Oscar Pistorius trial part 4

[Pennies]

Here you go.

The other big issue for me is that I really don't think that OP has been able to credibly and reliably explain on what basis he says that shooting 4 bullets through a door without any real prior warning to whomever was inside the loo does not mean that he intended to kill anyone

Obviously this is critical in respect of the murder charge but because he's been too busy half arguing self-defence andinvoluntary action, he's not done this.

Setting aside the fact that his legal tram can't coach him, when briefing him, they should have made it clear that:

1. To avoid a murder conviction it was critical that no intent could be inferred by the prosecution. This is really hard as OP admitted he shot not just one but four bullets and allegedly had no idea who was in the loo. That being the case, it was vital he stayed "on message" and made it clear that basically he was so scared he had no idea what he was doing.

1. If he was found not guilty of murder, the judge would then look at whether he was guilty of culpable homicide. He needed to have one very clear reason as to why he shot at the door. Again, it should be that he was so scared, he didn't know what he was doing.

Instead, OP's been all over the place as to whether he lost control through fear (involuntary and therefore lack of intent) or whether it was self-defence - which is obviously not involuntary and there is intent. Plus, would you really need to shoot 4 bullets to protect yourself from a completely unknown person or thing?

Marking my place and just to say FreeLikeABird I believe they are not considered to be reliable - reliable enough.

" if this poor, white American guy had been able to pay for shit hot defence lawyers"

Something I was thinking today. I read a report which said that forensics aren't normally as important in an SA case because of lack of resources and obviously it costs a lot of money to pay for such experts if you are the accused. Any poor man accused of shooting his partner would probably be toast (so to speak.)

Thanks Louise.

Did OP think there was a possibility that someone in this toilet would have survived?

Does anyone else?

Frontier, he would answer that by saying - I didn't have time to think, I feared for my life!

Knowing he shot 4 times and the bullets that were used, I don't think I can see how anyone would live.

frontier I posted yesterday, that until then I (stupidly) hadn't realised just how tiny the toilet cubicle was.

Shooting into that tiny space, you are shooting to kill. Especially with extra nasty bullets you bought specially.

Stack - just going back to you earlier post about light coming in when he was sorting fans etc, I'm sure it was stated that a light was on on the actual balcony.

Also going back to my earlier theory about Reeva opening the window, OP hearing, Reeva taking refuge in the toilet etc, if you look at a layout of OP bedroom, the passage and the bathroom/toilet, you walk from bedroom, down passage then you go round a corner to actually see into bathroom.

It's not a complete open balcony on his house, the balcony has a roof.

Psychopaths easily pass lie detector tests, they're only 85% reliable which isn't good enough.

Really insightful post gobbilino, very useful to have thoughts from an actual lawyer.

Re firing 4 bullets into a toilet, if anyone was thinking straight then it would be obvious that whoever was behind it wouldn't stand a chance. When I think of OP as telling the truth (is also not intending to kill an intruder), I can believe that in extreme moments of fear, rational thought could go out of the window. Not an excuse, not a reason to not take responsibility, but it makes sense to to me. If he was thinking rationally, he would surely have done a number of other things beyond grabbing a gun and heading towards danger, including ensuring Reeva's safety first.

If he was thinking rationally, then I don't think much if the story would hold true and then we are into the most horrific scenario of all.

So I feel like it is one extreme or the other at the moment, but open to seeing what other evidence comes to light today.

Hi I missed yesterday's trial so trying to catch with this thread and what was said. I was just wondering if the trial was continuing today as I cannot seem to find a channel showing live coverage??

Springy I don't feel the state have proved pre med beyond reasonable doubt

He hasn't been charged with pre-meditated murder, in fact that charge doesn't exist in SA. whosyourdadic.com/

Gobbolino - fascinating to read your perspective, thank you. It's interesting that you think he came across so badly as I really didn't get that, and clearly legally there is a whole layer of 'stuff' going on that a lay person might not pick up on. I honestly don't know what to think regarding whether it was the argument scenario and felt as though Nel didn't make much headway other than the fact that it was improbable. To me OP's 'story' was almost 100% consistent throughout cross-examination.

However, Nel must be well aware that he doesn't need to prove that in order to get a murder conviction and I wonder whether focusing on the argument scenario was to try to distract him whilst also dropping in lots of questioning about intent regarding shooting the door. Again I found OP implacable but did also pick up Nel's references to OP having two defences and that that is impossible.

I'm very interested to consider Roux and the coaching they must have given OP prior to him taking the stand though. Surely the matter of his defence would have been a top priority. Do you think OP meandered away from what he would have been told to say, or do you think Roux has told him to have these two defences? Legally, does he sort of 'fall between two stools' by being able to say it was sort-of-accidental, but sort-of-precipitated-by-extreme-fear?

It's very awkward that I go to bed at 9, when the rest of you stay up chatting until midnight.

To come back to a couple of points as I read through;

of course, no prisoner deserves this kind of treatment in prison but, if it's common knowledge this happens the perhaps OP should have considered that before he murdered someone (allegedly)?

I really do thin the there's some misplaced sympathy here, and I just can't get my head round why it is. Is it because he's famous and some people think he is handsome etc?

While on one level, I'm not sure that he had the cognitive capacity to consider the horrors of prison right before pulling the trigger, I agree with everything else here.

If there is, I don't think it's because he's famous or attractive, but that he seems very vulnerable. People find sympathy where they find sympathy. I'm not sure it's something you can control. You can overrule it, but not necessarily control feeling it.

I see it more as misplaced energy anyway.

If you look at South African (or any) prisons and think how terrible what happens inside them is, then I think it's probably better to respond with 'That needs fixing!' than 'Let's hope a man isn't convicted for murder to save him from it'.

I really don't think that OP has been able to credibly and reliably explain on what basis he says that shooting 4 bullets through a door without any real prior warning to whomever was inside the loo does not mean that he intended to kill anyone

This. Exactly this.

If we are prepared to take the leap of faith that it was light enough for Pisotrius to see the fan, but so pitch that he didn't see Reeva, and he definitely had his back to her for the whole of the time that she was moving across the bed, during which she was also silent, and walking down the passage to the bathroom with her phone, because it was too pitch to see... if we take that leap of faith that she didn't utter a sound prior to the shooting, and all the witnesses who heard a woman scream - not the sort of scream Pistorius says he made which included words ('I screamed get the fuck out of my house) but a 'bloodcurdling scream' - all of those witnesses were wrong and they all heard Pistrius scream and the bat...

If we're able to make that leap of faith, are we also able to make the leap of faith that he did not intend to kill whomever it was behind the toilet door?

And If we're able to make that leap of faith, are we also happy that according to good gun ownership rules, he sufficiently checked for Reeva's position before he opened fire?

To me, I'm wavering on the first leap of faith. I can see ways it might have happened that way. I think it's unlikely, but not necessarily impossible.

I'm not able to budge on the second (murder - dolus eventualis) or the third (culpable homicide.)

Do you know if they tested for Reevas finger prints on the bathroom window???

Stampy - great article about Judge Masipa, thanks for linking.

So it sounds as though there could be legal precedent in her decision.

Has anyone found online coverage?

Good post Looking. I think we can suspend disbelief up to a point, until it gets to the point that it is just impossible. I can just about get your first leap of faith but it's wavering. The rest of it, no no no. He intended to kill who was behind that door whoever he thought it was.

Four bullets of that calibre were not needed. Why couldn't he have shot just one and listened? If he did think it was an intruder he would be in absolute control of the situation (locked door, gun aimed by him at door, burglar injured as he knew the impact of those bullets and the size of the room). He was in a dominant position at that point but after a short gab with the first bullet, he carried on firing - shooting to kill. I doubt we will ever know what was in his mind at that moment, i.e. fear and killing a burglar, or the truly awful scenario of silencing Reeva. But either way he shot to kill.

Oh dear, I've now found another chat forum giving the trial a decent discussion - Websleuths

To those asking about coverage, I watched an African news channel yesterday with live coverage. Scroll up through the news on sky.

You can watch it live on sky 517

Looking - Telegraph has it here

If you have an iPhone or iPad you can get the app live station for free, then scroll down to ENCA and you can watch it live.

Actually Telegraph here Aislinn Laing has started reporting already.

Thanks all. I need to watch it on a PC (don't have Sky yet).