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?
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?
This thread is not accepting new messages.
Please login first.