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.

I'm desperate to watch, but I'm off work today and am going out with DD shortly. Will have sneaky peeks at mumsnet

I can't help relating it back to personal experiences. I know that sometimes items in my bedroom bother me that wouldn't usually. It really depends on my frame of mind eg there's a cable in our bedroom that I usually don't even notice but I've had nights where, for some odd reason, it's really bothered me and I've had to get up to move it.
I guess Nel is trying to unsettle OP to get to the truth about the important issue which is, again I'm guessing, why Reeva's jeans were out.
Considering the room is so small with the balcony on one side and the bathroom on the other, I don't really understand why its so signficant which side Reeva was sleeping on. Either side would still mean OP had to pass her to go from the balcony to the bathroom. Am I missing something?

@Roussette I think Nel is saying that if he whispered, Reeva wouldn't have heard him and I suspect OP realised this, thus changed from whisper to low tone.

Another thing, if the LED is on, it means the amplifyer was on and the whole device's light would be sufficient to see Reeva. Another thing does it mean he sleeps with the amplifyer on given that a small light bothers him

OP's biggest mistake was testifying

I agree the point about RS not speaking to OP when she went to the loo is irrelevant

If I got up to the loo, while in bed with DH, I might not say anything. He can fall asleep in 2 seconds, so we could be talking one moment ,then him asleep the next, so I wouldn't announce if I was going to the loo.

Again, it's all about building up all of the little inconsistencies.

Nel is being deliberately bizarre - I thought he was along about the window noise, no wonder OP is confused.

If I wasn't sure dh was sleeping I probably wouldn't ask him if he'd heard something, I'd wait to hear it again.

If we'd already been talking because we were awake, I'd ask him.

Voice what did I miss about the duvet and blood spatters?

I think he certainly did shout
"get the fuck out of my house"

I could see why these words would carry emotion for him

Marking my place, need to catch up have been unable to get on MN due to the password reset.

He zoomed in on the duvet on the floor and showed that there were blood spatters on the duvet, and also on the carpet right next to the duvet. Suggesting the duvet was in that position when OP carried Reeva through the bedroom. OP denies and says that the duvet was on the bed and would have been spattered then. Nel retorts that there is no blood spatter on the bed, OP says it's because the blood would have gone on the duvet. Nel retorts that unless OP is now saying the bed was neatly made (heavy sarcasm) then of course there would have been some spatter on the bed too.

Thanks Voice. I wonder if re-examination will pick up these points

Agree Ronald

If you were advancing towards an unknown threat, gun in hand, wouldn't you say "I've got a gun" or some kind of warning as to what the consequences would be if they didn't get out?

Springy Nel said there were blood splatters on the duvet and the jeans but not on the bed.

Completely agree with Ronald

I think he certainly did shout "get the fuck out of my house"

I could see why these words would carry emotion for him

he held his composure right up until that point, and I think he lost it because that one sentence was the truth. He did shout that. At Reeva.

Ronald

"Get the fuck out of my house" - sounded real enough didn't it? No fear, just anger. And the memory of shouting it causes him to break down in tears. Those words directed at Reeva suggest to me they were at the end of a nasty argument. You don't break up with me, I break up with you.

Who wouldn't shout back "I'm in here" - with their boyfriend shouting at the loo door - get the fuck out of my house.

Gosh - just read back over today's evidence so far. He's really a very bad witness and I think Nel is correct, he is thinking about the ways in which his answers could convict him rather than answering with the facts. Possibly because he is actually lying about most of the details.

Really interested to see what the defence will come back with now.

I hope Nel continues right where he left off, and suggests that he did indeed shout that, but at RS.

Also - if he was scared, whispering, creeping up on an intruder... why then suddenly get angry and shout?

And why not say he shouted "I have a gun, I've called the police" or something else more believable?

And, yes, IF his scenario were true... WHY would an innocent RS, using the loo, not shout out - hey, it's me in here!!

Utterly improbable.

And I agree, all of his answers to every tiny detail are tailored to support his story. I don't feel like hes answering honestly about anything at all.

A PP said he shouldn't have testified and I think they're right. It's horrendous to listen to him being ripped apart even though it's absolutely right and necessary that he is. Still, surely Roux must be wishing that he'd said he was too traumatised to testify?

It is glaringly obvious that OP is struggling to keep his head clear due to the amount of tailoring he is being forced to do, due to minute detail Nell is forcing him to address. Him breaking down at this point has huge implications (I believe).
Interesting that Nell also mentioned the food in stomach/time frame and alarm system again...

"Why did he stop firing after 4 shots?
If silent intruder/intruders were huddled in the toilet did he think 4 shots were enough?
Or did the screaming stop and he stopped firing?

Why not empty the mag?"

I agree with BookaBooSue, I think it's most probable that he was shooting the door with complete disregard and out of control during an argument and he stopped firing when he realised that he had actually shot her.

Because he doesn't want to go to jail it is so much better for him to make up a story of an intruder than to say 'We had an argument so I shot through the door when she locked herself in - I am sorry'.

If you were in the toilet, and heard him shouting get out of my house, would you not think that someone had come in downstairs, or were in the bathroom and just keep really quiet so they didn't know you were there? I would have thought someone was in, and would have locked the door, stayed where I was, and not made a sound, thinking that OP was talking to an actual intruder.

Book I don't interpret it as horrendous that OP is being ripped apart; more that OP is having to be factual, answer questions in a relevant manner and not tailor his evidence. Any reasonable person would not interpret the entire situation as OP has and that's the issue.

"It is probable that OP used the cricket bat earlier in the event. I believe that when she locked herself in the toilet he tried to break the door with the bat and being unsuccessful he fetched his gun and shot her through the door. This version fits the witness testimonies more closely."

This is what I think is most probable, I hope it is persued.

RE the them having sex thing. I think the defence know very well that bringing their sex life into this would be crass and damaging to their case.

It is right and proper that a man who has killed someone explain himself under oath - and absolutely right that he should be held to account for his inconsistencies. He's not being ripped apart - his story is being analysed in minute detail. If he isn't able to allow the court to do that without crying that's his problem.

Sauce I think that is a very plausible explanation.