Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 5

[Roussette]

Time for a new thread - Part 4 nearly full

Nerf I think the only lie OP has absolutely been caught out on was the one where he said his defence told him it was ok to keep his father's ammunition in the safe in his house, Nel made it absolutely crystal clear that his defence would have advised him of no such thing as it is illegal.

Also, there was a point in the trial where the Judge stated that the Prosecution could imply OP was lying but not out and out call him a liar. Certainly Nel has made a very good case that OP is lying about many things and posters are picking up on that I think.

Nerf I wondered that too, but there were a few cases where he contradicted himself, so I suppose when he is being called a liar, and posters say that his evidence is nothing but lies, they must be referring to that.

Someone also commented on Reeva's blood on the watch case, but I can't remember it being stated in court that the blood there had been analysed

emotions thanks, I will have another look at the testimonies just to check a few things as I hadn't realised the state pathologist said that. I still find it odd to stop at 4 bullets though if he was intending to kill someone. It still would make far more sense to me that he would shoot all the bullets he had just to make absolutely sure.

rousette I know, I just cant believe that this was the easiest story to come up with though.

PD I started by thinking OP was guilty of knowing it was Reeva and then I thought it could all have been a horrible mistake (although obviously he would still be guilty of deliberately shooting into an enclosed space with no escape route).
At the moment, I'm unsure what I believe. I find myself hoping it was a case of mistaken identity as the alternative means Reeva's last moments were horrific.
BonnieL I don't think he was confident about the number of shots. I think that's why he testified he kept his gun with him because he wasn't sure if there was still a threat from the person in the toilet. I must admit I found Nel's argument quite convincing when he said that OP stopped shooting when the screaming stopped. For what it's worth even if OP knew it was Reeva, I don't think he consciously thought he was going to kill her. I think if he knew it was Reeva then he fired in anger with no thought of the consequences at all hence I don't think he thought what's the optimum number of shots to kill someone.

If he killed her in a rage I think the story was concocted immediately afterwards.
In SA there are a fair few occasions where mistakes are made and family members are shot when mistaken for intruders. It was the only possible explanation he could have given in the circumstances and he will have been trying to fit the story to what actually happened ever since.

I think people keep forgetting that premeditated murder does not mean planned before...it means that he had the thought and intention to do it and did it. It can be a split second decision.

Just googled it and it says in Nydailynews that Michelle Burger heard a woman scream and her husband Charl Johnson said "I am absolutely convinced I heard a man and a woman screaming" As I said earlier it will be interesting to see what the defence ear witnesses say.

I hope they call the NDNs whose lights were all on when Dr Stipp looked out. They must have been up. I wondered if they had maybe been up arguing. You never know

Springy regarding the watch case, I don't remember the court confirming that the blood was Reeva's or how it got there.

Ronald you're absolutely right on the premeditated murder, it can be seconds can't it. I've only just realised that now you've mentioned it.

I did forget that.
I agree with Bookaboo that even if he knew it was reeva, he may not have fully realised the consequences of what he was doing.

BonnieL yes I agree it would make far more sense to shoot all the bullets to make absolutely sure or are if you are in absolute panic and just firing willy-nilly, and the fact he didn't has been interpreted differently by the Defence and Prosecution, I am inclined to believe the Prosecution's take on this.

I also think his version is not the easiest one to come up with, I can think of a more plausible one straight off my head, but I think he came up with this version some of which I am sure is true and then added bits in to explain away discrepancies. It seems to me he is sure and unwavering on certain aspects and then all over the place on others which are possibly the bits he added in or exaggerated, I think he came up with the intruder story to fit the scene rather than the scene fitting the intruder story if you see what I mean.

On the intent to murder Reeva, as I said before it can be on a split-second decision not a well thought out or planned action. In the case of Lee Rigby, the murders had planned to murder a soldier and had purchased the means to do so, so planning and aforethought, BUT on the victim actually being Lee Rigby intent was proved as being when he crossed the road in front of their car, i.e., minutes before the crime took place.

Yes, that's a good point AmIthat. Maybe the ndns with the lights on will say that they were having a bit of a barny.

themselves I mean

For what it's worth even if OP knew it was Reeva, I don't think he consciously thought he was going to kill her. I think if he knew it was Reeva then he fired in anger with no thought of the consequences at all hence I don't think he thought what's the optimum number of shots to kill someone totally agree with this book. I've extended it to the intruder theory as well though - I think it is entirely possible there was little or no thought in either scenario and therefore no 'intent'. But again obviously doesn't make it excusable.

ronald yes very true re premeditated murder.

But I'm amazed that if he knew it was Reeva, an intruder story happened to fit so nicely to it. To me, it's so convenient as to then make it real.

springy I was hoping that re the NDNs too. Could be very interesting.

Can someone remind me of when OP said he screamed, was it just before he found Reeva or afterwards as well?

Thanks nerf for asking about the lying, I had wondered too if I'd missed him being caught out on something..

Nel asked him if he knew what a zombie stopper was and he said no. Nel then showed a video of OP using that exact term himself. He was caught out in a lie then, surely?

If the 2 judge's attendants can overrule the judge, imagine if she said culpable homicide and they overruled her and said murder. I wouldn't know what to think then as I don't know anything about the attendants. Or maybe we'd only get to hear the verdict and not whether she'd been overruled

Lying about not knowing what something means is an odd thing to lie about

Speed I think that was part of OP's determination not to look "bad", or like a reckless hot-head with guns.

At what point does saying you don't remember become a lie? Not remembering who you called after a terrifying attack in your car, for example.

The coincidences aren't too great imo
The facts to fit a story around are,
"shiiiiit
I shot my gun 4 times through a door at my girlfriend"
"I'll say I though she was an intruder"

For all we know the bathroom window was always open, that they never slept, had been arguing off and on for the entire evening

The entire story told by OP could be completely untrue except for the verifiable facts. The physical evidence and ear witnesses are the only actual things that we know occurred. The rest could be utter fiction and it is my feeling that that is what Nel was trying to show. That the story OP tells was just too improbable for any reasonable person to believe it was true.

I agree totally, Ronald.

Sorry, I've been dipping in and out of the thread while we're on recess (partly because I kept getting carried away, and I thought it would be best to wait for actual evidence).

My opinion is the same as it was when we went on recess.

At the very least, he is guilty of culpable homicide simply because he did not get verbal confirmation of Reeva's whereabouts before he shot.

I think he is very likely to be guilty of Murder - Dolus Eventualis in that he knew, or he should have known, that by shooting into the door, somebody was going to die. The only way someone could have not died, is if the toilet was empty. He was responsible for that action and therefore that death.

Where I'm as yet unconvinced - did he know it was Reeva when he shot his first bullet?

My personal belief (conjecture warning) is that she screamed after the first shot.

If (conjecture warning) that is true, then he shot 3 bullets when he knew it was her.

My belief (again, conjecture) is that in the seconds immediately afterwards his brain then caught up with the rest of him, and he pieced together what had happened. This (yes, conjecture) is why Nel was so forceful in pushing his questions as to when it started to dawn on him that it might be her, and why he stopped looking for her so soon and whether he had the gun with him or not.

To my mind, this is possibly why his testimony is almost split - it's possible that it starts as truth 'I thought there was an intruder' but then goes immediately into cover up.

I cannot say whether there was a row, or whether he went trying to get her, or whether he was trying to frighten her. I don't believe these things have been proven in court yet. If the defence have no counters to the witnesses who heard a row, I'd be more inclined to believe them.

I am on the fence as to the ear witnesses, for the simple reason that witness testimony can be extremely unreliable, and I would imagine particularly at night and when you only have aural input. I don't think they're lying - just that brains can be spectacularly tricky, up to the point when they can insert entire memories that aren't real. When there's gunshot, screaming, sirens, it takes an incredibly steady person to think well enough through any panic to start taking mental notes of precisely what's going on. I linked in a different thread to a report on the De Menezes witnesses. Not liars by any stretch, but due to their panic, they remembered things that simply weren't there.

I'm not yet prepared to discount the witness testimony, but a lot will depend on who the defence bring in on this. Thus far, I have not been impressed by the defence witnesses.

At what point does saying you don't remember become a lie?

This is really hard, isn't it? I remember thinking this when the phone hacking enquiry was going on (damned if I can remember the name of the judge right now), in that they seemed so very forceful that they didn't remember, and there's almost no way of proving that they do remember if they say they don't.

I suppose it's reasonable doubt, isn't it. In that case, not remembering the precise date that you went to the theatre is reasonable. Claiming that you don't remember a one-off payment of a huge amount to a single person and that you 'don't remember' if you asked what it was for... then that's less reasonable.

Something I do know for sure - I'd hate to be a judge.

Good post Looking and yes to the Dolus Eventualis. He shot to kill and I just don't know how he can make that an involuntary reaction. I know I keep harping on that fact but it just seems so implausible that the gun went off without his input (i.e. his finger pulled the trigger didn't it...)

We are near a new thread 924 msgs and 19 pages. Shall I start one shortly... before the trial starts again which I have just read is Monday. Is that right?

OP said he screamed at the intruders as he advanced towards the bathroom. And that he shouted for help from the balcony after he had fired the shots, returned to the bathroom, and realised it might have been Reeva. Nel disputed this because of the obstacles in the way of the balcony ie fans, duvet.
OP said he didn't scream when he broke down the door and discovered it was Reeva. When Nel questioned why OP didn't scream at that point OP said he was 'broken'.
It's a bit of testimony that niggles with me because OP doesn't scream after the final shot (he said he shouted from the balcony). It niggles with me that the person who was screaming stopped at the point when Reeva was unable to scream.