Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 8

[Roussette]

here is Number 7.

I think the timing was so quick that even if she thought about ringing someone, there just wouldn't have been the time to dial the number... maybe she was terrified, maybe her hands were shaking, maybe she just thought she'd talk him down and they'd go back to bed.

(30 seconds) - quicker than getting a gun, surely?

Do you think? I would have thought pulling a gun from under a bed and unholstering it would take a lot less than 30 seconds. Even if you add the cocking of it.

30 seconds is a long time.

Rousette - so many maybes. That's what makes this case so sad for the Steenkamps. Unless they can be certain that Oscar is telling the absolute truth, they won't get any answers.

Yes Looking I agree. They have to find a truth they can live with somehow after this is all over.

quicker than getting a gun
I remember reading an article that suggested the gun could have already been out for another reason prior to the argument. (I think it was just one of many hypotheses presented in the media and on the internet)

I'm not saying that it's true just pointing out that actually none of us have any idea where anyone or anything was that night. All we know with any certainty is that Reeva was killed in the toilet.

Because the gun shouldn't be kept loaded?

For the Nel lusters - Gerrie helps tidy the court room

I think that a great deal of our difficulty is that Nel only tried the parts of the trial that he wanted to to secure a conviction
It isn't like on television

His pov imo is that an innocent person ended up dead, whilst locked in a toilet

He worked back from there to see if the person pulling the trigger 4 separate times did so knowing that it would likely end another person's life

I think the whole motive side of things wasn't at all interesting to Nel
I think he was after intent from there he just wanted to show that OP's actions weren't reasonable

This is why we didn't hear about why there was unaccounted for blood above the bed
We don't know why his bedroom door was bashed in
We have no idea why Ms Steenkamp's jeans were on the ground outside the bathroom window
Why didn't he call an ambulance immediately after firing through the door? Why wait until all his other faffing about?

OP and his team tried to muddy the waters by talking about a great love story and the dreadful loss OP is facing and how hard this has been for him.
They have tried to reframe him as a vulnerable, anxious, disabled man
Their focus was why would OP want to kill his great love? He wouldn't therefore it must be a terrible accident and we should feel horribly sorry for him.

It doesn't address the issue is that he killed someone even though he had lots of other options open to him.
He simply didn't act reasonably.

I might feel differently if he had shot once through the door as it was opening or if there had been an intruder and he had hit him by a ricochet or safety shot.

I think we are so used to having an ending that anything unexplained really gets to us now

The gun should never have been under the bed in the first place.

It should have been locked away

these came up on my twitter feed

Defence case

State case

a little part of me wonders if perhaps this has been deliberately released to show that his story hasn't changed in essence from the very first telling (Ie the reconstruction) and also so that people will feel sympathy for him having seen him in a very vulnerable (Without legs) way.

Maybe a very cynical and deliberate leak?

It does seem a cynical ploy... however it's the Judge & her team deciding the verdict, not a jury who might be swayed.

Or maybe someone unscrupulous is just out to make a fast buck?

Isn't it a link to a newspaper artivle? I read the defence one and it didn't seen pro oscar.

Yes Nerf - I am confused too, aren't these just journalistic summaries? They're not leaked versions of the actual State or Defence cases..?

Surely they must be summaries. The arguments are being written at the moment; they may well (probably do) exist in draft form, but they won't have been finalised. They'll be handed into court on the 30th for the Prosecution, and a few days later for the Defence. Masipa then has a few days to read them, then they'll be arguments in court.

There isn't an official thing to leak yet.

Those links are from Rebecca Davis, a journalist and blogger.

I didn't realise people thought they were closing arguments

My comments about a fast buck related to the reenactment.

Sorry.

I seem to have confused you all.

I made one post with links to a newspaper article in which the case was summed up by a journalist.

Then another post commenting on the video that was leaked and broadcast in Australia.

Sorry for not being clear.

Arguments in court? In what way? Sorry I am totally unfamiliar with SA law processes. Can someone explain please.

Closing arguments by the state and the defence where they sum up their cases in front of the judge (and/or jury) before the judge (or jury) heads off to consider all the evidence and testimony and then give a verdict.

Thank you Stack. Do they interrupt each other then to make their point?

Possibly being dragged out cos the judge does not know what to do for the best

Eh? Over the past several weeks both State and Defence have been putting each of their cases forward. Now that the Defence have finally finished presenting their evidence, Court has adjourned for both parties to compile their final 'argument' in support of their case. This will then be presented to the Court.

digdeepforanswers I thought it had been common knowledge that this was the process.

There has been a huge amount of evidence presented and many, many witnesses. It is surely only right that both state and defence put together their closing arguments properly. Hardly dragging things out

I am also a bit confused as to how you could think this is a ploy by the judge because she doesn't know what to do for the best.

I would imagine she will be very clear about what is the right thing to do. To suggest otherwise is quite disrespectful of her experience, knowledge and ability to do her job.

Stack I did wonder the same about the video. The defence said they didn't provide the video and that it was leaked illegally. But I also read a statement that said the defence knew the TV programme had a copy of the video and were going to broadcast it. The defence then advised it had been obtained illegally and asked the programme not to broadcast it till after the trial had ended. From the trailer, the accompanying programme also seemed to be supportive of OP.

There was a good article in The Guardian this week about how Roux may be setting the grounds for appeal by saying witnesses wouldn't testify because the trial was televised. It also said Roux could have forced those witnesses to testify but chose not to.

I'll feel so sorry and angry for Reeva's family if, after sitting through all this horrendous testimony, the defence are granted an appeal because of the decision to televise the case.

Surely though, if he could have forced them to testify but didn't, then that is his problem? If it was out of his hands entirely, then I can understand him having a case.

Did anybody watch that video? Was it available over here at all? My thoughts are that it raises many questions which are difficult for both cases - in particular why did the defence make such a big part of their case being that he was very vulnerable and could hardly walk or balance on his stumps, if they were then going to in any way encourage the showing of a video which demonstrated otherwise?