Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 8

[Roussette]

here is Number 7.

A neighbour witness said that the light was on - OP said it was pitch black. Nel has concluded with the orthopaedic surgeon that if OP was not wearing prosthetics then if the light was off, he most likely would have fallen over, and if the light was on, then he would have had better balance and might not have fallen.

Looking I'm live streaming whilst working (at home) and think Judge Masipa said something to that effect.... but I may be wrong!

I think I agree that examining him now doesn't tell us what his state of mind was then, however, it would be a startling recovery if he had GAD then but all of a sudden didn't now IYSWIM.

There is a special programme on sky news again tonight

Maybe the reverse effect of that is that if they'd been examining him last year, the natural reaction would be "well, of course he was xyz, he'd just killed his girlfriend, you can't rely on this" and so with some time and distance from the events they can be seen to be more neutral / objective.

It's that this work's been going on during the trial that I don't quite get, as I'd have thought these things would've been pulled together before it started. I don't know, I have no idea!

I only caught the start of it on BBC this morning but from reading here, the defence seem to have tied themselves in knots again.

Presumably this witness was to prove how vulnerable OP would have felt because of his stumps yet if he felt incredibly vulnerable then it just doesn't make sense to go towards an unknown threat. Plus it's thrown the issue about the darkness of the room into question again.

I am glad OP spent so long being evaluated because it removes any question about diminished responsibility, and at least the defence and the prosecution both agree on that.

I agree, BookABoo.

He's been vulnerable in the long term, and he's concerned about break-ins and so forth.

His decision seems to have been to buy a gun to resolve this. Now I can recognise that this is fairly commonplace in areas where there's high gun-crime - lots of people in South Africa own a gun for their own protection.

However, they are generally able bodied people. OP is not. So you'd figure that he'd put in place other things to ensure his own safety - not least because, according to this doctor, he may not be able to walk towards an intruder and shoot while carrying a gun in the dark. That's a disability he's always had; even with a gun, he might not be able to protect himself.

So he might, for example, have a panic button, have a sensible escape route planned and so forth.

I simply can't compute being in that position and thinking 'I will move, in a precarious fashion, knowing that I cannot protect myself, knowing that I can't outrun anyone, towards the danger.

Especially not when the bedroom door is lockable, and an equal distance away.

Jill they didn't examine OP last year because his defence wasn't diminished responsibility.

The defence witness diagnosing GAD on the stand, changed everything. Plus iirc she made her diagnosis fairly recently. That meant OP had to be evaluated as if he had GAD recently then he could have had it on the night in question. It has to be clear that he is capable of judging right from wrong and that he has no disorder to impede that decision making process.

I know what you mean about the fact his mental state could have changed from then till now but I wonder if the evaluation included questions about what happened that night. If it did then I'm guessing the psychiatrists would evaluate whether his responses seemed to be impacted by any kind of disorder or condition.

The time gap isn't ideal but I think a 30-day evaluation with an unanimous report at the end which both defence and prosecution support, is quite a robust finding.

Morning, ok I can't stream at the moment so I am relying on all here to keep me up to date as to what's happening.

So, does the report show he has no MH issues at the moment, and they all agree with that? Naughty pysch then for putting that forward but good that that's cleared up. And we have a doctor now talking about whether he could walk in the dark? That's important although I've forgotten what he originally said, he was on stumps? If so, fab post Looking

Maybe putting him back on the stand may be a good idea Jill although I think he would tie himself up in unknottable knots.

Will this ever end though!

Book I mean the other defence witnesses that have spent time with him before the break for psychiatric examination - quite a lot of those witness testimonials were done with OP, after the trial had started....

does the report show he has no MH issues at the moment, and they all agree with that?

No - that's not quite it, but they haven't covered that report in depth. Nel has implied that it shows he has PTSD from the events of that night. It says he didn't have anything at the time that would either cause him not to know right from wrong, or cause him to act in a way out of accordance with right or wrong.

So he either didn't have GAD at the time, or if he did, it was not such that it caused him to act in any way outside of his knowledge from right or wrong.

In short form (again, from what I can make out) he had no reason to be so scared that he pulled the trigger almost without wanting to.

Ah, thanks for the clarification Looking hmm so interesting though and a good summing up I think.

I've once again needed to break for work, so I'm at the point where Nel is squirming about the missing extension cord. Roux wants it. Nel doesn't have it. It's not on inventory, it's not still in the house. It's quite obviously a police fuck up.

Masipa is not happy.

Sound expert on now.

How are you streaming it?

Hello all - I have limited access during the day but I'm trying to keep up with this.

If he is so wobbly on his stumps, how can he fire a gun 4 times so accurately? I've never fired a gun, but surely you need to be quite stable as they have some force. Yet he managed to get the 4 shots quite close together which tells me he wasn't that wobbly at all?

I have it on BBC, Catinbootz.

BeCool, this is one of the points Nel made to the doctor. Roux countered that OP said that he braced himself against the back wall when he shot.

The defence is that he had his back against the wall to keep him stable, although the prosecution think its because he was ready for the recoil.

Sorry, cross post!

Just catching up with this... hello all :)

Hello Godot.

I haven't watched any of the live footage but...

He wasn't stable enough to walk on his stumps, yet in a panic he stumbled over to the bathroom with his gun but, even though he was panicking and anxious, had the presence of mind to lean up against a wall so as to be stable when he fired his gun?

That just doesn't add up to firing out of sheer fear and speaks more of premeditation than anything else IMO

^yet in a panic he stumbled over to the bathroom with his gun...'

And remember, this is a gun with such a hair trigger that it went off four times without Pistorius intending to fire at all.

Then he went back, gun in hand, to the bedroom, and still on his stumps, he crawled across the bed, searched for Reeva behind the bed, opened the balcony curtains, called for help, went back into the bedroom to finally get his stumps which would give him stability at last.

This, for me, has always been one of the two hardest things to believe about OP's story. I'm not saying it didn't happen that way, but I am saying it seems odd, particularly in light of his most recent statement.

Sorry - not 'his' most recent statement. His most recent defence witness statement.

Yes, it's interesting that Nel is now focusing on the pre-meditated aspect of leaning against a wall to shoot. I haven't heard that dwelt on before.

Hello Looking :)