Pistorious - (free) Prime documentary about Oscar's trial

[XelaM]

Have anyone seen this? What did you guys think?

At the time of the trial I found his version of events completely improbable, however, having seen extracts from the trial in this documentary I must say that the defence's version of events actually makes more sense, particularly because:

1. The defence's timeline is a lot more realistic and ties in with what the witnesses had heard.
2. The next door neighbours (those closest to the house) never heard any arguments between them that night or a woman's screams.
3. Out of the thousands of messages between Reeva and Oscar the prosecution only found 4 that indicated any kind of mild disagreements between them and even those were followed by nice lovey-dovey messages.
4. He was clearly an extremely anxious and paranoid person in constant fear of intruders/hit men.
5. His reaction to her death was so extreme that I thought it came across genuine. It's also supported by witnesses who first arrived at the scene, so it wasn't just for show at court.
6. The police did an absolutely horrendous job contaminating/losing evidence.

I can see why he was eventually convicted of murder rather than manslaughter given that he must have intended to kill whoever was behind the door (whether Reeva or the intruder) but I do now believe that he may have mistaken her for an intruder.

I feel very sad about his downfall from being the poster-boy for overcoming incredible adversity to utter humiliation in front of the whole world. When he was asked to stand on his stumps during sentencing it was quite heartbreaking to watch.

What do you guys think about the documentary?

Apologies for the typos 😳

Did it have anything about the bath tub being battered? I don’t believe him.

I grew up in SA and consequently have a lot of friends there still.

IN SA no-one was surprised. He was always known as an arrogant nasty piece of work.

He’s as guilty as they come.

But Jenna - the girl with whom he had been for 5 years (and later got back together with) said he had never been violent in any way. The ex who came to the trial (Samatha Taylor) I didn't think came across very well. She was bursting into tears every time she mentioned that he had cheated on her. It came across (to me at least) that she had an agenda against him.

And what did you think of the actual evidence presented during the trial? I didn't think the prosecution's timeline made sense.

But he never actually checked that she was in bed. Never spoke to her, never whispered that he could hear someone in the bathroom.

What do people think she would have thought had she just woken up to the sound of gunfire.

It is completely implausible that he thought he heard someone, and being the paranoid person he was, didn’t even think to check on the woman he was with and would also want to protect, before showering the door with bullets.

I think he is guilty because I think he knew it was her in the bathroom. My dh is from SA and wanted to watch the trial live and MIL still lives in SA and said as pp that over there the feeling is he is guilty and entitled

@AlternativePerspective According to him, he spoke to her just before he went to bring the fans in, which is why he thought she was in bed. Then when he heard the "intruder" he was shouting for her to call the police

He may have been arrogant and entitled, but it didn't come across that he had any motive at all to kill her. Plus, he had a history or extreme paranoia over intruders

Well he wasn’t exactly going to admit that he didn’t even check that she was there because he knew she was in the bathroom and thought he’d kill her there. Y’know, what with him being on trial for her murder n all.

I get what PP are saying but if you watch the documentary and the extracts from the actual trial, the prosecution's version of events doesn't tie in with the evidence

Documentaries are deliberately made to create a certain opinion.

They will spin something in a way which makes the viewer come to the conclusion they want them to.

I watched enough of the extracts from the trial at the time, and there’s no way he’s innocent.

And he was never convicted of murder because the prosecution proved he intended to kill Reeva. They never managed to prove that. He was convicted of murder because he must have intended to kill whoever was behind the door.

Plus the defence used a load of amateurs to prove their point, some kind of sound engineer for instance to talk about how the sound carried or didn’t carry. Not a professional among them.

It was like amateur hour.

But why would he suddenly kill her? There was no history of violence in this or any of his relationships.

It doesn’t matter who he intended to kill. The fact he intended to kill someone means he’s a murderer.

Killing someone is only mitigated by self defence, and given that the person was behind a locked door he couldn’t use that mitigation because he wasn’t under threat.

Men suddenly kill women all the time, unfortunately.

@AlternativePerspective Well, I would say that the police in this case was so appallingly incompetent in preserving evidence that the defence witnesses came across a lot more credible. But in particular, the next door neighbours supported Oscar's version of events. Only the neighbours much further away claimed to have heard an argument

But why would he suddenly kill her? There was no history of violence in this or any of his relationships. that we know of.

Nobody can possibly say that there was no history of violence against her. Nobody knows.

And at least one of his former girlfriends testified to his bad character.

And he had a history of violence as an individual, had previously been accused of road rage and he was known to have an obsession with guns.

@XelaM

I get what PP are saying but if you watch the documentary and the extracts from the actual trial, the prosecution's version of events doesn't tie in with the evidence

The documentary has obviously been written to get viewers, trying to be controversial and is not balanced.

As I said, I understand why he was convicted of murder. I just think his version of events could have been genuine. It doesn't mean he wasn't guilty of murder though, as he must have intended to kill whoever was behind the door, even if he thought it was an intruder

I didn't think his ex was a good witness at all. She was more distressed about his cheating and never said he had been violent, only that he had shot a gun in the air for fun

@XelaM you know violent behaviour isn’t literally being violent in terms of hitting etc right?

If someone shot a gun in the air ‘for fun’ in my presence I’d feel pretty bloody threatened, because that is couldn’t behaviour.

That type of behaviour escalated.

He did have an obsession with guns and a paranoia about intruders and hit men. I think that actually supports the fact that he went into "combat mode" when he thought someone was in the house