Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 8

[Roussette]

here is Number 7.

I don't think we'll ever know if there's more to this, or if it really was a terrible mistake.

I wonder how long his prison sentence will be. I think 5 years, I don't know why. Is house arrest a choice or is it prison only? Just thinking of the relative freedom he's had whilst on bail.

I think he'll get either nothing or a really severe sentence. I can't read Masipa: not sure what she thinks of OpS emotional displays or Nels theatrics/badgering.

I've read all the thoughts on frank but tbh could you let a man be convicted of something worse than he claims? Not sure that's honourable.

I still feel the same as I did at the start. I think that OP liked guns a lot because they made him feel more confident and that one way he dealt with feelings of inadequacy or whatever was by being a bit of a tosser with a firearm. I think his behaviour with guns was no more sinister than his many shiny watches or posh cars - all part of being flashy, almost what I think of as small man syndrome (not meaning his disability as such - just a need to feel better than others, or a way of using possessions to prove yourself). I wish I was more eloquent!

Essentially , I think that background plus a fair bit of anxiety around crime set him up to make an enormous error. I don't think he meant to shoot reeva, I think he did mean to shoot the "intruder" though. I think he was a bit of an immature, gun happy idiot who has made the biggest mistake if his life. I don't actually find him that likeable, but I don't think it was cold blooded murder.

I too think he will get five years - go culpable homicide.

I think he should have plead guilty to the lesser charges
He would have seemed a more 'honest' witness

I have felt that the defence team have been very poor. They have also been let down by trying to fit 'expert witness' testimony to the case as it is tried. I'm sure that this has been a strategy to give them the upper hand but it has horribly backfired IMO.
There was a year between OP killing Ms Steenkamp and the Trial.
Conducting the majority of the defence tests and reports once the trial began made them look as though their facts and version was movable and not anchored in unmoveable truth of what happened on the night of the killing.
Even testimony from the acoustics expert Lin looked questionable given that he conducted his tests a year later, after significant building work etc had taken place between OP and the ear witness's houses.
Some of the other experts were let down by overreaching their areas of expertise or by a lack of objectivity. It has been upsetting to watch in some areas.

I thought that the early prosecution witnesses were excellent and very damaging to OP.
I though OP's testimony was very damaging to him.

I wanted to think it was a mistake or an argument that had gotten heated and OP had tried to shoot the lock off both with fatal, horrible consequences.

Now I think that that doesn't matter - he intended to killed her or whomever was in the toilet

By his version
He advanced toward danger, past an exit, ignoring a panic button, immediate armed response and instead fired four bullets into a locked toilet door. He did not fire a warning shot or give the person a chance to be arrested or leave alive

By theirs
Witnesses heard screaming
Each added element of OP's version adds more improbability that it could be true
Ms Steenkamp left the bed and bedroom completely silently without his being aware of her movements in a small bedroom although they were both awake
He did not ask her if she heard anything
He did not check if she was safe
He had his back to the bed and the completely silent Ms Steenkamp during his entire fan wrangling whilst ( unsteady?) on stumps scenario
He did not empty the gun but stopped coincidentally after 4 shots - once the fatal head shot had been fired
He did not check out of the window for further intruders or a ladder once he had fired the shots. He knew there was no ladder or intruder/s
He did not check the house for Ms Steenkamp once finished shooting. He knew she was there.

I feel sorry for the families and friends but not for OP
This actually shocks me

I agree with everything you have said Ronald

Alllsoooo

Where is all the info we were promised by OP on police tampering?

Funny how several of us are thinking five years - it's what I think too. He has to get a custodial sentence of some sort I would think.

As to the immature, flashy tosser, yes totally and quite a few of his ex/friends seem to be the same from what I've read. What was Darren Fresco doing with a loaded gun in his pocket at a restaurant, showing it off to his friends? He's not a kid either, in his late 30s I think, so you'd think he'd know better.

I agree too with you Ronald. A fair summary and not what I would call an 'accident'. An accident to me is an unforseen or unplanned event with lack of intention. This was planned.... grab gun, advance on toilet, fire 4 shots.

What would be a fair and fitting outcome for OP I couldn't say but if I was Reeva's mother, I am not sure I would be happy with 5 years.

My thoughts on the whole thing have remained the same throughout the whole trial with the same sticking points, much of which Ronald posted.

Defence case is closed.

The State will file their arguments on the 30th July, the Defence will on the 4th August. They will argue the matter on 7th and 8th August (Thus and Fri).

Also making an order that there will be no publication of the contents of the 'heads of?' arguments order until they have argued in court. Masipa agrees.

They're being very close with these arguments - usually they give their arguments to the court register who stamps them in. In this case, they will be registered with Masipa's registrar for the stamp. They stay with her.

She got very cross (in her calm way) about the leaking of court documents. 'It's theft, as simple as that'.

Finally had a chance to read through last night's posts and this:

Conducting the majority of the defence tests and reports once the trial began made them look as though their facts and version was movable and not anchored in unmoveable truth of what happened on the night of the killing.

Is critical in my head.

We discussed yesterday why they might have filmed a re-enactment, given that it wasn't accurate in terms of size of rooms etc. To my mind, the most logical reason was so that all the team were clear on what happened. Then, from that, you work on proving what happened. So from 'it was very dark at this point' would trigger someone to get light readings from the room and surrounding area. 'I hit the door with the bat' would trigger the sound tests for the bat striking the door.

Some of the State case would have been a 'surprise' of sorts, as they wouldn't have known fully what State witnesses were going to say. So, for example, they might not have expected someone to say they heard an argument, so they might not have tested for distance of decibels until after that came up in court. But there were a number of things that came from Oscar's version alone, and it would seem these things weren't proven until way after the trial started - after he testified, in fact.

When the Pistorius family said that he hadn't managed to tell the whole story until he was in court - this to me is quite troubling. That the first time his defence team heard everything was after it was raised on the record. So they were hearing new 'facts', like, for example, the magazine rack not being where he thought it should be, which was instantly disproved by the Defence witness.

On top of all my concern of 'why didn't he check? Why didn't he get verbal confirmation of where she was?' is the more pressing concern - Oscar told his story in full for the first time over a year after the incident. Critical minute details were spoken only when he was in the dock.

That really, really bothers me.

I can't believe that a team as good and as expensive as Roux's didn't take him through every single event in minute detail before he got into the dock.

Thanks Looking

I'm not sure that June Steenkamp has an "acceptable" sentence in mind; at the outset, she said she wanted to hear the truth of what happened that night. I'm not sure she'll feel that has been achieved; I don't.

I have the same sticking points as Ronald re OP's testimony BUT I concede that his gung-ho arseholeishness may have peaked that night & he had some kind of tunnel vision about getting the bastard who had entered his house. From that point of view, I still think there was intention to kill.

The prosecution have successfully cast doubt on OP's version but haven't done quite enough to convince me beyond reasonable doubt that OP knew it was Reeva & therefore that he intended to kill Reeva.

I wonder if SA will televise trials in future - is Dawani's due to be broadcast? I really think that any witnesses need to have compiled their reports & handed them to the court before the accused's testimony in future. It may be that many of such reports aren't required if the authors don't appear in person in court but the lateness/cynical way with which the expert witnesses were asked to prepare reports makes truth less likely imo.

Cross posted with Looking's most recent post - agree totally.

BUT I concede that his gung-ho arseholeishness may have peaked that night & he had some kind of tunnel vision about getting the bastard who had entered his house.

Yes indeed. I honestly could not tell you whether I think he knew it was Reeva, or whether he thought it was an intruder.

I am beginning to be very swayed towards feeling that he definitely wanted whoever it was dead.

I do not envy Masipa.

Totally agree. I cannot categorically say 100% that he knew it was Reeva. There are things that sway me towards that but no one can say they know. Only he knows what was going on in his head in those fatal moments.

Also agree that he advanced on the door with the intent of harming/killing and that fact - I don't think - can be disputed, which is why he must be punished for this. We've been round the houses with personality disorders and the like and I think the courts have done the best job they can in the circs. Sentencing will be no triumph because it's a sad case and the taking of a life that should never have happened - a beautiful young woman lost her life in the most awful way.

Surely, if there are Defence witnesses who refuse to testify because their voices will be heard... surely the court could hear these witnesses without it being recorded or televised? Surely that would be the clearest and most fair thing to do for Oscar Pistorius?

Why would the court not do this in the interests of a fair trial?

See, I think he knew full well it was reeva behind that door.

StackALee I thought it was odd that Roux mentioned people didn't want to testify. It implied OP had been disadvantaged by the case being televised. I wondered if that could provide grounds for appeal?

Then again, surely if Roux thought those witnesses were crucial they could have been compelled to give evidence eg subpoenaed or the SA equivalent? (There wasn't point doing that with Franck because he stated he didn't hear anything at all).

Looking I thought that OP's family meant he hadn't told them the entire story prior to them hearing it in court. I assumed he had discussed it with his solicitors. Then when he was in court, he changed his testimony and his defence (from self defence to involuntary) hence why his team were then scrambling around to get reports and experts to support the new version iyswim

Anya I think he knew it was Reeva too but I'm very glad I don't have to decide. If I did then he would be given a heavier sentence than 5 years.

I don't think you can set a precedent that it's ok to advance towards even persons unknown (if we assume he didn't know it was Reeva) block any exit path for them, not warn them you are going to fire and then shoot 4 times into an enclosed space. There was no way for someone to leave that toilet safely.

"There wasn't point doing that with Franck because he stated he didn't hear anything at all"

I suspect their issue with Franck is that had he been forced to take the stand then the defence KNEW that NEL would question him in such a way that it would become clear that he HAD heard some thing but knew it would be detrimental to the case as well as to his job and it wouldn't have been good for the defence case at all.

That is a good point, Book. On the other hand, I don't know why so much of it seemed to be such a surprise to them.

I never did finish my transcription (other stuff got in the way), so some of that early and middle bit of it is hazy for me.

The thing about whether he knew it was her - I'm simply not sure it's been proven conclusively in court. There wasn't a (pardon the expression) smoking gun. There were several witnesses who say they heard a woman scream, but many others who were closer who said they did not. So the 'woman's scream' evidence rests on whom you believe.

We do know that though she had access to a phone, she didn't use it to summon help. We don't know why she didn't - only that she didn't. To my mind that could equally be because she didn't have time or the inclination to tell anyone about the row she was having, or it could be because there was no row and she didn't know she was in danger.

Oscar's story also doesn't make sense in parts. There are points where I hear Nel's voice saying 'that cannot be...' On the other hand, it makes sense that his behaviour following the incident was erratic - he'd just shot someone. I think at that point, the panic would be overwhelming. I think that there does seem to be a lie along the way, but whether that's the lie of knowing it was Reeva, or whether it was the lie of being so scared that he shot the intruder without intending to, that I don't know.

I believe it has been proven that he's culpable of the death. He didn't check for her whereabouts. He went to the bathroom with the intention of killing someone.

So regardless of my instinct that he rowed with her and got himself wound up into such a massive state that he flipped out and shot her - I don't know that there has been enough evidence presented that that is the case.

On the other hand, I don't know that the Defence have done a good enough job of proving it isn't either.

Hence my continued on-the-fence-ness.

IF they did have an argument I am sure her last thought would have been that he would shoot four times through a closed door!

Honestly, Stack, I'm not saying that she should have contacted someone or that she would have contacted someone. All I'm saying is that she have the means, but she didn't. I'm not suggesting a reason for that at all - I don't know. It's entirely possible that IF there was a row, she was panicked to the level that she forgot she had her phone there. Or that in her panic she couldn't unlock it. Basically, the whole thing becomes massively speculative in a way that it perhaps wouldn't if the phone had not been with her.

What I'm saying is; I'm glad I'm not making the decision. There are an awful lot of 'why did X do Y?' things in this case.

But either side could have called Frank. I don't really get why no one did. I suppose technically if his statement says 'I heard nothing' then Nel won't call him for the state because he can't very well attack his story and defence won't call because Nel then gets to cross examine (ie pick holes).
I still find it shocking that someone who must know something can avoid anything more than 'I heard nothing' when there has been a murder. And yes, I've heard all the poor Frank future employment arguments and still feel the same.

If they had a row and he followed her why not put his prosthetics on (30 seconds) - quicker than getting a gun, surely? That's a sticking point for me. If she locked herself in he could use his prosthetics to add stability to bashing the door down; why shoot her as your first reaction?