Oscar Pistorius trial part 4

[Pennies]

Here you go.

Yes, sauce his disdain for the police is evident.

Yet suddenly he wants HER to call them. While he fetches his gun. To tackle the "intruders" all by himself.

So instead of protecting Reeva by putting her body behind his (on the balcony, for instance) with his gun ready to defend them, he charges off into pitch black darkness TOWARDS the "danger" with no idea where Reeva actually is.

Gung Ho Macho bullshit at the very very least.

Poor Reeva. He absolutely should not have read her Valentine's card out loud to the Court today. Terribly bad, bad, taste, and a pathetic attempt to win sympathy for Pistorius.

My sympathy stays with Reeva and her Family.

Regarding misplaced sympathy, I have no prior interest in him and no axe to grind but I am not yet close to believing he did it deliberately. Maybe I just find it much easier to envisage someone being made totally irrational by terror than the alternative.

No I don't think he would have asked her to call security I think his first instinct would be to call them himself.

As he did when he had her dying body in his arms - rather than call for medical help.

The most disdainful people will still call the police in an emergency. My dad was like that.

Yep bmw6 instead of getting reeva and himself to a place of safety he was armed and on the attack himself

I really do thin the there's sme misplaced sympathy here, andi just can't get my head round why it is. Is it because he's famouse and some people thn he is handsome etc?. My reason for the sympathy is based on the fact that today I think I believe him again, I see him being horribly and genuinely distressed, grieving, depressed and I know what's probably coming for him when he gets into jail. I don't disagree with the fact that he shouldn't have shot at a door without knowing who was there. But I can believe that he had good intentions and didn't think about the fact that he would kill someone.

Not thinking is no excuse of course but it's the combination of good intentions, remorse, obvious distress and a possible taking of his own life at the end of this that leads me to have some sympathy for him. I didn't know who he was before the trial so I'm certainly not biased in that way.

Good intentions

Maybe I just find it much easier to envisage someone being made totally irrational by terror than the alternative Charlie I wonder about this too. I don't know.

For me (as a lawyer - albeit not a criminal one) the big issue is that you can't ride two horses in this kind of situation. So you can't have two defences which is essentially what OP has been trying to argue

Firstly that it was self defence and then he went down a route of saying that his actions were involuntary.

Barry Roux tried to get him back on track somewhat by asking him in re-exam what, if any, his intentions were. But the whole thing was such a clusterfuck and OP's credibility so badly damaged, that he's not really been able to succeed.

So, the issue now is that OP doesn't actually have a clearly specified defence. The Judge can't make the facts fit what she thinks has happened and then decide what his defence should be. Her only option really is to go with the prosecution's case because she does have to make a finding and OP hasn't actually really put forward a credible defence.

OP's team will lead lots of expert witnesses but they are just there as corroboration and there is no clear defence to corroborate. So they are very limited with what they can do to assist.

It really is quite awful for OP as I think he is so lacking in credibility at the moment that there is a very real risk that the Judge could disbelieve him on the intent part and find him guilty of murder.

If not, then I think he will absolutely be found guilty of the lesser charge. His "two defences" mean that he has actually not pit forward one credible one

Good intentions, ie assumed intended to protect himself and Reeva but not kill intruder. 'Irrational by terror' probably better words.

But Bonnie do you really think he has accepted that he alone is responsible for Reeva's death?

I don't see that he has at all. The only distress that he has demonstrated is when faced with the consequences to him of this. He is sharp as a pin at times during Nels cross examination, even sounds Cocky at times.

His life is ongoing. With all the possibilities. Reeva has had all of that taken from her, and the one person who took it all away is refusing to accept the blame.

He killed her.

How can he have not intended to kill the intruder??? He shot through a door four times with bullets that are designed for maximum impact. I just don't get how anyone can think he had no intention to do what he did. His finger was on the trigger, he pulled the trigger, he pointed the gun.

He refused in the witness box to accept that he was to blame. That's what gets me. Maybe if he just admitted something as opposed to talking the whole time of his fear and it being an accident. One shot an accident maybe (only maybe). Four absolutely not.

There was no good intention, weather we believe he knew it was Reeva or he genuinely thought it was an intruder, he shot 4 times into a closed door, thinking someone was behind it, he HAS to take responsibility for this, this is FACT.

He walked toward the percieved danger and he aimed his gun and shot four times through a locked door. Guilty as charged

I think that's a good point BMW and I'm not sure. I did find the apology at the start very convincing and heartfelt - it seemed to me at the time that he took full responsibity. But since then I don't know.

You can't have good intentions and repeatedly make the wrong decision - eventually you have to judge a person on what they do and not what they say.

He didn't protect Reeva by checking she was in the bed
He didn't get her to safety
He didn't warn the person in the loo
He shot to kill
He didn't take responsibility for killing Reeva
He can't remember key things that happened and can't explain his choices

I've been a fence sitter, swaying this way and that. Up until now I don't feel the state have proved pre med beyond reasonable doubt.

OP was vague, rambling, a crap witness to be honest. But I'm still not convinced he's lying and I don't believe any of the things he said were too different from what he had said previously, or at least not enough to prove premeditated murder.

However, remembering how Gerrie Nel ripped into Professor Botha, I think we should expect more to come and some unanswered questions might still be addressed.

Plus the defence evidence will be interesting

I have thought on and off... if I was in a room with someone, say it was one of my children (and they aren't all babies, they are adult) and there was a perceived danger, the very first thing I would do is work out how to protect them. I'd push them in the cupboard, under the bed, cover them with the quilt... whatever. I would do anything in the world to quickly make sure I did what I could to protect or hide them first. Then I would tackle the danger if I had to. They would be my first thought.

I just cannot work out how he didn't do this. He was a macho man by all accounts wanting to protect the woman in his life. But he didn't. If he really thought it was an intruder why didn't he do this.

Gobbolinothewitchscat
Thank you - a very insightful post and what I was trying to think through

That's the thing that I think about when I'm having moments on the fence, as well as what made him stop firing. What could it have been that made him 100% certain (in intruder story) that Reeva was there and was safe.

I keep coming back to Nel, saying that OP's 'version' is so improbable. That's it for me. It's just so improbable. Add to the fact, him refusing to accept responsibility, and the shambles that was his cross examination.

If it was a jury trial, of a non celebrity, in the UK... I'm pretty sure he'd be found guilty.

By contrast, I caught up with Life and Death Row on BBC player last night, and found it hard to believe that this man was found guilty of the murder of his whole family murderpedia.org/male.H/h/heinze-guy.htm it was on a technicality that he was spared the death penalty, and I actually read tonight that he passed a lie detector test when he denied all charges.

Which brings me to two points, why are lie detector tests not used as evidence? And that if this poor, white American guy had been able to pay for shit hot defence lawyers, he'd more than likely, be a free man now.

Stampy I watched that a few weeks back, through it I thought he was guilty, he showed to remorse, although I felt he was guilty, I didn't feel he acted alone.

I'm also interested in why lie detector tests are not used, I don't know why, surly though if they are reliable enough, they should be used.