Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 5

[Roussette]

Time for a new thread - Part 4 nearly full

Currently, I am finding it very difficult to align OP's version to the evidence provided so far, for a variety of reasons, but I do not understand why he refuses to take responsibility and admit to discharging the firearm in the restaurant whilst it was in his possession; this one thing immediately makes me question his entire version of events on Feb 14th.

Thanks emotions and rousette. That makes sense then and places less of a burden on the judge.

YNK I thought the first witness for the Defence was a pathologist, he did not attend the post mortem but he did give some evidence regarding it. The pathologist who did attend the post mortem on behalf of the defence will not be testifying, and it is true he agreed with the State pathologist's report.

I think the less said about Mr Dixon's evidence the better

PD. Yes that was a really ill advised strategy to go with. It seems clear that it was accidental, so why on earth not just admit to that.

I cannot get past the circumstantial evidence that the neighbours' provided; I may have to watch it again. This, for me, (so far) points to murder.

I do think that OP has done himself no favours by denying every single thing that has been levelled at him. It's beyond me why he tried to pretend the gun in the restaurant went off in his hand without him pressing the trigger, when I think it has been proved that is impossible with that type of gun.

Then with RS's tragic death, he intimates that the four firings were an involuntary reaction. One, maybe. But four? This is why I find his innocence ludicrous.

PD and AmI I think OP's inability to take responsibilty for anything and his determination to be found not guilty is what is tying him up in knots.

You could be right on that emotions.
I can't remember (my lady!)

Poor old Mr. Dixon! What were the defence thinking, seriously?!

AmI Again, what were the defence thinking with regards to the restaurant incident? That could have illustrated a tangible sense humility and made me open to his version, somewhat.

PD

I want to believe that it is a terrible accident
I feel as though OP may have been a gun incident waiting to happen and maybe it was simply the wrong stars aligned and that occurred

I thought that that ear witness evidence was damning - they seemed to be decent people, trying to have what they felt they had heard evidenced.
For many, no matter what eventual outcome, that evidence will be their lasting impression of OP's part in this.

I was surprised by the emotions that I felt whilst listening to OP on the stand, ditto his physical illness etc. Such extreme reactions made me uncomfortable and I want to ensure that I don't see it as guilt rather than horror.
I have varied from thinking that the prosecution and defence have been aggressive, rubbish and excellent.

I have also at times felt strongly that OP is guilty of being involved in some form of argument that ended horribly for Ms Steenkamp and that he deliberately killed her in a rage.

So I'm all over the place, at best

Totally agree emotions. He just seems to show no humility to me (maybe I am being a little harsh here but on a previous thread, I said I found his blubbing intolerable. Obviously he is going to be emotional, but he can't face up to what he has done like a man, even if he thought it was a burglar) It's like he has to be always right and appears incapable of taking responsibility for anything.

PD I do wonder if OP is doing this on the advice of his Counsel or his own high opinion of himself.

I think OP got confused about which case it was where he was claiming his shooting was accidental.
He might have blown his whole defense if Roux hadn't corrected him!

I think his refusal to accept responsibility for anything, plus his attempts at blaming and discrediting of the witnesses (and his own defense lawyer) have been very telling and no doubt Judge Masipa will take this into account.

I'm sure Masipa is entirely used to defendants blaming everyone other than themselves when pleading not guilty
I doubt it will have any bearing on her opinion of OP one way or the other
as the behaviour is probably the majority of what she sees in court

I believe that OP will have been considering his brand and sponsorship. If he is found not guilty of murder being found guilty of the other charges might be enough to prevent him entry to the US etc and would hamper his ability to compete/earn.
I believe that is why he is pleading not guilty to the lesser charges

Excellent post Ronald I think your sentiments are the same for many people.

emotions. I strongly suspect it is his own decision, I genuinely don't think the defence would have recommended a blanket not guilty.

that makes sense Ronald I hadn't thought of that

That's a good point Ronald about entry to the US etc., and his future ability to compete. However, it has proved a risky strategy in light of the overall trial.

Spot on with your post earlier voice

I still think the intruder story is the most plausible but I have my doubts,e.g. when I can't quite understand how he would not check or wait for a response before going to the bathroom.

Two things I've been wondering about, would be interested in others views:

• if intent on killing someone (intruder or Reeva), why stop at 4 bullets? He couldn't see the person so wouldn't know what had happened. Could someone have laid flat on the floor or huddled on the toilet to avoid being fatally shot?
• again, if wanting to kill someone, why do it through a closed door?

Roussette I thought exactly the same as you before re the 4 shots but the more I've thought about it it actually makes more sense to me that 4 shots could all be done without thinking, given how rapid it was. I would be more suspicious of his intent if he shot every single bullet at the door. Otherwise how did he know that he had killed the person without seeing them.

Bonnie - well... wasn't it shown to be bang pause bang bang bang? Could that scenario honestly really have been an involuntary reaction which he is claiming. I just don't see it myself. And there was a whole thing where he says he didn't 'aim' the gun, he just 'pointed' it - meaning his arm wasn't outstreched as in 'aim'.

Sorry - am rambling and no idea what point I am trying to make here! (apart from being sceptical about four bullets being an involuntary reaction.)

If he was wanting to kill RS he would have to do it through a closed door, wouldn't he. Otherwise his intruder story would never have stood up.

without the death of Ms Steenkamp none of the rest of these incidents would have ever gone to court
I can see how I might try to smooth over them and hope there wasn't enough actual evidence to find me guilty

I have to admit, that as cold as it may seem, I've not experienced any emotional attachment to any individuals in this case. I understand that OP believes he is fighting for his life (in terms of salvaging what will remain after this case) and the emotions he experiences, I feel, relate to his own ends. I have not been moved by him because I have not seen any humility or sincerity.
The neighbours' testimonies for me, are too strong to ignore (murder). Remove the testimonies and the wilful actions of discharging a firearm at a closed door, four times, point to CH.
Add in other obvious lies (restaurant incident, not remembering which friend he called to collect him, on the night when he was supposedly shot at on the motorway) and how is he to be believed?

He'd have made it much easier for himself if he'd just opened the door and shot (in the scenario of knowing it was Reeva). I guess I'm just thinking that there would be many more easier ways to do it, and get away with it, if murdering Reeva was his intent. Which is part of the reason I don't think he knew it was her.

I get your point re the 4 shots, part of me thinks the change in aim shows there was a 'thought' which should mean he therefore had scope to think about his actions. But the other part thinks why not shoot all the shots. It seemed a gamble to stop at 4 if his aim was murder.

BonnieL In order to reach the conclusion that "the intruder story is the most plausible", how were you able to disregard the evidence from the neighbours?