Hadn't OP earlier stated that he thought the 'intruder' was opening the bathroom/toilet door, which prompted him to then shoot? What made him think someone was coming out? Did he hear the door lock click or see the handle turning?
So, as the 'intruder' was, in fact, Reeva, wouldn't it have been likely that she would have called out Oscar's name before opening the door? I could understand that she might have stayed quiet, in case she thought she was opening the door to a possible 'intruder', but if OP had been shouting and screaming outside the bathroom, then she would have possibly felt reassured that it was OP outside the door, and so more likely to say his name rather than come out silently?
Or was he silent when standing outside the bathroom/toilet with his gun?
And then of course, why would she open the door if there was an 'intruder'?
I understand OP would say, or has already said, that he thought Reeva probably didn't speak or call his name out for fear of the 'intruder' hearing, but surely she would have made herself known to him if she'd heard his voice outside the bathroom?
I posted this on the thread last night, so I'm glad it's been addressed today.
I doubt OP will get much sleep over the weekend, but hell need to make sure he's a lot more alert on Monday or he's likely to slip up more than he has today.
The finest moment for me was then he said the intruder kicked or slammed the toilet door. And 5 mins later when Nel repeated it back to him he said I have never ever said kicked the door. It was a very surreal moment.
knows EXACTLY what he is dong.... closing in..slowly but surely and the bonus of OP tripping himself up on the way, without any help!!
Hearing OP... its absolutely so convincing that the whole story is a lie... it comes through big time.. just listening... I notice he asks for a questoin to be repeated on a "difficult" one.... to get a bit of time to think up what he should be answering....Nel has got him worked out..
You know, it's not implausible that psychologically, his mind has actually suppressed/shut down the truth because of the horror of what actually happened and that he was the cause of it all: that he did hear Reeva say something, but he shot and killed her (perhaps not meaning to, but it is what happened). Like he could not believe that he could such a thing - i.e. kill someone (it isn't part of the image of who he thinks he is: "I couldn't possibly kill anyone, because that is not what I do or who I am"), and so instead of acknowledging that is what he did, his mind is telling him something else (that supposedly fits into the idea of who he thinks he is: "What I did was accidental, I didn't mean this; I didn't mean that; I don't remember; my lawyers misinterpreted what I was saying; my firend and ex-girlfriend are lying"). It's possibly the only way he can deal with the grotesque horror what he did, how he did it, and the consequences that follow thereafter.
It all fits in with the rest of his testimony concerning his character, the type of man he is, the image of himself he wants us to accept, not this grotesque cold-blooded murderer, a taker of an innocent life: "Who, me? That's not ME! I don't kill!"
In the end, only the plausibility or implausibility of what he testifies to will the prove whether what he did and says is true or not.
I think the issue there is Oscar has clearly been heavily involved with his defence team and so he knows what's coming in terms of witnesses and what Roux is going to refer to in his case. So he's sat there thinking he knows something that will help his case and so he says it rather than keeping quiet and waiting for Roux to present that detail at a later date. He's defending himself in effect. I'm not sure if Roux would agree with the tactic or if Roux would rather he just keep quiet for now and answer the question.
In some ways you can see it as the actions of a calculator who is trying to put all the pieces in the right places to get himself off or you could perhaps see it as the actions of someone who is scared of going down for a crime he didn't commit and he's going to use any information possible to help prove his case. It's difficult to tell really. As Nel pointed out.. he answers the questions in the same way all the time and it's tricky to tell what he's reaching and when he's recalling fact.
But when someone is shown to LIE with as much conviction as telling the TRUTH, then we have someone who is a ruthless liar who is more than likely to be 'covering up', not trying to 'defend' himself.
And if his defense is true, he would neither NEED, nor be so convincing to keep lying and misconstruing.
The finest moment for me was then he said the intruder kicked or slammed the toilet door. And 5 mins later when Nel repeated it back to him he said I have never ever said kicked the door. It was a very surreal moment.
Bemj.. It was actually only about two minuntes later!! but.. do u notice OPs arrogant attitude rises at time it is so surprising.... he said today to Nel This is the fourth time I have answered that question.... and you can feel the big I AM OSCAR attitude in his voice... (Oh to which NEL replied sharply... well u can answer it again!)
I never ever said that!! hhmmmm (two mins before !)
I suppose he could debate that whisper and spoken softly mean the same things although whisper would naturally place him close enough to her for her to hear his whisper.. so why didn't he see she wasn't there. Perhaps that's why he prefers "softly spoken" to avoid that.
Nor to my satisfaction either. Nel has done a good job of proving culpable homicide and possibly - if the judge determines she can convict him of murder even if he believed it to be an intruder (which I think is doubtful) - even of murder. But he hasn't and I don't think he will be able to prove Pistorius knew it was Reeva.
That is impossible to "outright prove". What the state must do is show that the balance of probability is on their side. Which they have. They must show the lack of probability of the defence's story. Which they have done.
It will ultimately be up to the judge to decide whether the state's case is probable enough and the defence unlikely enough to indicate a conviction on premed murder. That is simply what is happening.
No crime like this can ever be 100% proven because there are no witnesses and only the defence's side of the story to go off. But that does not mean that the holes in the defence's argument and the balance of probability isn't weighing massively in the state's favour now. And that in itself is enough for a guilty verdict. Not saying that WILL be the case, saying that absolutely the state can't possibly do more given the circumstances.
Although I'm more inclined towards his guilt of killing Steenkamp deliberately (the only charge that really matters, IMO, although others disagree) I'll wait for the rest of the defence case before being totally convinced. As things stand right now though, his story stinks.
curious...what was it that proved his guilt for you?
Not just one particular thing, a combination of all the testimony this last 2 days.
The tears whenever he got to a sticky point in the cross examination helped.
But I think the final "Nel" in his coffin for me was that he 100% insists Reeva did NOT scream after the first bullet hit her...yet his ears were apparently ringing so couldnt hear
I have been on another website where someone is typing a transcript as the case happens.
Has anyone on here heard this very very telling slip of the tongue from OP (well in my view anyway!)
This is in response to Nel suggesting how and where Reeva was likely to be cowering or hiding in OPs version of events when he was shouting and screaming to her to call the police and contrasting it to how she was actually standing facing the door when she was shot - suggesting this makes OP's version very unlikely.
i think this really points to something far more sinister in what was gong on that night than the fabrication OP is trying to fob us all off with
If she thought OP was what?
Coming after her with a gun? Coming to get her out of the loo by force? What exactly?
Talking of slips of the tongue....all week he's been using the term "if" when responding to Nel's challenges about his version.
"Yes, if I ran out onto the balcony, x would be true"
"If I moved the fan blah blah blah"
You only use the word "if" about something that never happened.
"If I'd gotten home in time, I'd have been able to watch EastEnders" - which means I didn't get home.
It was particularly noticeable yesterday when comparing versions looking at the bedroom.
I agree, they might. But the issues still pile up. For example, is it plausible that he heard a bathroom window open from some distance with his head near a turning fan? I assumed he heard the bathroom window open when the room was silent. The fan noise works for him not hearing Steenkamp get out of bed but, IMO, it makes him hearing the bathroom window opening much less likely.
Well he's not going to have a cheap bed with noisy springs where you hear every movement, and how noisy would she be walking in bare feet? Regarding the window opening, wasn't that when he was away from the noise of the fans and about to put the jeans over the light?
You know, it's not implausible that psychologically, his mind has actually suppressed/shut down the truth because of the horror of what actually happened and that he was the cause of it all: that he did hear Reeva say something, but he shot and killed her (perhaps not meaning to, but it is what happened). Like he could not believe that he could such a thing - i.e. kill someone (it isn't part of the image of who he thinks he is: "I couldn't possibly kill anyone, because that is not what I do or who I am"), and so instead of acknowledging that is what he did, his mind is telling him something else (that supposedly fits into the idea of who he thinks he is: "What I did was accidental, I didn't mean this; I didn't mean that; I don't remember; my lawyers misinterpreted what I was saying; my firend and ex-girlfriend are lying"). It's possibly the only way he can deal with the grotesque horror what he did, how he did it, and the consequences that follow thereafter.
It all fits in with the rest of his testimony concerning his character, the type of man he is, the image of himself he wants us to accept, not this grotesque cold-blooded murderer, a taker of an innocent life: "Who, me? That's not ME! I don't kill!"
In the end, only the plausibility or implausibility of what he testifies to will the prove whether what he did and says is true or not.
Just read vary good point on Twitter......OP said he shot because he heard the toilet door opening. Would Reeva have tried to open the door and come out of the toilet if OP had told her there was an intruder?
She might have IF she had known it was Oscar out there. But she would have shouted who she was first.
That is impossible to "outright prove". What the state must do is show that the balance of probability is on their side. Which they have. They must show the lack of probability of the defence's story. Which they have done.
It will ultimately be up to the judge to decide whether the state's case is probable enough and the defence unlikely enough to indicate a conviction on premed murder. That is simply what is happening.
No crime like this can ever be 100% proven because there are no witnesses and only the defence's side of the story to go off. But that does not mean that the holes in the defence's argument and the balance of probability isn't weighing massively in the state's favour now. And that in itself is enough for a guilty verdict. Not saying that WILL be the case, saying that absolutely the state can't possibly do more given the circumstances.
Unless Reeva returns... it literally cannot be proved... so Nel is doing his best to break him with the statement that he killed her..but OP is giving off al the sign of a total liar... He is happy when he goes into his "rehearsed version" mode and speaks flowingly about his safe rehearsed version.... others times sobs,, or l,, I did not understand the question
its unbelievable his Defence team haven't managed to stop that trait of saying something then denying 5 minutes later he said it. I think Nel got the point over perfectly his version of events simply cant be trusted.
I suppose he could debate that whisper and spoken softly mean the same things although whisper would naturally place him close enough to her for her to hear his whisper.. so why didn't he see she wasn't there. Perhaps that's why he prefers "softly spoken" to avoid that.
But he whispered very quietly as he was scared he would be a target if he spoke. His flop flopping from over thinking his position and what can be inferred from this and that is remarkably stupid. And not the actions of an innocent man.
An innocent man would do exactly what his defence tell him to do, to the letter.
I really need a lay down and something to revive me (another cup of tea perhaps!)
If Kapp is saying that.. I had to read it twice... If kapp says that,, it really was a bad morning for OP
To be honest if Oscar had actually seen a burglar and shot him, I would feel sympathy for him. If he had seen a burglar, shot, and the bullet had accidentally hit Reeva instead, I would feel sympathy for him. But because there was no burglar, and Oscar's story is as dodgy as his character, I believe he killed Reeva in a rage and regretted it, but only because he had ruined his own life, immediately afterwards. I think he has utilised South Africa's fear of crime and stories like the rugby player who shot his own daughter and was not jailed for it, to craft a story that presses the right buttons for some people.
Unlike most others, I have no issue with him shooting through the door at an intruder, real or imagined. If anyone breaks into your house, or you believe they have, then that's that. Game over. So the only thing that matters to me is whether he killed Steenkamp on purpose, knowing it was her behind the door.
Comments
It was a really poor morning for Pistorius. Not so much for what he said but for how he said it and for what he didn't say.
not a genius, just seems a typical ahole to me
I posted this on the thread last night, so I'm glad it's been addressed today.
I doubt OP will get much sleep over the weekend, but hell need to make sure he's a lot more alert on Monday or he's likely to slip up more than he has today.
knows EXACTLY what he is dong.... closing in..slowly but surely and the bonus of OP tripping himself up on the way, without any help!!
Hearing OP... its absolutely so convincing that the whole story is a lie... it comes through big time.. just listening... I notice he asks for a questoin to be repeated on a "difficult" one.... to get a bit of time to think up what he should be answering....Nel has got him worked out..
It all fits in with the rest of his testimony concerning his character, the type of man he is, the image of himself he wants us to accept, not this grotesque cold-blooded murderer, a taker of an innocent life: "Who, me? That's not ME! I don't kill!"
In the end, only the plausibility or implausibility of what he testifies to will the prove whether what he did and says is true or not.
But when someone is shown to LIE with as much conviction as telling the TRUTH, then we have someone who is a ruthless liar who is more than likely to be 'covering up', not trying to 'defend' himself.
And if his defense is true, he would neither NEED, nor be so convincing to keep lying and misconstruing.
Nel is an a*sehole? or OP is?
Bemj.. It was actually only about two minuntes later!! but.. do u notice OPs arrogant attitude rises at time it is so surprising.... he said today to Nel This is the fourth time I have answered that question.... and you can feel the big I AM OSCAR attitude in his voice... (Oh to which NEL replied sharply... well u can answer it again!)
I never ever said that!! hhmmmm (two mins before !)
Yep he used the term whisper a few days ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rXh55BxfMI
I suppose he could debate that whisper and spoken softly mean the same things although whisper would naturally place him close enough to her for her to hear his whisper.. so why didn't he see she wasn't there. Perhaps that's why he prefers "softly spoken" to avoid that.
That is impossible to "outright prove". What the state must do is show that the balance of probability is on their side. Which they have. They must show the lack of probability of the defence's story. Which they have done.
It will ultimately be up to the judge to decide whether the state's case is probable enough and the defence unlikely enough to indicate a conviction on premed murder. That is simply what is happening.
No crime like this can ever be 100% proven because there are no witnesses and only the defence's side of the story to go off. But that does not mean that the holes in the defence's argument and the balance of probability isn't weighing massively in the state's favour now. And that in itself is enough for a guilty verdict. Not saying that WILL be the case, saying that absolutely the state can't possibly do more given the circumstances.
Although I'm more inclined towards his guilt of killing Steenkamp deliberately (the only charge that really matters, IMO, although others disagree) I'll wait for the rest of the defence case before being totally convinced. As things stand right now though, his story stinks.
Not any more.
The tears whenever he got to a sticky point in the cross examination helped.
But I think the final "Nel" in his coffin for me was that he 100% insists Reeva did NOT scream after the first bullet hit her...yet his ears were apparently ringing so couldnt hear
Talking of slips of the tongue....all week he's been using the term "if" when responding to Nel's challenges about his version.
"Yes, if I ran out onto the balcony, x would be true"
"If I moved the fan blah blah blah"
You only use the word "if" about something that never happened.
"If I'd gotten home in time, I'd have been able to watch EastEnders" - which means I didn't get home.
It was particularly noticeable yesterday when comparing versions looking at the bedroom.
This is something I've considered too.
She might have IF she had known it was Oscar out there. But she would have shouted who she was first.
Inclining strongly towards guilty, m'lady.
Unless Reeva returns... it literally cannot be proved... so Nel is doing his best to break him with the statement that he killed her..but OP is giving off al the sign of a total liar... He is happy when he goes into his "rehearsed version" mode and speaks flowingly about his safe rehearsed version.... others times sobs,, or l,, I did not understand the question
But he whispered very quietly as he was scared he would be a target if he spoke. His flop flopping from over thinking his position and what can be inferred from this and that is remarkably stupid. And not the actions of an innocent man.
An innocent man would do exactly what his defence tell him to do, to the letter.
I really need a lay down and something to revive me (another cup of tea perhaps!)
If Kapp is saying that.. I had to read it twice... If kapp says that,, it really was a bad morning for OP
Unlike most others, I have no issue with him shooting through the door at an intruder, real or imagined. If anyone breaks into your house, or you believe they have, then that's that. Game over. So the only thing that matters to me is whether he killed Steenkamp on purpose, knowing it was her behind the door.