Oscar Pistorius trial part 2

[JillJ72]

To continue from previous thread

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

AmI - this is absolutely the way I feel. I'm not well informed enough or indeed in receipt of enough detail to know absolutely the verdict

Stampy I thought that - but also, OP did say that the police moved a lot of other things at the scene - implying they were generally careless. I would expect the defence to provide evidence of other instances of carelessness by the police - wasnt there something about his watches being stolen?

If the defence can prove that other parts of the crime scene were disturbed, then all of the nit picking today might not stand up against him at all.

I thought it had been shown that items had been moved by the police?

Stampy the defence have said from day 1 that stuff was moved etc.

I'm not jumping in to defend him there, by the way, in case anyone wonders. Merely pointing out, since I have followed the case quite closely, that this is not a surprise. Allegedly the police's own photos prove this, as things are in different places in different photos. Presumably we will be seeing them at some point.

I agree Glad, OP did keep repeating that things had been moved, but Nel just ignored him.

I'm sure photos were shown weeks ago which proved items had been moved?

Have they already covered that ExcuseTypos ?

If that's the case, then I fear that all of the work Nel did today in establishing that the way the crime scene appeared, with the position of the fan etc, to prove OP was lying might have been in vain if the defence have already shown that other items had been moved.

The defence could just argue that none of the crime scene could be used against him, as it was all tampered with.

Wow - I have been looking at some of the press recreations of the crime scene... so many of them have the bed in the wrong place, the door opening the wrong way!

LouiseBrooks this whole case is built on the rocky foundations of circumstantial evidence! Nel made a point of saying that today, so if he is found guilty based on the evidence available which is in the main circumstantial then would the court /judge be wrong?!

In that case I think all of today may have been a waste of time...

I think Nel ought to focus on asking OP exactly what he was intending to do when he fired 4 shots at a door.

Forget about whether he knew it was RS or not. What did he think would be the consequence of shooting 4 shots, in that pattern, using ammo that he knew would cause maximum damage to human tissue, into a confined room where he suspected a person to be.

Because surely he cannot argue that it was an 'accident'.

Also - I'd like to hear him ask him at what point did he realize it was Reeva in there. Because he said he shot, then rushed back to get his legs and cricket bat to break down the door... is that right?

So why did he rush back to get his legs?

And what did he do, think, feel, when he got back to the bed and realised Reeva wasn't in it?

I'd like to hear him explain all of that.

www.cbc.ca/news/world/oscar-pistorius-trial-photographs-show-police-altered-crime-scene-1.2576673

This refers to earlier evidence of moved items but no specifics.

I don't know if he rushed back to the bed. I think he said he went back to the bed, got on it, felt for Reeva, looked for Reeva, looked around the bed, put two and two together, realised it must be Reeva in the toilet and then went to try and open the door.

Now I'm confused. Did he go back to the bathroom sans prosthetics, then put on his prosthetics and go back again to break the door open?

"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."

That's OK Louise, but how can you be so sure you believe his version?

It's a marathon not a sprint though, Nel will presumably have a lot of topics to work through.

I've listened to OP. It is important to bear in mind we can't see him, but going on the soundtrack alone, I'd say there are a lot of circumlocutions and small digressions. It tends to sound like equivocating and playing for time. Never a simple answer, even when there is an obvious one.

It may be that OP has almost been over-coached and is not speaking in his own voice and therefore, is paradoxically sounding less convincing. Or, he can't keep it simple because he has to remember his invented and memorised version of events.

So what items have Oscar said that have been moved? When he was asked yesterday he said he couldn't remember.

Today was telling with the photo of fan. Oscar only said the the fan was moved otherwise his story wouldn't match. He say nothing about this yesterday when he was shown another photo with the fan in the same place.

"so if he is found guilty based on the evidence available which is in the main circumstantial then would the court /judge be wrong?!"

Well my comment was of course a response to being accused of being one of those who is always believing the best of him and ignoring the evidence. I don't think they have any concrete evidence.

I also think, as of now that he will not be found guilty of the charge of "premeditated murder". I think Nel knows he can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt as he is supposed to.

"Blind faith" animation would be something like this: "he's innocent, full stop". I've tried to back up why I feel he is telling the truth in all my posts. Let's hear what you've got to say on the trial for once, could be interesting.

I also thought it had already been proven that the evidence was tampered with. I'm a bit lost re what Nel is trying to achieve by this (did miss the last hour though)?

"So why did he rush back to get his legs? "

Because he realised it might be Reeva in there because she wasn't anywhere else. He said so in his statement.

"Now I'm confused. Did he go back to the bathroom sans prosthetics, then put on his prosthetics and go back again to break the door open?"

his version is that he went to the bathroom without his prosthetics and shot four rounds while screaming at Reeva to call the police. After he shot the door he returned to the room and while he was putting on his prosethics realised Reva wasn't there. Then, with his prosthetics on he took the bat to break down the door.

"Everything was pitch dark in the bedroom and I was still too scared to switch on a light.
Reeva was not responding. When I reached the bed, I realised that Reeva was not in bed.
That is when it dawned on me that it could have been Reeva who was in the toilet.
I returned to the bathroom calling her name. I tried to open the toilet door but it was locked.
I rushed back into the bedroom and opened the sliding door exiting onto the balcony and screamed for help.
I put on my prosthetic legs, ran back to the bathroom and tried to kick the toilet door open.
I think I must then have turned on the lights.

I went back into the bedroom and grabbed my cricket bat to bash open the toilet door.

A panel or panels broke off and I found the key on the floor and unlocked and opened the door."

This was read out at his Bail hearing in Feb 2013.

so he returned to the bedroom, then to the bathroom, then went back to the bedroom to put his legs on.

He thinks he did turn on the bedroom light.

Thanks Stack. Usually I'll get the answer for myself but am juggling overtime work (yep, I'm a part timer!) with this thread. Have been following since I saw the early news on 14 Feb 13.

Can someone recap on what Roux was objecting to near the end of today's proceedings when he told Nel to move onto the next question & said he'd find it in the record overnight?

I thought Nel created an excellent picture of someone who would say black was white in the pursuit of self - preservation. Did OP insist on taking the stand against advice(bit late to the intricacies)?

"That's OK Louise, but how can you be so sure you believe his version?"

I can't be "sure" he's telling the truth of course not - how could I unless I was in the room at the time? However I believe it's possible for someone to be in such a panic and because there is no real motive and only circumstantial evidence. As I have already said numerous times.

The defence team were asked a while ago if OP would take the stand. They said "we have no choice".

Everyone is convinced you are guilty if you don't.

at one point Roux was objecting to the assumption that there had been an argument, he said it wasn't something the prosecution had raised previously I think, and that it wasn't fair to suggest it had happened when ho evidence was presented to prove it? I think?

Surely the witnesses who heard screams are the evidence?

was he arguing today that he hadn't turned on the lights?
To see a key in pitch blackness presumably he must have.