Oscar Pistorius trial part 4

[Pennies]

Here you go.

"I thought it might be useful to link to all the Sky transcripts I can find"

That must have taken ages! Thank you so much

Interesting.

A summary for those not getting the feed. The Defence expert has recorded the sound of a cricket bat hitting the door at various distances. They haven't yet played the comparison with the shots fired at the same distance (unless I missed it).

He determined that it was certain that the cricket bat hit the door after the bullets.

He also determined that Pistorius did kick the door (fibres from his socks left behind).

The lights - if all the lights were off, you could not see the house at all from 70 metres away. No outline - nothing. There was no ambient light hitting it at all.

From that distance, you could see the bathroom light if it were on (it appeared as a suspended light). You could see the toilet window only if the door was open. It was not possible to make out the toilet window if the door was closed. There was no ambient light there either.

He showed pictures of a man standing on his feet beyond the window, and him kneeling. When he was kneeling, you could see the top part (half?) of his head.

This indicates that if Dr Tripp was correct in what he saw, the bathroom light must have been on, and he either saw Reeva cross the bathroom and go into the toilet, or he it was later than he thought, and he saw Pistorius with his legs on, go and try to kick the bathroom door down.

Or he didn't see what he thinks he saw at all.

Inside the bedroom, with all the lights and electrics off, you could see a small amount of light from the bathroom if the lights in there were on - you could see the end of the passage. If not, you could not see. He said that it would be possible to see things when your eyes adjusted to the light, but that would not be immediate.

He is saying the room was dark to support his claim that he did not see Reeva but the darkness works against him being able to do all the other stuff he did later - putting on legs, getting phone - doesn't it?

And yes - thank you indeed for the Sky transcripts!

I would think so, Hillwalker, but they may argue that by that time his eyes would have adjusted perhaps a little bit. He was clear that he looked for Reeva via touch.

Yes Hill - we are to believe it all happened in the pitch dark.
Thanks for the summary looking - I'm at work so MN is my main source of info.

even if we believe him, or at least accept that this all happened in the darkness etc, he still shot to kill without any form of contact with Reeva at all, since hearing the noise she made.

Agree becool

I still think he is guilty

Nel has rightly said that OP cries when he can't answer the question, not when he is upset about losing Reeva. To me, this was clearly shown when he did not get upset when reading out the Valentine Card, surely an extremely upsetting thing to do if you had really lost the girl you loved. Heartbreaking even for those of us who never knew her. He was not cornered at that point, hence no tears. Poor Reeva.

Did I just hear right just now on sky? The legal expert just said that if there is a nano doubt in the mind of the judge she will acquit him and he will walk away Scott free. I thought that whatever happens he would face a prison sentence for killing someone weather it be murder or manslaughter.

Chopstick, surely that can't be possible, can it? He shot her four times. He killed her. Those facts are beyond dispute.

*chipstick. Sorry.

he still shot to kill without any form of contact with Reeva at all, since hearing the noise she made.

Yes - I think he is guilty for that reason, but whether he knew it was Reeva before or after is still an open question in my mind.

A lot, I think, is going to depend on how similar the bat sounds to a gunshot.

I think what the defence here are getting at is that if Tripp saw Pistorius (I'll need to check the transcripts to be sure whether he said 'a figure' which I think he did), cross the bathroom, then it must have been when he went in with the bat. At all other times, he did not have his legs on. In which case, the argument he heard is consistent with Pistorius at that time shouting, the bat hit the door (not the gunshots), and Trip either did not hear, or woke up when he heard the gunshots.

I cannot remember just now whether any of them heard both sets of bangs. To the transcripts I go.

Agreed Hillwalker. I expected him to get emotional when reading out the v day card message but he didn't and thinking back, he cried when he was backed into a corner by Nel.

On previous threads others have had questions SA law, there is a lawyer, who has offered opinion to the ENCA, David Dadic and on twitter @daviddadic, he does answer people's question on twitter if you are interested

Honestly I am sure that is what he just said. I'm staggered because I thought earlier in the trial I heard them say he will or have to be found guilty of a lesser charge. He said if the judge herself thinks he is guilty it doesn't matter, she will have to find not guilty if Barry roux puts a drop of doubt into her mind from a legal stand point

Chipsticks, I think that is for the murder of Reeva only, from what I can understand the prosecution have presented enough evidence to convict him on CH, but not on the murder of Reeva, and that it would probably be better if OP presents now a guilty plea of a lesser charge as then it may be difficult for the prosecution to up the anti so to speak to a CH conviction, they are saying he appears to be going all out (they`ve liked it to OP only seeing winning a race, not coming second, which is in his nature) for an aquittal, they say he is playing a very risky game, whether hes been advised that way or hes advised himself is unclear, but they think he may not have taken advice on board. If he is found guilty of CH it would be hard for them to put forward much for sentencing.

Thats what I understood from what they were saying.

I thought that the judge has the option of finding guilty of murder or culpable homicide

I thought she could only acquit if there was doubt he intended to kill. I'm not sure the prosecution have proved beyond reasonable doubt that he intended to kill whoever was behind the door. Or maybe they have done enough

I thought I heard a sob after he read the card out, but I need to hear it back again.

I`m going on the SA legal experts on BBC and SKY have been discussing. Going to check out Zulu link, (Thanks Zulu) and see what is being said on there.

Stack you've misunderstood my question. I was just genuinely interested to know whether anyone would have sympathy if it "was later discovered that the intruder had a history of burglary/murder/rape for example". Surely you wouldn't have much sympathy for the intruder if it was discovered at a later point that they had a history of committing some appalling crimes? That isn't the same as defending the shooting through a door without knowing who is there, but I think my sympathy would lie more with OP than with the intruder once that came to light. Doesn't mean he isn't 'guilty' though even if that were the case.

No, Bonnie, what OP did is the same whoever was behind the door and whatever their background. You can't have degrees of acceptability depending on the history of the victim, surely. Also, what you say is basically supporting the death penalty and punishment without a trial.

A lot of things are not adding up for me but something that has just occurred to me. If it was as dark as OP says, how would a burglar find the window, get through and find their way into the toilet? Surely he would realise this?

Another, nothing has been said about OP having a card or gift for Reeva? Does anyone know if this has been seen?

I cant link, but if you look on twitter as Zulu has said for DavidDadic, there is a link to a piece about SA law, and what OP could be found guilty/innocent of. Very interesting and informative.

Bobble, I read somewhere that he was going to take her to choose a bracelet the next day. Also, her staying over on the 13th was not planned so I suppose he can say he was going to get a card on the 14th.