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 have been watching this case very closely.

I will firstly point out I have no legal background and no knowledge of the country or lifestyle.

I will go against the majority and say I don't think OP is guilty of premeditated murder, but that is based purely on gut instinct as all trials I take an interest in and I've not been wrong yet. I will be the first to state that I'm aware that this means noting at all to anyone.

I am finding myself morbidly engrossed in the trial though, I'm not sure if that's normal but I find it fascinating how the evidence is laid out and then picked apart by both parties.

I feel sorry for everyone who had to see the graphic pictures of Reeva's body and injuries. That would have made me sick, but I have a very weak stomach.

Regardless of anything, it's a very sad story and I spend a lot of time thinking of the families and friends of those involved.

Was in meeting most of this morning so couldn't listen properly. Was there an explanation given for the blood on the watch case? Maybe we have to wait for the blood analyst.

Was part of this thread last year along with a few others on here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/1690275-Oscar-Pistorious-Pt3

so coming back to this thread with interest. I wonder if anyone on that thread has changed their mind about OP.

Whatever your opinion regarding what happened and how the tragedy unfolded that night, it's a fascinating trial and it's not often that we get to see a live trial and barristers at work.

I too wasn't sure about the pistorius picture that was shown. If he was on his prosthetics then he looked very small. If he didn't have the prosthetics on why not? Did the police taken them away as evidence. He was supposed to have them on when the police arrived.

Re the picture, I'm afraid I might well have seen them wrong they were taken at a strange angle, apologies oh no did not take Dh and dd to point that out to me

It's South Africa, AfricanExport. Not necessarily the same everywhere on the continent

Armchair I haven't read today's twitter feeds yet but did see that photo and I agree the angles are odd!

I was on the threads last year. I'm holding the same opinion as before, but equally sitting on the fence for the outcome.

I was on the thread last year under a previous name. I'm more unsure now to be honest.

I've had lots of names since then but thought I'd revert to this one for the trial.

Just catching up with some of it on You Tube. I usually watch the 9.30 catch up on Sky News in the evenings.

I have to nail my colours to the mast and say I really wanted/want to believe OP's version of events. It's bad enough to accept that a reckless, trigger happy, paranoid OP might have fired off shots into a locked bathroom.
The alternative (that he hunted her down, terrified her and then killed her) is too horrible to contemplate.

It's refreshing to find a thread where the majority of posters have open minds, are interested in facts and evidence and are only spouting media fed, groundless opinions.

I am amazed at the blunders made my SAPS and I wonder of Barry Roux is going to call Hilton Botha as a defence witness.

I am also interested in hearing from the defence witnesses that were awake on the night and what they heard

I still don't understand the people that parrot the "they had a fight and he shot her in a rage". The only reference so far to an argument was one woman, who only heard one voice, couldn't hear what was said and didn't know where it was coming from. Plenty others didn't hear arguments.

*are not spouting"

I'm also pleased that this thread seems to be more considered then many discussions elsewhere.

I was initially very dubious about the trial being televised, but have changed my mind, with so much speculation it is important to see what is actually happening.

Someone upthread commented on Barry Roux's demeanor. One SA journalists tweeted about those in countries with juries seeming to find Roux "mean", whereas it would appear it's nothing unusual there.

I've just read the two twitter feeds I follow. It truly is sad that incompetence may undermine the whole effort of determining the truth for Reeva's family.

And then extrapolate that to the many victims of crime or burglary or misdeed, and the police's response. It's no wonder people live in fear. It must be terrible to live in and love a country so much that also gives rise to such lack of security and fear for personal safety. and from reading it isn't necessarily a SA-wide problem, but for the weather in Blighty, I am glad I live in Blighty.

I think guns beget guns, fear begets fear. I'm thankful that is not my life. I really hope this court trial really shows how SAP must pull up their socks and give the public a police force they can rely on, whether poor or rich, white or black.

GoshAnneGorilla

Quick question, does anyone know if Hilton Botha from the police has been in the witness stand yet (I'm sure he has) if so do you know what date this was please as I missed it.

No he hasn't. Not sure if the prosecution will call him. Gerrie Nel refused to answer today when Barry Roux asked if he was going to be called

No he hasn't but the twitter feeds show Mr Roux is quite determined to put it to the prosecution that they should call this witness.

Oh thank you AmIThat I thought I couldn't find it, I know I have missed a couple of days that I need to catch up on. I hope he is called, I believe Botha is the police office who is up for a murder charge himself.

Thanks Jill I hope he does get called.

7 attempted murder charges. Firing at a car load of suspects. He seems pretty shady

The law is not above the law, sadly.

"Someone upthread commented on Barry Roux's demeanor. One SA journalists tweeted about those in countries with juries seeming to find Roux "mean", whereas it would appear it's nothing unusual there."

That's very interesting, actually. I also guessed that there is also a bit of pressure on Roux and Nel being televised too.

I thought Roux was being very picky and precise (for want of better words) but I suppose that's the job when you're cross examining, and we'll see how he is with witnesses he's calling.

I was also surprised that Botha is still a maybe on the witness list. You would hope that the IO would be at the top of the list.

I get how OP could feel vulnerable on his stumps.
I get that in a country where guns are the norm and crime is a big problem why you would have them.

I get that you would take a gun with you if you thought there was an intruder in your home.
The things I fail to understand are:
If you thought you heard an intruder surly you would check that your partner was ok? Or indeed warn her of the fact that there was someone inside?
Having not checked on the whereabouts of your girlfriend why would you shoot straight away without ruling out that it was her?

Seff I haven't noticed anything untoward about Barry Roux's demeanour. By all accounts, Gerrie Nel is even worse, so we will see when the defence starts to call their witnesses.

Re Botha, the line of questioning yesterday was interesting. Roux made a funny, sly comment about Mr Botha and his interviews. He has given frank and subjective interviews to the press.

Prosecution were reluctant to say whether they were calling him or not, probably to unsettle the defence.

He might even make a valuable defence witness - stranger things have happened.

I still would like someone to say if what I missed re the blood on the watch case.

I'll have to you tube and watch the whole of yesterday, when I get time later on tonight

My thoughts so far is that the defence will say the state rushed to conclusions and have cherry picked the evidence to suit their case. The defence will then put forward their version of events and will make a major point on that OP's account hasn't changed since his affidavit.

However, a lot will hinge on OP's own testimony, particularly the issues of why he didn't check where Reeva was, why did he shoot 4 times?

Dolus eventualis may come in to play, because it could be argued that shooting into an enclosed space 4 times is lethal, regardless of who is in there, here is an excellent post that explains that: constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/oscar-pistorius-criminal-law-101/

So if OP is not convicted of murder, I believe (but am not certain - I'm no law expert) he could still be convicted of culpable homicide, which could result in anything between a suspended sentence to 15 years in prison.

I missed quite a lot yesterday but thought I heard the police say the key was in the outside of the door. Did I mishear or was it poorly translated? Why would the key be in the outside? It makes no sense.
Wintry I was wondering about the blood on the watch case too. Did you find any explanation for it?