Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 5

[Roussette]

Time for a new thread - Part 4 nearly full

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 disagree, emotions. Masipa HAS to take into account his overall behaviour in the court and his reliability as a witness, which is why the defence are bringing up his 'vulnerability' (psychological/neurological) last of all in order for it to be fresh in Masipa's mind before she makesjudgement and passes sentence.

I think the state witnesses (Mangena in particular) have shown that the reason OP paused after the first shot and the sound of the victim falling against the magazine rack, was so OP could physically move and adjust his aim with intent to kill. He only stopped shooting when the victim became silent. ( I know OP has disputed all of this btw)

But Bonnie if he had opened the door to murder RS, how on earth could be even begin to cover up that fact? It would be premeditated murder surely. In his head, this way, he has a chance of getting away with it by insisting he thought it was a burglar.

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.
PD I so agree with this.

Whilst I currently can't get past the neighbours' 'ear' evidence, I cannot even comprehend why he would purposely kill his GF though, argument or not. Has it been shown that he's that hot-headed and egotistical?

BonnieL the toilet cubicle is so small there is nowhere to hide and therefore avoid the bullets, also the bullets would, and one did, ricochet on contact with the walls.

Also, it appears as if he changed aim after the first shot on hearing the person fall.

The type of bullets in the gun ensure death or at the very least critical/life threatening/incapacitating injuries on contact with a human or animal, and OP was well aware of this.

The shots went through the door at torso height, the largest mass on a human and the easiest one to it when aiming and immediately incapacitating. People who are shot in the stomach rarely survive.

If a person had crouched in the cubicle the height of the shots would have probably hit them in the head.

There was no escape from the toilet cubicle, except into OP's gun sights.

In order for the intruder, panic, shot wildly in fear, scenario to work OP has to be unable to see said intruder.

I'm not sure I understand this bit of your post "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 am ridiculously and slightly ashamedly, looking forward to the next instalment. Who will be the next defence witness?

behaviour in court is not the same thing as wishing to incriminate himself
he might genuinely have a different understanding or recollection of those events
on reflection i am unsure that it has a bearing. if you are pleading not guilty you say you are not guilty.
This also doesn't speak to inform the judge about his vulnerability imo
he is pleading
gun malfunction
that the shooting through the sunroof can't be pinpointed and therefore maybe never happened
that he felt it was okay to keep ammo in a safe and was the owners responsibility not his

i also don't think that anyone has agreed that there was any notable pause between the shots
after the first and every shot there was movement by Ms Steenkamp
we can see that
an ear witness said there was a pause but others did not
i feel it cannot be said with any real accuracy that OP heard the person in the toilet fall against the magazine rack
the first shot being fired would have been hugely loud in such a confined space
i think that his movement could be easily attributed to his being on his stumps and being unsteady

The toilet cubicle was tiny, there would be no escaping one bullet, given the type of bullet it was. Why on earth - if he thought it was an intruder - didn't he fire one bullet which as emotions says would incapacitate anyone, and then gone and rung security or whoever. Just one of the bullets he fired did the equivalent of amputating RS's arm so it was said in Court.

Ronald OP seems steady or unsteady on his stumps as and when it suits, as according to him he did an awful lot on his stumps after the shooting.

I think one of the witnesses at least (Michelle Burger?) said she heard the screams both before and after the "four" gunshots. I don't think she said the screams sounded like they were from two different people. She also said she heard a man shout 'help' three times before the "four" shots. Sorry I can't look back at the links at the mo to show what I mean but I don't find the witness testimonies make total sense to me. I don't disregard them but I don't find them that convincing either. I'm also mindful of how unreliable ear witness testimonies can be (or have been shown to be in the past anyway).

emotion I just mean that he'd have had to be pretty confident it was going to work if he intended to kill her. I get that people feel there was nowhere to hide in there and with that type of bullet. But had he stopped at 2 is it definite that she would have died? Or at 3? How did he know 4 would work. Why not 5?

Probably not explaining myself well re there would have been better ways to do it because in essence I just don't get why someone would shoot through a door in order to kill someone and then concoct a remarkable story to back it up and be (to me), mostly, credible in court even under the pressure of a tough prosecutor.

Hadn't Reeva locked the door, so he couldn't have made it easier to shoot her/intruder by opening it? Or have I got that wrong?

YNK I don't think I said Judge Masipa would discount OP's behaviour in court, I was trying to say that a Judge would look at the evidence with a legal and more disciplined and objective mind than members of a jury.

It is only natural that members of a jury bring their own experiences, beliefs and feelings to a case.

Which witness/s said they heard a man and a woman and which said they heard an hour of arguing. Sorry, crap memory

man and woman screaming I mean. Someone posted a link about what the various witnesses so far say I think

ear witness neighbours

Mrs Van der Merwe heard a woman's voice, sounding like arguing.

I thought the rest of them heard the screaming

Ronald, his behaviour in court as well as out of court, both before and after the boating accident will inform Masipa as to the likelihood of either dysexecutive dysfunction or a psychological dysfunction which are the likely putative vulnerabilities.

Anyway, unless he is found not guilty on all the charges (very unlikely imho) he has to accept his running career is over already.

BonnieL OP was trained in gun handling, so he would know how/where to shoot to cause maximum damage.

I believe the State pathologist said Reeva would have died of the hip or arm injury unless she received immediate medical attention.

The Prosecution asked OP why he didn't empty the magazine of bullets into the toilet cubicle as he was so afraid and firing involuntarily, implying that he stopped firing when the screams and/or movement ceased.

One of the Defence witnesses was adamant that she heard two completely different voices and screams and actually said to Roux "I can tell the difference between a male and femail voice", she absolutely would not be swayed in her testimony that she heard a blood-curdling scream from a female after the first shot.

Intent to murder or "malice aforethought" doesn't mean that the person spent months, weeks, days, or hours planning to murder someone it can be deemed to be a split second before the event, which it could very well be in this case, all down to opportunity.

With all the references to OP having been proved to be lying on the stand.
Do posters mean he has actually been caught out in a lie by the court or that they think he is lying?

Probably not explaining myself well re there would have been better ways to do it because in essence I just don't get why someone would shoot through a door in order to kill someone and then concoct a remarkable story to back it up and be (to me), mostly, credible in court even under the pressure of a tough prosecutor.

On this Bonnie, if he had shot her in cold blood in the bedroom let's say, there would be no way he could wriggle out of it. Shooting at her through the door in a fit of panic (and I do genuinely believe it wasnt premeditated) means he can use the intruder story to try and get off.

According to something I read, he couldn't have hit the door as he did without a straight arm as there is a big kickback when firing. Especially to achieve such accuracy and consistency. So this idea of not aiming is ridiculous.

Thank you AmIthat. Which was the one who heard a man a woman's voice? The one who said in court through a translator "Am I to believe Oscar was screaming like a man and a woman?"

I find the idea of him murdering reeva but setting it up while he was killing her to look like he thought it was a burglar a bit far fetched. I know people do plan in advance to cover up murders they haven't yet committed, but I would think that would happen either when the person had been feeling anger at the victim for months or years, or if they were a psychopath. He'd only been with her 3 months

Speed that may have been Dr Burger, but I could be wrong there. She was certainly very forceful on what she heard.

Someone asked about the next witness, I think it is the ballistics expert Wolmarans.

executive dysfunction has only been mentioned regarding this case by one commentator who felt that this might be a possibility because his son suffered from it
i would suggest that the commentator's judgement on this matter may be clouded due to his experience of and proximity to the dysfunction in his late son.
there had been no mention of it in court before or after that point

if there was a chance that OP had been suffering from it it would have already been submitted to the court
it will be incredibly hard to prove at this point and would not be left to the Judge to decide upon. Expert witness opinion would be given and she would then accept that as evidence of the dysfunction. She will not look at his behaviour and decide if it amounts to executive dysfunction

Nel stating that OP does not take responsibility for his actions may have made good viewing but it sadly is the case for most defendants