Oscar Pistorius trial part 2

[JillJ72]

To continue from previous thread

Can I ask those who think he is innocent ie he didn't know she was in there and he thought it was an intruder hence his reaction what makes them think this? I haven't followed it closely and am interested as have no set opinion atm although am leaning more one way iygwim

so if we are to believe OP, while Reeva is in the toilet with her phone, OP is shouting/screaming for her to call the police. She must have heard him.

Did she call the police or try to call them? It must be clear from her phone if she did this or not.

And if she didn't why not?

Again another assumption, but if OP's version was to be believed and Reeva didn't shout out to him/communicate with him in any way because she believed him re the intruder, wouldn't most people immediately dial the emergency number - 999 or whatever is is in SA?

it's would take a matter of seconds to dial, or even start to dial that number.

I have no idea whether he knew she was in there or not. The main reasons why I sometimes err towards thinking he might be telling the truth are:

1. The lack of time he would have had to construct a feasible story
2. The fact that there is no evidence that they had an argument
3. So far, I don't think there has been a moment of OMG how will he explain that? from the state
4. I think he is actually standing up pretty well to what is an incredibly aggressive cross-examination in the witness box

I wasn't aware she had her phone with her, was that in the evidence? I haven't seen all of it. But it's a good point BeCool that if she did have it with her, she probably would have started to call the police.

However if she was running away from him in an argument, and he was still on his stumps it is likely that he followed her straight into the bathroom and she didn't have time to phone. In that situation shouting for someone nearby would be more likely to get you help than phoning.

I don't think it meant to kill her for the same reasons as voice

However, I do think he was desperate to use that gun and had been almost willing there to be an intruder.

I mean she would have started to call the police when OP asked her to in the "intruder" scenario.

Or she heard some screaming/shouting outside the door, was startled enough not to process what she heard properly, and froze in indecision.

Do people often lock the door and take the phone when going to the toilet in the night?

noddy I thought he was innocent.....I just didn't think he could be so stupid to concoct this intruderidea......but after today,well,i'm not so sure

she stayed silent when he told her to call police?? that for me is the sticking point

Some people do strange things. Just look at mumsnet.

What I cannot really fathom is why, if he is so immobile and so vulnerable on his stumps, and he was standing RIGHT WHERE he'd put his prosthetic legs, why he didn't stop and put them on before charging towards the danger. I do think Nel makes a good point, you can't be saying 'look how vulnerable I am' whilst charging towards the danger.

see,its all beginning to look weird....no,unless she had something to hide on that phone? a secret she didn't want him alerted to....hence creeping in silently with no light on

But then why didn't Nel raise that (Reeva possibly being in the loo with her phone for a reason), could that still be to come, ie he's waiting for Oscar to say that, or will he reveal that at some point as a challenge?

For him to be innocent, so many unlikely things need to have happened.

She heard his shouts and didn't say anything or call the police.
She took her phone to the toilet and locked the door at 3am.
She didn't turn on a light to go for a wee, even though they were both awake.
She went to the toilet but for some innocent reason didn't actually do a wee
He swapped the side of the bed he sleeps on that night.
The police moved items in the room so as to contradict his story (although they didn't know yet what his story was)
He didn't see her in bed, or detect her movement in the bedroom.
He didn't check her whereabouts before going to investigate the noise.
He didn't think to lock the balcony before going to bed even though he is terrified of crime.
He pulled the trigger 4 times "by accident"

Some of these seem quite possible, even 50/50, but all of them together? No way.

Surely it's all to come. They haven't even touched on the fact she had her phone with her.

Maybe he shot her to stop her from using her phone to call for help. Seeing that she had her phone with her and locked herself in the bathroom may have enraged him even more and shooting through door was the only and fastest way to stop her, which would also have the unfortunate effect of killing her.

Oh no blueshoes - that sounds feasible

We don't know he has been badly advised. He could have been advised to do all suggested upthread. Maybe he was given all these options [of how to plea] and suggestions but has decided to continue down this path relentlessly in order to maintain his image.

Though unscientific analyisis - when I follow #oscarpistorious on twitter it seems men are generally damning. There are voices of unwavering support - who are always female but in a minority.

I still think if they'd been having a major argument they wouldn't have done it in the dark. Who argues in the dark?

The trouble is I keep changing my mind, blue shoes makes a great point about why she took her phone.

It's actually a really complicated case.

"Who argues in the dark?"

ExcuseTypos that is a really good point.

But maybe some people do, weird as it seems. After all we are getting lots of "who goes to the loo in the dark?" (Well I do and I'm not the only one)

But are we only taking OPs word that the lights were off Excuse?

The lights HAVE to be off in his version.

According to nel he could easily have taken Reeva and walked out of the bedroom and down the stairs away from the danger he supposedly thought they were in . But no, he walked toward the supposed danger and fired .

“Can I ask those who think he is innocent ie he didn't know she was in there and he thought it was an intruder hence his reaction what makes them think this? I”

Noddyholder I say I think he’s telling the truth, it’s based partly upon what the prosecution haven’t presented during their case. (Sorry for the length of the post)

1. No evidence of an argument or any reason for one that evening
2. No evidence (despite being a bad tempered arse) that he was violent to her or any previous girlfriend
3. No other motive suggested
4. Immediately afterwards he rang for help/ambulance/security and had tried to give first aid (as noted by Dr Stipp who was one of the first on the scene)
5. No evidence that she had tried to ring for help whilst in the loo
6. Witness statements regarding the screaming can be contradicted by defence witnesses to be presented

I also think that it is more than likely that even if she screamed after the first shot, he didn’t hear it. The noise from the gun could easily have temporarily deafened him (that’s why people at shooting ranges wear those great big ear mufflers), especially in a bathroom

Although he’s made some errors, I too think he’s stood up fairly well. I’d find it hard to deal with Nel twisting everything I said. I’m not saying his evidence is flawless far from it, by the way and I can understand why people feel differently too.

I do think he is definitely guilty of the unrelated gun charges. For whatever reason he has pleaded not guilty (maybe because it could be seen as a precedent that he was trigger-happy?) and I think that has turned out to be a big mistake

I’ve also just thought - if he was as keen on Reeva as he says, might he have wanted to be seen as a big hero, protecting her from the dangerous (as they really are in SA) burglars and went into overdrive? Equally he could have just been scared shitless. This is just more speculation, to add the mountain of it