Oscar Pistorius Trial (Merged)

12042052072092101023

Comments

  • sandy50sandy50 Posts: 22,043
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Donmack wrote: »
    Sorry, not followed the whole conversation between you both.

    I would be amazed if he didn't experience some level of remorse, but then I have never been of the opinion that the murder was "premeditated" in the full sense of the word. I think he intended to kill at the moment he fired the trigger. Possibly, he was just threatening her with the gun up until then without planning to shoot.

    I know not everyone feels that way, but that's always been my feeling.

    So, he could well have felt remorse. But his desire for self-protection dwarfs any of that, which is why he's lied and lied and lied again.

    As Nel says, in the final analysis, it is ALWAYS about Pistorius. He's the one that really matters.
    well that's my take on it, and I think the Judge will see remorse after the fact, but because he's made up a version to save his own neck, confuse the court, he's deceptive and conniving, and a real nasty bit of work - think she'll give a harsher sentence if she sees his lies.
  • sandy50sandy50 Posts: 22,043
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Updated Poll - Add your opinion and repost removing quotes

    24 Murder with Intent
    4 Murder - no intent
    2 Culpable Homicide
    0 Acquittal
    1 Not sure
  • thisismymonikerthisismymoniker Posts: 3,287
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    sandy50 wrote: »
    Moniker this was your post (below)
    :
    I said I think Nel said OP showed remorse afterwards.............and I said I think OP feels remorse, and why couldn't he ?

    but that he didn't admit or say what he'd done, and you posted that Nel said he was upset, which he didn't , I put the link up where Nel said neither - He used the word "overcome"

    Thanks Sandy - you didn't quote the rest of the post - this is what has been irritating me:

    "Annoyingly the word remorse includes both senses of regret and guilt maybe also consideration for others.

    Each time it has surfaced with defence witnesses it has seemed to indicate 'regret as measured through tears' but Nel has been able to show that words indicative of guilt or blaming himself is generally absent. Sorry it happened. Not sorry for what he did.

    The whole thing is surely academic in the case of deliberate murder because it shows in addition he was lying to everyone. That means 'remorse' takes a battering.

    I don't agree that Nel views it any more favourably than that."

    Don't quote half a post if the other half is explaining more of what I understand by the word remorse ok!

    My whole point is the word 'remorse' has a range of meanings anyway. Which is why it has been getting on my nerves how it is discussed.

    AS though YES/NO - remorse.

    I simply don't think it works like that. There is more of a checklist and lying means a big cross next to remorse basically!

    Anyway whole point is that remorse doesn't have one meaning - that was the original post - but you're holding me to the exact terms which I think would not make sense.

    You are entitled to your opinion on the value of his "emotions" as diagnostic of remorse [in all its meanings lol] but I disagree.

    No gonna spend more time on this though...I have to go. enjoy your evening.

    P.S. Even his emotions are probably faked btw especially most recent ones what about that animation VID - no problems?
  • sandy50sandy50 Posts: 22,043
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Thanks Sandy - you didn't quote the rest of the post - this is what has been irritating me:

    "Annoyingly the word remorse includes both senses of regret and guilt maybe also consideration for others.

    Each time it has surfaced with defence witnesses it has seemed to indicate 'regret as measured through tears' but Nel has been able to show that words indicative of guilt or blaming himself is generally absent. Sorry it happened. Not sorry for what he did.

    The whole thing is surely academic in the case of deliberate murder because it shows in addition he was lying to everyone. That means 'remorse' takes a battering.

    I don't agree that Nel views it any more favourably than that."

    Don't quote half a post if the other half is explaining more of what I understand by the word remorse ok!

    My whole point is the word 'remorse' has a range of meanings anyway. Which is why it has been getting on my nerves how it is discussed.

    AS though YES/NO - remorse.

    I simply don't think it works like that. There is more of a checklist and lying means a big cross next to remorse basically!

    Anyway whole point is that remorse doesn't have one meaning - that was the original post - but you're holding me to the exact terms which I think would not make sense.

    You are entitled to your opinion on the value of his "emotions" as diagnostic of remorse [in all its meanings lol] but I disagree.

    No gonna spend more time on this though...I have to go. enjoy your evening.

    P.S. Even his emotions are probably faked btw especially most recent ones what about that animation VID - no problems?
    i'd already replied to the previous post moniker ! - and chopped it in subsequent reply because of length, --and because I was commenting on you saying Nel said he was 'upset'. - and you're repeating what you've said already....

    ......I do understand, but I think none of us can know what the man feels - but after he's killed Reeva, does it matter ? he's human though after all, so it's reasonable to suggest that remorse in this case means , sorry for, regret, for what he's done, so I disagree with you.

    He does however still continue to lie about what he did, -- and lying not because he doesn't have remorse for taking Reeva's life (as I think naturally he does) but because now it's about saving his own neck, it's a simple as that.

    I disagree with you..........I think he can and is feeling remorse inwardly ...., but continues to lie outwardly !
  • DonmackDonmack Posts: 1,652
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think you're both right, for what it's worth.

    Remorse is certainly not the driving factor of any of his actions now, that's for sure.

    But unless we peg him as an utter psychopath, incapable of normal feelings under any circumstances, then he probably has had some feelings of remorse for what he did. They are just not as important as his need to save his own neck.

    Masipa is no fool. She won't fall into the silly trap that certain posters on here seem to have fallen into....his sobbing, wailing and barfing must mean that he truly loved Reeva, would never have killed her and he must be telling the truth.

    Nope. For rational people, that doesn't compute and Masipa is, I believe, nothing if not rational.
  • thisismymonikerthisismymoniker Posts: 3,287
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    sandy50 wrote: »
    i'd already replied to the previous post moniker ! - and chopped it in subsequent reply because of length, --and because I was commenting on you saying Nel said he was 'upset'. - and you're repeating what you've said already....

    ......I do understand, but I think none of us can know what the man feels - but after he's killed Reeva, does it matter ? he's human though after all, so it's reasonable to suggest that remorse in this case means , sorry for, regret, for what he's done, he does however still continue to lie about what he did, not because he doesn't have remorse for taking Reeva's life (as I think naturally he would) but because now it's about saving his own neck.

    Yes - agree with that - upset in the sense of being emotional, crying, visibly shaken up - and upset - overwhelmed by the enormity of what he had done - overcome with emotions - and we can readily imagine some of them but without being him clearly not get into his mind fully to understand why he was saying "no, please, please, no" to himself such that Mike could overhear it.

    By any reckoning it is a terribly shocking event and one which he would know would have profound consequences for his future life and reputation. The situation was leaking evidence left right and centre as well - lights on - trip onto balcony - shouts - phones that he couldn't check due to passcode screen - a duvet he couldn't move because his hands were covered in blood - bedroom door damage - other damage - bullets being equal to the number it took to kill her - all kinds of problems - wanting to APPEAR to save her life but not wanting the PROFESSIONALS to learn too much from the scene - so shifting it.

    The whole thing just purely from the perspective of SURVIVING at that time would have felt overwhelming no doubt.

    But is the crying therefore a form of REGRET about Reeva's life being "lost" ... or a form of FEAR and STRESS response???

    One thing I don't doubt : That if he could have flicked a switch then and transported both him and Reeva into a parallel life where they simply fell out and she left the house unharmed - or in which they did not fall out at all! He would do so.

    I do believe that. This wasn't something he wanted in a wider sense or has taken any pleasure or joy in. It's dark and dreadful and I think he has moral compass enough to recognise that fact. It might be partly what motivates his extreme denials (ego-dystonic killing).

    Some people kill and enjoy the buzz and the power and have "no regrets". OK - I don't think he's like that.

    BUT(!) . perhaps we should track the timeline of these feelings of 'regret' or of being 'overwhelmed'. Defence witnesses, and also Dr. Stipp, testified to his tears in the minutes, then hours, then days afterwards. The tears straight after were certainly real. How much is that a manifestation of extreme stress or fear??? Compared to heartfelt sympathy towards, for example, the Steenkamp family? Well - his office sent them a bouquet, signed by the "office of Oscar pistorius". And June was so offended she refused to have any more communications with the Pistorius family at that stage.

    Is he therefore represented worse because he was too AFRAID to face up to that himself, and those around him were too willing to treat it like a formality or something? Is Peet Van Zyl making him look worse here, with his radio interview barely mentioning Reeva and mainly talking about message of support 'flooding in' for Oscar? And then making the "support Oscar" website which appears to have no tributes to Reeva on it, per se. Maybe....

    What happened since? Well certainly at day 5, the bail, it included the words 'should there be a trial against me' Ha! Nel argued that showed a complete disregard for the seriousness of the proceedings - it was part of his argument for it being premeditated murder in fact lol since it sounds so arrogant!

    Still lots of evidence to cause him to be shaken up. Also being confined to his Uncle's house more or less since every time he shows up in public in Pretoria there are too many people around that do not like him. So - isolation, alienation. That leads to - low mood, depression - but would that be the same thing as remorse? Feeling glum. I'm not convinced!

    I personally DID believe that his very BIG emotional outbursts, to do with shooting, or shouting "Get the F outta my house", etc, was genuine - and that is the locus of his 'trauma' and the one thing he is genuinely trying to avoid dealing with - screams, blood - in short. Cutting straight through his consciousness in his memories. Again, remorse? Or just: Discovered killing someone is not pleasant. More like an aesthetic reaction rather than a moral one? Maybe.

    I certainly DIDN'T believe his quavvery voice stuff as he switched it on and off to order according to if it was a sad story or not. Stories about his mother had the same quavvery voice. It is just not credible that he is that sensitive of a person. Even very sensitive people don't talk like that. And certainly not grief-stricken people. They're more..serious...you know...it makes you grow up quickly. More like June Steenkamp. Less attention seeking IMO and it would be more credible.

    As for feelings of guilt, now, today? I really don't know. That implies he cares. Does he care? I mean really - does he actually care that he killed someone?

    When Nel asked him about how it must have felt for Reeva he sounded so awkward answering about that. Like "Oh,. yes, many many times I've thought about that. It must have been errr terrible". Just doesn't want to discuss anything that is difficult. Whereas he still loves talking about his accomplishments etc doesn't he. That's the balance I feel between ego and "consideration for others" and it really hasn't shifted much despite killing someone. There doesn't seem to me to be an acknowledgement that it was actually wrong. Morally wrong. That's what i'm getting at.

    I have an issue with his moral values which makes it hard to give much credence to the accompanying emotional displays. Remorse for me is a moral matter, something that is the result of reflection and actually a totally private affair as well - not something we can easily comment upon from afar. Certainly not by seeing tears. He MAY be crying but he is all the time alert to where those tears might cross the line into acknowledging he did something wrong. It's like - sob sob sob - ok, why you crying? Did you play some part in this? - wakes up at that point - no I didn't - then back to - sob sob sob.

    He's much too alert to the implications and can switch these emotions on and off accordingly barring the few times where he goes into shock being confronted with the actual moments around this life changing gun firing decision I guess.

    BUT: The guy is always watchful to the consequences of any admissions. And will contest them in a minute detail if it involves anything less than a perfectly innocent accident on his part. He's much too much calculating be someone "mourning" for her, surely? Schultz is just wrong about that think. Or pandering while he's on bail. Hard to tell.

    If he at some point FELT remorse then I am afraid it might have been SUPPRESSED due to running counter to his AMBITIONS in life? I don't see a lot of evidence of it in the present day anyway.
  • DonmackDonmack Posts: 1,652
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yes - agree with that - upset in the sense of being emotional, crying, visibly shaken up - and upset - overwhelmed by the enormity of what he had done - overcome with emotions - and we can readily imagine some of them but without being him clearly not get into his mind fully to understand why he was saying "no, please, please, no" to himself such that Mike could overhear it.

    By any reckoning it is a terribly shocking event and one which he would know would have profound consequences for his future life and reputation. The situation was leaking evidence left right and centre as well - lights on - trip onto balcony - shouts - phones that he couldn't check due to passcode screen - a duvet he couldn't move because his hands were covered in blood - bedroom door damage - other damage - bullets being equal to the number it took to kill her - all kinds of problems - wanting to APPEAR to save her life but not wanting the PROFESSIONALS to learn too much from the scene - so shifting it.

    The whole thing just purely from the perspective of SURVIVING at that time would have felt overwhelming no doubt.

    But is the crying therefore a form of REGRET about Reeva's life being "lost" ... or a form of FEAR and STRESS response???

    One thing I don't doubt : That if he could have flicked a switch then and transported both him and Reeva into a parallel life where they simply fell out and she left the house unharmed - or in which they did not fall out at all! He would do so.

    I do believe that. This wasn't something he wanted or has taken any pleasure or joy in. It's dark and dreadful and I think he has moral compass enough to recognise that fact. It might be partly what motivates his extreme denials (ego-dystonic killing).

    Some people kill and enjoy the buzz and the power and have "no regrets". OK - I don't think he's like that.

    BUT(!) . perhaps we should track the timeline of these feelings of 'regret' or of being 'overwhelmed'. Defence witnesses, and also Dr. Stipp, testified to his tears in the minutes, then hours, then days afterwards. The tears straight after were certainly real. How much is that a manifestation of extreme stress or fear??? Compared to heartfelt sympathy towards, for example, the Steenkamp family? Well - his office sent them a bouquet, signed by the "office of Oscar pistorius". And June was so offended she refused to have any more communications with the Pistorius family at that stage.

    Is he therefore represented worse because he was too AFRAID to face up to that himself, and those around him were too willing to treat it like a formality or something? Is Peet Van Zyl making him look worse here, with his radio interview barely mentioning Reeva and mainly talking about message of support 'flooding in' for Oscar? And then making the "support Oscar" website which appears to have no tributes to Reeva on it, per se. Maybe....

    What happened since? Well certainly at day 5, the bail, it included the words 'should there be a trial against me' Ha! Nel argued that showed a complete disregard for the seriousness of the proceedings - it was part of his argument for it being premeditated murder in fact lol since it sounds so arrogant!

    Still lots of evidence to cause him to be shaken up. Also being confined to his Uncle's house more or less since every time he shows up in public in Pretoria there are too many people around that do not like him. So - isolation, alienation. That leads to - low mood, depression - but would that be the same thing as remorse? Feeling glum. I'm not convinced!

    I personally DID believe that his very BIG emotional outbursts, to do with shooting, or shouting "Get the F outta my house", etc, was genuine - and that is the locus of his 'trauma' and the one thing he is genuinely trying to avoid dealing with - screams, blood - in short. Cutting straight through his consciousness in his memories. Again, remorse? Or just: Discovered killing someone is not pleasant. More like an aesthetic reaction rather than a moral one? Maybe.

    I certainly DIDN'T believe his quavvery voice stuff as he switched it on and off to order according to if it was a sad story or not. Stories about his mother had the same quavvery voice. It is just not credible that he is that sensitive of a person. Even very sensitive people don't talk like that. And certainly not grief-stricken people. They're more..serious...you know...it makes you grow up quickly. More like June Steenkamp. Less attention seeking IMO and it would be more credible.

    As for feelings of guilt, now, today? I really don't know. That implies he cares. Does he care? I mean really - does he actually care that he killed someone?

    When Nel asked him about how it must have felt for Reeva he sounded so awkward answering about that. Like "Oh,. yes, many many times I've thought about that. It must have been errr terrible". Just doesn't want to discuss anything that is difficult. Whereas he still loves talking about his accomplishments etc doesn't he. That's the balance I feel between ego and "consideration for others" and it really hasn't shifted much despite killing someone. There doesn't seem to me to be an acknowledgement that it was actually wrong. Morally wrong. That's what i'm getting at.

    I have an issue with his moral values which makes it hard to give much credence to the accompanying emotional displays. Remorse for me is a moral matter, something that is the result of reflection and actually a totally private affair as well - not something we can easily comment upon from afar. Certainly not by seeing tears. He MAY be crying but he is all the time alert to where those tears might cross the line into acknowledging he did something wrong. It's like - sob sob sob - ok, why you crying? Did you play some part in this? - wakes up at that point - no I didn't - then back to - sob sob sob.

    He's much too alert to the implications and can switch these emotions on and off accordingly barring the few times where he goes into shock being confronted with the actual moments around this life changing gun firing decision I guess.

    BUT: The guy is always watchful to the consequences of any admissions. And will contest them in a minute detail if it involves anything less than a perfectly innocent accident on his part. He's much too much calculating be someone "mourning" for her, surely? Schultz is just wrong about that think. Or pandering while he's on bail. Hard to tell.

    If he at some point FELT remorse then I am afraid it might have been SUPPRESSED due to running counter to his AMBITIONS in life? I don't see a lot of evidence of it in the present day anyway.

    Well said. I agree.
  • Whatabout...Whatabout... Posts: 861
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm a keen fan of Judge Judy. One of her main methods of getting to the truth behind the cases she sees is to examine what was stated by all the witnesses in their statements and affidavits sworn immediately after whatever event it is they are arguing about and to pull them up if they, on the stand in front of her, contradict what they swore to in those affidavits. She tells them that both their versions can't be true.

    It's not a huge leap of faith to think that Judge Masipa will also examine with particular attention where and how OP's evidence on the stand differs from his original bail statement.

    His evidence on the stand differs enormously from the details he gave in his bail affidavit, leaving Judge Masipa no option but to examine OP's very different versions in minute detail.

    I have a feeling Mr Nel's closing argument will pin-point precisely where the good Judge should compare OP's versions.





    (Judge Judy: "It doesn't make sense. And if it doesn't make sense, it isn't true.")
  • sandy50sandy50 Posts: 22,043
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm a keen fan of Judge Judy. One of her main methods of getting to the truth behind the cases she sees is to examine what was stated by all the witnesses in their statements and affidavits sworn immediately after whatever event it is they are arguing about and to pull them up if they, on the stand in front of her, contradict what they swore to in those affidavits. She tells them that both their versions can't be true.

    It's not a huge leap of faith to think that Judge Masipa will also examine with particular attention where and how OP's evidence on the stand differs from his original bail statement.

    His evidence on the stand differs enormously from the details he gave in his bail affidavit, leaving Judge Masipa no option but to examine OP's very different versions in minute detail.

    I have a feeling Mr Nel's closing argument will pin-point precisely where the good Judge should compare OP's versions.

    (Judge Judy: "It doesn't make sense. And if it doesn't make sense, it isn't true.")
    So true, I agree with you - the more you're reminded about all his contradictions the more likely you realise that the State could indeed get the Judge to agree with the State's Charge !
  • thisismymonikerthisismymoniker Posts: 3,287
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ds1969 wrote: »
    Perhaps you should look a bit further then. Siyabonga Mdunge, a businessperson and preacher, accidentally shot and killed his wife and their unborn child under very similar circumstances. Aside from the number of shots fired this man behaved in the same way as you mention above. There was a huge difference though. The media had no interest in this case as neither he nor his wife were a celebrity. As such we didn't hear a peep about what a beautiful person his wife may have been. There was no initial media rubbish published and we didn't have Joe-public regurgitating theories from twitter in an attempt to appear knowledgeable. Furthermore, legal representatives didn't take it upon themselves to feed a media frenzy by cashing in on their own few minutes of publicity and airtime during 'round-table' debates. The judge in this case used that magical gift we all have of 'thinking for oneself' and came to the conclusion that this was a tragic accident.

    I don't agree the number of shots is the only difference between OP's case and Mdunge's case. Apologies if this isn't really what you were getting at but I think it is worth to point out some of the following reasons as to why, the cases differ:

    [1] Mdunge didn't shout out anything on his way to the bathroom, so he did not have to account for why his wife failed to respond to his voice. In all other such similar cases there was no verbal communication before the 'mistaken shooting' happened. Oscar's shouts make his story much less likely to be true - and need to be accounted for.

    [2] Mdunge fired in response to movement of the door. In all other such similar the person firing 'in error' fired in response to a movement - either a door opening, or a car speeding away. Oscar's case is unique in that he claims the cause of shooting was merely a 'sound' since the door itself was locked and neither the door nor the door handle moved.

    Have you come across anywhere(???) another case of "putative private defence" in response to a sound.

    [3] Mdunge was clear on the reason for shooting. He expected a burglar and shot because of that in the direction of the burglar. In all other similar cases the person freely admitted that they fired at the threat. OP's case is unique in that not only does he claim it was mistaken identity ... but he claims he fired "by mistake" as well ... and it was simply a matter of coincidence all his bullets went in the same direction as the door. This makes his story much harder to take at face value. What are the chances for all the bullets to go into the door unintentionally?

    Compare to the case of the guy who fired from a bedroom window as his daughter was driving his car away from their house in the night. And killed his daughter. Imagine if he claimed he fired at the car "by accident" and it was a "coincidence" it hit the driver. Do you think anyone would believe that???

    OP's defence of "accidentally" firing in the direction of what he perceived was "self-defence from a threat" is unique (and uniquely unlikely to be true) so far as i'm aware.

    In any event it is very improbable to claim he had no intention to shoot into the door given the shot pattern and the rest of his story. If the judge rejects the claim then why will she trust him on the rest of it?

    [4] I'm afraid I don't know the details of Mdunge's case but where was his wife hit. If she was able to talk while she was dying then she would be able to corroborate that it was an accident and there was no argument between herself and her husband. There wouldn't be evidence then to contradict the shooter's claims that the relationship was perfectly untroubled and that they were asleep in bed before, as there is in this case.
  • Whatabout...Whatabout... Posts: 861
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    sandy50 wrote: »
    So true, I agree with you - the more you're reminded about all his contradictions the more likely you realise that the State could indeed get the Judge to agree with the State's Charge !

    Judge Masipa must compare and evaluate OP's evidence on the stand in her court against the statement he gave to secure his bail. The versions differ enormously. OP didn't say on the stand what he said in his bail statement. Both versions can't be true. Nel has said he will argue that OP's evidence be rejected.

    The question now is will Nel be able to argue persuasively for some, most, or all of OP's evidence to be rejected?
  • SupportSupport Posts: 70,386
    Administrator
    A number of posts have been removed. If you can't keep the discussion civil and free of personal attacks, you will find your posting privileges revoked.
  • sandy50sandy50 Posts: 22,043
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Updated Poll - Add your opinion and repost removing quotes

    24 Murder with Intent
    4 Murder - no intent
    2 Culpable Homicide
    0 Acquittal
    1 Not sure[/QUOTE]
  • thisismymonikerthisismymoniker Posts: 3,287
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Judge Masipa must compare and evaluate OP's evidence on the stand in her court against the statement he gave to secure his bail. The versions differ enormously. OP didn't say on the stand what he said in his bail statement. Both versions can't be true. Nel has said he will argue that OP's evidence be rejected.

    The question now is will Nel be able to argue persuasively for some, most, or all of OP's evidence to be rejected?

    Does OP have a defence for how he missed Reeva leave the room? It depends on his fans story to be accepted, surely.

    And the defence was unable to contradict the blood trail across duvet and carpet - or would have leapt up to do so (they have the magnified originals on their computer screens).

    Pistorius was forced to claim it was 'unlucky' this blood trail exists. It proves the fans weren't placed at foot of bed, since the duvet was already there when he left the room.

    That's already his 2nd amended version to the story, compared to bail. He's given two versions now, and both of them are rejected.

    It means either his memory is wrong and he is able to convince himself of details of things but get them all wrong (and tell the court the details all wrong) or alternatively he's lying. It would be easier to accept that it was memory issues if he hadn't elaborated so much.

    I'm 100% sure the court will find that there is no evidence for the big fan moving anywhere different to in the police photographs, and likewise for the small fan being moved by him, and that the duvet was off the bed on the floor all along.

    The duvet impacts on more of his testimony - more memory troubles - since he talked about "pulling it into the bed further" when putting on his prosthetic legs. He has no memory of "throwing it onto the floor" which must have happened. Strange he absolutely failed to remember this happening even given the photos. Obviously because of what he already said about the fans.

    So his reliability is definitely very poor. At the very least. Elaborating on the details a lot makes it not only a reliability issue - but a credibility issue as well. Forgetful people can't usually make up lots of little details and reasons to back up their incorrect memories.

    I can't see how any of his evidence about how he missed Reeva will be acceptable to a court. It's much too unreliable (it changed - it's been disproven too) and appears pretty contrived to explain having his back turned the entire time.
    - swapping sides of bed - that changed after bail from 1 night to both
    - the unusual gun location - not really explained why it was in just the right place on this one occasion
    - the "blue" LED: That got busted, etc.
    - those "last words" which were added
    - the "whisper" being denied and changed to a "soft tone"
    - the lack of communicating to establish where reeva was
    - and rushing into action despite feeling "fearful"

    Overall the prosecution story makes sense: The balcony doors were always open; the fan never got moved; and the whole of the above is just alibis which he has been changing but was unable to defend effectively in his cross-examination.

    If he didn't move the fans to base of the bed ... where the heck did he move them anyway! If it was always in front of the balcony, why no recollections of bumping into it at all the other points in his story!

    Nothing he said about the bedroom can therefore be relied upon. Either - very bad memory - or made up for alibis - and i'm sure the latter will be accepted by the court - due to him elaborating all the details (unlike a genuinely forgetful person) - and all the other problems with his evidence!
  • sandy50sandy50 Posts: 22,043
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Donmack wrote: »

    Who, me?

    I voted for acquittal. What else?

    He's plainly innocent, Sandy. I mean, you don't puke and sob if you're a liar, do you? And did you hear how high his voice went when he screamed "Get the **** out of my house". Convinced me ;-)

    (Did I do it wrong? Sorry).
    This has just made me think- Nel missed a trick there.............because OP said he couldn't hear Reeva screaming because his ears were ringing.

    So perhaps they could have had a woman scream , loud as she could,, a foot away from someone have just fired a pistol, same as OP did.......to see if that man could hear the woman's screaming , - because if the neighbours living 177metres away could hear Reeva scream, it would show that OP is lying !

    They'd not able to replicate Reeva's screams of fear of that night ....but then it have been argued as to why the Defence weren't doing the same , getting OP to scream 'like a woman' that he has claimed he can !
  • Whatabout...Whatabout... Posts: 861
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I posted on the last (and now locked thread) that my inclination to give credence to OP's version evaporated when I realised his determination to plead not guilty to the discharge of the firearm in Tashas and to being in possession of the unlicensed ammunition. In the face of his blatant refusal to accept responsibility for these charges - for which no-one else can possibly be to blame - I could not believe his evidence regarding how he came to shoot Reeva Steenkamp dead.
  • ds1969ds1969 Posts: 621
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I don't agree the number of shots is the only difference between OP's case and Mdunge's case.

    [1] Mdunge didn't shout out anything on his way to the bathroom, so he did not have to account for why his wife failed to respond to his voice. In all other such similar cases there was no verbal communication before the 'mistaken shooting' happened. Oscar's shouts make his story much less likely to be true - and need to be accounted for.

    [2] Mdunge fired in response to movement of the door. In all other such similar the person firing 'in error' fired in response to a movement - either a door opening, or a car speeding away. Oscar's case is unique in that he claims the cause of shooting was merely a 'sound' since the door itself was locked and neither the door nor the door handle moved.

    Have you come across anywhere(???) another case of "putative private defence" in response to a sound.

    [3] Mdunge was clear on the reason for shooting. He expected a burglar and shot because of that in the direction of the burglar. In all other similar cases the person freely admitted that they fired at the threat. OP's case is unique in that not only does he claim it was mistaken identity ... but he claims he fired "by mistake" as well ... and it was simply a matter of coincidence all his bullets went in the same direction as the door. This makes his story much harder to take at face value. What are the chances for all the bullets to go into the door unintentionally?

    Compare to the case of the guy who fired from a bedroom window as his daughter was driving his car away from their house in the night. And killed his daughter. Imagine if he claimed he fired at the car "by accident" and it was a "coincidence" it hit the driver. Do you think anyone would believe that???

    OP's defence of "accidentally" firing in the direction of what he perceived was "self-defence from a threat" is unique (and uniquely unlikely to be true) so far as i'm aware.

    In any event it is very improbable to claim he had no intention to shoot into the door given the shot pattern and the rest of his story. If the judge rejects the claim then why will she trust him on the rest of it?

    [4] I'm afraid I don't know the details of Mdunge's case but where was his wife hit. If she was able to talk while she was dying then she would be able to corroborate that it was an accident and there was no argument between herself and her husband. There wouldn't be evidence then to contradict the shooter's claims that the relationship was perfectly untroubled and that they were asleep in bed before, as there is in this case.

    1) Many posters have claimed that it is impossible for someone to leave the bedroom in such a manner as to be undetected by their partner. This case, if justice is to be believed, shows that perception to be false. A terrified person may or may not respond to a shout in such a situation. One can easily suggest that a response would be 'more or less probable' purely to fit their prescribed version. In reality it doesn't automatically make it become more probable. You'd have to know the nature of the respondent to confirm that. We do know that Reeva had been in a similar terrifying situation previously where she decided best practice was to keep quiet.

    2) I don't see how a sound or movement has such weight in deciding whether a person knew what/who was behind a door. We know OP killed Reeva, and I certainly don't dispute that he knew he would likely kill whoever was behind that door.

    3) I've repeated on a number of occasions that I fully believe OP aimed at the door and knew he was likely to kill whoever was behind it. It's important to understand that I'm not in agreement with all OP's claims, however it's seems to be often incorrectly presumed that one either agrees with all of an accused testimony or none of it. The court isn't trying to see if OP tells lies or not. We'd all be locked up when faced with a good prosecutor if that was the idea.

    4) I'm not sure where it hit but the final destination of the bullet has no bearing on the charge of intent to kill when the perpetrator is claiming they didn't see the victim. If they didn't see them, they wouldn't know where the bullets landed. It could be suggested that excessive force was used by OP due to the specific number of bullets, but again, if Mdunge or OP claim that they didn't see the victim, it doesn't give any more credibility as to whether they thought the person was their wife/girlfriend or an intruder. Mdunge's wife wasn't able to speak to anybody, and it would make no difference if Mdunge claimed she spoke to him, as this would be hearsay. A fatality is a fatality and both claim they didn't see the victim. Mdunge had the option not to move towards the danger, just like OP.
  • ClaireChClaireCh Posts: 5,899
    Forum Member
    I posted on the last (and now locked thread) that my inclination to give credence to OP's version evaporated when I realised his determination to plead not guilty to the discharge of the firearm in Tashas and to being in possession of the unlicensed ammunition. In the face of his blatant refusal to accept responsibility for these charges - for which no-one else can possibly be to blame - I could not believe his evidence regarding how he came to shoot Reeva Steenkamp dead.

    yes, and he must have ignored his counsel's advice too, which is just plain reckless. he must think he has charm or that special rules apply to him. but he must also be incredibly stupid not to see how it would impact on his overall credibility and his willingness to accept blame. good job they found his text to Reeva about Tasha's too, otherwise he'd have claimed everyone was lying.
  • Whatabout...Whatabout... Posts: 861
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Does OP have a defence for how he missed Reeva leave the room? It depends on his fans story to be accepted, surely.

    And the defence was unable to contradict the blood trail across duvet and carpet - or would have leapt up to do so (they have the magnified originals on their computer screens).

    Pistorius was forced to claim it was 'unlucky' this blood trail exists. It proves the fans weren't placed at foot of bed, since the duvet was already there when he left the room.

    That's already his 2nd amended version to the story, compared to bail. He's given two versions now, and both of them are rejected.

    It means either his memory is wrong and he is able to convince himself of details of things but get them all wrong (and tell the court the details all wrong) or alternatively he's lying. It would be easier to accept that it was memory issues if he hadn't elaborated so much.

    I'm 100% sure the court will find that there is no evidence for the big fan moving anywhere different to in the police photographs, and likewise for the small fan being moved by him, and that the duvet was off the bed on the floor all along.

    The duvet impacts on more of his testimony - more memory troubles - since he talked about "pulling it into the bed further" when putting on his prosthetic legs. He has no memory of "throwing it onto the floor" which must have happened. Strange he absolutely failed to remember this happening even given the photos. Obviously because of what he already said about the fans.

    So his reliability is definitely very poor. At the very least. Elaborating on the details a lot makes it not only a reliability issue - but a credibility issue as well. Forgetful people can't usually make up lots of little details and reasons to back up their incorrect memories.

    I can't see how any of his evidence about how he missed Reeva will be acceptable to a court. It's much too unreliable (it changed - it's been disproven too) and appears pretty contrived to explain having his back turned the entire time.
    - swapping sides of bed - that changed after bail from 1 night to both
    - the unusual gun location - not really explained why it was in just the right place on this one occasion
    - the "blue" LED: That got busted, etc.
    - those "last words" which were added
    - the "whisper" being denied and changed to a "soft tone"
    - the lack of communicating to establish where reeva was
    - and rushing into action despite feeling "fearful"

    Overall the prosecution story makes sense: The balcony doors were always open; the fan never got moved; and the whole of the above is just alibis which he has been changing but was unable to defend effectively in his cross-examination.

    If he didn't move the fans to base of the bed ... where the heck did he move them anyway! If it was always in front of the balcony, why no recollections of bumping into it at all the other points in his story!

    Nothing he said about the bedroom can therefore be relied upon. Either - very bad memory - or made up for alibis - and i'm sure the latter will be accepted by the court - due to him elaborating all the details (unlike a genuinely forgetful person) - and all the other problems with his evidence!

    All this examination of the minutiae is not necessary IMO. OP's story has changed from his first account of what happened on the night he shot Reeva dead. The court must compare OP's statements and determine why his statements have changed. The court will have to consider whether OP has lied on the stand in an attempt to save himself from a long jail sentence or whether, with the benefit of hindsight, OP's memory just got better and better,
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 149
    Forum Member
    And some so blinkered they cannot see another path? ;-)

    ...and some so fixated on trees that they miss the forest.;-)
  • Jeremy99Jeremy99 Posts: 5,476
    Forum Member
    I posted on the last (and now locked thread) that my inclination to give credence to OP's version evaporated when I realised his determination to plead not guilty to the discharge of the firearm in Tashas and to being in possession of the unlicensed ammunition. In the face of his blatant refusal to accept responsibility for these charges - for which no-one else can possibly be to blame - I could not believe his evidence regarding how he came to shoot Reeva Steenkamp dead.

    He appears to have the same mentality of a young child who persistently denies they have been pinching chocolate after being caught by the larder with the door open and with chocolate around their mouth and over their fingers and wrappers on the floor.
  • Whatabout...Whatabout... Posts: 861
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    ClaireCh wrote: »
    yes, and he must have ignored his counsel's advice too, which is just plain reckless. he must think he has charm or that special rules apply to him. but he must also be incredibly stupid not to see how it would impact on his overall credibility and his willingness to accept blame. good job they found his text to Reeva about Tasha's too, otherwise he'd have claimed everyone was lying.

    There is no way out of a guilty verdict for OP on this count or the charge of being in possession of the unlicensed ammo. The gun didn't fire itself while he was holding it and his 'understanding' of the law regarding the ammunition is wrong.
  • Jeremy99Jeremy99 Posts: 5,476
    Forum Member
    ClaireCh wrote: »
    yes, and he must have ignored his counsel's advice too, which is just plain reckless. he must think he has charm or that special rules apply to him. but he must also be incredibly stupid not to see how it would impact on his overall credibility and his willingness to accept blame. good job they found his text to Reeva about Tasha's too, otherwise he'd have claimed everyone was lying.

    Not only did he ignore counsel’s advice but when it all went wrong he tried to blame Roux for misleading him!

    It’s the one time Nel actually sprung to Roux’s defence and roasted Pistorius for daring to suggest a fellow advocate would act so as to deliberately mislead him on such a simple matter as reading a paragraph in the Firearms Act.

    You really couldn’t make it up!
  • ds1969ds1969 Posts: 621
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    All this examination of the minutiae is not necessary IMO. OP's story has changed from his first account of what happened on the night he shot Reeva dead. The court must compare OP's statements and determine why his statements have changed. The court will have to consider whether OP has lied on the stand in an attempt to save himself from a long jail sentence or whether, with the benefit of hindsight, OP's memory just got better and better,

    The story will change as detail is added and other factors are brought into the trial. This is to be expected. The key factors are how relevant those discrepancies are with regard to the charges made by the State.

    OP can lie as much as he chooses, all that matters is whether the lies affect the States claim of his intent to kill Reeva. It's not a credibility test. Judge Masipa can't suddenly change the whole justice system by deciding that because OP has lied about 1000 other things he must therefore have knowingly killed Reeva. We can think that, as can judges, but judges can't act upon it.
  • Siobhan_MooreSiobhan_Moore Posts: 6,365
    Forum Member
    Jeremy99 wrote: »
    Not only did he ignore counsel’s advice but when it all went wrong he tried to blame Roux for misleading him!

    It’s the one time Nel actually sprung to Roux’s defence and roasted Pistorius for daring to suggest a fellow advocate would act so as to deliberately mislead him on such a simple matter as reading a paragraph in the Firearms Act.

    You really couldn’t make it up!

    i fell a little bit in love with nel for that :blush::D

    it was nice to see him jump to roux's defence though. the two of them shared a look as if to say "can you believe what this guy is saying?"
This discussion has been closed.