Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 5

[Roussette]

Time for a new thread - Part 4 nearly full

I'm still wondering why OP Father is not in court, he was in court for all the bail hearing.

The flaw in your revelation mary21 is that OP could just say that? And why lock the bedroom door ?

It is a great theory Mary2 but I agree with the others why not just say that? It would have been a whole lot easier than his story. I have always thought if he is making the story up it would have been a whole lot easier to say she got up to go to the bathroom while he was sleeping. Thought she was in bed, heard a noise in the bathroom and the rest of the story as he explains it. But how could he not know she was in the bed with him Nel would ask. He is over a barrel with that same question with the story he told. There would have been a lot less moving parts and less explaining to do. I have always wondered why if he was making the story up he would purposely make up lies that walk himself into trouble.

I meant Mary21 sorry for the typo.

Here is an article by another SA lawyer Ulrick Roux on OP in the witness box

www.timeslive.co.za/local/2014/04/21/inconsistent-pistorius-may-have-dug-a-hole-for-himself

I think OP's problem is that he decided to go for "not guilty" on any of the charges, by denying the gun charges (firing in the restaurant and through the sun roof) he opened himself up to character assissination by the Prosecution and by determinedly pleading "not guilty" to any charge relating to Reeva's death he is tripping over himself all the time trying not to say anything that would lead to him admitting guilt for the lesser charges.

I think he elaborated his version in order to fill in gaps, refute other evidence, etc., but if he had plead guilty to a lesser charge and thrown himself on the mercy of the court this wouldn't have been necessary. Providing the Prosecution accepted the plea of course.

Does anyone know if the contents of the toilet were tested for urine?

You can cast me as reprehensible or whatever, but there sadly are parents in the world who do only care about their kids as their pension plan, sadly I'm related by marriage to just such a person. It's just another angle in this whole sorry tale.

I really think it is reprehensible - her DD is dead, what else matters?

Reprehensible isn't a word I'd use but I do think you have to not apply what has happened to you with someone in your family, to a couple who have lost their daughter in the most brutal and awful way. It may be your angle, but it's not mine Madcatgirl.

madcatgirl - I noticed that earlier you said "a twitter post suggests that June Steenkamp doesn't even care if OP goes to jail or not, she has been left utterly broke", so this is merely a second hand suggestion from twitter. Do you have any idea what the source of this is, or if June Steenkamp even said such a thing?

True, she has said she doesn't care if he goes to jail or not, I have read this too. But the other bit sounds made up.

I would imagine Mrs Steenkamp said she is utterly broken which would fit in with what she's said before.

It was in a SA newspaper. I'll see if I can find it again.

Don't get me wrong I am hugely sorry for what's happened to her daughter, but that doesn't mean we can't comment about her language or behaviour. Same as it means we can't comment on situations that may or may not occur in Reeva or pistorius' behaviour in comparison with our lives.

Madcatgirl How is her relationship to Reeva of any relevance to the case? The behaviour of OP and the other witnesses is fair game for comment, IMO, but it seems a bit nasty to comment on her mother.

She's not on trial.

Sorry but personally I feel very uncomfortable if these threads started to analyse June Steenkamp.

It feels wrong and rather mean.

Agreed OneStepCloser

Well there's not much to go on is there one step which is what I have struggled with all along. I hate the internet diagnoses, imagined conversations etc that are written like mini fiction and I think we can't really usefully comment on one line and extrapolate much.
We know Reeva was financially supporting her parents from the article and from Vanity Fair but so what?

Also agree OneStepCloser, June Steenkamp is not on trial and to start dragging her name through the mud over something she may have said that may have been misinterpreted or taken out of context is reprehensible.

Their family finances are nothing to do with the case.

Totally agree Onestep, Emotions & others of similar thinking. June Steenkamp is of absolutely no bearing to his trial & to be anything other than sympathetic is quite disgusting actually.

Just catching up on the earlier parts I missed.Can someone tellme what the 'robots' are?

I think robots are traffic lights.

Thank you that makes sense

Morning everyone. I've been away for a few days and just catching up.

Totally agree re. June not being on trial here. I wouldn't like to be having the ins and outs of my choices in life being analysed and judged by people just because I happen to have been unfortunate enough to have had a child murdered. She has shown a great deal of compassion and forgiveness towards OP; more than I think most of us would be capable of in the circumstances.

Very sadly this is still on my mind

Any ideas about this photograph? This was taken by the crime scene photographer and is directly below the bathroom window in the Pistorius house.
Looks like women's jeans?

Sorry to go back to this if it was commented on in one of the earlier threads but I can't stop thinking about it. I've looked at the images of the cricket bat used and there is blood spatter on it.

How is that if it was only used to bash the door down. I can understand some blood on it but I would expect it to be patches than splatters if that makes sense?