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?

From my understanding of today's testimony, there is dispute between the prosecution and defense as to how quickly she was shot, prosecution says there was a gap between 1st and 2nd shot, defense says not (a mention of double tap shots) and that their ballistic expert says otherwise.

According to OP's affidavit "On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police." - so it could be argued that anyone hearing that would pull their pants up very quickly, I'm pretty sure that's what the defense will say anyway.

So I'm not sure how telling the where her clothes were or what position was in would be, because in either scenario, Reeva would be extremely scared in the toilet. I do believe that at the bail hearing, the defense mentioned her bladder was empty - there will be dispute over whether this was due to her going to the toilet (defense version), or it happened after death (prosecution version).

It seems that, at the moment, evidence wise, prosecution and defense are fairly evenly matched. Prosecution do indeed have Occam's razor on their side, the defense will say that nothing the prosecution says disproves OP's version, and will add that the state seem to only have investigated what supports their version.

So, I still think OP's testimony will be key. He will have an extremely experienced prosecutor asking why he didn't do all the obvious things that would have avoided Reeva being shot. It will be interesting to see how his testimony withstands that.

Looking at photos taken during the trial I'm surprised that friends and relatives are allowed to be so close to the accused. There seem to have been several occasions when his sister has been in the dock comforting him.

Seems odd the procescution is nearly finished. What happens then ? Do the defence bring in their witnesses. I saw on Aisliin laings Twitter they may have OP on the stand next week.
The procecution don't really seem to have come up with much yet.
Some neighbours heard screams and gunshots. Some dispute here. Food in stomach points to last meal 2 hours before death. But had been in bed or 5 hours. Blood in bedroom unexplained. Visited porn site in afternoon, not unheard of for young man. Rather too gung ho with guns dispite knowing the rules.
It will be interesting to see what OP has to say but he will have been very well schooled by Roux
And I thought OP was supposed to be deeply religious!
L

Mary. I don't get what you mean about him being religious.

AmI - I think it's a reference to his browsing history.

Okay. Wasn't sure of the relevance of one to the other. Do evangelical Christians not view open then ? And according to his browser history he was on for approximately one minute. Rather a short visit.

No I was meaning his whole personna. Lack of respect for human life, shooting before the treat was real ?Enjoying guns. Moving very rapidly from one partner to the next. Getting friend to lie for him? The stuff with the girl who he slammed door on he leg that was settled out of court recently. It doesn't fit with his fairly public religious front. Its just a comment.

Interesting Mary, how we interpret things in different ways.

Neither one more valid than the other, but so different

I haven't heard any evidence yet about the perceived threat and disregard for human life. I know the Firearms Trainer covered what should be done, but I've not heard any of the evidence about why he shot at the intruder.

There was a psychologist on the state witness list, so maybe they will be called next week. Until I've heard evidence, though, I'm not calling that one either way.

The shots were low down, which someone on twitter suggested not shots to kill, but then that was someone on twitter, so they probably know as much as me .

Moving from one partner to the next, to me, is preferable to stringing several along at one time. Time will tell if he has been doing that.

The defence did have emails to counteract the ex GF's claim that he had cheated on her.

Getting the friend to lie - well I thought that particular witness had been widely discredited. He couldn't remember what was said, couldn't remember when it was said, and admitted that he was the one who told them all to act normally once it had happened. I'm not sure about that one.

Interestingly, Barry Roux alluded to a statement from Martyn Rooney, who was also at the table, I wonder if his statement suppports OP's version of events.

And the thing with the girl and the door. Well he was arrested and then released the next day without charge. The case that was recently settled was, I believe, opened by him, to sue her for false allegations, loss of earnings, etc. It wasn't her suing him, she was fighting his case against her

I agree with GoshAnneGorilla's view that at the moment, prosecution and defence are pretty evenly matched.

Gerrie Nel is reputedly brilliant. I wonder if he has kept the best witnesses to last. The ones that will prove the state's case beyond reasonable doubt.

Plus he gets to rip all the defence witnesses to shreds too.

Will be very interesting.

"Getting the friend to lie - well I thought that particular witness had been widely discredited."

The defence look to be attempting to discredit everything and everybody! I don't particularly get a sense of truth seeking on their part. And Pistoriius doesn't exactly come across as a man of integrity.

The thing is lots of young men like women, fast cars, occasional porn and yet most of those don't end up killing anyone. In this country many, many men will be driving their cars too fast, getting drunk or high at parties, being reckless in different ways. The difference is they wouldn't have access to guns or be living in a gun culture but if they were they were they might well dabble in these too.

It sounds as if OP was living a bit of a rockstar lifestyle and I think we tolerate that from our rockstars but not our athletes (except maybe footballers) who are usually more squeaky clean ( hard working, early to bed, good diet, non-drinkers) and have to avoid a lot of reckless situations because they can't afford to be out with injury. They go off and have a round of gold instead of going skiing etc.

You could say that at 27 OP was still acting like a teenager but I think if you become very famous whilst still a teenager and become rich beyond your dreams with little parental guidance (mother dead, estranged father) it would be likely that you wouldn't find growing up in that situation easy.

I believe his brother was involved in a car crash in which someone died- makes me wonder if there's a lot of anger, frustration etc that's coming out in risk taking behaviour.

Not trying to excuse anything that's happened- just trying to understand how it could have gone so wrong.

It's the shooting to kill that particularly doesn't look good on his character. Nothing ethical there.

Armchair. His brother was found not guilty and the crash was caused by a speeding, probably drunk biker. Nothing to do with rage and I think it is a bit off to use that as an example of rage, recklessness in the family. Totally irrelevant.

Armchair. But I agree with the rest of your post.

AmIthatWintry

Sorry you took offence at that. I wasn't meaning to infer that Carl was necessarily reckless more that young men often get involved in accidents etc as a result of tasking risks.

I shouldn't have implied Carl was an angry mnan so I withdraw that. OP has certainly been described as having a short fuse (still doesn't prove anything) I have a short fuse.

I was always a huge OP fan so I certainly dont have any axe to grind with the family. Just saying life must have been pretty tough for three young people entering teenage years without their parents- pure conjecture though

Armchair. Sorry, I didn't take offence, and I apologise if my post came across as harsh, as that was not my intention.

I think what is good about this thread is that (with the exception of one or two posters) people posting are basing their comments on what we are hearing in court, and it is nice to be able to disagree and debate different viewpoints, without getting into name calling and sarkiness.

I am watching the Sky special just now, and I was in tears hearing about Reeva's last moments. Her poor mother having to listen to that.

I wonder if we'll see Hilton Botha next week

Yes just saw the Sky Programme. I just cannot believe that even if you had had the most terrible argument and you were shooting the door in rage/to scare your girlfriend etc you wouldn't stop the moment you realised you'd hit them/ the moment they screamed. Unless it just happened too fast.

Do you have to cock the gun each time you fire or is it possible to fire 4 shots relatively quickly. I think the ballistics guy suggested there was a gap between the shots which would suggest OP knew what he was doing.

There was no attempt to clean up the scene/flush the toilet and OP seemed to call for help/phone people immediately which suggests as soon as it was over he was totally overwhelmed with guilt etc.

It's all so confusing

I hold no brief for Pistorius, but if you get a gun for home defence, and if you think you or your family is in danger from an attacker, then the point of a gun is to shoot and kill the attacker. It is no use as an ornament or a warning. Otherwise, you are better off not to have one, as an intruder may snatch it and use it against you. I think SA gunowners will look at it like that.

Personally I don't see a screaming woman locked in a bathroom as a very deadly threat. I don't know if Pistorius subscribed to an "immediate armed response" guard service, but it would not be unusual.

Shooting at anything you can't see is foolish but perhaps he panicked.

armchair

assuming that he was using an automatic pistol, he could fire the shots as fast as he could squeeze the trigger. Apart from possibly the first shot, there is little strength or effort required.

Ok thanks PigletJohn so if he was panicked, ie heard a noise coming from the bathroom when it was pitch black, he might have grabbed and fired without thinking . He was in the habit of reaching for his gun when startled by noises.

using a gun in pitch black? very silly idea.

If he was using a gun, it should be because he thought he was in danger from an armed intruder. Shooting in the dark would make the intruder more likely to shoot him. Same as shooting through a door. Wounding an armed intruder means you have a panicked armed intruder in a bad mood, who knows where you are and that you are a threat to him.

Apparently (according to Op's story) he was in the dark.

I take it you aren't believing his story?

What I don't get it this

If his story is bullshit and he had time before people arrived to make a story up, why would he not pick something better.

If the phones were considered a major piece of evidence, why would he not put them somewhere else rather than the bathroom. People make a lot of Reeva taking her phone to the bathroom, but perhaps he grabbed the phones to try to call for help. If he was concocting a story, why not put the phones elsewhere, I don't get that.

I think the phone expert will be on next week, so will be interesting to see what they say about usage.

Why, if they were having a row that escalated to something so horrific, would Reeva not run out the bedroom door, why to the bathroom.
I have so many questions running through my mind, but hopefull the evidence from court will answer these.

maybe he's just a very silly person, or panicked and did silly things.

I have never found it necessary to kill a burglar or a woman so I can't really say what it's like. I hope I never will. In the UK I would probably barricade myself in the bedroom and phone for help. In SA I would probably have a panic alarm as well. I expect a prosperous gated community has guards on duty or on call, even if the police are underfunded and overstretched.

I know a lot of people are saying Occam's Razor but I also think if a story is far fetched perhaps it could just be true.

Op knows what happened. If he is lying about everything. Are his family in on it or is he lying to them too. I can't believe he'd be able to keep what happened a secret from his family for ever.

Marking my place, will be back to read later.