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 wondered why he couldn't remember who he called, unless it's happened more than once, or he rang a number of people, or whoever it is is someone he doesn't want to drag into this. And one of you will say - maybe it didn't happen. But I can't see why it would be a good idea to make up something like that. Unless to build on fear element. But still would seem silly to weave another web.

To me , there are just so so many unanswered questions that I just cannot get through. OK OK it's a gut feeling and maybe my gut feeling is wrong, but I just feel he knew who was in the bathroom, he made a split second stupid decision to frighten her and it all went wrong. (and that opinion is based on lots of different reasons, mainly because he just didn't check on her before he emptied 4 bullets into a door. I can't - and never will - understand this.)

I am interested Louise in your posts because you can manage to put a spin on everything towards favouring him on absolutely every post. I don't mean that rudely. On here I feel the consensus is not towards him, I am just curious and interested in your opinions and where they come from, and maybe it's good for me to see the other side. You've never wavered (again that isn't a criticism, I am finding this discussion interesting).

Maybe they are not calling anyone because they feel there is enough evidence in the statements made about what happened that night, enough mistakes made, that will prove it's a lie that he thought there was an intruder and that there's no need t prove what kindlf many he was because they want to only prove wha kind f man he was on that night when he over reacted and shot someone through a locked door. Perhaps the prosecution believe it's fairly easy to prove that he over reacted and meant to kill whoever was behind that door with a shocking lack of self control.

Thanks RonaldMcDonald - that is useful to know about the written version. So all the evidence already been written and exchanged between the two sides?

I mean, they are not there to prove he's an arrogant entitled human being with a tendency to treat people around him like shit.

emotion where is the NewYorker article, can you link it?

In his testimony, he said he'd bought her a bracelet by a designer she liked, earlier in the year.

They'd both agreed not to make a big deal of v day.

Yet she gets him a card & gift... that he didn't open until the day of what would have been her birthday... and it was a framed photo of them both....

Regardless of the verdict, he sounds like a shitty boyfriend :(

m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2014/04/oscar-pistoriuss-trigger.html?utm_source=tny&utm_campaign=generalsocial&utm_medium=twitter&mbid=social_twitter

If some new evidence came to light, couldn't they introduce that? Also, are the defence really aware of everything that the prosecution are going to bring up? Doesn't that mean that when the prosecution were arguing over the pictures of the jeans on or off the duvet, the defence would have known full well that the prosecution were going to show how the jeans were on a part of the folded duvet? Yet they still argued that it wasn't, isn't that a bit strange.

Earlier in the year? Thought they were only together for 3 months?

Think they can bring up new evidence, wasn't that sky footage classed as new?

Has OP actually said that he meant to kill/scare the person behind the door or was he just trying to bust the lock off? I can't remember whether the bullets were clustered around the lock or scattered over the door.

Yes, that newyorker article is very good isn't it.

He said under oath the other day that he didn't noted to kill or shoot anyone.

Didn't also say he accidentally fired the gun, four times?

Btw, can anyone link to the photographs which show that Items were moved by the police?

Roussette, well I'm sorry you think I put a spin on things. I can see explanations for much of the queries, not all of course, but maybe that's because I am trying to look at it from the viewpoint of presumed innocent and therefore looking for things to verify that. I feel many people (not al on here) automatically see a negative connotation because they think he must be guilty. I've followed this case quite closely and while of course I know there are questions and some of his story sounds improbable (and yes there are some inconsistencies), I also know that sometimes improbable things are true. Many comments people make about "you would do" X in that situation annoy me because none of us know how we'd react under such pressure.

I come on here although yes, most people seem to think he's guilty, because I can get a different opinion without people turning into vile maniacs who hope he gets raped in prison. I haven't wavered - yet but I may change my mind - that's why I want to check the earlier testimony again.

Oh ok, so he says the gun going off was an accident.

Can someone post a link to the New Yorker article please.

Oops. Just seen it is above

I thought that the bracelet thing was interesting
IMO
Media leapt on it that he had bought a bracelet and they were going to get it together
I read it as he'd bought her two bracelets earlier in the yr and they had agreed valentine's was no big deal
( I have no interest in Valentine's and this decision would make no value judgement in my head )
I felt to me that he was tacking on the going to the jewellers to maybe get a charm for the bracelet he'd already bought her.

I was interested in how the media inferred that he'd a surprise designer bracelet for her. That wasn't my take on it and actually why would he? They been going out for only a few months.
Might be wrong of course

Louise I respect your opinion. I'm just curious because in the end it goes against the grain somewhat. I really want to think that what he says is true, really I do but the inconsistencies - to me - seem to outweigh everything. I admit to thinking he is guilty but I really am prepared to be proved wrong. I would like to think she wasn't fighting for her life (and I am aware that is an emotive statement it's a couple of glasses of wine talking sorry)

If something new came to light that proved he was telling the truth, I would be very glad and I am also aware I only know what I am being fed by the trial and the media. In the end, you are looking at it from the 'innocent' view and I am looking at it from the 'guilty' view and I accept that.

Thank you for the new thread.

I'm with Louise here. I feel so far, that there isn't enough evidence to prove he deliberately murdered Reeva. I also want to hear what the defence witnesses have to say.

At the moment I would say the evidence presented so far would be enough to tip anyone presuming innocence over into the 'looking a bit guilty actually' category.

That's what trials are for and I don't think even the judge (or in this country the juri) would be maintaining a constant 'innocent in proven guilty' line. Their opinion would sway from side to side during the trial, and in some cases it would be very clear if someone was guilty from evidence presented - though maybe not so clear in this case.

Ronald I thought he said on Thursday/Friday (I was listening but at work so obviously it's not always possible to concentrate properly since they keep coming up and asking some work-related, flipping cheek) that he had ordered her the bracelet from a designer she liked actually as the present for Valentine's Day?

I'm confused (again) and no I don't think Valentine's a big deal either.

But even if he did believe that there was an intruder behind that door. What he did was murder.

He did say in court that he had bought her a bracelet Ronald and they were going to pick it up together. I think that would be very easy for the prosecution to check up on, and as they haven't called him up on it, I presume it's the truth.