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?

None of it makes sense. Holes in OP's story. Holes in the state's witness testimonies.

In all of this, will June Steenkamp walk away with the knowledge that she has the truth?

I think putting this trial out for public viewing is a good thing. So high profile, you'd expect squeaky clean, yet so many basic* mistakes have been made.

• I am not an expert, it's just my observation

Adelenazeem - I can see it, Ive been there.
They go to her friends engagement party (Mr Fresco no less) and he kicks off becuSe she's 'flirting'. Yep been there.
He's accused her of chatting up her friends husband. She asks him 'can I wear this dress'. All the effort she puts into making him happy. She says he shouts at her, makes fun, belittles her.
It made my blood run cold reading that because I've been there.

Poor reeva wasn't the high maintenance one in that relationship.

red, I'm not saying Reeva was high maintenance, I said I was once, and i could send long messages like that being obsessed with details. When I was in an abusive relationship, a bit different as little messaging then, but wouldn't have been making a fuss like that. I was too withdrawn/intimidated to.

what I was saying was that their wasn't enough there ... not enough proof, for me. there was no evidence of him being abusive; no nasty messages from him.

The shall I wear this dress read to me like someone flirting, saying shall i wear this, knowing that she looked good in it, seeking a "yes cor"

its hard to know but, I'm not saying he is innocent if this, just saying i don't think the prosecution have evidence... they haven't brought any witnesses, noone to corroborate their suggestion. i dont know why.

what I was saying was that their wasn't enough there ... not enough proof, for me. there was no evidence of him being abusive; no nasty messages from him. I disagree, the messages are evidence enough for me.

I will agree that there isn't a watertight prosecution case though. The defence have managed to poke holes in quite a bit of it.

Is there any news on whether the American phone experts were able to unlock/retrieve messages/texts from OP's phone? We've heard the texts on Reeva's phone, so will be enlightening to hear the texts and messages sent by OP.

Just watching on sky. I'm beginning to feel sorry for Col Vermeulen (spelling). Thank goodness they've finished with him!

RedBlanket the messages have confirmed it for me too. Very much fits the MO of an emotional and physical abuser - controlling, jealous, critical, loving, obsessive, dismissive ...The most dangerous time for a woman is when she tries to leave men like this. It's piecing together a jigsaw. One piece doesn't reveal all but all the bits together show a lot.

it may not be lying, maybe just a refusal to countenance that they may be mistaken
^ yy I think it might be this on the part of the security guard because a year has passed and if the security guard mis-remembered initially then he has had a year to embed that memory. Or it could have been one of those occasions where they both called simultaneously or where the call registers on the bill but doesn't actually ring through.

Also I imagine everyone's emotions were running high that night - a murder wasn't a common event on that estate. Personally, I don't see the order of the calls between OP and the security guard as being that significant. I don't even see it as being that significant that OP initially said he was fine as I could imagine if you were in shock, and had already contacted someone then you could answer another call on autopilot almost.

Equally I think there are parts of OP's testimony's discrepancies that could be explained in the same way eg for OP the noise of the gun firing could have covered the screams if the shots were at the same time as the screams but the positioning of the shots does seem to imply a gap in firing and that's where I have difficulty believing he didn't hear those screams.

I'm also struggling with how he can have thought the lights were off but the nearest witnesses said they were on. I can't see how or why they would mis-remember that but can see how the lights being off helps OP's case that he didn't know it was Reeva.

Early bird - we've heard all the phone evidence and corroborates OPs timeline. No late night calls or texts.
He phoned the estate manager first.
They said his phone was taken to US for apple to unlock but didn't attach any significance to that.

Maybe some of these insecurities stemmed from his disability or a fear of losing her to an 'able bodied' man

Bloody hell. Of course. He's got a disability so he must be insecure, and jealous of all 'able bodied' men. I think your prejudices are leading you to spout complete crap there, Bahhh. Leave the offensive psychobabble out, please.

I haven't seen the message about the dress. Did Reeva say "Can I wear this dress?" or "Shall I wear this dress?"

alex crawford (sky news) had tweeted: #OscarPistorius Messages show Reeva asking OP if she should wear her leopardskin dress. He replies; Ja I love that and u look amazing in it'

someone asked her later about it, she'd replied 'more approval then permission' which was the impression i'd got when i heard it

Very good summary so far by Andrew Harding on the BBC News website:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26746177

I've said upthread that it will hinge on OP's testimony and the issue of intent and he seems to think so too. Likewise, that this is when Nell is going to come into play.

I'm surprised no media outlet as done an infographic as to what each witness said they heard and when as it would be a good way of seeing what matches and what doesn't with regards to their testimony.

Remember O J Simpson ........

Adele I didn't get the impression that the dress thing was asking for permission at all. I thought in the context it was presented, it was more of a "Do you think I look good in this"

With ExP, who was not in the least bit abusive towards me, I often used to ask him what he thought of clothes I would wear. I would often ask if I should wear a particular dress, or if something else would be more appropriate. I did it because I wanted his opinion and I knew if he said I looked good in such and such a dress, then that would be a better measure than my own self-critical twisting and turning in front of the mirror would show.

With my very abusive ExH, though, I didn't get to go out at all, so that issue didn't arise

I will go and check out your link GoshAnneGorilla.

^ off thread but thanks for mentioning infographic. Reminds me of an email I need to send!!

Read Andrew Harding's link, which was very informative. So he thinks it will all come down to the test of the reasonable man, if I am picking that up correctly.

Despite the absolute awfulness of the content, this has been really interesting.

BBC Scotland broadcast the Nat Fraser murder appeal last year, which was interesting, but I would have to say that Barry Roux was in no way worse than the prosecution and defence advocates in that appeal.

pinkhorace sorry, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make

Yes I often ask my husband which of two options I should wear as he can see what I look like better than I can. He is not at all abusive.

Thanks for your answer by the way Adele

I find it hard to believe OP's version of events, they don't make sense. I've looked at it from the POV of "but what if this is all just a big misunderstanding" and a nightmare for OP, but it's far too confusing to me that he didn't simply say something to Reeva at any point ("did you hear that? Call the police/stay here, don't move/etc")

I just feel for Reeva and her family, there is no real closure here whatever the verdict. I do like the judge though - she seems very capable and I think I read she has ruled in a lot of DV cases.

The Andrew Harding article is great.

The best point he makes is something I've thought about often - what if there was an intruder and that intruder was a kid from the neighborhood, sneaking in on a dare or to find a souvenir. The kid hears a noise/shouting & hides in the toilet and gets shot by OP.

Would that be murder? I think it would.

I'm not sure of the intricacies of the law in SA but I am more inclined now to think it's virtually impossible not to find him guilty of murder.

He shot with intent to kill, with a weapon designed to kill, with bullets intended to kill and with full knowledge of the gun/bullets potential. He was hugely reckless. There was no intruder.

How can someone get out of bed and not feel the absence of the person you share a bed with? The person you want to protect from an intruder. You have time to get a gun but not to say "Reeva, there's someone in the bathroom - can you hear that" or whatever would be a far more normal and predictable reaction to hearing a noise at night.

This isn't just about whether you ask your DH what dress to wear. This is someone who made Reeva feel like she was flirting when she wasn't. Walking on egg shells can make you pre empt an argument and attempt to avoid it - make sure you're wearing the right thing, saying the right thing in the right way etc. so it's not too much see her texts within this context.

I'm sorry to all those on this thread who have experience abuse.

The bullets used, really turned my stomach... they break up when they hit 'a moist target' & are designed to cause maximum damage to their living target. The particular bullets OP used are no longer manufactured.

Is the law the same as here? I'm finding it a bit confusing, I keep hearing different things. Apart from the one case where a father killed his daughter by accident I haven't heard anything else. Are there various other cases where someone had thought there was an intruder, killed them and been let off?

Also, what has been said about the security of the estate he lived on? Was it really very secure which would make him highly insecure, and if that's the case what did he do about it (apart from keeping an arsenal of guns) and also, has anything been said about the darkness of the room with the curtains open? I haven't heard anything being said about this, or have I missed it all.

Yy the Andrew Harding article is very good, found myself nodding to it all.

Sauce I think she was in bed when he got out of bed, but then went to the bathroom while he was on the balcony getting the fans in. That's his version anyway.