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?

How can someone get out of bed and not feel the absence of the person you share a bed with?

I've done this ^^ . I've thought dp was in bed when he wasn't and thought he wasn't in bed when he was. The covers were piled up and I couldn't tell from the shape of them. I obviously couldn't sense his weight. Now, I fully accept I might be a bit odd in that respect but it has happened to me.

However, whenever I've heard an alarm sound, or thought I heard a suspicious bump, I've actually checked his whereabouts and/or spoke to him.

I thought this, ^^ but it have recently bought a super king size bed and Dh and me are erm slightly plump whereas before I could feel every movement! I can honestly say I don't know if he's in the bed or not without looking.

Yes I can see how that would happen - disorientated at night and pitch black. But with the combination of feeling fear and being in danger - if you think you're in mortal danger you'd alert the person in bed with you surely?

The story doesn't ring true to me. Women are murdered by their partners daily worldwide. America has horrendous rates because of their gun regulations. DV is far more a logical conclusion than mistaken identity.

That's why I was asking as to how dark it actually was in the room, if he had been out onto the balcony, he couldn't be disorientated? So to put on his prosthetics, find gun and walk around the bed I find hard to understand noticing Reeva was not there, or just lay a hand and whisper something like 'ok' 'shh' etc... I was wondering what or if anything had been said about this? Perhaps when he takes to the stand?

I really am trying to remain on the fence and see both sides. I really couldn't be in law or be a judge, it's such a massive responsibility.

His argument is that he didn't put on his prosthetics for firing the gun, OneStep but yy I agree with your point about him having been outside and then having to process that he'd heard something threatening, then get his gun, then go to the bathroom - all without considering the presence of Reeva. Unless he was more used to sleeping alone and not having anyone else to consider? I guess his testimony may shed more light.
Sauce yy from a statistical pov its more likely to be DV than mistaken identity. Plus as someone pointed out upthread even if it was mistaken identity, it still seemed like unnecessary force to deal with an unknown threat.

Ah yes of course Book.

onestep the law is slightly different in SA in that you are allowed to own a gun for protection. You can shoot (and kill) an intruder who threatens your life and that of your family iyswim, but it has to be a clear threat.

I would imagine that e.g. if you could see someone coming towards you in the dark and were unaware of whether or not they had a weapon the threat may be perceived as there is an actual person and shooting them may be considered reasonable on the basis that in SA most intruders are armed. But shooting through a closed door wouldn't because there is no immediate threat nor is there even any proof of one...

The rule also always used to be that you could only shoot someone on your property, so the word always used to be that if you shot someone as they were running away, to be sure you dragged them back into your house so you wouldn't be prosecuted.

Ah right, thanks Wannebe, so in that case at the least OP should be found guilty of manslaughter or SA equivalent. Sorry, another question, does it have to be 'beyond reasonable doubt' as here or more like America which doesn't? (I believe)

Sorry for asking obvious questions, not always clear what is fact.

onestep. Re your earlier posts, all good points you raise and no, they haven't been covered by the state yet.

I believe the defence will be calling lighting and sound experts. I would imagine Gerrie Nel will spend a long time picking their evidence apart

Ah ha, thanks AmI, I'm jumping the gun again!

Here's another one of those links listing key questions for Pistorius ten crucial questions

They are very interesting questions Sauce gosh, I'm wobbling now tbh.

I just keep wondering about what it must be like to be OP right now. He either did it out of anger (which is more likely in my mind) and bitterly regrets it, or the events were as described by him, and he bitterly regrets it. If it's the former, how can you live with that? How can you respect the memory of the woman you killed (murdered, perhaps) by hiding the truth? How do you ever make peace with yourself if you're guilty of murder and lying? Just very sad. A long, hard life ahead for him I expect.

OneStepCloser
I believe the estate is protected by high walls and electric fencing, security guards, laser sensors, biometric “thumbprint” locks, all overseen by closed-circuit cameras.

Agree the Andrew Harding article is good. Some of the sanist stuff I've read. Hope Nel has read Barry Bate man's list.
In the early days after Reeva was killed I used to wish he would have a guilty moment and walk into the police tion admit the truth. Now I often feel maybe he was telling the truth and was totally reckless. Maybe to impress her. She had a previous incident with intruders.
Yesterday I seemed to keep finding stuff about how he really loved her and June Steenkmp must have been so happy she was loved. I am sure she would rather she was alive right now. Glad to find some sanity with Andrew Harding.
Interested to see what tomorrow brings

A query about one of those ten questions...the one about OP changing his story between bail and plea applications on the point of having spoken to reeva shortly before bringing in the fans.

Surely that's a moot point given that this change of story does not work in his favour. i.e. His awareness of her being awake, having spoken to her, means that he should've reasonably expected it to be her who was in the bathroom, rather than an intruder.

Odd. Or am i being a dunce.

Is he trying to prove it was reasonable for him to think she was in the bed. He had just spoken to her and she was.

Yes, right, I see. I am being a dunce. Though I suppose it could work both ways.

Who knows. He didn't give any timescale. She may have said she was knackered and not to make a noise on the balcony, so much so he could have believed it couldn't be he in the bathroom

Still, I'm sure it will become clearer in the next week.

One issue I have with all those that don't believe his "story"' or maybe the issue I have with not "not believing" IYSWIM is that other than his bail plea and the trial plea on 3 March 2014' which were only the very briefest of accounts, his "story" hasn't been fully heard, not has it been tested in court.

So I will wait until I've heard his account before deciding whether it is believable or not.

After all the crap that has been published about this case and the fact that a fair bit of the utter shite printed has appeared to be baseless, I won't be making a call on what happened or what I think he is guilty of, until I have heard all the evidence.

What I also found interesting in Andrew Harding's ppiece, is that in SA, it's not only about the evidence presented in court, the judge also receives a written report from both the prosecution and the defence.

this is a good round up of state witnesses, particularly the neighbours and who heard what.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26780245

Postponed for 10 days, until 7th april

So . Trial adjourned till 7/4. One of the adjudicators is sick. David dadic and Mandy wiener have some interesting bits on twitter

OK - see you all on the 7th!