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:
LookingThroughTheFog · 14/04/2014 18:01

That's another key point, Psychiatrist. I would like to see a random test where we see how many people can hear screaming in that scenario. (Safely, I probably shouldn't have to add.)

My feeling is that he must have heard her, but I admit, I've never been in a closely confined, echoey room while a gun's going off.

If he did hear her, albeit not processing it immediately, it explains why he stopped firing after four bullets, and didn't empty the gun entirely.

Oh, I don't know. I'm wavering all the way back again.

The silence and pitch darkness bother me.

I cannot envisage any scenario in which my husband says; 'I think I heard something!' and I don't say, at the very least; 'what?'

I know we can't say what we might have done and correspond it to their case, because we're all different, and we all respond differently.

But, at the end of the day, he said; 'I think I heard something; get down and call the police!'

And she didn't move or respond in any way at all.

If nothing else, he definitely did not sufficiently check that Reeva was in a safe place before he discharged his weapon in a house where she was. In that way, he is absolutely culpable.

LookingThroughTheFog · 14/04/2014 18:02

Free, the first witness said 1 and 3. Bang. Bang-bang-bang.

SauceForTheGander · 14/04/2014 18:02

I've always thought guilty. I think OP has moments of being convincing and I'm as cynical as they come. It's only thanks to fearlessness and remorseless questioning by Nel that I'm reminded of how implausibly it all fits together. So many ifs and buts and things that don't make sense (and we just to have accept).

My first gut reaction was guilty - I've analysed my reaction and listened to others and whilst never wavered I've been able to see the grey areas - though ultimately dismiss the doubt.

sourdrawers · 14/04/2014 18:08

I've got a feeling he'll get off on a technicality.

FreeLikeABird · 14/04/2014 18:12

Thanks looking, I wonder how long the pause was after the first bang, I think it is safe to say your ears would be ringing, that's why people wear ear protectors, I can imagine in a small space with no ear protectors your ears would be affected, how long for and how much you could hear I don't know.

SauceForTheGander · 14/04/2014 18:14

sourdrawers me too

LookingThroughTheFog · 14/04/2014 18:16

I don't think it was a long pause, Free, from what she was saying, and she's the only witness able to give a clear pattern or state with certainty that it was 4 shots.

You are right about ear protectors. It's made me think again.

SauceForTheGander · 14/04/2014 18:18

In the end you apply the same logic as "if it sounds too good to be true, then it is too good to be true"

If you are required to make too many concessions, ignore too many inconsistencies, to accept too many jumps in logic then that's because it's not a normal sequence of events - because it's a lie.

Nerf · 14/04/2014 18:19

The outcomes are ch if the intruder theory is believed and murder if the judge finds he knew it was Reeva when he fired aren't they? So it matters to his sentence which version is believed?

RonaldMcDonald · 14/04/2014 18:22

There are issues around

why stop at 4 rounds?
How did he know the intruder/intruders were dead?
why think that that was the end of the intruders?
Why did he not check for a ladder?
why not imagine that more would pour into the bathroom through the open window and ladder

Why did he immediately think it was Ms Steenkamp?
She wasn't on the bed?
Why didn't he check the balcony
Down stairs?

Because he knew who was in there?

LookingThroughTheFog · 14/04/2014 18:25

How did he know the intruder/intruders were dead?

why think that that was the end of the intruders?

I can't answer your other points, but according to his testimony, he didn't know they were dead, which is why he backed out of the bathroom still with the weapon cocked in his hand, pointing at the toilet.

voiceofgodot · 14/04/2014 18:26

Nerf The outcomes are ch if the intruder theory is believed and murder if the judge finds he knew it was Reeva when he fired aren't they? So it matters to his sentence which version is believed?

AFAIK he could still be convicted of murder even if he believed it to be an intruder behind the door. It is why he is insistent that it was an accident and that he did not intend to shoot at the door.

Nerf · 14/04/2014 18:28

Thanks Godot. Is that the bet when Nel was saying OP was upset because he'd contradicted his defence?

JodieGarberJacob · 14/04/2014 18:28

I can imagine him getting off as well but his life will never be the same. Instead of being first and foremost a brilliant athlete and a role model as such he will only be remembered for killing his girlfriend. I would imagine sponsors will avoid him like the plague. He'll have his freedom but it won't be life as he might have envisioned it after the Olympics.

msrisotto · 14/04/2014 18:30

Can shooting a target you are aiming at honestly be used as a 'accidental shooting' defence? How do you accidentally pull the trigger and shoot at a target that you are aiming at?

LookingThroughTheFog · 14/04/2014 18:30

Sorry, to follow that thought up - that's why it's key that he had the gun in his hand. If he left it in the bathroom immediately, then he knew that there was no danger of an intruder.

If he did indeed take it into the room, crawl across the bed with it, open the patio doors while still holding it, return to the bathroom still with it, sit on the bed and put his legs on while still holding it.... if all of those things happened, it was because he thought there was still the danger of the intruder being dangerous in the toilet.

That's basically his argument for why he took the gun out of the bathroom in the first place, and the fact that it was found in the bathroom means he had to have carried it back with him.

voiceofgodot · 14/04/2014 18:40

What I struggle to get my head around, because I haven't done this and I'm not in his position, is that somebody could lie so convincingly, repeatedly, under this amount of interrogation, and still be believable.

I am quite sure I do not have it in me to do this. I imagine the judges are used to people pleading NG but lying through their teeth throughout the trial. If he continues to claim his version is the truth, what can the judge do? Is she allowed to think 'well there are just too many improbables' and decide that he did probably know it was Reeva and convict him of murder?

FreeLikeABird · 14/04/2014 18:47

Looking you are right, that is his version and where today ended, with him putting his prosthetic legs on.

FreeLikeABird · 14/04/2014 18:48

Did he say he was aiming? I'm sure today it was asked was he aiming or pointing, he said pointing. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Nerf · 14/04/2014 18:54

Yes he says he left the bathroom after shooting to find Reeva and make sure she'd rung the police, scrambled over the bed, felt along the side and the curtains and was like oh god what if it's Reeva. Put his legs on and retuned to the bathroom. Tried to help her with the gun lying uncocked on the floor next to him. He says he'd had it in his hand like that until returning to the bathroom. So at what point did he get the bat to break the door down?

AmIthatSpringy · 14/04/2014 18:55

Looking Did he say he had the gun in his hand the whole time, or did he say he laid it on the bed or something while putting his legs on?

FreeLikeABird · 14/04/2014 18:58

AmI the day ended at him going to put his legs on, I'm interested to see where Nel picks up tomorrow.

wannaBe · 14/04/2014 19:04

it is murder. all that needs to be established is who he thought he was killing. Ultimately, if you fire a gun through a door into a confined space the aim is to either kill or seriously maim who or whatever is on the other side of that door.

I don't think he deserves any sympathy even if it could be established that he hadn't intended to kill his girlfriend, because ultimately, he had intended to kill someone, and even the self defence argument is irrelevant here because at the time of the shooting there was no immediate threat.

he will IMO need to face a prison sentence regardless of the verdict. Because to not do so will set a huge precedent in terms of how people will feel they are able to deal with intruders in SA in the future, and if he gets off on the basis he thought he was firing in self defence, it is verysuch incidents will occur in the future. SA can't be seen to be condoning such a gun happy stance, not even when it comes to intruders in one's home. likely that more

Needmoreinfo · 14/04/2014 19:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LookingThroughTheFog · 14/04/2014 19:09

Springy, I don't think they've covered whether he had it in his hands when he was putting on his legs. Only that he definitely said it was in his hands when he opened the patio doors, and when he was on the balcony, and it was in his hands when he went back to the bathroom after the legs, because that's why it was on the floor there in the end. What he did with it when he was putting on his legs hasn't yet been discussed.

It was someone upthread (Can't remember the username - so sorry!) who pointed out that he cannot have had it in his hands when he was putting on his legs, so then he must have made a conscious decision to then pick it up, again without it accidentally going off, and carry it with him to the bathroom.