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?

According to Sky, OP's lawyers told the other side that he would make an apology so it wasn't out of the blue but still very difficult for her to listen to, I agree, and there is the added stress of her husband having had a stroke recently.

Is there a limit as to the number of adjournments they can give? I have to say that his mental state is obviously very fragile. I'm not going to watch Nel's cross examination because I'm finding this bad enough. Whatever his reason for killing her, he is obviously in torment and I feel immensely sorry for both families.

To my shame, I find myself wanting him to have done it in a premeditated way rather than it having been a case of mistaken identity. I don't know if this is an embarrassing instinct for salaciousness or the fact that if it was an accident it is even more hideous to contemplate - two families needlessly destroyed by tragedy rather than one.

Is it also a possibilty that he knew she was in there but didn't think shooting at the door would kill her? That in an angry rage knowing she was going to the loo before leaving him - he shot the door but that he never thought she would die. Who knows.. Twitter is making quite a thing about him now saying he heard the bathroom door close.

I think it is possible for him to feel all the pain he's expressing in court but to still be guilty of knowingly shooting her.

But apparently even on an anonymous thread about the trial - which is on a public forum - we're not meant to offer our opinions about whether he's guilty or innocent

Quick catch up over lunch - he is saying SHE WAS AWAKE! Reeva was awake when he got up out of bed to bring fans in/close doors.

So she was awake, he heard her go to the loo, and instead of talking to her he went into commando fighter mode

We can't express our opinion about his guilt? Do you mean legally ?(which seems weird to me, especially if you look at the stuff on FB, Twitter and the comments in the Daily Mail)

@Voiceofgodot - I know what you mean. If he's telling the truth, this is just the most appalling tragedy imaginable. I can't, however, imagine anyone being like this if they had deliberately intended to kill someone. God knows what he'd be like if he wasn't on medication.

@BeCool - he's always said she was awake. In the bail statement he said something to that effect, that he had just before spoken to her.

Surely the whole point is that he's saying he didn't realise she had gone to the loo while he was on the balcony?

I really like what I've seen of the judge - she seems to be very unshaken by anything.

I think his defence should have better prepared him for this - he has long known what was coming, and for the sake of Reeva's family, he needs to hold it together a bit more. They haven't cried today, yet his sister and the rest of his family openly bawl their eyes out. I'm not staying they shouldn't be affected, but I feel like they need to be more considerate. Oscar isn't the dead one.

Actually, maybe not the initial bail statement which I think was quite brief, but I know I read before the trial started that he said he had spoken to her before he got out of bed. The only thing I hadn't heard before was about the door slamming.

I'm also wondering how the hell he's going to cope with Nel's questioning. Fair enough he's obviously v upset, but he does have a case to answer and they can't keep adjourning it.

Hopefully some trigger-happy idiots are watching this and perhaps rethinking.

Every answer he gives Roux is so measured, precise & designed to back up his story, how dark the room was due to blackout blinds he had fitted, his mobility or lack of & how the surfaces changed, how he had a hand against the wall...

He's been coached in depth.

So I find the crying etc a bit much.

Louise that's right - hearing the door is new.

Could his behaviour lead for the trial to be halted - if he's considered unfit and unable to stand?

Also, agree with the above... if reevas mother can keep it together, why can't his sister!?

I desperately hope it was found to be a tragic accident. I'm finding his testimony terribly sad to listen to. God knows how her parents are coping. It's a modern day Shakespearean tragedy.

I'm going to put my opinion out there. If he stands up to cross-examination to the extent that his version of events remains consistent, then I will truly believe that he did not intend to kill Reeva and thought that it was an intruder behind the door.

I do not believe that anybody is capable of pretending to be going through the mental anguish that he is displaying in the witness box. I therefore don't believe that anybody so mentally on the edge could hold together a story based on lies, whilst under what will most likely be vigorous cross-examination by Nel.

" I'm not staying they shouldn't be affected, but I feel like they need to be more considerate. Oscar isn't the dead one."

Yes I agree. Maybe they should be asked to leave the court.

I totally agree. Beyond his verbal account he has also had to remove his legs in the court room. I found that really quite distressing and humiliating. His sobs at the end were shocking too. He seems like a lamb to the slaughter, so Nel has to take great care when cross examining him because if he pressurises him too much he will be considered to be harassing a very vulnerable individual (an image exacerbated by the public removal of tge prostheses).

StampyIsMyBoyfriend
"Every answer he gives Roux is so measured, precise & designed to back up his story, how dark the room was due to blackout blinds he had fitted, his mobility or lack of & how the surfaces changed, how he had a hand against the wall...

He's been coached in depth"

I do agree with this, but isn't that what any defence team would do?

Louise. Yes I had heard it too. It was the plea statement at the start when he said he has spoken with her briefly. It wasn't in the bail hearing. I actually thought Roux was too soft and skipped over bits that many of us were waiting for answers for.

I have no idea how the rest of the week will pan out if he is like this now. Cross examination will take weeks at this rate.

He will have been well coached for this, he will have been told how to act, look and behave, if his defence thought for one moment he was not mentally fit for this trial It would have been put forward, he would be examined etc to determine his state of mind. Bear in mind that part of sentencing will be determined by his remorse.

The defence are obviously going to put forward a grieving remorseful man, it's all part of the theatre of the court. Defence goodies, prosecution baddies. This is why I admire immensely the judge and how I could nt and wouldn't want to do her job, what a weight of responsibility.

As for this thread I have enjoyed (if that's the right word) reading others point of views, it's nice as obviously people have already decided guilty or not but I would say it's rather friendly and respectful to others point of views. (On the whole)

Pennies why did if he have to remove his legs in court? I agree, that's humiliating. Was it really necessary?

Sorry, some people it seems have decided guilty or not, not all, plenty of us fence sitters here, for me personally I'm really just not sure.

What I mean is, if he has the presence of mind to remember his 'coaching' and answering as he's been told to, then surely he should be able to answer questions & not be granted adjournments for being tired or emotional.

Reeva's mother I understand is listening intently in court and not breaking down. A brave woman.

There's something inconguent about the histrionics of Pistorious and his family. It does have a theatrical feel about it.

Well I'm not sure. He was asked what he was wearing and he said a pair of shorts and a vest and that he removed the vest when he went to bed after he took his legs off. Roux then asked for a brief adjournment to allow for a change of clothes. Five mins later court resumed and although you couldn't see him it was clear OP had changed his clothes into what I assume we're those he wore on the night or a close approximation of them. He was standing by the door and was then asked to remove his legs. Nothing much was said beyond the fact that it shows his height in relation to the door without his legs.

The timing of it was clever. Just as his testimony is about to reach its climax he was made to look small and hugely vulnerable. It gives greater credence to what may be considered to be his unrealistic and OTT handling of the intruder situation. His defense team have deliberately used his disability to victimise him. A cynical but clever ploy.

Today was very horrible to listen to. I don't think he's acting.

Something very interesting on Karyn Maughan's (SA journo) twitter feed, but no other journos I follow have tweeted it:

Karyn Maughan ?@karynmaughan 1h
Roux clearly emotional after #OscarPistorius evidence. @eNCAnews

"Karyn Maughan ?@karynmaughan 1h
Roux tells ballistic expert Mangena:"if the state incorrectly prosecuted an
innocent young men, then you have ruined him forever" @eNCAnews"

Her feed is here: twitter.com/karynmaughan

Hmm. Didn't think defence lawyers could say things like that during a case.

As to his testimony, of course he's been coached, that's what lawyers are for. It's a bit disturbing that people in twitterland don't seem to understand this. Likewise his word choices describing his actions will have been carefully chosen to bolster his defence.

The problem I have in this moment in time are things like Did he not hear Reeva get up? There has been slight changes between today's testimony and his original statement. I'm not sure that Reeva being awake, or Oscar thinking Reeva was on the floor by the bed, or the bathroom door slamming were in the original affidavit.

Original affidavit is here: www.pod702.co.za/Eyewitnessnews/docs/130219oscar_papers.pdf

On the other hand, there is nothing pointing to a motive for wanting Reeva dead. There's a long way between some arguments on Whatsapp and killing someone.