Oscar Pistorius trial part 2

[JillJ72]

To continue from previous thread

Something like that. In the photo, the fan was directly in front of the door, and he would have had a job to get around it to go on the balcony. Also with the curtain pulled open so wide, why would you do that if you just needed to open the sliding doors. Why would you need to open the curtain way past the door?

Yes, I know the stuff you're talking about. So where was the other fan if not in the picture? Just out of shot? Didn't OP say it could have been/ would have been plugged into a socket on the other side of the room, near the amplifier?

The duvet (loving their pronunciation du-VAY) I'm also not really seeing the significance of. Or is it just about inconsistencies?

I can't quite picture the way he says he went to sleep with his head on her stomach and his arms wrapped around her legs. Did he wake up in that position at 3am, I assume not.

Sorry for all the questions, but what's the relevance of the curtains then? In other words, saying that if he had opened the curtains to go out onto the balcony during an emergency to call for help, he wouldn't have bothered opening them so widely?

petty have you always thought he was lying? I've always thought he was telling the truth so I also noticed her face but thought she just looked concerned for him as usual. But maybe we just subconsciously interpret things in a way that supports our view.

I don't know how the judge will decide as everything can obviously be seen in a number of ways to support a number of different conclusions.

Maybe a stupid question but how did he move without s prosthetics?? Was he able to stand still or did he use his arms to move around!?

Stack yy maybe the fan issue was simply to give him an excuse for not knowing where Reeva was. Although his initial statement which implied he went on to the balcony was a better excuse than his revised statement that he didn't actually go on to the balcony at all.

In regards to the fan I guess Oscar thought it was enough to blame police corruption on its positioning - as watches were stolen by the police (?) this seemed enough? But as Nel said the police would need to move the fan, the duvet and curtains to ensure OP's story didn't stack up. That's some intuition.

In regards to lying to family and friends -pathological lying is such a life long habit and I wonder if there's an old friend or relative who knows the score. That's a real burden.

He is behaving like a liar I knew - always someone else's fault, a sob story where he's the unwilling victim / hero.

I think I must have a touch of liar in me, as I would have explained the duvet away as soon as he was asked about it.

When he went to check on Reeva, and he climbed on the bed to shake her, and she wasn't there, wouldn't it make sense if he grabbed the duvet, found she wasn't there, and flung it off the bed as he scrabbled around to frantically find her in the dark? Explained badly but I know what I mean.

Why did he change his story to two fans rather than the one he mentioned in the bail statement as this would only harm his case?

Sounds odd he would do this unless it were true.

Good liars will never admit the truth. They will tell everyone the same story, and not go into too much detail. They will tell it in a way that it actually becomes real to them. Unfortunately for Oscar, he is being forced to go into detail.

To his family, I guarantee that every time one of them asked him a pointed question which got too close to the truth, he pulled a hurt 'I don't remember', or 'I can't believe you would think that of me', or somesuch. Family, because they love the liar, would never probe further than allowed by the liar. I seriously think it's a shock to them.

I didn't know he was lying until he started testifying. I did think his story was improbable, but also held the belief that sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. I think the proof of his little lies has made me see everything he says is self serving.

I also wondered that armchair, and I think it's because now that he has said that he didn't have to go onto the balcony to get the fan, just moved it about 2 feet, this doesn't give any where near enough time for Reeva to slip by him without being seen or heard. If there are 2 fans to bring in, this allows her more time to get by.

The whole crux of his case comes down to how he had absolutely faith that she was still in bed and the noise in the bathroom couldn't possibly be her. So with the noise of two fans blowing, and the fuss of moving both of them, there is a chance.

But how come if he made such a scene at the engagement party that the prosecution haven't produced one witness to tell everyone what really happened ( I'm just watching this discussion of the text concerning the party which is why it is on my mind)

Its true that some details seem vague or confusing but I do know that if I ever get up in the night, DH always gets up in the night too so perhaps Reeva heard Oscar moving around, this woke her up and when you wake up you nearly always need the loo (in my experience).

Also when people go to the loo at night do you normally put the lights on- I know I don't. I know my house well enough and I don't like the glare when I'm half asleep.

But petty he changed his story to two fans way before Nel questioned him about the exact position of the fans and the fact they weren't actually on the balcony but were in the doorway, didn't he? I thought he said one fan in his bail statement but that had become two by the time they got to court for the hearing.

"Why did he change his story to two fans rather than the one he mentioned in the bail statement as this would only harm his case?"

This is what I find odd. Also he specifically and emphatically corrected Nel yesterday when Nel said that he (OP) had gone "onto the balcony" to get the fans and OP said no, one of the fans was half in half out and he didn't have to step onto the balcony to get it. Saying he had gone onto the balcony would be a better excuse not to hear her but he's made a couple of statements which to me seem stupid if they are lies - eg the eating dinner at 7.00pm when the pathologist said she ate around 1.00am

The story of the police moving the duvet has been consistent from the beginning. I know that doesn't make it true but again, I could also have made up a better lie to explain it.

Maybe I'm just a better liar than he is

armchair yes hadn't thought of that, if me or DH get up the other normally does too. Suddenly need a wee you didn't need until you were woken. Neither of us put the light on, I use my phone or just go in the dark as I know where everything is.

Am confused by what information he has changed re the fans, I might watch the Sky summary now to try and catch up.

Louise - I thought it was Nel who badgered OP into admitting that he hadn't actually gone out onto the balcony, rather than OP volunteering that?

Louise Yes I noticed the bit about the balcony too. It would have been so much better to say he had gone out and walked along a long balcony than to say he didn't even go onto the balcony.

I also find it interesting that I heard friends/family being interviwed before saying that Reeva wasn't in love with Oscar (or they would have known/she would have told them) yet in a text she confirms she was in love with him.

So there was a lot people didn't know about their relationship and a lot we as complete outsiders will never know.

Is he really trying to say the police moved the stuff to deliberately put the spotlight on him and his story being wrong? I thought it was more that he is just. Saying the were using really bad practice when it came to protecting a crime scene and moved stuff all over the place because they were crap at their jobs.

Voiceofgodot I think his second statement said two fans but yesterday was the first time I'd heard that he didn't actually go onto the balcony and obviously Nel seemed to think they were out there too

StackALee I think he's saying they are incompetent. It was Nel who said "are you saying it's a conspiracy?" OP didn't say yes it is (he's not that daft)

[But petty he changed his story to two fans way before Nel questioned him]

Voice, I missed that, thanks

"Evidence tampering by police" does seem to be the usual claim of the desperate

"Evidence tampering by police" does seem to be the usual claim of the desperate"

Possibly yes. Equally a South African I work with (who thinks he's guilty by the way) has said from way back that the police are incompetent and/or corrupt. Even the police commander said that he put the door in his office, not the evidence lock up, in case it was tampered with and also that the door was taken off its hinges quickly in case anyone took photos and sold them to the tabloids. And weren't the crime scene photos leaked to the press some time before the trial?

Not that I think it's deliberate in this case if it's true, just that they're incompetent.