Oscar Pistorius trial part 4

[Pennies]

Here you go.

On the screaming - so far only the prosecution experts have said she would have screamed. I don't know whether the defence experts will agree.

are forensics sure the cricket bat was used after the shots were fired at the door?

I can imagine if they were arguing (this is why I think OP claims he was shouting at RS to call for help - in case witnesses come forward to say they heard him raise his voice. it covers for the argument).
She screams and locks herself in the toilet. he batters door with a bat so she screams at this violent turn off events. he gets so insensed he gets the gun and shoots at the door as she is screaming. Only after the red mist clears realising how bloody dangerous that was. he has shot her dead without intending to but murder nonetheless.

This would explain the prosthetics discrepancy with the cricket bat markings.

but all just pointless speculation. I'm just ring to understand why he would lie about certain things. But memory IS very unreliable so inaccuracies may not be him lying at all.

Stooche.

Yes I agree that his character and behaviours could fit the Narcissistic Personality Disorder category. Most of all NPD are never wrong and therefore don't take responsibilty or say sorry with any sincerity. They are acting all the time and lie very easily - they are not truth seekers. They can get upset and emotional one minute and then are composed the next ...

"be cool, I just feel if it was an argument bad enough to result in the death of RS there would have been furniture knocked over, things broken in the room."

why?

Isn't it bad enough that he shot through a locked door and killed her? You want the room to be smashed up too just to prove that there was an argument?

I find all the speculation about what they argued over, the 'she was going to go to the press' or 'she caught him looking at porn' stuff really strange. I could make anything up about why/if they argued but none of it would be the truth. We have no way of knowing what the situation was IF they argued or how it may or may not have escalated.

are forensics sure the cricket bat was used after the shots were fired at the door?

Yes. Both prosecution and defence agree that the bat was used on the door after it was shot.

There's on evidence of the bat being used on the door prior to the shooting.

Stooshe you sound as if you know a lot more than most of us about personality disorders.

Incidentally does anyone know has he been/will he be evaluated for the court or does that only happen if convicted? I know his aunt is a Psychologist and ironically a well know criminal profiler (not sure if she is the psychologist the press keep saying he has with him or if there's another one.)

There's just no evidence in favour of murder. I would expect to hear they had a tumultuous relationship, to hear from ex-girlfriends that he was jealous and controlling or there were screaming rows. I'd expect discrepancies in his version - lapses of time that he couldn't explain or forensic evidence that contradicts his version.

In the absence of any of that, we're left with 'well surely he would have heard her get up' or 'she would have screamed'. It's not enough. His version is plausible, just.

Reasonable doubt.

And FWIW I don't think she had time to scream. The shots to the hip and arm caused devastating damage - the arm was nearly severed - she would have just been in shock, and barely had time to form a thought before the final shot.

He doesn't have to have known it was Reeva inside the cubicle in order to be convicted of murder.

whosyourdadic.com/

It doesn't necessarily take a lot for narcissistc rage to erupt - merely turning your back and walking away could be enough.

Arguments can be cold, hissed words, with her walking away to her death. They don't have to be throwing things. Perhaps her coolness annoyed him. I just feel she was her own woman and not stupid and that may have incensed him.

V interesting post Stooshe. And yes I feel he did over egg the pudding, he never used a few words, it was always more. He seemed to control his crying at times but I found his snivelling in front of Reeva's mother pathetic. That's maybe horrible to say but I did.

someone asked about what his answer was to stopping after four shots.
Can't find it in the Sky transcripts so I think they are a bit wrong.

from the Guardian news feed/

"Why did you stop... why only four. Why not empty the magazine?" asks Nel. "I don't know," replies Pistorius.

also - in response to the questions about the lights being turned on

After shouting three times on the balcony, the athlete comes back into the bedroom and puts his prostheses on. It normally takes him less than 30 seconds. Nel wonders why he did not switch on the lights. He ran back to the toiler and tried to shoulder charge the door. He took the gun with him. It doesn't sound rational, Pistorius admits, but he says he was not in rational state of mind. Nel wants to adjourn before asking about the toilet door. The judge agrees.

so he still didn't turn on the lights when he was putting on his legs.

Applauds stooshe

Not had a chance to catch up with the thread yet so this might have already been mentioned, but I was watching the sky news catchup programme with my (south african) husband and I commented on Nel saying OP didn't know it wasn't a child in the loo and my dh said criminals sometimes send children in as they can fit through the window. It might sometimes happen in the UK too

I find all the speculation about what they argued over, the 'she was going to go to the press' or 'she caught him looking at porn' stuff really strange Yes there could be an infinite number of scenarios.

Re the screaming, I very much doubt OP that could have heard it at all (can't tell if this has been concluded upon by experts or not so may have missed this). Whether she did scream or not, I find the fact that she actually had time to cover her head with hands very upsetting.

Thanks re info on the 4 shots. Does not make sense to me that you wouldn't know.

Bonnie, I agree. I'm sorry but I just think adding detail doesn't help - no evidence has been presented to suggest he has NPD, no evidence that he was off to have a wank in a shower, etc . Surely there is enough to confuse us without adding this kind of uninformed stuff to the mix.

His version is plausible, just.

I agree... to a point.

Even his version, he didn't do nearly enough to establish where Reeva was before shooting. He didn't get any kind of confirmation from her that she was still in the room, and without her going out the door, it was a relatively small area. He thought 'there's three of us in this area, and at least one gun...' but apparently did not check where Reeva was.

So that makes him guilty of the culpability one.

Secondly, for one of the murder levels to stick, all they have to show was that he had reason to believe that by shooting into the locked toilet, he expected whomever was in there to die. It doesn't matter who it was at that point - if he had reason to believe they would die, and he did not think his life was in immediate danger, then this is one of the murder charges (one of three levels).

He must have expected them to die from the type of bullet used and the size of the room. Equally, while he might have thought his life was in danger, he has nothing to back this up. He could not, because he did not see that a) it was a stranger and b) they were armed. If he thought hi was in danger, it was entirely the work of his imagination. 'I guessed, I supposed, I thought...' At the end of the day, he SAW nothing. That's not enough.

Nerf you have a point. Maybe we should just comment on the evidence presented/testimony given?

The problem with speculation about what happened or his motives for shooting her, is that we just go round and round and round adn it gets us nowhere.

I've been re-listening to yesterday's questioning again & missed this at the time

www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=l_hle5shsDY

Go to 16mins 45 secs in, particularly what OP says @ 16mins 50 - what do you think?

Speculation about what may have happened is fine and normal , it's the mini works of fiction that are weird and the diagnosis given.
Sticking to the evidence and opposing facts is interesting. Like the magazine rack. I can't help feel that's actually crucial.

I completely agree with you NERF. There are enough questions with what's actually being said.

Fascinating stuff. Marking place. This gets me through the dream feeds....

Reading all your observations with interest. Not sure when I'll get to listen to the past two weeks' testimony but want to do so, to see where my thinking goes...

Secondly, for one of the murder levels to stick, all they have to show was that he had reason to believe that by shooting into the locked toilet, he expected whomever was in there to die. It doesn't matter who it was at that point - if he had reason to believe they would die, and he did not think his life was in immediate danger, then this is one of the murder charges (one of three levels).

Which could be why he said 'I don't know' re why he stopped. He is lying and knew he would have killed the person. Or, he really didn't know why. Or he didn't remember why. Or he didn't go and look for Reeva anyway. Or he did. Confused.