Oscar Pistorius trial part 4

[Pennies]

Here you go.

book - I've missed a lot if the expert evidence damn sky not showing it live But I absolutely agree re the man at the window. I heard that mentioned on the news and wondered if it was someone of exactly the same height/build as OP? If not, what exactly does that show?

Re the two phones - I need to check this as I'm wondering too. I thought that Reeva might have taken Op's in to the loo with her. But I wonder if I'm wrong and she had her phine with her and then OP dropped his in there post the shooting

I read a really good post on a blog where someone pointed out that Valentine's Day creates so many expectations on couples. It's particularly hard when you're a new couple and one is expecting more than the other. Not just presents/cards but acknowledgements/actions

I could see how a relatively immature man like OP could fail to read this situation properly and that could cause disappointment with Reeva which led to a niggling argument fir most of the evening and then a blow up. To be fair to OP, it was a relatively new relationship so can see why he might not have felt comfortable going overboard with hearts and flowers if he still wasn't 100% sure of how he felt. However, I get the feeling that he probably acted like a bit of a boer (literally!) with her that night. Eating early. Looking at cars on his ipad (and porn) and then off to sleep at 9. Hardly the stuff that romantic nights are made off. Plus she's handed over a present with a card saying she loves him fir the morning. She can't really insist in taking the card back so knows it could be potentially awkward in the morning. Plus, his behaviour shows that he was on a different track to her - certainly wasn't going to be producing a card saying he loved her

becool. Nel would have really struggled to show it was reasonable to bring in such detailed evidence re the guns to counter the generic character evidence from OP's team without the gun charges.

Agree that this is why the gun charges should have been shut down right away and that OP has probably rejected that advice from his team.

BeCool, I agree. It also says that Reeva Steenkamp was not worth checking for that night. Her safety was less important that his fear.

I don't get how him looking at porn at cars makes a difference to whether he may have been guilty or not?

becool - To not do this is basically saying to the people of SA, kill who you want to, as long as you THINK there MIGHT be a threat to you, kill who you want. And of course they can't do that.

absolutely! I did a masters in law at the university of stellenbosch in South Africa. One of the modules was on criminal law and I still recall the lecturer saying that the test used for reasonable force in self defence is essentially the same as the Scottish/English legal systems. That is, you can't shoot someone dead who might be waving a stick at you. It's got to "match" so to speak. So you could only shoot someone dead who might. Be about to shoot you. Now, there is obviously margins there so if someone has a gun pointing at you, the court wouldn't find that you had to seriously consider whether they were about to shoot you in the head or the chest and whether you might survive if it was a chest wound so you couldn't shoot them

However, OP couldn't reasonably assess the risk as he had no idea (on his evidence) who was behind the door and whether they were armed or not.

As one of my SA friends said, if he's found not guilty, there will be a lot of SA men shooting their wives. Bad taste but true

It's not looking at porn and cars on it's own that makes him guilty but as part of a wider context. In that looking at the porn/cars lead to an argument which then got out if hand and which led Reeva to run to the toilet and lock herself in and for OP to get his gun.

Rather than OP's version

Ah I see - the possibility that his actions caused a blow up.

The thing is, he said they went to bed early but I thought the post mort showed RS had eaten late?

I'm just reading some of this morning's testimony from BBC. It seems like the defence's 'expert' is completely out of his depth. Would OP have grounds for appeal if he argues that his defence was poor and that they let him down by putting an under qualified 'expert' on the stand?

interesting article on the two versions piece

quite relieved to see that experts who actually know what they are talking about seem to have picked up on the two defences too. Not totally given in to baby brain yet!

book - I don't think so. That kind of appeal only tends to work when you have a state appointed defence who perhaps has never represented the accursed in a murder trial before.

OP had pretty much unlimited funds and Barry Roux and his lawyers are certainly experienced. Even if this witness is crap, the prosecution is likely to argue on appeal that OP had done for himself already so this witness made little difference to the outcome. Essentially, he has been the architect of his own downfall

lottie - I'm wondering about the food thing too.

Was wondering if she was too upset to eat much at dinner (maybe that's where the argument started) and then was hungry later and went downstairs to eat

All of this is pure conjecture though! And I'm not really sure what the relevance of what time they ate etc is, apart from again casting doubt on OP's credibility

Would OP have grounds for appeal if he argues that his defence was poor and that they let him down by putting an under qualified 'expert' on the stand?

Can you imagine it? Anyone who really is guilty makes sure they have one crap defence expert on their side to serve in the future as a Get Out of Jail Card.

The thing about OP's version of the early evening I found weird is the yoga. I don't know how many of you practise yoga, but it is really difficult and uncomfortable to practice yoga on a full stomach. It is something you would do BEFORE a meal, not AFTER a meal. You would usually wait for some time - 2 hours minimum after a light meal, to practice yoga.

It is possible Reeva was just doing a few stretches before bed and OP calls it yoga, but I don't think she would be doing any significant yoga just after a meal.

So this could explain why Reeva ate later - after she did the yoga - which makes perfect sense and ties in with the stomach contents testimony. But it does't tie in with OP's dinner/yoga/bed scenario?

In itself it proves nothing, but it is another part of his story that irks me and doesn't make much sense.

Thought reeva couldn't have gone to get something to est because of the alarms?

Gobbolino, I wonder if you could answer this, as I think I missed this part in this morning's evidence.

When the defence (or the prosecution) call an expert witness, and ask for, for example, the noise tests - are they allowed to suggest what their argument is?

So if they called him and said; 'we have witnesses saying they can easily identify the difference between a cricket bat and a gun at 160m, can you substantiate that?'

Or can they only say; 'we need a scientific experiment to record a gun, and a cricket bat hitting a door at 160m'

I'm just wondering why on earth they selected Dixon above all other experts.

Also, (a follow-up question, as it were), is it usual to have one expert commenting on all aspects of the forensics? So he did the light test, the sound test, and, though he says he is not a ballistics expert, giving a statement on how she was standing and when each bullet hit.

Oh, and another one - are Experts paid by the court, or one of the sides (if they're paid at all).

*eat

But it does't tie in with OP's dinner/yoga/bed scenario?

Coincidentally, I've just been reading up on his testimony about that part of the evening. He says they ate, they went to bed, where she was looking up cars on her phone and showing him pictures. He used his phone to call his cousin, which is when Reeva got out of bed to do yoga. She would break off to come and kiss him.

I'm by no means, in any way, an expert on Yoga, so I'll defer to your comment that you can't do it on a full stomach. However, from that, from the getting out of bed to do it while he was on the phone and then stopping to kiss him - that makes it sounds as though she was stretching, rather than doing a full on yoga routine.

anya - think OP said she had a ceas to the key fin to turn off the alarms

The defence expert seems quite meek

The defence expert seems quite meek

As might we all after a bashing from Mr Nel!

Dixon says he has attended just three autopsies in his life.

Louise it is uncomfortable to watch at times, but if there are points to be made... I just hope he has someone nice at home to give him a cuddle later!

Are you a sound expert?

Well I like to think my conclusions are sound

This 'expert' has been a disaster
How is he independent if he has met with and spoke to Pistorius?

It does make me question the defence case when they put someone like this on the stand. It's not his fault, obviously, but is he the cream of the crop available to them?

Actually I think that Nel is very good at trying to illicit the tiny information he wants but the witnesses are a) concerned that he won't ask anything that helps the case b) trying to be helpful and add additional info and c) aware that the short yes no answer Nel wants will be better quantified. So they seem to be wafty but are actually just doing their job as well. I'm not sure id be happy answering yes or no if I felt that answer needed further qualification.
I'm sure the judge will have seen Nel types before and can see past to the essential information.