Oscar Pistorius trial part 2

[JillJ72]

To continue from previous thread

A terrifying concept Louise

Agree voiceof, it does need to be rigorous, although I don't think Nel is playing it quite right as his questions are so confusing that I can kind of forgive a confused answer. So not sure this style of questioning goes in the prosecution's favour, although Nel and team must think it does.

pennies I wonder if they are not objecting because they see it as going their way at the moment too. Plus an objection makes them look worried I think, so perhaps they would want to avoid that if at all possible (certainly didn't look good to me when they objected re the video).

"It certainly seems very underhand. Why aren't Pistorius' legal team objecting though?"

Pennies I wondered that too unless they are ignoring it inthe hope that the Judge will also think it underhand. However, surely if it is not allowed, she would stop him? He said something this morning (I missed the beginning) and said "but I won't do that" and the Judge said "you can't do that Mr Nel"

Thank you Sauce, he does sound like someone willing to blame everyone else for everything.

voiceof I agree that rigorous and aggressive interrogation is necessary (especially when dealing with a defendant like OP who I believe is lying).

But I'm not convinced that Nel's broken sentences, going back on himself, changing his tack halfway through a sentence is necessarily the most rigorous legal process. It's just messying the message.

If Nel is considered the best in SA, then I bet Shrien Dewani is counting his lucky stars that he's busy at the moment...!

I think they are ignoring it because they think it is acceptable. We don't know what is or isn't acceptable in a SA court but they clearly do...

GladitsnotJustMe I know of 3 that OP blames his defence team on, that he never claimed to have gone out to the balcony to fetch the fan, that he has always maintained to his lawyers that it was 2 fans not one fan as written on his bail application and that he has never said he fired with a double tap but in rapid succession

And that Roux confirmed to OP that keeping someone else's ammunition for safe-keeping was not illegal.

I've felt throughout this that the need to do a reenactment in the flat.

So much of OP's defence/story relies on the room being pitch black and he could not see Reeva wasn't in the bed/going to the loo. Surely the judge needs to see evidence as to how dark the room is exactly?

Sky News now - someone commenting that OP has blamed his legal team 3 times, and that this is a very desperate move from someone who has no other options.

I think Nel's approach is absolutely brilliant - he's asking the questions in an almost casual way, but they are steely questions designed to trip up OP.

Was it ever established how the gun in Oscars hand went off in the restaurant despite no one pressing the trigger?

I find it stranger that Oscar talks of "I would have opened the curtains, I would of got the fan...etc" it's like he is saying what he would have done in his story, instead of "I opened the curtains, I ran to the door".

It's like he is telling us what he would have done instead of what he did do. That is different to how he spoke about the black and white evidence put to him re: the texts. Maybe it's just the way he speaks.

I also noticed that it's like he buys thinking time with his long winded answers to Nel, sometimes he starts his response repeating back the question asked of him before he launches into what he would of done. I remember years ago watching a programme that listed that trait as pointing to someone lying, though I would hate to shout "off with his head" based on that!

I just think that OP has come across terribly OR Nel is just fantastic at his job.

The thing is, Nel (in a roundabout way) is asking OP exactly the questions people want to know.

I am not sure how insulated OP has been from the media coverage, but the number 1 thing many people have said is that his version of events can not be true and that he is a liar, there's no point pussyfooting around that. Many people think he purposely killed Reeva Steenkamp because they don't believe his story. That is what OP has to defend himself against.

SirChenjin I think Nel's approach is absolutely brilliant

Me too. I'm going through a hideous divorce at the moment and wondering what his hourly rate is

I think Nels doing a great job, he's not getting go when OP has no answer, the defence aren't objecting because I think there's nothing to object to.

Zulu, I thought there might have been an agenda going on with that post as well.

Agree SirChenjin; tbf OP has been very good at the yes/no game i.e. not answering yes or no. Much as people find his over-explanation annoying(me included), giving a definitive yes/no answer is much easier for a prosecutor to undermine with contradictory evidence/follow up questioning.

I think Nel is really good. OP's answers are rehearsed. I am glad there is someone as able as him fighting Reeva's corner.

I also don't think it's necessarily personal, and I don't think he is much worse than Barry Roux was to the witnesses, the only difference being that OP is the one on trial for murder. Roux was very condescending to the state witnesses, as is his job.

I think it's insulting to say Nel is taking this personally, he's a professional and he's doing his job, as it should be.

Any defendant has to be questioned in the witness box rigorously, we can't just take what they say at face value.

I agree Onestep, Nel would not be in the position he is if he took things personally. He is just doing his job in behalf of the victim.

For some reason, the testimony about the fans today and the inconsistencies in his story made me feel like his story was falling apart a little. I know it's alleged things were moved in the room, but it seems a bit of a stretch that the police moved the duvet and the fan etc to implicate him before they even knew his story

FloralPuddles

I find it stranger that Oscar talks of "I would have opened the curtains, I would of got the fan...etc" it's like he is saying what he would have done in his story, instead of "I opened the curtains, I ran to the door".

It's like he is telling us what he would have done instead of what he did do.

YY that's what I wrote upthread too. I found it very strange, and I think it points to him lying. As if he can't out and out say "I DID open the curtains", so he fudges it a bit.

Similarly, he seems unable to bring himself to say "I killed Reeva" he keeps saying "I took her life". As if he's just simply unable to admit those words, which is understandable I guess. But I do wonder if he's scared of saying those words as it might not 'sound good'.

I don't know - if it was me, and I had done this terrible thing in genuine error - I would be saying it straight and clear. I killed her, I did this terrible thing. This is exactly how that came to be... and he's just not doing that.

I made the personal comment. I like Nel and his approach so certainly not meant to be an insult to his professionalism. Though the judge did tell him off for laughing herself.

I think he's behaving like he dislikes Oscar - which is fine by me.

Has Nel raised the question of why RS was fully clothed? When she was supposed to have been in bed?

OPs answers are, as you would expect, very rehearsed. Nel is doing a great job at tripping him. OP has to fall back on 'I don't know/I can't remember' when asked something that isn't in his prepared answers. which makes him look at best unreliable, and other times like a bit liar. Most journos on twitter seem to think that he's saying too much; he should sticking to short to the point answers and not providing his long winded prepared answers. Interesting that he's not allowed to consult with his lawyers whilst under cross examination, so hes not getting any feedback from them.

Have just realised that he said yesterday that before he fell asleep he Reeva was still awake and he asked Reeva to bring the fans before she fell asleep. Ticking off the 'why would you leave the doors open if you're so security concisous' question.

I think Nel is great ,and OP doesn't want to give a straight answer to a question ,he wants to give pre rehearsed statements . Going back to what someone said earlier about previous opinions of OP ,I have never really had a good impression of him and had opinion confirmed at the Paralympics when rather than just accept that someone else was faster than him he decided to say that the other runners prosthetics were too long . He is an arrogant man who likes to get his own way ,although that does not make him a murderer.

I wonder if he's been advised not to say "I killed Reeva" for some legal reason?

My previous opinion of him was of respect for what he had achieved. But I'd never read much about him and wasn't aware of his tantrums about the Olympics.

I don't think much of him now. I think he's lying, and I think his tears are tears of self pity for the life that he has ruined i.e. his own.