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.

Thanks Free.

I agree with Voicei think about the ability to lie constantly. That's what is making me waver.

It is Gerrie Nel's job to pick, pick, puck. I would have expected OP to break down completely by now

Even if he had said that he went to the bedroom door and shouted for Ms Steenkamp
Turned on the lights, checked the entire room
Checked the balcony and then dialled her phone...

All these things might have made sense

Then security arrived and he was still looking for Ms Steenkamp...hoping she was outside or with security

They could have eventually broken down the door..his hope would at that point be gone

I would postulate that once he had fired the gun and Ms Steenkamp had stopped screaming that the rage and anger that was in him immediately dissipated and he was left in complete shock at what had occurred.

At that point he would have been completely sickened by dread and then went about fabricating a story about an intruder.
This is often seen in crimes of anger or rage.
I would have no doubt he would have still felt that it was someone else's fault for making him angry etc. For making him commit this terrible 'mistake'.

He went to the bedroom with a cocked unsafe gun in his right hand
conducted a search in this manner

He got on to the bed

He felt under the curtains and by the side of the bed

He opened the curtains and balcony doors

All with a cocked weapon in his right hand, whilst unsteadily moving about on his stumps

I'm unsure about this testimony

Thanks Looking. I think that even though he made a decision to pick it back up and take it back to the bedroom, that would support his intruder story, as he still wouldn't be sure it wasn't an intruder

I think he had said he tried to kick the door down, then went back for the cricket bat.

So between kicking the door and breaking the door, he must have realised there was no longer a threat then left the gun in the bathroom.

Which then begs the question,if he was going to fabricate, why leave the guns (and the phones) lying there.

I don't know about the lying. His story is changing occasionally; he pointed his gun and shot at the door changing to it just went off, changing again to 'before I knew it, I'd shot 4 times.' The point Nel made today about him saying before 'I checked the balcony' changing to 'I didn't check the balcony - I went out only to call for help' changing to 'I called for help, and obviously when I was out there, I would have checked and seen she wasn't there.'

And he seems to be very emotional when these things change.

The thing that seems to be... I don't know how to word this, but the thing that seems to be his undoing, is that he was very detailed right from the start, and very sure of himself.

He stated with absolutely certainty the exact set of events, and when these wavered, he's getting upset.

It's almost as if, I'd believe him more if at the beginning he'd have said; 'I don't know what happened. I know I shot the door. I can't remember when I opened the patio, whether it was before or after I had the gun, but I remember being out there screaming. Now I remember I had my gun - I don't know when I put it down, it must have been later. I can't remember where the duvet was. I don't recall anything about her jeans.'

Slowly, over time and as some of the adrenalin dies down, you start piecing things together and working it out logically. But from the beginning, he's been stating what definitely happened, and getting upset if that's challenged.

The original statement that was linked to in the Washington Post pissed me off for this one line; 'I tried to assist, but she died in my arms.'

That strikes me as being a clear fabrication. At the point at which he's talking about, a doctor and he were preforming first aid. I cannot think of any form of first aid, apart from with hypothermia, where you would take a living person into your arms. You are relying on their airway being clear, and putting pressure on wounds. But he put that in there. A doctor let him pick up a living patient? It surely cannot be true.

It pisses me off more than any other part of what he's said. That horrible, gut-wrenching thing that her mother must feel that she wasn't there, and he's claiming that moment, and I cannot see how it can possibly be true.

It strikes me as a lie he's told because he wants it to be true.

needmoreinfo iirc it's possible that reeva's bladder would have emptied at the point she died iyswim - an involuntary reaction. However based on today's testimony there is possibly another theory:

If they argued, and in the heat of that argument OP told her to get the f out of his house, so she got her jeans to get dressed to leave. Then she went to the bathroom before she went - possibly she wasn't actually scared of OP at this point because she was leaving anyway iyswim. After all we don't actually know whether there had ever been any violence before - and if there hadn't, you wouldn't necessarily think that your partner might become violent having just asked you to leave... So she legitimately went to the bathroom for a wee prior to her leaving the house... But during that time OP was overcome with rage possibly because she had walked away from him, possibly because she had locked herself in the bathroom to prevent the argument from continuing - who knows. And the rest as they say is history...

I don't know - I agree with what was said by a PP - if it sounds too good to be true, it usually is

But then I hear him and sometimes I feel like "get a grip" and other times I feel like he's telling the truth

But believing him does go against my own common sense. I await to see what the defence have in store.

I think that even though he made a decision to pick it back up and take it back to the bedroom, that would support his intruder story, as he still wouldn't be sure it wasn't an intruder

Yes, I think this is true - however, he himself has said that by the time he was putting his legs on (after he's called for help from the balcony) he was relatively sure that it was Reeva in the toilet.

That why the gun is relevant. If he thought it was her, why take the gun back. So he didn't think it was her and did need the gun, but has said that he thought it was her by this point.

So I think Nel is trying to establish, how much doubt was in his mind, and at what point did he become pretty certain it was Reeva, and how much to his actions bear this out, if you see what I mean.

Basically, the whole case hangs on when he thought Reeva was the one in the toilet - before the shooting - after - how much after - not until he actually bashed down the door - how much doubt was in his mind at any of these points?

I'm not seeing the gun as a way of saying he's lying (unless it can somehow be proved that he never took it out of the bathroom in the first place), but more as an indication as to who he thought was in the toilet at what time. If he says he thought it was Reeva while simultaneously acting as though it were an intruder, then it calls into question all of his actions that evening.

You know what - even as I type this, I think I'm pushing the carrying the gun point to far.

Anyhow, my posts are getting long and boring, which is a clear sign I should stop this and start editing.

I can't do links but here is the differences between OP 2 different defence strategies.

t.co/medxrAzVsm

criminallawza.net/

Sorry this is the link.

At the moment I think it's murder but not per-meditated in a calculating way. Actually I am not sure on the definition of murder in this trial.

I think the intruder story is made up. However sometimes I wonder if all the inconsistencies might just be the way it was and wouldn't it be awful if it was totally an accident and him over reacting when he thought they were in danger from an intruder.

I'm not a big fan of all the speculation; the 'did she threaten to go to the press' stuff. I think there's enough evidence to show that he often behaved in a reckless manner and whatever it was they may have argued about it's possible he just completely over reacted and went crazy with his gun in anger over something.

I think he am 'get off' the murder charge purely because technically it could be seen as an accident but I think he has basically lied about the intruder and made up a story so he doesn't have to admit he lost control and accidentally shot her... Four times...

Which then makes me think 'four times'? And then I think about the evidence from people nearby about the arguing wtc and. Go back rond in circles again.

Basically I am very interested in what the Defence will do.

I don't know why I did why I didn't realise before, just how TINY the actual toilet cubicle is. Anybody in there, wouldn't have stood a chance! So this means for me, that he deliberately killed whoever was in there.

I'm also shocked, by how emotional he got repeating "get the fuck out my house" that was not normal, in my humble opinion.

is there a picture of jeans outside of the window of the house? on the ground?

this is in my memory but I don't know if I read it on an SA site but I thought at the time it could have tied in with him saying 'get the fuck out of my house' and lobbing her stuff out the window

'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?'

I think he broke the door down after he called for help on the balcony. Heybhaven't got to the breaking the door with the bat bit, nor the taking her out of the bathroom.

The next lot of questions will surely cover that part, the phone calls he made, where he took her when he got her out of the bathroom.

Timings will be very important.

I wonder if the bat timings will be disputed, i.e was the bat used before or after the gunshots etc.

I'm swinging towards guilty, he might not have meant to kill her just scare her, but I think he knew poor Reeva was in the toilet.

I think I believed him, up until his testimony. He's making stuff up to plug the holes. As poster ^^ said, I'd believe him more if he said, 'I don't know how the jeans got on the floor', he could have easily kicked them as he was racing around the bedroom. They've already proved the police were a bit careless. Every time he speaks he trips himslef up again. He's either lying his head off, or he's been very badly prepared.

And wtf with the fanclub outside? Those women are seriously unhinged.

I wonder if the bat timings will be disputed, i.e was the bat used before or after the gunshots etc. One of the experts said this couldn't have been true. The wooden splinters had gunshot holes in them, so the gunshots had to come first.

The baseball bat has blood all over the bottom, so it will be interesting to hear how he explains that. I think I am leaning to guilty of knowing Reeva was there.

There was blood all over the bathroom floor, so if he put the bat down, it would get blood on it. I'm not sure that's particularly significant.

I think he'll be a lot less 'emotional' when they get to the aftermath, breaking the door down, phone calls etc. There's hard evidence about all those things so he's less likely toget it wrong.

Trying to catch up with this fast moving thread.

Can anyone help with this? A lot has been made of "why would an intruder lock the bathroom door"

How could OP know that the door was locked from the outside? For all he knew someone was in there waiting to jump out. He wouldn't have assumed it was locked would he (unless he had xray eyes)

I'm the only one I know in real life who thinks he is telling the truth. I do realise I could be in denial. I was a big fan of his. He inspired me to take up running and that's become the current love/obsession of my life so I find it difficult to stay objective.

I do feel it's one huge Shakespearean tragedy. Othello writ large.

A lot has been made of "why would an intruder lock the bathroom door" this puzzles me as well.

If I were a burglar and heard someone coming at me shouting, I think I would either try to escape back through the window or find somewhere to hide and hope I'm not discovered. So hiding in the toilet isn't that odd.

It's just at the end though - if it was flung down I could understand it all on one side or the front but it looks like it's been stood against a wall in a pool of blood.
I'm really confused now. This must be dreadful for her family.

OK, don't think I'd picked that up Nerf. No doubt Nel will be covering it in minute detail.

I think he is scarily close to being convicted of murder. If not of Reeva, then of a supposed intruder. There was no indication of anybody coming out of the toilet, he shot four times into a very enclosed space. It was utter utter lunacy.

As Nel said today - did he not think of shouting out "I'm armed out here" or similar? It's just crazy. That is what I cannot buy, actually. He was supposedly screaming like a banshee for this person to get out of his fucking house, but didn't think that a pretty good deterrent might be to let them know that he was armed.