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

Whatsisname

Does anyone think this case will last another month? I don't see OP lasting that long, Nel is really crucifying him the last few days. Think its only a matter of time.

sopretty

Whatsisname wrote: »

Does anyone think this case will last another month? I don't see OP lasting that long, Nel is really crucifying him the last few days. Think its only a matter of time.

He will never admit to shooting her.

gramar

I'm surprised he's been caught on so many details. I thought Roux would have had him well schooled on his story and what to say and what not to say. I know he under tremendous pressure but still surprised by so many inconsistencies. That very fact leads me to believe that it's large fabricated or modified to fit his story.

Tasden

gramar wrote: »

I'm surprised he's been caught on so many details. I thought Roux would have had him well schooled on his story and what to say and what not to say. I know he under tremendous pressure but still surprised by so many inconsistencies. That very fact leads me to believe that it's large fabricated or modified to fit his story.

I think roux did prepare him but he's just doing his own thing. I have a feeling roux is very frustrated at this stage.

Mr. Boo

sopretty wrote: »

He will never admit to shooting her.

He's already admitted to shooting her.

gramar

sopretty wrote: »

He will never admit to shooting her intentionally.

Pity though, it would be the tv moment of the century to see him crack and say he did do it intentionally. 'Yeah I shot her, I fckin' shot her good and fcking meant it...fcuking deserved it too...'

My name is URL

Apart from the charge of murder, people seem to be forgetting that he's also on trial for other stuff

Discharging firearms in public - two counts

First count: He allegedly discharged a firearm at Tasha's restaurant on 11 January 2013.

The court heard that this happened at lunchtime, when more than 200 people were present, and children were near their table. The charge not only points to discharging a firearm in a public place but the reckless handling of the said firearm.

Mr Pistorius blamed his friend Darren Fresco for passing him a loaded gun but he denies pulling the trigger. Chief prosecutor Gerrie Nel said it must have been a "miracle".


Second count: He allegedly fired a gun through a car sunroof while with then girlfriend Samantha Taylor and friend Darren Fresco on 30 November 2012.

He has admitted getting angry after a police officer inspected his gun which was lying on a car seat, when they were stopped for speeding.

But he denies firing a gun, as alleged by both Ms Taylor and Mr Fresco.
line break
Illegal possession of ammunition

Mr Pistorius is charged with being in possession of .38 ammunition, which would be illegal because he does not have a licence for a gun that takes that ammunition, or a permit to be in possession of it or a dealer's licence which would allow him to be in possession of the bullets.

Mr Pistorius told the court the bullets belonged to his father and he had them for safe-keeping. Mr Nel says his father has refused to make a statement confirming this.

Seems to be a habitual liar as much as anything else. All those things he's in trouble for and he basically doesn't take any responsibility for any of it. Tosser

Merkin

Tasden wrote: »

I think roux did prepare him but he's just doing his own thing. I have a feeling roux is very frustrated at this stage.

Well especially considering his defense is entirely interchangeable. One moment he's saying the gun went off by mistake and the next is that he shot without thinking.

I'm sure Roux is having an almost week-long, protracted and painful face-palm moment.

Which would lead me to wonder, is Pistorius just going to crack under the pressure? Considering he's an Olympain athlete I very much doubt it but who knows, Fel is a hard task-master!

sopretty

Merkin wrote: »

Well especially considering his defense is entirely interchangeable. One moment he's saying the gun went off by mistake and the next is that he shot without thinking.

I'm sure Roux is having an almost week-long, protracted and painful face-palm moment.

Which would lead me to wonder, is Pistorius just going to crack under the pressure? Considering he's an Olympain athlete I very much doubt it but who knows, Fel is a hard task-master!

He won't break. He believes his own version at this stage. He starts to cry, only when his version is found to be implausible.

When I said above that he would never admit to shooting her, clearly I meant that he will never admit to shooting her knowingly or intentionally.

Tasden

Merkin wrote: »

Well especially considering his defense is entirely interchangeable. One moment he's saying the gun went off by mistake and the next is that he shot without thinking.

I'm sure Roux is having an almost week-long, protracted and painful face-palm moment.

Which would lead me to wonder, is Pistorius just going to crack under the pressure? Considering he's an Olympain athlete I very much doubt it but who knows, Fel is a hard task-master!

I can feel the collective face palm of everyone watching every time he changes his story or resorts to "I don't remember m'lady" :pac:
Poor Roux!

gramar

sopretty wrote: »

He won't break. He believes his own version at this stage. He starts to cry, only when his version is found to be implausible.

When I said above that he would never admit to shooting her, clearly I meant that he will never admit to shooting her knowingly or intentionally.

Anyone that has been following this thread knew that! You're fairly well inforemd to be fair!

I also agree about him believing his own lies, as far as the details go I don't think he has a clue as he's not sure what's is true and what isn't.

The jeans, the duvet, lights on the stereo, blue lights, white lights.
It's a huge amount to have remember from a hugely stressful event whether it was intentional or not. All of these things are spinning around in his head, Nel is in his face and he is barely holding it together.

Ihatecuddles

If Nel was his defence lawyer would he be in a better position now?

Even slightly?

Tasden

mauzo! wrote: »

If Nel was his defence lawyer would he be in a better position now?

Even slightly?

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

dark crystal

I've only been following the case sporadically and haven't read through the entire thread, but Oscar's version doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

If I heard a noise in the bathroom during the night, I would just automatically assume it was my partner, not an intruder; intruders in bathrooms are much rarer than family members!
If on checking, my partner was still in bed, only then would I become in any way suspicious. The fact he says he was screaming at the intruder before firing, without Reeva either waking and asking wtf was going on, or shouting back from the bathroom doesn't make any sense, either.

Also, to shoot four shots, with no sight or sound of an actual intruder seems excessively preemptive, when your partner's whereabouts haven't been accounted for first. The whole story just seems illogical to me.

Tasden

Oh actually can someone ( maybe sopretty might know this one! ) explain the magazine rack and the direction of the bullets and then her falling? What were they trying to prove/disprove? That he aimed at her?

sopretty

Tasden wrote: »

Oh actually can someone ( maybe sopretty might know this one! ) explain the magazine rack and the direction of the bullets and then her falling? What were they trying to prove/disprove? That he aimed at her?

I think that they were trying to prove intent to kill rather than self defence. i.e. that he hadn't heard/perceived a door to open, that he had not shot at where an intruder might be (by his own admission, chest level, nearer to the handle of the door).

Tasden

sopretty wrote: »

I think that they were trying to prove intent to kill rather than self defence. i.e. that he hadn't heard/perceived a door to open, that he had not shot at where an intruder might be (by his own admission, chest level, nearer to the handle of the door).

Thanks.

Could he not argue he was aiming to hinder an intruder instead of shooting to kill and that's why? I missed the actual angles so not sure

sopretty

Tasden wrote: »

Thanks.

Could he not argue he was aiming to hinder an intruder instead of shooting to kill and that's why? I missed the actual angles so not sure

He could. He has tried. He accidentally, without intention, shot the gun, four times lol. He has argued that point. He was startled by a noise in the bathroom. Apparently. Then he accidentally, out of fear, just shot. Pistorious is trying to get out of even the minimal charge of recklessness. Nobody, least of all Nel, is buying it.

sopretty

Tasden wrote: »

Thanks.

Could he not argue he was aiming to hinder an intruder instead of shooting to kill and that's why? I missed the actual angles so not sure

He has never argued that point. The laws there are clear. You can't shoot unless in imminent danger. He had no right to shoot by law, so, that is why he is arguing that he accidentally, without thinking, shot through the door, in self defence.

Tasden

sopretty wrote: »

He could. He has tried. He accidentally, without intention, shot the gun, four times lol. He has argued that point. He was startled by a noise in the bathroom. Apparently. Then he accidentally, out of fear, just shot. Pistorious is trying to get out of even the minimal charge of recklessness. Nel (and nobody else) is buying it.

Well no I mean he aimed for where he thought would not be the chest or head of an intruder, just a limb or whatever, or even not at the intruder but towards the feet or ceiling or whatever rather than an accidental shot.
Dunno if I'm making sense!

sopretty

Tasden wrote: »

Well no I mean he aimed for where he thought would not be the chest or head of an intruder, just a limb or whatever, or even not at the intruder but towards the feet or ceiling or whatever rather than an accidental shot.
Dunno if I'm making sense!

You see, if he argued that way, he'd have to admit to intentionally shooting.

Tasden

sopretty wrote: »

You see, if he argued that way, he'd have to admit to intentionally shooting.

Ah ok I get ya, but even if he intentionally shot to injure as opposed to kill (taking away the fact he couldn't see because of the door, just assuming they were face to face- and that there was an intruder at all :pac:) it would be manslaughter no??
But he'd be guilty on the other gun charges?

sopretty

Tasden wrote: »

Ah ok I get ya, but even if he intentionally shot to injure as opposed to kill (taking away the fact he couldn't see because of the door, just assuming they were face to face- and that there was an intruder at all :pac:) it would be manslaughter no??
But he'd be guilty on the other gun charges?

It would be culpable homicide even then, as it would not be self defence in the context of his version of events.

Pistorious is endeavouring to walk free of all charges.

He is trying to argue that 1. he did not know Reeva was in the bathroom, 2. that he was acting in self defence and 3, on cross-examination, that given that it was not provable self defence, then it was some sort of accidental reaction by his finger on the trigger to shoot into that door.

Tasden

sopretty wrote: »

It would be culpable homicide even then, as it would not be self defence in the context of his version of events.

Pistorious is endeavouring to walk free of all charges.

He is trying to argue that 1. he did not know Reeva was in the bathroom, 2. that he was acting in self defence and 3, on cross-examination, that given that it was not provable self defence, then it was some sort of accidental reaction by his finger on the trigger to shoot into that door.

Thank you!

upstairs for coffee

sopretty wrote: »

It would be culpable homicide even then, as it would not be self defence in the context of his version of events.

Pistorious is endeavouring to walk free of all charges.

He is trying to argue that 1. he did not know Reeva was in the bathroom, 2. that he was acting in self defence and 3, on cross-examination, that given that it was not provable self defence, then it was some sort of accidental reaction by his finger on the trigger to shoot into that door.

And how do you think the case will pan out?

sopretty

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

And how do you think the case will pan out?

I feel Nel is going moreso for the lower charge i.e., that he shot with intention to kill 'an intruder'. He is finding it hard to nail Pistorious down in terms of Reeva being in the bathroom, apart from to lead him into telling lies and changing his version of events. Whether that would be enough to convict him of Reeva's murder, I wouldn't have a bull's notion lol!

amdublin

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

And how do you think the case will pan out?

With a lot of whinging and whinging from Moany Pistorius. God I cannot listen to the little idiot.

stpaddy99

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

desbrook

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 ?

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?

desbrook

stpaddy99 wrote: »

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

The Irish system is a LOT slower afaik!

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.