I'm somewhat taken aback by the fact she is dressed. These aren't parents who needed to be covered because there's a chance their kids will come into the room, they are young lovers on Valentines Day.

Maybe she was going to leave because he was being a dickhead. He shot her in anger and to keep her from leaving.

(04-10-2014, 02:01 PM)ramseycat Wrote: Maybe she was going to leave because he was being a dickhead.

That's what I've thought since I first found out she was dressed.

That thing should come with subtitles. The blabbering boob.

I really hope the judge isn't buying his act. And that she doesn't give him special consideration because of his disability. Him being an amputee has no bearing on this case one way or the other.

pussy.

(04-10-2014, 02:06 PM)ramseycat Wrote: I really hope the judge isn't buying his act. And that she doesn't give him special consideration because of his disability. Him being an amputee has no bearing on this case one way or the other.

From what I gather he's pretty much fucked. I wonder what his new nickname will be in a South African prison?

IT WAS MISTAKEN IDENTITY AND IT WAS AN ACCIDENT - Pistorius claims...

"I didn't intend to shoot. My firearm was pointed at the door because that's where I believed that somebody was," he said. "When I heard a noise, I didn't have to think, and I fired -- I fired my weapon. It was an accident."

Well, there we have it. Pistorius directly stated during cross-examination today that not only did he shoot due to mistaken identity, but he did it without thinking and it was an accident. BULLSHIT.

I hope the judge sees it as I do. He's clearly lying about the "didn't mean to shoot, it was an accident" scenario. It's been proven that he told those same lies when discharging firearms illegally in the past. And, he was more trained and experienced with firearms than most; liked shooting guns and was comfortable doing so. He'd intentionally shoot an intruder, and that would likely be justified under the law if his story were true.

So, why lie about that? In my mind, since he feels compelled to lie about intending to shoot through the toilet door in order to minimize what he did, there's no reasonable doubt that he's lying about knowing who he was shooting at. That's what I think. But the prosecution still has an uphill battle, IMO.

Nel kept hammering Pistorius during cross-examination today. Good; he needs to get the prosecution's theory heard and challenge Pistorius' version. I hope it's enough -- there is no physical evidence to condemn Pistorius and definitively disprove his version of events. The case is almost entirely circumstantial -- the "female" screams the neighbors heard and the idea that the couple was arguing are keys to the prosecution's case.

If the judge doesn't think those points have been proven beyond reasonable doubt, it's just culpable homicide -- unless she also believes that it was an accident and Pistorius didn't mean to shoot or kill anybody but was instead so vulnerable that he was in auto survivor mode -- in which case he could walk (figuratively).

I don't think he's getting out of the previous firearm charges no matter what, but not sure how much time (if any) he could get for those.

HEATED CROSS-EXAMINATION ENDS FOR THE WEEK - NEL GETS CHASTISED FOR CALLING PISTORIUS A LIAR

Nel, known in South African legal circles for his bulldog-like approach to cross-examination, responded to Pistorius' testimony almost with scorn.

"Your version is so improbable that nobody would ever think that it was reasonably, possibly true," he said.

Nel then hammered Pistorius on whether he had known Steenkamp was in the toilet when he fired.

"You knew Reeva was behind the door, and you shot at her," Nel said more than once.

"That's not true," Pistorius replied in a low tone.


^ This is Nel grilling Pistorius about how little sense it makes that Reeva would not have screamed or communicated if he screamed at her to call police, as he contends -- he was right outside the toilet door and she was right behind it.

That dramatic moment was when Nel asked for the trial to be adjourned until Monday morning.

Pistorius earlier denied being "ready to shoot" as he made his way to the bathroom where he says he heard what he thought was an intruder.

But he agreed that he had taken off the safety catch so he could fire if needed. "I didn't want to take anybody's life. I screamed for the intruders to get out of my home," he said.

"You wanted to shoot," contended Nel, who on Thursday sought to build a picture of Pistorius as an arrogant hothead who is reckless with guns.

Pistorius replied that there is a "massive difference" between being ready for something and wanting to do it.

Asked by the prosecutor why he approached the apparent threat rather than seeking to move out of harm's way, the athlete said it was his in his nature to respond that way.

"I wanted to put myself between the perceived danger and Reeva," he said. "I wish I did all these other things put to me."

Nel also focused on security on the gated Silverwoods estate where Pistorius lived, pointing out that despite his claimed fear of burglary, the athlete left his cars outside and had not immediately fixed a broken window in his house. (Good point by Nel.)

Full summary/story: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/11/world/...ius-trial/

There are so many inconsistencies with Oscar pistorious account. Noise is a big issue.

There are so many inconsistencies with Oscar pistorious account. Noise is a big issue.

People were able to hear screaming from their own homes.

Irrespective of whether it was Oscar or reeva screaming and given that we now know they were the only 2 persons in the house, it was impossible that they would not know where each other were.

So when Oscar was 'screaming and shouting' did reeva remain silent all the time?
Did she walk toward the suggested danger and lock herself in the bathroom to be away from the danger?? SENSELESS!!!!

THE ONLY DANGER WAS OSCAR.

THE RATIONAL EXPLANATION IS THAT SHE WAS TRYING TO SHIELD
HERSELF FROM SOMEONE. IN HER LAST DESPERATE MOMENTS SHE
PLEADED WITH HIM FROM BEHIND THE SAFETY OF THE BATHROOM
DOOR EVEN COMING UP CLOSE TO PLEAD WITH HIM.

I CAN IMAGINE THE RAGE OF OSCAR FIRING 4 SHOTS AND BREAKING DOWN THE DOOR WITH THE BAT.

HE DESCRIBES IN GREAT DETAIL HOW HIS EVERY ITENTION WAS THE PROTECTION OF REEVA AND YET HE WAS THE ONE IN SPITE
OF HIS ENORMOUS EFFORTS TO SLAUGHTER NOT JUST BY FIRING 1 SHOT BUT 4.
WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD NOT KNOW PRECISELY WHERE
THEIR NEAREST AND DEAREST WAS IN SUCH A POINT OF CRISIS AS PISTORIOUS DESCRIBED.
I DONT KNOW WHY THEY NEED TO TRY HIM AS THE PROOF IS THERE.

Woooo. Another screamer.

The screamer doesn't know why they need to try him as the proof is there?

Hell if I know. I think it's saying Oscar is obviously guilty so why this farce of a trial. That's just a guess as I'm not fluent in screaming Brit. I can't understand that Cockney accent.

Cross-examination of Pistorius continues -- 14 April 2014



Prosecutor Nel took Pistorius detail by detail through what happened on the night of Steenkamp's death -- where he moved, how he moved, what he saw -- aggressively questioning him about the moments before the shooting.

Speaking about the noise he said he thought had been caused by intruders, the athlete described how he started shouting.

Asked what he shouted, Pistorius broke down as he answered: "Get the f**k out of my house. Get the f**k out of my house." (HOTD: I think he's being honest about that -- has to be, in case that's what the neighbors heard -- but, I don't believe he shouted those words in the context that he's now claiming).

Nel also said the fact that a pair of Steenkamp's jeans was lying on the bed showed that when she was shot, she was in the middle of getting dressed in order to leave. Pistorius denied this, saying the jeans were inside out, meaning she'd taken them off, not that she was putting them on.

The prosecutor also pointed to forensic evidence that showed Steenkamp had eaten within a couple of hours of her death.

The athlete says the couple had last eaten together about 7 p.m., around eight hours before Steenkamp was shot. He said there was no fight and they had a quiet evening together, before he woke up on hearing a noise in the bathroom.

Nel repeatedly asked the athlete why he fired, and if he did so intentionally. "No, I did not," Pistorius said. "I fired because I got a fright."

Nel has openly called the athlete's version "a lie," contending Pistorius knew exactly what he was doing when he fired his gun.

"I blame myself for taking Reeva's life," Pistorius said.

Describing what happened after the shots, Pistorius' high-pitched voice wobbled. He said he went to the bed and realized Steenkamp was not there, and then felt the curtains to see if she was behind them.

"Then I was panicking, realizing she wasn't answering," the runner said. "I was screaming, I was screaming out for her."

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/14/world/...?hpt=hp_t2

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PISTORIUS ENDS; NEW DEFENSE WITNESS TESTIFIES

15 APRIL 2014

NEL CLOSES CROSS
"Unfortunately I have to put it to you that it's getting more and more improbable," Nel said of the story to Pistorius.

Nel asserted that the couple fought during the night and Steenkamp wanted to leave, then fled to the bathroom screaming before Pistorius shot her through the door with his 9 mm pistol. Pistorius said he never heard Steenkamp scream, or say anything in the minutes before he shot her.

Nel closed his cross-examination by inviting Pistorius to take the blame for shooting Steenkamp, but the runner steered away from a direct response, saying only that he opened fire because he believed his life was under threat. That remark drew barbed follow-up questions from the prosecutor.

"We should blame somebody. ... Should we blame Reeva?" asked Nel, who has harshly criticized Pistorius as someone who is unwilling to take responsibility.

"No, my lady," Pistorius replied, addressing the judge in line with court custom.

"She never told you she was going to the toilet," Nel said. Then he asked: "Should we blame the government?"

When Pistorius responded with another reference to a perceived attacker in his toilet, Nel asked: "Who should we blame for the Black Talon rounds that ripped through her body?"

Nel abandoned his line of questioning soon after the judge questioned whether he was asking the same thing in a different way. Nel summed up by saying Pistorius intentionally killed Steenkamp.

ROUX'S BRIEF RE-DIRECT
Pistorius remained in the witness box while Roux asked him a series of follow-up questions after the recess, with the lawyer attempting to reinforce the account of a mistaken killing. Roux asked Pistorius to describe his feelings and emotions in the seconds before he shot at the door.

"I was terrified. I feared for my life. I was just scared," Pistorius said. "I was thinking about what could happen to me, to Reeva. I was just extremely fearful."

During cross-examination, Pistorius gave a sometimes muddled account of the shooting, saying he feared for his life but also didn't intentionally shoot at anyone. He also told Roux he didn't consciously pull the trigger on his gun and said it happened "before I could think."

Ref:
http://espn.go.com/olympics/trackandfiel...-pistorius
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I mistook her identity, it was an accident, I didn't mean to pull the trigger, I am not to blame..."

Even though I was open-minded about the mistaken identity claim and hoping for solid proof that it couldn't be true (which I don't think the state was able to deliver), there's no way in hell Pistorius didn't intentionally pull that trigger 4 damn times.

So, I have to dismiss all of his claims as bullshit because IMO he's telling all the lies necessary to avoid not only premeditated but also culpable homicide. He is a full-on liar who's only out to save his own ass and avoid taking responsibility for his actions. IMO.

Unfortunately, I think there's a good chance that the judge won't be able to convict him like I've come to do in my mind or like a jury might do -- she will be looking at the evidence presented by each side to support its claims (not much that isn't open to interpretation and/or can be solidly proven or disproved).

IMO, Nel gave it his all and he's good, but the state really didn't prove an alternate scenario. Pistorius conveniently robbed the world of the one witness who could condemn him when he fired the fourth round. If the judge believes it's likely that Pistorius was so vulnerable and weak that he didn't even mean to pull the trigger, culpable homicide is out the door along with premeditation. I hope she doesn't believe that bullshit is even remotely possible given what the prosecution presented regarding Pistorius' aggressive nature and his love of firing guns.

Hot D, is there a chance the judge could believe everything that Oscar has testified to? Believe he was terrified, believe he thought Reeva was still in bed?

I have these kinds of thoughts nearing the end of all the trials now.

NEW DEFENSE WITNESS -- THE TOILET DOOR / GUNSHOT VS. CRICKET BAT - SOUND TEST PLAYED

The defense called Roger Dixon, a geologist and forensic expert. He didn't object to being televised -- can be seen in the linked video.

Dixon used to work for Col. Johannes Vermeulen, the officer/expert who testified about the door evidence for the prosecution (the one who's come under fire for keeping the door in his office for a week and not testing prints and such).



Dixon said the handling of the evidence and crime scene was very unprofessional. He told the court that it was his opinion white fibers found on the door came from Pistorius' sock when he tried to kick the door down (the state expert didn't analyze the footprint and contends the fibers likely came from brushing up against the door).

Dixon said he conducted light tests in Pistorius' bedroom on a "moonless night" -- as he said the night of the shooting was -- and they showed it was almost completely dark in the bedroom.

"With your back to the light I couldn't see into the darker areas of the room," Dixon said, apparently supporting Pistorius' testimony that he could not see Steenkamp leave the bed to go to the bathroom, and so didn't know it was her in the toilet cubicle.

The defense also played recordings in court from noise tests they conducted at a shooting range on a replica door being hit with a bat and being shot at with a gun before court was adjourned for the day.

Refs:
1. http://espn.go.com/olympics/trackandfiel...-pistorius

2. Dixon's testimony -- gunshot vs. cricket bat sound test testimony starts at 28:30

The audio test demonstrating how much a cricket bat banging against the door sounds like gunshots being fired at it is very good for the defense IMO, unless Nel can attack it's authenticity/methodology.

It adds credence to the defense's claim that the neighbors mistakenly thought they heard a second round of gunshots and a woman screaming when, in fact, it was Pistorius desperately trying to get through the locked door with the bat so he could aid Reeva once he realized that it was her that he'd shot. They want the court to believe that pussy Pistorius was then screaming like a woman at the realization that Reeva was trapped in the toilet.

I think we're gonna hear a demo of Pistorius girlishly screaming somewhere in the defense's case, too.

Most likely, the trial will be adjourned for two weeks after Thursday and resume on May 5^th. The prosecution requested the adjournment due to scheduling conflicts and the defense didn't object. The judge will announce her decision tomorrow.

(04-15-2014, 02:59 PM)Duchess Wrote: Hot D, is there a chance the judge could believe everything that Oscar has testified to? Believe he was terrified, believe he thought Reeva was still in bed?

I have these kinds of thoughts nearing the end of all the trials now.

She might believe everything he's saying, but Judge Masipa used to be a crime reporter and has been on the bench for many years. She's likely heard a lot of liars and half-truth-tellers in her time. So, I doubt she believes everything that Pistorius is saying.

IMO, she knows he's lying about not intentionally firing the gun, at least -- hard to imagine any thinking person believing that he unconsciously pulled the trigger four times (regardless of whether he thought he was about to be attacked by an intruder or instead knew that Reeva was behind the door).

But, even if the judge does think that's a lie, she'd have to determine if it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that he fired intentionally in consultation with the two assessors before she could find him guilty of culpable homicide.