Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 5

[Roussette]

Time for a new thread - Part 4 nearly full

This is all turning a bit weird on here

YNK that mirror article seems to be nonsense..look at the toilet they use for a start
also clearly OP doesn't always win as he lost in the Olympics
mebbe he means he generally wins

I agree that there is some flexibility on interpretation of what the neighbours heard
It is only evidenced that some of the bullets had been fired at the door before they were hit by a bat
there is no evidence that all of the marks on the door occurred after all the rounds were fired

it has also seemed likely to me that Ms Steenkamp was finally killed at the later time when the guests heard the final bangs
makes more sense in terms of blood etc

None of the above evidence has been agreed as final in court or definite although I understand that some people might like to hope that it has. I know that there will always be some elements of doubt over what happened and in what order and am fine with that.

Hopefully the confusion over the order of shots and bat will be cleared up when/if the defence does call OP's neighbours.

The questioning should illustrate if both state and defence are agreed on the order of the shots and the bat.

I think the mobile in the toilet discussion on this thread proved that depending on where we gain our information there is room for interpretation. Even if we all listened to the court recordings, we could still interpret what we heard differently (and as for the media reports - they are all influenced by the journalist who files the account).

She must have received the shot to the head at 3.17, as I have said all along. Most of the neighbours have testified already!

Aaaaargh, state and defense are not going to agree!!! That is NOT what they are there for!
The only interpretation that matters is the judges. We will find that out when she gives her verdict!

I'm guessing the only way to draw more informed thoughts on this is to actually listen to the trial recordings, because as we are seeing, notes and tweets and articles and our own posts only provide a flavour, not the word by word level of information and detail actually being spoken in court, and they will naturally tend to lean (slightly or heavily) towards prosecution or defence, depending on the publisher, their remit and / or their own opinion of Oscar.

I don't know how many all publish exactly the same information. Thinking of twitter feeds (on twitter, and via newspapers) - one writes something ad verbatim, the other a summary, the other their own take, and not all of the time do they all repeat ad verbatim.

It is a complicated trial, because only one person knows what happened that night, and only that person can be honest about it.

However, I think we do all agree he should be punished, and rightly so.

Sorry, Nel did rescue Roux when OP accused him of saying it was legal to keep the .38 bulets in his safe in contravention of his licence. Roux and Nel agreed over that piece of nonsense!!

Jill, I watched all of the trial live.

I have watched it again and again to discuss it elsewhere.

Please do not tell me I have been cross examined by MNers and sent back to watch it all over again, if what you are saying is that the people accusing me of speculation have not been doing the same?

FFS!

Ronald is right. This thread has really taken some twists and turns during recess.

For info, YNK, I was talking about myself.

I'm out.

state and defense are not going to agree!!
YNK I was not saying they have to reach agreement I was referencing the fact that some posters think the state and defense had already reached agreement on the ordering.

That was not my interpretation of what happened in court. I thought the same as Ronald ie
It is only evidenced that some of the bullets had been fired at the door before they were hit by a bat there is no evidence that all of the marks on the door occurred after all the rounds were fired

The line of questioning of any neighbours called by the defence should illustrate whether there remains a difference between the defence and prosecution on the order of the shots and the cricket bat. That should clarify the seemingly ongoing argument about whether or not the prosecution had changed its case since the opening argument.

YNK - I wish you could see that the way you present yourself on this thread really does kill all discussion. You are basically saying 'nobody knows more than I do' and you are also saying that you are correct, and constantly exclaiming 'how many times do I have to repeat myself?'.

It is bloody off-putting. It is also transparently obvious that you are approaching it from an emotional viewpoint, highly sympathetic to Reeva (as are we all of course), but viewing OP as a monster by necessity, an arrogant twat. Some or all of these things may be true, but that's really not the kind of discussion we have been having here. This is not a competition re. who has watched more of the trial. You may be thinking that by posting constantly and telling people over and over that they must be thick not to 'get it' that you will be able to convince us all. But actually it's just putting all of us off getting involved in the thread.

Sorry if I have come across that way.
I think by today I have become frustrated from coming under attack and been asked the same questions repeatedly.
I have been told to go back (several times) to the trial on you tube to check my understanding and now I hear that the challengers have not actually viewed it themselves.
I sincerely hope this is not true!

I'm still unsure that I understand how their legal system actually works as it feels as though the prosecution are mainly trying to say, 'See it didn't happen how he said it did'
this has really shown me how naive i am as of course in the same situation in the uk they would be doing the same thing

i think i am varying between, 'my god he's guilty of murder' to 'it's an awful horrible mistake' to 'he should have taken more care and was a shooting that was always going to happen'
i am still questioning myself re why i don't want to believe him guilty

Ronald, this is why I think it's good to see these trials televised. I have certainly learned a lot (and I still have a lot to learn).
I'm sorry for getting so frustrated on here. I am really doing my best to digest as much of the trial (and other sources) as I can before commenting.
I have muddled things up before and opened my big fat mouth commenting and thinking out loud.
We can all do that and I will take it on the chin when I'm wrong or just being plain silly!
I hope I have not inhibited anyone from saying what they think about it. We are all together in seeing televised trials in it's infancy.
Again, sorry if I have been touchy....my feelings have been hurt here at times but I hope I can rise above it!

BTW none of the 'bang' sequences have been alleged to have 'interrupted' by others (by either me or witnesses).
First sequence, bat or gun, depending which side you favour, at 3am.
Second sequence, as above, at 3.17, along with the possibilty of a couple more bangs heard by only some witnesses.
I assert that the second sequence included the fatal shot, for the reasons I have stated (repeatedly).
I am basing this on my (repeated) viewings of the trial, my reading of (mainly) DS forum) as well as other links to media input, which I agree are open to further scrutiny.
I have never hidden my sources but I have still been told I am speculating out of turn. I do hope I have not been challenged so unpleasantly by those who have not done their own independent research.
I am sorry I have only come to this thread at it's fifth run. I was busy watching the trial!

Sorry ^ I assert that the second lot of bangs include the fatal shot (for the reasons I have stated)

Don't question yourself on that ronald. Those of us who cannot imagine hurting somebody really can't be expected to slip into that mindset easily! That is why televised trials have such a lot to teach us.
TBH I am starting to think I would rather be tried by a judge like in this system that by a jury of my peers.
I NEVER thought I would hear myself say this!

Than NOT that ^

I have to admit that I missed most of the early case and am still catching up. I rather naively believed people when they repeatedly said that both sides were in total agreement about the shots then bat sequence which was stupid of me. It's just that they were so determined topless this jot again and again. I actually thought it had beennprovennbeyond reasonable doubt by experts and agreed by both sides.

Now, the recent conversation has left me thinking that along with all the other inconsistencies in OP's story it is definitely not as he says it is.

Thanks Stack, I have to say I have been left a bit stunned and shaken.
I have always looked to MN for the most rigorous debate and I have been taken unawares, having debated this elsewhere, by what has felt like the force of MN turning on me!
I never realised I could be this sensitive.

Voice - I have NEVER accused any MNer of being thick!

YNK I think a few of us have changed our preference from jury trials to judge ones in light of watching this case!

Cheers Book, for anyone who feels I have spoiled this thread - I will be back at work next week!

I must admit that I have been on MN for 5 years and been involved in very vigorous debate, but this thread is as close as I have been to flouncing!
I cannot remember coming under attack like this EVER!
I have been accused of being self righteous by the very people who should be opening THEMSELVES to self examination.
You know who you are and I am pleased you don't have your finger on the button!

YNK on the contrary, I believe that you have shown a clear understanding of the evidence presented so far, in the face of comments that have either disregarded or misunderstood crucial evidence, eg. "There has been no evidence put forward for the first set of bangs being anything other then gun shots." What about the testimonies from Berger, Johnson and the Stipps, outlining crucial timings of shouting, bangs, screams, shots?! I too have followed (most of) the live trial evidence as it's been presented, with an open mind and find the evidence presented from both sides (so far) leaves me in agreement that the shots occurred at 3:17am.

I agree, YNK. How you have not flounced off, I do not know! Well done for remaining calm while being accused of fantasising by people who have not even watched the trial. The only fantasy around here is OP's 'version'.

Thanks PD, silly I know, but I have shed hot tears over this thread.

I know I have taken part in discussions on other forums but I have always thought of MN as 'my place' even when involved in heated controversial debate with other trusted MNers.

I have, more or less, been told I don't belong here, and my contribution is spoiling it for others!
That really hurts especially when I have asked people who don't appreciate me and/or my posts to just ignore me and resume their 'own' discussion.
I have been told I am speculating and being macabre.
I have been misquoted and been told I am saying things I have never said!

I have a history going back 5 years on here and I have been wrong and corrected many a time. I have never minded putting forward my pov, trusting that this is the one place I can accept being wrong and learning from my mistakes.

This thread has seriously shaken my confidence in myself, and in the last few days I have gone over and over the trial trying to see why I have angered MNers so much!
I simply don't know anymore!

I have been honest and attributed my sources and my 'workings out' when asked. I know that today I have been frustrated (and maybe a bit angry at times) also, the other day I was silly and spoke out loud when I was en route to a migraine (under heavy questioning) and I got muddled with minutes/seconds and my additions but I admitted it and took a break from trying to justify myself knowing I was wrong and appealing to others to help put me back on track.
I doubt i will sleep tonight because I am so upset!
However I am still holding to my opinion, and I hope I can still be open to anyone who can change my mind with reasoned debate.

As I say I have joined this thread late, but it's not the MN I know! I feel I have been bullied, and that is not something I have EVER seen tolerated on MN.

I don't know if I will stay following the trial, but I WILL stick with MN until then at least.

After that my detractors can all have a party about my demise knowing they have chased me off! I hope they have a jolly good time!
I will decide then if other forums are more worth my while!