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?

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.

Hackmum

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.

Yup, sky news

Yes i never thought of that, so the people who said they heard her screaming.....