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?

Yes Louise , I do remember now, it was the police woman who said that outside his house. Strange that these previous incidents weren't made more of in the prosecution. That is if they actually happened.

There were loads of times today I wanted Roux to go further, I wanted to know "why" to a few of the things, but he didn't. I found that very frustrating.

Anyway, night all, I'm off to have my seasonal Spring nc, and will be back tomorrow

I think the police spokeswoman that spoke to the media on 14 February was not akin to the type of comms we see in the UK, which tends to be more matter of fact, refusing to be drawn, stating facts that can be released, comms trained - here is the world's spotlight on SA and she as much as said "I can't speculate" whilst doing just that....

I've wondered why the prosecution haven't produced more specific evidence of his alleged "violence". There has been no evidence from this or any prior relationships of physical abuse, or any evidence of what might have caused such a shocking argument between them on the night, if there was one. His ex girlfriend Sam is obviously fairly unhappy with him (to put it politely) and if he'd thumped her or frightened her, I'm sure she'd have said so. She just said he shouted. Perhaps they think the text from Reeva is enough, but it seems odd to me.

I'm off too, time for bed.

I've not been following the trial very closely but know the basics. But tonight I had to switch channels three times when watching the main news because I simply could not bear to listen to him. He is obviously very distressed. But honestly what a performance. It must be dreadful for the family of the victim listening to him day after day. Not sure what I think of him.

Confused now about the bathroom light
I thought that the defence team clearly rubbished the idea that the light worked as evidence given by a neighbour and yet Pistorius said it was on when he broke down the door

Room was pitch black to dark for him to ascertain where his awake girlfriend was located but not too dark for him to see her jeans and pick them up.

Still no explanation of Ms Steenkamp's blood on bed and above headboard.

Still no understanding why he'd immediately think Ms Steenkamp was in the toilet and not assume she had hit a panic button and scarpered elsewhere in the house.

Listening to his last few minutes of testimony today was very hard, but I've heard that type of crying before. My daughter cried like that - huge gulping, unable to speak sobs and heartbreaking wails when it was a done deal that we had to move away from UK, and she couldn't change our minds. I've cried like that during a very dark time of my life when I left my husband, and felt that the world was against me as life was extremely difficult with 2 small children and having to relocate countries etc, talking to my sister, when desperate for her to give me some time and attention (she was v.busy with her own concerns).

Basically, it is a self pitying type of crying that I hear from him. Believe me the tears sprung to my eyes when I heard it, and I felt utter sympathy because I know something of hopelessness one feels when they feel that way. In Oscar's situtation, the hopelessness and anguish that comes out in his crying is his terror of going to prison. His sister's crying is totally genuine, as she loves him and is utterly devastated by what he is going through at the moment, and tormented by the thought of his future if he goes to prison..

He has perfected his testimony over the last year, and it is very convenient how all the questions people have raised on the internet have been answered in his testimony. It is an extremely clever defense. No one thought he would be able to defend himself against all the evidence, and now everyone is wondering whether or not he will actually be able to be questioned by Nel, as he is so 'fragile'. Even Nel, I think will be wondering how he is going to be able to do anything with him.

I think Nel will have to just fire random questions at him in no particular order, rather than lead him in a blow by blow account, where he is able to build up his emotion. E.g. question 1, what did you watch on tv that night? question 2, why didn't you ask who was in the toilet before shooting? question 3, did you have your prosthetic legs on before you beat the door with the bat? etc etc. Questions that require short answers, as that will make him have to think rather than be able to recite a very heart wrenching rehearsed speech.

If after Nel has had his questioning time and Oscar's testimony still stands up, I will maybe believe there was a tragic accident, but at the moment, it still looks as though he knew she was in there and shot deliberately.

Also, do remember that it was his own defense team who he is paying a lot of money to who had him take his legs off. He wasn't ordered to do that by the prosecution or the judge. The number of people who are swayed by yesterday's (Tuesday's) drama just shows that Roux and his team really do have a very well thought out (if very unconventional) defense prepared.

Also, there are people who can fake that kind of emotion very well, look at Meryl Streep and any other good actors. Look at conmen and abusers who are able to manipulate others.

That is strange that the prosecution didn't make more of the blood near the bed.

It's a weird one isn't it, both Nel and Roux are so skilled at what they do that you don't know what you're going to think after a day of cross examination. I agree that this is why it's good there's not a jury - never thought I'd say that!

Well, for me the prosecution cast doubt on his a attitude, the text messages undermined him. But they didn't clearly pin him down on the circumstances that led to shooting Reeva; so many unanswered questions.

Maybe Nel is saving that for now - to get under his skin enough that he confesses. Or maybe it is all as he says and he (Oscar), the same as everyone else, every days says "Why didn't...."

I wonder if questions will remain unanswered. I hope the Steenkamps get the answers they need.

Ronald - I think they've said previously that the bathroom light worked but the toilet light didn't.

I'd love to know what Nel's thinking after yesterday. And I'd love to know if he genuinely believes OP to be guilty.

Finding it fascinating reading all your opinions on it; there's a lot of stuff that I've missed and I really do swing from thinking one extreme to the other.

I think there are gaps in the plausibility of his version but there are also gaps in the other scenario.

Let's consider. It happened at 3am so either they had been awake and rowing for hours or they'd gone to sleep then woken up and started arguing. None of the neighbours heard anything prior to just before the gunshots so the row only escalated to shouting in the last few minutes.

He's on his stumps, threatening her with his gun. She runs screaming to the toilet and he pursues, still on his stumps, and fires in a rage at the toilet door.

Then it goes one of two ways. He is instantly filled with remorse and horror, breaks down the door to get her out and all the sobbing and hysterics the first responders find him in are real. But in the midst of that, he quickly constructs the intruder story. Alternatively, after shooting her, he knows he has to come up with a story so he comes up with the intruder thing and breaks down the door to fit with that. Then puts his sobbing performance on.

The point is that there are elements of those versions that are implausible also.

Why did she take her phone to the toilet in the middle of the night if she'd just woken sleepily for a quick wee?

Why then - as she had her phone - did she not call 911 or security if as he alleges he was shouting to her in the bathroom that there was an intruder?

I feel so very sorry for Reeva"s familt having to listen to that obvious [well to me] phoney . his crying was just so OTT.

Does anyone think that Pistorius will face a cross examination from Nel?

Or will his health be too compromised?

I find the constant breaking, petting and keening for Pistorius really distasteful.
I suppose that says more about me though if I'm honest.

When I see Ms Steenkamp's family not only facing details of this terrible death for their daughter/family member but then having to go through this it makes me feel ill.

This is an interesting article about Pistorius

Written long before what occurred with Ms Steenkamp

It shows a different side to him

Also he sounds, vocally, utterly different on the stand to how he did in all his previous interviews.

Is this nerves or now trying to demonstrate humility?

This broken man isn't the grinning man out doing shots and patting girls arses that has been reportedly enjoying as detailed in the SA press before the trial began.
Nor has there been any mention of his new romance.

Does anyone else think he's innocent? I.e. he really did think that there was an intruder etc? I am convinced he is and that the tears etc are entirely genuine and I find it very hard to listen to someone who is so distressed. I have a background in psychology so whilst I'm by no means saying that means I must be automatically right, I am usually a fairly good judge of real emotions. I can't see anyone on here from what I've read who believes the same as I do though?

Bonnie - I think he could well be, although I think there are some quite incredible parts of his story. If he is innocent, then I think he should have to accept that because some of the detail of what he says seems far fetched, he has to face this process. He did kill Reeva, that is the price he pays.

How can he say he can "barely stand on my stumps" when he says he went on his stumps to bring in the fans from the balcony?!

You've summed up my view waiting.

Obv only Oscar knows the truth of what happened. His crocodile tears must be sickening for Reeva's family to witness.

Just seen that he said Stipp (the neighbour who was doc on the scene first after he heard all the commotion) "seemed overwhelmed by the situation" and "did not seem to know what he was doing" which is strange to me, as I thought Stipp's testimony was very measured, especially when describing exactly how OP was touching Reeva (something like hand in mouth, hand on upper right thigh) and describing how he knew she was dead. Can't remember what kind of doctor he is, but surely he's unlikely to be overwhelmed and useless? That kind of extra detail in OP's testimony is exactly what I was referring to yesterday, him slipping these things in to discredit particular parts of the prosecution.

I believe him.

I have no credible reason why, I generally get a feeling for these things one way or another. Although of course if he is found guilty of premeditated murder then I will trust in a judge to make that call correctly.

I think it's an a awful case for everyone involved and whether he is telling the truth or not, a young lady still lost her life and a man is in for a lifetime of distress, 2 families have been dragged through hell and all because of a fucking gun, guns are once again shown to be incredibly dangerous and life shattering in the wrong hands.

I don't believe him. I also generally get a gut feeling for these things. I reckon most people do.

It's not the gun, it is the evil bastard that pulled the trigger that is the problem.

Yes m'lady, no m'lady, three bags full m'lady - grrr