Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 6

[Roussette]

here is Part 5 but we are ready (nearly) for a new one.

This thread has been great for me to process the information I have heard in court, discuss the various interpretations available and assess my own bias towards the case.

At the start of the trial I believed that he shot the toilet door knowing that it was Reeva inside. I had formed that opinion from the bail hearing, OPs statement and the information from years of both interviews and known behaviour. I didn't expect my mind to be changed but I was also willing to listen with as much of an open mind as I could while being aware that my own life experiences and bias would cloud my vision.

Much to my surprise I have found my opinion shifting throughout the cause of the trial. I have never and will never think him 'innocent' because that is impossible what ever way you look at it, he held a gun, he fired into an enclose space 4 times and a woman was killed. That is inescapable fact.
The question is always going to be around intent. If you take OPs account at face value his intent is still a problem.
I have found myself move from one side of the fence to the other. Fairly early in the trial I found myself shifting towards believing OP's account but thinking he was reckless and trigger happy, that he didn't have enough forward thought in that moment to have intended to kill the perceived intruder behind the door and that he was guilty of CH. That was pretty much where I was when the state rested their case.

Very quickly after OP took the stand I went back the other way, the business with the fans and his saying he had asked Reeva to bring them in gave me the first hint of a possible reason for OP to have got in such a rage that it would end in shooting through the toilet door. I posted that hypothesis on the thread and it was invaluable to have other rational intelligent people to discuss that with, to ask the questions, to pick holes in the hypothesis. I still think that that hypothesis is very strong but others opinions and takes on the evidence have demonstrated that while possible it is far from probable.
Again I have found myself swing around more towards the other side of the fence. I have finally been forced to see thanks to the evidence and the discussion that it is impossible to know if OP knew it was Reeva in the toilet, impossible to know if there was a fight, impossible to know if OP is telling the truth, a half truth or an outright lie.
What I have now come to realise, largely due to the informed, sensible and level headed discussion on this thread (discarding the few more blinkered posts from both sides or the fence and some of the tangent that appeared while court was in recess) is that the question is not 'Did OP know it was Reeva behind the door' the question is 'Did OP intend to kill whom ever was behind the door'.
Right now I am mostly down on the side of he did have intent to kill but I do still have my self ready to jump right back on that fence at any time. I am almost willing the defence to come up with something as so far they have been a real damp squib.
This thread has been fantastic when it comes to forming these opinions and I have found the insight into the legal process and courtroom fascinating and as a person who is fairly hungry for knowledge it has been a real eye opening privilege that is unlikely to be repeated any time soon so the opportunity to talk, debate and analyse with other like minded people has helped me make the most of the rare opportunity to learn.
My mind has been changed and it has made me reevaluate my thoughts on the jury system, I had always had my doubts about a system that leaves decisions in the hands of the least experienced people in the room and this thread has only strengthened those doubts having had the chance to see how a 'room' full of laymen interpret and view evidence.

I have bored on for far too long, almost getting wistful and nostalgic for this thread and the debates we have had as the trial is drawing to a close. It seems I am a real sad case!

On a tangent, did anybody else take an instant dislike to the neighbour who was first on the stand today? Oh I didn't like him, totally irrelevant to the case but I thought he came across as a pompous man with misogynist leanings who felt making a point about manors was more important then the murder of a woman, if he wanted to make sure he spoke to only the police he just needed to ask for ID!
Anyway, as I say, it was just my feeling about the man, nothing to do with his testimony! Must go to bed before I talk the front legs off you poor donkeys as well. See you tomorrow (or Thursday!)

I know the defence are bringing forward a psychologist about his vulnerabilities I believe, but it would be very interested to see what a independent psychologist would make of him, he seems highly complex, with almost two sides to him, I can't seem to get to the bottom of him, pathological liar or desperately sorry man I just don't know.

Something keeps playing on my mind, I can't remember the actual quote or even the wording but I do remember a detective saying that with murder it is usually the most obvious scenario when a murder happens, or something like that, which my mind keeps coming back to. Late evening ramblings.

At least your rambles aren't as long winded as mine onestep!
I think if they do call a phycologist it would be very interesting, I don't think it would be the one who has been in court with him who is currently treating him would it? I believe that a witness can't be in the courtroom before they give evidence and I also seem to think that expert witnesses have to be 'independent' even if employed by the defence so it would be a phycologist who has either don't an assessment on OP but not treated him or one who will give a general view about the phycological impacts of disability.
What ever may be the case, will be interesting.

(See I can't help but be a gas bag!!!)

Why is a phycologists needed?

A gas bag that can't type to boot, done an assessment of OP not Don't!

It is due to my own disability your Ma'm, honestly!

To show he was in an extra vulnerable position as a double amputee and that is why he was so frightened leading him to use deadly force to protect himself. That's what the defence are going for anyway anya

Anya I think the defence have called one to discuss OPs vulnerability due to his disability.

RoadKill ah but your ramblings make sense, mine are just well....ramblings! It would be good to see a psychologistical analysis on OP, let's hope this one is actually an expert!

In my ignorance why a psychologist though? Would they be an expert on disability? Surely his dr would be better?

Thanks but I still don't buy the vulnerable but I'll arm myself (and pass a safe exit) and go shooting through a door

Discussion on OP trial coming up now on Newsnight on BBC2.

Discussion of OP trial coming up now on Newsnight on BBC2

"i would be very interested to see what a independent psychologist would make of him"

OneStep I read somewhere (God knows where) that there is a court psychologist there during the trial, presumably to observe OP I am also wondering if the psychologist referred to a lot as being in the Pistorius camp is actually one of his aunts (a psychologist who used to work for the police as a criminal profiler) as she seems very touchy-feely with him, which would make sense if a relative. Presumably any psychologist who testified for the defence would not be the aunt.

Will have to catch that on iPlayer tomorrow

Good post Roadkill and a pretty good summary of how most of us feel about this very complex trial

Onestepcloser - a medical doctor could measure the physical impact and restrictions whereas a psychologist could measure the impact on his emotional state.

News night disappointing.

Why?

Sorry Nerf I meant an expert on disability would be better to determine vunerability I would have thought, but I guess a psychologist may be able to shed something on OPs state of mind.

Yes Hillwalker what a diluted piece, not sure what their point was?

Anya, it was short and not really about the case at all, more about how violence in SA affects poor blacks more than rich whites and yet the OP trial is getting all the media attention. Interesting idea but not done very well or in depth.

Ah right, there was a report on sky news about a black disabled man waiting for his bail hearing. The prisions are shocking over there.

This man had to drag himself around and get other in mates to help him use the toilet.

Other than my interpretation of the experts reports and neighbours statements, the actions taken immediately following Reeva being mortally wounded sealed my opinion that this was premeditated murder.

A) OP delayed police access to his personal phone by forgetting the code and telephone number.

B) OP had two opportunities to tamper with the crime scene on his own.

C) He immediately called his friend Stander to come and help HIM - not Reeva!

D) He messed up on calls to security and Netcare, thus delaying emergency services.

E) Neither his friend (who denied he was a friend), his wife or his daughter called emergency services, until advised to by Dr Stipp. (Indeed Stander was outside leaning on a car on the phone when Dr Stipp arrived with security.)

F) His wife's concern was to avoid the media.

G) Carice called his other friend and his brother and ensured OP's solicitor was summoned ie further help for OP.

H) Carice conspired with AP to remove evidence from a crime scene (the handbag).

I) Stander did not pass on Dr Stipps telephone number to the police.

J) Police only knew of Dr Stipps involvement when he rang them a week later, then OP rubbished his contribution.

I just keep wishing Reeva had someone to summon help and show her some kindness in her final moments instead of all that pantomime!

I wonder how vulnerable he felt when he visited places like the uk where he wasn't able to keep a gun on or near him?
Maybe the not having a gun was balanced out by feeling like there was less of a threat than SA.

Or would he be even more on high alert in the uk.

Yes, Anya, one of the people interviewed on Newsnight said OP was the only person accused of premeditated murder ever to get bail.

I didn't see the newsnight piece but my guess knowing the BBC is that in an almost despite to effort not be seen to have an opinion on the trial or evidence presented so as to stop people claiming the report was unbalanced what you actually end up with is a wishy washy report that goes into little detail, tells you very little and does nothing to spark a debate. I think part of the issue is that the UK press are just not used to the lack of reporting restrictions. They wouldn't normally be doing any focus on a trial until the verdict was in and it was all done and dusted.
As I said, didn't see it so could be completely wrong!