Oscar Pistorius trial part 2

[JillJ72]

To continue from previous thread

Although reading it back it seems that today he said he screamed at her to call the police twice?

once when approaching the bathroom

once when in the bathroom?

read through pages 10 - 13

here

When he's on his stumps I wonder how easy he finds it to walk quietly? I would've thought it was quite difficult.

I thought the point of proving that she screamed during the shots was to show that he would know it was her and still carried on firing. If he couldn't actually hear her screaming it makes no difference whether she did scream or not in terms of his intent, so I can't especially see the point of the prosecution pushing that line except to prove discrepancies with earlier statements. But I don't know why OP doesn't just say "I didn't hear her scream and now you point it out I realise I probably couldn't have heard anything but she still might have screamed." He does seem to dig himself in deeper with every sentence. Roux must be despairing.

But I don't know why OP doesn't just say "I didn't hear her scream and now you point it out I realise I probably couldn't have heard anything but she still might have screamed." That's what I thought. Saying that he couldn't hear himself, but knows for sure that she wasn't screaming is illogical.

He's too wary about tripping himself up that he wont budge from his rehearsed answers even when it sounds ridiculous.

Inappropriate at Rouxthless and Nelentless.

Exactly, Redcoats. OP is so determined to defend his position he doesn't hear the illogicality of what he is actually saying.

Just like the "accidental discharge" in Tasha's - he had the gun, the gun was discharged, but OP is 100% sure that he didn't pull the trigger.
He cannot (or rather, WILL NOT) say "I MUST have pulled the trigger (though I did not intend to)"

OP is so determined to defend his position he doesn't hear the illogicality of what he is actually saying.
Or he is too stupid to know it is illogical.

His defence does seem to be utter stupidity, plain and simple.

BeCool - seems there's a fine line between arrogance and stupidity

I really feel for him. I think it's next to impossible to perform in the 'correct' manner.

Hes been badly advised I think, he should have held his hand up to the gun charge, he is so obviously lying about that. I also think he should have declared that he did shoot with intent to harm (although not kill) through the door, but not at Reeva, I think he would of held up better with that.

Hes tying himself up in terrible knots here and coming across as a liar which is not going to do him any good.

I do feel for him as (I am coming off my fence picks splinters out of arse ) and I dont believe he meant to kill Reeva, but I do think he meant to shoot, way to happily, intruders. He would probably have received a custodial sentence for that, but I think he would have garnered a fair amount of sympathy, and I believe given time he could have made a good life for himself again.

This way I feel he will be disgraced for a long time, and will probably have a longer sentence.

He should have been advised so much better.

It was interesting as DH watched it with me this morning and up until the final few minutes, I was "meh" and he was adamant that it sounded like bullshit

Then we got to the screams, and that dramatic pause by OP and I genuinely thought he was going to confess (though because we can't see him, it's probably just that he was overcome)

I think, eventually, Nel was getting somewhere with unpicking his story re: his approach to the bathroom, what he said to Reeva, the screaming etc

I thought not guilty at the beginning of today, I thought he was holding up well. But towards the end, I could see where Nel was coming from in his questioning

His argument is more along the lines of "before I knew what was happening I'd shot four times", isn't it? He's trying very hard to assign the cause of the gun being discharged almost to a nervous reaction deriving from fear of attack. He doesn't want to say that he had any intention at all.

OneStep - I think I agree with you will probably change my mind again on Monday with regard to him being badly advised. I noticed quite early on that a large part of Nel's approach is based upon the fact that Oscar isn't taking responsibility for anything. Whether it be upsetting Reeva (the texts), the gun going off in the restaurant, or the incident in his house. If only he'd drawn a line in the sand and claimed responsibility for part of it, but I think he's terrified to do that in case the whole thing collapses.

Thats what I think like you I`ll prob change my mind on Monday voice I fear hes going to make things a lot worse for himself. His counsel knew he was facing Nel, hes seems unprepared as though hes been told to stick to the same line whatever is thrown at him, but they would have known that Nel will dig and dig and wont let go.

I was wondering (and I'm sorry if this has been mentioned) if any blood samples taken from Reeva would indicate her physical state immediately prior to her death? By this I mean a high adrenalin and cortisol level might show an argument and conversely a low one would mean she had indeed gone for a wee after sleeping.
Probably couldn't be used in Court but would the pathologist/forensic scientist see these patterns?

Sorry, slug I guess he could have used in his defence that yes I did shoot, yes I meant to harm but I was terrified of being shot myself. I truly believe he would have got away fairly lightly (I`m prob wrong, but everyone loves a sincere, sorry, humble person, including the courts and media)

I think there are so many holes in his story really that I think that he almost certainly did it deliberately as a result of an argument. I suspect the argument had started quite early in the evening and had gone on long into the night culminating in him shooting. Based on his text messages he was jealous and controlling and maybe he was picking away at some incident he was unhappy about.
I am suspicious about the swapping sides of the bed, it seems an odd thing to do, but is necessary for him to have got the gun without seeing that she wasn't there. But then that makes it that she would have had to pass him when she got up as he was close to the bed dealing with the fans.
I am very doubtful that upon hearing a noise and knowing she was awake, that he wouldn't have said "did you hear that?" or "I heard something, stay here" or looked to her for corroboration that he wasn't imagining things.
I know some people lock the door whenever they are in the toilet, but many don't especially in the night, and that adds an extra doubt. Why did she open the toilet window - I suspect she was shouting for help - which would fit with the witnesses stories of hearing a woman shouting for help.

I am unclear about the amount of time between the first set of sounds and the second, but it seems that it likely too short to allow for him to have tried the door, gone back to the bedroom put on his legs, tried to kick it/charge it (not sure if that's right) and then got the cricket bat to hit the door.

Saker that is the one thing that is bothering me, is that he majorly disregarded her safety, he didn't seek a response from her, didn't ensure she was somewhere safe

I know it's all too easy to say "this is what I would've done" but I KNOW that when I have heard a bump in the night, I have always alerted DH, or whoever I'm with. Granted I don't live in SA, but where the danger is more real there, wouldn't you be even more concerned for the safety of your loved ones and ensuring they are okay before you go into Rambo mode? That is the sticking point for me

Although it is strange that she took her phone with her but did not phone anybody for help herself.

Did she take phone and lock the door?

Yes. But AFAIK there is no record of any activity on the phone.

I wonder how much Roux will do to counter Nel. It may be that all the other defence witnesses and evidence support Oscar's story, and that this coaching has allowed doubt and question, but it will all be tidied back up again by virtue of Roux cross-examining again, and then the defence witnesses.

Or maybe not.

It's almost at the expense of being truthful (or telling a lie convincingly) he has been told to deny everything, and it all comes across as head scratching. Just what was he coached to do or say? Or will it all work out for the defence in the end....?

Not sure how many papers will have covered his request for a private apology to Reeva's family - it's not in the interest of balanced reporting.

Although it is strange that she took her phone with her but did not phone anybody for help herself.

I have no problem with her being frightened* but, unaware of how much danger she actually was in, not being frightened enough to call the police while waiting for a ranting OP to become calmer.

Calling the police would have been a big deal. It would have resulted in the gutter media barging its way right into their lives.

• assuming the argument scenario

I agree, although according to witnesses that support the argument scenario, she did shout for help from the bathroom prior to any shots. You would have thought if she was frightened enough to shout for help at 3 in the morning from neighbours, and she had her phone on her, she would have used that to contact somebody.