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?

This is why he stated to Roux yesterday, that "before I knew it, I'd fired four shots" it's all so vague. To me, he is coming across as guiltier, the more he tries to prove his innocence.

"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."

That seems more plausable - and that he tried to break the door with the cricket bat and then went back for his gun. The neighbours may have heard the noises of the cricket bat and then screams from her and then the gun shots ..

It's being suggested that the defence will present witnesses who say that they heard Pistorius's screams not RS's.

I think saying his life is on the line shows how honest he is - if he was lying or manipulative he might not say this as I'm sure he will know how that might be perceived - he would add something about Reeva just to be heard to be saying the right thing. The reality is that now all that's left is his life, and if course his life is on the line and that's what he is fighting for.

OP has stated he tried to call 911 using reevas phone, but couldn't due to a passcode. But I'm not sure where was (could have been in the toilet, which covers his version nicely)

If he was honest, he'd answer the questions succinctly. Not go all round the garden path, for fear of the consequences. Imho.

Pennies with that scenario I don't understand why Reeva would be standing behind the door? If I was locking a door to protect myself from an intruder then I'd also be getting away from the door and hiding in a corner or going to a window for help. Unless your theory rests on her being shot so quickly after locking the door that she didn't have time to move but I don't see how that scenario fits with OP's testimony.

I'm struggling with the details that OP is providing. I've twice been a victim of attempted robberies and even now if I was to recount what happened on those occasions, I'd find myself criss crossing the timeline as I tried to explain what happened, where people were standing, etc.

However I never had to give a statement in court and maybe if I had I'd have practised until I told every little detail in the correct order. But I can't help but wonder if OP was making notes throughout the trial to make sure his statement did answer every query raised.

Even if I was honest I'd be terrified of saying something that might suggest I wasn't. I'm sure a good lawyer could make me say 2+2 doesn't always have to equal 4 if they pushed hard enough and I was scared enough.

If Reeva had used her phine as a light to go to the toilet, surely Oscar would of been aware of the phone light, given the layout of the room and where the bed is in regards to where Oscar alledgdy went to the fans /balcony. Oscar is at great pains to explain how dark he likes his room, a phone light would of been obvious.

When I use my phone at night in that way, it feels like Blackpool illuminations!

I agree Bonnie. If Nel asked me "So, you say you're name is Excusetypos" I'd be worried about giving a straight "yes" as you just know he will twist whatever you say.

"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."

The problem with this is that the forensic guy who testified for the prosecution said that the bat wasn't used on the door until after it was splintered by the gunshots.

I've been out to lunch so trying to catch up, although I probably haven't missed that much - they were talking about the bail statement when I left

I think it was bad day for Oscar. Nel was fearsome and questioning the number of fans, whether OP had gone on to balcony to get fan and generally picking apart his story. OP said he'd fired unintentionally which is at odds with him saying he fired to protect them both. Lots of confusion over tampering of evidence etc.

Nel wouldn't tolerate any crying either and accused OP of giving his rehearsed answers and not the answers to the questions being asked.

" I so 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."

Well that's ridiculous. How can he answer questions about them if he can't look at them?

Apparently, Mrs Steenkamp was told Nel was going to show the photo of Reeva. No wonder she didn't look upset.

She was standing because she had gone to the loo and then hear OP shout. She stands and listens at the door and locks it. He shoots. She's hit in the hip and recoils backwards onto the magazine rack. She is too shocked to cry out. He shoots again in quick succession. She covers her head with her hands but the bullets go through them. She's fatally injured and beyond sound. Even if at some point she did cry out he didn't hear her because of the sound if the gun / ears ringing. I've fired a gun like the one he had. It is incredibly loud.

The bathroom door being locked doesn't counter his defence, because according to his story, he didn't know the door was locked before he opened fire. Also, Reeva may have locked the door either out of habit, or after hearing OP shout about intruders.

OP has two big issues:

1. If he didn't go out onto the balcony, how did he not hear Reeva get out of bed?

And this is the big one:

2. How can he prove that when he fired 4 shots into an enclosed space, he didn't intend to kill anyone?

Number 2 is what Nel has been grilling him over today and I think this is where he wants OP to make a concession.

The eyewitnesses quoted by Roux this morning do back up OP's version of events with regards to hearing shots and then screaming.

There's quite a bit of security around his place, how did the intruder get past that?

He could have called for help, taken him and Reeva onto the balcony and used his phone.

"Nel was fearsome and questioning the number of fans, whether OP had gone on to balcony to get fan and generally picking apart his story. OP said he'd fired unintentionally which is at odds with him saying he fired to protect them both. "

I don't think the fan(s) is that big an issue because the bail statement was not meant to be a final, detailed version of what happened, just enough to get bail. The defence wasn't going to let the prosecution hear all of his story.

The firing intentionally or not is important. I wonder if Nel knows he can't win the premeditated thing so is just pushing to get jail time for something?

So if he didn't go on the balcony I do find it hard to believe that he hadn't heard Reeva get out of bed. The room was not that large, from the bail hearing it was suggested that he went on the balcony, Reeva got out of bed, that's why he didn't hear her, the blind must have been open as the doors were open and one leg of the fan was over the door bit. I can't understand how you couldn't know someone was moving in the room.

Also, I do believe he knew enough about guns to know that firing four shots into the bathroom would probably kill whoever was in there, intruder or not. That sits very uncomfortably with me.

Louise - I don't think there is enough solid proof that OP and Reeva definitely fought and that he definitely chased after her and intended to shoot her dead.

But

The number and pattern of shots does suggest intent to kill someone and that is what Nel is after to win the case.

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

Pennies, regardless of whether or not your version is the truth (which I seriously doubt), he has broken a number of gun laws and as in the Tony Martin case, in SA you are not allowed to shoot unless your life is in imminent danger. The fact the door was closed meant he was not in imminent danger. The fact he shot through the closed door, 4 times no less, means he intended to kill.

She had not used the toilet as there was no flush and nothing in the water except blood, and her clothes were properly on (shorts pulled up). Why else would she go to the bathroom? Now I sometimes take my phone to the loo for light as our light makes a noise and don't want to wake dh and I sometimes lock the door to prevent kids walking in, but I don't go to the loo just to play on or read my phone! I don't get up in the middle of the night to go to the loo to hang out for fun!

Her bladder was empty so she had used the loo recently, giving weight to the fact that she was (they were) awake a while before the shooting.

There are many more inconsistencies, but this is apparent when arguing against your version.

Chockbik, I can tell you from experience if you think there's someone there you don't spend time ruminating on exactly how they could have got in, especially when you are scared shitless. Even if there's no one there, your level of fear if you think there is, is just as great as if there really is. .

Nel is obviously trying to prove "intent" but if OP can convince the judge he was genuinely in fear for his life because of his disability then he might get a light sentence.

There isn't any real proof that they definitely fought that night and no one has come up with a solid reason for an argument either. I think the prosecution were hoping for something on the phone records and they didn't get anything concrete

"She had not used the toilet as there was no flush and nothing in the water except blood, and her clothes were properly on (shorts pulled up). ......
Her bladder was empty so she had used the loo recently."

As you say, she had been to the loo at some recent point, we just don't know when. Perhaps OP didn't hear the flush because he was screeching? There are inconsistencies of course, but there are also inconsistencies in the state case and their witness statements. Very few murder cases are as cut and dried as Perry Mason (showing my age now.) I still see no real motive for him to behave that way that particular evening.

I also think if you "believe" you are in imminent danger, you can shoot. Tony Martin (and let's not forget our laws are probably different) shot as they ran away from the house - he shot them in the back - and that is why he went to jail - because they were patently and without doubt, no danger to him.

Forgot to say: IF OP is telling the truth, he didn't know that the "intruder" wasn't armed, especially since they usually are in SA, regardless of whether or not he/they had hidden in the loo.

If it's the middle of the night, so hot they need fans in bed, they're a lovey dovey couple who've been together only a few months - why is she wearing shorts?