Oscar Pistorius trial part 2

[JillJ72]

To continue from previous thread

Btw good morning and hurrah it's Friday!

LouiseBrooks - because even if he is found not guilty of murder, under SA law he could still be found guilty of culpable homicide by the judge. So the prosecution had nothing to lose by going for the greater charge of premeditated murder.

For me the main sticking points are, the lack of conversation between them at 3am, if they were both awake they'd say something to each other surely. And the lack of toilet flush in OPs story. She had been to the toilet recently when she was killed but not at the time of the shooting. She has to have flushed the toilet but how did he not hear. If his story isn't true he couldn't risk including a toilet flush in case she hadn't been to the loo recently and had a full bladder. If he was able to hear doors locking and windows opening he'd have heard a flush.

I wonder if they will reenact the scene as that may help clarify answers to a number of questions (or raise more).

anon 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.

Me too. He got quite defensive about it.

RoadKill I agree with a lot of what you've said there. To me it doesn't fit to put something over the LED until you've closed the curtains and then can see that it's giving out an annoying light.

I'd love to see a reconstruction of a person essentially at the door of the room fiddling about with fans, to get a physical sense of exactly how far away Reeva's body would have been in the bed if, as is now apparent, he did not actually LEAVE THE ROOM to sort the fans out. It's a totally different scenario.

I'm beginning to think your theory road kill might be the right one, he was woken up by the sound in the bathroom and went into fight mode, without a second thought for what caused the noise. It was a very new relationship 3 months, do we know how many times shed stayed before? And as she was wearing his clothes in bed I'm guessing it wasn't necessarily planned or that she had her own things at his place.

I don't believe his version of events but equally I'm not sure he meant to kill her

Katz If his story isn't true he couldn't risk including a toilet flush in case she hadn't been to the loo recently and had a full bladder.

You see, it's details like this that make me think he is innocent. I am not sure I believe that in the aftermath of having killed her, and in the few minutes before anybody arrived, he was able to think about details like this in order to make sure he had a good case. Was there any delay between it happening and him contacting people for help? If not I'm just not sure how much of any of this story a man splattered in blood and no doubt pumped full of adrenalin could coherently invent.

Voice - it's the details he did include which throw me though, how can you hear the toilet door locking but not the flush? Unless neither happened. But I agree you wouldn't have time to think about that but he needed a cover for why the door was locked (he heard it lock) and the window being open (he heard it open). His story just doesn't quiet ring true.
My theory which is similar to others is that the toilet flushing is what probably woke him up he went into 'fight' mode grabbed his gun and fired at the door. The intruder story is true but not quiet how he tells it. Hence the inconsistencies. In fact I wonder if Reeva even brought the fans in before going to the toilet. Enough noise to disturb his sleep.

Katz I don't believe his version of events but equally I'm not sure he meant to kill her

He'd have to be mad to invent a story if he is innocent of pre-meditated murder! If it was him waking and going into 'fight or flight' mode, surely that paints him in no worse a light than the version he is currently giving, which is so detailed he'd be sure to trip up on detail at some point.

Hmm, I'm not sure. I think there may be something in the suggestion made earlier that perhaps there was an argument about Reeva forgetting to bring in the fans.

And it would be really really crazy for him to wake up, hear a noise in the bathroom, and jump out of bed armed with a gun when he knew he had his girlfriend staying over.

The problem with the whole case of course is that there isn't one version which stacks up clearly.

I find OP to be an unreliable witness. However, I haven't read or heard anything that convinces me he shot at the door knowing that RS was behind it. It seems quite likely but we're discussing a criminal trial.

But I do think society would be a safer place if he were to go to prison for some time.

One thing though, there's no way I'd be his house guest.

I have been lurking on the thread the last couple of days and following the trial. Yesterday I saw a photograph of the bed and it seems very close to the balcony. There is only a small gap between the bed and the window. Supposedly Reeva was sleeping on the RHS which is the side next to the balcony window. OP now claims he didn't actually go out onto the balcony. Therefore if she got out of bed on her side she would have practically have to have brushed past him, I can't see that he wouldn't be aware. Alternatively she would have had to shuffled over to the other side of the bed and climbed out that side which I think is an unusual thing to do.

Louise was it you talking about the fact that OP was the one trying to clarify that he didn't actually go out onto the balcony? IIRC it was the other way around (although can't be sure) - ie. that Nel was questioning him to get him to admit that although his statement said "went out onto the balcony to get the fans" that in reality the fan(s?) were half in and half out of the doorway. I wonder if he has had to concede this because the cables wouldn't have stretched out of the actual door onto the balcony. I think Nel was trying to reinforce the point that he didn't actually leave the room at all.

And yes, if Reeva was sleeping on the RHS of the bed (I'd forgotten that) then it is quite extraordinary to think he wouldn't have noticed.

With regards to something that was mentioned that maybe he wasn't used to company at night, he was pretty much in back to back relationships for a year or so I think? His ex Samantha Taylor testified that she stayed over often, and that if he heard something in the night, he would wake and ask her

I would have to check back but pretty sure that OP was telling the truth about the alarms there. Nel trying to catch him out

Oh good, Im really feeling for him, he sounds broken to me. (and I`m not one who thinks hes completely innocent)

Sorry, meant oh god, not oh good.

I'm not sure springy, do you mean about the building work or him turning off the alarm? Because the judge has just stepped in and asked why he's making all these mistakes, so Nel must be right (wrt the alarm)

No. I meant earlier about the contractors outside. I sure he has originally said that they took the sensors off the las time so he thought they might have done so again. Two separate incidents.

Ah, I see

Quick question…

Have you ever, just before your period is due gone to the loo to check if you've come on - not regularly but you wake up and think oooh hang on.... So you don't actually wee or anything, just check.

Or, if you are on your period you go to the loo to check everything is OK and that no additional supplies are needed, IYKWIM.

This could be a reason why she was in the loo but didn't seem to use it or flush it.

We'll never know, of course but just putting it out there.

Will check back at lunchtime as at work and not meant to be using phone. Will bang headphones in and listen though

I'm a bit confused as to how this started. I presumed he was asleep and was woken by the noise in the toilet but I'm sure he said the other day that neither of them were asleep and he was getting the fans in when she went to the loo. Is that right or was he asleep and was startled awake by the noise?

I feel for him too OneStep

He said 'I switched the alarm off' instead of 'I must have switched the alarm off' and it is pounced on and twisted to 'prove' he is making up evidence although he willinly clarifies what he meant.

Surely it's impossible for any human being to be absolutely 100% word perfect, at all times for hours and hours at a time?

Wow - OP is getting a hard time from Nel. Anyone else wondering if they would be able to remember the level of detail from years ago that Nel is asking for? I can barely remember what I had for breakfast yesterday, or what I was doing this time last week.