Oscar Pistorius trial part 2

[JillJ72]

To continue from previous thread

colincaterpillar - absolutely. Completely understand.

I get where you're coming from, Fleta. It's the contradiction of handsome man -v- appalling crime, and feeling the juxtaposition of I thought he was hot, how could he (not that hot means an angel, or doesn't appeal to me means must be bad). I still do, but it really does not seem right to do so, it's not appropriate.

Vacuous stuff really.

JillJ72 - thank you for understanding. I'm not saying at all it has any bearing on whether he has/hasn't done it. But as a human being it makes me desperately want him not to have.

I can't keep up with this thread ATM - moving so fast. Will catch up tonight, however my musings:

I am finding this whole line of OP shooting at the door 4 times BY ACCIDENT very very hard to swallow. One random bullet might be an accident. 4 targeted shots is a deliberate act. Yet he won't admit to that. Who is going to believe him when he says it happened by accident?
And of course he can't say the truth (even if it is "I aimed, I shot into the door, I wanted to stop the burgler") because that will be too easy to prove intention to kill. He can cry, sob and vomit all he likes but this is all about getting OP "off" completely, rather than the truth, or about Reeva, or about feeling sorry about making a huge fuck up.

I think that is damning testimony and comes because he is being pushed "off script" by the prosecution.

The more OP testifies the more I am swinging towards him deliberately killing her and I have been well on the fence.

Now the defence have opened the door to bad character testimony who knows what is to come.

I've been lurking for a while

I'm finding it fascinating, and I do think OP is lying, and that his lies are starting to unravel. I have been listening very carefully to his words and the way he's conducting himself.

One thing I noticed that I thought could be significant was when Nel asked him what he was doing when he got up OP said "I was going to get Reeva" and then immediately corrected himself to"...I went to get to Reeva"

'Going to get Reeva' sounds like going after her to attack her. He quickly recognised that and corrected it.

And now, in writing that, I've just realised that he claims he thought she was in bed. .. did he just spectacularly trip himself up? Did anyone else hear it?

Oscar is good looking, there's no denying that but so, apparently, was Ted Bundy. Not that I'm comparing him to a serial killer, even if he's found guilty.

That said, if Reeva was ugly would people care as much either? I'll always remember the case of a young Downs Syndrome girl who disappeared and it was barely on the news, whereas pretty girls who disappear are all over it. How many teenaged boys disappear each year, come to that, that we don't know about because they don't have a pretty face to put in the paper?

For me, I want it not to have been the case for Reeva. Awful to think she died scared and threatened. But it's not looking good. He intended to hurt someone that night. Four bullets, and the type of bullets used. He must have known what they would achieve.

Yes I don't understand the accidental shooting either.

So you pointed your gun at the door and pulled the trigger 4 times, and that was somehow an accident?

I agree I don't understand the accidental shooting either, you don't accidentally pull a trigger on a gun in the situation he says he was in, he pulled that trigger for weather it was because of his story or because of the States version, he still pulled that trigger, not once but 4 times.

I also find it intriguing the turn of phrase that he's using

"That is my version, yes" - rather than "That is what happened"

"I would have opened the curtains like this" - rather than "I did open the curtains.."

"The fan would have been there" - rather than "The fan WAS there"

I think these are all classic ways to get around telling a lie.

He is almost certainly following a carefully rehearsed script, which is inevitable, but also when forced to go 'off script' he's finding it difficult to all out lie, so he's fudging his answers like the examples above.

Just my armchair psychology... but I find it very telling.

Diminished responsibility? Is that what they'd call it? The lack of awareness, just acting, reacting, and then becoming aware?

Also known as accident, loss of control, recklessness....

.... any of those words to describe an ultimate no-no.

"What evidence is there saying, she didn't open the window?"

well exactly.

Is the window opening really important?
If the evidence that she opened it that 'Pistorious said she did' then can we trust that?

Yes and the deflecting and saying he doesn't understand the question it has to go off script.

"You are "irritated" animation only about the posts seeming to defend OP, not the ones at the other end of the scale, presumably because you disagree."

Bonnie - I think you do more than defend! You demonstrate absolute blind faith that he is an innocent man no matter what evidence comes through. It makes for very uncomfortable reading.

The window is only relevant in OPs version of the story - he says he heard it open, hence assuming an intruder.

It may never have been opened/closed. It might just be something he made up to support his story

GladitsnotJustMe" - the crime scene photos show the bathroom windowdefinitely open. The question is obviously when* it was opened.

Glad that's exactly what I noticed too re. Choice of words.

Could Reeva have been trying to climb out of the window to get away from him?

every other way out being blocked by OP?

Just reading up on it (late to this) and there's dispute over the order of events with the gun and the cricket bat so could he have first tried to bash the door with the bat, then tried to blow the lock off with the gun?

I pondered about number of shots and how difficult that could be to defend against.

However, wouldn't the argument be that if you were truly in fear of your life, as he has said he was, you would fire more then once in a panic.

The problem is one of intent, regardless of who he thought was in the toilet, if proved he shot knowing in all likelihood he would kill them, then AFAIK, it's murder.

That's why he was stumbling over the accident bit yesterday, his intent is crucial to the case.

Good overview of forms of intent here: whosyourdadic.com/2014/04/09/the-oscar-pistorius-trial-what-did-he-do/

Fleta. I think it is understandable that preconceived ideas shape what you want to be true, or more importantly not true

I met him once and desperately didn't want to believe he could have done this. But I have sat on the fence, not blindly thought he was innocent - I'm not naive.

But the more I hear, the more inclined I am to swing towards guilty

But who's to say how I'll feel when I hear the rest of the defence.

"You demonstrate absolute blind faith that he is an innocent man no matter what evidence comes through. It makes for very uncomfortable reading."

Well I'm going to chip in now since I find it uncomfortable that some people appear willing to convict him with mostly circumstantial evidence and still no proper motive.

I'm not saying and have never said that he doesn't have any case to answer, by the way, even if I do believe his version.

Louise thanks, sorry I wasn't sure if he was saying she'd opened it or closed it. If the photos show it was open, then we can't say whether she did or not.

I'm just thinking in response to those who asked why, if she was running in fear from him, would she pause to open the window. The answer is - if that was the case, then she may never have opened the window.

Well OP closed today by saying that the police opened his bedroom curtains, moved fans, switched lights on,then took the crime scene photos... I think Nel is merely handing him enough rope to hang himself just now.

"Just reading up on it (late to this) and there's dispute over the order of events with the gun and the cricket bat so could he have first tried to bash the door with the bat, then tried to blow the lock off with the gun?"

Even the prosecution expert agreed that the bat was not used until after he'd fired the shots through the door. Their expert accepted that on day 1 or 2 of the trial.

oh hang on, window was in the bathroom but not the toilet.

the window is a bit of a red herring really isn't it?