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?

It's interesting the level of detail he managed to include yesterday that addressed issues mentioned by the prosecution witnesses eg he was the one shouting before the shots were fired; he put the light on afterwards. Little details that tie in with the prosecution witnesses' statements but present a different perspective. I guess, however, this is the most important statement he is ever going to make so it will have been rehearsed to cover every detail.

There were two points that made me really uncomfortable. Firstly when he said Reeva wasn't breathing when he went into the toilet because that didn't seem to tie in with the doctor's statement or OP's later comments. Secondly when he said that when Reeva went to bed she knew she was loved. It made me so sad for Reeva's family because I imagine one of their fears is that Reeva died alone and frightened and not knowing that she was loved because her boyfriend was shooting at her because regardless of whether OP knew it was her or not, she must have known it was him shooting.

I have read some people saying they use it as a torch instead of putting the llight on. Not someone I'd do but then I never put the light on anyway when I go to the loo during the night.

If the defence can prove the loo light was broken, that would give credence I guess since the bathroom didn't have a door on it so she might well not have put that particular light on.

It's yet another cause for speculation, based upon what we personally might do in such circumstances.

Today he has said Reeva was breathing, so I'm not sure why he said yesterday, that she wasn't.

I can't wait to hear why when he was screaming to reeva to call the police etc before he shot, why reeva didn't alert him that it was her in the toilet . She had ample chance to do so. Even if, like the prosecution claim, the first shot hit her arm how come he didn't hear her scream and alert him it was her.?

So the trial is now delayed until this video is resolved?

Bloody hell. So does Nel think he's gone too far? Asking himself for a recess after that? How awful for her mother to have to see that photograph. I can't believe the BBC just showed it.

I think that was a huge mistake by Nel. Comparing Reeva to a watermelon then making Op look at the pictures of her head. Ridiculous.

Yes and the judge had to ask Nel to take the picture down. He has gone too far.

Not just cruel to OP (those who think him guilty will no doubt say he deserves it) but vile for her family. Nel really deserves his reputaiton doesn't he? Judge not impressed at all.

I also think OPs response to him being asked to look at the photo, sounded very genuine.

ExcuseTypos, Me too but then I think he is remorseful, regardless of the circumstances in which he killed her. I don't buy into this "he's faking it" at all. However he killed her it was obviously done in frantic emotion (of whichever type) .

So presumably that is what the whole watermelon video thing was leading up to? So that Nel could deliberately do that?

Louise regarding the mobile phone - if I'm staying away from home and wake during the night then I check my phone to see the time. If there are any messages I've missed then I might take the phone with me into the toilet so I can read them without disturbing anyone else, also I might just take the phone in with me because it's already in my hand from checking the time.
It's all these little points that are so difficult to read. They could be perfectly innocent or they could signify something deeper and darker.
As I said way up thread I just wish there was something decisive so that Reeva's family can be absolutely confident that they know the truth about what happened that night.

You're right Louise.

OP does go into a lot of detail about things, which some have said indicates its all scripted but I wonder if SA trials are different to ours? We are used to barristers bellowing "stick to the question asked" ( on dramas anyway). They don't seem to be doing that in this trial, witnesses do seem to expand a lot.

Trouble is, how many of us have actually experienced a trial? We get our "information" from tv and my lawyer cousin tells me that most of what you see in a courtroom tv drama is rubbish.

Why would he whisper to Reeva and THEN start screaming?!

As all the lights were apparently off (everything happened in pitch darkness according to OP) it has been suggested up thread that Reeva could have used her phone as a 'torch' to get to the loo without turning any light on. This would explain why Reeva didn't turn a light on and why she had phone with her.

I've done this many times - its a credible explanation.

I think they need a nighttime reenactment at the scene of the crime to establish just how dark it actually was. The darkness or the room, no lights turned on until well after he had shot her, is at the centre of his "I didn't see she wasn't in bed" argument.

What is Nels reputation?. I haven't heard much about him. I think it was silly to try and make him look at the picture. OP is obviously very fragile and damaged after this tragedy so to push him more was unnecessary and obviously shocking for reevas family.

I do believe OP version of events.

He whispered perhaps not to startle reeva with sudden shouts.

Oscar's memory sharpness regarding the minor details is chilling. He seems to remember everything that proves his case and along the way discredits state witnesses. The man even remembers Dr Stipp's emotional state

I do not believe that he feared an intruder, he shot Reeva to kill her, but I will respect whatever decision the court arrives at.

"Basically, it is a self pitying type of crying that I hear from him."

Pettybutter - Yes I agree. It feels self orientateded rather than orientated towards the devastation he caused to poor Reeva. There's no OMG poor Reeva type of expression.

Daisypops, Nel's reputation is fearsome and he is living up to it.

Showing that photo directly after the watermelon video clip, will have been vile for Reeva's family. I imagine they've seen the picture before and will want Nel to do whatever it takes to get their poor daughter's abuser, and ultimately killer, behind bars for a very long time.

Nel just seems to be trying to tie OP in knots.

He needs to just get to the point.

Bloody lunch adjournment! This case is going to take years :(

Should they not have lunch, so your entertainment is not interrupted?