It depends on how you view Nel's questions. They're clearly designed to get Pistorius to incriminate himself so why would he answer them in a straightforward manner?
Because if everything happened as he said, then it's the truth and he can say it without fear and it would make some sort of sense.
Because that is his role of the accused in witness box BiB
OP has attorneys to protect his interest and a Judge to protect his rights
OP is expected to answer questions truthfully…that's it
But OP is constantly analyzing, anticipating, trying to outsmart the Prosecution, etc… all these things are killing him…and the worse part is that he does not even realize it !
And the only reason he does this is because he is trying, as you said, to avoid traps…but what person that is telling the truth is afraid of traps… there are never traps when you tell the truth.
Do you think M'Lady has never seen in her entire career accused that blatantly lie on the stand…of course she has…probably hundreds if not thousands…and do you think she cannot differentiate an accused that is lying from one that is telling the truth ?
Same goes for Nel and Roux… they very well know OP is lying as he breathes
A much better answer - that's it. OP doesn't come across as a man who did what he said he did. He seems to have no faith in his own version.
He also seems to see it as some sort of 'competition' with Nel, when if he was just a chap who'd mistakenly killed his girlfriend, he would answer straightforwardly.
Most people who just watch the highlights presented by the news seem to draw the same conclusion as you.
There are some of us who watch live every day, and forensically examine all the evidence presented, still think that the prosecution has yet to prove his guilt.......not many 'tis true, but there is room for doubt as the length of this thread proves.
I think pretty much all of us think that there's not enough YET to get Murder of Reeva.
It's - CH in the bag.
Murder of Reeva in process.
Many of us think he did it though. For a multitude of reasons that, together, make his story extremely unlikely.
Apologies if this has been said before but right back at the beginning of the bail hearing I found it really odd when reading OPs bail statement that he would choose to use the word 'screamed' when referring to himself.
Surely a 'macho' guy like him who loved his guns, fast cars etc would not use the term 'screamed'. He could have still convey his 'sense of terror' and vulnerability blah blah by using the term 'shouted' when describing his situation.
Unless of course he was intentionally using this odd choice of verb to bolster Roux's theory that Reeva's screams were in fact Oscar's screams.
Hmmm.
Yes - I agree in pursuit of an intruder he would attempt to be more macho, forceful & intimidating, not high pitch screaming. I could understand anguished, desperate screams (even like a woman) upon the realisation it was Reeva ie at the point he actually saw her, but not before.
apologies if this has been covered, but do the bathroom windows open from the outside? because if they don't, and oscar knows they don't, why would he assume it was someone opening them from outside to get in, as opposed to reeva opening the window?
If he had decided to fight instead of flight, if he had decided to try and scare off the intruder(s) and make them leave the house, then yes, it's certainly a plausible course of action.
This where I think Nel's questions are often unfair. So many times he asks for explanations of what could be instinctive, spontaneous, unconscious reactions. No-one can explain them.
Why did you do what you did? is something Nel repeats again and again and yet, if Pistorius's story is true, it's unlikely he'll ever know why he did what he did, so he says he doesn't know and Nel says 'that's not good enough, Mr Pistorius', so Pistorius stumbles around trying to explain it, and of course it comes across as evasive and suspect.
Trials try to bring fact and reason and logic and rationality into the light. Unfortunately incidents such as those suggested by Pistorius's story don't acknowledge logic and rationality. They can't. They are the outcome of instinct and irrationality and can't be completely explained, either at the time or with hindsight.
If he'd charged up the hall shouting - went kamikaze into the toilet shot it all up and killed who was behind the door - then YES, irrational, mad, stupid, instinctive, perhaps believable.
His story though? Not believable as instinctive, and the idea that 'irrationality' is an acceptable 'cover' for all the real inconsistencies and oddities in his account of the shooting, doesn't wash for me. More than likely to be a series of lies that don't fit.
Yes - I agree in pursuit of an intruder he would attempt to be more macho, forceful & intimidating, not high pitch screaming. I could understand anguished, desperate screams (even like a woman) upon the realisation it was Reeva ie at the point he actually saw her, but not before.
I find the silent ninja shuffling up the bathroom corridor, the seriously dangerous popping his head into the bathroom and checking it out without shooting at all.
And THEN moving into the bathroom, standing there and just starting to scream for a long time, incredibly difficult to believe - even if you think he was in some irrational state.
The chances of that being what he did, versus the idea that he made that bit UP in order to fit the screaming evidence, is, i believe vanishingly small.
apologies if this has been covered, but do the bathroom windows open from the outside? because if they don't, and oscar knows they don't, why would he assume it was someone opening them from outside to get in, as opposed to reeva opening the window?
The are sliding windows so i assume it's possible if they are not latched or locked.
This raises several issues.
Why don't the windows lock?
Why would a burglar ASSUME they could be opened from all the way down on the ground, and RISK going up a LADDER on that premise?
Why would OP think that?
Why wouldn't the alarm have gone off?
Why would this Ninja burglar creep up and then SLAM the window open?
Why would this burglar SLAM the door to the toilet?
It was very interesting to hear the legal expert talking to Jeremy Thompson on Sky outside the court. He confirmed that there are very strict laws in South Africa with regard to what can be claimed as a gun fired in self defence. You have to be heading away from the danger and you have to be in position where you are being pursued by the person who wishes to cause you harm and only then, can you claim defence if you use a gun. OP headed directly towards the "danger" and therefore put himself instantly in the role of aggressor. The general consensus from the legal eagles outside the court seems to be that Nel is doing a superb job of breaking down the entire fairytale being put forward. What on earth will Monday bring after today !!!
His testimony on the approach to the bathroom was the turning point for me, definitely culpable homicide not an accident. Like the Tony Martin case. Knowingly killing Reeva ? Nel has do more work to convince me.
apologies if this has been covered, but do the bathroom windows open from the outside? because if they don't, and oscar knows they don't, why would he assume it was someone opening them from outside to get in, as opposed to reeva opening the window?
Good point, i presume the prosecution have looked into it thou
Leading on from that, if what OP says is true Reeva did open the window, why would she do that? Considering she knew oscar had just got up to bring the fans and secure the balcony? Something he had asked her to do and she had forgotten???
Good point, i presume the prosecution have looked into it thou
Leading on from that, if what OP says is true Reeva did open the window, why would she do that? Considering she knew oscar had just got up to bring the fans and secure the balcony? Something he had asked her to do and she had forgotten???
Is it possible she had hung her jeans on the window to dry during the day? (I think it was mentioned that she was doing some washing) When she went to the loo, she remembered that she'd hung them there and was looking out the window to see if they'd fallen on the ground below?
not much hope of a first time poster being treated gently by the rabid trial junkies on this thread.
lack of sleep, combined with a seriious caffiene and nicotine addiction has made them irritable and crotchety, especially with annoying newbies who have a life and HAVEN'T FOLLOWED THE F***ING TRIAL FROM DAY ONE !!!!!!!
people are allowed to comment and not be ridiculed for their opinions by the usual high and mighty egomaniacs
is that right kappel ?
"There are some of us who watch live every day, and forensically examine all the evidence presented"
His testimony on the approach to the bathroom was the turning point for me, definitely culpable homicide not an accident. Like the Tony Martin case. Knowingly killing Reeva ? Nel has do more work to convince me.
I understand you view - i think CH is in the bag, but not yet Murder of Reeva.
What is influencing my view that he is guilty of that though, is the very NATURE of the evidence OP cites.
Trying to get off CH is ludicrous. He has to go in there with his gun, towards danger, shoot the door 'accidentally'. He's tried that - insisting on 'accident' but it CAN'T be, because he felt threatened and responded the threat - the noise.
Feeling threatened and making a response to that, ISN'T an accident, shooting your cat when cleaning your gun is an accident.
I've said this before but here goes -
It's like saying ' this big scary man was in front of me, I knew he had a gun, and then he moved his arm and I shot four bullets into him BY ACCIDENT'.
But that would work a thousand times better as self defence.
OP wants it to be self defense, and an accident, but the threat wasn't THERE, he was facing a door not an intruder. So that won't wash either - it's negligent.
Just wouldn't EVER wash, although OP tried.
The REST of his evidence is ALL ABOUT covering for a MURDER, it doesn't make sense as truthful, or as a cover for Culpable Homicide.
It only makes sense as a cover for the witness statements and evidence that there was a MURDER.
OP 'creeps along the corridor' and only shouts when he gets INTO the bathroom is because witnesses heard screams and then shots. Not loads of threatening many shouting from that window, but 'a woman screaming'.
Is it possible she had hung her jeans on the window to dry during the day? (I think it was mentioned that she was doing some washing) When she went to the loo, she remembered that she'd hung them there and was looking out the window to see if they'd fallen on the ground below?
It's a bit of a stretch that she would have hung them out of the bathroom window when the washing machine and utility room were downstairs, but not impossible.
This is why they were just shown by the prosecution. They can't prove they werent' there for an innocent reason. But they can now ask about them.
can't find a picture of the height of the bathroom window....can anyone remember if you could lean out of it, to see the ground below?
OP testified (regarding Dr Stipp seeing him through the window) just his head would be visible above the sill, top of the shoulder at most, so tricky to see verically down I would think.
Good point, i presume the prosecution have looked into it thou
Leading on from that, if what OP says is true Reeva did open the window, why would she do that? Considering she knew oscar had just got up to bring the fans and secure the balcony? Something he had asked her to do and she had forgotten???
I don't have a problem with her opening the window if his version of events is true.
Perhaps she thought 'Bugger me it's sweltering hot and he has just closed the only source of fresh air......I'll open the bathroom window instead'
I don't have a problem with her opening the window if his version of events is true.
Perhaps she thought 'Bugger me it's sweltering hot and he has just closed the only source of fresh air......I'll open the bathroom window instead'
I agree, it's understandable that she would open the window.
What's not so understandable is OP immediately thinking it wasn't her.
Did anyone pick up on the testimony from OP (right at the end) that Reeva had been in a similar situation before? Do we know anything about that incident? Perhaps, knowing the details, that gave him the idea to (re)use the intruder story?
Good point, i presume the prosecution have looked into it thou
Leading on from that, if what OP says is true Reeva did open the window, why would she do that? Considering she knew oscar had just got up to bring the fans and secure the balcony? Something he had asked her to do and she had forgotten???
Did they check for fingerprint`s on the window, to see if Reeva`s prints are on it?.
Two things that I am 100% positive OP is lying about:
1. That he was deeply in love with Reeva and they were planning a long term future together
2. That he was frozen by fear and felt extremely vulnerable and scared in his own house.
I don't know if he and Reeva had a row beforehand, I don't know if he knew she was in the toilet, but I'm pretty much positive that he was neither terrified of intruders or deeply in love with Reeva.
If he had decided to fight instead of flight, if he had decided to try and scare off the intruder(s) and make them leave the house, then yes, it's certainly a plausible course of action.
This where I think Nel's questions are often unfair. So many times he asks for explanations of what could be instinctive, spontaneous, unconscious reactions. No-one can explain them.
Why did you do what you did? is something Nel repeats again and again and yet, if Pistorius's story is true, it's unlikely he'll ever know why he did what he did, so he says he doesn't know and Nel says 'that's not good enough, Mr Pistorius', so Pistorius stumbles around trying to explain it, and of course it comes across as evasive and suspect.
Trials try to bring fact and reason and logic and rationality into the light. Unfortunately incidents such as those suggested by Pistorius's story don't acknowledge logic and rationality. They can't. They are the outcome of instinct and irrationality and can't be completely explained, either at the time or with hindsight.
Nel asks too many 'why' questions. Probably needs to put questions more tightly if he wants factual answers.
Yep Bus Stop. I know what your saying.....not my normal way of posting is it? But I have a fair excuse I was incredibly inebriated . Pissed as a newt;-)
I have no idea how I found those tweets and couldn't
do it again if I tried?^_^
Headache today then? I must say though, I have also scrutinised her twitter feed
OP testified (regarding Dr Stipp seeing him through the window) just his head would be visible above the sill, top of the shoulder at most, so tricky to see verically down I would think.
I think the prosecution still think that he may have been on his legs.
I also think that this idea will be checked. We only have Ops word for it that that is all they could see, although he's probably been told that.
If they saw a figure, not just a head, then he was on his legs.
Mangena said that he was most likely on his stumps, but that leaves room for the possibility that he shot with a different arm position.
OP testified (regarding Dr Stipp seeing him through the window) just his head would be visible above the sill, top of the shoulder at most, so tricky to see verically down I would think.
That was if he was on his stumps. His torso would be visible (as seen by Dr Stipp), he said, only if he was on his legs.
Did anyone pick up on the testimony from OP (right at the end) that Reeva had been in a similar situation before? Do we know anything about that incident? Perhaps, knowing the details, that gave him the idea to (re)use the intruder story?
It was simply a muddled and rambling explanation as to why Reeva would lock herself in the bathroom and remain silent while OP was playing at being at being Rambo/Don Johnson a few yards away.
Comments
Because if everything happened as he said, then it's the truth and he can say it without fear and it would make some sort of sense.
A much better answer - that's it. OP doesn't come across as a man who did what he said he did. He seems to have no faith in his own version.
He also seems to see it as some sort of 'competition' with Nel, when if he was just a chap who'd mistakenly killed his girlfriend, he would answer straightforwardly.
I think pretty much all of us think that there's not enough YET to get Murder of Reeva.
It's - CH in the bag.
Murder of Reeva in process.
Many of us think he did it though. For a multitude of reasons that, together, make his story extremely unlikely.
I read that between all of his family they own 55 guns.
If he'd charged up the hall shouting - went kamikaze into the toilet shot it all up and killed who was behind the door - then YES, irrational, mad, stupid, instinctive, perhaps believable.
His story though? Not believable as instinctive, and the idea that 'irrationality' is an acceptable 'cover' for all the real inconsistencies and oddities in his account of the shooting, doesn't wash for me. More than likely to be a series of lies that don't fit.
I find the silent ninja shuffling up the bathroom corridor, the seriously dangerous popping his head into the bathroom and checking it out without shooting at all.
And THEN moving into the bathroom, standing there and just starting to scream for a long time, incredibly difficult to believe - even if you think he was in some irrational state.
The chances of that being what he did, versus the idea that he made that bit UP in order to fit the screaming evidence, is, i believe vanishingly small.
The are sliding windows so i assume it's possible if they are not latched or locked.
This raises several issues.
Why don't the windows lock?
Why would a burglar ASSUME they could be opened from all the way down on the ground, and RISK going up a LADDER on that premise?
Why would OP think that?
Why wouldn't the alarm have gone off?
Why would this Ninja burglar creep up and then SLAM the window open?
Why would this burglar SLAM the door to the toilet?
His testimony on the approach to the bathroom was the turning point for me, definitely culpable homicide not an accident. Like the Tony Martin case. Knowingly killing Reeva ? Nel has do more work to convince me.
Good point, i presume the prosecution have looked into it thou
Leading on from that, if what OP says is true Reeva did open the window, why would she do that? Considering she knew oscar had just got up to bring the fans and secure the balcony? Something he had asked her to do and she had forgotten???
OP wakes up because he is really hot, it is hot and humid -
So he brings the fans in and shuts the doors and the curtains
"There are some of us who watch live every day, and forensically examine all the evidence presented"
Seem`s some are experts?.
I understand you view - i think CH is in the bag, but not yet Murder of Reeva.
What is influencing my view that he is guilty of that though, is the very NATURE of the evidence OP cites.
Trying to get off CH is ludicrous. He has to go in there with his gun, towards danger, shoot the door 'accidentally'. He's tried that - insisting on 'accident' but it CAN'T be, because he felt threatened and responded the threat - the noise.
Feeling threatened and making a response to that, ISN'T an accident, shooting your cat when cleaning your gun is an accident.
I've said this before but here goes -
It's like saying ' this big scary man was in front of me, I knew he had a gun, and then he moved his arm and I shot four bullets into him BY ACCIDENT'.
But that would work a thousand times better as self defence.
OP wants it to be self defense, and an accident, but the threat wasn't THERE, he was facing a door not an intruder. So that won't wash either - it's negligent.
Just wouldn't EVER wash, although OP tried.
The REST of his evidence is ALL ABOUT covering for a MURDER, it doesn't make sense as truthful, or as a cover for Culpable Homicide.
It only makes sense as a cover for the witness statements and evidence that there was a MURDER.
OP 'creeps along the corridor' and only shouts when he gets INTO the bathroom is because witnesses heard screams and then shots. Not loads of threatening many shouting from that window, but 'a woman screaming'.
It's a bit of a stretch that she would have hung them out of the bathroom window when the washing machine and utility room were downstairs, but not impossible.
This is why they were just shown by the prosecution. They can't prove they werent' there for an innocent reason. But they can now ask about them.
I don't have a problem with her opening the window if his version of events is true.
Perhaps she thought 'Bugger me it's sweltering hot and he has just closed the only source of fresh air......I'll open the bathroom window instead'
I agree, it's understandable that she would open the window.
What's not so understandable is OP immediately thinking it wasn't her.
Did they check for fingerprint`s on the window, to see if Reeva`s prints are on it?.
Totally agree.
Haha, that must have given you an interesting perspective when reading posts
Nel asks too many 'why' questions. Probably needs to put questions more tightly if he wants factual answers.
Headache today then?
54 now
I think the prosecution still think that he may have been on his legs.
I also think that this idea will be checked. We only have Ops word for it that that is all they could see, although he's probably been told that.
If they saw a figure, not just a head, then he was on his legs.
Mangena said that he was most likely on his stumps, but that leaves room for the possibility that he shot with a different arm position.
That was if he was on his stumps. His torso would be visible (as seen by Dr Stipp), he said, only if he was on his legs.
It was simply a muddled and rambling explanation as to why Reeva would lock herself in the bathroom and remain silent while OP was playing at being at being Rambo/Don Johnson a few yards away.