Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend

[TheSnitch]

Steffan said:

Expounding hypothesis can indeed occasionally hint at what most probably happened. However it is only the events in court and the impression they leave in the minds of the judge and advisers here that matter. I remain hopeful that OP will be found guilty on the major charge for what seems to be a vicious heartless crime against a defenceless woman. I do wonder whether that will be the result given the difficulty the case presents when so much depends purely on the mindset of the accused. He definitely killed her. Questions remain: was it murder or one of the lesser charges or was it a genuine fear of attack and self defence. Difficult to prove IMO. Hence my concern that OP could still walk away.I really do hope not.

Having listened to the majority of the trial, I have wondered whether the real story here - hypothetically, obviously - is that he acted in a fit of rage, immediately regretted what he had done as soon as he came to his senses, and told the first people on the scene that he thought she was an intruder. Having done so it was then virtually impossible to change his story. I have no idea what would have been the better outcome for him - to plead diminished responsibility and that he completely lost control in a fit of temper, or to tell an unconvincing story and end up with a murder conviction. Maybe it wouldn't have made a lot of difference.

I guess what strikes me most of all is that none of the actions he describes seem consistent with the way one would react to a genuine intruder. Perceived threat? Why make oneself more vulnerable by tackling it without his prostheses? He showed the court how quickly he could put them on. Why not ensure his partner was safe before tackling the danger? Why not raise the alarm? Why attempt to tackle an intruder in the dark? Not one action made any sense to me. However, in the scenario of an enraged man with anger and temper issues raging at a partner who is perhaps attempting to leave - well, they all make far more sense. When he says he didn't mean to kill her, I think he is possibly sincere in that. Any rational person would have no doubt that what they were about to do would potentially prove fatal for the person they were angry with, but to someone with those kind of issues, there is nothing rational about what they do.

[TTmonkey]

I hope he's found guilty as I believe he did it. But it's down to the legal system.

However, if he is found guilty I'm guessing we will be hearing year after year of appeals and retrials.

[TTmonkey]

TheSnitch said:

Having listened to the majority of the trial, I have wondered whether the real story here - hypothetically, obviously - is that he acted in a fit of rage, immediately regretted what he had done as soon as he came to his senses, and told the first people on the scene that he thought she was an intruder. Having done so it was then virtually impossible to change his story. I have no idea what would have been the better outcome for him - to plead diminished responsibility and that he completely lost control in a fit of temper, or to tell an unconvincing story and end up with a murder conviction. Maybe it wouldn't have made a lot of difference.

I guess what strikes me most of all is that none of the actions he describes seem consistent with the way one would react to a genuine intruder. Perceived threat? Why make oneself more vulnerable by tackling it without his prostheses? He showed the court how quickly he could put them on. Why not ensure his partner was safe before tackling the danger? Why not raise the alarm? Why attempt to tackle an intruder in the dark? Not one action made any sense to me. However, in the scenario of an enraged man with anger and temper issues raging at a partner who is perhaps attempting to leave - well, they all make far more sense. When he says he didn't mean to kill her, I think he is possibly sincere in that. Any rational person would have no doubt that what they were about to do would potentially prove fatal for the person they were angry with, but to someone with those kind of issues, there is nothing rational about what they do.

Agreed. In all rational sense he didn't want her to die or for his very nice life to be ruined. But he was overtaken in some blinding rage. And yes, his initial story is most likely his downfall. As I said ealier, the only plausible defence would be the 'awoken from a nightmare/sleepwalking defence. That would of seeded doubt and likely been unable to be disproved.

Whatever te truth of the night, his insistence that he did it all in the pitch dark is the main reason for me that I don't believe his story. You don look for your missing girlfriend in the dark. So the lights must have been on all along, therefore the whole story of being in bed asleep for hours is a lie. It's these details that turn his version of events into a lie that covers the brutal truth.....

[g4ry13]

Piersman2 said:

Why would someone be doing that? To stop someone breaking down the door, maybe? With a cricket bat? Never dreaming that the nutter on the other side would return with a gun and fire through the door in a fit of rage?

Hasn't the forensic evidence demonstrated that the door was hit with a cricket bat after the shots were fired? I am not personally sure how they go about proving that but prosecution & defence were both agreeing on that.

[XCP]

No residue in the damage caused by the bat would help to support that idea.

[Bonefish Blues]

AJL308 said:

Bonefish Blues said:

Same guy was content to leave his handgun behind in open view in a car in an urban area and then get the arse when a Police Officer challenged him about that. I'm pondering the inconsistencies in the trial.

Not true. The officer saw it when he stopped the car. It wasn't left on view in an unattended car.

You're correct - it was on open view in the car. The Officer would have been entitled to confiscate it.

[Bonefish Blues]

AJL308 said:

Bonefish Blues said:

On a boat in the middle of a lake with a group of close friends who were wakeboarding and swimming?

We'll have to agree to differ on the need to carry a handgun for personal protection in that particular circumstance.

If he were able to teleport himself to the boat direct from his house then I'd tend to agree. Given that he can't, I don't.

I think you well understand the point I was making, but for the avoidance of doubt, the threat in the middle of a lake when surrounded by close friends is negligible at best.

Why have a gun there when it would be more secure and safer locked in a vehicle?

[g4ry13]

Bonefish Blues said:

AJL308 said:

Bonefish Blues said:

On a boat in the middle of a lake with a group of close friends who were wakeboarding and swimming?

We'll have to agree to differ on the need to carry a handgun for personal protection in that particular circumstance.

If he were able to teleport himself to the boat direct from his house then I'd tend to agree. Given that he can't, I don't.

I think you well understand the point I was making, but for the avoidance of doubt, the threat in the middle of a lake when surrounded by close friends is negligible at best.

Why have a gun there when it would be more secure and safer locked in a vehicle?

Absolutely not. Depending on the circumstances a car may not be considered a safe place to store a weapon unattended and would be seen as breaking the law. Also it would depend on how far he would have to go from his car to board the boat. In some places in South Africa they literally drive everywhere - even to go a minute round the corner.

[dfen5]

AJL308 said:

dfen5][b said:

Ref' holding the gun at your side - if you've had training of using a pistol at close quarters you don't hold it with your arms outstretched movie style (that's ok for aiming, longer shots).

You hold it close to your hip, arm back, other arm above. Too easy to be disarmed by a quick fella with it sticking out gangster style. Typical example would be when someone's 3-4 feet away and you keeping them at bay.[/b]

In the situation he was in, in a blind rage, he would have held it arms out, aimed down the sights and let the trigger go.

He let the safety off so it was premeditated murder.

Sorry but this is just total rubbish. This may be the case in every movive James Cagney ever made but not in the real world. At least not today in the real world. Tactical firearms training has come along way since then.

Rubbish something without demonstration of explicit experience or qualification. Care to put up?

[Bonefish Blues]

g4ry13 said:

Bonefish Blues said:

AJL308 said:

Bonefish Blues said:

On a boat in the middle of a lake with a group of close friends who were wakeboarding and swimming?

We'll have to agree to differ on the need to carry a handgun for personal protection in that particular circumstance.

If he were able to teleport himself to the boat direct from his house then I'd tend to agree. Given that he can't, I don't.

I think you well understand the point I was making, but for the avoidance of doubt, the threat in the middle of a lake when surrounded by close friends is negligible at best.

Why have a gun there when it would be more secure and safer locked in a vehicle?

Absolutely not. Depending on the circumstances a car may not be considered a safe place to store a weapon unattended and would be seen as breaking the law. Also it would depend on how far he would have to go from his car to board the boat. In some places in South Africa they literally drive everywhere - even to go a minute round the corner.

Better to have it on/wrapped in (OP gave both versions in his evidence, I recall) a towel on the boat?

Would that be legal? (serious question)

[g4ry13]

Bonefish Blues said:

g4ry13 said:

Bonefish Blues said:

AJL308 said:

Bonefish Blues said:

On a boat in the middle of a lake with a group of close friends who were wakeboarding and swimming?

We'll have to agree to differ on the need to carry a handgun for personal protection in that particular circumstance.

If he were able to teleport himself to the boat direct from his house then I'd tend to agree. Given that he can't, I don't.

I think you well understand the point I was making, but for the avoidance of doubt, the threat in the middle of a lake when surrounded by close friends is negligible at best.

Why have a gun there when it would be more secure and safer locked in a vehicle?

Absolutely not. Depending on the circumstances a car may not be considered a safe place to store a weapon unattended and would be seen as breaking the law. Also it would depend on how far he would have to go from his car to board the boat. In some places in South Africa they literally drive everywhere - even to go a minute round the corner.

Better to have it on/wrapped in (OP gave both versions in his evidence, I recall) a towel on the boat?

Would that be legal? (serious question)

This is quoting from South African law library of congress website:

'Safe Custody of Firearms

When license holders do not have their firearm on their person, they must store the firearm and its ammunition in a safe or a strong room that meets the requirements of the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS), standards 953-1 and 953-2.[93] The same requirement applies to dealers.[94]'

Do you think a car meets that criteria?

Just to add further:

'Offenses and Penalties

Under the FCA

Violation or failure to comply with the provisions of the FCA or the terms of a license, permit, or authorization is an offense.[103]

Failure to lock a firearm in a safe, strong room or device as required by law is an offense.[104] A person also commits an offense if he or she loses possession of a firearm by failing to take the necessary steps to ensure is safekeeping.[105]'

[youngsyr]

XCP said:

No residue in the damage caused by the bat would help to support that idea.

I think it would be pretty clear to a trained eye whether a dented door had then been shot or a bullet hole in the door had then been hit with a cricket bat, assuming the holes and dents overlapped.

[TheSnitch]

youngsyr said:

XCP said:

No residue in the damage caused by the bat would help to support that idea.

I think it would be pretty clear to a trained eye whether a dented door had then been shot or a bullet hole in the door had then been hit with a cricket bat, assuming the holes and dents overlapped.

Not commenting on this specific point, but having this evening read the transcripts from today's proceedings it appears Mr Roux and Mr Dixon have a rather elastic definition of what constitutes a ''trained eye''

I have never heard testimony like it - it was car crash stuff. What on earth were the defence thinking of, trying to use an unqualified person to challenge the findings of the state's pathologist? Absolute madness. Dixon seems to have adopted the stance that anyone with some experience of basic methodology who has previously conducted a range of crime scene tests has a set of transferable skills which can be applied to any other forensic, pathology or other scientific discipline - and not only that but conveys upon him the status of ''expert'' in all those fields.

This is absolute madness.

It is the equivalent of randomly grabbing any recently qualified hospital doctor, still on rotation, and saying ''Here, you'll do. There's a patient in bay 4 needs a kidney transplant. The replacement one's in the fridge. Off you go..'' while they ponder how the three months they have just spent in Dermatology qualifies them to do this procedure.

Frankly, they might just as well got some blogger to do it.....

Poor old Mr Dixon seems to have been required to be an expert in more fields than have seen a sheep. I was half expecting Nel to ask this jack of all trades to interpret a knitting pattern or get a tune out of an oboe

Edited by TheSnitch on Thursday 17th April 01:38

[Bonefish Blues]

TheSnitch said:

Poor old Mr Dixon seems to have been required to be an expert in more fields than have seen a sheep. I was half expecting Nel to ask this jack of all trades to interpret a knitting pattern or get a tune out of an oboe

Edited by TheSnitch on Thursday 17th April 01:38

I didn't watch any coverage yesterday but have just read a summary account. Remarkable.

[TheSnitch]

Bonefish Blues said:

TheSnitch said:

Poor old Mr Dixon seems to have been required to be an expert in more fields than have seen a sheep. I was half expecting Nel to ask this jack of all trades to interpret a knitting pattern or get a tune out of an oboe

Edited by TheSnitch on Thursday 17th April 01:38

I didn't watch any coverage yesterday but have just read a summary account. Remarkable.

I found this site last night - seems to have youtube vids of each session, Very useful https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry7H9rQ72yE

[TheSnitch]

The worst bit for me was when he admitted that he ''identified'' the fibres on the door as matching the fibres from the sole of the prosthesis and in turn matching the sock in the photographs despite having only ever seen the socks in photographs and only looked at one set of fibres - from the prosthesis - under a microscope.

That is a completely bogus conclusion. The most he could have claimed based on the evidence he actually examined was that he could not exclude the sock as the source of those fibres.


As we speak, any lawyer with a client who was convicted on the basis of evidence from this man is busy preparing papers for an appeal.

[Bonefish Blues]

Is he really the best the defence could get - Roux's more than experienced enough to understand the implications of calling him.

[Bonefish Blues]

g4ry13 said:

'Safe Custody of Firearms

When license holders do not have their firearm on their person, they must store the firearm and its ammunition in a safe or a strong room that meets the requirements of the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS), standards 953-1 and 953-2.[93] The same requirement applies to dealers.[94]'

Do you think a car meets that criteria?

No it doesn't, clearly.

What about storage on or in a towel, on a car seat or on the floor under a bed?

Likely not, since none of those are "on the person" either.

[TheSnitch]

Bonefish Blues said:

Is he really the best the defence could get - Roux's more than experienced enough to understand the implications of calling him.

I can only assume the sole purpose of calling him was to have the grounds for Oscar's first appeal.

In all seriousness, it was desperately shambolic. It did not appear that the prosecution had been provided with any of the man's reports and half of the tests had only been completed within the last week or so, meaning that nothing had been shared prior to court. He opined on every aspect of the case, yet appeared to have provided no visual aids of any description. He did a fibre comparison without having any fibres to compare and an ammunition test using different ammunition. I cannot imagine that Roux thought they were going to get away with this.

Edited by TheSnitch on Thursday 17th April 08:44

[Rocksteadyeddie]

TheSnitch said:

Bonefish Blues said:

Is he really the best the defence could get - Roux's more than experienced enough to understand the implications of calling him.

I can only assume the sole purpose of calling him was to have the grounds for Oscar's first appeal.

In all seriousness, it was desperately shambolic. It did not appear that the prosecution had been provided with any of the man's reports and half of the tests had only been completed within the last week or so, meaning that nothing had been shared prior to court. He opined on every aspect of the case, yet appeared to have provided no visual aids of any description. He did a fibre comparison without having any fibres to compare and an ammunition test using different ammunition. I cannot imagine that Roux thought they were going to get away with this.

Edited by TheSnitch on Thursday 17th April 08:44

So to summarise the defence thus far:

1) State Pathologist who disputed the digestion evidence and time of eating.
2) OP who shoots holes in his own defence left, right, and centre.
3) A ballistics, fibres, and audio “expert” who has fewer qualifications and less expertise than half the posters on this thread.

It’s not going that well thus far, is it?