Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 8

[Roussette]

here is Number 7.

I know defence can leave out stuff that they think is prejudicial to their case but in this case they've lead witnesses to submit testimony which totally contradicts. Surely that's giving false evidence rather than lying by omission??

Can't remember op's testimony - shooting on stumps, opening door on legs?

Was it actually Oscar who did the re enactment? Considering he could not listen to evidence without throwing up, how has he managed to do the reconstruction without the same happening?

Will this have any effect on the trial?

It looked like Oscar to me

mobile.news.com.au/world/africa/video-to-air-on-sunday-night-reenacts-oscar-pistorius-shooting/story-fnh81gzi-1226979405355

This link works

Ronald we all know you think he's guilty as sin and therefore assume the worst of him and yes I agree it was a very foolish thing, at best, to film a reenactment. However, there is no evidence that the Pistorius family have had anything to do with the leaking of this or the story about the house. Somebody at the company who made it has allegedly sold this to a trashy tv company (it seems to be the tv equivalent of the Sun) for millions. A lot of people are making a lot of money out of this tragedy one way or another

I haven't watched it and don't think I will. It was never meant for public consumption but apparently was done as they were planning an animated reconstruction (not sure what happened to that). If someone had presented it in evidence that would be different but this is just disgraceful and the "vote" being run by the tv company is just as bad. I don't suppose anyone can charged with contempt of court, unfortunately.

Of course he is guilty, op shot her 4 times

Wow

I am reading that it was made as a visual to accompany the defense case.

That would make sense to me as the original state case had him wearing his prosthetic legs, which they said should the element of premeditation.

I agree Louise, that this appears to have been leaked to some shitey TV programme by someone who had access to the footage.

To say that the Pistorius family are complicit in the showing of this needs to be supported by some pretty strong evidence, I would think.

I've clicked the link, but I can't watch it. It just seems overly intrusive.

Considering that it has been well documented that OP does not like being seen without his legs, including during the court case, I'm not sure he would've chosen to have leaked it. But who knows.

The media around this case is an utter joke though. I hope SA looks long and hard about it's rules about subjudice.

Anya - I mean guilty of knowing who he was shooting - Ronald thinks he deliberately killed her and that it was dv. I'm not for one minute calling him "innocent" but I am far from convinced that he's lying.

On twitter, someone tweeting that OP's lawyers have issued a statement, which I will paraphrase:

Video was produced as part of preparing the case before the trial, Channel 7 have purchased this footage illegally.

Gosh There seems to be an attitude that since there's no jury it doesn't matter much what gets out there but I think that's totally wrong. It does matter.

Incidentally there are comments on Twitter linking the Myers lawyer to this I quote

"So is IanLevitt from C7 reenactment same as the Myers lawyer?"

I have no idea if it's true or just someone with the same name but there is also a rumour that the Steenkamps are giving this station an interview. Mind you there have been so many rumours surrounding this case of course.

What's wrong with the Steenkamps giving an interview ?

I have no idea why my last post was deleted. It was speculative at worst. I will be wholeheartedly surprised if the Pistorius family sue The Evidence Room for this footage going missing or being used illegally.

I find it all hugely distasteful. It is similar to the OJ Simpson trial.

Why would OP's sister pretend to be Ms Steenkamp for a re-enactment that was wholly unnecessary
I wonder if she ever considered the woman her brother had killed whilst playing the role? It quite beggars belief.
I also found OP being able to freely take part in an enactment surprising given his PTSD diagnosis. The defence has generally been atrocious for OP. This is more in a long line of dross and poor decision making.

Louise I do think OP killed Ms Steenkamp during a row.

I actively wanted to think otherwise.

Any idea why Pistorius would have to pose as Ms Steenkamp?

Worst thought through defence ever

From Twitter, it would seem that the Steenkamps were interviewed as part of that programme with June Steenkamp referencing at least one text Reeva sent her about Oscar.

If this was a walk through of the defence version of events, then it is neither unnecessary nor distasteful in my opinion.

It was clearly for the purpose of running the defence, not to be gawked at by joe public - and yes, I have gawked at it too.

Regardless of personal feelings about the subject, this wasn't a made for TV drama, it was something that the defence team made to map their defence.

Think what you like about Oscar Pistorius, but sly wee digs at his family are unnecessary

I didn't make a 'sly wee dig' I clearly stated that I thought his sister acted unwisely in 'playing' the woman her brother shot and killed.
I wondered if she had considered the enormity of that.

I think that this was a hugely distasteful and unnecessary thing to do.

There is no necessity for the defence to run a re-enactment.
There was no necessity to have an animation made.
They chose to do this for reasons unknown.
Others have questioned, throughout this trial, exactly the amount of justice that you can buy when rich in SA. I haven't, up to this point, but do now.

I haven't seen sly digs: it was recorded at the time of OP's testimony that Aimee Pistorius said that that was the first time that she had heard OP's account of that night because he'd previously broken down. Not just being present at the enactment but actually being part of it would seem to contradict this.

I don't know why your post was deleted either RonaldMcDonald

I presume his sister played the part of Reeva since they wanted someone they could trust to do so. Ironic of course, given what's happened but they obviously didn't expect someone to flog it to the press.

Why shouldn't the defence lawyers organise an reenactment or have an animation if they felt it helped them understand what happened that night? They obviously had their reasons, it just that WE don't know exactly what they were and why should we?

Incidentally all the money in the world doesn't help when people sell confidential stuff to tabloid tv does it?

Did she member, I don't remember that? I knew an aunt had said it but hadn't read that Aimee had said it too. If she said that, then that would indeed be contradictory. And there have been a few digs through the various threads ( as well as some outright accusations of evidence tampering)

Although there is also some debate on twitter FWIW about when this walk through was made.

Which would, in turn, leave open for debate why this was made.

I'm not a defence solicitor and have very limited experience of a murder trial, so wouldn't feel qualified to comment on whether this part of the defence, and one which is supposed to be limited to the defence team, was unnecessary.

Gah, was checking Alex Crawford's Twitter timeline but doesn't go back far enough to quote re Aimee Pistorius

The State originally said OP was on his prosthetics to shoot - this was prior to the court case. So I can understand why a reenactment to counter that may have been considered.