot and kill the attacker. It is no use as an ornament or a warning. Otherwise, you are better off not to have one, as an intruder may snatch it and use it against you. I think SA gunowners will look at it like that.
Personally I don't see a screaming woman locked in a bathroom as a very deadly threat. I don't know if Pistorius subscribed to an "immediate armed response" guard service, but it would not be unusual.
Shooting at anything you can't see is foolish but perhaps he panicked.
assuming that he was using an automatic pistol, he could fire the shots as fast as he could squeeze the trigger. Apart from possibly the first shot, there is little strength or effort required.
Ok thanks PigletJohn so if he was panicked, ie heard a noise coming from the bathroom when it was pitch black, he might have grabbed and fired without thinking . He was in the habit of reaching for his gun when startled by noises.
using a gun in pitch black? very silly idea.
If he was using a gun, it should be because he thought he was in danger from an armed intruder. Shooting in the dark would make the intruder more likely to shoot him. Same as shooting through a door. Wounding an armed intruder means you have a panicked armed intruder in a bad mood, who knows where you are and that you are a threat to him.
Apparently (according to Op's story) he was in the dark.
I take it you aren't believing his story?
What I don't get it this
If his story is bullshit and he had time before people arrived to make a story up, why would he not pick something better.
If the phones were considered a major piece of evidence, why would he not put them somewhere else rather than the bathroom. People make a lot of Reeva taking her phone to the bathroom, but perhaps he grabbed the phones to try to call for help. If he was concocting a story, why not put the phones elsewhere, I don't get that.
I think the phone expert will be on next week, so will be interesting to see what they say about usage.
Why, if they were having a row that escalated to something so horrific, would Reeva not run out the bedroom door, why to the bathroom.
I have so many questions running through my mind, but hopefull the evidence from court will answer these.
maybe he's just a very silly person, or panicked and did silly things.
I have never found it necessary to kill a burglar or a woman so I can't really say what it's like. I hope I never will. In the UK I would probably barricade myself in the bedroom and phone for help. In SA I would probably have a panic alarm as well. I expect a prosperous gated community has guards on duty or on call, even if the police are underfunded and overstretched.
I know a lot of people are saying Occam's Razor but I also think if a story is far fetched perhaps it could just be true.
Op knows what happened. If he is lying about everything. Are his family in on it or is he lying to them too. I can't believe he'd be able to keep what happened a secret from his family for ever.
Marking my place, will be back to read later.
"I also think if a story is far fetched perhaps it could just be true"
I don't buy that
"aliens did it!"
hmm, far fetched, if he was making it up surely he'd have thought of something better....
The full affidavit was in place so quickly, before much of the forensic evidence or witness statements were together. IMO, it would take some mind to put together that rapidly, a scenario that couldn't be undone by the prosecution evidence.
This is one of the things that makes me think it might be true, that and I can't yet see a motive. Yet.
I agree with Animation's post about him living a rock star lifestyle and I wonder if that recklessness carried into this.
If his story is true, I think he thought, he'd shoot the intruder, save his girlfriend and the burgulars of South Africa would know not to mess with Oscar Pistorius.
Because I think he was terrified not only of being burgled/attacked, but of not being able to protect himself or his girlfriend because of his disability. In a macho culture like South Africa, I imagine that would be very hard to take.
At this point, if the state are not able to prove murder, I think he will be convicted of culpable homicide and he will go to prison, 1)due to the recklessness of his actions and 2)to act as a deterrent to others.
I don't think he will get a huge sentence, long enough to scupper his Olympic dreams probably, so the press will go to town at "the Fall of Pistorius". But ultimately he'll be released, he'll have his life, even if it's not the life he would have had. The same can't be said for Reeva, sadly.
The defence look to be attempting to discredit everything and everybody! yes that is their job. All they have to do is discredit evidence to show reasonable doubt.
Piglet don't forget there was NO intruder. No threat, no one to defend himself from. Of course Reeva clearly needed defending from OP, as he posed either a deliberate threat to her, or a threat by his utter stupidity and recklessness.
I'm so glad we have this thread. Every time I've read comments elsewhere on the WWW, the views expressed are so often based on hysterics.
Gorilla I agree with the picture you paint above as being the most likely course of events now.
At this point, if the state are not able to prove murder, I think he will be convicted of culpable homicide and he will go to prison, 1)due to the recklessness of his actions and 2)to act as a deterrent to others.
I don't think he will get a huge sentence, long enough to scupper his Olympic dreams probably, so the press will go to town at "the Fall of Pistorius". But ultimately he'll be released, he'll have his life, even if it's not the life he would have had. The same can't be said for Reeva, sadly.
Yes I agree. I don't think he will convicted of premeditated murder. He will be convicted of culpable homicide. He'll be out in 5 years. I hope somehow he will be able to make amends to society at large in some way. Although obviously he will never be able to make amends to the Steenkamps.
I believe they want the truth/are owed the truth- so I do hope he's not lying to them.
Agree this thread has been very measured. Some of the stuff on digital spy is very polarised/strange.
lots of obsessing about stolen watches/OP phone hidden in the watches and then removed and tampered with. The level of detail on there is very obsessive!
Any thoughts on if OP will take the stand?
I'm going to stick my neck out and speculate that he wont. The defence has done a good job at chipping away at every piece of evidence - enough to show reasonable doubt to the picture the prosecution have painted.
From the very beginning my view has been OP caused Reeva's death by his utter stupidity - either by losing his temper and shooting her in a fit of petulant rage or by being too hotheaded, a wanna be hero and thick as 2 short planks.
And I think Roux will think he is too stupid & too much of a liability to his own case to testify properly and robustly withstand cross examination unless it is utterly necessary.
I would like to see him testify of course. And if he genuinely wants to help Reeva's family then he will.
But I reckon he won't.
I think he will take to the stand. I think if he doesn't that will imply guilt/arrogance etc
I think he needs to take the stand and look June Steenkamp in the eye
That's the sad part, he was just about to start his own foundation as he was working with various universities to look into ways of fitting prosthetics quickly, so that people who can't afford/can't access limb fitting centres could be seen by a mobile unit instead.
In a world with no shortage of people losing their limbs, a charity like that, headed by someone with the appeal he used to have could have been huge.
I do think that SA having no sub judice has a lot to answer for.
If this case had been under sub judice, we'd only just be hearing all the details, people would be able to base their opinions on actual facts. Instead the media has had a year to froth and muck-spread about someone battering their girlfriend with a cricket bat while in a roid-rage.
IMO, if it was a mistake and legally proven as such, he should be able to serve his punishment and then be able to work on what he's previously achieved to help others.
But it seems the media clamouring for him to be destroyed is stronger. Right at the start of this, someone wrote that Pistorius lived the sort of life people with disabilities weren't meant to have, money, glamour, beautiful women and I wonder if this desire to see him "put in his place" is behind it. It's certainly not about outrage over violence against women we know the media cares little about that.
I see from his website that he has put the house up for sale to fund his trial as it is to go on longer than the 3 weeks set down in the court calendar
I think it's already been confirmed that he will take the stand, especially as he has to testify to his state of mind at the time to support his actions.
Also, although by his own admission, he's done a horrendously stupid thing, I don't think he is stupid per se. He had a good education and seems reasonably articulate interviews.
gorilla what is "sub judice"?
re the media, the one thing the media loves as much as a fallen hero, is the rebirth of a fallen hero. If it is ruled as culpable homicide, not murder, I think he can potentially be just fine and carry on with running and all his charities etc.
The media was pretty interested in him before this and he sought media attention in lots of ways. He would have been in the media spotlight forever without having killed Reeva - though it will certainly be more intense now.
I think it's already been confirmed that he will take the stand
OK thanks - well that is one live broadcast I will watch
Be cool - sub judice is that nothing prejudicial to a fair trial can be published.
So under UK rules, all we would have known about, pre-trial, is that Reeva Steenkamp had been shot dead and that OP had been charged with the murder of Reeva Steenkamp. That's it.
If the media broke this, they could be charged with contempt of court and fined or even jailed. The case itself could also be thrown out of court.
ah thanks for explaining.
It was very strange (to us in the UK at least) the amount of info and testimony involved in OP's bail hearing. Are bail hearings reportable in UK i.e. would that have been reportable in UK or not?
I know this sounds awful, but I've missed listening to the trial today.
I too think he will give evidence, although I would imagine several adjournments. If he can't handle pictures and hearing about injuries without being sick, god knows how he'll react once Gerrie Nel starts on him.
I'm interested in who they will call as defence witnesses, not just experts, but character witnesses. Naturally they will give a much different picture to that painted by the prosecution, but it might make some people take a step and reassess their confident assertions as to what happened that night
Be Cool - In UK, you only hear if someone's been granted bail or is being held on remand. As we have jury trials it's vitally important that nothing that sways the jury is put into the public domain.
I wonder if Martyn Rooney will be called as a defense witness as he was staying with them only days before?
I think he will have to give evidence since it was implied he would so if that changed then it would create an impression that he was a liability and had something to hide. I'm not sure that his evidence will shed much light as he submitted his version of events pretty early and I doubt he will waver from it.
I'm interested to know if Reeva's mobile phone record shows anything of interest. If they had their phones with them in the bedroom as they seem to have done then arguably her phone records could be very significant.
Did the blood splatter analyst identify the blood on the wall behind the bed and on the duvet? I know he said the arterial spurt would explain a lot of the stains but did he specifically refer to those two? I still can't see how they could have happened whilst OP was moving Reeva downstairs. Although I did wonder (as a previous poster said) if they were old, unconnected stains.
For Reeva's family's sake, I hope there is something conclusive to prove OP's version of events because the alternative is too awful to contemplate.
In all the awful times with my EA/VA XP you would get no evidence whatsoever of anything being wrong from my phone
My feeling is he hasn't run away, hasn't turned away, has sat in court and shown distress at his actions. Not hard hearted, not disinterested, not arrogantly expecting to be acquitted. If he was acquitted I seriously think he - as much as everyone else - would be . I think he will be given a sentence of some sort, although whether that will involve prison or some kind of "house arrest" along the lines of current bail conditions remains to be seen.
From court photos I do get the impression that June Steenkamp acknowledges that her family, and the Pistorius family, are being put under immense pressure, and maybe there is a way to reconcile, to forgive. That is having a very big heart, hugely commendable, very brave.
As for the media and the general public. Well, the judge's decision is final. Not ours. Not the Steenkamps'. Not the Pistorius'. The judge's decision should be respected. There will always be people baying for blood.
I do hope that from this he is able to a) proceed with his Foundation and frankly excellent idea of "abling disability" and that he b) becomes a spokesperson for all that is wrong about guns. Separately to that I do hope SA get a more transparent, un corrupted, reliable and robust police force.
I don't think his work is done. I think this is an opportunity to turn a nightmare into something that commemorates Reeva and what she wanted to stand for.
BeCool I'm glad he's your XP.
Not really rose tint Jill, just honest and factual
You are right that he hasn't run. When he was granted bail, plenty said he would disappear to a country with no extradition
Well, he hasn't done that. He has stayed and he has turned up at court every day. No pleading illness or anything like that, he is facing his trial.
Twitter is especially vicious, some comments are truly ignorant.
We have the ones who still say he was drunk, or on steroids, bashed her head with a cricket bat, etc. it seems that it matters little that none of this is true.
Then we have the ones going on about him being a man and answering for his crime - well I kind of thought that was what this trial is about
The very, very, very worst though, are the ones who make jokes about him being raped in prison and hoping he contracts AIDS. It makes me wonder what sort of moral high ground some of these people are taking.
BookABoo. I think I read that the phone man is likely to be in court on Monday
forlorn hope for Monday then is that there is a text or phone call from Reeva that lends weight to one or other side.
I'm trying not to read Twitter comments but I must admit some of the tweets/articles from journalists seem wildly inappropriate eg joking about a witness' tie, linking to spoof songs about the trial. I've worked in the media for years and I do recognise that kind of black humour but it should never be part of published journalism. I just keep thinking a woman died, how can you think it appropriate to link to parody raps?! [Yes, looking at you Telegraph]
I have also thought one of the best things he could do in the future would be an anti guns campaigner.
If he doesn't get a jail sentence I still wonder how hard it would be to run again at such an elite level. I am sure his work trying to enable people to have better /any prosthetics can continue though maybe uncomfortable for a while. I am sure there will also be room for him in one of the family businesses.
This is the kind of thing that could make you are evaluate your whole life and attitude to it. That is supposed to read re evaluate!
I almost feel the judge is going to be obliged to sentence him or there could be a terrible backlash of the one rule for the rich influential white and one for the rest.
Fwiw. I think he is telling the truth weird though it might be. Though I do think he needs to be taken to task/ sentenced for his recklessness.
Isn't there precedent for not jailing for culpable homicide? The rugby player who shot his daughter dead after mistaking her for a burglar. I'm sorry, but her name has gone out of my head.
If he is found guilty of culpable homicide I don't think he'll go to jail and I hope he carries on with his foundation to help disabled disadvantaged people access prosthesis quickly and finically effectively. I also agree with the antigun campaigner stance, that'd be something towards making amends for what he did.
I think June Steenkamp is an amazingly strong and brave woman, to sit so close to the man who killed her daughter and remain so calm and composed and talk of forgiveness, she's a better woman than me.
Money aside I am not surprise he,s selling the house. Can,t imagine he would every want to live there again. And I bet his brother and Sister having been there on the morning of the 14th would rather never step foot in the place again either.
“Why, if they were having a row that escalated to something so horrific, would Reeva not run out the bedroom door, why to the bathroom.” Because once running out of the bedroom, where would she go? It’s likely that the house had gates on the front door to which OP would have had the keys, and bars on the windows, so she wouldn’t likely have just been able to get out of the house. So running out of the bedroom would make her a moving (and visible) target. I don’t imagine she thought she was at risk from a gun, but from physical violence, hence hiding behind a closed door rather than running.
“I don't think his work is done. I think this is an opportunity to turn a nightmare into something that commemorates Reeva and what she wanted to stand for.” I don’t think so. He killed someone – in cold blood – regardless of whether he thought he was shooting at an intruder. The South African view (I grew up in SA and have many contacts there) is that he has always been arrogant, always known for his violent temper and that this was a disaster waiting to happen. Moreover, I have not heard one single South African say that the culture of fear is such that shooting someone through a locked door could ever be justified or normalised.
Regardless of what the trial turns up, the fact remains that OP killed a defenceless person. Because even if it was an intruder his life was not at risk at that time.
No self respecting charity or sponsor would touch him with a bargepole and rightly so.
I do think that there is an element of people wanting him to be not guilty because of his disability, no-one wants to imagine someone with a disability as a potential murderer, someone who overcomes adversity and fights hard to get to where they are. But fact is everyone is a human being, and disability doesn't change the kind of human being you are.
I’m not surprised he’s selling the house, although can’t imagine, actually I can imagine the kinds of people who would want to buy it. Ghules with an interest in its significance <shudder>
Don't think this has anything to do with him being disabled wannabe.
For me it's about hoping a human being wouldn't do something so horrific, on purpose.
Having been at the Paralympics, and also at the Sainsburys Anniversary Games Paralympic athletes day, I don't see the disability standing out - to me Oscar or Jonnie or Richard - men with blades - are just who they are. I don't see Oscar as a disabled person having killed someone, I see him as a person having killed someone. But that's me and my personal viewpoint, and yes, I'm sure there will be people who define him by his disability and "how could he?". Well, peeps, he's a person just like lots of other people (rich, successful, have it all people that is).
Except he did something truly horrific. And sometimes, sadly, people do.
This is a wrong that can never be put right. But I do think he has an opportunity to do something useful and sensible, and he should use it wisely.
"For me it's about hoping a human being wouldn't do something so horrific, on purpose."
I agree and it's about not wanting to accept that someone who seemed to have so much potential, who was a role model and an inspiration to many and who probably had so much more to give to society could do something so unimaginable.
I appreciate this is a somewhat elitist view but there are some who become killers and you think society failed them in some way or that their life was heading in a certain direction or that having them in prison will make the world a safer place and perhaps they will be rehabilitated/educated and end up a better human being in some way. In this case we thought we had the good human being, we find them deeply flawed (a tragedy in a truly Shakespearean sense) They will go to prison and one wonders whether instead of rehabilitation there will be the creation of something even darker.
But don't get me wrong I'm not saying the rich and privileged shouldn't be held accountable just wondering how he could make amends if as pp said no charity would touch him with a bargepole.
Is loss of freedom the worst punishment? I would have thought whether in prison or out he has lost his freedom anyway. He will probably never compete again. He will always have a stigma attached to him.
"He will always have a stigma attached to him".
On every level seeing such a bubble of ambition and achievement burst is sad, disappointing. It's that pedestal thing. That aspire, achieve, admire thing. But he has his life....
"But he has his life...."
I hope he has greater respect for it and that of others now
I think it’s a bit of an insult to Reeva Steenkamp to suggest that OP do anything in her name/memory. In fact I think that anything of that nature could only ever be seen as an attempt for OP to minimize what he has done.
Regardless of whether the court finds him guilty of premeditated murder, the fact remains that he killed Reeva Steenkamp. It wasn’t a car crash which could have been avoided, it wasn’t even a gun which shouldn’t have been out which went off accidentally, he fired four bullets through a closed door with the intention of killing whoever it was on the other side. He was a trigger happy maniac who had no control over his impulse to use his gun.
So he feels remorse, so he bloody well should. So what he’s heard in court has made him sick, good. What he has achieved in the past is irrelevant. Whether he intended to start up a foundation to do good is irrelevant. Jimmy Saville did a lot of “good” too. I find it just a bit that people are somehow saying that some good can come out of this for OP. Why should it? Wreckless idiots like him need to learn that you can’t just go around shooting indiscriminately at whatever you feel is a threat, and that if you are that out of control you shouldn’t own a gun in the first place. OP was well aware of the gun laws in SA, and no, they do not sanction shooting through locked doors at unknowns on the other side. Moreover, he had another six guns on order. No-one needs that many guns, you can only use one at a time....
Would anyone really be comfortable for someone like that to come down to your school and train your kids? Really?
Whatever the outcome, I cannot see any charity wanting to be associated with him, as an amputee I'm afraid with his attitude to guns I'm rather he wasn't, a lot of amputees have lost limbs through violent means, accidents, land mines etc and it would seems somewhat odd and I would think could make people uncomfortable to have a spokesperson who has killed someone in such a violent way (even if it were an accident) but I accept that's my own personal view.
I have absolute no doubt he is getting a fair trial, and have faith the judge will come to the right decision either way. My own feelings are very much on the fence at the moment, I swing one way then the other.
not only would no reputable charity want to be associated with him, but no-one would want to lend their backing to any kind of charity he might start either.
Nelson Mandela (Acts of Violence and terrorism), Ghandi (spousal cruelty, emotional abuse), Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness (Terrorism)- Leslie Grantham (murder)
All rehabilitated and in some cases venerated for the work they went on to do- it's not impossible
you're comparing OP to Nelson Mandela?
The obvious difference here is that the majority of those mentioned above, while they did sanction acts of atrocity, for the most part these were politically motivated and with a specific goal in mind. you know, such as fighting against the oppression of black people in an entire country... Whereas someone with a history of violence and a known love of fire arms blindly killing their girlfriend is just that - a common murderer.
"Would anyone really be comfortable for someone like that to come down to your school and train your kids? Really?"
Well I'd prefer my children not to grow up in a country that felt it was ok for people to own loads of guns.
I accept people can own guns in this country (for gun clubs, farming etc) but even that I think is unacceptable. Would prefer to see total ban on gun ownership and maybe access for gun clubs/clay pigeon shooting only
I made the suggestion in no way to be used as an excuse to minimise what he has done, rather to be a not-glorified, quiet, humble, accountable example of what he has done. But the former will be perceived and promoted, even if the intention is firmly the latter. So be it.
Point taken about who would want to be associated with him. Unlikely. Not impossible. Who knows.
"you're comparing OP to Nelson Mandela? "
I'm obviously not putting him on the same level just saying that all humans are capable of violence, some out of necessity, some for self- defence, some out of recklessness, stupidity or evil. That doesn't mean they can never again do a worthy thing or have a productive life surely.
I think prison can rehabilitate but it doesn't always.
Maybe SA government should review it's gun ownership laws- it should take more than a questionnaire that any fool could answer
maybe he could be rehabilitated but that doesn't mean he should ever be held up again as a public role model. He is not the kind of person we should want our children to look up to.
People like Nelson Mandela oversaw violence because they were young and possibly driven by a desire for change but not mature enough to do it in the right way, or possibly not in a position where they could challenge authority in the right way. When Mandela went to prison the rest of the world had not yet come on board with what apartheid meant and stood for and saught to bring about change. We can tell our children that while the way he went about it was wrong, his motivation was in the right place, and ultimately, he did seek to negotiate a peaceful outcome when there was more chance of achieving a positive result, and that because of those actions the fate of South Africa changed and he became their president. (one man's freedom fighter and all that).
But what of OP...? "erm well it's like this... see he was an athlete, but he was a bit full of himself, a bad loser, had temper tantrums on the track when he didn't win, even accusing others of cheating. On the whole he wasn't all that nice in the first place, and it was all in the name of his own success. And on top of all that he loved his guns. loved to carry them with him, owned lots of them, fired them in temper and so on. Then one night he claimed he heard someone in the bathroom, door was locked and he could have called foor help, but instead he pelted the door with bullets until he could be sure whoever it was was dead. Except it was his girlfriend who he hadn't actually bothered to tell that he was about to fire multiple bullets at the door - if there had been an intruder she would have woken up and probably been terrified at the sound of gunshots (waking up to gunshots isn't normal in SA). and there she was, dead. and OP had loads of guns and it was shown tht he was a bit trigger happy, but he went to jail and he's all rehabilitated now and ... err... wants to compete again in the Paralympics..."
nope, not sure you can in any way explain that in any way that makes OP come out as anything more than a gun crazed maniac.
You know what, I had been enjoying this thread, enjoying the discussion of the facts and evidence, being presented in court. Not what the media printed,not what some posters "know", but the actual facts from the court case.
I'm bowing out until Monday
I never thought much about OP till valentines last year. I had heard of him a few years back and was/aware of the south African runner who ran on blades and wanted to be allowed to run in able bodied races. I knew he lost his original case because the blades gave him an unfair advantage. I was therefore surprised to see him at the Olympics. After his tantrum after loosing to Olivera I remember being glad that Johnny Peacock beat him. However I didn't,t think much more . Then after he shot Reeva I really couldn't,t get him off my mind. Something about this "incident" really got to me. I don't really know what. How life can change in a moment. The utter desolation that was palpable even via the media. They way it brought a lot of the culture is South Africa to the rest of the world.
It prayed on my mind for ages. . Don't really know what I am saying here.
Now I just hope the truth comes out . For Reeva,s family, For Oscar and his family and South Africa.
Agree with wannaBe ^
To be 'rehabilitated' surely requires an initial admission of wrong doing?
�Why, if they were having a row that escalated to something so horrific, would Reeva not run out the bedroom door, why to the bathroom.�
I think it's a fairly common human response to want to isolate yourself from a threat and a locked door can seem the best way to do that hence why houses have panic rooms, and why women under threat often run to the bathroom. It's the one room in the house that is usually guaranteed to have a lock.
My friend's dad was violent and she would lock herself in the bathroom to escape him. I think subconsciously it was also helping to keep the problem secret. If you run into the street or outside then you are taking a private problem into the public domain and at a deep level, we are conditioned not to do that.
Of course, locking yourself into an enclosed space only works if the threat on the other side sees that as a deterent and not an opportunity. In my friend's case, her dad got his toolbox and took the lock off the door so he could reach her
I agree Mary21 there's something fascinating about it all, I'd never heard of Reeva but she seemed so vibrant & beautiful and it was a tragedy her life was snuffed out. I guess had they not been such a 'golden couple' it wouldn't have made news at all. I think there's something of the fallen hero about OP & perhaps we don't want to believe he's guilty as we invested so much in him? A bit like Lance Armstrong for me.
The legal system fascinates me & it feels like a privilege to see behind the scenes, I'd watch regardless of who the defendant was tbh
There have been a couple of criticisms on this thread of people commenting on what has been reported in the news, as opposed to what was seen in the court coverage. Wouldn't it be better to actually point out what people have misunderstood about the case due to incorrect media reporting if people notice this? I know if I had misunderstood something about the case I'd be happy for someone to point this out so I understood it better.
Also, I watched the ballistics expert's testimony yesterday & it really brought home how terrified Reeva must have been & how awful her last moments were so again, I'd like the truth to come out for her memory & her family.
I think that when it's someone in the public eye we identify with them almost as if we know them, and so the thought they might do something so unspeakable is incomprehensible to us. A bit like people who mourn the death of celebrities iyswim.
Agree opal I've avoided the press on this
" I have not heard one single South African say that the culture of fear is such that shooting someone through a locked door could ever be justified or normalised."
Good to know that wannaBe.
I suspected as much despite some posters making out it's such an uncivilised place.
Mary 21, totally agree with you. The whole case has really struck me too...just very sad all round how life can turn around so very quickly. The other thing that has fascinated me has been OP's extreme closeness to his sister. In some of those court photos, she invariably looks as though she too is physically feeling his pain...in many others she looks at him with almost religious devotion or maternal devotion. If I didn't know they were related.....If nothing else OP is clearly a very loved sibling, and adored brother. The whole thing is ridiculously sad.
I also have my doubts (there isn't evidence I know) as to why Reeva and OP were arguing - if indeed they were. I doubt it was just a jealous rage - it was a relatively new relationship, OP was at the top of his fame - I'm sure many a potential girlfriend would have been waiting in the wings if he had split with Reeva, they weren't even living together, hadn't met each other families, don't think they'd been away on holiday together, and as far as I know, had met only a very few of each other's friends. Struggle to think how he could have got so mad over a text message that it could lead to those tragic events, unless he really is that trigger happy. Either he is telling the truth and thought it was a burglar....or I suspect, maybe Reeva found out something else about OP that led to the argument, and it was so significant that he felt he had to kill her rather than risk her telling anyone else. Far fetched perhaps, but this whole event is deeply baffling.
In early reporting of the incident (ie not during the current trial) they said Reeva had received a Valentine's text from her ex bf. I guess if that did happen and if it's relevant then it will come out in the trial.
I was reading an article about the case. It made an interesting point that much has been made of crime rates in SA and the threat of burglary and how the case has to be viewed through that prism. The article said that if such an approach is valid then the case also has to be viewed in the context of domestic violence rates in SA. Basically SA does have a problem with violent crime but it also has a problem with DV, and until a decision is reached on what happened then both those contexts are valid when trying to evaluate the case.
The trial has been extended to mid-May.
A few random thoughts/questions (apologies if they have been covered here previously):
- Is there a theory on how the supposed intruder entered the home? IIrc the bathroom window was small and up high so bathroom entry seems unlikely. Also, don't most people leave their bathroom doors open, unless occupied?
- Are they saying the intruder came in through the bathroom window and then closed the bathroom door? Seems unlikely.
If it was an intruder who entered other than through the bathroom window, how did they enter (have a vague recollection of a bedroom balcony?)? Makes no sense an intruder would enter the house and then go into the bathroom and shut the door.
- OP claims he was on his stumps (and felt vulnerable): does that mean he made his way to bathroom door on his stumps carrying a gun?
- At what point did he put on his protheses?
- Was he on his stumps when he carried Reeva downstairs? If so, wouldn't he been half carrying/half dragging her? Can he balance well enough on his stumps to carry the weight of an adult? Does he have to use his hands to balance himself when moving around on his stumps? If so, how could he have been carrying an adult woman?
- If OP was so terrified that he shot 4 times in quick succession in a blind panic, don't think he would have had the presence of mind to consciously choose to 'aim low' in order to only wound whoever was behind the door.
in some circumstances, shooting at knee height is done because it cuts down people who are standing, and also those who are crouched or kneeling.
I have no reason suppose that was Oscar's intention, though.
but if the first shot was at waist height, that won't be it. A shot in the abdomen is not a trivial "flesh wound"
Am "unhiding" this thread, ready for tomorrow
the bathroom window is quite big. It's three times the size of mine, anyway. Plus a contractor had left ladders outside. They were seen by police on the ground outside.
We don't know what they are saying about the actions of a supposed intruder, because the defence has not presented their case yet.
No-one is saying an intruder entered the house anywhere else then hid in the bathroom. It would appear that the argument MAY be that they could have come in through the bathroom window, then hid in the toilet cubicle to avoid discovery
He is saying he put on his prosthetics when he realised Reeva was in the toilet, and then tried to kick door down.
He carried her downstairs, while wearing his prosthetic legs.
The rest we will know about when they cover it in court.
I'd like to know about the hole in the bedroom door.... And the broken window, I think in the living area? There are some oddities.
And I still don't quite understand why the security guard is so adamant he rang OP first, and not the other way round, when the defence say (have they been shown in court?) that OP rang first. Moot point really, but still...
it is very strange, as the phone company call log records showed that the security guards call was after he'd been called, but the guard wouldn't accept it. I would think that it was a shocking night for everyone involved and memories do get jumbled though.
Yes Jill that is interesting. Maybe one of the remaining prosecution witnesses will shed some light on that.
I think I saw on twitter, from one of the journalists (maybe Karyn Maughan, who is excellent and worth the follow, BTW) that the claim was that the hole was made by the airgun.
That's why I wondered about the testing for gunshot residue, it didn't make sense at the time, but perhaps they were trying to see if he had fired two types of guns
Disclaimer: my experience is courtesy of Mac Taylor and Gil Grissom, so I am presuming the tests show different types of guns shot?
According to the BBC, OP will give evidence: m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26705776
Anyone following this today? The text message evidence looks interesting. I wonder if the prosecution have been saving this for last...
I've been firmly sticking to innocent until proven guilty but the text messages don't make him look good at all.
Controlling, jealous, hot-headed, makes excuses for his shit behaviour.
Yes wow to be sending texts like that and leaving parties early due to arguing, this early in in the relationship, I can't imagine there was much further for the relationship to go.
Will catch up properly tonight though.
What is the text message evidence??
"Mr Pistorius has said he has forgotten the password to his phone and investigators went to the US shortly before the trial began to meet Apple officials to get information from his iPhone."
Certainly seems to indicate all was not lovely in paradise.
its odd went on digital spy forum and lots of comments about indicative of abusive relationship. seen pro Pistorius comments. normal behaviour. reeva certainly sounds as if she wasn't comfortable with his behaviour.
I think it must have been difficult for the women who love him, sister ,aunts, cousins etc to hear this evidence.
Seems Darren was telling the truth!
Yes, aren't the first three months usually the honeymoon period? I always found it hard to believe before that anyone would fly into a jealous, murderous rage so early in the relationship, when they weren't even living together. I'm not so sure now.
"Angel, please don't say a thing to anyone. Darren told everyone it was his fault." This message from the athlete was most likely referring to the incident at the Tasha's restaurant where Pistorius accidentally discharged a firearm. His friend, Darren Fresco told management he had discharged the gun because Pistorius had asked us to.
The pair were arguing over Pistorius' serial dating, and how when she brought up an incident where she smoked marijuana with an ex-boyfriend, he had gotten upset.
"I'm scared of you sometimes. Of how you snap at me and react to me," she wrote.
She also defended herself from Pistorius' suggestion she had been flirting with a friend at a party, and how she wouldn't because it was her friend's husband.
"We are living in a double standards relationship," she wrote.
"I do everything to make you happy, you do everything to throw tantrums," she continued.
She revealed that Pistorius had scolded her for chewing gum and touching his neck.
"I am the girl who let go for you, even when I was scared out of my mind. I'm the girl who loves you."
But Pistorius sent back a lengthy apology. "I want to talk to you and sort this out. I don't want to have anything less than amazing for you and I," he wrote.
Another argument was also read to the court where Pistorius apologised for getting upset with Steenkamp for talking to another man.
He then also apologised for driving too fast after leaving the event, saying he was upset and hungry.
However, Moller also told the court that 90 percent of the conversations were "loving".
I found those text messages quite scary, they were only in the first few months of their relationship, actually at anytime in a relationship that would not be acceptable.
I agree they are very disturbing. They paint a picture of an ego out of control, jealousy and controlling tendencies.
Add this to being trigger happy - it's not looking good.
Abusive men follow a script of humiliation, jealousy and control. She'd probably finally had enough and wanted out. Poor Reeva.
Oscar apologists and minimisers are either naive & lucky they've never had to experience someone like this - or they still think domestic violence is the woman's fault too.
It really doesn't make a difference but who pursued who?
Sounds to me like OP had issues. An intense man, driven, in the public eye, worries about what people think of him whilst giving an air of arrogance and can't touch me.
Sounds also like Reeva had issues. Intense, driven, wanting to please him.
Context though. If put in context of all the other messages, what's going on at the time, would it seem ok?
My feeling is no. And I am no expert and I am in a balanced relationship, I have not been subjected to DV. I think those messages shout insecurity, a desire to please, too much intensity too soon.
He does not come across well at all in those texts. I see he did manage some actual wet tears today. I'm swinging towards him being guilty, as I did want to believe he was a nice guy... but I don't think that now.
They make me feel very uncomfortable. They sound like 100mph and scary rather than happy skipping down the road. Imbalanced, unhealthy.
Abusive men groom - that nice guy image is an act. I've spent a year with a man like Oscar.
This evidence is really ringing alarm bells for me - and I too have been in a relationship with an outwardly nice guy, who was (or at least tried to be) controlling, jealous and aggressive. (PS thanks book for your sweet comment upthread)
That whole "you touched another guys arm at a party and ignored me so now I'm having a tantrum" crap screams anger and jealousy and someone who feels like he has a form of ownership over his P.
I know we're only seeing one side of the messages. .. in a way.. but I've never been & wouldn't be with someone who spoke to me or acted like that.
Perhaps reeva was high maintenance or highly strung? Perhaps she was with him based on his fame? Regardless, it's a sorry mess & sounds like an unhealthy relationship.
He sounds like a toddler who has a tantrum if he can't have his own way. And toddlers shouldn't be given real guns to play with.
Stockhausen - that's a terrible thing to say.
You have shown zero understanding of the complex dynamic of being in am abusive relationship.
Your post reeks of victim blaming, misogyny and believing women are somehow to blame for being subjected to emotional and physical abuse and violence.
I am sure this is not the first. his autobiography talks of a firey relationship with his first girlfriend with lots of screaming matches. Samantha's mum commented , thank god she got away from that man. her ex was concerned only a week or so before and reeva reassured him. Folk at his gym complained about his foul temper.
Non of this proves murder though. he just wasn't always very nice.
He did murder her. He's being tried for pre meditated murder.
All the evidence you mentioned goes a long way to suggest premeditated.
*"Perhaps reeva was high maintenance or highly strung? Perhaps she was with him based on his fame?*"
let's say (for the sake of argument re the point above) she was - so if that is the case are you then thinking she deserves to be subject to jealous rages? Nasty abuse from her boyfriend? Does she deserve to be 'put in her place'? To be shouted at? to be shot?
Of course not.
And what Sauce says.
A high maintenance, highly strung girlfriend can be very annoying.
A reasonable man would break off the relationship. Not shoot her.
<takes deep breaths and steps away from the thread>
I'm not getting banned from mumsnet for fucking twat face Oscar Pestorious
Wow. The text messages are something else aren't they? "I'm scared of you sometimes" ..... at least we are hearing Reeva's testimony in a way.
You just know we'd be saying LTB if she'd posted a thread about it.
And the sad thing is, maybe she tried - maybe that's what prompted that final night?
Speculation, speculation, I know.
YY and that "I'm scared of you sometimes" message was after 2 months. TWO months!!!
<wants to swear LOTS>
are we only seeing one side of the messages though? they are obtained from Reeva's phone are they not? So whatever OP may ahve deleted on his own phone/s, his message will still be on Reeva's phone unless she deleted them.
I think we are seeing two sides of the messages - at least in the reporting I am reading.
I have a horrible feeling Roux is going to twist things and make Reeva look bad with drug use.
At least the judge is a DV expert.
I don't think Reeva was planning to end the relationship that night. Her gift was photo,s of them and sweets which according to her housmate she had been excitedly putting togetther.
Her jo'burg dad didn't,t like Oscar. Funny how instincts can so often be right.
Roux will have to tread very very carefully re making the victim look bad.
thing is, he wasn't an outwardly nice man was he? Look at his little performance at the Paralympics, that's not the mark of an outwardly nice person...
He is known in SA for having a vile temper and being a fairly dislikeable character.
but no idea why someone would stay in a relationship that was that shit that early on, I do get that people stay with someone who has started out charming and broken down their partner systematically over time but this was only three months in and already his true colours were showing. I find it very that someone wouldn't walk away that early. And no, not victim blaming, just musing as to why some women choose to stay in a relationship that even starts out on that footing. She seemed like a confident woman who knew her own mind, so why?
Apparently she'd come out of an abusive relationship. She was very vulnerable.
There were red flags in my relationship earlier than 2 months. I'm independent, confident, professional, educated. It's amazing what you can excuse, explain and lie eve. It's boiling a frog.
Believe - not lie eve
"We are living in a double standard relationship. Every five seconds I hear about how you dated another chick. You really have dated a lot of people yet you get upset if I mention one funny story with a long term boyfriend.''
he sounds like a deeply insecure person.
Those messages make my blood run cold. Leaving a party following a big row for 'flirting' rings so many bells for me.
I'm not sure how Roux can spin that to make it sound anything but nasty and controlling.
but no idea why someone would stay in a relationship that was that shit that early on
Didn't the witness say that 90% of the texts were fine, he was only drawing attention to the ones that he thought had bearing on the case?
The reasons people stay in EA/DV relationships are complicated but definitely in most cases, there are good parts and people stay in the hope that the good parts are the real partner and the bad parts are just a blip. Plus although the relationship was new, they shared some friends in common, they'd have known of each other before they got together so there could have been some kind of emotional commitment even before they dated.
The texts seem like textbook EA with the double standards comment and Reeva trying to make OP happy/pander to his moods.
I think the texts are damning for OP and I just feel so sad for Reeva and her family.
I'm not sure how roux is going to turn this one around either without trying to assassinate Reeva's character which is perhaps not beyond the realms of possibility.
He must have known that the texts would come up as evidence as it would have been known the phones were taken for analysis.
Interesting that someone said upthread that they hoped the phones would show something which exonerated op yet it seems exactly the opposite has happened...
I think it would be distasteful to go with the strategy of smearing Reeva's name when she is no longer here to defend herself.
If the defence do wish to turn the messages on their head, I do hope they try to do so with respect for Reeva and her parents / family.
If they are sensible they will not cast aspersions but they will try to add context to the messages and OP's state of mind / pressures, etc.
Which in no way excuse his actions.
I haven't had a chance to catch up with today's trial yet though I have seem some reporting of the text messages.
The text messages don't look good it's true but you could certainly find/texts emails sent to me over the years from exes that don't make me out to be a wonderful person and if viewed alone/out of context would look like I was an incredibly selfish/self-centred person with a lot of issues.
I'm not trying to excuse domestic violence. A friend of mine has recently been through something and if that guy had had access to guns who knows what would have happened. I also know from experience that a jealous/controlling partner does not always turn into a violent one. Though very difficult to live with, I have known men like this who were also loving and kind and if you don't realise you are being controlled its easy to end up staying with them.
Not saying this is relevant in this case as does sound like OP has anger problems. he admitted as such to Piers Morgan. One wonders why nobody in the family was urging him to get help.
I think OP was difficult, I think OP had issues. The texts do suggest that his relationship was volatile and I can no longer be as sure as I was that there wasn't really much of a motive.
Classic emotional abuser. Why do people stay when it's that shit early on? I did. Look at the texts- she believed she could explain/ reason with him- that she was dealing with a normal person she could have a dialogue with. So did I. It may be naive but there you go. You love the man, you think you can help him through his insecurities. You can't, and you have no control... But you don't fully realise that yet.
And if you don't know any different its easy to think that's how a relationship works. Until I got talking to other women (about their relationships), I didn't realise that most people don't need their partner's agreement to go out for the night. I thought it was normal for a man to say no.
Plus the intensity is consuming. You want dialogue with the person so you engage... You should RUN a million miles.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Sorry, just back on my phone & it sent my message again, I wasn't saying reeva was those things, I was looking at it from the defence perspective, as I imagine they will try to counter the "im scared of you" image in our minds.
Why would an intruder be In the bathroom? Nicking a loo roll?
trying to rubbish the victim wont help him at all. I hope very much they don't go down that route.
Roux might get OP to try to put the texts in a more favourable light. The prosecution will certainly question OP about them. It will be interesting how well he handles that. I suspect with lots of breaks for tears.
Oh yes, tears and perhaps the odd vomit for good measure.
Felt sorry for reevas mum in court listening to thise messages, must be hard to think of your child being so unhappy.
Oh yes, tears and perhaps the odd vomit for good measure.
Felt sorry for reevas mum in court listening to thise messages, must be hard to think of your child being so unhappy.
WannaBe I was the one hoping the texts would support OP's version because I think the two worst scenarios for Reeva's family would be for (1) OP to have murdered Reeva during an argument (2) everything to seem open to interpretation and then for OP's version to be believed but without conclusive proof.
My sympathy is firmly with Reeva's family. I don't think OP can be exonerated. Regardless of who was in the bathroom, he killed them.
I just can't imagine how horrific it was for Reeva, if she was trying to escape an argument, thought the bathroom would be a safe place, then after the first shot, realised she had no way of escaping.
I never got a chance to listen this morning <damn work> but have caught up a bit on twitter, you tube and the papers.
The texts they read out in court clearly show a very troubled relationship and I agree that so early on, it should have had alarm bells ringing. Poor Reeva - I too have been in a position with my ExH where it didn't matter what I did, he found fault and belittled. That was nearly 20 years ago since i left him, and I can still remember feeling so helpless and frustrated at the way he would interpret things.
Perhaps someone can tell me if Gerrie Nel is finished with Moller, or is he back on the stand tomorrow.
I wonder if these messages are setting the scene, but there are maybe some pertinent ones on the 13th Feb. I did say that I thought the prosecution must have had something up their sleeve, as the evidence so far had been circumstantial, and the disclosure of their messages is starting to build into something close to a motive.
The texts are aso heartfelt. So sad
I don't know how June Steenkamp holds it together, poor woman. Maybe she has been numbed by the awfulness of it.
I don't think they've finished with the phone evidence yet. Today was just from reeva's phone. They haven't looked at his yet.
Of all the channels i have it's Sky that has a terrible signal at 9.30 when I want to watch the trial update.
Can anyone tell me why the defence was focussing on dogs barking. I take it they will say the dogs were barking at the time of the shooting yet no one claims to have heard them apart defence witnesses.
Armchair - i think the defence were showing that she didnt give an accurate statement. Trying to muddy the waters presumably.
Very, very sad. A journo on Twitter described hearing them being read out as excruciating, I would have to agree. Poor, poor Reeva.
As for how the defence will counter it, I doubt very much they will try to make Reeva look bad, because by making her look bad, it makes it look more likely that he might have felt negatively towards her and that's the opposite of what they want.
I think a lot will depend on what the messages leading up to Feb 13th are like. However, while they point to a motive, text messages in themselves aren't enough for the prosecution to prove murder beyond all reasonable doubt.
I read that they may be calling the door detective back as a prosecution witness.
Have they been able to unlock Oscar's phone to read the messages?
The last set of messages read out we're dated for just past midnight on the 10th of Feb if I remember correctly so only a few days before Reeva died.
The messages are very damming to the carictor of OP and paint a very troubling picture of their relationship.
They don't prove the States case though and the press have shaken portions of what where long whats app messages a little out of context. When Reeva said she was frightened of OP I didn't get the impression she was physically frightened of him as such given the words she used around that statement.
The messages between Reeva and OP on the day and night of the shooting would be unlikely to show anything of note I would imagine as they had chosen to spend the night together and where then in the home do no need for meassages, they would have just talked. What will be important to the case is if either Reeva or OP had any exchanges with others through that day and evening. It is possible that the state will be able to give a reason why they may have argued that night.
I think personally that it may be enough for the state to go with the idea that the problems from just a few days earlier had come up again and they argued about that.
The defence however could (and most likely will) argue that all couples have bumps in the road, especially as the relationship becomes more serious and the arguments in the text messages where simply this and by the time of Reeva's death they had sorted it out, after all, they will argue that Reeva had got OP a valentines gift and card, she was spending the night with him.
Both arguments have merit although in my opinion on this one the State have a stronger argument as the do fences argument takes no account at all for the effects of an abuse relationship has on the behaviour of couples. Also OP from the start has sworn that his and Reeva's relationship was happy and loving and there where no problems at all in the relationship. This is contrary to the evidence of the whats app messages.
So far the mobile phone specialist has been very together and expansive with his investigation. He has been clear about what his sims are, he has showmen that when things didn't seem right with the information given to him from the investigating officers (the issue with mobile numbers and it seems a missing phone) he has investigated properly rather then just accept what he was given and look no further as some have done. He was also quick to point out that there where hundreds of messages that showed a happy and loving relationship. He seems very balanced and I hope the rest if his evidence is presented the same way.
Sorry for the long one
the prosecution could argue though that Reeva getting OP a valentines gift could equally have been because she was in such a controlling relationship i.e. that she wouldn't dare not iyswim.
Wasn't OP's story that they were planning to go out, but decided to stay in? In light of these messages, it makes me wonder if rather than deciding to have a cosy night in, they had argued and the plans were cancelled, due to him throwing his toys out the pram. I wonder if there are more messages to come.
OP said they were in bed asleep at 10pm but his internet on his phone was used an hour before her death.....Its not looking good fo him.
Moot point, I think he said they went to bed and Reeva did yoga. I get the impression he fell asleep, then woke up to the balcony doors being open.
Well, that's how I read his affidavit....
Will catch up on twitter later.
So expert agreed this mornin that internet connection doesn't necessarily mean he was on the internet. Could have been open browsers, updates or anythying. Break now for the interpreter to appear. Maybe it will be Botha ?
Oh. Not Botha then. Wonder if he will be final prosecution witness.
I just meant that the whole 'atmosphere' of their evening may have changed, and be different from the quiet, yoga filled, nap filled night he tried to portray.
I don't imagine they'll call botha - he was dropped from the case and pretty much discretited himself entirely in the beginning.
I agree, botha would be torn apart by roux
Well I would imagine BarryRoux will be consulting with him now that he is able to do so.
been reading the transcript on sky news. The tech evidence guy being interviewed by Roux, out of 1700 messages most loving and affectionate, there were four of rowing.
That doesn't sound quite how it was being reported yesterday
I think the internet connection thing is a red herring, smartphones do automated things like updating emails, both OP and Reeva's phones show net use before and after her death, like someone said earlier, not necessary a persons using them.
Roux is also asking for a message not to be read out which the reporter suggests mentions her drug taking. Like he's shielding her?
Video shown of message she sent to him blowing kisses. must be hard for her mother to see
Doesn't matter if it's a small percentage, it's the type of rowing that tells you a lot about a person, and that angry jealous intensity is horrible.
Op said they went to bed at 10pm I don't think it's been said they went to sleep at this time, not that I've seen.
Reeva had last used her phone at around 9pm.
Op phone was used around midnight this was internet usage but the phone analyst guy said it didn't have to mean a human was actually using the phone to do this, it can come from emails being received, updates on the phone etc etc.
Does anyone know when op got up to go to the balcony to get the fan/fans were op and reeva awake before this? Did they speak? I'm a bit confused by what actually went on between 10pm and when the incident happened. All I have heard is they went to bed at 10pm, reeva was doing yoga at sometime in the bedroom.
Interesting day today, I really feel for June steenkamp sitting through this, it must be heart wrenching
I agree the percentage of nice emails/texts to horrible ones is completely irrelevant.
The cycle and pattern of abuse is depicted well by these emails - there isn't constant abuse ( in the early stages) but charm, love, kindness, devotion, jealousy, anger, fury, guilt, apology, love and so on - each stage of anise and anger getting worse every time.
look at the abuse is a abuser's choice section
Free - he said they went to bed at 10 and went to sleep. he got up to move the fans just before the shooting so round about 3. he has said recently that he spoke to her just before he got up. this wasn't in the bail app.
quick question about the door. why are the state sticking to their version that he was on stumps when he broke the door down.
I've found the presentation of the state case to be very odd. I was expecting more of a "This is what we think happened and here are the witnesses to prove each section of the timeline".
Apart from the Whatsapp messages (which ultimately can't be used to prove anything that occurred on that night, either for the defence or the prosecution), they haven't put forward anything else that points to a motive.
There will be issues over if Reeva could have screamed after the first shot. The state say possibly (but they haven't really laboured this point), defence will say not and we've yet to hear from the defence experts or their eyewitnesses.
Now, I am no legal expert, but my understanding is that it is the burden of the state to prove murder, so is their plan to attack the defence version of events, as in "OP's version cannot be true, therefore our version must be correct"?
Anne - I was thinking the same thing. The phone records corroborate his timeline. The Whatsapp messages just show hes a controlling nasty twat.
The defence haven't really delivered any real crushing blows. Only one witness heard arguing, but they also heard more gunshots than possible, so that casts some doubt there.
Also shows how much crap was in the media about this. No secret text messages from ex bf, he didn't call his manager first.
For me it feels like the prosecution isn't being damning in their determination to show a motive. It's like they have leads and ideas but they don't follow them through.
Does this mean they've felt obliged to put OP on trial for premeditated murder, expecting he'll get something lesser? Where is the fire in the fight?
Or do they feel they are doing enough to undermine OP the Paralympic star with a penchant for pretty girls, fast cars and deadly weapons?
Or will the real attack happen when the defence call their witnesses?
Or is this how court normally plays out?
I've found the presentation of the state case to be very odd. I was expecting more of a "This is what we think happened and here are the witnesses to prove each section of the timeline"
I suppose they do that in opening and closing speeches, but I imagine opening speeches are less specific in case the witnesses don't say what you expect them to say.
I agree that I don't think the prosecution has proved anything apart from OP could be a jealous, controlling twat at times. That doesn't mean he murdered anyone and indeed only reinforces the point that if he thought there was a burglar in the house, he would shoot first and ask questions later.
In his affidavit he said -
I agreed and we were content to have a quiet dinner together at home. By about 22.00hr on the 13th February we were in our bedroom, she was doing her yoga exercises and I was in bed watching television.
Has this changed now? As I can't see where it says they were in bed asleep by 10pm that evening.
"if he thought there was a burglar in the house, he would shoot first and ask questions later." I think that this might actually be murder.
If you are reckless enough it's murder.
It must be a really tough job for the prosecution in all DV/Intimate death cases. No one really knows what goes on between 2 people and sadly the person who really knows (apart from the perpetrator) was killed by her boyfriend. She is likely not to have spoken to friends/family about any such issues or concerns she had about OP.
Evidence as to him being a nasty bastard/abusive (if he was) is not necessarily going to be available, especially after such a short relationship. It doesn't mean that he wasn't abusive towards her - it just means there isn't physical evidence of it.
We do know he was ultimately extremely violent towards Reeva.
Free - yes you're right, my mistake. In bed but not asleep.
Thanks redblanket I was just trying to work out if they had said they were asleep at 10pm, wasn't sure if it had been stated in court.
At this stage I can't see how they can prove premeditated murder. Some neighbours heard shouting doesn't,t prove murder and most discreditted. Seems he was emotionally abusive . Doesn't,t prove murder. She had a night time snack ?.
Was interested that a couple ofthe texts Roux pulled up to show how lovey covey they were also depicted him as controlling. Her asking permission to wear a certain dress. Her asking permission to meet with ex.
Will be interested to see OP testify but I am sure he will b very well schooled. May well vomit if pushed into a corner! Bring on an adjournment till he can be counselled what to say!
I used to be an OP supported!
I also am very sure he was told to ensure nothing was in his bail affidavit that couldn't be proven.
At the end can the judge say I can't find him guilty of premeditated murder but he is guilty of culpable homicide and was reckless.
The state don't seem to have tried much to prove recklessness
It doesn't bring back Reeva but depending on the final verdict, I think this trial will have been enough to ensure OP's carefully crafted reputation lies firmly in tatters.
There are problems wider than him though, that fast lifestyle, penchant for speeding, "can't touch me with your speeding fine", carry a gun everywhere, flout the law mentality. Of course it's fine to enjoy the riches that success brings, but like that.... Not good.
Actually no, it doesn't depend on the final verdict! His reputation is in tatters. Full stop.
I must have listened very differently as I think the state have shown him to be reckless, deceitful and a bully.
Its sad really that so many very talented young people who are thrust into the public eye and earn shed loads of money seem to go off the rails or suffer some sort of tragedy.
I suppose the prosecution have proved that he lied about the state of their relationship. Again doesn't disprove the burglar claim totally, but shows he wanted to cover things up rather than lay bare the truth.
angela. Yes I think that they use the closing arguments to pull all the threads together. I was expecting the prosecution to come up with something big at the end but they really failed to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt. I think the defence has done enough to shake most of the witness testimonies.
I had heard that if OP was to testify then he would go first but now Karyn Maughan, who is a respected journalist is saying that they may have the option of not calling him first.
will be interesting to see then"other side" and to see Gerrie Nel in action at cross examination.
Well Sauce I would agree that we all hear the same words but take different meanings from them. I don't think the prosecution have "proved" anything. They have raised questions as to his character but I don't think their case is strong in any of the areas
But this thread has been, by and large, good for posters to debate and discuss different interpretations of the same evidence.
I'm not objective entirely so I find it interesting to read other people's posts.
The sum total of the evidence is damning. And his story is bonkers, IMO.
Well I am being objective and will wIt to hear the defence evidence before making up my me
Oops, posted too soon
I didn't think any of the State's evidence was damning in relation to the charges. Quite the opposite in fact
I think this is where Gerrie Nel will come into play. He has a fearsome reputation and I think he will try to demolish the defence.
Be Cool - I do think that the issue of was it murder regardless of who OP thought was behind the door may well come into play - dolus eventualis as described here: constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/oscar-pistorius-criminal-law-101/
If he does get off it will be because the state and the investigation were weak - and not because he's telling the truth. The only people I've come across who entertain his story are on this thread.
If we believe the police evidence/expert witnesses and take the facts on which most of the neighbours' statements agree then OP has lied about when they ate; whether he was on his stumps or not when breaking down the door; whether the light was on in the bathroom; whether there were any screams between shots; how quickly the shots were fired, as well as lying about the restaurant shooting incident.
I think the defence have been good at deflecting attention and showboating but a lot of the issues they have focused on have been inconsequential eg questioning who paid the bill after the restaurant incident (implying bill payment is as memorable as someone shooting a gun )
When I say I'm not entirely objective it's because I've dated someone very like this - jealous, possessive etc.
even looks like him so lacking objectivity isn't necessarily a hindrance in being able to sniff out lies and spot red flags. But I would say that
Just to remind the key questions to answer
BookaBoo Well, I thought differently.
Police evidence/expert witnesses contradicted each other - so do you believe one, or the other, neither or both. One even answered "amazing" when presented with a colleague's statement, who he claimed wasn't there.
Jeez, even Col Vermeulen today said he didn't try hitting a bat high up, then when he was shown a photo of himself doing it, then said that okay then, he had just forgotten.
I thought that the difficulty with the neighbour's testimony was that they didn't actually agree. Mr and Mrs Stipp didn't agree about the light, for example, and you would have thought they would have seen the same thing.
I honestly don't think that any of the areas you have cited have proved that OP is lying about any of it.
He may well be lying, but none of what the state has put forward, in my opinion, proves anything.
Re the restaurant incident, one witness couldn't remember what was said, and the owner of the gun, when pushed, couldn't remember what was said or even when it was said. The phone message he sent to Reeva did not say anything about taking the blame either.
I think the fact that his ex-friend lied on the stand - about the photo taken of the speeding car - throws doubt on the rest of his testimony - for what it was worth. It will be interesting to see, at the end of the case, whether Fresco loses his immunity from prosecution.
I also think that the list of witnesses who weren't called is as interesting as those who were. I wonder why people like Gina Myers, who was Reeva's best friend, and Justin Divaris, who was a friend of both, weren't called.
It has been an odd, odd case and it is still just building. Gerrie Nel, as Gosh said, has a real reputation for cross examination and I am sure he will rip the defence to bits
Oh and I know a fair amount of people who are not even on Mn who "entertain his story"
The texts between them say it all for me. It sounds like she was at the end of her tether with his jealousy and possessiveness. Maybe he thought she was about to end it which would only have fed his paranoia even more. Maybe some of these insecurities stemmed from his disability or a fear of losing her to an 'able bodied' man. We do know how intensely competitive he was both against disabled and non disabled from his career choice. Maybe this extended into his personal life and maybe couldn't bear the thought of losing her to (in his mind) another man .
All 'maybe's ' of course but just my thoughts on it really.
frankly, I don't know what to believe. I've been with an abusive ex but I didn't really see enough in the texts to perceive that, to be honest... some talk from her about her feelings about a specific couple of days, when he said he was tired and ill... but I definitely know in my young days when I was a bit high maintenance (and probably some days still when I've had a drink) I could ramble in like that... it doesn't prove or disprove to me that he was abusive before this night or on it.
he clearly should go down for culpable homicide but premeditated murder? I can't see enough evidence for it shown. not so far, and with the prosecution winding up, where will it come from now?? too much unreliability of witnesses, investigators, throughout.
but like someone said, his reputation is gone.
AmI of course the case is still building. We are probably less than halfway through if we assume the defence will take as long as the state, and then there will be the closing arguments.
And I'm not saying that the defence witnesses won't change my opinion but at this point in time, I think as I said above that OP has lied about a number of points. I have no reason to doubt the main points of the expert witnesses' statements or the neighbours. I can't see what they have to gain from lying.
I think the text messages from Reeva regarding the incidents when they were out and the comments regarding the way she dressed were quite damning especially as this was a "young" relationship. I think the prosecution are trying to put forward a scenario that the arguement between them reignited that night and hence he shot her knowingly, and they have portrayed him as a jealous, angry, reckless man.
I was surprised the prosecution didn't call other people from the night Reeva referred to, particularly as her text refers to an incident at the dinner table.
My DH is coming down on the side of the prosecution that it was pre-meditated murder, I am still on the fence but I don't think his version of events adds up.
I think OP being cross examined by the Prosecutor could be very revealing.
I agree BookabooSue about not seeing what they would gain by lying, that's why I am so puzzled at the discrepancies, especially from the expert witnesses who must have known from the start that this would be a high profile case and they'd better get things right.
The security guard, Baba, for example, refused to budge on his testimony about who called who - the implication being that security had to phone first to find out what was happening, rather than OP phoning them.
Well, the state's own phone expert backed up the defense and proved, using their own data, that their other witness was lying.
So, it may not be lying, maybe just a refusal to countenance that they may be mistaken, perhaps.
There are lots of gaps in the state's evidence
There was lot of talk about previous incidents, where police had been called out. The police even said that the morning of the shooting - yet that wasn't mentioned. The only previous incident was when he was arrested - and released with no charge - for assault in 2009.
And a big ommission for me was Martyn Rooney, who stayed with Op for the last third of OP and Reeva's relationship. People's guard drops when at home, you would have thought he would have noticed something
None of it makes sense. Holes in OP's story. Holes in the state's witness testimonies.
In all of this, will June Steenkamp walk away with the knowledge that she has the truth?
I think putting this trial out for public viewing is a good thing. So high profile, you'd expect squeaky clean, yet so many basic* mistakes have been made.
* I am not an expert, it's just my observation
Adelenazeem - I can see it, Ive been there.
They go to her friends engagement party (Mr Fresco no less) and he kicks off becuSe she's 'flirting'. Yep been there.
He's accused her of chatting up her friends husband. She asks him 'can I wear this dress'. All the effort she puts into making him happy. She says he shouts at her, makes fun, belittles her.
It made my blood run cold reading that because I've been there.
Poor reeva wasn't the high maintenance one in that relationship.
red, I'm not saying Reeva was high maintenance, I said I was once, and i could send long messages like that being obsessed with details. When I was in an abusive relationship, a bit different as little messaging then, but wouldn't have been making a fuss like that. I was too withdrawn/intimidated to.
what I was saying was that their wasn't enough there ... not enough proof, for me. there was no evidence of him being abusive; no nasty messages from him.
The shall I wear this dress read to me like someone flirting, saying shall i wear this, knowing that she looked good in it, seeking a "yes cor"
its hard to know but, I'm not saying he is innocent if this, just saying i don't think the prosecution have evidence... they haven't brought any witnesses, noone to corroborate their suggestion. i dont know why.
what I was saying was that their wasn't enough there ... not enough proof, for me. there was no evidence of him being abusive; no nasty messages from him. I disagree, the messages are evidence enough for me.
I will agree that there isn't a watertight prosecution case though. The defence have managed to poke holes in quite a bit of it.
Is there any news on whether the American phone experts were able to unlock/retrieve messages/texts from OP's phone? We've heard the texts on Reeva's phone, so will be enlightening to hear the texts and messages sent by OP.
Just watching on sky. I'm beginning to feel sorry for Col Vermeulen (spelling). Thank goodness they've finished with him!
RedBlanket the messages have confirmed it for me too. Very much fits the MO of an emotional and physical abuser - controlling, jealous, critical, loving, obsessive, dismissive ...The most dangerous time for a woman is when she tries to leave men like this. It's piecing together a jigsaw. One piece doesn't reveal all but all the bits together show a lot.
it may not be lying, maybe just a refusal to countenance that they may be mistaken
^ yy I think it might be this on the part of the security guard because a year has passed and if the security guard mis-remembered initially then he has had a year to embed that memory. Or it could have been one of those occasions where they both called simultaneously or where the call registers on the bill but doesn't actually ring through.
Also I imagine everyone's emotions were running high that night - a murder wasn't a common event on that estate. Personally, I don't see the order of the calls between OP and the security guard as being that significant. I don't even see it as being that significant that OP initially said he was fine as I could imagine if you were in shock, and had already contacted someone then you could answer another call on autopilot almost.
Equally I think there are parts of OP's testimony's discrepancies that could be explained in the same way eg for OP the noise of the gun firing could have covered the screams if the shots were at the same time as the screams but the positioning of the shots does seem to imply a gap in firing and that's where I have difficulty believing he didn't hear those screams.
I'm also struggling with how he can have thought the lights were off but the nearest witnesses said they were on. I can't see how or why they would mis-remember that but can see how the lights being off helps OP's case that he didn't know it was Reeva.
Early bird - we've heard all the phone evidence and corroborates OPs timeline. No late night calls or texts.
He phoned the estate manager first.
They said his phone was taken to US for apple to unlock but didn't attach any significance to that.
Maybe some of these insecurities stemmed from his disability or a fear of losing her to an 'able bodied' man
Bloody hell. Of course. He's got a disability so he must be insecure, and jealous of all 'able bodied' men. I think your prejudices are leading you to spout complete crap there, Bahhh. Leave the offensive psychobabble out, please.
I haven't seen the message about the dress. Did Reeva say "Can I wear this dress?" or "Shall I wear this dress?"
alex crawford (sky news) had tweeted: #OscarPistorius Messages show Reeva asking OP if she should wear her leopardskin dress. He replies; Ja I love that and u look amazing in it'
someone asked her later about it, she'd replied 'more approval then permission' which was the impression i'd got when i heard it
Very good summary so far by Andrew Harding on the BBC News website:
I've said upthread that it will hinge on OP's testimony and the issue of intent and he seems to think so too. Likewise, that this is when Nell is going to come into play.
I'm surprised no media outlet as done an infographic as to what each witness said they heard and when as it would be a good way of seeing what matches and what doesn't with regards to their testimony.
Remember O J Simpson ........
Adele I didn't get the impression that the dress thing was asking for permission at all. I thought in the context it was presented, it was more of a "Do you think I look good in this"
With ExP, who was not in the least bit abusive towards me, I often used to ask him what he thought of clothes I would wear. I would often ask if I should wear a particular dress, or if something else would be more appropriate. I did it because I wanted his opinion and I knew if he said I looked good in such and such a dress, then that would be a better measure than my own self-critical twisting and turning in front of the mirror would show.
With my very abusive ExH, though, I didn't get to go out at all, so that issue didn't arise
I will go and check out your link GoshAnneGorilla.
^ off thread but thanks for mentioning infographic. Reminds me of an email I need to send!!
Read Andrew Harding's link, which was very informative. So he thinks it will all come down to the test of the reasonable man, if I am picking that up correctly.
Despite the absolute awfulness of the content, this has been really interesting.
BBC Scotland broadcast the Nat Fraser murder appeal last year, which was interesting, but I would have to say that Barry Roux was in no way worse than the prosecution and defence advocates in that appeal.
pinkhorace sorry, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make