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?

Ah, I see Anon it was televised, of course. I didnt follow that case so not sure about facts, etc. and wasn't sure what people meant

I watched the Nat Fraser murder retrial appeal thing on TV last year - that's an odd one, his wife went missing and he has been found guilty, freed, then guilty again.

He showed absolutely no emotion, as I recall, even when he got the verdict.

But I did thing the QCs were quite harsh.

And I was on a murder jury, and the Advocate Depute who was prosecuting was softly spoken and polite, but there were a few times he snapped at the accused and it made me start. The accused there only cried when she was found guilty

But then I suppose in neither of these cases have they been the subject of intense media speculation and interest for the past year.

As GoshAnne said, what is appropriate for the circumstances.

Yes, of course Reeva sent that message saying she was sometimes scared of him. However, a man who kills his girlfriend/wife/partner rarely does so without having a history of violence and that is what I meant. There's a lot of rumour about his "violent temper" (and he does sound like a right arse at times, no question) but no actual incidents have been cited in court and I would have expected the prosecution to produce witnesses if they could. Being a shouty control freak does not, in itself, make someone a murderer.

Regarding the crying, well I am a very emotional person and cry horribly (and I hate it by the way because I can't control it) when I am very stressed. The whole Pistorius clan seem emotional too. He is bound to be stressed out, so personally I don't find it that especially odd, but I expect people who don't cry much would. I dread to think what I would be like in his position and considering what his story is, I would find it much odder if he wasn't showing a lot of emotion.

I too find the contact with his family unusual but maybe it's not since it mostly seems to be during recess.

I thought Pistorius had threatened Mark Batchelor and assaulted a woman at a party previously? This with weapon discharges etc paints a picture of someone with some issues perhaps relating to impulse/anger control.

Perhaps there was some escalation in his anger issues given his poor performance athletically?

I felt the long wikipedia style questioning of Pistorius unnecessary and in poor taste. It went no where.
Ditto the apology to Ms Steenkamp's mother. She had no choice but hear it and no ability to reply as it was a court setting. It felt very all about Pistorius.
The comments about his waking up everyday and smelling her blood were also in terrible taste given that they were made purely for him to garner sympathy and knowing her family were in the court. Grim

I thought his team had done him no favours with their pathologist. His performance shored up the evidence given by the prosecution and seemed horribly damaging to me.

Rmcdonald... how/when had OP been performing badly athletically?

the previous year he'd run personal bests & world records at the olympics, & whilst I remember him throwing his toys when the brazilian Olivera beat him in the 200m final, but he had set a new wr in the heat, and I thought he'd been concentrating in the 400m more as he was intent on running that on the able bodied olympics which he did?

it was my impression he was still pretty much at the top of his game ?? have I missed something?

Adele. Agreed, pretty much at the top of his game athletically
The Mark Batchelor incident was described at the time by another Mumsnetter as handbags at dawn type stuff. Samantha Taylor's evidence certainly put that incident into context.

Charges were dropped against the girl at the party, so not accurate to say he assaulted someone.

I think a big part of yesterday was setting up the defence of 'he has suffered enough' for the event of him being found guilty if culpable homicide. The sentencing choices for that crime are very wide and given there is no question that he shit and killed Reeva they will want to cover this. That us not to say that it's all an act as it has been said, nobody is that good of an actor and he clearly is racked with remorse. Only he knows what he is truly remorseful for, for killing Reeva, his personal losses or (more likely) somewhere inbetween.

Something that came up for me was his claims that he is very unstable on his stumps, clearly this was about setting up his vulnerability and to fight the prosecutions claims he was on stumps when using the cricket bat however his own story doesn't sit right for me with this, if his mobility and balance is so massively effected by being on stumps why is it that he seemingly had no problems getting up in the night and carrying a full size standing fan in from the balcony? To a lesser extent this also comes into play with him then hearing the noise, going and fetching his gun, going to the bathroom, discharging a weapon and then running back into the bedroom. Some of that can be safely explained by adrenalin but it's the shooting the gun that I struggle with most, there is a kick back that most baled bodied people in a shooting stance struggle with, if he is so very unbalanced on stumps would he not have fallen or at least staggered if his balance of stumps is as bad as he says?
I expect and hope this will be talked about further when he gets into telling his version of events and Nell with bring it up in cross.

You are right about his achievements at the Olympics - I think my memory was swayed by how dreadfully he behaved after not winning during the paralympic final that he lost. Perhaps says more about someone when you see how they act when things aren't going their way than when they are?

It was unfortunate that he wasn't able to actually qualify for the Olympics and I wonder if being gifted the qualification affected his performance or if there was just too much pressure on him?

It feels as though he had a side to him that was filled with anger and rage but that perhaps that is acceptable/fetted or needed in sports people. We might simply be unaware of it.

I was never happy with his story of how he shot and killed a dog. He clipped the dog with his car, got out and saw he had damaged it's legs and so he shot it and killed it. With it's owner standing there cursing and shouting at him. He then got into the car and drove off.

Pistorius himself told this story.
I wondered then what this said about him and his judgement.

Also charges may have been eventually dropped but Pistorius was arrested and suit was filed against him.

Eventually they both filed suit as he said the publicity made him lose out on sponsorship
The case was eventually settled. That does not mean that it didn't happen

www.smh.com.au/sport/athletics/oscar-pistorius-settles-assault-case-with-woman-as-murder-trial-looms-20140212-32ii0.html

batchelor
before any of this case

He was, I believe, released the next day with no charge. Subsequent actions were civil not criminal.

With regard to his brother, the case was dismised as witnesses seem to have confirmed that the woman who died was actually the one responsible for the crash, not Carl Pistorius.

One thing I find interesting about OP's evidence today is that he is saying they had dinner around 7pm which contrasts strongly with the pathologist. If its a lie,it seems a stupid one.

What sort of sentence is he looking at if the judge decides he thought he was shooting at a burglar in the bathroom?

Am watching him give evidence live now - he is describing the evening of the shooting. It is very harrowing.

Aventurine, I think it's up to the judge to use her discretion. The rugby player who shot his daughter dead didn't even get a trial, they said he'd suffered enough, so I'm not sure if there is a precedent. I appreciate that he only fired one shot but the car was driving away from the house and he, his wife (and his daughter he thought) were locked inside it, although he panicked because neighbours had been murdered not long before. Of course I have no idea what I'd do in any of these situations, which is why I won't second guess what OP would do. He is patently paranoid about security which I DO understand, having once been burgled as I slept (inthe UK, thank goodness not SA.)

Yes, I suppose if someone can get away with shooting someone who was driving away it does look possible he could get away with shooting someone who he thought was a burglar in his house. My husband is south african and when his mum was burgled (a few years after apartheid ended) the armed response people shot at the burglars when they were running away across a field and shot one of them in the foot. It's supposed to be illegal there unless you are directly in danger, but doesn't necessarily seem to always be enforced.

So, if the judge decides this was a terrible mistake, will people accept that? There is so much vitriol on the net. It boils down to premeditation, I think, irrespective of who was behind the door. If not premeditated I think there is something about sending a clear message that using guns unlawfully (is it ever lawful in SA?) = trial and verdict. However, will people respect the judge's decision?

If this hadn't been Reeva, if there had been a burglar, would this be in court now?

Sometimes the most unlikely if stories can be the truth. Wait to see......

I'm not sure we'll ever know for sure what the truth of that night was, regardless of the judge's verdict. I do hope that people accept it though.

Interesting point re. being unstable on his stumps vs his going outside to retrieve the fans. I also cannot comprehend his going along his side of the bed to retrieve his gun without noticing that Reeva wasn't there. I know these inconsistencies have been mentioned before, as I say I don't think either version of events seems to flow without question at this stage.

I think he's finished, regardless of the verdict and I don't mean that in a nasty way. I think he's had (or is still having) a nervous breakdown of some sort and that his career is over. Even if the defence pulls something spectacular out of the hat, an awful lot of people will still think he did it on purpose.

I honestly have no idea. His story does sound far fetched but equally it could be true. A few months after I was burgled the first time, I was absolutely convinced there was someone in the house and I hid under the bed. It took me around half an hour to realise there wasn't. If I'd had a gun, I would probably have shot holes in the bedroom door and been lucky I was home alone.

I don't know what to think about it. I'll probably just believe whatever the judge decides since she has sat through the whole trial and I haven't.

Yes some people have made their minds up and won't care about the verdict or evidence

I think the judge will make the correct decision.

Well, that was just awful.

How many adjournments do you think the judge will have to make before OP has finished giving evidence?

Difficult to listen totoday. Agree with Ronald "the apology to Ms Steenkamp's mother. She had no choice but hear it and no ability to reply as it was a court setting. It felt very all about Pistorius."

Louise I agree with you. I think he is in the middle of a nervous breakdown. I think he's grief stricken.

Although, he might just be the worlds greatest actor. Who knows?

"Yes some people have made their minds up and won't care about the verdict or evidence

I think the judge will make the correct decision."

AmIthatWintry is it necessary to keep saying this. Many of your comments actually seem quite biasd in his favour and you frequently jump to his defence or sometimes threaten to hide the thread

I like to read all comments coming from all angles.