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?

Minko- I find that type of question quite weird.
There are loads of reasons why she might have shorts on and non of them have any significance to the case.

I assume there's a LOT more to come from Nel, because to me the questions today felt very non-linear. In terms of a timeline, he really is jumping around - from questioning about the watermelon video, to intense scrutiny re. one fan or two, straight to the shooting itself.

I have to say I think he's standing up well, I also don't think he's doing anything that indicates any kind of guilt. There really is nothing that I've seen so far to back up the idea of an argument prior to the shooting.

LouiseBrooks: Guess it was a rhetorical question really.

Reeva had said in the past that he scared her. There was also the gun incident with him. From what I've read he seems a bit of a hot head.

I have lurked on this thread as there is no getting away from this trial on internet or TV.

I have to say - I find his snivelling and wailing abominable. Whatever the circumstances, he DID shoot her, intruder or not, and he should be more of a man when facing Reeva's family in the witness stand. Can he not imagine their grief? I find his blubbing totally disrespectful to his victims family. It is their sorrow he should think of.

I have no idea on the truth really but I do find the absolute tiny detail he appears to be able to go in to, all whilst crying like a baby, somewhat odd. It just doesn't seem like remorseful grief to me. There may well be remorse for what his future might hold, but if you have to face the family of someone you murdered, surely you rein in your wailing somewhat, out of respect to them. It is relentless.

Chockbic, I agree that he sounds like a hothead but that isn't the same as being a wife(girlfriend) beater and I still would expect the prosecution to have provided witnesses who saw him abusing any previous girlfriends. He might have scared Reeva if she wasn't used to a shouter. Her family seem to hold back their emotions, whereas the Pistorius clan definitely don't.

Re the shorts, not sure it's really relevant but apparently Reeva was wearing some of Oscar's clothes when she died.

Yes exactly Reeva and her family are the victims in this.

Roussette - just what does "remorseful grief" actually sound like? I'd also say it's not a question of respect for her family or lack thereof. If he really is in such a state he might not be able to control it.

Lets face it, if he wasn't "snivelling" then people would say he was a cold faced killer and should show some emotion.

Chockbick From what I've read he seems a bit of a hot head.

Of course he's a hothead - there's no getting away from the fact that even taking his version of events, he's a trigger happy hot head who should never have been let near a gun. That does NOT mean he murdered his girlfriend in an angry rage.

Yes true it doesn't prove he murdered her. In fact how could it be proved? With Oscar being the only witness to the killing.

I think he is a victim too, of his own doing but it's a tragedy if everything he is saying is the truth. It's a tragedy for all if them.

Agree with louise, how can he control his tears if he is truly devastated and in a state of depression and anxiety. I don't think I could. I certainly can't make myself cry if I want to, or stop myself at times I've felt really upset.

I hope he does get some jail time, it will be an insult to the law and justice if he didn't. What's to stop other men using the same defence in future if he gets off free?

I keep saying it, but actions have consequences and I don't have sympathy for him because his actions were really, really stupid. I agree with a pp about being thankful for the gun laws in this country (UK). This kind of case is exactly why.

From the prosecution POV, I guess they think you could make yourself cry and ham it up if you were a somewhat entitled young man who was facing 25 yrs inside. I still don't think he is fully appreciating what a fucking moron he was.

That's why he is crying..considering his jail time..

Bonnielangbird, I suffered from severe depression nearly 20 years ago and I found it impossible to control my crying, especially when discussing the trauma that caused it in the first place, although I could be okay at other times. That's why I don't think it is a question of "lack of respect" or whatever towards her family.

He sounded too rehearsed today, he tripped himself up a few times.

Nel is a rottweiler, making him look at the image of her head was brutal.

He is facing consequences, even if he doesn't go to jail (and I expect he wil,l for a time at least.) He has obviously had/having a breakdown of some kind, his career is ruined and lots of people think he's a murderer. Now I appreciate that's not as bad as being shot to death (or having your daughter shot to death) but he is already being punished to a degree even if he gets off scot free.

As for others using this defence, well they already have in SA - and got away with it, in at last one case without a trial at all

If he didn't cry - cold hearted, no remorse.

If he just shed tears - turning on a bit of the waterworks, not grief-stricken enough.

If he cries/ gets too upset - acting, being self-centred.

I have no idea what level of upset from him, would make her family feel any better. How could it?

I was not aware that there are acceptable levels of upset having 1) killed your girlfriend 2) being on trial for their murder.

I don't know about you, but I would have no idea whatsoever what my level and type of crying would be. I imagine I would feel all sorts of guilt, fear, self-pity, horror, but I don't know.

So all this "he's not crying properly/sincerely" seems odd to me.

I've seen people extremely upset in my day job, they all behaved very differently and, that was in cases with a very clear cause of sadness - someone close to them had died, yet there was no uniform behaviour.

To have someone close to you die, because you killed them, I don't think there could possibly be a uniform reaction to that.

No doubt he will be thinking fuck what have I done.

Isn't necessarily the same thing as remorse.

I get what you're saying LouiseB but he has had a year to think over what he has done. He has barely stopped crying the whole time. I think there's emotion, and there's emotion and this blubbing is beyond the pale. But what do I know...

I'm still struggling with how quickly he moved from believing there was a dangerous intruder in the toilet, to thinking it was Reeva. Why didn't he check elsewhere in the house for her?
I've remembered the other comment he made which struck me as odd. He said he screamed like he never had before. That seemed specifically designed to counter Samantha Taylor's statement that he didn't scream like a girl. His entire testimony is making me feel really uneasy.

Although I can see where you're coming from, he can't not serve time just because his career etc is destroyed. No one did this to him, he did it to himself. Taking a life carries many consequences, one of which is jail time as otherwise, what's the point? His bullets are were designed specifically to cause maximum harm to a human body and whether he killed her deliberately or not, he sort out the resources to be able to cause that level of damage to someone. It's a case of if you choose to have a gun in your home, and you're going to discharge it into a closed door, you're taking a big risk that you're going to kill/seriously injure someone. Basically, I'm saying all these different ways in which he is being punished is completely justified and hopefully he will never touch a gun again.

He may not realise it, but he needs to go to jail. If his version is correct and it was a terrible tragedy, he will need to serve a sentence in order to be able to forgive himself. We tend to forget that the point of serving a sentence is to pay your penance for the crime and I do think it will help him put it behind him in the future if there has been a definite 'punishment'.

HowAboutNo, I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished at all, just that he wouldn't be getting off scot free even if he didn't do jail time - although there is a precedent for not doing that, even if the circumstances of the shooting were different. I could be wrong but I doubt if the Visagie case is the only one either.

Bookasue - that's what I mean about too rehearsed. Of course, he's gone over the story a thousand times, I would expect nothing less.
But I think some of it is harming him, Nel pointed out, hes giving the answers he's prepared not what hes being asked.

Like hes been told, 'don't say you killed her say you took her life'.
'Always call it an accident'. Too rehearsed, not genuine.

The example you give is a good one - 'screamed like I've never before', like his defence team are ticking the 'Prove Oscar screams like a girl' box.

I think that whilst Pistorius refuses to answer questions put to him by Nel he is making himself look increasingly guilty

Pre scripted answers aren't going to work.

I will be surprised if he continues to testify as he seems to be really damaging his defence atm. Roux must be pushing him to state that he is too unwell to proceed.

Saying he 'accidentally discharged' his weapon, 4 times, in a tight group into a door shows that he still isn't taking responsibility or telling the truth about making the choice to pull the trigger and end a life

Pistorius didn't answer the question when Nel asked him if this was his only option open to him in the circumstances

He wouldn't answer straight yes or no questions as he was concerned about the implication

It doesn't mean that it wasn't a mistake or that he isn't remorseful