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 find it very strange re the iphones - the lock code he has given them for his iphone apparently doesn't work & he doesn't know why. Sounds suspicious doesn't it - like he has given wrong code and is praying they won't be able to access the phone/data.

Come on Apple - work your magic!

Read that too, but if that was the case wouldn't you wisper. Did you hear something in the bathroom?
Think he,s trying to get the let off because he,s suffered enough with all the weeping and retching!
Can see if you've killed your daughter you have given yourself a life sentance of suffering but thinkOP would just think I very got away with it.Thanks Roux

I agree that it may be normal to remember things incorrectly. But as far as the defence is concerned it makes a huge difference.

That's why the lawyers spent ages going over this 2 days ago.
If the guard did initially tell the police Op said "Im fine" then surely that's what should be taken as the truth? I know if I were on a jury, I would take a statement written at the time, rather than what is said in court a year later.

It is morbidly fascinating. I do think he did it deliberately too. It is the story that makes more sense.

I actually don't think he murdered her as in planned to kill her. I think it was either done in rage, as a result of fear. (Things I have read show him to be quite paranoid ). Or to demonstrate his manliness ( look dear I have saved us from the nasty robber!)
Unfortunately the real truth probibly won't come out. I just hope he doesn't go unpunished.

I dont think he planned it but my theory is that they rowed and he lost his temper.
How long is the trial set to last?

Im afraid it appears to me as though he lost his temper and killed her, for me there are to many he could haves` in his defence to be plausable. Whether hes convicted I dont know.

Sorry, meant to ask, his phone, is he saying its locked and he cant remember the code? Who has it now?

Surely a phone can be unlocked without the suspect needing to provide the code.

I don't think it makes much difference whether Op said "I'm fine" or "Everything's fine." Neither are a normal thing to say when you just killed your girlfriend

I think in this context it would be important like if he said "Im fine" then thats true, he was. If he said "everythings fine" thats very different.

How did OP know the bathroom door was locked?

I agree Hickory there is a huge difference.

He wasn't fine hickory - he was 1. devastated for the loss of Reeva and/or 2. devastated for the implications of what he did to Reeva

His story of it being an accident doesn't seem very likely to me. But I have the strangest feeling he's going to get off...

I think it's quite possible he could have done it in anger and then regretted it later.

I meant that he was phsically safe iyswim

It says on the bbc site that the defence got someone to kneel down and lift up their feet. The person wobbled and the defence said this shows OP couldn't have bashed the door with a cricket bat when on his stumps as he would have been too unsteady. Ridiculous as someone kneeling and lifting their feet is nothing like someone who is used to moving around on their stumps.

too unsteady? no way.

maybe for someone who has legs but tries to walk on their his knees it's wobbly but he lived without lower legs most of his life.

I doubt he'd be unsteady, it's how his been using his body, he must be used to it.

Hmm, I lost my leg just below the knee 14 years ago, I`m very quick putting on my prosthetic leg but it still takes a little time and even I would struggle (although I can, and have) to put it on in the dark as I have to put on my rubber glove onto my stump which has a pole which then fits into the prosthetic and clicks with some help with suction.

So, sorry my point, in the night when I need the toilet I hop, I can probably hop faster then any of you and am very steady, I can go without my lost leg if needs be. Friends that have both amputations can go like the clappers on their stumps, they are much more sturdier than me, as I am somewhat unbalanced.

So, unsteady, nope thats rather insulting, us amputees are rather good at adapting to our situations. I find that a very weak defence.

Did they really try to show someone on their knees in the courtroom? Dear God and I`ll shove a just for patheticness.

I didn't think his story was that implausible. But based on evidence so far, the huge argument and him exploding in a moment of anger seems more likely.

He might be able to move about on his stumps, but keep himself steady when he's swinging a cricket bat at full force is a bit different. If you have seen photos of him without prosthetics, the stumps are really quite small.

Here it is Onestep
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26541765

OneStepcloser - xpost. Obviously you know more than me, so I'll take my comment back.

Getting someone on their knees in the courtroom was a bit of showboating.

I can't see how they can possibly let him off altogether. To do so would set a huge precedent in terms of what is allowed wrt shooting someone on your property....