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.

But if she slept on the balcony side and he was up pulling fans in he would definitely have noticed if she got up. She would have woken up, said can't you sleep then slid across and gone to the loo that way surely?

x posted with Looking that makes sense.

If he still thought there was an intruder, then he has to maintain that he still had his gun with him.

looking has it.
To believe his story you some how have to believe that he, knowing by then it was likely Reeva in the toilet, opened doors shouted for help, with cocked gun in one hand (I could believe this, how many of us even in a non traumatic event have found ourselves standing somewhere in the bathroom with the TV remote forgotten in our hands) then sits down on the bed to put on his prosthetics do he can break into the toilet to get to Reeva. To do this he has to put the gun down. The moment he does this there is no reason at all that he would pick that gun back up again. But to make his story fit the physical evidence the gun can't be in the bedroom, it has to be the bathroom. To fit his story to the evidence he has to make you believe he picked the cocked gun back up from the bed (or floor) and took it with him back to the bathroom so he could get to Reeva.

Thanks looking, got it.

You see... Today I feel like he might be telling the truth! It's utter madness isn't it... Just from hearing his voice at certain points. Madness agree how. For the first time today I decided not to listen to it live but just read the written updates. When I hear him, I hear either an amazing actor or someone who is telling the truth (or trying to anyway). When I just read the words, I start to find it difficult to believe.

What would be very interesting is whether his body language is congruent with the words he is using. Obviously we don't get to see this, but I'm sure if could be very telling.

That's what I think anyhow - this part of the trial is based around at what point he knew that it was Reeva in the toilet.

If he knew immediately, either before the shooting, or immediately afterwards, then he would not have needed to check curtains, balcony, bedroom door, and he could have left the gun in the bathroom, and he could have turned the lights on.

If he thought it was an intruder, then the lights were more likely to be off, the firearm with Pistorios throughout, Reeva thoroughly checked for everywhere.

I do find it implausible that he moved right across the width of the bed without knowing if the duvet was on it, while simultaneously knowing that Reeva wasn't. That, for me, was the least plausible part of his testimony, which makes me wonder why he doesn't say 'I know it wasn't there' or 'I know it was there.' He would have surely been caught by it/kicked it if it were there, and he was looking for Reeva; if he'd been caught by the duvet, the first thing he'd do would be to feel there to see what it was.

Actually if the intruder story is true, there would still be an element of doubt surely (or if not doubt, then hope) until he broke the door down to see. So after putting on his prosthetics would it not be reasonable to expect him to keep the gun with him in case Reeva had managed to flee and the intruder was still there?

oh wow!

Isn't it possible that he would have taken the gun back with him to the bathroom, because until he knew for sure that it was Reeva, it would have been madness to leave a loaded gun lying on his bed given that in his version he had previously thought there was an intruder?

I wonder how much longer Nel plans to keep OP on the stand. We all have so many unanswered questions that I can't see how they can all be addressed.

Is it true that he was signing autographs outside

if so, in very poor taste

Regards checking the balcony or shouting for help - this is significant. Nel is examining OP who is the only surviving witness of the events. He is examining OP's intentions when he went out into the balcony. On this night, in OP's version or in the State's version we can assume that a reasonable person would have shouted for help and OP indeed said that this is what he did. However, the need to check the balcony only arrives in a specific situation, whereby:
a) OP was looking for someone
AND
b) he thought it reasonable that that person could be on the balcony.

The second is only really possible if OP thought he had shot an intruder and was looking for RS.

This is relevant to when and how OP realises he shot RS.

It was raised by Nerf that so early on in a relationship why would an argument have escalated so quickly. I put it to you that she was threatening him with media exposure of abusive behaviour. Hence she had her phone with her. Apparently she was associated with anti-DV causes. It is possible that they were arguing, she retreated, locked herself away, refused to engage with him and meanwhile threatened to call someone if he didn't. She paused, he was frightened of the effect it would have on his career and shot. He shot again, and again and again. Then he came to his senses, realised what he had done.

Is that possible?

Is that more likely than his version?

Also, maybe Reeva turned off the alarm?

By the way, I don't think we'll get to the "straightforward truth" until we get to the stage where there were eye-witnesses present.

Agree voice or why else would he take it back. If he was 100% sure or was Reeva at this point he could have left it in the bedroom

Seems plausible that he lifted it and took it with

I don't think we'll get to the "straightforward truth" until we get to the stage where there were eye-witnesses present

Don't you Frontier? Why, do you think his timeline of after he found RS could be fabricated as well?

Why would he need to lie about this bit? Surely once he realised it was RS, it would be straightforward from there. Unless he had a bit of hiding evidence etc to be done first.?

Apologies if this has been covered, I keep picking up the thread at different times, but why would anyone lock themselves in the loo, when it is only their boyfriend there? I never lock the loo unless we have guests, it would certainly never occur to me to lock it if i went for a wee in the night. The bullet marks in the door look like someone trying to shoot a lock off.

helly for every person who says "I would never lock the door" there are the same amount who say "I always lock the door".

What you me or anyone else would do re locking the door (and so many other points in this case) is totally irrelevant to what actually happened.

So just because you or I would lock door, not lock door, turn lights on, speak up etc it can still be completely normal for Reeva to have done the opposite and proves nothing IYKWIM?

BeCool that's my biggest problem with some of this nitpicking . It seems to centre on what would be normal, but if one other person out of 100 say would also do it, it's normal. If that makes sense.
For example, I can understand checking by the bed then the curtains because they are close and a continuation. But I wouldn't check the door. Others would. Ergo, nothing is proved.

Armchair , re the argument escalating, I just don't know. We don't really have absolute proof he was abusive to her do we? Some text messages and emails suggest he was controlling - what do others say? I could pick some recent texts to dh that could imply one thing, but the overall picture might be very different.

It seems to centre on what would be normal, but if one other person out of 100 say would also do it, it's normal. If that makes sense it does make sense nerf.

I think it's important to remember that just because something doesn't seem probable, it doesn't mean it's not possible. Statistics mean nothing when the event may fall into the 1 in a 100. Only have to think of the Malaysian flight as an example of something happening which must have been incredibly unlikely in statistical terms/plausibility.

he doesn't have to have a history of abusive behaviour to have been abusive on that night.

It seems the job of the prosecution is to show how unlikely OP's version is and how shaky his grasp of the salient details are. Combined with a narrative about a sadly more likely version of a brutal domestic murder this is reasonably compelling, but probably would still not pass the reasonable doubt test. However... when combined with OP's denial of the two reckless firearms elements (restaurant and sun roof) - I can't see how he can be considered a credible witness. I think in this circumstance there's little option but a guilty verdict on murder - otherwise there is extreme latitude in terms of any murder that doesn't have conclusive eye witnesses and a motive written down in paper. I am not lawyer!

Can anyone please explain how he says after the shooting he was screaming and looking for Reeva, checking the curtains and balcony

Because if he believed he had just shot an intruder, logic would be to call out for Reeva, why would he check for her at the curtains and balcony as if she was some lost object that wouldn't have responded if called out

No he doesn't stack, but it would be more likely to me that abusive behaviour might escalate rather than him suddenly murdering his girlfriend.

That just seems bizarre, when you think of what he had to lose and how little time the relationship had lasted.

I've been reading this thread from time to time at work. It's really utterly sickening and sad reading, whether it was done by design or by 'accident'.

Saw this article last night - www.timeslive.co.za/local/2014/04/11/human-rights-commission-asked-to-probe-nel-over-pistorius-trial

Time to catch up on the rest of this. I really don't know what to think. Bloody awful.

I agree OP's position on the gun crimes is bizarre - deny, deny, reflect, balm others. However it reminds me very much of someone too close to home. This person was a high achiever, with out of control arrogance - very sure and full on himself.

When faced with very serious charges, on a crime his family KNEW him to be 100% guilty of, he took this same approach to his defense (he was a lawyer) to deny deny, blame others, deflect, take no responsibility for anything at all.

It worked.

We don't know anything about how things were between OP and Ms Steenkamp
It seems abundantly clear that during their very brief relationship things were not all sunshine and roses

She may have frustrated him beyond anything he had ever felt before
She may have answered back too much in his opinion
She may have reminded him from someone or something else in his past
Perhaps she simply didn't show him enough respect in his opinion
Maybe she didn't know her place
Maybe she beat him in arguments
Left him lost for words and feeling small and foolish

Maybe he has a shocking temper we are simply unaware of - many highly functioning athletes have the capacity to tap into their inner rage

I have literally no idea. Thankfully we will never know.
To say that this relationship didn't have time to boil over into murder isn't pathologically true imo

I want to believe that he is a complete idiot who made a horrible choice or set of horrible choices that ended with him unnecessarily killing a woman

I don't think think that his story makes any sense at all atm but I also don't think that they have proved it to be untrue.
His details and the manner in which he conducts himself make it seem less and less likely to me and I find that hugely upsetting