Oscar Pistorius trial part 4

[Pennies]

Here you go.

Looking - that Websleuths link is very good - all the links to coverage on the first page of each thread, and they have a new thread each day of trial coverage. I think somebody on the thread is also transcribing everything that happens in court..!

Fascinating question regarding fingerprints. I'm assuming they weren't taken.

If her fingerprints were on the window, would the defence not just say she must have opened or closed it another time when she was there?

There seems so much of this case that is missing. The window is the key thing that started this event so crazy if no finger prints were taken :-/

But what if she had never opened that window before??

No the defence would WANT her prints on the window and would seek to demonstrate that she probably hadn't touched it previously!

Channel 4 news page is coverage I've watched
www.channel4.com/news/pistorius-trial-murder-watch-live-video

rousette and looking do you think it's at all possible to shoot those 4 shots without thinking because you are 'irrational with terror' as someone said yesterday, and so did not even consider the obvious consequences?This is the bit where I'm not finding it does take me a huge leap of faith to think that terror sometimes makes people do ridiculous things (shouldn't need to add again this doesn't excuse it or mean no responsibility should be taken for these actions, but doing so in case no one reads post above).

gobbolino if he really did act out of terror without thought how the hell would anyone prove that anyway? Could it be proved? Is it the 4 shots which would make it implausible?

Yes, not thinking straight about fingerprints. The prosecution would want no Reeva fingerprints on the window which would fit with OP opening it when he went upstairs after carrying Reeva down.

Hurrah for Channel 4.

do you think it's at all possible to shoot those 4 shots without thinking because you are 'irrational with terror' as someone said yesterday, and so did not even consider the obvious consequences?

No. I think he had the intention to kill, possibly because he was irrational with terror.

So rather than think 'I'll call for help' or 'I can threaten them with a gun' he went straight for killing them, possibly because this was the quickest way for him to get safe.

I don't think that he was so scared he temporarily forgot that he temporarily forgot what a gun would do.

I have previously thought that maybe he forgot that guns kill. There seems to be a dissonance between how he behaves around them, and the actual damage they can do. But having heard him speak, he's adamant that he was so scared he just wanted to be safe - to me, that speaks of an intention to kill.

Anyone else having a problem with the streaming? Can't get it on telegraph or mediate pages only the Enca channel from the app.

posted link upthread Nerf to ch4

Channel four, Nerf...

www.channel4.com/news/pistorius-trial-murder-watch-live-video

So far, it's determining whether the bruises on her back were caused by the magazine rack (defence) or a bullet ricochet (prosecution).

bonnie. That's what I was thinking about intent and reasonable doubt. Hard to prove intent

Listening to this forensic man now and really wishing I'd done physics at school. Am totally lost

I know we are supposed to be talking about facts but it cross my mind whether in this relationship he felt as if he was batting above his league. This was his fantasy woman, clever, beautiful, Christian, a person in her own right. Someone his mum would approve of. He felt a bit inadequete around her.. He knew she had previously had intruders and was scared of intruders. Hearing the sounds which he perceived to be intruders suddenly gave him the perfect opertunity to prove his manliness and prove she was safe with him. Killing whoever was behind the door in that moment was intended.
Funny last year I could almost feel his pain in the bail hearing. I don't have that same empathy now.
I also feel that maybe his family have done him no fa ours talking of Oscars mistake and being on the stand with Nel may have been cathartic. Having someone make him face up to what he has done.

Looking I think you're right with your leaps of faith post. There are just too many leaps for me.

Thank you both for the links.
I thought the magazine rack was in the wrong place to have caused the damage according to OP.

It looks like, the Defence are suggesting that Reeva was not standing facing the door. She was standing at a slight angle, reaching across herself (presumably for the door handle), when the first and second bullets hit.

They claim that the first bullet (hip) and second (arm) hit when she was still standing (I think).

She didn't fall backwards until then.

I still don't really get the relevance of the magazine rack!

I have no idea how reeva's mum and sister can listen to this. How do you even get up in the morning? Breathe? Eat?

I thought I had it!
OP says that the noise of wood he thought was the lock must now have been the magazine rack moving.
Nel argued that the magazine rack was in its usual position when found. Op says it wasn't, I think.

I think is rather listen than imagine auntie Brenda

I think it's related to when she fell, and how quickly the bullets were fired.

If it went the way the prosecution said, the only way the bullets hit her arm was if she had raised them above her head, and was defending herself with her arms.

The defence say no, all her movements were involuntary as soon as the hip shot went, and she fell slightly forward when the arm was hit, then went down quickly onto the rack (not sitting on it) and the last bullet when while she was still falling.

They're now playing the comparison of the two noises - bat and gun.

OK, in my opinion the gun is significantly louder than the bat.

At 180 metres, where the Stipps were, the gun sounds nearly as loudly as it did at 60 metres. The bat is quieter as it gets that far.

The prosecution's first questions are about the qualifications of the expert. He's a Geologist, in charge of the geology lab.