Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Oscar Pistorius trial part 3

999 replies

JillJ72 · 12/04/2014 19:08

Hiya,

Thread 1 here - www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/2022610-Oscar-Pistorius-trial

Thread 2 here - www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/2049921-Oscar-Pistorius-trial-part-2

To continue our respectful, open, interesting discussion.

OP posts:
AmIthatSpringy · 13/04/2014 19:01

Shoppingbags where did you hear/read that OP had superb balance on his stumps.

Granted he was fast when he was young, but he explained in evidence that the heel part has moved about and is uncomfortable. Plus he is no longer a slight wee boy, he is very bulked up on top

Looking at him without prosthetics, I would be very surprised if he did have superb balance. His legs under the knee are very, very thin

Even his exGF, in her evidence, said he wasn't balanced and often had to hold onto things. She would have been with him many, many times to witness this

BumPotato · 13/04/2014 19:02

Yes he is disabled. He is also one of the world's top athletes. Even without his prosthetic legs, he is in no way a weak man.

My elderly friend was an amputee. She had formidable strength and was no athlete. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to take her on in a fight.

He's playing the scared card, I don't buy it for a second.

AmIthatSpringy · 13/04/2014 19:04

Ukgal36 Just so I'm clear here, are you saying that unless we pronounce OP as guilty of premed, then we have our heads in the sand?

Is that what you are saying?

Allthreerolledintoone · 13/04/2014 19:09

Someone made a hyoid point about if he was calling for a Reeva to ring the police then why didn't she when she was in the toilet if she heard him screaming. And how loud exactly was the window opening. He heard the window, grabbed his gun then heard the door shut but no flush.

Ukgal36 · 13/04/2014 19:12

I am referring to the evidence. It seems that those defending his actions are failing to address the evidence being presented, his mess on the witness box in the last 3 days. It's not science, how is it possible that a human being is shot and there was not sound from them if they had been alive in the first place. It's the evidence!

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 13/04/2014 19:12

Whatever happened on that night, I don't think anyone can argue that Reeva could reasonably expect to be shot 4 times through the toilet door.

We have to be careful to take the testimony of the one survivor, left to tell the story of that night, as "fact" too.

How do we know they were in bed? Could they have been downstairs when an argument broke out? Reeva apparently ate at 1am. Neighbours heard screaming, arguing, crying, as early as 2am.

Could she have run into the bedroom, explaining the damage to the bedroom door? Was she forced to flee into the bathroom - lock herself in the toilet in fear? I'm just very aware that he could make up any story then that he thinks fits with the physical evidence on the scene. He firstly said he was out on the balcony - then he just 'reached' onto the balcony. He can't explain how he didn't hear her getting up, but he heard a window slide in the bathroom.

I agree with the prosecution - it makes more sense that she was hiding from him - he was a man who was both obsessed with, and reckless with firearms, with a nasty temper.

Roussette · 13/04/2014 19:14

How can he, on one hand, prove he felt threatened (hence the 4 gunshots) and yet on the other hand say he didn't fire with intent and he fired accidentally.

Surely if you are feeling threatened, you would be shooting to stop the burglar and you can't go for the accidental firing. I am confused now but that's not unusual

The article that Smitten linked to, sums it up.

Ukgal36 · 13/04/2014 19:14

He probably didn't shot or instructed her to call the police. The evidence was that she was standing facing the door (possibly arguing with him) and in her shorts when a bullet went through her shattering her hip.

SauceForTheGander · 13/04/2014 19:16

Regarding whether Reeva really had her phone - she was found by OP in the loo - he then tried to use her phone but didn't know her PIN number to unlock it. He then took her downstairs.

We only have his word for her actions that night. We don't actually know and OP has lied on the stand.

He claimed not to recall who told him that his ex GF had fabricated her story. That was when Nel laughed. I wish Nel had pushed this point. I think accusing a witness of perjury should be explored - for both sides.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 13/04/2014 19:17

This thread has been pretty reasoned so far - lets try and keep it this way. There's no need to pick apart other posters, there should be room all opinions/discussion here.

SauceForTheGander · 13/04/2014 19:21

I've made no secret of where I stand on this but I've found hearing those who believe OP very interesting.

OneStepCloser · 13/04/2014 19:22

If everyone agreed on this thread, it wouldnt be very long and it wouldnt have bought up some really good probing questions on all sides.

AmIthatSpringy · 13/04/2014 19:24

Sauce I think that we will be hearing more about that this week. He said she had lied in most of her evidence. Gerrie Nel won't let that one go.

I wondered whether she had her phone at all, and whether he just said he found it in the toilet. So many scenarios possible, but I don't want to speculate.

UKgal There is NO-ONE on this thread defending his actions. And we haven't heard all the evidence yet. Hmm

Ukgal36 · 13/04/2014 19:25

I rest my case!

Ukgal36 · 13/04/2014 19:28

You don't have to hear all the evidence to analysis the scenario that OP presented and see that there are holes on his story!

LouiseBrooks · 13/04/2014 19:29

Hello everybody, just quickly skimming as I am currently reading the Sky transcript from the early days - so far up to day 2.

UKgal I hope I don't have my head in the sand, which is why I doing the above to see if I change my mind.

Don't want to divert the discussion too much but I found this - WTF is this about? (From Sky News)

"Earlier, there was disruption in court as a woman known only as Anna Marie - who has attempted to intervene in previous hearings - turned up at court and was surrounded and asked to leave.
Sky's Alex Crawford, who is in court, said the woman told reporters she knew Pistorius' mother, and wanted to see the judge.
She also claimed to be the ex-wife of the surgeon who amputated Pistorius' legs as a baby."

Bonnielangbird · 13/04/2014 19:32

As for respect Reeva needs respecting I think that's the one thing everyone on here can agree on.

springy thanks. At least everything is written down on here so is useful to check what I remembered saying which was wondering if Reeva hadn't been able to use her phone because of lack of reception. Which obviously is the opposite of a bias towards OPs. On that topic, does anyone know if there is evidence to suggest there isn't reception?

Yes agree,hadn't thought that the phone may have even been placed there.

AmIthatSpringy · 13/04/2014 19:33

"You don't have to hear all the evidence to analysis the scenario that OP presented and see that there are holes on his story!"

Actually Ukgal you really do.

And what case are you resting Hmm

You registered with Mn just to say all that Hmm

Ukgal36 · 13/04/2014 19:34

Crumbs!! Why so angry?!

Bonnielangbird · 13/04/2014 19:34

That's the first I'd heard of that louise, wonder what she could possibly want to say.

LouiseBrooks · 13/04/2014 19:35

UKgal, of course there are holes in his story, I don't dispute that. If there weren't he wouldn't have charged with premeditated murder. But there are holes in the State case too.

And Springy you're right, even if I think he might be telling the truth, I'm not saying that what he did wasn't terrible.

Ukgal36 · 13/04/2014 19:37

AmIthatSpringy, you seem to be taking all these so personal. I am only saying how I see things, his story is not rational to me anyway.

Roussette · 13/04/2014 19:37

I just wonder what is going through his mind now - at this crucial point in the proceedings. Regret? Worry? Fear? It would be interesting to know wouldn't it

voiceofgodot · 13/04/2014 19:41

I am loving this thread and agree, let's keep it friendly. There's no need to slag off other people's opinions and make it personal, those who think he's telling the truth have IMO been very open to discussion and I think the difference in people's POV has been fantastically useful.

Just catching up after being out all day. It's been a bloody tough day here, massive hangover and twin 4 year olds to contend with, along with all sorts of social engagements. Urgggh.

pettybetty · 13/04/2014 19:43

Someone on thread 2 mentioned they wondered if he knew whether the bullets would penetrate the door. I thought that was a really good point, as maybe he could say he shot but didn't intend them to go through.

However, rethinking it, the problem with that is that he would know that there is ricochet, and if they didn't penetrate the door, they could end up hurting him, so I don't know.

Also, can other people clarify what impression they got about where in the bed each was sleeping?

My impression was that he usually slept next to the window, but that night slept on the other side as had a shoulder injury. However, the gun was still under the bed on his usual side (next to the window). The problem with this is that he would have to navigate getting past the fan, the plug points, the vest, the ipads and hair shaver on charge to get the gun, all while not realising she was in bed on that side.

To me, it would seem that he would have a better chance of not knowing she wasn't in bed if the gun was retrieved from the side further away from the window where he was sleeping.

Have I got it wrong?

If my impression is right, I would 'guess' that he has been caught by details. I know when I have lied in the past, (as a teen to my parents or to my ex husband) about silly or serious things, I have sometimes added in detail that was not necessary, just to 'try' make the lie sound more plausible, and he may have done the same. I may be totally wrong though, but I am just putting myself in his shoes.