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?

"I also think if a story is far fetched perhaps it could just be true"

I don't buy that

"aliens did it!"
hmm, far fetched, if he was making it up surely he'd have thought of something better....

The full affidavit was in place so quickly, before much of the forensic evidence or witness statements were together. IMO, it would take some mind to put together that rapidly, a scenario that couldn't be undone by the prosecution evidence.

This is one of the things that makes me think it might be true, that and I can't yet see a motive. Yet.

I agree with Animation's post about him living a rock star lifestyle and I wonder if that recklessness carried into this.

If his story is true, I think he thought, he'd shoot the intruder, save his girlfriend and the burgulars of South Africa would know not to mess with Oscar Pistorius.

Because I think he was terrified not only of being burgled/attacked, but of not being able to protect himself or his girlfriend because of his disability. In a macho culture like South Africa, I imagine that would be very hard to take.

At this point, if the state are not able to prove murder, I think he will be convicted of culpable homicide and he will go to prison, 1)due to the recklessness of his actions and 2)to act as a deterrent to others.

I don't think he will get a huge sentence, long enough to scupper his Olympic dreams probably, so the press will go to town at "the Fall of Pistorius". But ultimately he'll be released, he'll have his life, even if it's not the life he would have had. The same can't be said for Reeva, sadly.

The defence look to be attempting to discredit everything and everybody! yes that is their job. All they have to do is discredit evidence to show reasonable doubt.

Piglet don't forget there was NO intruder. No threat, no one to defend himself from. Of course Reeva clearly needed defending from OP, as he posed either a deliberate threat to her, or a threat by his utter stupidity and recklessness.

I'm so glad we have this thread. Every time I've read comments elsewhere on the WWW, the views expressed are so often based on hysterics.

note my use of the word if

Gorilla I agree with the picture you paint above as being the most likely course of events now.

At this point, if the state are not able to prove murder, I think he will be convicted of culpable homicide and he will go to prison, 1)due to the recklessness of his actions and 2)to act as a deterrent to others.
I don't think he will get a huge sentence, long enough to scupper his Olympic dreams probably, so the press will go to town at "the Fall of Pistorius". But ultimately he'll be released, he'll have his life, even if it's not the life he would have had. The same can't be said for Reeva, sadly.

Yes I agree. I don't think he will convicted of premeditated murder. He will be convicted of culpable homicide. He'll be out in 5 years. I hope somehow he will be able to make amends to society at large in some way. Although obviously he will never be able to make amends to the Steenkamps.

I believe they want the truth/are owed the truth- so I do hope he's not lying to them.

Agree this thread has been very measured. Some of the stuff on digital spy is very polarised/strange.
lots of obsessing about stolen watches/OP phone hidden in the watches and then removed and tampered with. The level of detail on there is very obsessive!

Any thoughts on if OP will take the stand?

I'm going to stick my neck out and speculate that he wont. The defence has done a good job at chipping away at every piece of evidence - enough to show reasonable doubt to the picture the prosecution have painted.

From the very beginning my view has been OP caused Reeva's death by his utter stupidity - either by losing his temper and shooting her in a fit of petulant rage or by being too hotheaded, a wanna be hero and thick as 2 short planks.

And I think Roux will think he is too stupid & too much of a liability to his own case to testify properly and robustly withstand cross examination unless it is utterly necessary.

I would like to see him testify of course. And if he genuinely wants to help Reeva's family then he will.

But I reckon he won't.

I think he will take to the stand. I think if he doesn't that will imply guilt/arrogance etc

I think he needs to take the stand and look June Steenkamp in the eye

That's the sad part, he was just about to start his own foundation as he was working with various universities to look into ways of fitting prosthetics quickly, so that people who can't afford/can't access limb fitting centres could be seen by a mobile unit instead.

In a world with no shortage of people losing their limbs, a charity like that, headed by someone with the appeal he used to have could have been huge.

I do think that SA having no sub judice has a lot to answer for.

If this case had been under sub judice, we'd only just be hearing all the details, people would be able to base their opinions on actual facts. Instead the media has had a year to froth and muck-spread about someone battering their girlfriend with a cricket bat while in a roid-rage.

IMO, if it was a mistake and legally proven as such, he should be able to serve his punishment and then be able to work on what he's previously achieved to help others.

But it seems the media clamouring for him to be destroyed is stronger. Right at the start of this, someone wrote that Pistorius lived the sort of life people with disabilities weren't meant to have, money, glamour, beautiful women and I wonder if this desire to see him "put in his place" is behind it. It's certainly not about outrage over violence against women we know the media cares little about that.

I see from his website that he has put the house up for sale to fund his trial as it is to go on longer than the 3 weeks set down in the court calendar

I think it's already been confirmed that he will take the stand, especially as he has to testify to his state of mind at the time to support his actions.

Also, although by his own admission, he's done a horrendously stupid thing, I don't think he is stupid per se. He had a good education and seems reasonably articulate interviews.

gorilla what is "sub judice"?

re the media, the one thing the media loves as much as a fallen hero, is the rebirth of a fallen hero. If it is ruled as culpable homicide, not murder, I think he can potentially be just fine and carry on with running and all his charities etc.

The media was pretty interested in him before this and he sought media attention in lots of ways. He would have been in the media spotlight forever without having killed Reeva - though it will certainly be more intense now.

I think it's already been confirmed that he will take the stand
OK thanks - well that is one live broadcast I will watch

Be cool - sub judice is that nothing prejudicial to a fair trial can be published.

So under UK rules, all we would have known about, pre-trial, is that Reeva Steenkamp had been shot dead and that OP had been charged with the murder of Reeva Steenkamp. That's it.

If the media broke this, they could be charged with contempt of court and fined or even jailed. The case itself could also be thrown out of court.

ah thanks for explaining.

It was very strange (to us in the UK at least) the amount of info and testimony involved in OP's bail hearing. Are bail hearings reportable in UK i.e. would that have been reportable in UK or not?

I know this sounds awful, but I've missed listening to the trial today.

I too think he will give evidence, although I would imagine several adjournments. If he can't handle pictures and hearing about injuries without being sick, god knows how he'll react once Gerrie Nel starts on him.

I'm interested in who they will call as defence witnesses, not just experts, but character witnesses. Naturally they will give a much different picture to that painted by the prosecution, but it might make some people take a step and reassess their confident assertions as to what happened that night

Be Cool - In UK, you only hear if someone's been granted bail or is being held on remand. As we have jury trials it's vitally important that nothing that sways the jury is put into the public domain.

I wonder if Martyn Rooney will be called as a defense witness as he was staying with them only days before?

I think he will have to give evidence since it was implied he would so if that changed then it would create an impression that he was a liability and had something to hide. I'm not sure that his evidence will shed much light as he submitted his version of events pretty early and I doubt he will waver from it.

I'm interested to know if Reeva's mobile phone record shows anything of interest. If they had their phones with them in the bedroom as they seem to have done then arguably her phone records could be very significant.

Did the blood splatter analyst identify the blood on the wall behind the bed and on the duvet? I know he said the arterial spurt would explain a lot of the stains but did he specifically refer to those two? I still can't see how they could have happened whilst OP was moving Reeva downstairs. Although I did wonder (as a previous poster said) if they were old, unconnected stains.

For Reeva's family's sake, I hope there is something conclusive to prove OP's version of events because the alternative is too awful to contemplate.

In all the awful times with my EA/VA XP you would get no evidence whatsoever of anything being wrong from my phone :(

My feeling is he hasn't run away, hasn't turned away, has sat in court and shown distress at his actions. Not hard hearted, not disinterested, not arrogantly expecting to be acquitted. If he was acquitted I seriously think he - as much as everyone else - would be . I think he will be given a sentence of some sort, although whether that will involve prison or some kind of "house arrest" along the lines of current bail conditions remains to be seen.

From court photos I do get the impression that June Steenkamp acknowledges that her family, and the Pistorius family, are being put under immense pressure, and maybe there is a way to reconcile, to forgive. That is having a very big heart, hugely commendable, very brave.

As for the media and the general public. Well, the judge's decision is final. Not ours. Not the Steenkamps'. Not the Pistorius'. The judge's decision should be respected. There will always be people baying for blood.

I do hope that from this he is able to a) proceed with his Foundation and frankly excellent idea of "abling disability" and that he b) becomes a spokesperson for all that is wrong about guns. Separately to that I do hope SA get a more transparent, un corrupted, reliable and robust police force.

I don't think his work is done. I think this is an opportunity to turn a nightmare into something that commemorates Reeva and what she wanted to stand for.

BeCool I'm glad he's your XP.

Not really rose tint Jill, just honest and factual

You are right that he hasn't run. When he was granted bail, plenty said he would disappear to a country with no extradition

Well, he hasn't done that. He has stayed and he has turned up at court every day. No pleading illness or anything like that, he is facing his trial.

Twitter is especially vicious, some comments are truly ignorant.

We have the ones who still say he was drunk, or on steroids, bashed her head with a cricket bat, etc. it seems that it matters little that none of this is true.

Then we have the ones going on about him being a man and answering for his crime - well I kind of thought that was what this trial is about

The very, very, very worst though, are the ones who make jokes about him being raped in prison and hoping he contracts AIDS. It makes me wonder what sort of moral high ground some of these people are taking.

BookABoo. I think I read that the phone man is likely to be in court on Monday