Oscar Pistorius trial part 2

[JillJ72]

To continue from previous thread

"During the early morning hours of 14 February 2013, I woke up, went onto the balcony to bring the fan in and closed the sliding doors, the blinds and the curtains."

"On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police.

It was pitch dark in the bedroom and I thought Reeva was in bed."

"With the benefit of hindsight I believe that Reeva went to the toilet when I went out on the balcony to bring the fan in"

All from his bail statement, for which he would have had legal advice from the people defending him. Twice he says he went onto the balcony.

He says one fan.

He says that he believes now that she went to the toilet when he brought in the fan.

I know the bail statement was just meant to be a reasonable outline, enough for him to get bail but not a totally detailed final version that would tell the Prosecution absolutely everything.

BUT why change it so that it now sounds worse for him than that version? If he'd left it as it was, it would have sounded better for him.

I'm sure that tampering does go on by the police...I'm just not convinced that they would have any reason to do so here.

This is the relevant bit from his opening statement which was read out earlier in the trial by Barry Roux so he had changed it before his cross examination:

"During the early hours of the morning I brought two fans in from the balcony,"

"I had shortly before spoken to Reeva who was in bed beside me."

He was definitely emphatic with Nel about not having gone onto the balcony

SirChenjin - I don't think they need a reason if they're just incompetent and that's what's being said here I believe rather than corruption, although by the station commander's own admission, some of them patently are.

It'll be interesting to see how Oscar is tomorrow. I'd love to know what Barry Roux said to him after they finished today.

Brought in from the balcony - may not have had to go out onto the balcony, depending on where they were.

But hmmm, the bit about going out onto the balcony to call for help, if the fans were in the way. Or was there room to manoeuvre?

Surprised that the room is actually quite small, as in what I've seen from bed to balcony.

OP can't say it's conspiracy because when the photos where taken OP hadn't given his statement so the police didn't know his story so couldn't have moved things in order to implicate him. That just leaves OP saying the police work was shocking and they moved lots of things before taking photos.
Now, there was some shocking police work, no doubt in that but is it really plausible that everything the police moved would end up making OP's statement look like a lie? That would have to be some terrible luck wouldn't it? One thing I could say yes, that's very possible, 2 things, maybe but the three plus things I really do find almost impossible to believe I really do, if it is the case then OP is the unluckiest person around.

pettybetty I thought the same thing when I first saw the duvet on the floor, that when he had come back to the bedroom after shooting to look for Reeva he had thrown the duvet from the bed while franticly looking for her. That seemed like the obvious reason for the duvet being on the floor. I was very surprised when he was adment that the police must have moved it, just seemed like an odd thing to claim given there was such an easy explanation to explain it.

I find it unsettling that he claims to remember some things in great detail (like he saw the duvet was over Reeva's legs when he got out of bed for example) yet other things before the shooting he claims to not remember. Again it seems like he is complicating things that really didn't need to be. It would be completely understandable that in his panic and anguish on realising he had shot Reeva that he wouldn't remember much of what happened after yet instead of saying 'look it was a mess, I couldn't believe what was happening, I was in a blind panic, I know I made calls and carried her downstairs but it's all a mess and I only have flash back memories of fragments of that time' that would be normal but instead he is claiming that he remembers almost everything yet if something is questioned more deaply his go to response is 'the police changed it' rather then either admiting he doesn't remember or saying 'I remember the duvet being on the bed but it could have come off when I was looking for Reeva/getting my prosthetics on' or 'I thought I went out onto the balcony to should for help, maybe I just opened the door and shouted I was extremely stressed at the time'.

His attitude does seem to be very self centered and I do think that his unwillingness to accept responsibility for anything is proving really damaging to him.
I started out thinking that he was probably guty of pre meditated murder but have actually changed my opinion to thinking he was woken from sleep by the sound of Reeva in the bathroom, he went straight into 'hunt' mode, grabbed his gun, went toward the perceived threat as he was despite to act out this fantasy of self protection and fire his gun. In the moment he didn't think of Reeva once it was only after he shot when the sound of the shots jolted him out of it into the reality and it was then that he remembered Reeva.

I think this is most likely as it is very close to his statement but if he told the whole truth he would have to admit to reclassness and culpable homicide and he just won't do that. Because his statement is not far from the truth it is easier for him to keep the bits that are lies streight but there are chinks in it that are being shown.

I do dear that the judge will not be able to find him guilty of premeditated murder due to the botched police work, because they messed up some areas non of the scene can be relied upon, how ever unlikely the chain of police mistakes would appear to be you can not say it wasn't possible. I do think though that culpable homicide can be found because that doesn't need as much evidence from the scene. It's possible I am wrong there though. I really hope this isn't going to be a case of getting 'off' on technicalities and the judges decision will be on the facts of the case not the failings of the police.

I do hope that this high profile look at the SAP will force changes that will help justice been found for future victims and their families.

I think that if there are lies to be undone, that Nel will do it. He's giving it a bloody good go.

Oscar is up against someone who has done this many, many times so if he's lying, he would have to be a pretty damn good liar as opposed to being just an arrogant dick.

(I'm still not sure if I think he's guilty or not)

I didn't think there was any dispute about him going onto the balcony to shout for help, until today. Some witness statements seem to definitely suggest they heard a man shouting for help at one point

Again something I don't see any point in lying about. We know from the phone records that he rang for help, an ambulance and security just as he said he did. Why say he went on to the balcony to shout for help if he didn't when he had definitely summoned help another way?

The room does look small but is that because it's a big bed rather than a small room? It could be super kingsize I guess. I haven't actually seen the dimensions of the room anywhere.

I hadn't realised that during a previous trial where Nel was prosecutor of a corrupt police commisioner, Nel was arrested one night, believed to be an attempt by police to disrupt the trial. (Charges against Nel dropped but police commisioner found guilty.)

Roadkillbunny - excellent post and I agree with quite a lot of it.

Does anyone know why they charged him with premeditated murder rather than culpable homicide in the first place? I think they'd have had a much stronger chance of a conviction.

Gosh, sorry for all the typos I hope that ramble is understandable! I apologise for the fact I have so many mistakes in my posts, I can't feel much in my fingers and this causes errors, I should proof read but it's difficult for me to edit due to being on phone and the finger issue so again I apologise.

There was a fascinating documentary on recently about liars and one of the things they demonstrated was that liars often going into huge elaborate detail about very insignificant things (that they probably do every day and therefore can be confident about) and are vaguer about conversations they "allegedly" had but didn't.

For example the guy that killed his stepdaughter in croydon could tell you exactly what she was wearing the day she went missing, the exact sequence of chores he did that morning and every morsel she ate yet when asked what they talked about he couldn't remember much and was very vague.g

not sure where I'm going with this but I think I'm saying that liars do tend to give a lot of mundane detail. Maybe Oscars vagueness/forgetfulness about events points towards the fact that he hasn't concocted an elaborate story.

Hi everyone! I've been glued to this trial too from day one. I think she was hiding from him. Didn't one or two of the neighbours say they heard arguing, then a woman shouting for help, then gunshots, then him shouting for help, then more gunshots (which was actually the cricket bat). I think he lost it with her and shot at her in a rage. He didn't seem to have great control over his temper from what I can gather.

Also, how brilliant is Nel? He's asked every question that I've thought of so far. I read on twitter that he is notorious for keeping the accused on the stand for up to two weeks. We could be in for a long wait.

two weeks? Bloody hell

If fans were so loud how did he hear the bathroom window being opened?

Smitten that is my theory too.

Nel really is living upto his nickname. I do fear that justice won't be done properly because we know there was police botching of the crime scene and that will jeopardise the chances of a fair trial for Reeva or OP.

I have nothing to add tonight other than to say thanks to most of you for your insightful posts, particularly Louise.

Have been without phone for most of evening so now catching up. Interesting day

winkywinkola I have also asked that question. The only explanation (if you are taking that OP is telling the truth) is that he heard the window open after he had finished with the fan and was putting the jeans over the LED display.

That reminds me of something else that bothered me in today's testimony.
The first time Nell had him go through his actions he said he saw the jeans on the floor before he brought in the fans and shut the curtains by the light coming in from the external light on the balcony and that's how he knew where they where when he came to put them over the display after the curtains where closed and it was pitch black.
Nell then jumped away onto another point for a moment and then came back to how OP found the jeans in the pitch black. When asked again, taking the action out of sequence he said he picked them up when there was light from the balcony. So was he saying he held the jeans while moving the fans? I don't think so. Is he saying he covered the display first? Again that wouldn't fit in with his statements. I can't remember why Nell didn't question further, think there may have been some kind of disruption.

I know it's a really small point and it may have been nothing but it made me think about the studies done on lies and how a person can memorise and tell very convincing lies but if you ask them to tell you the story from end to beginning they are unable to or trip up. I believe this is why Nell jumps about with his questions, not only does it keep the witness on their toes it's also a good way if breaking a lie. Roux dud the same thing but in a slightly different style.

I find it interesting the views people have on the council.
People who believe OP is guilty of premeditated murder disliked Roux and his questioning of the witnesses but they think Nell is great and is drawing out the truth with his style.
For those who think OP us inosent of murder and it was a terrible accident then the reverse is true and they think Roux the saint and Nell the bully.
The insight into legal systems is just fascinating and also the wealth of psychology of not just OP and the council but of the people like ourselves following the case. The personal experiences that we naturally use to judge situations and if we find stories probable. Without even realising it we bring and base so much of our opinions on the case on what we would do, what experiences we have had but really that's all irrelevant, the only person who knows how OP and Reeva would have acted or responded are they themselves. One won't tell the whole truth as he doesn't want to self implicate or leave anything to chance by admitting he doesn't remember and the other is tragically dead.
It's as tragic and sad as it is fascinating.

Think I need to go to bed I'm rambling. Haven't discussed in RL as it just feels like gossip unless like here it is in a measured debate with a range of people with different takes and opinions. Would normally chat over with DH but he has been away with work so thank you for the chance to debate the questions out and sorry for the long mistake ridden posts!
See you all for discussion on tomorrow's information, night night!

Does anyone know how Pistorius and the trial are seen in SA? What's the general consensus over there on his demeanour guilt/innocence, his OTT crying and his family' s as well?
I'd be really curious to hear a SA perspective.

I watched a bit today and was struck by his ongoing insistence that he had his back to the bed at all times when he was maneuvering the fans and that he just didn't see Reeva get up at any point.
Surely if Reeva had woken and gone to the bathroom while he was wandering round the room she would have exchanged a few words with him- not snuck out of the room stealthily and ignored him? She might even have volunteered to help with one of the fans or something.
The idea that she woke up, got out of bed quietly, grabbed her phone and left the room all I'm just a few second while he was a few feet away from her and he didn't even notice (and he said he saw her in bed as he got up) just seems so bizarre.

Louisebrooks - I thought Oscar wasn't allowed any contact with his defense team until he has finished testifying. Can anyone clarify?

Very interesting point Roadkill about Nel's methods to expose lying. Fascinating

My understanding is no comms with Roux until no longer on the stand. I don't know if that precludes the family from liaising with Roux.