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?

He can't keep breaking down like this though, can he? They can't keep adjourning it because it's been slow enough as it is.

I have to be honest, I have always been slightly more inclined towards the idea that he is guilty of just losing his temper and shooting through the door knowing full well Reeva was behind it, but I'm not convinced. Like I said previously, I think he does need to serve some jail time as he did kill someone and act recklessly (at the very least) and however sad that is, I don't think I would be treated with much compassi

*compassion if I did the same thing. It's sad for him, sad for his family but the law is the law and ultimately, he's still breathing, they can still hear his voice etc whereas he took that from Reeva's loved ones.

All this show of strong emotion in court. It may be real or it may be acting or does it demonstrate a wider Histrionic personality disorder - and could that account for his behaviours??

Histrionic personality disorder is characterized by extreme emotionality, dramatic, impulsive, need to be the centre of attention, easily bored, needs stimulation, lively, provocative, sexually seductive, shallow, engages in sexually seductive or provocative behaviour, draws attention to themselves.
often act out a role (e.g., “victim” or “princess”) in their relationships to others. They may seek to control their partner through emotional manipulation or seductiveness on one level, whereas displaying a marked dependency on them at another level ....

I don't think it was inappropriate for him to be asked to take his legs off in court. I don't think it's humiliating either. It is germane to the case and very relevant. I remember seeing one of the prosecution witnesses (I can't remember which) being asked by Roux to kneel down and was then asked how easy it was to balance in that position - at the time I thought THAT was ridiculous - I mean, surely the only relevant thing is OP's ability to hold himself on his stumps, not anybody else's?

(I also agree that it was very clever timing for Roux to ask him to remove his legs at that point.)

I genuinely don't know what the outcome of this case is going to be... I wonder when Nel will get his turn to cross examine? I've read that whilst Barry Roux is quite liked, Nel is not! How does it work wrt a state lawyer taking a case? Will Nel have looked over the prosecution case and said, yep, there's a definite case here, or is it just by default that the case fell to him?

I don't for one moment think this emotion is faked. The only question for me is, is he guilty and remorseful because he didn't know it was her, or because he did know it was her? Blind panic or blind rage and just what is supposed to have triggered the rage? All the theories about a specific incident happening that evening (texts from Reeva's ex etc) have been proven to be without foundation and after the last 2 days I am definitely leaning towards him telling the truth.

As for "histrionic personality disorder" well he is extremely emotional but so would any of us be, given the circumstances. Does he fit the rest? Not a clue. I'm sure we could find a whole range of disorders that might suit - in theory.

Isn't Nel the State's top prosecutor? Therefore he would get the high profile cases and I would imagine he is in a position to pick and choose.

I'm curious to hear what the consensus is to his family's attitude in court.

I find the whole crying as someone said v theatrical and OTT. Wouldn't the judge be put off by that? Why is his sister sobbing his eyes out while Reeva's mother manages to sit and stoically listen to the whole thing?

And agree that adjourning like that is bizarre. The man is a trained athlete clearly highly disciplined happy enough to pick up a gun and shoot someone knowing there's a high probability they might die and now he's treated like a child?
I bet Reeva's mother is fuming. Whatever happened that night it's still all about him.

Just listening to this now.
I deal with people everyday who are experiencing extremely high levels of emotion.
I cannot see his face obviously, but it sounds incredibly insincere. There are moments in his testimony that are perfectly clear and steady, and then he seems to remember to break down at the 'relevant' parts.
I don't believe him. His behaviour is not congruent with someone who did this by accident, but of someone who is covering his tracks and trying to behave like someone who did this by accident.

He has changed his evidence today too hasn't he? His defence has never said previously that he said anything the Reeva before getting out of bed. Vital thing to 'forget'.

Some families are just very open and emotional whereas others are more reserved. I suspect that's all that's going on. Agree that TeamOP might start to damage their credibility with ongoing histrionics but if they as stock as RS' mum they'd slagged off for being too aloof.

mcmooncup - do you really think he's faking it? In that case, Oscar deserves an Oscar IMO.

I somehow think Aimee's emotions are genuine. Not sure about the rest. Still confused about Dad.(Henke) autobiography talks of staying with him every other weekend and being allowed to be wild' building tree houses and driving old land rover. His dad was his agent in the early days of his career. Yesterday he said he only saw him once or twice ayear. Its clear they have fallen out/ become estrange in recent times but as kids? Dad was at bail hearing and Carl's trial but not Oscars. However apparently is in Pretoria. Told a journalist he might pop in before the end!

Next ? When did he say he stopped talking to Samantha? According to Carl's twitter he had breakfast with her and Oscar on 26/10/12. A week before he went to the awards thing with Reeva.

Agree the cross exam is going to be mighty difficult. Can see lots of adjounments and possibly need pyych help. He doesn't look like he is up to much.

Judge didn't look impressed when he broke down.

At bail hearing Carl seemed to be Oscars shoulder to lean on. Now it seems to be Aimee.

Just some thoughts

I think when his hysteria is contrasted with the quiet suffering of Reeva's mother, it does paint a picture of an egocentric character prone to outbursts of emotion. His sobbing and the delays must be putting that woman through more hell - it is obviously all about him, in his mind, not her grieving family.

mcmooncup is saying that he doesn't deserve an oscar because he isnt behaving like the people she sees every day who are experiencing extremely high levels of emotion. Interesting as maybe he is fooling most of us, but not those who see distressed people every day

If you listen to his testimony.
He actually got out what he needed to right?
Word perfect actually.
Someone with genuine high emotion cannot concentrate like that.

I also noticed that one of the final things he said today was that when he got into the toilet , Reeva wasn't breathing. At his bail hearing he said she was slumped over but alive, I think. That's a big difference.

Agree pennies it's all been 'little boy lost' today.

Histrionics in court, seems to be the theme. Pistorious clan definitely more outwardly emotionally invested. Camera focuses on Aimee and aunts, but not on his brother Carl Pistorious, just seems a little odd. Anyway.....the focus on the messages imply to me a very young and immature relationship - almost like 16 year olds, rather than woman of 30 and man of 27. Lots of small misunderstnandings, apologies and pubescent love language - baby, kisses etc.

What I don't understand is that there doesn't seem to be any real passion.

I know we haven't been privy to all the messages, and the defence and prosecution may want to preserve the modesty of Reeva, but these are two people who apparently had instant attraction, who were both physically in their absolute prime....and yet no reference to 'dirty talk' even when making up after an argument. Oscar went to bed on that evening wearing a pair of shorts and a vest, as did Reeva.....just seems a little modest for two apparently passionate people in the early throws of romance, and it was indeed a very hot night by all accounts. Either, he was a perfect gentleman, and she a perfect lady, but I would assume they would have at least been naked or just in underwear. So either they had not actually gone to bed, or had no intention of "consumating" that night, or I have a suspicion that they had provably never consummated their relationship.

How relevant that is, to a charge of premeditated murder, I don't know, but it'd just my take....still no motive...

I wondered about that too wintry

Can't remember what the witness (who was a Dr?) said, sure there was mention of cpr.

Also, he said "before I knew it, I'd fired four shots at the door" then his ears were ringing, so this covers the prosecution saying screams were heard & removes any thought process on his part?

Mummy moss also agree its odd. She kept kissing him between yoga moves then he went to sleep. Asking her to close the windows and bring the fans in before she went to sleep?

Hope it's ok that I join the discussion. I haven't seen much of the trail but caught a little today. I think his distress and histrionics whatever their cause be it genuine fear/guilt/remorse are doing him no favours, they are making it all about him, when it should be about Reeva. And I can't imagine that Is endearing him to either the judge or public.
Especially as they are in such contrast with Reeva s mothers stoic silence. My heart bleeds for her hearing all this and having any verdict delayed time and time again for the man who killed her daughter, whether it be intentionally or accidentally.

Can it not be the case that he is genuinely distressed and emotional but still shot in anger? Maybe someone legal can help my muddled mind, but would that be premeditated? Shooting in anger? In a way that is a mistake isn't it? I am not defending at all, just trying to make sense of it.

Even if someone did premeditate a murder they can also be very distressed, no?

But yes, Reevas family are so dignified, this must be a living hell for them.

I think it can, he could have shot knowing she was in there in a moments anger and now be totally remorseful, distressed and guilt ridden. How you define that for legally punishment in court I don't know...... I guess that's what they need to decide did he know she was in there and to what extent is he remorseful and not a danger to himself or anyone else.