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?

OneStep

thanks for explaining - and that's what I thought as well, it's insulting.

and frankly he is a professional athlete, a runner, him being unbalanced when moving his body in any way is a bad joke IMO

and just to add, there was a clip of a little boy shown on Russel Howard's Good News a while ago - he was born without legs below knees (or no knees even) - and he run surprisingly fast just like that!
(he was getting his shiny new legs and was learning to walk - he was the happiest chap, bless him! )

OneStep
forgive my ignorance, is it ok to say "born with stumps" or is it rude?

Zing, with stumps is fine I think, I lost my leg in my 20s so slightly different. I can't see my friends being offended by that.

Red, going around on stumps is painful, but so is wearing
prosthetics at times, so most people come home and take them off (same as getting into pjs I guess I hop after six!) but after time the stumps harden and it becomes easier and you get use to it, in fact when you get prosthetic balance is one of the the hardest thing to get use to as however good pros ethics are they are heavier than your original legs, however, I cannot talk for all amputees at all, it may well be very different for OP.

I would be surprised if he put them on in the night. the only reason he might is if he was embarrassed as it was still a fairly new relationship, if you think about it in crude terms even popping to the bathroom would mean he would be a foot and a half shorter, and that can be fairly embarrassing (it took me a fair while to allow Dh to see me without my prosthetic).

Sorry, meant to say, stumps do harden but as it's so close to the bone it would be very painful to use them all the time and cause a lot of problems.

Thanks for your answer!

I can't believe this intruder story!

But I think he'd going to get off. The defence are running rings around the prosecution.

To be honest those of you going by what you read or saw on the news are missing huge chunks.

I was a bit wary if televising a trial but it is very interesting and by no means as open and shut as the press portray. And apparently Apple have accessed his phone and found nothing of interest for the prosecution. When you see state expert witnesses concede in court, or hits home to you how much the media has influenced public perception of this case. The judge is calm and alert and I'm pretty sure she won't be swayed by anything other than evidence.

Worth reading the Andrew Harding Twitter feed. I've been at work (v long day) so getting a flavour of things from there.

I would've thought, with this being such a high profile person involved in ? murder case, that the law would be so squeaky clean and above the law. We know it wasn't then, and from the twitter feed it still all sounds rather poorly handled.

So he could've hit the door with the bat on prostheses, and there may be evidence he kicked the door as he stated.

The odd thing about the shots is that they seem clustered near the handle. I wonder if OP was trying to shoot the door open in anger because Reeva had locked herself in, and that OP didn't think of the consequences of firing a gun into a small enclosed space. I don't understand why you'd focus the shots near the handle if you were trying to frighten/hit an intruder.

I saw/a photo of open somewhere, I think in his autobiography of him running around on the beach without him pro thesis ass little boy. Also one of his friend knocked over a lamp whilst staying with OZp just a few months before Reeva was killed. OP ran into the room with his gun on his stumps so he does get around on them. This was an old school friend (boarding school) so probibly not embarrassed to be seen on stumps in front of him.
Did see it took OP years to allow journo,s tophotgraph him without prothesis

Sorry should read OP not open! And his not him!

Agree if you listen to televised trial twitter only gives highlights. And if you read the twitter feeds them what on the news seems like biased sensationalised highlights

Barry Bateman is another twitter feed I follow.

I think that sounds very feasible Bookaboo

He ran into the room with his gun when someone knocked over a lamp because he thought it was an intruder?

Mary21 Agree. Yesterday the defence counsel ripped apart the testimony of his ex-friend, who was involved in two of the additional charges. Pretty heavily involved it would seem. His final comments basically called the witness a liar (after showing photographs to disprove his testimony). This was met with silence from the witness, and interestingly enough, no objection or comment from prosecution advocate. I know what I infer from that.

Yet on the news, it said something like - Pistorius drives at over 200mph. No mention of any other part of that witness's time in court. Baffling.

Reporting is definitely not reflective of what is actually happening in course.

That is also why it is not helpful to speculate on what might have happened. None of us have anything like the facts, nor has the media reported accurately, so I don't understand either the "definitely guilty" or the "definitely innocent" comments.

If he is found not guilty of murder, or guilty of a lesser charge - or if he "gets off" as some people say - then it will be because there is reasonable doubt. And from what I've seen so far, prosecution's case is pretty weak.

Even the "ear witnesses" all heard different things.

We are not even near hearing what the defence witnesses have to say.

As I said before, the judge is highly respected and I am sure she will reach whatever conclusion based on evidence.

ZingSweetMango - I saw a documentary of OP, there was a clip of him running up a sloped garden in his everyday legs, and he was sort of unbalanced. Obviously this is inside a house and not a slope.

So is OP's defence saying first he was on stumps and shot at the door, and then he was on prosthetics and hit the door with the bat?

What is the prosecution saying, that he hit the door with the bat while on stumps, and then put on prosthetics and shot the door?

I can't think of why anyone would lock a bathroom door when using it in the middle of the night?

The most obvious reason would be to either make a secret phonecall without waking the other person & not wanting to be caught half way, or just to hide until a heated moment passes.

Can they check whether or not the toilet or sink or phone was used when she was inside?

Maybe she needed a shit and wasn't comfortable doing it with the door open 3 months into a relationship?

Maybe not, but that would be a valid reason for me. It's been a long while now, but I don't think I was comfortable using the loo in front of DH straight away.

That point alone isn't enough to convince me of guilt, anyway.

The pathologist would know if she had done a poo. Also she would have flushed the loo.

Would a burglar/intruder use the toilet and flush the loo? If OP heard the loo flush that is all the more reason to check if it was Reeva before firing?

So Reeva went to loo turning on no lights, using light from her phone so as not to disturb OP, but when she got there, instead of quietly taking a pee, she made enough noise to terrify OP so dreadfully he thought their lives were threatened and he shot wildly into locked door in self defence?

I don't buy this scenario at all. But this seems to be what OP wants us to believe.

Have we had any information as to whether there was any alcohol or medication in OP's system?

"I don't buy this scenario at all. But this seems to be what OP wants us to believe."

I don't either.

Still too early to say, IMO.

I would also hope that the judge hasn't reached any conclusions yet.

Seff - do you see it as your job to keep reminding us to see both sides of the story at all times?!

My focus is on the sequence of events and I like to comment on how the story and dynamics of that night appear to be taking shape. I am yet to be convinced of the intruder theory.

Yes, agree with BeCool.

On court proceedings - yes they are often slow and long winded although the part I've seen in this case does seem to have a very very slow speaking counsel, more than usual.