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?

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
Murder.

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.

All conjecture.

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

Poor Reeva.

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:

gawker.com/once-again-a-black-person-is-shot-and-killed-while-loo-1459780870

gawker.com/man-shoots-new-neighbors-he-thought-were-stealing-from-1509601587

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?

Sorry near.

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.