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?

According to OP's version of events, didn't identify anyone, mistakenly or otherwise.

How many of the neighbours have said they heard loud arguing for ages? Very unlikely they would have made that up. I suppose he could be denying it because it doesn't look good and still have thought there was an intruder.

when it happened I remember one piece of news stating that after the shooting he called his PR person or lawyer or such before contacting emergency services.

IMO that is not normal behaviour of someone who made a genuine mistake - if true.

I think he lost his temper and the burglar thing is an excuse.
OJ Simpson was found "not guilty" but now we all know that he did it.

If you are rich and have a good lawyer you might just get away with murder, literally.

I don't believe he is innocent.

I don't know how relevant it is that people heard arguing. One of the witnesses lived over 150m away, which suggests that you can hear people in their houses over quite a distance. It could have been anyone arguing.

Also, if they did argue, does that mean he killed her? I argue with my husband but I've never tried to shoot him.

When did we find out that OJ Simpson did it?

Seff: "Also, if they did argue, does that mean he killed her? I argue with my husband but I've never tried to shoot him."

Well, yes, he did kill her. The one fact we know about this case is that OP did kill Reeva Steenkamp.

Ok ok, it's a bit early - you know what I mean.

Seff

I thought it was common knowledge that he was found liable for their wrongful deaths (in 1997).

I did see a programme a few years ago about this where a woman (who was a witness in the trial) admitted that she knew more than she had said as she had been seriously threatened. she said that OJ did it but she couldn't say it at the time. (there's that pesky double jeopardy law in the USA)

And he is in prison anyway for other crimes (robbery, kidnapping). he is one bad man

Does the fact that they argued mean he planned to murder her that evening?

maybe.

if they had been arguing a lot maybe he just had enough.

my parents always argued. a lot. and my dad got quite violent at times.
he got particularly mad when my mum shouted that she'd had enough and she'll divorce him.
that was like a red rag to a bull - his ego just couldn't bear that thought

if Reeva threatened to leave/break up I totally see how OP could've reacted aggressively thinking "I'll stop you before you stop me"

Pre-meditated murder doesn't he made big plans or plotted to kill her. It just means he had intent to kill her at some point - that point could have been losing his temper in the moment before firing the gun.

The prosecution are painting a picture of a trigger happy hot head who was also very concerned about how he is perceived by and represented in the press.

Perhaps the relationship with Reeve had appeal as he got lots of positive press attention as part of a very glamorous couple. They had only been dating for 3 months - who knows how that was working out?

I grew up in SA and even twenty years ago everyone there owned a gun.

I still have lots of friends over there, including one whose dh was shot and killed on his farm and another whose parents were shot during an armed robbery.

But not one person I know over there has expressed the opinion that it would be normal to shoot at someone through a closed door. And everyone I know there without exception has opinionated that that wouldn't be self defense as there was no immediate risk.

His ex testified at the trial that in the past he had woken her when he had believed there to be an intruder. So why not that night? Why go back to the bed, where your girlfriend is apparently sleeping, get your gun and fire it at the closed (so no immediate risk) door, but not wake her first? knowing that the first thing she would wake to would be gunshots?

And if he was that paranoid, there would surely be other evidence in the house of his having blindly fired shots into the dark where he believed intruders to have been?

that story has no credence at all IMO.

Does the fact that they argued mean he planned to murder her that evening?

Who knows - but it would mean OP lied about the events of that night. Which begs the question why would he lie about that?

Is it a fact that they argued? I'm not convinced that has been clearly proven yet.

If they argued so loudly the people down the street could hear them that is some big angry argument. Tempers would be high.

A little reading on the Relationships board on MN shows many many examples where partners turn very aggressive very quickly for very minor "reasons" or seemingly meaningless triggers. It is not uncommon at all.

Seff I was trying to say the same thing as you when I wrote "I suppose he could be denying it because it doesn't look good and still have thought there was an intruder."

when it happened I remember one piece of news stating that after the shooting he called his PR person or lawyer or such before contacting emergency services.

wannaBe I agree.
Also if he was THAT paranoid why no bars on the bathroom window?

I believe the estate he lives on is very secure with a good track record for safety of residents etc too.

It seems it is possible in South African to shoot someone dead who you think is a car thief but who is posing no threat to you at all and to be completely exonerated.
www.news.com.au/world/is-there-a-precedent-for-pistorius-in-the-rudi-visagie-case/story-fndir2ev-1226582358690

I'm not sure if it makes a difference that this was his daughter rather than girl friend though. They went down the "he has suffered enough" route.

At least three women a day are killed by their partner in South Africa. SA is reported to have the highest incidence of violence against women in the world.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/08/south-africa-violence-against-women_n_2837804.html

Does his disability factor into this at all? Could he have felt more vulnerable? If we go with the intruder theory, would he have felt more at risk?

If an intruder had shut themselves in the bathroom, you can't be sure that they haven't got a gun pointed at you - shoot or be shot?

There was no intruder. No one was pointing a gun at him. The only gun was his and the only dangerous person was OP. Any "danger" was all in his head. He lives on a gated estate with high security and a great safety track record. The bathroom window was on the first floor.

These are all facts.

To what extent does OP's right to be paranoid and mistaken outstrip his duty not to kill house guests and their right to safety?

One piece of telling evidence is from the testimony of the security guard who phoned OP after the shots were fired. He said, under oath, that he asked if anything was wrong and OP said there was nothing wrong. The guard said that OP was crying as he said it.

Doctor

I'm sorry but I don't know what you mean by "telling evidence"

would you explain please?
(I slept precisely 2 hours last night.
brain not working)

It seems like he was lying from the outset. Would someone lie after mistakenly shooting someone thinking they were a burglar, or only after doing it on purpose is the question. Could be either as a panic reaction I suppose

I just read Oscar Pistorius was not wearing his prostheses when he broke down a door to reach his girlfriend after he shot her, his murder trial has heard.

The forensic evidence contradicted Mr Pistorius' claim that he was wearing prosthetics at the time.

I don't understand that. Why would he lie about that? Surely he would want to make himself appear more vulnerable to burglars without his prostheses?

"If an intruder had shut themselves in the bathroom, you can't be sure that they haven't got a gun pointed at you - shoot or be shot?" nope that doesn't make sense either. if an intruder had shut themselves in the bathroom the only point of reference they would have would be straight through the door whereas the home owner would be able to stay out of sight of the door and have a gun poised and ready on the off chance they opened it and came out with a gun iyswim. An intruder wouldn't fire through a closed door if they were on the wrong side of it because they would then become the vulnerable ones.