Oscar Pistorius trial

[JillJ72]

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?

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.

AmIthatWintry

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

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.

Four shots?

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?"

Agree coffi.
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??