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?

Ha, partly! No, I just get frustrated - not really here, but in conversation - at people who have heard a 90 second report on the news and formed an opinion on whether he is guilty or not. I also strongly believe in innocent until proven guilty.

Also, the sequence of events of that night is mainly being presented by the state at the moment, who are the ones trying to prove guilt. Perhaps if it was the other way round, and it was the defence presenting their story first, it would seem like he was totally innocent. I'm not saying you or anyone here isn't capable of coming to your own conclusions, just that both sides are 'biased' (maybe not the correct word), and their accounts should be viewed accordingly.

I hope that makes sense, I'm not sure it does!

Right Seff. I see it like a journey then - and we are commenting as we go along .. is that alright

I'm just trying to look at the evidence best I can and piece together what happened.

Clearly he isn't 'innocent', but it is the prosecutions job to show that he is lying. All all OP has to do is cast a shadow of doubt on each piece of evidence as it is presented - which is fairly easy to do.

OP was the only one there and the only one who knows what really happened. The prosecution have a really tough job.

I don't believe him to be guilty or innocent yet. I do find his story full of holes and lets face it relying on utter utter utter outright incredulous stupidity as a defense is shaky ground.

Even if he is found not guilty of re-mediated murder he is not likely to 'get off'. He will then face manslaughter charges and the standard would be what would the reasonable person do in his position - faced with the noise of you partner going to the loo, no actual threat, all in the head paranoia. No one would be safe in the house with him if this was held to be 'reasonable'

that should say "I don't believe him to be guilty or innocent OF MURDER yet".

They cant convict him though can they if they cannot prove anything. I have my idea what went on and it would explain the holes etc but.... prove it.
And the defense is just ripping people to shreds.
IMO the intruder story is bullshit but i think he will not be convicted.

if not convicted of murder I believe 100% he will be convicted of manslaughter - but whether he will go to jail for manslaughter is questionable.

I'll stick my neck out at this point and say I believe he WILL do some jail time but prob for manslaughter rather than murder.

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.

It was the noise of the bathroom window sliding open that he heard. He said:

"Unbeknown to me, Reeva must have gone to the toilet in the bathroom at the time I brought in the fans, closed the sliding doors and drew the blinds and the curtains.

"I heard the bathroom window sliding open, I believed that an intruder or intruders had entered the bathroom through the bathroom window which was not fitted with burglar bars."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26417240

Seff. In admissions on day one state and defence agreed that he had a zero reading for substances and alcohol. So that is not in dispute.

BeCool

what if he gets away with the self-defense?
I hope he won't, but would he then escape jail-time?

If he does then they have a very different idea of what constitutes self defence over there than we do here!

In the bail hearing he just said he heard a noise in the bathroom so slight change there:

From bail hearing statement - "I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised that someone was in the bathroom. I felt a sense of terror rushing over me.

There are no burglar bars across the bathroom window and I knew that contractors who worked at my house had left the ladders outside."

defending himself from who though?
Himself?

We've been talking about this with lawyers at work, and I'm fairly sure that there is no legal code for manslaughter in SA? Sky News seems to agree.

I was broken into in the UK on the same day as this happened. It's bizarre how real that has made the whole thing for me. Not that it wouldn't be usually, but it's definitely changed how I thought I'd respond.

the lesser charge in SA is "culpable homicide" and it is the subjective "reasonableness" test - explained quite well here: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26386954

from Wikipedia: in South Africa "Culpable homicide" has been defined simply as "the unlawful negligent killing of a human being". like driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs".

Who goes to the toilet in he dark at 2am and closes and locks the door?!?

This statement "There are no burglar bars across the bathroom window and I knew that contractors who worked at my house had left the ladders outside" works strongly against OP saying he was deeply paranoid and fearful of attack.

He KNEW the contractors left the ladder there, he KNEW the window had no bars yet he didn't get the ladders moved? Didn't ask the contractors to move them/secure them elsewhere when not in use? Suggests he felt a lot more secure on his safe crime free gated estate than he has admitted.

Also he just heard the window sliding open - that can't be that loud a sound. He hears the window being opened but he didn't hear anyone entering the window, or landing on the floor or locking the toilet door or making any other sound. Did he hear Reeva using the toilet? Flushing the toilet? Did he think the burglars broke in to use his loo?

If I were in a fairly new relationship and my new partner was awake and up, (OP was on the balcony and she knew this,) I would close and lock the bathroom door when going to the loo.

I'd say to him "I'm just going to the loo" or something equally exciting - and I wouldn't lock the door if I was feeling safe/normal.

Opal can I ask why?

In an en-suite I would think having the light on would be enough information for anyone to know that the only other person in the house was in the toilet.

I meant the whole burglary bullshit is made up to try and sell that it was self-defense.

against a burglar, of course.

Thanks for the thread, very interesting reading, I have been following this trial, be back later to read more.

BeCool. I'm trying not to speculate but it is a possibility that she locked the door after she heard him screaming to an intruder to get out. There is nothing yet to say when it might have been locked

There was a published article where she had written to a local paper a couple of years earlier to outline how intruders had broken in to her family home and she and her mother had locked themselves in one of the rooms - I forget which room. So it cannot be discounted that she locked it when she heard him shout, rather than when she had gone there in the first place.

All the rest, I'm sure, will come up in the next week or so.

zing can I ask why you hope he doesn't "get away with self-defence". Genuine question, as we have only heard about 13 witnesses for the prosecution so far, so surely it is too early to know if his story is implausible.

We can all think about what is reasonable for us, but that doesn't mean it is reasonable for others, especially in a country where violent crime is rife.

And your earlier comment about walking on stumps. Not too difficult perhaps when he was a wee boy, but his legs below the knee are quite thin and do taper, plus he is pretty bulked up on top so I would imagine less easy to walk.

His ex, who testified last week, said he often had to hold onto something to help balance on his stumps. That was said in court.

Wintry

because I think he killed her in a fit of rage and the burglar story is bullshit.

Here is a link to the bail affidavit, which was on Barry Batemans twitter a reporter from South Africa.

ewn.co.za/-/media/Files/BailApplication pdf

I can't do links so if anyone can repost as link I would be grateful.