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?

No not just you. Regardless whether he meant to kill her or not he is clearly broken. Whether through remorse, guilt, fear, or whatever. Hard to believe that people think it's an act. No one could be that good an actor.

I've felt sympathy for him the whole way through this really. It's a shitty shitty shitty situation to be in.

I'd be crying if I killed someone and had to face the court and her parents and the world to talk about it.

I'd be crying if I was facing imprisonment in some of the worst jails in the world.

Of course I would be broken by the events of the last 14 months.

It's not evidence of anything other than he feels really bad about something.

Does anyone think it's an act? At this point?

I felt for him too.

Voice. If you have the stomach to look at twitter many think its an act. He can't win. If he showed no emotion they would attack him for that too.

Where were these guard dogs during all of this?? Surely they would have barked if someone had entered the property?

I would agree that it seems genuine to me, but that such behaviour isn't an indication of innocence or guilt.

I think Roux played it well today, filling up time by getting OP more comfortable talking in the stand. Not sure how or if, OP will stand up to Nel.

It's possible that Nel faces a slight conundrum, he wants OP to damn himself in his own words, but if he takes too aggressive an approach, OP will just crumple and be too upset to speak. It might be that more measured persistence will be the approach he takes.

The biggest problem the defence faces, is that it's not just about OP's story standing up, it's that he has to prove he was genuinely afraid and if he cannot convincingly testify to that, he's sunk.

Bling - that was part of today's testimony, neither dog was really a guard dog, more of a pet. There's a youtube video of him being interviewed a few years ago and you can see them trotting around and being petted, they didn't seem like guard dogs.

If I'd murdered somebody, and thought I was going to prison, I can imagine I might be quite upset.

All the non-guard dogs I've lived with over the years (big & small) would bark if someone came onto the property. No special training - it's just what they do.

Still the absence of dogs barking proves nothing does it?

In my non professional opinion, his distress seems genuine. But like others have said, it's impossible to know if that's down to remorse/guilt/fear of the future/fear of imprisonment etc. Not really an indication of whether he genuinely feared an intruder or if the shooting followed an argument fuelled by jealous rage.

I can't imagine how it must be for her friends & family to sit through all this.

I am sure his emotion is genuine. This was a killing that was the result of emotion either rage or fear. The moment it happened he probably regretted it. He destroyed Reeva,s life but he also destroyed his own. Everything he thought he was he isn't. He has changed two families lives for ever..
He probably always thought he was a good kind, loving person. Apparently his mum used to tell him he was put on earth for a purpose. His charitable work would have reinforced that. I am sure he would have wanted to make his mum proud. Now he has killed a woman. I am sure every demon he has ever had has been out to visit him in the last year.and some. I am sure he is a broken man. I am sure his brother and sister have been desperately worried for him but none of this takes away from the fact he killed a woman and the truth about why needs to come out.
It looks like its going to be a challenge to keep himwell enough mentally to get through giving evidence and being cross examined

I've no idea what happened and he's entitled to a fair trial. But I was her mother or her sister I'd find his tearful testimony very hard to listen to.

Especially the apology at the beginning.

Similarly, his retching and being too tired to give evidence.

It may be genuine. He killed her and if it was an accident and he loved her he must be in a terrible state. Even if she wasn't the love of his life - to kill someone out of fear or possibly stupidity...

I'm just saying that I really don't think that in their shoes I could sit there and keep quiet, unless I really did think it was a horrible accident, and then I might speak up in support.

And of course, I don't know that it wasn't.

Quite, his emotion is no indication whatsoever of his innocence, genuine or not. Of course he's distressed. He murdered someone. I was more interested in / surprised by the fact that I was rather moved by the sentiments he expressed, in particular his obvious love for his mother, his comments about his faith and the bond he felt he shared with Reeva on this.

None of this takes away from what is a heinous crime, no matter what the context.

Re:the dogs. I have two and neither are guard dogs, however my pint is this. One is a barker and would alert me to anything and everything. The other is a big dope and he practically invites every guest to our house in and settles them comfortably on the sofa, if he could he'd brew up for them. Dogs barking is a non-starter in my opinion. My mum has three dogs and only one of them is a barker.

OP sounds so broken, not at all like the man we all are used to hearing. He has completely destroyed more lives than just Reeva's.

He killed her. I don't know whether he murdered her though.

If I lived in South Africa I might be willing to believe that someone might be spooked into making a mistake. I don't know.

Actually, even though I live in Britain, where handguns aren't legal and violent burglars aren't common, I accept that someone might make a mistake in the same circumstances.

But I find the meandering down the path of his love of his mother and his faith irrelevant and distasteful. I can see where they're going, I'm just saying that if I was a juror, I think it would turn me off.

Seeing as it's a judge sitting, who's has training in being dispassionate and has seen it all before, I'm a bit baffled.

Agree with all previous comments. This is a very sad, very sorry, state of affairs. I don't think he needs to be "broken", he has done that himself, he absolutely has got to tell the truth - and it may be that he has, time will tell.

I think how a dog behaves is a reflection of how it is treated - I wonder if his dogs were bought because as a breed, their name engenders a sense of caution (or fear even), however the impression I got from today (and past photos of him with his dogs), is that they are much loved pets, more inclined to roll over than stand guard. If you browse twitter and Instagram, you'll there is a "fashion bent" towards these kinds of breeds as well.... in the same way that carrying a gun and driving a fast car is part of the lifestyle, the look.

A very small insight into some of the threats he's had too. Setting the scene. Background, painting the picture. I wonder how much Nel will rip into him to unpick the story of that night.

Two things that undo his sense of security for me, that I just don't get:

• why leave the ladders propped up outside the house
• why leave the window downstairs broken.

Im just a few minutes in to OP's testimony, but is thus all relevant!? His legs, his siblings etc etc, get on with it!

I think discussion of his legs is relevant because someone like him might feel more vulnerable than an able-bodied man of the same age who may or may not be armed.

And I suppose he would have been instilled with that sense of vulnerability. Just like most women are because we're mostly weaker than able-bodied men whether armed or not and should be afraid.

I'm not seeing the relevance of the rest of it though.

I think he is a v self absorbed man, and now his actions have clear ramifications, that's scary to him.

I have no sympathy for him anymore. If you own a gun, this is one of the unfortunate realities of deciding to shoot it. Through a door. It was reckless and he should be punished accordingly.

I may sound like a cold person, but that's how the situation looks to me: you owned a gun, you owned bullets designed to ravage a person, you decided to shoot it without being in any immediate, tangible danger and this is the result. He's probably sad because he killed someone and he may well have to spend a good chunk of the rest of his life behind bars for that. Which is fair enough.

Also - I did wonder why he felt the need to put Reeva's parents on the spot like that and apologise in front of the media. He could've done it physically at any point so far, privately, and then just publicly said "I have apologise personally to the Steenkamps" or something, but instead they had to ensure that in front of cameras, watching their reaction. All wrong.

Surely it's all about establishing him as a model of society (ie. unlikely to murder somebody), having been brought up lovingly by a mother he adores (ie. unlikely to hate women), and in such a fragile state that he really shouldn't be treated too harshly.

I felt that it was hard to listen to his angst today. No matter what lay at the root of it, I felt quite uncomfortable. These truly are destroyed lives.

I do agree however that the emotion itself means nothing in terms of innocence or guilt.

X post. Agree with you HowAboutNo although couldn't quite put my finger on why it felt wrong to listen to that apology.

I agree regarding the bullets, they are horrible & designed to cause maximum damage. He couldn't have been squeamish when he bought them.

I really don't mean to sound cold but, as someone who is acutely aware of the attitude of some men in SA wrt guns, I think people need to think thoroughly about the ramifications of owning one and the reality of shooting it. It is all too typical for me - acting like a "big man" on the shooting range and shooting his gun in public, but sitting crying in the dock because he's shot someone dead. He said that he never wants to touch a gun again in his life, but what exactly did he think guns were designed to do if not kill or seriously injure someone?

I don't know, his anguish today could be either, feeling sick with guilt or desperately sorry and desperate to let it be known that it was an terrible accident.

But, I do agree I felt uncomfortable with the public apology to Reevas family. How painful for them, what are they meant to say or do with that?