Oscar Pistorius trial part 3

[JillJ72]

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.

Hi again,

I've been reading with interest everyone's posts. It's interesting that people seem to be biased based their own previous personal experience. As far as I can see, if someone has described a history of exposure to domestic violence, they tend to think OP guilty until proven innocent (and even then... Well, I hope we can all agree to agree with the judge's decision). Whereas posters who describe previous experience of burglary tend to believe OP's version of the events and are more generous with the inconsistencies in his story. Not a scientific study by any means, but interesting nonetheless how we all bring our past to bear in this horrifying case. No wonder it's so emotive and so many people feel heavily invested in the case.

Reading through the transcripts, one response in particular stood out for me (and I'm sorry I can't quote directly) - Nel asked OP (I paraphrase, and hope you can follow) whether she had screamed in the bathroom. The jist of the response was that she hadn't, he was asked again and reiterates that she did not scream, pushed further he responded that he couldn't hear because of the ringing in his ears after loud gunshots in a bathroom, and finally, when pushed as to why she didn't say anything to let OP know it was her in the bathroom he said:

"I wish she had said something".

Others have mentioned that this points to minimising, deflecting the blame and reducing his responsibility. One thing that struck a chord with me and I cannot shake is that, it really sounded like the truth after days of giving rote answers and 'correct' answers etc. It seemed an honest answer and my interpretation of it was:

He was arguing with her across the bathroom door, she reused to engage with him, threatened to call someone and refused to speak to him

She didn't speak to him and in anger he tried to force her hand.

Did anyone else think that?

In this version not just have been a very serious argument that escalated quite quickly. He has form for being impulsive, according to evidence that has been presented.

Some posters have previously expressed disbelief in OP's potential to be violent because he showed no precedent for it in other relationships - there will always be a first relationship in which one partner assaults the other. If someone is burgled, you don't first ask if it has happened to them before, because if it hasn't then it isn't likely, or that if the suspect hasn't burgled anyone before then they cannot have been the perpetrator.

According to our justice system, OP is innocent until proven guilty, but I cannot ignore the horrific irony that OP fired his gun on an innocent person without waiting for any proof that they were guilty. OP is being given the benefit of doubt, quite generously I think, given the attitude that he showed to 'an intruder'.

In all versions, Reeva's final moments were full of pain, terror and knowledge that she was being killed by her loving boyfriend.

Been out to dinner so just caught up. I agree so much with both sides of the argument and can see both the flaws and sensible bits of his (& others) testimony. But I do wonder how much I clouded by knowing what an inspiration he has been to the amputee kids I work with. He has given so many of them hope. But ......

I absolutely respect that you met OP and am glad that you enjoyed doing so

However his public persona especially as it was his livelihood can mean nothing.
Many hugely violent and even murderous individuals are charming, respectful and all together wonderful when they choose to be.

That I'd the nature of DV/DA the person has a charming, wonderful but utterly damaged winning side to them.

I do not discount that he was lovely. He was also immature, had poor action consequence development was controlling, angry, spoilt. With a need to carry a loaded gun.

I thought Netcare were the ambulance service/paramedics

So they would have been called long before Johan Stander and Dr Stipp arrived

Yeah, thanks Ronald. I did say that private and public personas were different. Or did you decide to miss that part

"If only all the witnesses had heard the same thing."

Eyewitnesses never hear or see the same thing - even when they do.

Springy unfortunately 5 hours is no where near long enough to see people for who they really are. Abusers are famously charming, likeable and well mannered. Same as psychopaths. Masks don't slip that quickly - I've learnt to my detriment.

Frontier thank you for that post. Much to digest,

I agree there are times he's telling the truth -his voice changes. It's very interesting.

Jill thank you for the take on relationship dynamics in relation to abusive red flags and behaviours. I think it's invaluable to hear these different interpretations of evidence and behaviour, it really helps to challenge the opinions we all can't help but have due to our own personal expire cra. Those if us with personal experience of DA and DV often tend to interprate things with a bias towards abuse as it is our personal experience and knowledge base. It shows how important it is to be open to other ideas and opinions.

I think sometimes people run the risk of putting too much stock in eye (ear?) witness testimony.
It is well documented that you can take three people and have them witness the same event and when questioned later you will get three different stories and conflicting statements. It is the nature of the human condition, all I talked about above we all bring personal bias to a situation.
It is perfectly natural that witness statements won't match up and if there where no discrepancy between statements I would find that deaply alarming.
I think it's very important to realise that all witness statements can do is give background to the event and be one small part if building a picture . The judge and asesors will be very expirenced and trained in this area and I have faith that they will give each eye witness statement and testimony the weight it deserves on it's merits and likelihood. Roux and Nel will both be very awere of this fact and what they are doing in questioning and cross is trying to give weight or undermine the testimony that best supports their case. I do worry sometimes that justice can become a farcical nonsense as it just becomes a game to find the most able debater rather then a quest for the truth. I think the SA set up of judge and assessor trials really has an edge if jury trials. While the idea of being judged by a jury if our peers is an ideological dream I think the realities thanks to the human condition mean that the reality is far from ideal. The risk of cause is that with the judge trial system you have to be sure that the system is not currupt. You are putting so much trust in the system that you have to be sure. It is very difficult to build and maintain this kind of trust.
No easy answers sadly.

Yes Sauce, I don't think I said it was, though. Just explaining where my stance was coming from

Frontier that had occurred to me. I think that OP shot at Reeva in anger, but didn't mean to kill her.

I agree that there are no winners in this case.

Eyewitnesses never hear or see the same thing - even when they do.
Louise yy that's so true.
Frontier that comment stood out to me too. The way OP said it, I wondered if he had wanted her to say something in their argument and she had refused to engage. His tone and inflection seemed so different from all his other answers.

I can see why it would be Springy

I don't understand your last comment Sauce Can see why what would be?

I've been thinking about something a previous poster said - that the argument could have been elsewhere and then Reeva ran into the bedroom and on in to the toilet. Does anyone know if the police would have focused their investigation just on the bedroom? As the PP said we don't really know where OP and Reeva were prior to the shooting. Everything has been about the bedroom because the toilet was off the bedroom, and because OP said that was where they were. How much work would the police put in to establish whether that was true or not?

I can see why having met him and liked him you would have the stance that you do. That's totally understandable.

Louise

I guess Stander therefore didn't know OP had called an ambulance? Although OP said they told him to wait for them to arrive rather than drive her to the hospital. Very strange.

Dr Stipp clearly called for an ambulance. Twice. As he was redirected to call an emergency number.
I guess one might have already been on its way.

Would Netcare have told OP to drive Ms Steenkamp to hospital?
He lived in Jo Burb suburb.
Again he might have been too unwell with the situation to process anything

Ah okay Sauce, I get that. However, I am not naive and I know that his private personality would be somewhat different.

I am struggling, to be honest, but I am still on the fence.

And whatever the judge decides, I am pretty confident will be right. She knows what she is doing.

It is still unbearably sad for all concerned though.

And I have been in the position where I have heard people remark about me "He's so nice, wonder what she did to rile him" including Ex MIL who wondered what i could have done to her wee boy to make him puncture my ear drum. So I know a wee bit about abuse.

springy - I'm sorry to read that.

Springy

No I didn't ignore it.

I personally find it hard when people look for evidence of his violence or bad behaviour to confirm or deny what happened when he killed Ms Steenkamp
It makes me consumed with worry that I want so badly to believe him.
I am acting strangely.
I think I have started doing the same to others

Sorry

You're welcome Sauce, you be a while digesting those typos. Apologies, if it please the court.

Also, I hadn't intended to launch into a para about she and her, like a previous poster mentioned, I think we ought to use Reeva's name.

Another thing that occurred to me; when being questioned about what the doctor said to him when he (the doctor) entered the house, OP suggested that the doctor was shocked and didn't know what to do, suggesting things that OP was already doing.

I imagine that the doctor, quickly and accurately assessing Reeva's situation, and seeing that nothing could be done for, made some soft comments about making her comfortable or what not.

I don't doubt for a second that it was blatantly obvious that she was in mortal danger. Why he decided to carry her down the stairs with such horrific, mortal injuries is beyond my comprehension.

Does anyone have any ideas about why OP has blocked out a portion of transferring Reeva down the stairs? I'm his version, he claims that he cannot remember how he carried her for the bedroom to part way down the stairs. Often when we forget things it's an active process. We want to forget something that doesn't sit well with us, and our mind conveniently and happily acquiesces. Any thoughts on that?

Or, if his version is not true, what is he not telling us? Is it important? Is it even relevant?

If he does get a prison sentence I wouldn't imagine he would cope I'd be fearful of what he might do. Very sad situation and so sad Reevas parents as they will never really know the truth

Vanity fair article did give a good insight into OP and RS relationship. Interesting reading based on interviews mainly with her family and friends.

Frontier That is indeed baffling. I cannot even begin to wonder what would he would want to block about that stage what happened.

I can think of no sinister reason. Unless it is to do with opening the bedroom door

I do wonder if we will ever know the real truth of that night. What's that saying? History is written by the winners, in this case it's being written by the survivor.

I think that no matter which version actually happened ( and I do think we need to take into account that it could have been far more cold-blooded than any of us want to believe) - that OP is genuinely remorseful. Unfortunately, that does also mean that he has convinced himself that it was an accident, he didn't mean to do it, and is saying whatever he can to stay out of jail. I mean, how can a person 'accidentally' fire 4 shots into a door.

The independent witness testimony is chilling - a woman screaming, 2 voices screaming and crying and then gunshots. It's pretty damning, and I'm afraid I just don't buy the defence story that it was all OP screaming. Many witnesses have said about 'male' and 'female' voices together/intermingled before the gunshots - that says argument to me.