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?

In his affidavit he said -

I agreed and we were content to have a quiet dinner together at home. By about 22.00hr on the 13th February we were in our bedroom, she was doing her yoga exercises and I was in bed watching television.

Has this changed now? As I can't see where it says they were in bed asleep by 10pm that evening.

"if he thought there was a burglar in the house, he would shoot first and ask questions later." I think that this might actually be murder.
If you are reckless enough it's murder.

It must be a really tough job for the prosecution in all DV/Intimate death cases. No one really knows what goes on between 2 people and sadly the person who really knows (apart from the perpetrator) was killed by her boyfriend. She is likely not to have spoken to friends/family about any such issues or concerns she had about OP.

Evidence as to him being a nasty bastard/abusive (if he was) is not necessarily going to be available, especially after such a short relationship. It doesn't mean that he wasn't abusive towards her - it just means there isn't physical evidence of it.

We do know he was ultimately extremely violent towards Reeva.

Free - yes you're right, my mistake. In bed but not asleep.

Thanks redblanket I was just trying to work out if they had said they were asleep at 10pm, wasn't sure if it had been stated in court.

At this stage I can't see how they can prove premeditated murder. Some neighbours heard shouting doesn't,t prove murder and most discreditted. Seems he was emotionally abusive . Doesn't,t prove murder. She had a night time snack ?.
Was interested that a couple ofthe texts Roux pulled up to show how lovey covey they were also depicted him as controlling. Her asking permission to wear a certain dress. Her asking permission to meet with ex.
Will be interested to see OP testify but I am sure he will b very well schooled. May well vomit if pushed into a corner! Bring on an adjournment till he can be counselled what to say!
I used to be an OP supported!
I also am very sure he was told to ensure nothing was in his bail affidavit that couldn't be proven.
At the end can the judge say I can't find him guilty of premeditated murder but he is guilty of culpable homicide and was reckless.
The state don't seem to have tried much to prove recklessness

It doesn't bring back Reeva but depending on the final verdict, I think this trial will have been enough to ensure OP's carefully crafted reputation lies firmly in tatters.

There are problems wider than him though, that fast lifestyle, penchant for speeding, "can't touch me with your speeding fine", carry a gun everywhere, flout the law mentality. Of course it's fine to enjoy the riches that success brings, but like that.... Not good.

Actually no, it doesn't depend on the final verdict! His reputation is in tatters. Full stop.

I must have listened very differently as I think the state have shown him to be reckless, deceitful and a bully.

Its sad really that so many very talented young people who are thrust into the public eye and earn shed loads of money seem to go off the rails or suffer some sort of tragedy.

I suppose the prosecution have proved that he lied about the state of their relationship. Again doesn't disprove the burglar claim totally, but shows he wanted to cover things up rather than lay bare the truth.

angela. Yes I think that they use the closing arguments to pull all the threads together. I was expecting the prosecution to come up with something big at the end but they really failed to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt. I think the defence has done enough to shake most of the witness testimonies.

I had heard that if OP was to testify then he would go first but now Karyn Maughan, who is a respected journalist is saying that they may have the option of not calling him first.

will be interesting to see then"other side" and to see Gerrie Nel in action at cross examination.

Well Sauce I would agree that we all hear the same words but take different meanings from them. I don't think the prosecution have "proved" anything. They have raised questions as to his character but I don't think their case is strong in any of the areas

But this thread has been, by and large, good for posters to debate and discuss different interpretations of the same evidence.

I'm not objective entirely so I find it interesting to read other people's posts.

The sum total of the evidence is damning. And his story is bonkers, IMO.

Well I am being objective and will wIt to hear the defence evidence before making up my me

Oops, posted too soon

I didn't think any of the State's evidence was damning in relation to the charges. Quite the opposite in fact

I think this is where Gerrie Nel will come into play. He has a fearsome reputation and I think he will try to demolish the defence.

Be Cool - I do think that the issue of was it murder regardless of who OP thought was behind the door may well come into play - dolus eventualis as described here: constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/oscar-pistorius-criminal-law-101/

If he does get off it will be because the state and the investigation were weak - and not because he's telling the truth. The only people I've come across who entertain his story are on this thread.

If we believe the police evidence/expert witnesses and take the facts on which most of the neighbours' statements agree then OP has lied about when they ate; whether he was on his stumps or not when breaking down the door; whether the light was on in the bathroom; whether there were any screams between shots; how quickly the shots were fired, as well as lying about the restaurant shooting incident.

I think the defence have been good at deflecting attention and showboating but a lot of the issues they have focused on have been inconsequential eg questioning who paid the bill after the restaurant incident (implying bill payment is as memorable as someone shooting a gun )

When I say I'm not entirely objective it's because I've dated someone very like this - jealous, possessive etc. even looks like him so lacking objectivity isn't necessarily a hindrance in being able to sniff out lies and spot red flags. But I would say that

Just to remind the key questions to answer

21 points

BookaBoo Well, I thought differently.
Police evidence/expert witnesses contradicted each other - so do you believe one, or the other, neither or both. One even answered "amazing" when presented with a colleague's statement, who he claimed wasn't there.

Jeez, even Col Vermeulen today said he didn't try hitting a bat high up, then when he was shown a photo of himself doing it, then said that okay then, he had just forgotten.

I thought that the difficulty with the neighbour's testimony was that they didn't actually agree. Mr and Mrs Stipp didn't agree about the light, for example, and you would have thought they would have seen the same thing.

I honestly don't think that any of the areas you have cited have proved that OP is lying about any of it.

He may well be lying, but none of what the state has put forward, in my opinion, proves anything.

Re the restaurant incident, one witness couldn't remember what was said, and the owner of the gun, when pushed, couldn't remember what was said or even when it was said. The phone message he sent to Reeva did not say anything about taking the blame either.

I think the fact that his ex-friend lied on the stand - about the photo taken of the speeding car - throws doubt on the rest of his testimony - for what it was worth. It will be interesting to see, at the end of the case, whether Fresco loses his immunity from prosecution.

I also think that the list of witnesses who weren't called is as interesting as those who were. I wonder why people like Gina Myers, who was Reeva's best friend, and Justin Divaris, who was a friend of both, weren't called.

It has been an odd, odd case and it is still just building. Gerrie Nel, as Gosh said, has a real reputation for cross examination and I am sure he will rip the defence to bits

Oh and I know a fair amount of people who are not even on Mn who "entertain his story"

The texts between them say it all for me. It sounds like she was at the end of her tether with his jealousy and possessiveness. Maybe he thought she was about to end it which would only have fed his paranoia even more. Maybe some of these insecurities stemmed from his disability or a fear of losing her to an 'able bodied' man. We do know how intensely competitive he was both against disabled and non disabled from his career choice. Maybe this extended into his personal life and maybe couldn't bear the thought of losing her to (in his mind) another man .
All 'maybe's ' of course but just my thoughts on it really.

frankly, I don't know what to believe. I've been with an abusive ex but I didn't really see enough in the texts to perceive that, to be honest... some talk from her about her feelings about a specific couple of days, when he said he was tired and ill... but I definitely know in my young days when I was a bit high maintenance (and probably some days still when I've had a drink) I could ramble in like that... it doesn't prove or disprove to me that he was abusive before this night or on it.

he clearly should go down for culpable homicide but premeditated murder? I can't see enough evidence for it shown. not so far, and with the prosecution winding up, where will it come from now?? too much unreliability of witnesses, investigators, throughout.

but like someone said, his reputation is gone.

AmI of course the case is still building. We are probably less than halfway through if we assume the defence will take as long as the state, and then there will be the closing arguments.

And I'm not saying that the defence witnesses won't change my opinion but at this point in time, I think as I said above that OP has lied about a number of points. I have no reason to doubt the main points of the expert witnesses' statements or the neighbours. I can't see what they have to gain from lying.

I think the text messages from Reeva regarding the incidents when they were out and the comments regarding the way she dressed were quite damning especially as this was a "young" relationship. I think the prosecution are trying to put forward a scenario that the arguement between them reignited that night and hence he shot her knowingly, and they have portrayed him as a jealous, angry, reckless man.

I was surprised the prosecution didn't call other people from the night Reeva referred to, particularly as her text refers to an incident at the dinner table.

My DH is coming down on the side of the prosecution that it was pre-meditated murder, I am still on the fence but I don't think his version of events adds up.

I think OP being cross examined by the Prosecutor could be very revealing.

I agree BookabooSue about not seeing what they would gain by lying, that's why I am so puzzled at the discrepancies, especially from the expert witnesses who must have known from the start that this would be a high profile case and they'd better get things right.

The security guard, Baba, for example, refused to budge on his testimony about who called who - the implication being that security had to phone first to find out what was happening, rather than OP phoning them.

Well, the state's own phone expert backed up the defense and proved, using their own data, that their other witness was lying.

So, it may not be lying, maybe just a refusal to countenance that they may be mistaken, perhaps.

There are lots of gaps in the state's evidence

There was lot of talk about previous incidents, where police had been called out. The police even said that the morning of the shooting - yet that wasn't mentioned. The only previous incident was when he was arrested - and released with no charge - for assault in 2009.

And a big ommission for me was Martyn Rooney, who stayed with Op for the last third of OP and Reeva's relationship. People's guard drops when at home, you would have thought he would have noticed something