Oscar Pistorius trial part 2

[JillJ72]

To continue from previous thread

From what this lawyer was saying on sky news is that because op when towards to 'danger' he can't claim that he was vulnerable.

Thanks for explaining stack, but what does he have to gain from saying 'entire evening'? What could be in his mind to think its beneficial to say that.

Then she must have screamed when it hit, he must have heard surely? yy I know he said the ringing of the shot deafened him, but he was so close. He must have been so pumped of adrenaline.

Michelle Burger has said ''I was woken up by a woman's petrified screams. I heard her screaming first,'' Burger said. ''Then I heard her call for help. Then I heard a man call for help three times. I then made a call. ... I gave the phone to my husband and he spoke to security. Afterward, I heard the woman's petrified screams again.'' she then heard four gunshots, with a gap between the first shot and the rest, and more screaming.

''I heard her voice during the shots,'' she said. ''Shortly after the shots was the last time I heard that woman.''

not sure what other people have said though.

"Thanks for explaining stack, but what does he have to gain from saying 'entire evening'? What could be in his mind to think its beneficial to say that."

because he was on the back-foot with the questioning and so he suddenly claims he is confused about when they are talking about. It's a stalling tactic of 'Oh I was giving you that answer because I thought you were talking about another time' but it's VERY clear what/when the questions were about. There's no doubt that the questions were about 'after the first shot' not about the screaming that was heard earlier in the evening.

Nel: That is why I am saying, people heard a woman screaming during the gunshots. Can you say that no body screamed during the shots?

OP: Because I was there, Mr. Nel. (in other words 'no one screamed during the shots because I was there and I would have heard)

Nel: How can you say that, you are forgetting about your ears.

OP: I am talking about the entire evening. < this is just stalling

Nel: You cannot get away with this time and time again.

^^ this.

"when posters like LouiseBrooks say "I didn't think OP was talking about earlier in the evening. I'm confused. It's like I'm listening to something different to you" I just think, really? look at the transcript."

I hadn't seen the transcript when I made that comment. I had been listening to it on computer at work and didn't hear him say that. I have seen it now

Thanks for explaining stack, but what does he have to gain from saying 'entire evening'? What could be in his mind to think its beneficial to say that.

He's done this frequently - he either isn't really listening to Nel's questions (because he is too busy thinking what to say to avoid implicating himself), or he is a bit stupid.

It is driving me crazy, so God knows how Nel and the Judges feel....

I can see that he might be doing it for that reason. Or is he trying to make the point about the entire evening to cover off the specific question asked as well as one he is anticipating - ie that there were no screams after the first shot or at any other time of the evening (to show there was no argument??). Like at the start when he added "or anyone else for that matter" when asked if he intended to kill her. He was only asked if he intended to kill her but is trying to get other points covered before being specifically asked?

So how is that Burger statement explained? If op was attacking Reeva why would he be calling for help? And how does op explain what she heard? Sorry if I'm repeating anything I've only just started getting interested since turning on Sky News.

"not sure what other people have said though."

Mrs Stipp said she woke up, heard 3 shots, then a woman screaming "for a considerable period of time" then 3 more shots.

The defence say it was OP screeching after he shot Reeva and the second lot of bangs were the cricket bat. Nel said the second lot of bangs were the actual shots, Reeva screamed for 10 minutes or so beforehand and that they will "explain what the first set of bangs were". I may have missed it because I don't think he has done that yet.

Was Nel going to say that OP used the bat on the door first but then couldn't because his own expert contradicted that idea, or is Nel going to produce that in cross examination?

If I was facing Nel I would probably end up telling him what I thought would answer his question.

I was once cross-examined for a whole day by a shit-hot US lawyer. A great deal was at stake. Believe me, the only way to handle it is to listen carefully to what the question is and to be absolutely truthful in your answer, while avoiding embellishing with information that you've not actually been asked for.

I should have clarified. If you're a normal person and not guilty the only way to handle it ...

He isn't in a normal state though - not sleeping, on medication (assuming that is true). So whether guilty or telling the truth, I wouldn't expect him to act like a normal person would.

I mean, "whether lying or telling the truth"

the way I see it, OP is definitely fixated on the 'it wasn't a woman screaming it was me' story - because the defence have to explain away the witnesses who say they heard a woman not a man.

so in the questioning earlier this is why he started talking about it not being a woman.

"OP: My lady, the sound of the gunshots was so loud, I was screaming, I couldn't even hear my own voice." reinforcing the I was screaming not Reeva

they need to ask, what were you screaming, as you were firing the shots? Certainly he can't have been screaming because he had shot Reva because in his version of events he didn't know it was Reeva, so what was he doing? Shooting and screaming through aggression?

OP: I discharged the firearm, I heard a noise and thought someone was coming out to attack me.

and screamed a lot.

also earlier in the questioning there is this exchange...

Nel: We are still here, at the considered. You considered and reasoned to be quiet.

OP: Because I didn't want to give my position away, my lady.

followed by

OP: I started screaming to Reeva to phone security or police.

on the one hand he has to be quiet because he didn't want to give his position away, on the other he was screaming to Reeva to call the police (This before he had fired a shot).

I agree, nauticant (was cross-examined here by shit-hot lawyer).

Does he specifically say he screamed at her to call the police before shooting and not during?

If he has been deemed fit to stand trial, then it has been agreed that he can be expected to react like a normal person would, to the pressures of the trial.

Nel: What happened then?

OP: I started screaming to Reeva to phone security or police.

Nel: Just one moment, Reeva is 3 metres away from you int he toilet?

OP: I never knew that, I thought she was in the room.

Nel: She would have been terrified, she would have screamed out to you.

OP: I disagree, my lady. I agree that she was terrified, but why would she have screamed out?

Nel: It is not true, she would have responded?

OP: Is that a question, my lady?

Nel: Yes, why would she not have responded? In fact she is standing facing you behind the toilet door.

It is clear from this exchange that OP is talking about before the shots were fired.. if he thought they were talking about after the shots were fired he would be saying that she was unable to scream out.

then the questioning moves on to...

Nel: She's awake, you're shouting, you are screaming. You are 3 metres away, she would have responded. Did she scream while you shot her?

there is a before the shots and an after the shots and the questions are clear.

if OP is confused he should say so rather than answer questions he is not sure about.

though admittedly, in his version all these things would have happened very quickly but it's the prosecution's job to look for inconsistencies that may prove the story is not true.

I always thought he meant after the shots and he is talking as he saw it on the night as though she was still alive and in the bedroom. Ie, if she was in the bedroom as he thought she was, why would she scream. Although maybe he would have said "would have been terrified" in that case.

Must be clarified somewhere whether he meant before or after as agree if before then that would be odd.

People might say he is stalling for time if he said he is confused. He can't win - answers concisely and it's too rehearsed, answers in a round the houses way and he's stalling/lying. Which he might be, but I think everything can be explained in a way to support him lying or telling the truth at the moment.

no - because before the 'what happened then' there was a line of questioning in which the mystery person/people in the toilet is still alive. no shots had been fired.

Nel: When you shouted to them to leave and to Reeva to phone the police, you got no response form Reeva?

OP: That is correct.

Nel: Those screams, do you think they were loud?

OP: yes, my lady.

Nel: And she never responded?

OP: As I said she never responded.

Nel: Then you got to the entrance of the bathroom and you kept quiet?

OP: Yes, my lady. I wanted to peer around the corner. I wasn't sure if the person was waiting for me. I was kneeling down.