UKC

Seems to me that the courtroom breakdowns betray genuine remorse-remorse for having lost control, but this also serves his defence by portraying himself as grief stricken
over a terrible "mistake". The more I see, the more I think this guy is a murderer, trying to get away with it.

In reply to Removed Userena sharples:

Me too. I think he's genuinely remorseful, hence the tears, but for what he actually did, not what he says he did.

In reply to Removed Userena sharples:

Yep, reminds me of Jeremy Kyle.

In reply to Removed Userena sharples:

Easy pickings for the prosecution lawyer who seems to be ripping him to pieces.

In reply to Removed Userena sharples:

Agreed. Oscar Pistorious comes across as being the most important person in his life, he is showing remorse for the fact that his actions have put Mr Pistorious into this horrible situation, and he is now feeling very sorry for Mr Pistorious.

But that's a matter for the Judge who is much more experienced than any of us to decide on.

There is no doubt however that by firing his gun 4 times through that door he intended to kill somebody......

Even if it had been an intruder wouldn't that still have been murder?

In reply to Trangia:

I'm not sure that's the case in South Africa but couldn't be sure.

The whole thing is quite macabre, but even in my most lucid nightmare dreams on occasions I never think that my wife, who has nipped into the bathroom, is an intruder and would certainly have checked first. But you just never know.

In reply to Rampikino:

Whether he's innocent or guilty, there is no doubt that he must be absolutely terrified. There is no longer the death penalty in SA, and a SA prison for a white Afrikaner, particularly one from a privileged background like his, must be the nearest place to hell on earth you could think of.

In reply to Removed Userena sharples:


The more I see, the more I am convinced that only one person in this world knows what actually happened. The rest are just making it up to fit their own prejudices. This whole circus basically boils down to "Is he telling the truth?" and we will never ever find out regardless of the verdict.

In reply to ByEek:

I don't think one can even begin to call what he is saying 'the truth' - it's just so incoherent and riddled with inconsistencies. He sometimes gives alternative versions of the story then has to make corrections. You have also overlooked the possibliity that one day (perhaps when he's in prison, as now seems quite likely) he may actually tell us the truth.

In reply to Removed Userena sharples:

He doesn't have a leg to stand on



i'll pull the door shut on my way out

In reply to Removed Userena sharples:

Paddypower think he's innocent.

No, wait,


I may have that wrong.

In reply to ByEek:

PS to last. His defence, the whole time, seems to be that not just the police but all witnesses are lying or mistaken. It gets crazier almost by the minute. Latest: he's testified that he's found Reeva in the toilet, covered in blood and nearly dead, so he goes back to his bedroom to make a phone call - and the prosecution case is that he rang the security guard to tell him he's 'fine'. He denies ever saying that (I don't think he denies he rang the security guard ... even before ringing anyone for help, ambulance etc)

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Clearly stumped by this questioning.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I don't think you can read too much into that sort of oddness either way. Finding you have just shot your wife dead by accident would, I expect, lead most people to be fairly irrational and probably to not remember events very clearly.

In reply to Removed Userena sharples:

The more I see, the more I think "Why is one murder in a murder capital of the world such continuing "news" ?"

In reply to MG:

What do you mean 'either way'? Yes, Pistorius may have been mentally deranged, but not so mentally deranged as to a) ring the security guard (as his first act after finding Reeva) b) reply coherently to the security guard that he's 'fine'. Odder still that he didn't ask for help. Actually, in the light of the whole mountain of evidence, it's not odd at all. He probably had a very good reason to do that.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


What reason is that?

In reply to GrahamD:

Because 'news' and 'entertainment' are modern day synonyms.

And as entertainment it's pretty compelling viewing at times.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

That is for the court to decide. My (already forming) judgement - from what I have seen so far - is not relevant.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


THat on its own it doesn' help very much with deciding guilt or innocence.



Yes, Pistorius may have been mentally deranged, but not so mentally deranged as to...

Why not? People do all sorts of strange things even in mildly stressful situations (e.g. a car crash with no injuries), let alone after shooting dead their wife.

In reply to john arran:

I think most people are finding it compelling because they are concerned about the truth being found in the case. Reeva's mother has said she is finding it compelling - she is really trying to understand how Pistorious's mind ticks. It is one of the most bizarre cases in the history of criminal law, isn't it? As a BBC commentator has said, what makes it so unusual is that this is not a whodunnit but a whydunnit.

The defence are now in a rather scary position. Pistorius has challenged so many witnesses that surely they can all now be brought back for cross-examination to reiterate under oath what they have testified already?

In reply to john arran:

The latest compelling development is that Gerrie Nel appears to have played something of a blinder today. This was 'the last day of cross-examination' of Pistorious by the prosecution, and I think most people were expecting Nel to use the full day. But he wrapped it up very suddenly and swiftly at 11 am in the morning (their time), leaving the defence in a hell of a mess. I.e. no time to prepare. Because now Roux has to cross-examine P to get him to answer all the inconsistencies Gel has brought up ... with no time for preparation. And still many hours of the day left.

In reply to Removed Userena sharples:

Pistorious looks really unstable at the moment. I'm sure a couple of beer mats will do the trick.

E

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Gerrie Nel needs a medal for not losing it with being called "my Lady" by Pistorius all day long

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I dare say Roux may have anticipated that move on Nel's part. At any rate it does not alter the Pistorious defence, which appears to be the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears, going
La La La whilst saying "it wasn't me" and hoping the whole thing will go away.

In reply to Removed Userena sharples:

Re. first point. Yes. Roux OK, but Pistorius, very little time (they just had a 10 min adjournment). Mind you, it doesn't seem that Roux can help him much.

Re. second point. Yup.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

So are you saying that we humans are notoriously good at giving clear, concise and consistent evidence under such pressure... and that because this chap isn't he must therefore be guilty? I can't imagine what it must be like to be cross examined by someone nicknamed "The Pit Bull" for days on end.

I don't know whether this chap is guilty or not. But I am convinced that he is not getting a fair trial, and that the family and friends of the deceased will not see true justice either.

In reply to john arran:


I don't know what happened but I'll take a shot at it.

In reply to Removed Userena sharples:

The rumour mill puts it pretty simply.

She was fame hungry, shagged around, and taunted him about it.

He was a neanderthal with a short fuse.

Eventually this mix didn't end well......

In reply to Removed Userena sharples:

I'd prefer to see 'BBC Pistorius 24' return to being 'BBC News 24'; I'm pretty sick of the trial coverage when I'm having my breakfast*, and would prefer to see a wider news summary... I'm sure there are more important things to report on.

* Actually, I change channel straight away...

The South African police have said that Pistorius may get the electric chair.

If you ask me he was quick enough on a pair of blades, never mind giving him a mobility scooter.

In reply to Removed Userena sharples:

I'm fascinated by the way it has captured the world's attention. I was down in court the other day and it was the main topic of conversation in the tea room. It struck me as quite incredible that this should be the main topic of conversation in a Courthouse thousands of miles away, and in a different jurisdiction.

The reason behind the media interest is not the fact that he's famous, but the fact that it's televised. I remember a similar, if not greater, interest in the OJ trial - which I also think was caused by the fact it was televised.

I'm a bit disappointed in the lawyers so far. There have been small flashes of skill but no knockout blows. Remeber the glove in the OJ case? "If it doesn't fit you must acquit". Brilliant advocacy, brilliant theatre, and hugely influential in terms of OJ's acquittal. We haven't seen that sort of flair from either side in the Pistorius case yet. Maybe it's yet to come.

In reply to M0nkey:

They're not playing to a jury though.

In reply to M0nkey:


I'm wondering if part of the fascination, in legal circles at least, is to do with the lack of a jury in this trial. I know that's the way it is done in SA, but I personally find it fascinating to get an insight into a judicial system that differs so much from ours.

In reply to Removed Userena sharples:

A few things don't stack up for me,

Firstly if you are resident in a house and fear someone else in the house an instinctive thing is to hide in the bathroom as it has internal locks. For a detected intruder the instinct would be to retrace your entry route or to seek a room with an exit.

Getting a semi automatic pistol ready to fire (unless you are stupid enough to keep a loaded, cocked and safety catch released weapon in your bedroom) requires several steps, smooth enough if you are familiar with firearms but which will nonetheless inject some time into events. Time you could use to assertain the whereabouts of people you definitely don't want to have holes in. This process is audible and unmistakeable.

One vocalisation from my partner and I'd recognise her instantly, make the gun safe and get back to bed.

If I was outside a closed door to a room with no other exit with an unidentified person behind the door I'd be in a position to cover the door without being in an obvious line of fire from behind the door, he effectively had a commanding position but still fired first with no effort to establish who his target was. If that's not intent to kill not sure what is.

My stepson in in SA now seeing his Dad, he was texting his mum all night saying he was terrified of intruders. I hope his dad handles his guns more responsibly than Oscar.

In reply to DerwentDiluted:


As I understand it he is denying intentionally shooting at anyone. To admit that he deliberately shot at a person, intruder or otherwise, would be to admit murder (since he couldn't argue self defence in those circs). Hence his defence is that he let off four rounds before he even knew what he was doing. Bad luck huh?

In reply to DerwentDiluted:

I hesitate to cast judgement about things like this, but what I found compelling is the thought that if I thought someone had broken into our house the first thing I would do is establish where my wife and daughter were, and that they were safe.

There's too much about this case that doesn't look good for Pistorius.

In reply to ByEek:


I've ruminated on this comment for some time and came to realise, the exact same can be said of any trial.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

Worth saying as well, how awful all this his for Reeva's family. How her mum is coping with it I really don't know.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

.... if I thought someone had broken into our house the first thing I would do is establish where my wife and daughter were, and that they were safe.

Spot on, you would wake them up, tell them to be careful,hide in a wardrobe, or under the bed, up the loft or whatever , and be in a position to phone the police.
But not leave them sleeping to possibly be unaware , awoken by commotion, and blunder into danger.

It has happened to me a couple of times, I heard 'something' , woke my wife and went downstairs to investigate . Both occasions turned out to be false alarms, but if it had not been, my wife would at least have been aware of the situation and could have called for help, and taken steps to protect herself .

His actions just don't add up for me, particularly in SA, where they are more security minded, they must have plans for such eventualities. Leaving your loved one sleeping can't be a sensible plan.

In reply to Removed Userena sharples:

What do I have to believe?

1. Shot 4 times accidentally (with previous); didn't check partner before, or victim during, no screams. Witnesses lying. Intruder chose to lock into bathroom. Shock and remorse provoked strange post-event behaviour.

2. Had blazing valentine's row with partner who pushed it too far. lost it. Perhaps thougth I would scare her.

In reply to Removed Userena sharples:

I was once woken up in the middle of the night by a noise downstairs.

100% convinced that the wife was asleep beside me I got out of bed and went downstairs to find the kitchen light on and the wife making a cuppa..

If she hadn't had the light so that I could see that it was her I dont know what I would have done.

I can believe Oscar's story.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Why does he do that? I thought it was a mistake on Twitter?

In reply to Gone for good:

He's addressing the female judge.

In reply to mgco3:

Can't work out if that is a joke or not?

In reply to Jim C:

Spot on, you would wake them up, tell them to be careful,hide in a wardrobe, or under the bed, up the loft or whatever

That's exactly what he did when he suggested she go and lock herself in the bathroom...

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

I see. I wasn't aware he was addressing the judge. Thank you for enlightening me.

In reply to FreshSlate:

No joke. I seriously thought her indoors was in the bed!!

In my half awake state I hadn't realised she had got up.

When you have woken from a real deep sleep your mind isn't firing on all cylinders straight away.

In reply to mgco3:


Too right. Actually mine isn't firing on all cylinders at any time.

In reply to mgco3:

Your mind isn't firing on all cylinders straight away.

Well, his gun certainly was....

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:


Hmmmm - interesting. I am not sure. There are trials where the accused pleads guilty - fair dos. Then there are the trials where a number of unconnected witnesses / CCTV saw the accused commit the crime. There are also trials where a whole body of evidence points to the accused having committed the crime.

Then there are trials like this which are basically one person's word against the other but to make matters worse, the notoriety of the subjects brings forth the media circus to muddy the waters.

In reply to ByEek:

Fair point(s)

In reply to mgco3:

Yeah I get that. Although waking up a bit groggy and discharging a firearm 4 times. I just can't see it, it takes a level of awareness to do that. I think you're more likely to stumble into a room with an intruder in without realising than wake up in some kind of hyper sensitive state that leads one to be trigger happy. Has he said he was having nightmares? I heard about a man who strangled his wife during his sleep once, suffered really badly.

In reply to FreshSlate:

" I heard about a man who strangled his wife during his sleep once"

You can get away with that one can you? interesting...


<checks insurance paperwork>

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Yeah it was in the news: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/nov/17/husband-strangled-wife-during-nig...

Good luck with that, I'll take only a 30% cut for the idea.