Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 8

[Roussette]

here is Number 7.

How OP's family can refer to Nel as 'evil' god alone knows because he is just doing a job. Same as Roux. And if it were my DD that had her life taken from her in such awful circumstances, you can bet your bottom dollar I would spend every penny I had getting the best prosecutor in the country to stand up for her... evil or not. Yes, they should stay away from social media.

I think the way that the older members of the Pistorius clan have behaved is disgraceful from start to finish.

Aimee & Carl have managed to be supportive of their brother without seeming to be disrespectful of the process....but Uncle Arnold et al, not so much.

They seem to be continually smirking throughout the proceedings and that comment about a Fiat vs a Mercedes was awful. Not to mention "We want him back in the Olympics".

It almost seems as if they are affronted that he is even on trial in the first place. Not hard to see where OP gets his entitled, arrogant attitude from.

Yes Helena I read that somewhere (Uncle Arnold/Olympics and "we have done enough").

Do they not imagine what sort of effect these statements have on the family of Reeva? To speak like this is disrespectful, mean and plenty of other words that I better not say

And do they honestly think he could possibly be a member of an Olympics Team after this? I am not sure he would be accepted by the general public, let alone taking into account the media circus that would follow him.

For me the acid test of the behaviour of the older members of the Pistorious clan is how would they feel if their roles were reversed with those of the Steenkamps. Their behaviour is disgraceful.

I agree Carl and Aimee have been able to show support to OP with dignity and respect for the Steenkamps and the court process, the have set a very good example, pity the older ones can't follow.

Helena I think you're right (as is Nel) that you have to look at the mosaic in its entirety.

Having read the Heads of Argument, I also think he should be found guilty of deliberately murdering Reeva. With the Judge's history in domestic violence cases I would expect him to be given a heavy sentence.

However I think he will then appeal.

Sky programme very interesting. Legal expert says Gerrie Nel pushed him into the several defences situation.
Someone now talking about him yawning.

Apparently he admits the restaurant charge and roux says he should be found guilty.

Nerf, that's possibly tactical to show OP can take responsibility, however, no-one was hurt in that incident so it would seem it is, compared against the main charge(s), fairly minor. I imagine that he would be looking as a suspended sentence or fine on that charge.

Prosecutor saying judge didn't ask enough questions during the summaries. Really interesting to see what South African professionals are saying.

I posted that because I thought someone had posted he was pleading not guilty to all charges.
No another judge saying he was surprised that the judge and assessors didn't ask questions.

Maybe because this has been televised Judge Masipa decided to hold back, or maybe that's her normal style / approach; to not give any hint of which way she may be leaning.

Although to me, if she wasn't leaning towards sentencing I would be astounded and dismayed.

It's how far she's leaning that we don't know.

I like Judge Masipa. I trust her judgment will be fair, precise, considered.

I just wonder if it's grounds for appeal - question mark over whether the judge needed to clarify things for her decision.
It's interesting to hear from legal people in SA. I appreciate they might be picked for a particular view.

He did plead not guilty to all charges, Nerf. The fact that Roux suggests that the judge should find him guilty if she finds that he did ask for the gun and have it passed to him isn't the same as OP changing his plea.

It was an interesting moment in the court. Roux countered Nel's contention that OP couldn't admit fault and showed no remorse for any of it, and Roux said on the contrary, in the situation in Tasha's restaurant, he admits he made a bad mistake and he's very sorry for it.

The judge asked what she should find him then, and Roux said something along the line of IF she found that he did ask for and take the weapon, she should find him guilty.

So OP says he was wrong and showed remorse, but not sufficiently to change his plea to guilty.

I shall look up that programme - thanks for the tip; it sounds interesting.

There are two , both on Sky and repeated but one is on Prosecution and the other on Defence.

Sky News, sorry.

www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/oscar-pistorius/53387/oscar-pistorius-described-as-deceitful-witness-live

This is interesting too

That's an interesting article Nerf. Can't believe that the Defence is arguing that OP acted 'reasonably'.

Because of his 'reasonable' actions, a beautiful young woman is dead at his hands. Bizarre.

Yes I'm trying to read things that seem quite objective or informed . Twitter is okay -the Telegraph bloke 'why I'd find OP guilty' posted to say that's not what he'd said.
Really seem to be opposing views out there. Can't call it.

I know this is out of left field but I have always wondered what the financial meeting was about on Feb 13. OP made it clear in testimony that he could not be late. Reeva's response has always stuck with me. RS to OP – It’s a difficult thing to try to console you baba because it’s a shitty thing and you’re a nice guy. I guess these things happen and we can just hope they work out for the best. You are an amazing person with so many blessings and you are more than cared for. Your health and future monetary blessings far out weigh this hurdle I can promise u that. I found where The lawsuit against Taylor-Memmory (the lady that was suing him for slamming door on her) was scheduled to go to court Feb. 20 but was delayed because of the bail hearing, according to Taylor-Memmory’s attorney.

Maybe OP was meeting with his financial people on Feb 13 to deal with the pay out on that. I think the response from RS would make sense if that was what the meeting was about. Just a thought.

For me, when I step back and look at the whole picture, I just cannot believe his story at all.

I've gone between thinking he's guilty and not guilty throughout the trial when the individual parts of the sequence of events were looked at, but when I actually think about the fact that:

A man with a temper and a clear love for guns shot at a locked door when he knew his girlfriend was staying over and didn't bother to check where she was, didn't see her etc etc

It's just bullshit to me. I have nothing against OP other than the fact he took a life just like that

I just keep thinking of Reeva.

Me too.
Overall, I want to believe him. And he has been consistent and I think some of the so called discrepancies can be put down to nuance and stress.
But:
So dark you could move the fans but not see anything?
A damaged panel and door?
A phone and shorts in the loo?
Maybe arguing overheard?

I don't think there is a watertight case for him deliberately shooting Reeva, but enough to prove he would have known he would probably kill or seriously injure the person behind the door.

Plus his tweets are weird and he / his pR responded to a prolific OP supporter recently on there which is weird.

I don't think there is a watertight case for him deliberately shooting Reeva

This is my feeling too. The main difference between OP's story and what I think happened, is that he knew it was her much, much sooner than he says he did. Possibly as early as between the first and second bullets.

Looking if that's the case, would he have carried on shooting? Wouldn't he have stopped in horror and tried to save her?

I don't want this to be the case, but because of all the strange things - not just one or two things but loads of odd things - I do think he knew it was her. I just think that they had a massive disagreement, I think he told her to f**k off from his house, she was dressing to do that, and his rage overtook him. He has shown rage in incidents before he met her and I think he is/was volatile and unpredictable.

There are many elements that go to make up OP - his disability, his love of firearms, his sporting prowess, the adulation of him by others, his fame, and all of this goes to make him the person he is and has contributed to this awful scenario. When everything is going well you give people the benefit of the doubt, he overcame enormous odds to become an olympic success and an icon, so people overlook the drunken boat incident, the boorish behaviour, the volatile character etc... blowing off steam, just Oscar being Oscar etc, but then there's a dead woman in his bathroom and it all changes.

I think Roux may have muddied the waters enough with the timeline to insert some reasonable doubts. Frustrating, because the answers to why it doesn't seem to fit the State's case are right there in the witness testimony (which Roux very cleverly managed to avoid highlighting) but it's anyone's guess whether Milady and the assessors will pick up on that.

But listening to Nel again last night, he really did do a brilliant job demonstrating that, even if OP did not know it was Reeva, he still murdered the intruder. All of his actions were "goal directed" - picking up the gun, heading up the passage for a confrontation (being scared at the time does nothing to mitigate that) and then shooting four times.

"That's me. Oscar. I want to go and sort these robbers out" - "Yes, Milady". That's eventualis right there.