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?

I think we have to wait and see re Nel. He's only just beginning with all of this. At the moment it seems nit-picky and laboured, but there's so much more detail to go through.

We must remember that Oscar killed Reeva, and even if a case of mistaken identity, he must go through this rigorous cross-examination. It seems cruel at times, but it is essential.

I'm actually shocked by the photo shown. Nothing to do with entertainment, it's the fact that every time OP gets 'upset' they take an adjournment. I'm assuming this is not what would usually happen.

For reevas family, I'd like to see the trial completed, but it's not looking likely anytime soon.

Does anyone else think that nel is trying to get Oscar to lose his temper?

He's trying to unsettle him enough to trip himself up. If OP is telling the truth he won't be tripped up. If he's lying it will take a massive effort not to slip up. Nel is doing his job.

Nel keeps asking him the same question twice. I think I'd be inclined ot say- I've just answered that!

I also don't understand why he's allowed to ask questions about photographs OP isn't allowed to look at. OP asked to look at them and Nel said that isn't necessary.

No, I could've done without seeing that photo too. It's really upset me. I'm being careful to listen to most of it on audio only from now on.

I agree with the judge on that - that was unfair. OP responded to that well - for want of a better word. I think that crying was real.

Nel is obviously trying to trip him up. If the prosecution case is correct, then OP has made up a very detailed tissue of lies -which is a chilling thought- and got himself a very good barrister to pick holes/cast doubt on every aspect of the prosecution case.

I think police incompetence re the crime scene etc will mean he gets off.

To me, whether he thought it was Reeva in the toilet or an intruder, he still fired especially dangerous ammunition through a closed door. He must have expected to kill whoever was on the other side so technically he's guilty.

Quite a lot of it doesn't make sense, hope that justice is served.

I've still heard nothing that makes me think he isn't telling the truth. He just said 'reworked the evidence' but I don't think there's anything in that.

He accidentally discharged his weapon?

Here's what I think happened...

OP wakes. she is awake too and asks if he has trouble sleeping. He's hot but he also notices the windows are open. He foes to sort the fans out. It must be hard for him to move them because he doesn't have his legs on, and it is dark so he is concentrating on what he is doing. Whilst this is going on she goes to the loo (maybe telling him quietly, maybe not but he's focusing on what he's doing with the fans) taking her phone with her to light the way because its so dark but she doesn't want to turn the lights on because too much glare.

So she's on the loo, he's in the bedroom. She thinks he knows she's in the loo. He shouts to her that there are intruders. She assumes he's busted someone trying to get in via the balcony so she goes quiet. I don't know why she doesn't phone the lice: maybe she dropped it and can't find it in the dark, maybe she wanted to see what happened next so she had more info to give the police. She keeps quiet because she doesn't want to alert an intruder to her presence and locks the door. He hears her locking the door, thinks it is the intruder unlocking the door to attack him and shoots. Se will have died probably believing she was shot by intruders not OP.

It is a tragedy of errors. I rest my case M'Lady.

*phone the police.

Am on my phone. Apologies for typos.

Pennies that is the scenario the defence wants the judge to believe.

I think they had a row, in fear she ran to the toilet, taking her mobile and locked the door. He tried to break it open with the cricket bat. That didn't fully work. He got the gun and shot his girlfriend, of a few short months, dead.

I think they had an argument and she went in the toilet out of fear, locking the door to keep him out.

It's said that she wasn't shot in the head until the third or fourth bullet, so she would have been conscious. Makes sense that she would have shouted out.

Just read this in the Telegraph.

"09.54 Aislinn Laing, our correspondent in court, says a Pistorius family source says the reason for his breakdown yesterday was that he has never before been able to speak about it before so openly about that night.
Family say he'd always previously got to a certain point then couldn't go further, with his lawyers, or with them. It was the first time
It explains why the family were so emotional, and why he collapsed so completely"

But he's not been described or proven to be a violent man has he. His ex never said he hit her etc. he may be petulant and believe his own hype but it seems a huge leap from that to a killer.

He killed her in error. Fosho.

I think pennies account is far more plausible. Wasn't it proven that she did actually use the toilet just prior to the shooting as well?

Bum forensic experts have said that the shots hit the door before the cricket bat.

I do agree that the " accidently dishcarching his weapon" is a bit strange.

I thought it was proved ages back that the cricket back came after the shots because of the way the door?

Sorry, the way the door was marked.

I agree that they haven't produced any evidence to suggest he was a violent person.

Mel was trying to prove the point that OP fired deliberately at the door. This would prove intent to wound or kill whoever was on the other side. OP is refusing to answer, because he knows this.

His comments of "my life is on the line m'lady" are so self centred. Mel was right to counter, that reeva no longer has a life.

Ah ok. It will take a lot to convince me that the intruder story is true.

It's not me that needs convincing though, it's the judge.

Is this an adjournment until tomorrow?

I've missed most today so catching up on twitter now. I did pick up on discrepancies earlier such as when Reeva was breathing/ not breathing.

I've just watched the end and yes Nel is trying to trip him up, but as a pp said, that's his job, he has to test evidence.

I was surprised to hear him say that Reeva's phone was in the toilet. If he was making up a story, I would have expected him to have moved the phone back to the bedroom. I did wonder about the phones and which one was where.

I will go and catch up with Karyn Maughan, who I think seems to be the best journalist on twitter