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?

Animation I think the defence are saying Reeva was already in the bathroom by then so OP spoke to her but didn't look at her.

Regarding the different reactions of the families in court, I don't think either is suspicious. I think they might have different personality types and approaches to emotion and it would make sense that OP and his sister respond in a similar way.

Also, OP and his family are in a completely different situation from Reeva's family. For the latter, this is their opportunity to get answers about what happened that night. They must be incredibly focused on making sure they understand all the testimony. For OP and his family, they already feel they know what happened that night so they're processing it at a different emotional level.

I'm glad this is a judge trial. I think it would be incredibly difficult for a jury.

Apparently Dr and Mrs Stipp disagree as to whether or not the toilet light was on in Oscar's house despite standing together on the same balcony looking across when they heard the noise. Dr Stipp also agreed one set of bangs could possibly have been a cricket bat, not shots.

I don't think their witness statements were that contradictory ie one thought the bathroom light and the other thought the toilet light. Both agreed there was a light on and either of those lights being on would have meant OP wasn't in the dark.

Also Dr Stipp said he felt he could recognise the sound of gunshots and that was what he heard not a cricket bat. The defence argued with him because they said it meant he heard too many shots but I don't remember him changing his statement.

I thought this might be of interest. Pure speculation, but this article is about what the state's psychologist might be looking for in OP testimony. link here
Of particular note for me are the vagueness of
""Before I knew it I had fired four shots"
"I don't know how long I stood there for, shouting for Reeva."
and the slightly mysterious
"that's the moment that everything changed"

Totally agree about the jury, or lack thereof. When I heard SA had no juries I thought that was awful. Now I think it's better since the judge and the assessors are trained to pick out the important evidence, which isn't necessarily the showy stuff, and also to base the decision on the evidence presented in court . They won't be influenced by rumours in the Daily Mail, on Facebook etc. unlike some jurors who might well be.

I think I would like to know how long elapsed between the shots and the first people on the scene. If he shot her purposely, then he had to construct the intruder theory, that needs some thought and planning. Did he have time?

BookaBooSue, you must have read a different account to me because I definitely read (probably in the Telegraph as I am mostly reading that) that the Dr agreed, when cross-examined, that he might have heard the cricket bat while Mrs Stipp emphatically said she did not and that she knew what shots sounded like. I also read that they both said the bathroom light was on but he said the toilet was not. I think the crucial point there is at what time they saw the light on because OP doesn't deny putting it on, but after he shot Reeva.

He could locate his gun under the bed (in the dark, in a panic etc though his eyes may have already adjusted to the lower light) but failed to notice Reeva wasn't in the bed?! It was very hot in the room so not like she could be 'hiding' under a bulky duvet. (Totally irrelevant question, but why the fans and not air con??!!)

If I thought there was an intruder in my home, a few metres away, and my gun and partner are both in / under my bed which is much
closer to me and has a phone next to it, I'd get the gun, get back into bed with them ready to defend us both and call the police. And then maybe try to get out of there. I wouldn't approach where I think the intruders are, taking the gun with me end leaving my partner alone in bed.

If he's so unsteady without his prostheses, why was he running around the apartment without them, gun in hand, prior to the shooting (when he felt more scared presumably) but then immediately find and put them on once he'd finished shooting?!

"That's the moment that everything changed " sounded strange to me too. Perhaps OP has had a lot of training in what to say on the witness stand. All this crying and vomiting etc is very very unusual.

The air con was dodgy, apparently. He was in the middle of repairs to the house to make it more saleable.

Much was made today about 'financial' meetings he had, hinting perhaps at money problems or cash flow issues... Not sure where that's leading...

When he returned to get the gun, he thought reeva had 'got down' and hidden, like he'd suggested.

It was also mentioned that OP screamed for help from his balcony!?

Again, not sure where that fits in either/who witnessed it... as it was before the shots... I think?

WhoDaresWins, I believe Mrs Stipp said she woke up about 3 (but her clock was a few minutes off so not exact) and that the final 3 shots were about 3.15 then everything went dead quiet. She and Dr Stipp had already called security by then and then the Dr went over the road to OP's house to see if he could help but I don't know if that was immediately after. I would expect one side or the other to produce a timeline but I can't find one.

Talking of psychologists, Oscar's aunt Mickie, who is a criminal profiler and I believe a psychologist, is often called in by the police. Obviously not in the case.

I will definitely have to go and listen again, but didn't he say that he was at some piece of equipment - I think it may have been a cd player or something - to drape the jeans over to cover the glow from the LCD? And that's when he heard the noise

I haven't seen an accurate layout of the bedroom, but is the unit further past the half of the bed Reeva was in. So would he argue that he would have had to go back to speak to her, while he was focussed on going forward. I can't think of another reason for mentioning that.

And I agree that I find it hard to believe she wouldn't have said "I'm nipping to the loo"

Another interesting part of the Stipp's testimony was that the house next door had all its lights on. as that drew their attention first. Presumably the occupants of that house will be called as defence witnesses as they were presumably up and awake while this was happening?

Dodgy air con AND dodgy door alarms (battery operated ones which had been out of batteries for a couple of years from my understanding of his testimony), despite him apparently being terrified of a break in.....?

I'm just thinking back to when the story first came out. We first heard that he shot her because he thought she was an intruder. Then the SA police said that they didn't know where the intruder story came from but it didn't come from them. Then we heard that the police had been called to the address before because of arguments.

Was the argument stuff invented by the media? Why did the police say that the intruder story didn't come from them? It gave the impression at the time that they disagreed with the theory, but maybe they meant that someone else must have leaked the burglar theory and not them?

I still reckon the real issue is the fact that he's allegedly shouting at the door and she is in there silent, just going for a wee. If all is as he says she would surely have just called out to him that it was her?

Much seems to be being made about how upset he is. But I don't think that genuine remorse and sadness rule him out as a murderer.

Today's testimony also revealed dodgy locks, the bedroom door in particular apparently. He used the ticket bat to jam the door every night.

So no, all that, together with a ladder being left against an outside wall... does not suggest a man living in fear of invaders to me.

*cricket bat!

Bona- if she heard him shouting at what he thought were intruders, I expect she would have stayed very quiet in the loo. I would have as I wouldn't want to draw attention to where I was.

He can't keep breaking down like this though, can he?

Oh, I very much think that is his plan.
He's very delicately balanced himself on this precipice, so when cross-examination starts, even the slightest hint of things starting to go "off-course" may precipitate a "breakdown".

I hope the judge doesn't fall for it.

No doubt he is very traumatised; only a psychopath wouldn't be.
That doesn't equate to innocence.

If I get up to go for a wee I just go. No need to announce it.
My Pondering:

She was in the toilet when he was shouting to her about the intruder. So she locks the bathroom door and doesn't respond to op as she doesn't want the intruder to know where she is. She won't know that op is standing outside the loo pointing his gun at the door. He hears the loo door being locked, assumes the intruder just locked them self in there, fires at the door. Possibly she didn't scream as the first bullet wounded her badly, she slumped over rather than scream.

Regarding him having to appear on his stumps. It was nothing more than to demonstrate what height he is without them, given all the discussion about height of baseball bat marks etc.

All the stuff about dodgy locks etc is being presented by the defence which seems strange if it contradicts his fear. I'd expect the prosecution to present those points. I think the cricket and baseball bats do indeed point to him being scared but yes I would have got the alarm fixed. However, from the comment about the bathroom window not having burglar bars, I assumed everywhere else did.

No the police were not called there because of an argument but after security etc had been called due to the shots. I can't remember who rang the police first but apparently they arrived at the house some time after security, the doctor and the ambulance. Which is probably why most comfortably off South Africans call a private security company rather than the cops who are, allegedly, pretty slow at getting to the scene. I work with 2 or 3 South Africans who say the cops are also generally considered to be corrupt and this is backed up by the fact that the station commander kept the door in his office, not the evidence locker, in case someone "tampered with it".

Although, on the other hand, if I was living with a bad-tempered bully, and for some reason I felt the need to run into the bathroom and lock the door, while they shouted and banged on it, I might think it was a refuge from them.

Sorry, I just re-read this properly:

"the police had been called to the address before because of arguments. "

That was the row he had with the girl who got evicted from the party. Police were called but didn't pursue it. I remember at the time being shocked that the policewoman said that they had been called to the house before because of "a domestic" - this was on the day Reeva died and I would have thought it would be prejudicial.

I remember being shocked by that too, but that was before I realised there weren't juries in SA.