Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 8

[Roussette]

here is Number 7.

Roux countered that OP said that he braced himself against the back wall when he shot.
hmm - I haven't heard that said before, that OP was balanced against a wall. Is this a new idea, or did the defence tell us this before?

Hello. I lurked through the previous threads but might chip in sometimes.

The leaning against a wall explanation helps and hinders the defence. Helps explain his stability whilst firing a gun on stumps. Hinders the defense that he shot without conscious thought.

BeCool my recollection is this has been referenced before...

While I don't remember it, Roux read it from a record - either the statement or the examination of OP.

I'm falling asleep listening to Lin and all his DBA's!!

It is hard going. I'm waiting for individual questions.

It was mentioned before that he leant against the wall. I don't know why but it stuck in my mind at the time. I think because it seemed to imply to me that OP was making very conscious decisions at that point ie staying close to the wall so he would have a clear sightline on anyone exiting the toilet, and staying close to the wall so he could steady himself for shooting.

Jill yy sorry I misunderstood you. It definitely would have made sense for the defence to have conducted their interviews/tests prior to the trial.

OneStep sorry I think my post was a bit confusing. We don't know the findings of the report yet except that both defence and prosecution agree that OP was capable of judging right and wrong, and acting in accordance with that. So as Looking said OP might still have had GAD but it wasn't such as to hinder his ability to take responsibility for his actions.

A helpful recap on Twitter relating to who could have heard what at what distance...

Aislinn Laing @Simmoa
Lin: "The listeners could have heard a scream from 80m away, irrespective if it was from toilet, bathroom or balcony."

Aislinn Laing @Simmoa
So just to recap, Estelle van der Merwe, who heard an argument, shots and a woman's screams, was 80m away

I haven't got my file with me at the moment, so I can't recall how far Burger was, but to my recollection, it was 170m away, which Lin says is beyond the distance to be able to hear and distinguish emotion.

Marvellous timing:

Aislinn Laing @Simmoa
Michelle Burger, who said she heard a woman's "terrified, blood-curdling" screams" and shots, lived 177m away

Can someone remind me whether there was a manservant on the premises, and why he has not given evidence. Or have I made that up?
Ex lurker here.

Frank says he didnt see or hear anything

The surgeon's evidence was strange.

'In these circumstances he is likely to fall over.'
'But he didn't fall over.'
'Oh.'

Not really getting much chance to keep up to date.

Did I read correctly that Gerrie Nel, who spent so long going over the movement of the fans, and the lengths of cables, doesn't actually have the physical evidence to back up his assertions that OP was lying about this?

Quick read of posts since yesterday. Knowing the reputation of both Nel and Roux I wouldn't have used the term "clutching at straws" for any of the evidence or witnesses. They must know what they are doing, or trying to do.

I would have thought the evidence of mobility on stumps would be very important and very relevant. Whether we (or Judge Masipa) have a clearerpicture is another matter.

Enjoying my holiday. But frustrated that I keep losing my wifi connection. Live streaming isn't working for me at all, unfortunately.

Yes, basically the extension cord that the State claimed was too short to allow the fans to be where OP said they are, is lost. The police do not have it on the inventory of items seized from OP's house & the police were responsible for the integrity of the scene.

Gosh. member that's shoddy. So the lengthy cross examination about the fans can neither be proved or disproved now.

I have missed the whole of this morning. Will tune in now for Nel's cross examination.

The twitter response was that the sound engineer was a good witness, calm and unshakable.

The extension cord wasn't part of the inventory so that means it was left at the scene then it went missing.

I'm struggling with how they can blame the police for something going missing from the house that the police hadn't classed as crucial evidence.

It seems lax of Nel to base part of his case on a piece of evidence that he had neither seen nor asked to be seized as evidence but I don't see it proves the police are shoddy. By necessity, they left a lot of items in the room and the house.

Looking the sound engineer seems much better than the previous defence witness. It's been interesting reading the different live updates, they definitely tend to favour definitive statements rather than actually including the more nuanced information that the engineer actually provided.

Over for today.

I'm struggling to see the point of the Manager as a witness. It seems as though they can line up people to say 'Oscar is a lovely man; I never heard of any problems with him' and we can line up people to say 'he had a fiery temper - I saw him shout at so and so'.

In the manager's case, surely he is bound to be prejudicial. This is a man who has been paid by Oscar for a specific service; to show him in the most attractive light possible to further his employment opportunities. That's his job, isn't it?

I mean, I can see why they feel the need to big up the friendly-Oscar side for the case; I'm just slightly fatigued by it. I suppose it isn't fair, because the prosecution side happened when the case was still fresh. A part of me is thinking 'when will they stop bringing forward people to say how lovely Oscar was?'

Apart from anything else, I can well imagine that he is both lovely and he has a fiery temper, depending on his circumstances and what's going on that day. The 'I saw him shout once!' thing starts to look shady as soon as you think 'who has heard me shout ever?' Equally the 'he's amazing, I'm happy to have him in my life!' can be said regularly by many people.

Though I must say, if I were someone's manager, and they were away with a team, and the team coordinator called me to say 'there's an issue between your client and the person they're sharing with - don't worry, I've separated them...' my first question in response would be 'what happened?'

I think I'd want to check in with my client to check that the new arrangement was satisfactory, and that he wasn't struggling with anything that might affect his performance. I'd be eager to check that he didn't feel attacked or hard done by.

I say that having never been a manager of anyone beyond a team at work though, so maybe it works differently with agents and the like.

Book, if you were referring to me, I didn't mention the police. I meant it was shoddy to use something to try to say the defendant was a liar and not Beale to produce it. That is shoddy.

Looking, did he mention the incident with Arnu Fourie and the room sharing?

That was the incident that Nel asked him about, which apparently he knew nothing about. He knew that they had been separated when the team coordinator called to tell him, but didn't ask who had asked to be moved or why. Nor did he call Pistorius to ask about it.

I'm struggling with how they can blame the police for something going missing from the house that the police hadn't classed as crucial evidence.

From what I can make out, Masipa was pissed off with the police. It was their responsibility to lock down the scene, and it stayed locked down for a long time. Everything that was removed from the house should have been logged and should have gone on the inventory.

Anything that was not on the inventory should have remained in the house. So basically, everything was in one of two police-controlled places; the evidence store or in the house. When Aimee packed a bag for Oscar, she did so with a police officer watching her. We know that things were lax during that time, as she removed Reeva's handbag. It was the police responsibility to spot that and control it.

The cable is neither on the inventory nor in the house during the time that the site was in police control, so she wants to know why that is. We know it wasn't there while the house was still under police control, because Roux said he'd looked for it there.

I agree that Nel shouldn't have used this as evidence without knowing where it was and that it had been properly logged and measured.

AmI no I wasn't referring to you. Sorry if it seemed that way. I was actually referring to the Judge, Roux and the media. They all seemed to be blaming the police but it wasn't clear to me when Roux looked for it. I thought he'd looked for it recently and I imagine the house is no longer under police control since it's up for sale.
Perhaps I misheard and Roux looked for it much earlier in the process.

Sorry Book, that came across unnecessarily snippy, which wasn't meant.

I think it should be Nel's responsibility to ensure a piece of evidence vital to his cross examination is in
fact, available.

Interesting line of questioning on the Fourie room sharing thing. I am surprised that Nel is questioning on a newspaper article. I would have expected a statement from him.

I seem to recall, although I have read so much, the article was emphasising OP's temper, but am sure Arnu said that he had been quoted out of context. Will be interesting when Roux re-examines.