Blade Runner becomes Blade Gunner **Mod Warning Read OP""

gramar

Tasden wrote: »

I doubt it, he'd still answer the cross examination questions in such a way that he thinks he won't be implicated while he is in actual fact digging a deeper hole for himself. Its his own fault now tbh

That's it right there, he is trying to distance himself from his actions by saying they were somehow involuntary to get on a lesser charge when all it does his undermine his whole character and lean people towards thinking that he did do it intentionally.

Dubl07

desbrook wrote: »

Quick questions guys - has OP testified that he called out /shouted while in the bathroom or just outside in the bedroom?Surely the acoustics of a large bathroom would mean that any noise he made would instantly have alerted Reeva that he was nearby as distinct from in another room ?

Any reasonable person would think so.

desbrook wrote: »

I'm presuming that as here a defendant cannot be compelled to testify. In hindsight would Roux have been better to keep OP off the stand?

Not half.

sunflower27

So he hobbled up to the bathroom and shot into the door without saying 'who is that?'

And he forgot he had a girlfriend sleeping there with him?

having read some of the email/text exchanges, it is clear he was a jealous and volatile man. Interesting how his little voice on the stand sounds nothing like that, but more of a meek and mild man that wouldn't hurt a fly. An Oscar-winning performance. Pun intended.

I have an awful feeling the b*stard will get off.

Cushie Butterfield

stpaddy99 wrote: »

the case took too long to get to court and allow Oscar too much time to work on his version of events

I don't think so, considering that he gave a detailed version during his bail hearing five days after the event - a much longer & detailed version than would have been normal or even required to do in RSA at a bail hearing (forensic evidence hadn't even been released at the time). If he hadn't done this the chances of him getting bail would have been drastically reduced. Bear in mind that the Paraic Nally case here took a year to come to trial also & more recently the Gerard Vollrath case (the man who smothered his mother in the nursing home in Waterford) took about two years to come to trial. So the wheels of justice usually do turn at a snail's pace.

If Pistorius had remained in custody until the trial it would have given him plenty of time to work with his defence team on a more plausible version after all the evidence against him was made available. As it stands Nel is constantly referring to his bail affadavit, so Pistorius is being mindful (or at least trying to) stick as closely as possible to this.

So the time it took to trial really hasn't worked in his favour at all. I think it has worked against him as it gave the prosecution team more time to dig up more dirt on him as well as time to explore different angles at picking holes in his story.

Even up until yesterday, with the help of good closing arguements by Roux, he had a decent chance of leading M'Lady to believe that he made an honest mistake & that this mistake was a reasonable one to make & probably stood a good chance of just being found guilty of culpable homocide with the possibility of walking away a free man. But now it looks to me that he has definitely at least secured a murder conviction (15 years). If M'Lady decides that because of the apparent discrepancies as stated by him with regard to his intent when he discharged his gun, coupled with other arguements as put forwrad by Nel (position of jeans, duvet, cables, light, curtains, fans, whispering/low voice/screaming/shouting etc) are just too unbelievable or unexplainable , she could well decide that his version of events are just totally unreliable in which case she really has no choice but to ignore them completely & accept Nel's version. If that happens she could find him guilty of premeditated murder (minimum 25 years). I think that Nel only realistically expected a murder conviction at most - that is up until yesterday.

There is still the matter of the firearm charges, but at this stage those convictions would merely be icing on the cake for Nel, whether any sentence would be concurrent or not.

Gyalist

sunflower27 wrote: »

having read some of the email/text exchanges, it is clear he was a jealous and volatile man. Interesting how his little voice on the stand sounds nothing like that, but more of a meek and mild man that wouldn't hurt a fly. An Oscar-winning performance. Pun intended.
.

There was a little incident last week that, to me at least, revealed a lot about OP's character. It was when he was being cross-examined about the charge of firing his gun through the sunroof. He accused the policeman who stopped them of not treating him with "courtesy" and "respect". Never mind that they were originally stopped because the car was speeding. The mask slipped and there were brief flashes of his temper and you could hear the contempt in his voice.

I've always maintained that the way that someone treats another person who they perceive as being beneath them (retail staff, waiters, etc) reveals a lot about their true character.

Vudgie

I believe I read that OP had to take the stand as he was the only witness to the event.....open to correction on that though.

OP was quite evasive yesterday particularly around the lights on the amplifier. It was an interesting point that Reeva had her things packed which could suggest that she was going to leave, though it could also suggest that she had only just arrived that evening. We are still awaiting a knock out blow by Nel but I'm not sure he necessarily has one.

Interesting couple of days ahead though as surely Nel will try to turn the screw.

COYW

stpaddy99 wrote: »

the case took too long to get to court and allow Oscar too much time to work on his version of events

Well it wasn't long enough. He is under serious pressure at the moment and the cracks are starting to appear in his version of events. He is being asked to demonstrate how he approached the door, again. Starting to cry now.

Merkin

Aaaaaaaaand we're off.....

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/15/oscar-pistorius-trial-live-15-april

Tasden

So sorry for all the silly questions... importance of magazine rack?? Why did OP lie about that?

super_furry

Honestly, is there anyone at all that believes his version of events?

Tasden

super_furry wrote: »

Honestly, is there anyone at all that believes his version of events?

I think there is enough doubt surrounding the states version that he could get off.

The Caveman

Unless i missed it,,,

did Nell he ask OP why the toilet keys was on the floor, as like 1 min ago, some intruder closed the door, locked them self inside, and took out the keys, and dropped them on the floor ( without OP hearing it)

Merkin

Is that it?! Looks like Nel has finished his cross examination! What next?

Tasden

Merkin wrote: »

Is that it?! Looks like Nel has finished his cross examination! What next?

Roux will try helplessly to salvage it

Cushie Butterfield

Tasden wrote: »

So sorry for all the silly questions... importance of magazine rack?? Why did OP lie about that?

I think it's more of an attempt to prove that OP's claim that the rack was definitely where he said it was is untrue - not that where it was is in any way important but that his account or version of what happened that night is not accurate either - basically just casting more doubt on his credibility.

upstairs for coffee

Bit of a damp squib of an ending there. Don't for one minute believe Oscar Pistorious but don't think Nel has done enough to get a murder conviction.

sunflower27

Gyalist wrote: »

There was a little incident last week that, to me at least, revealed a lot about OP's character. It was when he was being cross-examined about the charge of firing his gun through the sunroof. He accused the policeman who stopped them of not treating him with "courtesy" and "respect". Never mind that they were originally stopped because the car was speeding. The mask slipped and there were brief flashes of his temper and you could hear the contempt in his voice.

I've always maintained that the way that someone treats another person who they perceive as being beneath them (retail staff, waiters, etc) reveals a lot about their true character.

Yes, very good point and one I entirely agree with. I wonder if that is what the prosecutor was trying for with OP. get him so angry the mask would slip. Reminds me of that classic line in A Few Good Men with Jack Nicholson.

Cushie Butterfield

Merkin wrote: »

Is that it?! Looks like Nel has finished his cross examination! What next?

AFAIK he can argue any points or accusations made & can call witnesses & rexamine previous witnesses but can't introduce any new evidence or witnesses that haven't already been named/planned in his defence

Merkin

sunflower27 wrote: »

Yes, very good point and one I entirely agree with. I wonder if that is what the prosecutor was trying for with OP. get him so angry the mask would slip. Reminds me of that classic line in A Few Good Men with Jack Nicholson.

I should imagine so. I think the intention was to probably make OP very angry thereby demonstrating a lack of impulse control.

Cushie Butterfield

SkyNews reporting that one possibility is that OP, now that he has the opportunity to consult with Roux, could now concede that the court has at least 1% doubt & might change his plea to guilty on the lesser charge of culpable homocide. It would then be up to the state to accept this guilty plea or go ahead & hope that M'Lady will find him guilty on one of the higher charges.

Merkin

Scarlet for Oscar

AlexCrawfordSky Follow

#OscarPistorius comes out into courtroom again having left briefly and has to squeeze past Gerrie Nel to get to his counsel. Looked awkward

Whatsisname

Merkin wrote: »

Scarlet for Oscar

AlexCrawfordSky Follow

#OscarPistorius comes out into courtroom again having left briefly and has to squeeze past Gerrie Nel to get to his counsel. Looked awkward

That is without doubt, something that I thought would only happen to me. :pac:

lazza14

So how long is this trial estimated to take ?

Merkin

May 16th with a break for Easter

Merkin

Pistorius now back on the stand and being re-examined by Roux

lazza14

Merkin wrote: »

May 16th with a break for Easter

long trial ... ill check back then ..

Cushie Butterfield

More proof that the evidence at the scene was tampered with. The jeans, in the photo that Nel relied upon were inside out, but in another photo they were right side out.

Deise Vu

Yet more strange evidence today:

Pistorius says he tried to pick Reeva up but couldn't. He saw her mobile phone on the bathroom floor so picked it up, rushed to the bedroom and left it there. He then picked up his own mobile phone and ran back to Reeva's body. (from the Guardian).

Apart from that being a bit peculiar (to put it mildly), now we know we only have OP's word that Reeva had her phone in the bathroom. That would definitely explain the lack of phone calls to the police or security. Was she screaming out the window instead? That might explain why some of the neighbours from a distance away could hear her. On that point, where were the security people when the alleged screaming was going on? Was there any evidence from them or will we hear that in the defence? Of course OP says he was screaming like a girl so I suppose that won't be considered definitive either. I have to say, security must be pretty poor, if they heard nothing if there was a screaming match and shots fired.

Having said all that I do not know how OP or all his defenders on here can explain this line:

Pistorius says he doesn't remember speaking to security but the phone records show he rang him (sic) first. He doesn't know why he apparently told security "everything is fine". (Also from the Guardian).

There is one reason and one reason only you tell security everything is fine after you have just shot the head off your girlfriend.

Cushie Butterfield

It's just been clarified that the light in the toilet cubicle wasn't working which would probably explain why she brought her phone with her.

Tasden

Cushie Butterfield wrote: »

It's just been clarified that the light in the toilet cubicle wasn't working which would probably explain why she brought her phone with her.

That's what I originally thought about her having the phone, a light source, but nel pointed out that if she used the phone as a light source she would've used it to guide her to the bathroom and therefore he would've seen her go to the bathroom- a light in the middle of a dark room is fairly noticeable.

Looks like there is too much doubt all round I think. I'd be surprised if he doesn't get away with it, not necessarily because he is believed but just because there is too many questions still unanswered.