Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 5

[Roussette]

Time for a new thread - Part 4 nearly full

This has all gone very weird again

It was a really interesting thread with people trying to understand evidence. I personally was trying to get a better understanding of how some of the trial was making me feel and in my line of work that is always good ground for me to inhabit.

I don't like the more salacious stuff.
I don't mind theories being offered and knocked back as long as it is done helpfully

Can we please stop it?

"Plus one particular poster who didn't contribute much other than to pop up occasionally to goad others and I just ignored her but I see she's back to have a go. No worries though I will continue to ignore."

AmIthatSpringy - your posting style is very passive aggressive!

Stop having a go and let people speak as they see fit.

Many people will read this thread without needing to post very frequently, but who do not like to see posters' like yourself coming on making personal attacks and threatening to ignore people or hide threads.

My preference is to understand the circumstantial evidence presented so far; although I am open to reading sensible scenarios, based on this evidence and others facts.
The sniping and name-calling just makes for uncomfortable reading and detracts from what could be an enjoyable discussion. I'm sure it will become more focused when the coverage begins.

Voice I am pointing out the the 'facts' your little group claim to have uncovered (and have told me have been agreed by both Nel and Roux) go directly against 4 expert witnesses and 5 'ear' witnesses!
Some of you must be very clever indeed!

Yes, the sniping of calling people 'goady fuckers' is really not helpful at all, is it..? There is no 'group', YNK, really - your victimhood knows no bounds. I haven't been back onto the thread since reading a few days ago that you apologised, because by the time (an hour or so) that I had time to write a reply saying 'hey let's just move on shall we', you had written about 10 more which went from apology straight to 'I've never been so badly treated' through to claims of a sustained campaign of bullying.

You consistently call for apologies from people, you want thanks from people for posting links to things you are claiming as fact, and no doubt you are feeling horribly persecuted for - gasp - being asked to provide links. You can't blame people for wanting some sort of background information to the claims you are making because let's face it, some of those claims are quite leftfield. I agree with Nerf and others that hopefully come Tuesday things will just right themselves.

For all your assertion that it's all bleeding obvious that OP 'dunnit' (and is a right bad sort), I haven't really found many (any?) mainstream opinion which claims to find this an obvious case to call a verdict on regarding his knowledge that it was Reeva inside the cubicle. Unlike you, I did not have the time during the trial to watch every day's coverage from start to finish (plus apparently to continue to pore over it every day since its cessation), but I did follow much of it when I could, and read the insight from journalists such as Andrew Hardinge, Aislinn Laing, etc.

Looking forward to good discussion of the evidence presented by the defence team come May 5th.

Yet again, you are assuming that if Nel allows OP's testimony to go unchallenged, it is because it must have been proven.
That is just not the way a judge led court operates!
Just because I was not around to contribute when the MN jury drew a conclusion does NOT mean it has therefore been accepted as fact in court!

I think Nerf's suggestion of a thread based on discussion of factual testimony is a good idea. There are many of us who don't like the wild speculation and emotional posting, regardless of opinion over guilt or not and I've noticed quite a few people have stopped posting. We should have be able to have a reasonable discussion as we were before without swearing or calling people rude names.

YNK just because people disagree with you, you are not being bullied. I'd also like to point out that calling people "goady fuckers" doesn't help calm the situation down.

I was pleased to find this forum a few weeks ago as it gave me an outlet for my intense interest in scrutinising evidence in a live trial (never witnessed one before) and no one I knew was interested in the same.
I'm totally open to all evidence presented and have been fortunate to have watched most of the the live trial.
What exactly are people's opinions on here, am I allowed to ask such a direct question?

I have cetainly not complained about being asked to provide links. I have produced them gladly when requested to do so.

I have complained when these requests have been accompanied by attempts to ridicule and humiliate me! There is just no need for that.

It seems that some posters cannot bear to be challenged and when this happens they try to derail with opinions about the poster rather than the post. And before you shout I do recognise that I am being drawn in in order to defend myself. FFS it is OP who is on trial here!
I think this is not only lazy to derail like this, it is also childish and aggressive!

BTW you don't seem to have made your mind up as to whether you think I have read/watched too much or too little of the trail and the background information.

I'm really not sure. I swing from thinking he thought it was a burglar to thinking he killed her on purpose. I think I will trust Judge Masipa's decision as she's sat through all the evidence whereas I haven't. I just don't feel I can be sure either way.

In answer to PD

PD I made it plain from early on that I thought he was probably telling the truth but of course really I haven't a clue. I think the Judge - who will have access to written statements etc as well as the testimony during the trial - will make the right decision. I think it will be a verdict of CH but I accept I could be in for a big shock.

Well, I am getting very confused about who is replying to who. I thought the link supplied to video footage went with the post suggesting we watch it at 16.59 and so responded to that.

The posting is very confusing and even I feel got at even though I know I have not argued with anyone.

Using phrases like 'gang' and 'little group' does come across quite negatively even if not the intention.

PD. My opinion, for what it's worth, has changed almost every day. At the end of the prosecution case I felt the state had not proved anything beyond reasonable doubt.

However, I think the strength of the state's case has come through in cross examination although having watched and listened again over the last few weeks, I'm still not sure

I am necessarily on the fence because we haven't heard all the evidence yet and I don't feel I can say for definite, one way or another , what OP is guilty of

I too have confidence that the judge will make the right decision

I hadn't really thought about the judge having access to written statements that aren't mentioned in the trial. Is tgat fron other witnesses not called to testify at the trial?

'What exactly are people's opinions on here, am I allowed to ask such a direct question?'

So far, based on evidence given, I think there is nough evidence to find him guilty of the charges against him.
However, part of me worries it could all have been an awful mistake.

Then I go back to the witness statements from the night (Stipp, burger) and I think there is just something very odd bout OP and the defence version of events.

Undecided until I hear the rest of the case but pretty sure eye/ear witnesses can be believed..

Despite not being able to decide, I think I will be more shocked by a murder verdict than a CH one, just because it will horrify me to have to think that he did it on purpose rather than to be able to always think that maybe he didn't.

Capacity Relations has already admitted that they did not consider a public relationship with Pistorius beneficial to Reeva's brand.

Coincidentally I watched something on youtube yesterday which included two people from Capacity. They said they didn't want Reeva to be known as just Oscar's girlfriend, they wanted her to have her own identity, which is not quite the same thing as a relationship "not being beneficial"

Speedwell - there were I think 107 witnesses who could be called. The written statements of some of them have been referred to in court even though they don't appear to have been called or may not be called.

PD I admit to being on the side of thinking OP guilty and thinking he knew RS was in the toilet after a snipey row. However, I try hard to look at the possibility that he really was shit scared and fired randomly at the toilet door because of that. However, I can't get past very many queries in my head on that scenario though (not checking where RS was or waiting to hear her answer him when he warned her there was a burglar etc).

All I know is, he has to be charged with CH at the very least (it could have been a black teenager in that toilet who had climbed the ladder as a dare) and if he walks from court a free man I will feel there is no justice in the world.

Thanks.

Can you provide the link to that please,Louise?

OP is up on more than one charge. I think he might get away with shooting through the car roof because both witnesses could not correctly state the right date it occurred.

I think he will be found guilty of murder, but I will accept CH if that is Masipas verdict and also guilty of the charge in the restaurant.

Speedwell. Probably the main reason I hope it wasn't cold - or hot - blooded murder is the horror in me that Reeva's last moments may have been as the prosecution think. That doesn't bear thinking about

I think he is guilty of all charges. He has lied and lied and lied again. I think his despair is genuine, but at the catastrophic mess he has got himself into in a moment of uncontrollable rage rather than at what he did to Reeva.

YNK, I might be getting confused but wasn't it you who said you weren't going to spoonfeed people by providing links? I might be thinking of someone else but i remember being quite frustrated by whoever said it because they were referring to particular bits of evidence to support their arguments but were unwilling to provide the source, hence my wanting to get all the coverage together in one post with links to ke evidence.