Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 5

[Roussette]

Time for a new thread - Part 4 nearly full

I was very interested in Nel's style of questioning but was shocked when it came to such an abrupt end. I thought that he would go into a lot more detail about what OP did after the shooting. I think that he has left so much of the event out of the equation that I am now questioning his motives.

I'm thinking that maybe he gave OP a really hard time without getting to the crux of the issue and leaving so much of the evening unexplored, so it can be argued that he prosecuted to the best of his ability, but that he is actually on the same side as the defense. I really hope I'm wrong and just being very cynical, as by all accounts he is a very honourable man. They do say every man has a price.

One thing about the first set and second set of shots - I have always thought that the first set of shots which were heard in conjunction with arguing and screaming were actually OP hitting the bent metal panel in the bath with the bat (I remember seeing photos and it seemed to be unexplained and unexplored as to how the panel was so damaged). If he and Reeva were arguing and suddenly he started smashing his bath panel with the bat with such violence, this could definitely have caused her to escalate the screaming with him shouting at her.

A bat to metal would I'm sure produce a very loud sound similar to gunshots. The second set were the actual gunshots.

It seems to fit to me, but I haven't heard it mentioned anywhere. I think the bent metal panel was only mentioned by the photographer, and it wasn't mentioned again. It was the first thing I thought of.

Yes both the defense and the state have not pursued anything that has not got anything definite to add to the case from either side.
We all find this frustrating.
I would love to know more about the bathpanel, the bashed metal plate in the bathroom, the jeans outside the bathroom window and the damage to the bedroom door.
Unfortunately OP is the only witness left alive, and he has already been shown to be an accomplished liar!

I have always thought it would have been very difficult for OP to shoot so accurately and consistently unless he was on his p legs. He himself said he was unstable on his stumps.

but hasn't the evidence suggested that he WAS on his stumps when using the bat? and when shooting the gun?

Also - the metal plate - that's something I only just came across on the links I recently posted and it seems the plate only had a slight scratch?

Also the Jeans outside, if someone could direct me to court sessions where this was introduced as evidence and discussed i'd be grateful because, apart from being in a photo, I don't think this was ever introduced as part of the evidence was it?

Definitely, according to all the reports I've read Nel's comments at the start of the trial implied the prosecution were questioning which noises were the shots (and hence the order of the shots and bat noises):

I didn't think anyone had disputed the opening statement. I thought we were discussing subsequent evidence given during the course of the trial where both sides (ie witnesses for both sides) seemed to agree about the bang/bat order. We are obviously at cross purposes

No, the jeans outside were not included in evidence but I think YNK is suggesting that many of us would like to know more about items which were either not part of evidence or were not discussed in court. Natural curiosity.

Of course the state is questioning the sequence of the bang groupings.

RS cannot have been shot during the first set of bangs as stated by OP and supported by defense.

I woke up this morning thinking about that poor young woman....law graduate, successful model, advocate for womens rights and loyal and loving daughter. What a terrible loss for the Steenkamp family.
How dare this monster offer his apology and dare to tell them Reeva felt loved that night!

bath panel

Has a picture of the bath panel. Looks like quite a whack - more than a scratch.

At the risk of annoying everyone here are links to the first week's testimony.
I missed it completely.

If everyone would like I could do this for all the weeks and put at the start of each new thread?

Week One

March 3rd March 4th March 5th March 6th March 7th

In fact... (bigger picture shown on link above)

Pistorious' plea.

he says that the state are claiming he was on his prosthesis when he shot her. Are they?

Thanks hillwalker, you are right about what I'm saying.

The panel.......boy is that some 'scratch'!

"Pistorious' plea.

he says that the state are claiming he was on his prosthesis when he shot her. Are they?"

I think they did originally but their expert said he wasn't - that's what he meant when he said that the state had changed their "version" when he was challenged about changing his.

I am listening to his original statement from the start of the trial and it response to the murder charge he seems to just be saying 'you can't prove it so there, it's all contaminated anyway'

I don't think there is a conclusion to that evidence either Stack. Mangena seems to support that.
I just don't know and the only reason I have for saying that is that he only has 9 minutes to get in the toilet, get the phones, make the calls and get her downstairs. Given the p legs take 30 seconds (again according to op). I think the p legs might have already been on. Maybe he was aiming from one bended knee? I'm speculating now! I just haven't been convinced either way.
I think Roux has another ballistic expert coming up though!

Yeah he is one arrogant tway. I believe he said to the police when they arrested him "I am ALWAYS a winner!"
I will try and verify that.....

I thought we were discussing subsequent evidence given during the course of the trial where both sides (ie witnesses for both sides) seemed to agree about the bang/bat order
Louise I thought we were talking about the prosecution's case/argument. I haven't heard Nel state in court that the prosecution's position has changed. Admittedly, the typed reports from journalists don't seem to completely match what was heard in court so there is lots of potential for confusion.
Hillwalker I think that was the point made during the bat/door testimony that if OP could shoot so steadily on his stumps then the expert felt OP would also be steady enough to hit the door with a cricket bat. OP's argument seemed to be that he steadied himself against the wall when shooting.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...s-best-1753776

Taken from the above;
Among the revelations is how Pistorius, 26, showed bravado after he was arrested over the Valentine’s Day shooting and told police: “I’ll survive. I always win.”

It was his response to a senior officer who had warned him: “You could go to jail for a very long time, Oscar.”

Sorry the link seems to have been moved. Anyway I still think he's an arrogant twat! (not tway, as previously stated, my lady!)

YNK - your wild fantasy about Reeva being shot, then the door being hit with a bat and then OP shooting her again has not been vindicated, and actual testimony from the trial does not support it.

Show me where anyone has vindicated your idea that the order was shot, bat, shots?

Having unanswered questions is one thing, making stuff up while claiming to be "helpful" is another.

State and defence agree that OP was on his stumps when shooting at the door.

State believes that OP was on his stumps when hitting the door with the bat, defence version is that he was on his prostheses.

^That is the discrepancy people are referring to.

Even your remark about what he said when arrested was only mentioned in the media (which has not been a reliable source of information), not in any legal source, nor has it been mentioned in court. Again, do you honestly think if this was not a verifiable fact, that Nel wouldn't mention it in court?

Being challenged for writing things when they have minimal basis in fact is not rudeness.

These threads have been good, because whatever people's opinion of the case, discussion has centred on what has actually emerged during the case, not lurid speculation.

Stack your offer would be great. I still haven't listened to the trial but peruse thes threads with interest.

I'm locking up the buns though....

Gosh, gosh :D'

I said bat, 17 minutes later shot then possibly another bator two to get the door fully open (unless the door was never locked at all, which is a real possibility!)

Now can you please get off my case?

You are embarrassing yourself!

Gosh, state and defense have not agreed anything (except that OP was lying when he said Roux told him keeping .38 bullets was lawful for him).

They present their case to the court and the judge makes her inference known after the closing statements.

I have no idea why you are so hostile toward me. As I have already said if you don't like me or my posts you can move on past. No need to give yourself a hernia over it!

I'm locking up the buns though....

Book.....buns