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?

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 think it's a fairly common human response to want to isolate yourself from a threat and a locked door can seem the best way to do that hence why houses have panic rooms, and why women under threat often run to the bathroom. It's the one room in the house that is usually guaranteed to have a lock.

My friend's dad was violent and she would lock herself in the bathroom to escape him. I think subconsciously it was also helping to keep the problem secret. If you run into the street or outside then you are taking a private problem into the public domain and at a deep level, we are conditioned not to do that.

Of course, locking yourself into an enclosed space only works if the threat on the other side sees that as a deterent and not an opportunity. In my friend's case, her dad got his toolbox and took the lock off the door so he could reach her

I agree Mary21 there's something fascinating about it all, I'd never heard of Reeva but she seemed so vibrant & beautiful and it was a tragedy her life was snuffed out. I guess had they not been such a 'golden couple' it wouldn't have made news at all. I think there's something of the fallen hero about OP & perhaps we don't want to believe he's guilty as we invested so much in him? A bit like Lance Armstrong for me.

The legal system fascinates me & it feels like a privilege to see behind the scenes, I'd watch regardless of who the defendant was tbh

There have been a couple of criticisms on this thread of people commenting on what has been reported in the news, as opposed to what was seen in the court coverage. Wouldn't it be better to actually point out what people have misunderstood about the case due to incorrect media reporting if people notice this? I know if I had misunderstood something about the case I'd be happy for someone to point this out so I understood it better.

Also, I watched the ballistics expert's testimony yesterday & it really brought home how terrified Reeva must have been & how awful her last moments were :( so again, I'd like the truth to come out for her memory & her family.

I think that when it's someone in the public eye we identify with them almost as if we know them, and so the thought they might do something so unspeakable is incomprehensible to us. A bit like people who mourn the death of celebrities iyswim.

Agree opal I've avoided the press on this

" I have not heard one single South African say that the culture of fear is such that shooting someone through a locked door could ever be justified or normalised."

Good to know that wannaBe.

I suspected as much despite some posters making out it's such an uncivilised place.

Mary 21, totally agree with you. The whole case has really struck me too...just very sad all round how life can turn around so very quickly. The other thing that has fascinated me has been OP's extreme closeness to his sister. In some of those court photos, she invariably looks as though she too is physically feeling his pain...in many others she looks at him with almost religious devotion or maternal devotion. If I didn't know they were related.....If nothing else OP is clearly a very loved sibling, and adored brother. The whole thing is ridiculously sad.

I also have my doubts (there isn't evidence I know) as to why Reeva and OP were arguing - if indeed they were. I doubt it was just a jealous rage - it was a relatively new relationship, OP was at the top of his fame - I'm sure many a potential girlfriend would have been waiting in the wings if he had split with Reeva, they weren't even living together, hadn't met each other families, don't think they'd been away on holiday together, and as far as I know, had met only a very few of each other's friends. Struggle to think how he could have got so mad over a text message that it could lead to those tragic events, unless he really is that trigger happy. Either he is telling the truth and thought it was a burglar....or I suspect, maybe Reeva found out something else about OP that led to the argument, and it was so significant that he felt he had to kill her rather than risk her telling anyone else. Far fetched perhaps, but this whole event is deeply baffling.

In early reporting of the incident (ie not during the current trial) they said Reeva had received a Valentine's text from her ex bf. I guess if that did happen and if it's relevant then it will come out in the trial.

I was reading an article about the case. It made an interesting point that much has been made of crime rates in SA and the threat of burglary and how the case has to be viewed through that prism. The article said that if such an approach is valid then the case also has to be viewed in the context of domestic violence rates in SA. Basically SA does have a problem with violent crime but it also has a problem with DV, and until a decision is reached on what happened then both those contexts are valid when trying to evaluate the case.

The trial has been extended to mid-May.

A few random thoughts/questions (apologies if they have been covered here previously):

• Is there a theory on how the supposed intruder entered the home? IIrc the bathroom window was small and up high so bathroom entry seems unlikely. Also, don't most people leave their bathroom doors open, unless occupied?

• Are they saying the intruder came in through the bathroom window and then closed the bathroom door? Seems unlikely.

If it was an intruder who entered other than through the bathroom window, how did they enter (have a vague recollection of a bedroom balcony?)? Makes no sense an intruder would enter the house and then go into the bathroom and shut the door.

• OP claims he was on his stumps (and felt vulnerable): does that mean he made his way to bathroom door on his stumps carrying a gun?

• At what point did he put on his protheses?

• Was he on his stumps when he carried Reeva downstairs? If so, wouldn't he been half carrying/half dragging her? Can he balance well enough on his stumps to carry the weight of an adult? Does he have to use his hands to balance himself when moving around on his stumps? If so, how could he have been carrying an adult woman?

• If OP was so terrified that he shot 4 times in quick succession in a blind panic, don't think he would have had the presence of mind to consciously choose to 'aim low' in order to only wound whoever was behind the door.

in some circumstances, shooting at knee height is done because it cuts down people who are standing, and also those who are crouched or kneeling.

I have no reason suppose that was Oscar's intention, though.

p.s.

but if the first shot was at waist height, that won't be it. A shot in the abdomen is not a trivial "flesh wound"

Am "unhiding" this thread, ready for tomorrow

Earlybird
the bathroom window is quite big. It's three times the size of mine, anyway. Plus a contractor had left ladders outside. They were seen by police on the ground outside.

We don't know what they are saying about the actions of a supposed intruder, because the defence has not presented their case yet.

No-one is saying an intruder entered the house anywhere else then hid in the bathroom. It would appear that the argument MAY be that they could have come in through the bathroom window, then hid in the toilet cubicle to avoid discovery

He is saying he put on his prosthetics when he realised Reeva was in the toilet, and then tried to kick door down.

He carried her downstairs, while wearing his prosthetic legs.

The rest we will know about when they cover it in court.

I'd like to know about the hole in the bedroom door.... And the broken window, I think in the living area? There are some oddities.

And I still don't quite understand why the security guard is so adamant he rang OP first, and not the other way round, when the defence say (have they been shown in court?) that OP rang first. Moot point really, but still...

it is very strange, as the phone company call log records showed that the security guards call was after he'd been called, but the guard wouldn't accept it. I would think that it was a shocking night for everyone involved and memories do get jumbled though.

Yes Jill that is interesting. Maybe one of the remaining prosecution witnesses will shed some light on that.

I think I saw on twitter, from one of the journalists (maybe Karyn Maughan, who is excellent and worth the follow, BTW) that the claim was that the hole was made by the airgun.

That's why I wondered about the testing for gunshot residue, it didn't make sense at the time, but perhaps they were trying to see if he had fired two types of guns

Disclaimer: my experience is courtesy of Mac Taylor and Gil Grissom, so I am presuming the tests show different types of guns shot?

According to the BBC, OP will give evidence: m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26705776

Anyone following this today? The text message evidence looks interesting. I wonder if the prosecution have been saving this for last...

I've been firmly sticking to innocent until proven guilty but the text messages don't make him look good at all.

Controlling, jealous, hot-headed, makes excuses for his shit behaviour.

Yes wow to be sending texts like that and leaving parties early due to arguing, this early in in the relationship, I can't imagine there was much further for the relationship to go.

Will catch up properly tonight though.

What is the text message evidence??

"Mr Pistorius has said he has forgotten the password to his phone and investigators went to the US shortly before the trial began to meet Apple officials to get information from his iPhone."

really?!

Certainly seems to indicate all was not lovely in paradise.
its odd went on digital spy forum and lots of comments about indicative of abusive relationship. seen pro Pistorius comments. normal behaviour. reeva certainly sounds as if she wasn't comfortable with his behaviour.
I think it must have been difficult for the women who love him, sister ,aunts, cousins etc to hear this evidence.
Seems Darren was telling the truth!

Yes, aren't the first three months usually the honeymoon period? I always found it hard to believe before that anyone would fly into a jealous, murderous rage so early in the relationship, when they weren't even living together. I'm not so sure now.