Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 7

[Roussette]

here is Part 6. Nearly time for a new one.

Mrs Steenkamp chose to attend the trial? It is the last thing she can ever do for her daughter. She won't be able to attend anything else for her ever.

Nerf Erm sorry, I don't think there's any evidence of him watching porn for an hour.

Quite.

As Gosh says, this isn't about having empathy for Oscar. It's about understanding that so many different things about this case are unprovable. That is, I think, the greatest tragedy for Reeva and for her family - I don't think we'll ever know for sure what happened that night.

Yes, true voice. I doubt even after the trial is over anyone will feel they know exactly what happened.

Nerf. I understood what you meant about Mrs Steenkamp attending court and hearing the defence case

I'm surprised this was taken out of context.

I don't see anyone minimising the absolute pain and heartbreak she is and will continue to experience for the rest of her life

Nor do I see anyone bending over backwards to defend OP

Rather I see sensible posters answering some of the more lurid and libellous posts being made.

Thank you Springy - definitely a response (ie attending court and hearing a defence she will have been warned about, can't imagine she is trawling websites reading the views of 'Pistorians')

As the court pleases.

Unfortunately I have seen a fair bit of bending over to make excuses for OP but I stand corrected.

Not had a chance to watch all of yesterday's testimony some might watch that first then catch up,with today's cross examination later or tomorrow.

Do you think that Judges forget about cases once they've delivered their verdict? As in, do you think they think - okay, I've come to my decision, that's definitively the truth? I was surprised - in my naivety - , reading the Judge's verdict and summary after the Max Clifford case last week, that events were described as "you did this, you did that", which I suppose because the verdict is guilty the summary has to be written as though he most definitely is guilty. I really feel for Judge Masipa. I don't know how she will discount the fact that she may be incorrect, whichever version she takes. How much improbability does there have to be in OP's version for her to decide to commit him to a life sentence in prison? (Apologies for ramble, not able to coherently describe what I'm wanting to say...)

reading the Judge's verdict and summary after the Max Clifford case last week, that events were described as "you did this, you did that", which I suppose because the verdict is guilty the summary has to be written

It's very jarring, isn't it? But it does have to be written that way; a verdict of what happened.

I was introduced to this quite harshly when I was a kid. When I was 7, my father was convicted of a crime. We (the children) weren't kept abreast of all that happened in court in his week long trial. We knew the basics; people said he did this thing, which is a crime, but you need to understand that he didn't.

So he was found guilty and it was a massive shock all round. But the really terrifying thing was that in the papers, it was written 'MrFog did this thing, then he did this thing, then this...' as if it were all fact. People at school instantly took it as fact (not all, there were some sympathetic people, but there were others who felt their children must be kept safe from me as the child of a criminal.

In that case, the Judge gave a very, very light sentence. He had to go with the jury decision, but he knew that something was amiss. The conviction was repealed some years later after a long and gruelling appeal.

But the appeal was in the paper as a half column, and the page spread of 'he did this, he did that' still stuck.

For what it's worth, I thought exactly the same as Springy Nerf, it was taken out of context.

of all the excuses made for OP by various people on this thread are there specific examples you can give of where I or others have done this? I would be open to being wrong but aside from the Shakespearean post of a few threads ago, I thought those of us who aren't yet convinced of his guilt had tried to stick to debating the facts whilst still being open to opposing views.

(And there you have evidence of my bias. I'm very eager for all things to be fair for both Oscar and Reeva. The truth is more important than finding something one way or another.)

Equally, i was a victim of a sexual assault at the age of about eight which was never reported. I subsequently discovered my abuser was tried in court for over ten identical (historical) abuses against women who were the same age as me and found not guilty. I have no doubt at all that everything he was accused of was true but the papers then proclaimed his innocence, as did he.

Morning folks, I'm unfortunately in for a 6 hour shift and can't see the live feed from my phone so hoping the guardian is more reliable today.

Not sure what the point of the press revealing that OP sold his house, not really much of a surprise.

I'm hoping to listen, as soon as I've finished this work conversation. Seems a bit rude tell him to stop so I can listen to something unrelated.

(I'm allowed to listen, as long as I still do my work.)

With regards to the food in the stomach, I think the most interesting thing was, according to Nel during cross-examination, the pathologist could tell what she had eaten that night solely from the stomach contents. Nel seemed to be suggesting that the pathologist had not known what she had eaten, but it was still sufficiently undigested, that he could tell. He was arguing that even if stomach emptying was delayed, that the digestive process would have continued in the stomach and that it would have continued after death until the body was refrigerated. So that the food would have been much more digested if they had eaten when OP says they did, even if it was still present in the stomach. Which also suggests that if she had been snacking later on, there would have been different food in the stomach, unless she snacked on chicken stir fry also.

I don't know how accurate Nel's assumptions about digestion are - there will be different digestive enzymes in the lower intestine so it might be that it is not possible for food to get beyond a certain point of digestion in the stomach. But I can't help feeling it's another thing that is "possible but unlikely" to add to an already long list.

Stack, that was a terrible thing for you to go through only for you not to have any sense of justice.

I agree with you about Mrs Steenkamp attending the trial. I also feel that there has been enough evidence now to determine OP's guilt regardless of who the occupant of the toilet was. I think he knew it was Reeva. It is perfectly reasonable to make your mind up towards the end of a trial - I am sure jurors do it all the time.

Out of curiosity, how damaging is it actually to the State's case if the apparent corrections made by Wolmarans are in fact true? Other than making the police look unprofessional, I'm not sure how determining what bullet hit what and her positioning matter to the core argument of CH/Pre-med vs Involuntary action/self defence.

Can someone point me to the day of evidence where OP made "a fuss" about Reeva being unfamiliar with his diet needs? I seem to have missed this fuss.

On the subject of bending over backwards to defend OP, while I haven't really seen evidence of this, I have seen posts that are out and out attacking him, his family and his defence team - in one case calling the defence advocate a bastard for doing his job.

These are just as distasteful.

Looking, you may want the truth and I am sure we would all love to know what really happened but that is not how the adversarial system works.

Oh, I know that, Hillwalker. I'm just saying, I'd prefer that I personally didn't go into it in an adversarial manner. I want to try, insofar as is possible, to take both sets of evidence at face value.

I agree that's not always possible.

Annoyingly, I missed most of that. Hopefully I can engage more with the cross examination.

I am trying to watch trial lie whilst fielding numerous work phone calls. I may be mistaken but I thought I just heard Wolmaran, the ballistics expert, say that the bat came before the bullet at some point. If so, that would surely mean OP knew it was Reeva in the toilet, she wouldn't come out so he tried to break the door down, then lost it and used his gun. I might have it wrong because the phone won't stop ringing.

Anyone else listening?

say that the bat came before the bullet at some point.

At the exact moment he started talking about the bat, I needed to do something with an invoice, so couldn't concentrate on it. Sorry - I can't help there.

Just looking at tweets, it seems he said that as a ballistics expert the sound of a bat hitting the door and gun shots sound similar. Disclaimer, I'm not listening live just going on tweet updates.

Where is it possible to listen live please?