Oscar Pistorius trial part 2

[JillJ72]

To continue from previous thread

if op was attacking Reeva why would he be calling for help? I think the witness started to imply that the male voice was mocking the female voice by calling for help but then the defence pulled them up for speculating.

I think OP was being so definite about the lack of female screaming because if he admitted that Reeva could have screamed, it would lend credence to the witnesses who said they heard a woman screaming, and some of them also said they heard arguing. If OP admits they could have been right about the woman screaming then Nel is going to say they were right about hearing the arguing too.

I don't think OP's testimony has gone well.

Louise I think people are saying that would turn a light on cos OP says that the bedroom was pitch black, which would make it hard to navigate, I wouldn't turn the light on at home as I no my room back to front and have light from the street light outside, if I were in pitch black and didn't know the room very well I might have to turn a light on.

Also the photos showed iPad etc on OPs floor, bit foolish if your going to step around in pitch blackness.

But if they did argue, then he is lying and therefore the lights could be on.

What I don't get is how he could have been advised so badly, and are his comments about the defence not doing certain things evidence of him feeling let down by them.

OneStepCloser I think people are saying that would turn a light on cos OP says that the bedroom was pitch black

Yes I get that but there is also the suggestion that she used her phone as a torch. I've never thought of it but apparently people do. Either is possible

As I said, a mountain of speculation. But if any of it was clear cut we wouldn't be on here would we? We'd be watching Gardener's World (ok, I am) or telling the kids to do their homework

It's so hard to remember what OP says, and hat has actually been corroborated by witnesses. I'm sure one of the witnesses said the bathroom light was on when they heard the shots.

I think Nel made mincemeat of him today, I've just finished listening to today's.

The one thing that struck me was that if you ever are unlucky enough to be cross-examined by lawyers of this calibre is that you need your wits about you, even if you are telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Every word can be twisted, every phrase you used thrown back at you with a different spin on it. Both Nel and Roux have done that with the witnesses. It's scary, frankly. If you're not somebody who is eloquent, and able to stand up to this very strong form of questioning - well it's frightening really.

I do think (at the moment) the prosecution is right in this case - but god! If they're not...if OP was genuinely frightened out of his wits that night -nobody can really say how each person would act when that scared. And he is being put through the mill - I think OP is strong, but some people genuinely are not, and would just cave even if they were telling the truth.It's like, to gain justice you have to have the right personality to withstand this sort of onslaught - but many people haven't. It's a problem.

The one sticking point I have with the case against OP is - if the prosecution are right, would he be arguing/fighting with Reeva without his legs on? I don't think that he would have - but I didn't listen to the court stuff about whether he definitely didn't have his legs on when he fired the shots.

Sabrina I agree with you about how robust a defendant would have to be. People say - well if you've nothing to hide it doesnt matter, but I don't think this kind of questioning may always get to the truth. I know I'd completely crumble.

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

Possibly because he does not want to ask questions that, while looking potentially incriminating, are then met with seemingly plausible explanations. If he allows too many of those to happen, they can build up a sense of there being reasonable doubt.

Good lawyers resist asking far more questions than they actually allow themselves to ask.

Agree with louise re reasons but would add that to me he also comes across as very genuine - his tone of voice, the emotion. I think he would have to be an incredibly good actor otherwise.

I've watched some of it with the hat on of 'he is lying' to try and see an opposite point of view but there's still nothing that I've heard that makes me feel comfortable with that. When I assume he is telling the truth, the things he says and the way he says them sit well with that opinion for me. It's an intangible thing I guess hence why it's hard to explain and I know many feel exactly the opposite.

Sabrina, I think Dr and Mrs Stipp both said they thought the bathroom light was on, but she said the loo light was on and he said it wasn't. The others we've heard of weren't close enough to see. I believe somebody next door will testify for the defence (about no screaming) but don't know what they'll say about the lights.

I see what you mean about the legs (forensic guy said no legs when he shot Reeva but I guess he could be wrong) but but what if they'd been rowing in bed?

For me the main reason for thinking he's telling the truth is a complete and utter lack of any real motive. If the prosecution had produced an ex who said he was violent, then I'd think differently. I just don't think it's likely (although not impossible of course) that he would go that bonkers without previous form in the girlfriend-bashing stakes.

Totally agree with everything you say about the cross examination. Considering the state OP was in at the beginning, he's doing better than I expected

Bonnielangbird I agree that there is real and genuine emotion. When I am playing the devil's advocate I tell myself it is quite possible he feels remorse, anguish, etc because he shot her deliberately. In fact he might feel it more than if it was an accident.

I also think some of the things he's said (ie not going on the balcony, eating so early) don't actually help his case and that if he'd shot her on purpose he wouldn't be doing that, ie he'd say they ate as close as possible to going to bed because there's more chance of the pathologist being off by 2/3 hours than by 5/6 hours

I imagine that an intelligent person will always stick the truth as much s possible - it's easier to recall and defend the truth rather than a lie.

So yes, if an argument had broken out after they'd gone to bed, then maybe he would be arguing without his prosthetics on. And then put them on to deal with the aftermath.

I didn't listen to Samantha's evidence at the time, so far I've only only the first day, odd bits, and Oscar's testimony. (Oh to have the time to listen to it all!). I might try and find Samantha's evidence - because I think she said some stuff about him shouting, controlling etc. And weren't her parents relieved that she wasn't with him anymore? Well, no shit!

I think he's been shown to be so reckless with firearms, that even if they believe his version of events, he'll do time. I mean, the state just can't be seen to condone this sort of reckless behaviour with guns, surely?

People say - well if you've nothing to hide it doesnt matter, but I don't think this kind of questioning may always get to the truth. I know I'd completely crumble.

I'm not sure this applies in general. Having been at the receiving end of an aggressive day-long cross-examination (US legal case) my experience is that if you're telling the truth and you base your answers firmly on the truth you know, it really is manageable to resist crumbling.

My suspicion is that Nel is gaining traction with his approach because OP is telling a mixture of true and untruth. But even if that's right, it doesn't actually mean he's guilty.

This is probably complete rubbish but does a good lawyer only ask questions that they know the answer to..?
Along the lines of nauticant saying they resist asking.

Samantha said he shouted but she didn't say she was scared of him and she certainly didn't say he'd thumped her. I'm not on Twitter but apparently her mother tweeted she was thrilled that Sam wasn't "with that man any more" but also apparently she used to say OP was wonderful when they were going out. If I didn't like my daughter's boyfriend I'd just keep schtum, not be two faced, but that's me. But nothing from any other ex girlfriends either, of course.

I think they'll probably convict him of manslaughter and he will do some jail time, but not sure how much. I also hope this being such a high profile case, it might help a bit with regard to the well-known problems with the gun situation in SA but I won't hold my breath on the latter. Although if I lived there I'd probably keep a gun in the house and I hate the bloody things.

I'm going to go off and watch Sky "highlights" because I didn't see it all.

The opposite side are very good at the 'casting doubt' thing - that's the problem. A witness/defendant could be against such an vicious cross-examination, that they actually begin to doubt their own memory. Or, and this is vital that the jury (judge in this case) doubts their recall.

You don't had to be thumped to there to be domestic violence

Are you in SA, Louise? I'm not - I'm Uk, and the gun culture in places like SA and the US scares me. Young, reckless men (and let's face it, there are a lot about) that can just own a gun so easily - where it's so normalised that he feels he can say "I'm thinking of buying one of those, lets have a look at it' in a restaurant -is scary to me.

And this case confirms that. Young, reckless, scared-of-crime people + guns = scary. But, of course, I speak from the comfort of an English village.

Maybe I shouldn't say this, but i read some rather unkind comments on twitter a couple of days ago, the first ref Reeva's mother's expression in the courtroom (it was, in my mind, a highly disrespectful comment), and then Sam's tweet, backed up by further comments by someone others on twitter have referenced as being her sister - unkind comments about Reeva.

Lots of immaturity abounds.

And it's so true that you don't need to be thumped for it to be dv. The most dangerous time for a woman in an abusive relationship is when she wants to leave - I have wondered if she was trying to leave him that night. That she's just had one 'jealous' argument too many with him. We'll never know.

... and I think guns beget guns. The only place I see for them legitimately is the countryside (if really necessary) and on a firing range, if that really is your thing.

Just as driving at stupid speeds should be confined to racing tracks and speedways, not public roads.

The entitlement of the entitled. A tragedy / accident / disaster waiting to happen.

But Sabrina, if she wanted to leave him why would she suggest they got together that night (it was her idea) and why on earth would she buy him a Valentine's present?

And yes I know it doesn't have to be physical for it to be an abusive relationship.

Lots of immaturity abounds.

That's why I continue to be impressed by this thread JillJ72. I can't imagine many places on the Web where this discussion would remain so civil and free of axe-grinding.

Sabrina, no I'm not in SA. Wouldn't go near it frankly. My company has South African offices and I know several South Africans including one colleague who, although she thinks OP is lying, said she would never go back because she was always on edge, worried and anxious about security.

I know, there's no evidence for it Louise - but it's just something that crossed my mind - that they had a really vicious argumetn, and she said, 'right I'm going then.' He could have been so enraged, he would have done anything to stop her leaving. It's a fairly common scenario - but, ike I said, there's only one person alive that knows the real truth of that night - and maybe, he's not telling the truth.

JillJ72 I haven't seen Twitter but I've seen comments elsewhere and yes, it's awful. It doesn't matter what Mrs Steenkamp looks like or what her expression is. Her child dies and she is grieving in her own way. It wouldn't be my way (I'd be like OP, blubbing constantly.) For all we know, she could be totally doped up on tranquilisers to keep her going. I also really liked the fact that she made it plain that OP had tried to apologise privately. She seems to have less malevolent feelings towards him than some of the people on the internet.