Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 6(998 Posts)
here is Part 5 but we are ready (nearly) for a new one.
Thanks Rousette. Marking place for later.
Thank you Rousette, will be back on Monday, well probably Tuesday as I cant see the family letting me watch on Monday they`ll want to go out and do `bank holiday` things
groan but will look forward to reading on here.
I don't understand how he can not be found guilty.
He went and armed himself and when past a escape route to somewhere safe. He went on the attack and fired into an enclosed space.
He was trained on the law as part of gaining his license to own firearms.
And how come he went into full combat mode and 'cleared" room by room when it was just his washing machine?
Why didn't he do that on the night he shot reeva?
I'm going to have to remember to record the trial on Monday morning as I have to be out first thing.
If he wasn't THINKING his whole story falls apart and he has no defense.
ie he would not have THOUGHT there was any danger from an intruder.
I think I did a timeline of calls earlier, if not I know I have seen one on DS. I will try and find it soon, but I have to take my dogs out first.
Can someone please point me to a reliable link where OP said he shot at 3am?
YNK. You may not agree , I just don't think you can say whether the state or defence would also not agree. Clearly not the state as they asked the question.
I think it's very hard to expect someone to manage to know exactly what time things happened down to the precise minute.
^If he wasn't THINKING his whole story falls apart and he has no defense.
ie he would not have THOUGHT there was any danger from an intruder.^
I think you're extrapolating a little too far there. It is true that Nel tried to push OP on the matter of - for example - was he 'thinking' when he decided not to fire a warning shot, and if so how come he was thinking then but not aware of his actions when he eventually fired four times.
I would suggest however that 'thinking there is an intruder' does not suggest a conscious thought process, it is about hearing something and becoming afraid.
I am fascinated by the shots / timing assertions being made. I certainly don't want to get drawn back into argument but am interested to know what information has been extracted so far regarding the likelihood of it being bat sounds and then gunshot, if as you say YNK the pathologist/blood spatter expert were clear that she could not have died at 03:28 if the shots were fired at 03:00. Didn't Michelle Berger say that the first set of bangs she heard were gunshots and went "bang.... bang-bang-bang" or similar?
Springy I don't think there is a link because I don't think he said that. 3am must come from working backwards from a known time of death. But then this must fall into the which came first debate, gun or bat (although I was sure the forensics person beginng with a V said definitely gun). Might be remembering this wrongly though. But anyway, then we're back into the reliability of ear witnesses debate.
And thinking isnt all or nothing, i.e. you are not either thinking of everything or thinking of nothing. He had to be thinking in order to get his gun at that precise moment: e.g. thought = scared of intruder, get gun. But it is possible to be thinking of one thing but not of another. For example, when I clipped the side of a bridge whilst changing song on the radio in my car, I was thinking of the song, but not of the driving.
Who has the most reason to lie?
I'm pretty sure I didn't suggest any of them were lying. I'm saying that having that level of accuracy in recall is unusual. If I were pushed, I'd say it was possible that any one of the ear witnesses might have been mistaken. Mistaken; not lying. Look at Mr Botha, who got the order of phone calls wrong. I don't think he was lying either; I think he was mistaken.
I'm not intending to argue with you. I'm just saying, in my opinion, it's a bit of a leap from the evidence given to 'OP from his own admission knew SOMEONE was in the toilet FOR AT LEAST 15 Minutes.' Well, he did, but he says that he knew for fifteen minutes after he shot - not the 15 minutes before.
So actually, let's not bother arguing - I just disagree with your interpretation, that's all, largely because I think that the ear-witness testimony is tricky to deal with, and OP's testimony is trickier still. Does he at any point say there was a clock in the room that he looked at?
Please note; I am NOT saying that they are all liars, and I am NOT saying OP is innocent.
I am fascinated by the shots / timing assertions being made.
Me too. I'm particularly fascinated about when the calls to security came - whether they were between the two sets of bangs, or afterwards.
Didn't see your post voice, but agree could be a subconscious thought process (scared of intruder). Almost impossible I think for someone to go back over what they thought consciously or subconsciously at the time.
I was thinking about people's differing views on this case and wonder how much of it comes down to how feasible people find the 'story' compared to their own experience. For example, I always take my phone to the toilet in the night and I never turn the light on (ok this assumes she did and it wasn't planted, but I know others find it odd that someone would use it as a light). Also, I can move about our house silently and have often made my DH jump as he didn't know I was there.
At the same time there are other parts I find hard to believe. I don't think we can help imagining what we would do in this scenario, and I'm not sure I would scream before locating the intruder. That's probably for me now the only bit that has me wondering.
Actually two bits - the screaming and the not asking 'did you hear that'
Thanks. I've got a busy week so may not be able to watch much. Relying on you lot!
And thinking isnt all or nothing, i.e. you are not either thinking of everything or thinking of nothing.
Absolutely. And some 'thinking' is instinctive. I'm pretty sure that when you clipped the bridge, you weren't completely indifferent to the driving. Some part of you was working the pedals, but you weren't thinking 'in order to not clip the bridge, I must travel at X trajectory, and put this much pressure on the steering wheel.'
Another example; when I got all excited about the key being in the lock or on the floor and perhaps the door was unlocked all the time, someone pointed out that if the door was unlocked, he wouldn't have needed to break it down with the bat at all. I was thinking of the lock and the door and even of the key; but I didn't think that precise (really quite obvious) thing.
Thanks Bonnie. Kind of what I thought.
One thing that struck me when watching/listening to testimony again.
It must be very difficult to answer Gerrie Nel's questions. He made a fair few mistakes and when OP picked him up on them, he commented on how his attention to detail was amazingly convenient. Now, I wonder if OP hadn't picked up on the mistakes, whether Nel would have pounced on him for not being truthful
And slightly off topic, but it is easy to forget what you have said previously.
Although none of us are on the witness stand, there has been one poster who made a comment about Reeva's blood. When I asked, in general if this had been proven, this poster posted to say that blood hadn't been analysed.
So, should I call her forgetful? Should I call her a liar? Or is it easy to make a slip of the tongue and say something that didn't quite convey what you meant to say?
Nel was told off for calling OP a liar, IIRC...
I think he was deliberately provocative in the hope of unsettling him enough for him to let something slip.
Indeed he did Voice Heaven forbid I would do the same. MNrs should realise that it takes seconds to search their comments, why would they lie or maybe just get it a wee bit wrong
I don't think Gerrie Nel succeeded to be honest. There were a few anomalies but nothing earth shattering , I thought anyway.
The bail statement was ever always brief and did not include fleshed out details.
Nel's job was to unsettle and in this respect, OP held up well, I thought.
Another reason for me to swivel round on that fence I habitually occupy
I know I over simplify as I'm not so knowledgeable as many of you on this thread but it's the believability (or should I say non believability) of it all that gets me.
And the fact that if we had an intruder, I would say to my DH 'did you hear that' and he would answer. I would do nothing without his answer. Or I would give my life to protect my DC. His love for shooting over rode his duty of care if it was a burglar. The other scenario is just too awful and part of me wants him to just have ignored RS thinking she was in bed, and thought 'right, I'm a crack shot, I'll get this bastard who is breaking in'.
An interesting article about OP's inconsistencies.
Out of interest, does anyone know what happens if one of the lawyers starts to doubt their clients' version part way through? E.g. if Nel started to think OP might actually be telling the truth or, for the sake of argument, if Roux started to doubt OPs version? Or does it not matter what they think?
I'd have thought that for ethical reasons they wouldn't be able to continue but a change of personal view must happen during some trials.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.