Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 5

[Roussette]

Time for a new thread - Part 4 nearly full

Well clearly this thread has gone belly up.

And I don't think I've been defending OP just not viewing every piece of evidence as a definite pointer to guilt.
Anyway.

Hmmmm when did this thread have to be for the exclusive use of a celeb fanclub?

If you don't like me you don't need to engage with me, no?

In your estimation. You basically rubbish the thread when you are challenged.

@ Nerf.

I'm not exactly a line voice there am I? the whole tone of the thread has just become more confrontational and about individual view points rather than a discussion, and I'm allowed to feel that's a shame.

Why is that when someone disagrees it is "spin"? Are we not allowed an opinion?

I'm perfectly well aware that many people on here disagree with me but most of them manage to say so politely. As for myself, I made one tetchy comment a couple of days ago and apologised immediately. There's no need for anyone to be rude and I find snarky comments and numerous exclamations marks just as tedious as some find my comments. Perhaps I should point out that unlike some people I don't have time to spend hours watching the trial and researching every nuance and I'm probably not the only one. That's why we're asking questions.

I find the wild speculation pointless which is why I'm not on the DS forum and as for the "celeb fanclub", well some of us don't want to convict a man when we've only heard half the evidence.

Nerf - a bunch of you have rounded on YNK like that's OK!

You haven't got a clue Animation; I can't stand the bloke. But do carry on labelling anyone not signing up to your POV as being blinded by celebrity love.

Animation "rounded on"? I asked a perfectly civil question and had my head bitten off and was accused of being patronising so don't tell me that I'm being confrontational.

I also get the feeling that YNK is perfectly capable of sticking up for herself and doesn't need your help. I' not saying anything else on this because it's pointless.

Rounded on? First time me and anyone else got lumped together was by YNK making it personal!

Yes - rounded on - that's how it looks Louise .. and called 'hysterical'!

Not nice ..

As far as I can make out, legal experts following the case are very far from thinking this is an open and shut case. What I object to are arguments made as though they are obviously fact, when they have been barely raised in the trial so far.

So many of the points raised on this thread over the past couple of days have not even been highlighted by the prosecution when making their case. So unless the people making these points presume to know better than either a) the lawyers working on this case who are in possession of all the facts and are at the top of their game or b) legal experts outside of the case and commenting on it, I really don't see the point. In fact I think trying to work out the minutes, seconds, etc of how long it must have (not) taken OP to do all the things he said, when this has not been laid out by the prosecution, frankly comes across as taking a macabre 'Magnum PI' delight in the case. What I had liked about this thread over the past few weeks, with many of us sitting on the fence and periodically changing our opinions as the evidence unfolded; was listening to the evidence put forward and discussing it in a respectful way. I find it fascinating that anybody could have been reading this thread since the beginning and felt as though it was being dominated by OP supporters. In fact when Louise started posting she felt she was very much in the minority with her consistent support of OP and nobody felt the need to malign her for it.

Voice - I used to love Magnum ...

Yes I did feel that but I always felt welcome here anyway. I hardly think of myself as Juror Number 8, I'm not going to change the minds of those who are very anti (and I know OP will not go free) but I do feel that someone has to put the other point of view (and I'm not just playing Devil's Advocate by the way)

I know, and I have always erred towards thinking he is guilty. But I'm very conscious that it's a more tragic and news-worthy 'story' for him to have known it was Reeva than for it to have been a tragic accident.

I also think - as we have discussed at length - that it's almost irrelevant whether he knew it was Reeva in there or not, when it comes to sentencing. I think he deserves to be found guilty of murder - although I remain unconvinced as to whether his 'version' is true or not.

Ok evidence

It has not been proven conclusively that the first bangs were caused by a gun.
A set of bangs were heard at 3am and another at 3.17.
It has been accepted that following the fatal head wound RS could have taken 2-3 breaths but unlikely more!
Widely accepted fact that death will occur at around 6 minutes after the last breath.
It has been proven that Reeva was still barely alive on the stairs and dead just before 3.28.
OP says the fatal head wound was caused 25mins before he took the body walkabout. This is just not possible, therefore another of OP's lies!

OP has lied and been evasive throughout the trial and sought to blame everyone else (including his own defense) to avoid taking any responsibilities for his own actions!
CH would only be concluded if there was no alternative to killing in order to preserve your life. OP took actions to attack not escape harm.
The only doubt is regarding if he KNEW it was Reeva.
I believe he did!

Why wasn't this point raised conclusively by the State then YNK? I am interested. I often felt as though Nel let his points trail off without going in for the kill. I don't know (as am not an expert) whether it's because that's as far as he could go in each instance given the evidence or whether he will round up with his conclusions in his summing up. Why did the State not produce a timeline and why did they not mention that physiologically what OP was claiming would be biologically impossible?

From what I have read (and I have not pored over every detail..) it is widely considered that the State did not make a conclusive case by any stretch. It is now up to the defence to demonstrate that there is some probability in OP's 'version'.

I also think you need to watch where you think it's clear OP is telling lies. I honestly sat and felt perplexed watching him give evidence because although I think Nel was incredibly aggressive towards him, he didn't make much headway at all. At the points where OP blamed his legal team, I just thought that made him look weak. Not necessarily a liar. I think it is clear that he finds it impossible to accept responsibility and as has been widely discussed here and elsewhere, most people think he must have ignored his counsel's advice and opted to plead not guilty to all charges - surely a mistake.

Voice I have been one of the posters questioning the timeline. It's not a macabre interest. It's questioning if I have missed an explanation for how quickly all the events were supposed to have occurred.
And although I'm struggling with OP's version of events, I have also said that we haven't heard the defence yet and that I will completely accept the judge's decision as she is much better placed than I am.
There have been similar questions throughout all the threads.
This is the only thread that has degenerated into criticisms of others' viewpoints and posting styles, and that is a shame.

It is my feeling that Nel did enough to raise the points that he wished to before finishing their development
He has a list of defence witnesses but does not have a view of their statements and I think that he will try to further prove the state's case through their testimony.

I am unsure why he didn't finish the points off. Cynically I think it is because he might not want the evidence given to be tailored around what the prosecution will give in final argument and then submit in written argument?
At times I agree that I was surprised by how slow it was and to end in no obvious conclusion in places.
I thought that Nel was a devastating examiner at other points. The entire piece where he asks Pistorius about his intentions toward the intruder in the toilet and how they would ever leave was horrible to listen to again. It changed my entire view on what was possible for the prosecution to hope to achieve.
I think that he will argue that there were a mix of shots and bat sounds and that Ms Steenkamp was killed at 3.17am
He will claim that the entire portion of evidence given by OP from 3 to 3.17 sounded improbable because he made it up.

I thought that OP was at times a very detailed and good and at other times very unbelievable. Maybe we all would in that situation? I was concerned by the number of times that he blamed his legal team on leaving pieces out of his statements or on giving wrong information. If this is true he will have grounds to appeal IMO because some of this missing information went toward him looking as though he was tailoring his evidence.
I am unsure that Dixon was in anyway helpful to him. If the other defence witnesses perform like that it will be very damaging to OP's case but again could be grounds for appeal?
I felt that the early witnesses for the prosecution were very strong.

I don't know if I feel that OP is guilty on the balance of evidence or on how poorly the story of the intruder stacked up and was delivered into evidence.
Perhaps I will feel entirely differently when I hear the next defence witness.

It felt more unsettling for Nel to say, well, I'll come back to that, or I'll deal with that in my summary etc than when he kept on and on and on.

Yes voice, I have said before that although it appears that Nel has left things hanging in the air he will tie it all together in his closing statement.
Otherwise OP and his team will come up with (and tailor) alternative arguments which will need to be countered. This would then turn into an endless merry-go-round of evidence.

Indeed at one point the judge reminded Nel that she would draw her own inference from the evidence and cross examination already presented so Nel should not pass judgement himself. It is not the job of the prosecution to conclude a judgement.

Yes Ronald where OP was being clear and detailed was when he was going off on (a rehearsed?) tangent away from the questions Nel asked. In these instances Nel gave him enough rope before stating that was exactly what he was doing. When OP couldn't do that he claimed he didn't remember/was tired/became emotional even saying that events were an accident. This nearly caused his whole defense to collapse at one point.
Both Nel and Roux/Oldwage have been thorough in putting on pressure but avoided giving grounds for appeal.

I am interested how the defense case will develop too. I don't think this animation, if used, will be helpful to them (I believe it is all a tissue of lies, as you know). I also think there will be issues left unaddressed (such as the jeans outside the bathroom window) because there is insufficient explanation there for further exploration to be useful either way.

I think OP has given his team one heck of a job to do now and I doubt they will be able to help him. They will need to convince the judge that OP cannot credibly have known it was RS, but given.....

a) frequent changes to his story
b)the bizarre choices made by OP in terms of her safety
c) OP's lack of credibility in the main as well as around the other charges
d)Lack of a consistent and credible timeline
f) his attempts to discredit prosecution witnesses without any justification
and
g) the outright lies OP has been caught telling in the witness box

.....I cannot see that he is going to come out of this well at all in convincing the judge that all this was about his vulnerability!

17 minutes is a long time between firing fatal shots and attempting to break the door down, as is 15 minutes, and 10 minutes, even five minutes.

Has it been adequately explained what he was doing in those minutes before and after he realised it might be Reeva in there?

I as a look at DS because someone mentioned it. Thought this was interesting.

"mrs Stipp woke up, looked at the clock, contemplated getting a drink of water and then heard a set of bangs causing her to look immediately towards the bathroom window. She wasn't awake for a period of time before that hearing nothing

Van der Merwe heard a woman's voice arguing for about an hour from 1.56. She thinks she managed to doze off for a while, then heard four loud bangs at some time after 3am. A little while after that she heard loud crying that she thought was female, but her husband said it was Oscar.

The loud crying was coming from the same place as the previous argument, she thought.

If it was Oscar crying, then there's good reason to suppose the loud voice heard earlier was also coming from his house. Since OP claims he was fast asleep, and Reeva could hardly have been arguing with herself, then there is a problem.

Simplest explanation tends to be correct, remember.

Simplest explanation here is that Merwe thought she heard an argument because there was an argument.

Stipp's thought the lights were on because they were on.

Stipp's/Burger/Johnson heard a male and female screaming at each other because a male and a female were screaming at each other.

If OP is telling the truth, then EVERYONE - all witnesses, expert and lay - must be totally wrong in their evidence.

It's also worth noting that what everyone thought they heard at 3.15 did in fact happen, but at 3am.

They all heard, they thought, a woman get shot. They just heard it 15 minutes later than they should have done.

This defies all possible logic."

My only worry is what I might sound like on the stand?

I wonder if I would come across as credible or as a complete nervous wreck? Would I be inclined to change my evidence a bit if I was nervous? Would I remember it properly? Would I remember it properly if it had surrounded a huge trauma?
Dunno

Obviously I'd like to hope not but there again obviously I want to believe in the goodness of people

It can't be explained stackAlee, because that is not how it happened. He has to have lied for the reasons I gave above.

Reeva MUST have been fatally shot at 3.17 in order to die just prior to 3.28. OP must have had on his p legs already because he didn't have time to get her downstairs otherwise.
He had no time to break down the toilet door, it must have already been broken (at 3am).
We know he had to get his phone in order to phone Stander and netcare and Baba. The phone record is proof of that.
He could at a push have disabled the alarm and gone down to open the front door as he claims, but really not much else could have fitted into those 9 minutes from the fatal shot to Stander phoning netcare again.