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.

lougle for me too I think he'd be more polished but maybe we are over estimating him. As I've said previously one or two of the things he's said don't actually help his case and I would have expected him to have said something different if he was lying.

Regarding the query form PD6966 no he hasn't yet been asked about why he went upstairs. I know Dr Stipp said he was worried he was going to kill himself but I'm not sure if this was actually after the paramedics had said Reeva was dead, or if it was before they arrived. I expect that people will take an explanation at face value or not, depending on what they already think.

"maybe OP moved the stuff in the bedroom and not the police?"

Could have done of course but I'd have thought he'd have moved it so it backed up his story (ie the fan out of the way of he window completely, duvet back on the bed) etc. If he's telling the truth he might just have gone back up to look in horror and disbelief - or even if he's not, he could still have done that I suppose. God knows (and OP of course.)

On that note, it's time for bed. I have to get up tomorrow and pretend I have a real life

lougle I think OP's version is extremely well polished when being told in order from beginning to end, he was very polished when saying it for the defence lawyer Mr Roux, but when Nel changes the order of the telling or goes off on a tangent to other incidents and then returns to the topic OP's version falls apart and inconsistencies creep in. Up thread that was said to be indicative of lying, along with the question avoidance and the lengthy responses to questions to give time to re-construct the tale.

What's the consensus on the neighbours' testimonies regarding them all hearing two voices arguing/shouting in the lead up to the gun shots? Why would one disbelieve their testimonies? After this evidence, it discredits OP version completely.

"maybe OP moved the stuff in the bedroom and not the police?"

I forgot I think that he police's own photographs show they moved stuff as they were actually taking pics (ie in different places in different photos) It doesn't mean he didn't shift stuff first of course

AmI, the autopsy mentioned bruising on her shins and inner thigh which were not connected with the injuries received during the shooting.

Off to bed too, catch up with you all again tomorrow or Monday.

lougle innocent he is not. At the very least, he made two conscious actions: one, to disengage the safety on his firearm in order to use it; two, he pressed the trigger four times.

PD6966 I believe other neighbours' testimony will differ. Also, they don't have to be lying deliberately. As I've said before, the security guard gave totally wrong testimony about him phoning OP first (ie implying OP didn't call security until they rang him) but phone records show he was wrong and that OP rang him first. He wasn't lying deliberately I'm sure but you'd think he'd know who rang whom.

One neighbour some distance away said she heard what she thought was arguing for a prolonged period (one hour) beforehand and her testimony is allegedly contradicted by another security guard who was patrolling and who said OP's house was all quiet during that time period. I guess some of the other testimony could be explained by it being OP shouting and screaming at the phantom burglar.

That's why I want to go and review the testimony from early on and get it properly in my head before the defence witnesses start testifying.

I think I'm going to cut and paste it so I can compare and contrast one next to the other, especially the times they refer to.

Well, Van Der Merwe lives 98m away and her testimony sounded measured and believable as did Berger's... I remain open to the forthcoming evidence!

PD699 I think he said this week he was asked for ID for Reeva so went back upstairs to get her bag.

i'm new to this thread - been following the trial intently. so much interesting food for thought here.

queston (this may have been asked, forgive me) his mobile phone...he claims he 'can't remember' the passcode to it (he can't remember a lot, it seems)

i believe that apple was involved at the highest level trying to 'crack' the phone but couldn't.

if he had nothing to hide, why wouldn't he just unlock the phone?

PD6996 I don't think either of those decisions need necessarily be conscious in the sense of 'thought through'and I don't think it necessarily makes him guilty.

Reposted from thread 2 as had not realised we had moved here before posting and was advised to repost. I am not as I state below yet up to date with the full thread. Thanks.

I haven't read all the posts since I last commented yet, think I am up to posts made early this morning but I didn't want to forget the points I wanted to make so forgive me for posting before RTFT.

I wasn't able to watch or listen live on Friday and just caught up Friday evening via journalist twitter feed so didn't want to comment until I had watched the catch up as I find the live tweets miss out a lot and often due to different people having different takes on what is potentially important I find things I rate as very interesting or relevant missed out from live update. I have now watched most of Friday and wanted to make some observations.

Firstly on abuse in relationships.
OP has quite a few red flag indicators in his actions and words both now and in the past.
It has been raised that even though their is evidence of jealousy and controlling behaviours there is no evidence of physical abuse.
I think it is worth noting the differences in age, maturity and personality between the two woman that have been the centre of evidence.
Sam Taylor was/is a very young woman, little more then a child when her relationship with OP vegan. She seems (to me anyway) a little bit awed and enthralled in the jet set celeb lifestyle. She seems quite passive and seemed willing to put up with a great deal to maintain her relationship with OP, for example she stated I think that OP had cheated more then once and that he had shouted at her. I also found it interesting that she sat in the back seat when in the car with OP and Fresno.
Reeva on the other hand was closer to OP in age, she has life experience and previous serious relationships behind her. She was well educated and had her own career in the spot light that did not depend on her relationship with OP.

It was clear from the what's app messages that Reeva was willing to stand up for herself and preferred to have things out rather then allow herself to be pushed around.
I don't feel that it's much of a stretch to think the Reeva may have been the first woman who really stud up for herself to OP. While OP may have liked the idea of a more in dependant free thinking partner I think after a time it would have probably begun to annoy and frustrate him.
This is why I am not surprised at all that there is no history of OP using violence in past relationships. An abuse partner (let's face it, it's not always men) is at their most dangerous when they begin to lose control and Reeva wouldn't have had to threaten to leave for that to begin to happen, her willingness to pull OP up on shoddy behaviour and stand her corner would likely be enough.
So I really don't think that the lack of history of violence against woman can actually count for anything, in fact I think it could be an even greater indicator that he totally lost it with her in the cause of an argument, or even a heated discussion.

As a side note on this I found OP's testimony on Friday morning around the alleged assault on him very very interesting and a little chilling, it gave a real insight I thought into his attitude towards woman, woman who are his girls friend in particular.
He talked about his anger that another man had taken ST out if the country while he was at the Olympics. I think he was telling the truth about the run up to the alleged assault (but not the actual assault or confrontations with the men) and this made his testimony free and a little easier. He was angry that ST had been taken away under the impression of a business trip but that she reported he had become steady and inappropriate with his behaviour. OP hinted that the large age gap and ST youth made it worse even though there is a reasonable age gap between OP and ST and ST was even younger at the start of their relationship, big double standards.
Skipping ahead now to the argument he had with ST about this, he said that he had told her he had struggled to forgive her for her behaviour (being duped into the trip, how was it her fault?) and how much he had put up with from her. The picture he painted of himself was grim I thought, everything was ST's fault, the other mans behaviour was somehow partly her responsibility, her wishing OP hadn't confronted the man and stirred things up was somehow get fault and she was somehow defending him. And then he dumps her spectacularly!
He came across to me as treating ST as some kind of personal property he could pick up and put down on a whim and she was to be grateful to him for this.
I can't see a woman like Reeva putting up with that without defending herself. She was clearly very in love and too willing to put herself to one side for the good of the great OP but when he made personal (verbal) attacks on her she didn't just let it go and it's that I fear that could have been why OP list control of himself.

That is naturally if the States case is correct and I am still not sure that it is. I am sure that OP was controlling and emotionally abusive but I am very unsure if it was this that lead to poor innocent Reeva's death.
At the moment I am leaning on the side of pure utter recklessness. OP said on Friday that when he heard the noise and got his gun he didn't even think of the alarm and it didn't so much as cross his mind. I am thinking it very very likely that the same was true for Reeva. He heard an excuse to fire his gun and he was going to take it and finally live his fantasy.

Sorry for the very long post.
I have more thoughts on Fridays evidence but think this is already longer then people can manage, apologies, will carry on reading posts and catching up.

This pretty much adds up to what I think happened. Interesting to hear a relative's opinion. Sorry it's a Daily Mail link.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2603268/Pistorius-lying-head-shot-sister-fit-rage-Reevas-family-reveal-horror-smirking-Bladerunner-face-court.html

Roadkill, I thought your post was interesting and over my cup of tea (shhh, DH and DS are still in bed (unheard of!!)) I have been musing a bit....

From the trial there is a sense of immaturity from Oscar, almost that although the middle sibling, he is the "baby" and it's understandable why as I imagine his family will have been (will be) protective of him for his disability and also for his being propelled into the spotlight, coming under attack from the media, challenging people's perceptions.

Sam was younger, I wonder if because he was older and also because of his being in the spotlight he "babied" her, ie told her what to do, but not necessarily in a controlling or abusive way?

I'd say at this point, don't flame me, I'm just working through some thoughts.

So, a "babied" Oscar had a younger girlfriend who he may have "babied"? And then he met Reeva who was a bit older than him, had life experience, relationship experience, a more mature head on her shoulders, and she told him firmly what was what. So maybe where Reeva called him on how he treated her, it was a sign of his own immaturity, and also his past relationships, that maybe he had been the stronger one, the one in charge, but now he'd met his equal? And maybe that he needed to mature himself, so maybe not a sign of being abusive and controlling from those texts, but that she was telling him he didn't need to be the one in charge any more, they were equal, and equally in charge?

As I say, don't flame me. I can totally see how this could be abusive behaviour as well, and the excerpts from the texts did cause me to comment as such.

Roussette, well we know there was actually no intruder but why didn't the dogs bark anyway? With all the noise? Even if only because of the shooting? I know OP has said they weren't very good guard dogs but even the dogs we had at home (soppy, domestic types) would have barked like loonies at loud bangs. (Or have I missed your point?)

Louise, my point (if I have one) is that the dogs may well be used to their owner and his noise and would only bark at intruders, but this is of course only hearsay

Jill and Roadkill - very interesting.

Yes I do think that he had met his equal in Reeva. I think she let certain behaviours go by, possibly because she was keen on him, but the bottom line was, she was not a woman who was malleable and I think he felt his control perhaps slipping away. After all, they'd only been seeing each other 3 months. To have texts like they had is odd after such a short time if they were besotted with each other. It has to be an unequal relationship after this short time because this should be the honeymoon period and not texts with him pulling her up on stuff and her calling him on how he makes her feel and having to defend herself.

ooops contradicted myself - equal/unequal and basically don't know what I'm talking about! Think I was trying to say, she was not subservient to him and stood up for herself which he wasn't used to.

My dog will bark loudly if he sees someone outside but never barks inside, and if we were arguing he would run off and find a corner to hide in, he certainly wouldn't be barking, no matter how loud we were. If we were burgled he would be shaking in his bed.

As to the rest, I will be very interested to hear the defense case. As it is I feel that he certainly intended to fire on someone in a very enclosed space, if he didn't intend to fire he would have left his safety catch on. He must have known that firing four times into that space was likely to kill whomever was behind the door, so it really doesn't matter whether he thought it was a burglar or Reeva, his firing would have resulted in a death. Which is probably why he is sticking to the accidental aspect of the shooting.

I also think he might have moved Reeva to try and disturb the scene of the crime, otherwise you would wait for the ambulance to get there. Doesn't everyone know not to move a body if it's injured, you leave it to the professionals rather than risk further damage.

Maybe she was in essence saying that if he didn't buck up his ideas, it wouldn't be a goer, and that they both were indicating they wanted to see where it would go, but he had work to do to calm, relax, not worry so much about what people think, or feel he had to be the "grown up" in the relationship....

I don't think this was a rebound relationship per se, but I do think there may have been damage done by the ending of the previous relationship (my understanding on that is that Oscar was cheated on, I don't know if he cheated himself) and this new relationship came off the back of the previous one quite quickly, and possibly unexpectedly. Given time it either would've worked because both had found they'd met their match, or it would've been too much in the way of fireworks and just wouldn't have been worth the investment for either to get it to work.

Witch I think he was told by the emergency services to get her to hospital.

Interesting JillJ72. The only time I've endured a controlling man was a long time ago when I got myself into a relationship with someone who at the beginning was just wonderful, then his behaviour slowly worsened until I had no sense of myself any more.. I didn't find out till months into the relationship that he had been cheated on when his recent ex had slept with her ex during their time together. Looking back I realise how much this shaped him and his behaviour with me -benefit of hindsight etc.

I've tried to catch up on the posts since but think I've missed a few so sorry if covered already.

louise I'm still agreeing with pretty much all your posts and like you, am still on the telling the truth side of the fence and can't see that changing once the defence get going again. In light of so many people here thinking he is guilty though, am trying very hard to think he might be. So, please can you or anyone else answer these thoughts I had at 3am (ugh):

• why shoot at the lock if whoever inside has just locked themselves in (or are we now saying he didn't shoot at the lock?)
• I remember some last boyfriends of mine where I just can't get through to them in an argument with reasoning. None were aggressive/violent mind you, but I've then resorted to a letter/email/text so get my points across without getting shouted down or interrupted. Wondering if Reeva's letter was a kind of last resort after lots of arguing.
• why scream at all? Wouldn't you shout "no no" or "help" or cry but would you scream? I know impossible to know but doesn't seem a normal reaction.
• did she definitely take 2 phones to the toilet, can't think why?

These are the only things I'm wondering about as despite reading the New Yorker article and lots of "he's guilty" posts, everything else can be explained away to me. Re side of the bed, I think this is very common that you like to face one way or the other and if an injury prevents you doing that then you would switch sides.

What I also don't get is the Michelle Burger testimony where what she heard (shouts of "help help help" before any screaming or shots) doesn't make sense to me under any scenario unless it was extremely well premeditated.

Four women a day in SA are killed in DV situations. Four! Because they are women.

In order to accept Reeva wasn't another terrible DV victim we have to believe she didn't scream, didn't answer OP, that she was exaggerating in her messages about being scared of him, that witnesses are lying, that oscar's guns just go off and this list goes on and on. All poor unfortunate Oscar and his terrible bad luck.

He killed her. Whether he knew it was her or not is clearly still up for debate but he killed her. I am getting genuinely fucked off at the sympathy he's getting. At best he's a stupid violent twat who should never be allowed near a gun again.

marking place