Oscar Pistorius trial part 4

[Pennies]

Here you go.

I think he knew it was Reeva in there.
I don't think he intended to kill her.
I think the histrionics are a combination of genuine remorse, and fear of what's going to happen to him.

hill I am talking about levels of sympathy. Not sure how many times I can say it. No I do not think anyone can go around shooting through doors without knowing who is there and I have never said that. What I am saying is that I would not have "huge amounts" of sympathy for the intruder if they were later found to have committed some awful crimes.

I would however still understand the law around that and expect it to be applied.

OP says they agreed not to do valentines, but that he had either bought her a bracelet earlier in the year and were due to collect it on 14th feb or had bought her a bracelet earlier in the year and were returning to the same jewellers on 14th feb. I didn't really understand that.

I also feel it's an irrelevant point, we also say no cards and then one of us gets a card anyway, it's happened a few times.

There's a picture on twitter if the card and photo she was giving to him.

This is interesting - someone asked if there could be a mistrial on account of Nel calling Pistorius a liar. It's from the Guardian:

A footnote to the trial. The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) has rejected a complaint filed against Gerrie Nel, when he called Pistorius a liar while the athlete was on the stand last week.

The commission said in a statement: "The complainant believed the statement might have infringed Pistorius’ rights to be presumed innocent until proven guilty; freedom of expression; and human dignity, generally impacting on his right to a fair trial as contained in the bill of rights... The SAHRC considered the complaint within the context of basic fair trial rights protected in the constitution. However on a close assessment of the facts of the matter, international jurisprudence, the bar council rules, its own jurisdiction, and authority of the court, the complaint was rejected.

"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."

so - either he is lying or the bathroom light was on at that point. Either way it's something the prosecution could exploit.

We don't do valentines either but have been together 20 plus years I don't think a few months gets you to the can't be arsed with cards stage. I started out very much neutral but as time goes on I don't believe a word of his testimony and it mostly has an absurd quality to it. His inability to take responsibility for anything is damning

Agree, Noddy. After 3 months, I don't think you would even discuss not doing Valentine's Day. And didn't Reeva tweet about it #get excited?

I'm not saying that it is majorly relevant but I think a lot of couples would have celebrated their first valentine's day together. I had wondered if he had done a card and if so what it said.

It was stated that in the phone messages, she had said I love you to OP many times but he had not said to her. But from the card it says now is the time to tell you I love you? She had already told him before?

"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 - because the person doing the shooting is STILL shooting a person who's history is unknown PLUS I think that level of violence against another person is abhorrent.

A civil society doesn't support people being able to shoot people dead in those kinds of circumstances.

you say

"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? "

well, yes I am certain I would have sympathy because i do not believe shooting them is acceptable.

There was a case in Wales recently where a man was let off after he broke the limbs of a couple of men who broke in to his property. I was appalled that someone could get off scott free for that level of violence against other people, even though he was protecting his belongings and there was a history of him being broken into; I STILL think his reaction (to two fleeing men) was way inappropriate and out of control.

It's possible for me to feel sympathy for OP for having possibly made a terrible tragic mistake while at the same time thinking he used excessive and inappropriate force for which he truly deserves to be punished.

Wait - at what point did Pistorius say the light went on? After he kicked the door, but before the bat? If so, Trip may have seen him go in with the bat.

If Pistorius is claiming the lights were off this whole time, how did he see the key on the floor?

By the way, I blithered about the shots not knocking the key from the door - I had entirely forgotten that the bat blows may have easily done.

Do we know if it was covered if the bat was used before the gun.?

Yes Chipstick - both experts, prosecution and defence, agree that the bat was used second. Shots, then bat.

what crime is Oscar accused of having allegedly committed and equally what charge can he be convicted?

David Dadic offers his here whosyourdadic.com/

I don't think Nel has proved the State's case without reasonable doubt.

The Judge will, if she finds not guilty of Murder, consider the lesser charge of Culpable Homicide.

The State apparently only has to demonstrate a tiny degree of negligence for a guilty verdict to the lesser charge to be found against OP.

According to OP's own testimony, he was grossly negligent, therefore I believe should be guilty of CH.

Short of a last gasp confession by OP...

How could Nel possibly prove OP is guilty?

In my opinion the Sky transcripts are not a verbatim account of proceedings(at least as far as yesterday is concerned); there has been condensing in some places & although Nel's qs jumped about, the transcript for yesterday had some answers appearing before questions?

maybe I can go back and put all the Guardian one's down?

RE OP saying "Security, every-thing is fine" when Baba arrived at the house (After Stipp called him)... why would OP have done that?

Baba: I then spoke to OP. He then said "Security, every-thing is fine". I then realised OP was crying. That's when I said to Jacobs, not every-thing is in order. I then spoke to OP again, just to make sure that every-thing was fine.

Baba: OP then called me back. Maybe he wasn't sure about calling me back. He just started crying and then the phone went off again. I told Jacob not everything is on order. He could hear the conversation between OP and myself. After a few moments that's when Mr. Stander and his daughter arrived. They were driving a blue Mini Cooper. They parked the car on the side of the street. I could see on their faces that they knew something had happened at OP's house. Mr. Stander didn't even get the chance to explain or tell me what was happening. He just jumped out of the car and ran straight into the house. Jacob and myself ran behind them. When we reached the door, that's when OP came down with RS.

Sorry at work and typing quickly. So David Dadic offers his opinion on what he (OP)is charged with and can he be convicted with

whosyourdadic.com/

I think that level of violence against another person is abhorrent. Agree

well, yes I am certain I would have sympathy because i do not believe shooting them is acceptable. Yes shooting not acceptable. But I just don't think I could ever personally have sympathy for someone who has raped or murdered people under any circumstances. I most definitely do not agree with the death penalty though so it's an interesting thing for me to ponder.

I was also thinking about the case of the man attacking the intruders as we've been debating this point. I didn't have much sympathy for them but I also thought it was unacceptable and far too excessive.

Please can someone remind me at what point OP said it first started to dawn on him that Reeva could have been in the toilet? And what his reason was for stopping firing after 4 shots? Or were these points not covered?

I think the sympathy question is interesting, but difficult, because it's an emotion which makes it very difficult to quantify.

I am close to a person who is fond of saying; 'I have no sympathy with that...' and blustering on.

I think, if pressed, she probably would have some level of sympathy for most things.

In this case, I think it's hard not to feel sympathy for Reeva, who did nothing wrong, and who had the right to be where she was. I think it's also fairly easy to imagine sympathy for a child who through misadventure had found himself there. You think of the life lost. I think it's also possible to feel sympathy for an intruder bent on killing/raping those in the house, but this is less than the others. It's hard to say precisely what you might feel in this case though, because that intruder wasn't there.

However, I think it's also possible to bundle all that emotion up and put it aside and think dispassionately about the ins and outs of it and say that despite having less sympathy for the potential rapist, it still feels wrong that they can be killed without a trial. There still needs to be the shown attempt that you tried not to kill the person.

It is very hard, who you feel sympathy for - and the reasons you feel sympathy for them. It's different for each person, and it changes over time. I felt no sympathy for the drunk, uninsured driver who totalled my car when it happened. It was much later that it occurred to me that I know sod all about him.

I feel lots of sympathy for people who choose not to speak to their parents, because that's my position. Other people feel more sympathy for parents who's children don't talk to them, because they know how awful it feels.

I'm not intending to preach or suchlike, but I think it's really hard to challenge people on how much sympathy they feel and for whom, because it's entirely subjective and intensely personal.

Please can someone remind me at what point OP said it first started to dawn on him that Reeva could have been in the toilet?

When he started to move across the bed, looking for her is when it first occurred to him.

And what his reason was for stopping firing after 4 shots? Or were these points not covered?

He said he didn't know why - he just did.

Defence witness now demonstrating that Reeva fell against the magazine rack after being shot, so looks like OP wrong about it's location in the toilet..... ??

It looks that way to me too, BMW6.

looking thanks. I find the stopping firing but not knowing why part being the main thing that doesn't stack up to me. If you were that certain then why would you stop. Or would you know that whoever is in there would have been killed? In which case why take the gun back there? Maybe just in case the intruder wasn't dead or sufficiently injured so as not be a threat anymore.

Yes re sympathy being very subjective, it must be given some of our differing views I guess. And everything being hypothetical makes it very tricky too.