Oscar Pistorius trial discussion

[Ashtonian]

Aye lid, ano.

Everything points to first-degree murder. He knowingly and deliberately pulled that trigger four times with the intention to kill. Maybe one shot could have been argued as being an accident, I don't know, but four shots (not forgetting the slight delay between shots two and three)... no chance.

Interesting today was Nel saying how the first shot his Reeva's right hip as she was stood next to the door, and hearing Oscar be unable to find a reason why she'd have been in that position if they weren't talking or arguing. He will not concede a single thing, it must surely cost him his freedom in the end.

He wouldn't admit he pulled the trigger of the gun beneath the table when he got his mate to take the rap for it, despite a ballistics expect stating it is impossible for that particular gun to go off accidentally; the trigger must be pulled. Surely he should have admitted his mistake!

Everything points to him being a negligent gun owner whose attitude towards carrying his pistol around and using it is a sheer disgrace. Send him down.

A different court would have had him hung strung and quartered by now i think. Its the odd way Nel cannot rip his story and credibility apart that interests me. How much can you prove him wrong if 'i don't know' is a valid end of statement answer in court?

And there is always the credibility of the evidence after the police got involved.....

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Aye lid, ano.

Everything points to first-degree murder. He knowingly and deliberately pulled that trigger four times with the intention to kill. Maybe one shot could have been argued as being an accident, I don't know, but four shots (not forgetting the slight delay between shots two and three)... no chance.

Interesting today was Nel saying how the first shot his Reeva's right hip as she was stood next to the door, and hearing Oscar be unable to find a reason why she'd have been in that position if they weren't talking or arguing. He will not concede a single thing, it must surely cost him his freedom in the end.

He wouldn't admit he pulled the trigger of the gun beneath the table when he got his mate to take the rap for it, despite a ballistics expect stating it is impossible for that particular gun to go off accidentally; the trigger must be pulled. Surely he should have admitted his mistake!

Everything points to him being a negligent gun owner whose attitude towards carrying his pistol around and using it is a sheer disgrace. Send him down.

The reason he's trying to make out that he somehow fired his gun 4 times "by accident" (how the actual flip is he hoping to make that stick btw?) is that if he admits to firing at whoever was behind the door, then irrespective of who it was it's almost certainly culpable homicide, as he had plenty of other alternatives before putting 4 rounds through a locked door, even if there was a burglar there. That charge carries up to 15 years.

 

[Big Fat Sam]

The reason he's trying to make out that he somehow fired his gun 4 times "by accident" (how the actual flip is he hoping to make that stick btw?) is that if he admits to firing at whoever was behind the door, then irrespective of who it was it's almost certainly culpable homicide, as he had plenty of other alternatives before putting 4 rounds through a locked door, even if there was a burglar there. That charge carries up to 15 years.

He is very, very careful with his words, as you'd expect. It's all "accident" this and "I can't remember" / "I can't explain" that. What a coward. That's the thing, isn't it? How can Nel prove 100% that he deliberately fired, there is no evidence apart from what all of the evidence they have alludes to. To say that he didn't intend to shoot the gun and didn't want to shoot the gun is just laughable; but that's what he is sticking to. I just get the feeling he'll get off with it... something along the lines of feeling vulnerable and not thinking about his actions and whatnot. But I am convinced he is guilty of the charges brought against him.

 

[Big Fat Sam]

A different court would have had him hung strung and quartered by now i think. Its the odd way Nel cannot rip his story and credibility apart that interests me. How much can you prove him wrong if 'i don't know' is a valid end of statement answer in court?

And there is always the credibility of the evidence after the police got involved.....

I know... he just repeats it over and over. But interestingly Nel often points out that he has very selective memory of certain events; that is, he can remember certain things in minute details, for example the day he fired the gun out of the sunroof he remembers exactly which turnoff he took on the road etc, and can also remember things he whispered to Reeva in the bedroom and exactly how he approched bathroom... but when it comes to the moment of truth he remembers nothing. He's clearly been briefed well.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

He is very, very careful with his words, as you'd expect. It's all "accident" this and "I can't remember" / "I can't explain" that. What a coward. That's the thing, isn't it? How can Nel prove 100% that he deliberately fired, there is no evidence apart from what all of the evidence they have alludes to. To say that he didn't intend to shoot the gun and didn't want to shoot the gun is just laughable; but that's what he is sticking to. I just get the feeling he'll get off with it... something along the lines of feeling vulnerable and not thinking about his actions and whatnot. But I am convinced he is guilty of the charges brought against him.

He altered his stance between firing the first 2 and the last 2 shots. As she'd fallen to the floor after the first shot hit her hip.

So his use of the word "accident" should be laughed out of court.

1 shot, it might have washed but 4? His team are taking the piss and the judge should bear that in mind, when she considers the murder charge.

 

[Ashtonian]

I know... he just repeats it over and over. But interestingly Nel often points out that he has very selective memory of certain events; that is, he can remember certain things in minute details, for example the day he fired the gun out of the sunroof he remembers exactly which turnoff he took on the road etc, and can also remember things he whispered to Reeva in the bedroom and exactly how he approached bathroom... but when it comes to the moment of truth he remembers nothing. He's clearly been briefed well.

Not well enough. If they get him off then it will be on a technicality otherwise he is guilty and being convicted.

The problem with his defence from what i have followed is that they have not really directed it to help him. If they had highlighted one area that proved his innocence and went full pelt at that then he could well have stood a chance in the trial. Instead they have left him open to all sorts of allegations and moments of vulnerability that they shouldn't have and as a result he has no case of innocence left.

He is clearly guilty, but the fact he has no real evidence to back him up, it pretty much confirms that.

 

[Big Fat Sam]

One thing I like by Mr Nel is how he keeps on presenting scenarios to Oscar who denies everything, then reminds him that his defence "would be jumping up if he (Nel) was wrong". He's done it on three or more occasions and not once has there been even as much as a murmur from Mr Roux. Or Oscar is suggesting things have been missed by his own team or whatnot and Nel would retort with "Mr Roux would not make a mistake like that" or "I know Mr Roux, and he wouldn't miss something like that."

Gerrie Nel is ace. I love how he simply tells Oscar he is lying or is a liar or that he isn't helping himself or that his version of events is simply not believable or that no court in the world would buy his story...

We'll see.

 

[Eggs]

Hasn't his entire not guilty plea pretty much been based on the police contaminating the scene, ie looking for loopholes rather than proving innocence

.....pretty much. The only way his story stands up if is the Police contaminated the scene. Its not so much the forensics, its the positioning of the furniture, clothes etc. To be credible, he has to out of the bed when he heard a noise in the bathroom, so he's saying he'd just moved the fans from the porch but the police pictures contradict this. If you look, the duvet is on the floor which suggests she ran from him, but he says the police put it there.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

.....pretty much. The only way his story stands up if is the Police contaminated the scene. Its not so much the forensics, its the positioning of the furniture, clothes etc. To be credible, he has to out of the bed when he heard a noise in the bathroom, so he's saying he'd just moved the fans from the porch but the police pictures contradict this. If you look, the duvet is on the floor which suggests she ran from him, but he says the police put it there.

Her jeans are also there, which suggests she was intending getting dressed in the middle of the night, his reason for their presence is that he wanted to cover an LED light on the TV, lol.

They'd argued, she was intending doing one, it's got heated, he'd gone at her with the cricket bat and she'd legged it into the shitter, no doubt shouting about how he was a loon and she was going to tell the World and his wife about it. At that point he's blown a gasket, grabbed his gun, and blown her head off.

 

[Eggs]

Her jeans are also there, which suggests she was intending getting dressed in the middle of the night, his reason for their presence is that he wanted to cover an LED light on the TV, lol.

They'd argued, she was intending doing one, it's got heated, he'd gone at her with the cricket bat and she'd legged it into the shitter, no doubt shouting about how he was a loon and she was going to tell the World and his wife about it. At that point he's blown a gasket, grabbed his gun, and blown her head off.

...important that the corner of the duvet was under the jeans, contradicting OPs view that the duvet was put on the floor (and on top of the jeans) by the police. The evidence is increasingly strong, but he still must be a psycho to have killed her, regardless of the reason.

 

[The Mighty Quint]

His story is a pack of lies, Has n't a leg to stand on and needs to be given an Oscar for all the crocodile tears.

 

[Kurt.]

It was Oscar

In the toilet


With the shotgun

 

[Dharma]

Getting a bit tired and impatient with all this now.
Hope he is aquitted soon so he can go out shoot all of his 'friends'.

 

[Big Fat Sam]

Her jeans are also there, which suggests she was intending getting dressed in the middle of the night, his reason for their presence is that he wanted to cover an LED light on the TV, lol.

They'd argued, she was intending doing one, it's got heated, he'd gone at her with the cricket bat and she'd legged it into the shitter, no doubt shouting about how he was a loon and she was going to tell the World and his wife about it. At that point he's blown a gasket, grabbed his gun, and blown her head off.

Inspector Butters thoroughly agrees with this post!

 

[tsubaki]

.....pretty much. The only way his story stands up if is the Police contaminated the scene. Its not so much the forensics, its the positioning of the furniture, clothes etc. To be credible, he has to out of the bed when he heard a noise in the bathroom, so he's saying he'd just moved the fans from the porch but the police pictures contradict this. If you look, the duvet is on the floor which suggests she ran from him, but he says the police put it there.

That is what the defence are trying to say, but the reality is that all of that doesnt materially affect the murder charge against him.

After all, he deliberately shot someone four times through a locked door - even if it was a burglar, he would still be guilty.