she did Supes, and she really did well under the pressure from Roux, makes you wonder why people want to be witnesses to be made out to be lairs...I think I would have been tempted to deck him, he's an horrid man 

 

 

nothing adds up Pengy, he's changed his story from his original statement...she was asleep, but now she was awake and talking to him before he went onto the veranda for the fans. If she was awake, why not warn her that there might be an intruder? The complex was well guarded, he had two guard dogs and all the other witnesses seem happy and safe enough to sleep with their patio doors open. he phoned his friend and not an ambulance and then carried her body downstairs after telling security that everything was fine...tosh, utter tosh. 

Plus , what self respecting burglar would lock themselves in the bathroom/ loo!!  

 

 

he was looking for what in the loo? its rubbish Baz, total rubbish. 

Does anyone on here thinks he's innocent?

The way I see it is that he had zero faith in her, was excessively checking on her (although he didn't want to come home that night, why?). They were arguing and the red mist came down. His ex girlfriend said he woke her several times thinking there were burglars in the house. Why would he behave differently with Reeva?

I think he will get off because the charge is murder. The prosecution should have gone for manslaughter. IMHO.

It doesn't really matter. Call me old fashioned but I have been following the "Trial of the Century!" It seems more relevant in that it involves the press, the polis, the criminals, and the politicians.
Don't ask me to start a thread though but.

Having watched the trial thus far, I am not yet convinced of his innocence or guilt. 

 

There is no doubt he did kill her, I still haven't decided if did it with intent or like he claims it was an accident. 

Anyone find it strange that he aimed for the toilet cubicle within the bathroom? If it was a burglar they'd be trying to make their escape through the window, rather than trap themselves like that?

 

Also, it seems a more female thing to do, to seek safety behind a locked door.

 

 

I agree with all of ya's that think he did it knowing exactly who he was shooting at.. may not have been pre meditated but defo a angry response moment on the night or morning it happened..

 

if I heard noises in the night and had a partner I would do things in this order

 

1) check my partner was in bed next to me

 

2a) if they were I'd dial the police first to say I think I have a burglar and then maybe get some sort of weapon [stick or summat]  and go looking [yeah I know that part is silly and potentially dangerous but I have done it before when I heard a weird noise. .luckily it was the letter box blowing in the wind in a  way it made a weird noise]  or

 

2b) if my partner was not there I'd call out and say is that you?

 

3) if the answer was yes I'd say you ok and if I got another yes I roll over and go back to sleep

 

4) if I got a no I'd ask or go see if they needed help

 

 

Am pretty sure that would be more or less most peoples reactions if they thought they were being burgled. .

 

 

I haven't watched any of the trial... but I'm with Olly, I've thought it was deliberate since the day it happened.  You don't wake up in the middle of the night and automatically think a noise in a locked bathroom is an intruder then shoot the shit out of the room without even checking your gf's in bed and ok and probably telling her to phone the police while you go and shoot the shit out of the room.....

I forgot to say if part 2a) in my list was the case that as well as calling the police I'd wake my partner up too so we could both go looking to see what was making the 'burglar' noise 

it seems the thing to do if a woman was trying to shield herself from an abusive partner.

That would certainly make more sense ...and I'm sure that's what I would do  

I haven't watched it on the TV but I have been following this thread - and this is what I thought at first pengy!!

 

 

I've thought about this all day, I go from thinking it was an accident and he panicked, to he darn well meant it! I am convinced however if it was an accident he's not been truthful in his recollection of events and that may be for his own self preservation. 

 

I still can't see how he hit her in the thigh and in the head if the bullet holes in the door are to go by? It looks to me she would have to be standing and then sitting  I'm sure it will all be explained later and I will be totally wrong. 

So you all thought I was on trial

 

 

I didn't Aims  the threads about murder...you only vandalise white goods 

 

 

I have been watching a summary of the pathologists testimony yesterday and it leaves more questions than answers.

 

1) The wound on her hand is consistent with a defence wound, Reeva raising her hand to protect her face, how would she know she was about to be shot through a closed door!

2) Her stomach contents means she ate something approximately two hours before she died and they would mean eating at 1am, Op has stated they went to bed at 10pm.

3) Why use a cricket bat to break the door down when one shot to the lock with the hollow tip bullets would have blew the lock open, I am giving him some leeway here and if his version is to be believed you could put this down to not thinking straight,

4) Roux is cross examination of Baba the security guard. Roux put it to him that Op had called security first, Baba said he did not, it was Baba that called OP and he said everything was fine, although Baba said you could tell he was crying. Roux put it to him and he misheard and OP had said he was fine...the theory of Roux is utter tosh, even if OP had called the security guard first why did he not tell him about the shooting, why say I'm fine and not mention his girlfriend was mortally wounded. Baba stuck to his story and said he phoned OP first.

5) Why did OP not call and ambulance right away, why did he call his friend/manager. It will also be interesting to hear if Medicare told him to carry her downstairs and take her to the hospital rather than wait for an ambulance The poor women had brain matter on her clothing, I find that incredulous.

 

There is just too many inconsistencies so far, I am trying to keep an open mind but its getting very difficult the more I hear. 

 

Dame, if I were the defence barrister, I would think it was reasonable to argue the following:

1. Reeva could have been raising her hand to her face for several reasons eg brush aside her long hair, scratch her nose etc, which would have resulted in the same injury to her hand. It didn't have to be a defence movement.

2. It's possible Reeva got up and ate something, while Oscar slept unaware. (Has happened in my house that one of us has got up for a while without the other noticing).

However, reading BBC's Twitter guy, it seems Roux suggested that the "2hours" timeframe is not exact and the pathologist conceded there could be an error of "an hour or two" in either dirction.

3.More than reasonable to assume that having realised it was Reeva he had shot in the bathroom, Oscar was in a blind panic and not thinking straight. Radiologist confirmed that Oscar was in a distraught state.

4.Guard stated that Oscar didn't speak during the first call but was crying. Security guard thought he had made the first call to Oscar and Oscar called him back, but phone records showed that Oscar had made the first call. 

In security guard's first statement he said "Mr Pistorious said he's okay", but changed it in a later statement to "everything is okay".

5.No idea about this one, until we hear Oscar's evidence.

 

I've read too many crime thrillers and watched too many police dramas, haven't I?

 

 

yes  

 

and I have considered all the points you have stated above Yogi, and I can understand Roux trying to poke holes in the witness statements as this is what he is being paid to do. So far, I am leaning to the side of he lost his temper...but there is still a long, long, longggggggg way to go at the speed the judiciary works in SA 

I truly am trying to keep an open mind, I must admit that I am finding it difficult to do. Even if he thought it was a burglar, he was not being threatened in any way and in my eyes he shot to kill, whoever was behind the door, 

I agree there is no doubt he intended to kill whoever he believed was behind the door. 

I think the prosecution's difficulty will be trying to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Oscar knew the person in the bathroom was Reeva. Otherwise, the defence that he fired the shots because he felt terrified and vulnerable, believing intruders to be in his house, carries some weight.

 

 

I would also like to say I have the right to change my mind after the defence put their case forward at any time  

 I'll probably be even more  once I've heard the defence.

Several of Aimee's ex appliances are now coming forward to make statements  

 On the testimony Aimee has given on here over the years, I would say she is a serial killer of white good. I say she is GUILTY!

"Goes on the run"

 

As she's pleaded guilty, shouldn't Aimee be shown mercy ?

I'm a fellow serial killer... of laptops, phones and mp3 players  Nothing gadgety is safe with me, NOTHING 

In that case, you two can share a cell. Who wants the top bunk?

I'll send EC in his transit van to find you.

 

I need to go clean out my greenhouse, be good till I get back.

I'd get off for insanity 

Lets spare a moment for the victims:  

 

 

Rosie....I can't be doing with heights  

 

 

rules out sharing a cell 

 

 

I think this witness is covering his own a&se, elements of truth and making sure he doesn't take any responsibility of being reckless with guns 

 

 

you have time to clean out my shed while your at it...another break  I'm looking at jobs in South Africa in the Judiciary service  I could do with an hours a day to socialize a bit more 

I ain't going to no prison Dame ! 

Goddam gadgets made me do it... with their confusing technology... and buttons... and stuff.