Oscar Pistorius Trial: Friday: 08 August 2014, Session 1

[@jameslast35]

Highly professional coverage at the beginning there. Stunning journalism!

[@thehappystack]

OK guys, here is my preliminary timeline from what I can gather from state witness accounts and defence witness accounts. This is long, so I'll try to break it down, and notate my opinion/observations/questions with italics. These are all *confirmed* times. *9:19**pm* - Pistorius' iPad is last used. _All history before this is deleted._ *1:48**am* - Pistorius' phone makes an internet connection. _This doesn't necessarily suggest user input,but could and could coincide with Pistorius being awake at the time an argument is heard._ *approx. **1:56**am* - Estelle Van der Merwe is woken up by a one-sided argument where she hears a female's voice "going up and down" as in volume. She is in and out of sleep. *approx. 2am* - Van der Merwe is woken up again by the same person's voice. She looks out of the window but doesn't see anything. She attempts to go back to sleep. *2:20**am* - Guard track near to Pistorius' house is activated. Nothing unusual reported. *2:55**am* - Pieter Baba finishes his patrol and arrives back at the guard house. *2:59**am* - Anette Stipp wakes up coughing. Hears 3 noises that sound like gunshots. She sees the lights on in Pistorius' house. Dr. Stipp wakes up at this time, too, hearing 3 noises and also observes lights on at Pistorius' house. Van der Merwe also hears these sounds, but she hears 4. She describes them as bangs ("plofgeleude"), and occurring one after the other. A guard on patrol reports "rifle shots" to the guard house. *(moments later)* - A female begins to scream. These screams are heard by both Stipps, Van der Merwe, and the Burger/Johnson couple. The screaming is not constant, but it is fearful. Anette Stipp says she thought it sounded like the screams were coming closer to her location. *(interim)* - The Burger/Johnson couple find themselves calling the wrong security number. By all accounts there is screaming throughout. *3:14**am* - Dr. Stipp phones security, and doesn't get through. 3 more bangs are heard by the Stipps. Burger hears four, Johnson hears 4/5/6 bangs. Van der Merwe doesn't specifically mention these bangs _and I wonder if the bangs earlier at "around 3am" were the ones she actually heard at this time_. A man is then heard shouting for help 3 times by both Stipps, Carise Viljoen, and the Burger/Johnson couple. Van der Merwe doesn't hear anybody calling for help _which to me suggests that the shouts for help were coming from the opposite side of the house - in the bathroom - and not facing Van der Merwe's house - from the balcony. I believe this is corroborated by the fact Pistorius' next door neighbour Mike didn't hear this either, though his wife says she did._ No more screams and shouts are heard after these sounds. Pistorius' most proximate neighbours report hearing loud crying shortly after these last sounds, and Van der Merwe reports hearing loud crying also _which further leads me to believe that the four shots she heard "around 3am" were actually heard at this time_. Dr. Stipp sees somebody moving from right to left in Pistorius' bathroom window. _Pistorius says he called for help before putting on his prosthetics and hitting the door with the bat. If this is the case, why did all other witnesses hear the bangs before hearing the man shout for help?_ *3:15**am* - Dr. Stipp reaches security and reports the gunshots. *3:16**am* - Pistorius' most proximate neighbours report gunshots to security. *3:18**am* - Pistorius' phone makes an internet connection, indicating user input. *3:19**am* - Pistorius calls Stander to help move Reeva. *3:20**am* - Pistorius calls an ambulance service, they allegedly tell him to bring her to the hospital. _Why does he call Stander to help pick her up, before the ambulance service allegedly tells him to do so?_ *3:21**am* - Pistorius calls security crying, and hangs up. An accidental call to voicemail is made. _Who else was he trying to call when he accidentally calls voicemail?_ *3:22**am* - Security returns the call. "Everything is fine" or "I am fine" is said to security. _Pistorius doesn't remember this so I fail to see how Roux can suggest "I am fine" was said._ *(interim)* - Baba arrives. Then the Standers arrive to assist. Dr. Stipp arrives, attempts to assist, nominally announces fatal injuries, makes a few calls and leaves. Paramedics arrive and officially pronounce death. *3:55**am* - Col. van Rensburg arrives. A call to Justin Divaris is made from Pistorius' phone. _Viljoen states that the phone was charging, she remembers because she couldn't move away from the kitchen counter._ If there's anything I've missed that anyone else might have noticed, I'll edit them in. *****

[@mspugs44]

good work thanks:) In most murder cases there are always so many more questions than answers and this case is no exception.....so unfortunate that the truth will really never be known as I was hoping OP would have confessed through pressure but sadly not for all concerned.:( He is worthless

[@thehappystack]

There are a lot of questions, but there are more questions (in my mind) on the defence's case than the state's case. _But_ the only way I can see the state's version being true, is if the first sounds heard were the bat and not the gunshots. The rest doesn't accord perfectly with Pistorius' version of events, there are a lot of unknowables in how the whole event played out that there were no witnesses but himself to - and a great many things don't make any sense, but as we know from her wounds Reeva could _not_ have screamed at any time after being shot and as far as I'm concerned this is fatal to the state's case if Nel didn't adequately suggest this sequence strongly enough to prove Pistorius intentionally murdered Reeva. I think this part comes down to semantics in Vermeulen's testimony, he said the door was *broken* after being shot. The part of the door that was actually hit with the bat could have been struck prior to the door being shot and subsequently broken. But as you say, nobody really knows but Pistorius. He's lying about some things, guaranteed, and the question is why - if he did not act intentionally?

[@lidaaldi4899]

Every history on this new cell phones can be retrieved .He can erase it all but if he didn't do a recovery of his cell phone ,there is a back up file on SD card or in the system of phone which shows what is erased and when.Also ,every phone call ,messages,voice mails or applications can be seen on phone bill of almost all cell phone providers ...So what ever was erased,called or messaged from both phones can be easily find if an expert take it in his hands.Also internet input can be triggered by for example an update of some application he has on his phone ,like notification about update available,even when you are asleep and not close to your phone.For example ,I have a weather app and GPS turn on every time when weather update is available on it ..And that input where it said that he was on internet can be him just moved that notification from a front window of a phone to get to a list of his numbers or just to call anyone.Because when something like that is posted on a phone,you must click on proceed or delete ,so you can open basic on you phone and make any further actions to call or message someone.Oh,and when I mentioned GPS ,they could show too ,where in a what time both of them were that night with their phones ..in what room ..and they will get the right picture of that strange accident which happened that mysterious night ... I wonder how much effort they made to check their phones ,if they said that he erased all history before that time.Very strange for a case like this where they did make so much effort to find out What's up messages which were erased on both phones and got them all for a many months behind. So many things are wrong done from a beginning in this case, that I wonder did they were just sloppy because they came into a house of a popular runner ,but later when everything is already not done by the rules ,was to late to fix and been done right.Like a gun which a policeman took in his hands without gloves and placed on some gray shirt, or whatever, to take a better picture of it...So many more I can write here but honestly,I am tired ... I never saw sloppier report of an place where accident like that happened(because that was a murder ,intentional or not ) ..which now make us all wonder what if they did it step by step ,watching who is doing what and by the rules.I think then many of mysterious questions will be answered ,because sometimes just the right way of treating place of accident can show to police and investigators what happened in what time and how..Crime analyst can make exactly what happened from beginning to the end ,just by researching results of police evidence from a place like that.I watched some cases like his ,where they showed exactly what happened for real and proved incorrect statement from the one who did it by just doing it and presenting to the court it as an evidence which accused couldn't disagree with at all .. :( But ,what is done can't be undone any more..we will never know the real truth which only OP knows..and poor Reeva too ,which lost her life so young :( Sorry,maybe I was boring with all of this ,but I watched so many cases like this live and followed them (as I am sick and in a bed for last 6 years ) that I can see and sometime feel ,when they are doing wrong and why ...When you follow few cases ,you feel like you learned a lot from them.I hope I will not see many more of them,cause that mean that more innocent people lost their life ,which no one like to hear. Cheers,Lida.

[@thehappystack]

***** I agree with you that the police were less than thorough, but the circumstances were such that they didn't need to be especially thorough. They knew Pistorius had been the shooter. They knew, for all intents and purposes, it wasn't a long-planned murder by the very nature of the scene. So fingerprints from the firearm and iPad history weren't big issues for them. It wasn't like a Caylee Anthony issue, where someone searched for ways to kill someone with chloroform or whatever it was. GPS in phones will also not be able to give a location as precise as most people think. It relies on a more powerful chipset, and more expensive hardware, than most (all, current) phones carry. At best a phone's GPS will give you a location accurate to approx. 10 metres, which is why your GPS on your phone will have a circle around what it deems to be your location... this is usually a 10m radius around your current position, but it can be as inaccurate as 50m in some cases, if the device is moving at a certain speed. So it won't actually give an accurate location in terms of rooms of houses. If we take the example of Pistorius' house and the scene on the morning of the incident, if Reeva's phone was in her overnight bag near the wall between the bedroom and the toilet and bathroom, GPS would not be able to definitively say it was in the bedroom and not actually in the toilet or bathroom.

[@littlemisstuffit5040]

***** You guys are very smart. You all have been paying a lot of attention. Its good to see all of you solving Reeva,s cold blooded murder. I cant believe some of the comments saying Oscar is innocent. What is wrong with some people. Why do they have to be different and so silly. How can you not see he murdered her just like that. Mr Roux is a silly man. Who would use him now after seeing him in action. I m sure he will hide in shame after this case. Poor Oscar. He doesn't have a leg to stand on

[@carolynyanik8336]

On April 9, 2014, Session 5, 41:16 - 41:20, O.P. testified, "THEY DIDN'T KNOW THE FAN WAS PART OF WHERE THE ACCIDENT HAPPENED", evidence from Oscar Pistorius that the "ACCIDENT" started in the BEDROOM. The statement happened so quickly that Prosecutor Nell did not catch it. It is the singular slip up in O.P.s testimony. LISTEN TO IT. Photo evidence at trial showed "BLOOD SPLATTER" on the bedroom carpet and on the duvet. The blood trail documented by the Detectives did not show Reeva was carried into the bedroom by O.P. as Prosecutor Nell speculated when he questioned O.P. about the blood splatter on the bedroom carpet and on the duvet. The possibility is that Reeva was injured and bled prior to fleeing to the toilet. Was she struck by a fist/bat/cellphone?

[@carolynyanik8336]

***** The post mortem report was not available for public scrutiny nor was it televised; the post mortem report was revealed at a closed court session. Reeva could have been struck with a fist/bat/cellphone,etc. If injury was to area(s) of the head exploded by the bullet no evidence would be available at post mortem examination.

[@COLEEN322]

guilty as sin which is a life sentence in itself

[@NickJay]

Where is Thursday's coverage please, SABC Digital News?

[@nickharris9761]

G U I L T Y : he fired four shots at the door and stopped there. Dolus Directus. He would have heard her scream. See last 30 mins of 11th April - that 16 second silence said it all.

[@nbydummy9157]

SABC needs to get their shit together with this whole live broadcasting thing, though I do love the candid bits where people seem not to know they're live.

[@hmsglory]

Initially Roux appeared to be doing a good job, but still he reverts to harping on for way too long about matters of lesser relevance. The timing of & the issue that OP screamed help, help, help etc etc etc after killing RS, does not determine whether he killed her unintentionally, or amidst an argument.

[@blazingfiyaTekLife]

does anyone have the link to the Gerrie Nel's closing arguments? I don't know why I can't find it

[@carolynyanik8336]

The final arguments are televised on SABC digital news.

[@nickharris9761]

KZbin search 'pistorius closing argument' you should be able to find it

[@blazingfiyaTekLife]

Nick Harris AHHH......thanks a bunch. found it!

[@soniatita9856]

It was Mr. Roux asking Mrs. van der Merwe if it was a continuing talk of the woman in an angry voice. Now, he says that it was strange that Mr. Baba did not hear it at 02:20.

[@shnaz6665]

The prosecution says that the gunshots sounds at 3:17 killed Riva. The earlier gunshot sounds that the Stipps heard were not gunshots, but they don’t explain what they were which is a fatal flaw in their case. The phone records of the witnesses prove that OP version is correct and that the prosecution is wrong. 3:12 a.m. (about) first Gunshots sounds (prosecution do not explain this but say that they are not gunshots) ( The 5 minutes between the first “shots” and second “shots” is worked out from analysing the movements of the Nhlengethwas (who heard the last shot of the first shots), Mr Johnson (who woke to screams that we know started very soon after the shots) and Ms Stander (who heard the “help, help, help: and OP account. This is elaborated below). 3:14 a.m. (about) "Help, help, help" (time is based on the testimony of Mr Johnson and Ms Stander. Mr Johnson said he woke up at about 3:12 to screams. Then he went on to the balcony to hear better and then shortly after heard the “help, help help”. So the help, help is after 3:12 but before the call he made at 3:16. Ms stander also heard the “help, help, help” and estimated it at about 5 minutes before the 3:19 call they received, which comes to 3:14). 3:15:51 a m.. call duration 16 seconds. Dr Stipp (80 m away) calls security (report hearing gunshots and [lady scream?]) Dr Stipp thinks he didn’t get through, but Baba and phone records confirms he did get through. Baba then goes to Stipp’s house and speaks to the Stipps from the street while the Stipps are on the Balcony. This is observed by Mr Nhlengethwas from Mr Nhlengethwas. Baba then drives to OP house followed by Mr Stipp again observed by Mr Nhlengethwas. 3:16:13 Nhlengethwas (15 m away from bathroom, who lived much closer than Burgers and Strips) call security (report hearing a BANG and MAN wail loudly). Did not get through. 3:16:36 Nhlengethwas second call to security. Lasted 44 seconds. Till 3:17:20. They did not hear the 3:17 “shots” allegedly fired some 15 meters away but not in “line of sight” from bathroom window. This makes sense if “shots” were the cricket bat and not a gun which is not as loud as a gun. The fact they were not facing bathroom window would explain why they did not hear cricket bat whereas the Stipps and Burgers were in “line of sight” to OP bathroom window and therefore do hear the cricket bat smashing down the door. But if 3:17 “shots” were gunshots they should have heard it as they were only 15 meters away. 3:16 Burgers (180 m away) call security (wrong security) (report hearing lady scream). The call lasted 58 seconds. Moments later they heard the “shots”. 3:17 “Shots” or cricket bat. State claims these are the gunshots. Defence say these are the cricket bat. State don’t explain what the earlier shots are. The first shots cannot be the cricket bat because the states experts agrre the gunshots came before the cricket bat. Nor do the state give a reason why nobody reported hearing the cricket bats before OP starts the calls at 3:19 and brings the deceased down the stairs witness by Baba and the Standers at 3:22. 3:19:03 (lasted for 24s) First phone call from OP (to Mr Stander). According to State in the less than 2 minutes since “shots”(at 3:17) OP managed to knock down the door without his legs on in only 2 blows (superhuman strength without his legs!) without any witness hearing it (!) and then put on his prosthetic legs (which takes more than 30 seconds itself) and then make the phone call to Mr Stander, all in less than 2 minutes! The Standers then raced to OP house and arrived according to them at 3:22 - the same time as Baba arriving 3:20:05 (lasted for 66 s) Second phone call from OP (called 082 911 to Netcare Ambulance. This is from phone records. Then ran downstairs to open front door, and ran back up.) 3:21:33 Third phone call from OP (to security [Baba]) lasted 9 seconds (OP says could not speak and was crying). 3:21:44 to 121 voicemail for 7 seconds (mistake) 3:22:05 (25 sec later after receiving call from OP) (Lasted for 12 s) Baba called back to OP (and testified that he made this phone call upon his arrival at OP house. This fits in with the Standers time of arriving at OP house at about 3:22 because they arrived more or less the same time as Baba. 3:22 or 3:23 Standers arrive at OP house (3 (4?) minutes after receiving 3:19 phone call) and see OP coming downstairs with Riva 3:23-3:24 Dr Stipps arrives at OP (examines the deceased and the walked out and met Mer Stander and then calls the volchers who say to call 911) 3:27:06 Mr Stander phones 911 in the presence of Dr Stipp 3:27:14 Dr stripp makes phone call to security but not answered (0 s duration) According to Dr Stipp he was still at home and that’s when he got through to security during the second call to security. But we know from all the other evidence and from the phone records that that is not possible. His first call to security at 3:15 did get through and Baba went to the Stipps house at that time in response to that call. His second call at 3:27 did not get through. 3:55:02 to Justin Duvaris (lasted 123 s)

[@carolynyanik8336]

In response to Attorney Roux. The reasonable person intent on protecting a loved one from harm/danger would seek, with the loved individual in tow, the quickest, safest exit from the danger, in this case through the bedroom doorway and down the stairway to exit the house. The reasonable person,if he possessed a cellphone, would carry it with him to call 911 ASAP.

[@mspugs44]

Unfortunately I find that's too easy for Roux and his defense team. Let me remind you they are paid to defend without any common sense prevailing. Their main focus is to make the accused only human and not a monster as in OP is allowed to make mistakes and divert any responsibility for his actions they play with words.......

[@195Bucks]

The one thing that I just can't get my head around is the fact that as a noise is heard in another part of the house you get out of bed without feeling for your other half or confirming by whisper that they are lying next to you. You have a gun that when fired can kill so surely the number one priority is to get that confirmation. There must have been other instances where friends or family have stayed over for the evening and got up in the middle of night and no one has come forward and said 'well infact when we stayed over at Pistorius's I got up and went to the loo and when I came out Pistorius was stood there with his gun pointed at me and he was freaking out!'....Pistorius knew if Reeva got out of that place that night his career could be in serious jeopardy and he had to stop her from calling anybody on her phone hence the nice spread of bullets from left to right...he had to silence her quickly and that's what he did. If you really thought that an intruder is in the toilet why would you walk right up to the door??. They might have a gun and could fire through the door at you so surely you would just cover the bathroom door and then you would call security or the police!!...his story is so fictitious I doubt even Enid Blyton could come up with such concoctions.

[@carolynyanik8336]

pugsy malone I concur.

[@carolynyanik8336]

195Bucks So true, your comments.

[@carolynyanik8336]

Oscar Pistorius demonstrated to the court that he can attach his leg prostheses in in approx. 30-40 seconds. Running around on his stumps (if that is true) was by choice. He had time to reach for his gun and remove it from its holster, so, too, he had time to put on his "legs" which would render him less vunerable. So this world class athelete, who exercised above average reasonableness in his athletic career, demonstrated by his willpower and achievements, in an instant became less than reasonable by normal standards because he has a physical disability, hmmmmm.

[@blazingfiyaTekLife]

Barry roux is a piece of work. At 59:41 Judge asks him how this "Slow Burn" effect of an abused woman over time relates to OP case? He answers by repeating his nonsense of him growing up with no legs and not being able to run away to a woman being battered and beaten consistently over a period of time. HUH???? What the hell does one have to do with the other? OP's story was comical from the beginning, His defense lawyers look and sound even more comical as this case wraps up. Being disabled is not comparable to physical trauma abuse over a period of time!! PERIOD!! OP wasn't being abused and consistently battered by imaginary assailants nor by RS. His story is obviously made up to cover up what truly happened that night. That was RS was shot behind a toilet door by OP. That is FACT. Another FACT is if OP was truthfully trying to protect himself and his loved ones, HE WOULD OF KNOWN EXACTLY WHERE REEVA WAS BEFORE APPROACHING ANY PERCEIVED DANGER OR UNKNOWN THREAT. PERIOD. His story which is doesn't explain how she would've had to sneak out of the bed and go into bathroom, lock herself in there while noises and possible intruders are in or attempting to enter the bathroom. How she achieved all this while staying ninja silent even when OP is allegedly screaming at whoever is in the bathroom to leave or be shot. How does this scenario play out with reasonable sane people? Answer. IT DOESN'T! OP's murder alibi is fit for pre-school. Concluding it is another attempt by him to cover up something he has done. The Restaurant incident is damning also. Another example of taking no blame. Still the victim. GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE, Oscar!! Guns don't accidentally discharge without the trigger being pulled. They don't just go off unprovoked in people's holsters and pockets. So, just like then, here is another example of a situation he has to talk his way out of. Unfortunately for him, It doesn't add up, line up or make any sense whatsoever. If it doesn't, IT IS FALSE. If it is false, then he is lying. If he is lying, he did exactly what he wanted to do. GUILTY!!!!! PRE-MEDITATED MURDER.

[@NickJay]

I've sent SABC News Online a couple of tweets asking why it's not available and that if it is, to post a link. If they reply to me (they didn't last time I asked about something else) then I'll post it here. I don't understand why they wouldn't post Thursday's coverage yet all of today's is up?! :(

[@195Bucks]

I've had real problems finding this upload, if you type the following in you tubes search you should get what you are looking for - The state presents closing arguments in Pistorius case: Session 1 - (there is also a session 2 aswell) both are for the 7th August.

[@NickJay]

195Bucks Yes, thank you kindly. I actually found it later, quite by accident. I posted the links for both part 1 and part 2 somewhere, probably session 2 of this day (Friday). Why they used a completely different format/title I've no idea and that's what's making them so much harder to find. Anyway thank you again.

[@195Bucks]

no problem, like you yesterdays session took me over half an hour to find I must have typed in every relative word going into that search box!..very frustrating lol.

[@Samaloa]

Hello everybody - Was it checked if an echo could have been the reason why some witness have heard more than 4 shots? The high speed of a gun-shot-sound-wave may effect an echo - looking at the different reception-places it may be possible.

[@susanlarhubarbe9475]

The disturbance of the scene does not negate the fact that OP vacillated and changed his versions.

[@kenford2234]

Nel put to Pistorius during cross about the fan/fans duvet blood spatter etc, the state had already closed its case so how could they have called more witnesses to testify to how the scene was set out. The state had photographs to show the scene as it was before the investigation started proper. Of course they have photos of things looking different after that, its pointless trying to argue against the initial photos, it just makes them look stupid.

[@bentlepa]

Loved it when Judge Masipa asked Barry Roux what he thought the verdict for the shooting incident in Tashas restaurant should be. Roux said Oscar should be found "Guilty, without a doubt M'Lady". Excuse me wasn,t Oscar pleading Not Guilty to that charge ? Roux wiped the perspiration of his brow,I bet he was worrying Judge Masipa might ask him what he thought the verdict on the Murder charge should be. Great that even Roux is now saying his client is Guilty.

[@shannon337]

Bowing is to stretch back, since they know they'll be sitting forever, listening to Roux's bullsht lol

[@Blakelerock22]

Roux is so incompetent it beggars belief! he even gets confused about what Nel said about the alarm being off! he says Nel says it is on when it suits him or off when he suits him at 45.25! NO! Nel says the alarm was never on.. period. When Nel queries the alarm being on it is to challenge Oscar's version that he switched it on and had to switch it off. He also mentions the alarm when challenging Oscar's version that Reeva might have gone down to eat and therefore queries the status of the alarm during this episode. Nel never said the alarm was on as a fact. Roux is getting confused between what Oscar said happened and what really happened..idiot. Then at 1.21.48 Roux suddenly changes the plea at Tashas to guilty! this guy is incompetent..what he should have said when asked how should the court find was; it is for the court to decide based on the evidence! Roux gets worse 3.19.45..he argues that mrs Berger could not have heard screaming from the toilet as per expert witness. So any screaming would have come from Oscar who was not in the toilet. In other words he places Reeva in the toilet and says no one would hear screaming therefore it did not happen! But consider this; Mrs Berger heard her screaming! this means she was not in the toilet when she screamed! this undermines his case. Who said she screamed from the toilet? Oscar said she did not scream. Nel said it was not as described by Oscar. Reeva could have been screaming in the bedroom whilst being chased so it is perfectly reasonable that she was heard. This guy is an idiot. He undermines his own case all the time!

[@shnaz6665]

You say perhaps Reeva screamed from outside the locked toilet so that is how Mrs Burger heard her. But Mrs burger claims she heard her DURING the shots and heard her voice fade with the last shot. At that time she was in a locked toilet according to everyone. And therefor it is impossible for Mrs Burger to hear a person scream from inside the locked toilet plus the 180 meters, and Mrs burger was indoors at all times. This proves that Mrs Burger must have heard OP who was in the bathroom with an open window. And the shots of 3:17 that she heard was the cricket bat. The true shots happened before she awoke, at about 3:12

[@Blakelerock22]

No..we don't know what happened! only Oscar does and he is not a reliable witness. Therefore we take his account with a large pitch of salt. The evidence against him is overwhelming. The timing of the shots or bat cannot be certain. Hence Nel did not attempt a chronology. BUT a "woman screamed"! and arguments were heard. We know this because more than one witness said so and unlike Pistorius they were reliable witnesses. Very reliable in fact. Not drunks, old people, children etc. The reasoned argument would have to explain why this is ignored. How does it do so? Incompetent Roux's solution to this? Oscar' screams like a woman! you have to believe this to ignore this evidence. Because even Roux is admitting there were "female screams"! but this came from Oscar without providing evidence of this. He tried to convince everyone that they had heard cricket bats rather than gun shots. They said no! gunshots. The court cannot ignore this which it would have to do. How does the judge explain I don't believe Mrs Burger and the others heard gunshots? Nel deals with chronology competently in the argument about the "mosaic of evidence". Roux does not get the law on that or anything else. Negligence, possession, reasonable man test etc. If Roux was competent the trial would be over and Pistorius might be serving 15 years max. Now I fear he is going away for 25 due to an incompetent defence team.

[@shnaz6665]

Blakelerock22 Nhlengethwas (15 m away from bathroom, who lived much closer than Burgers and Strips) call security (report hearing a BANG and MAN wail loudly). And we know that they heard the SAME screams as burgers and strips because they all 3 called at 3:15 (Stipps) and 3:16 (burgers and Nhlengethwas) So we know that the closer neighbors hear a MAN scream and NOT a woman at the SAME TIME. Nel does NOT deal with what the first shots are. He IGNORES it. Nel does NOT deal with what time the bat breaks down the door. NEL does NOT explain why the man screams "Help,help help" BEFORE 3:17 "shots". All objective evidence corroborates the FIRST shots as the true shots and the 3:17 "shots" as the cricket bat.

[@Blakelerock22]

Nel does not have to deal with these. We know there were shots. We know they occurred around the same time. We know there were screams like "a woman" common cause because Oscar agrees he "screams like a woman". How does the reasoned argument address the woman's screams? does it agree that Oscar screams like a woman? You see a competent lawyer would focus on the law and how it works. It has to address the heads of argument. Roux's admission on the negligent charge was precisely because he realises the judge will go through each of these heads. How do you reconcile shooting in a restaurant with no negligence? If you agree it is negligent then you must agree "he does not admit anything". How duo you reconcile not possessing something in your "possession" ditto. Roux tried misdirection and it has backfired badly. He did not understand the law on so many points including accidental discharging a weapon into a door, and accidentally shooting the wrong person. As Nel said these are mutually exclusive. On accidental discharge you cannot argue this unless the gun is faulty or the person is sleep walking..what was he doing? idiot. The law is not what you think it should be..it is what it is

[@shnaz6665]

Blakelerock22 I notice you haven't addressed any of my points: 1. Three closer neighbors say they heard a man scream and not a woman. That explains the "woman" the extremely distant neighbors (80 meters and 180 meters) heard. 2. Nel does NOT deal with what the first shots are. He IGNORES it. If he ignores it then how can he expect the court to rule that his version is the only logical version that convivially explains all the known facts, and other explanations are unreasonable? Especially when the defenses version perfectly explains what the 2 sets of "shots" were. 3. Nel does NOT deal with what time the bat breaks down the door. Again see above. 4. NEL does NOT explain why the man screams "Help,help help" BEFORE 3:17 "shots". Again, if Nel can't explain uncontested facts then no court will accept his explanation as the only reasonable possible explanation.

[@sandievahl1034]

Guess that judge is going to be convinced by defence and OP will serve no jail time (and will successfully challenge any restrictions imposed by any kind of suspended sentence). A travesty of justice. I hope I am wrong. Is brutal killing of a human being ok, if you can convincingly argue excuses or do we want to outlaw and eliminate brutal killing of anyone in South Africa?

[@sharonwaranius1759]

Hit the cricket bat against the metal square in the bathroom, out of anger... what caused the indentation? If cricket bat, wouldn't that have made lots of noise? Doesn't deny the possibility he still used the bat to crack the door open after he shot her. I saw the bashed metal photo presented.. will it be ignored? Then why present it? I wonder.

[@aaronreekie2420]

do you think they know its still live? hahaha

[@olamaster3587]

Their antics are rather hilarious actually.

[@lauracullen3895]

The green screen makes the news videos more like a very perverse & unimpressive cartoon. Where's Bugs?

[@soniatita9856]

It looks like Oscar is under the effect of some medicine.

[@Jono98806]

Here's one minor contention that I didn't notice about Roux's argument before "Why would the Accused be standing at the entrance to the bathroom if he was talking to the deceased?". Roux, if I'm not mistaken, you were the one leading evidence of his limited mobility and balance on his stumps. Given that he was on his stumps when he fired the gun, don't you think that the entrance to the bathroom was would of been the most logical place to stand, given that he had the doorframe to hold on to? That way, he would not have been knocked off balance by the recoil. So no, the fact that he standing at that position does not cast doubt on whether or not he was having an argument with her when he shot her since there's a reasonable explanation for it.

[@danielking9830]

Completely agree. Also they use the 2 cartridges at back & in passage as evidence for that location. So the cartridges further into bathroom, are they evidence he moved further into bathroom? :) Perhaps it was double taps A+B and then: C+D. With a gap during which Reeva fell from door to magazine rack. Another explanation for being at the back is he only just arrived there and she was seconds away from ringing to talk to the police so he fired immediately. Perhaps in anticipation that she had sat down after locking the door (to account for the trajectories of A and B).

[@Jono98806]

***** Remember that Mangena (the state ballistics expert) mentioned the cartridges in the bathroom. He said that they weren't useful at all in determining the position he fired from and believed that they must of been moved.

[@danielking9830]

Jono98806 I agree. One of them wound up round a sharp corner of the passage, on way to bedroom. Very small things like that + Pistorius running around + carrying Reeva + police ... so no way to deduce from it. However, Roux argued that we should take into account the location of 2 as evidence he was at the back. Hmm.

[@nickharris9761]

Roux tried to knock Nel's bakers dozen of evidence of guilt mainly by saying OP didnt mean to say that etc or that Botha wasnt called. Doesnt matter though as it comes down to OP got his pistol out of the holder, took off the safety and aimed four shots at the door. The last shot was the kill shot. OP stopped firing after that. Dolus directus : with intent = m u r d e r. Guilty. Guilty for ammo and for Tasha incident. Sunroof incident he'll probably get off on that one.

[@Blakelerock22]

Worse his responses to the baker's dozen were misdirection! to the first one about Oscar's approach to answering questions where he says categorically one thing and then subsequently backtracks what was Roux's response? he said Oscar was dazed and confused but was not lying! that was not the point. Nel's point was it is not the lies that matter, it is the way he tells them! no response to this. On the matter of going out unto the balcony. Oscar says he "went unto the balcony" then says if anyone said I was on the balcony "that won't be true" then when he was told his own lawyer thought he went unto the balcony his response was I meant "if anyone said they saw me on the balcony that won't be true"...the point is he is crooked in his responses. He pretends to have answered a different question to cover his arse. That's the point Nel makes in the baker's dozen! Roux's response is when he heard the noise he had come in and closed the door. Sorry Roux you have not responded to the accusation in the baker's dozen! either Roux is incompetent and does not "get it" or he is using subterfuge and misdirection.

[@Blakelerock22]

Sonia well spotted but consider this. They pleaded not guilty to possession and negligence. On possession they tried to argue possession does not mean "possession" it means what? Oscar said "i have had no contact with my father for 2 years". Later he says I spoke to him but we don't get along. What does no contact mean? Even Nel was shocked that Roux would say you could keep someone else's ammunition in your safe and not "possess" it. The examples they give are not relevant such as "a safe in a hotel" or a "safe in a house you visit". Oscar's father was not staying at is house nor visiting his house! On negligently discharging a firearm Oscar and Roux agreed to pleading not guilty. Oscar maintains this plea on the stand, but Roux admits in closing that he is guilty as charged because he realises he has been found out! Remember this; the assessors and the judge have to give a reasoned argument as to why they accept or reject each head. The law may be complex when written but usually is pretty simple in reality so most people can spot criminal behaviour without being lawyers when they see it. This behaviour was so obviously criminal sadly Oscar's team is incompetent and can't see this. So if the court finds handling a loaded weapon in a crowded restaurant for no purpose is negligent, it reinforces the case that he "does not admit" anything and how will they address this point other than agree with Nel?

[@nickharris9761]

Unbelievable that Oscar was so adamant the gun went off in his hand at the restaurant in very strong tone - now he admits guilt. He was also very strong and adamant about the other charges. Oscar is deceitful and nasty.

[@Blakelerock22]

another point..her bladder was empty right? so she had finished her business right? assuming it was a number 1, he would have heard her and realised it was not an intruder! she could not have opened window, rushed to the toilet, locked the door, finished her number 1 before he arrived and started shooting! in Roux's words "it cannot be!" the fact that her bladder is empty is actually bad for Roux's case! not positive as he claims!

[@carolynyanik8336]

Experts testified her bladder was empty, BUT, did she pee in the toilet or did she pee in her pants?

[@Blakelerock22]

does not matter..if she peed in the toilet he would have heard her and realised it was not an intruder! if she did not pee in the toilet the question then becomes what was she doing there? after closing the window and locking the door, all done in the dark, she did nothing apart from waiting to be shot dead, "quietly"? I think Nel could have done a better job on the crime scene itself..

[@205thelostsongs]

ummmm, someone forgot to switch off the cameras. I hope they dont say things which will embarass them.

[@michael-7240]

Where is all the evidence of Oscar supposed horrible anxiety?

[@mahooyahoo1]

This is the longest murder case i have ever know! if only the poor girl had as much compassion as this lieing murder, is it because he famous ? the poor girl is being murdered over and over again

[@soniatita9856]

Is Mr. Roux implying the defense neighbors could have heard Oscar's "help, help, help," but not the gun shots? How about the intermingled talk about a women and a men? I cannot imagine Oscar's scenario, and I have tried it many times... More I listen Mr. Roux more I am convinced Oscar is guilty!

[@soniatita9856]

Mr. Roux insists that Oscar screams like a woman. If that is so, at this time, the prosecution's witnesses would have stepped forward since everyone could see the reenactment video of Oscar's screams.

[@195Bucks]

he will be screaming like a women when those incarcerated brothers get hold of him and force him to bend over!!.

[@aaronreekie2420]

what does everyone think the findings will be?

[@nickharris9761]

Should be dolus directus : fired four shots with intent to kill. He stopped at last shot which was the kill shot. He knew what he was doing.

[@carolynyanik8336]

The findings are that O.P. violated several SA gun/ammunition laws. He fired a gun at an imagined intruder without proof his life was in danger; he was in possession of a gun that discharged in a restaurant before he confirmed it was safe to handle it; he fired a gun out the roof opening in a car; he left his gun unattended on the seat of a car; he left his gun wrapped in a towel on a boat outing instead of securing it in a locked container or closet; he stored ammunition for which he had no licensed gun in a safe in his house. O.P has his own rationalizations/denials for his violations. He will be convicted for the restaurant gun firing and ammunition possession incidents; witnesses confirmed them. Fresco and Taylor's (witnesses to the car roof shooting) testimonies conflicted on several points and thus might be dismissed. No charges were filed for the unattended gun incidents. O.P. did commit culpable homicide, but there are no witnesses to confirm he did not believe his and Reeva's lives were in life-threatening danger. I think he will be convicted of culpable homicide.

[@Blakelerock22]

Carolyn Yanik good analysis but wrong conclusion..murder. Lets get to the elephant in the room. Intent to kill is objectively measured not subjectively measured. Oscar's belief on the day is irrelevant and Roux has cocked up on this. What matters is what you and I would have believed had we been there on the day. In other words it is objective. No one I know has heard anything during the trial that would make them say "wow I would have thought there was an intruder trying to get me too!" this is where Roux's incompetence shines like the sun! There are other examples of mistaken shootings which are objectively convincing such as shadowy figures trying to get into a house who turn out to be kids or drunks who have come to the wrong home. Not so here! lady using the toilet for goodness sakes. To be fair Roux tried to cover his tracks when he said consider a disabled athlete with "slow burn" anxiety problems who confronts danger rather than "the man from 1960 with grey shoes and a grey suit". But that would be creating new law to suit Oscar. This shows he knows the law and the law relates to what this man in his grey suit would think! The accused does not determine what the standard should be because they come in all shapes and sizes and the law needs to be constant! disability should not be considered either except in mitigation where all manner of subjective aspects are acceptable. The only thing that is subjective in intent is if he has a mental illness and can't tell right from wrong. In which case the nature of the illness overrides.

[@carolynyanik8336]

Blakelerock22 I concur, O.P. chased after Reeva with intent to kill, the reason known only to him, but there is no objective proof, only inference. On the other hand there is proof for a charge of negligent homicide, O.P. testified he made no effort to confirm Reeva's presence in the bedroom or in the toilet, and, O.P. violated gun laws by firing his gun when there was no threat to his life.

[@Blakelerock22]

If by "proof" you are looking for a cctv recording of what happened in the house you won't find it am afraid. Even a fly on the wall can be discredited by vigorous x examination. A defence lawyer will attack their perception of time, their eyesight, their location, their hearing and their overall integrity and we'll end up with people saying there is no "proof". That is not what is required here. We have a dead body and a shooter in a confined secure space. Not a warehouse! We have a couple! not a security guard and a drunken vagabond who was at the wrong place at the wrong time. We have a lady using a toilet not a kid outside in a garage or in hedges. People heard shouts and gun shots and a lady screaming. Oscar's story does not make sense. His case is not helped by an incompetent defence attorney. Barry Roux is a disgrace to lawyers. He gets the law wrong on everything! wrong on possession, admits to guilt in Tasha's when squeezed at the end after getting the law wrong - then getting it right on negligence! taking the gun was negligent even before it was discharged he should have pleaded guilty to this. Look at his response to the baker's dozen, Roux does not even understand them and consequently fails to address any. Example 1 Nel is referring to Oscar's approach to answering questions first with certainty and then backtracking (the zombie stopper is just an example of this). Roux mistakenly thinks Oscar is simply being accused of lying abut the zombie stopper. Re being on the balcony. Nel refers to Oscar's crooked responses. "Was on the balcony", if "anyone said" he was on the balcony would be a lie", to "if anyone saw" him on the balcony it would be a lie! the point is he is crooked. HE was and knew was referring to his lawyer in "if anyone said" when he got found out he said he meant any witness hence "if anyone saw him". Mr Roux did not get this! instead thought this was about when the noise was heard whether Oscar was on the balcony or in the room. So many other examples of incompetence and missing the point I could go on all night. Analysis of female screams heard "it cannot be". why? because he says she was in the toilet and it was locked so if she screamed won't be heard. Who said the female screamed "in the toilet"? ...idiot confuses the truth with the figment created by Oscar..there was a scream true fact, there was no scream Oscar says..

[@asokaekanayaka4355]

Most of the comments reek of smug self righteousness. People get a vicarious satisfaction when they see others pronounced guilty. All human beings are debased. It is comforting to focus on the other guy's sin rather than on ones own. To a world of sanctimonious humbugs Jesus's words ring down the millenia " let him who has no sin, let him cast the first stone" !

[@NickJay]

Totally agree, Asoka

[@kenford2234]

So what are _you_ actually saying! Should he not have to answer for killing a person? What about Exodus 21:24 an eye for an eye?

[@nickharris9761]

And Jesus also said : " i come not to bring peace but to bring a sword" stop quoting desert texts - religion is lunacy. Long live free thought and rationality and humanity.

[@nickharris9761]

What did jesus have against fig trees en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursing_the_fig_tree

[@MJaypie23]

How would you feel if this was your daughter, sister or mother he killed. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. That is not the issue here. Women have struggled to be treated equal and we are still struggling. Owning a gun comes with responsibilities. OP needs to be held accountable. The judicial system has a responsibility. If OP can kill RS without being held responsible what is that saying to all the other little girls, wives, mothers, sisters, girlfriends and daughters. Most of us are just praying for RS life not to have been treated as though she does not deserve what is right in the eyes of the law. It brings tears to my eyes when I think of what OP did to her. RS mattered.

[@Blakelerock22]

pistorius is done! question Roux seems to be suggesting that oscar never really went unto the balcony! that is critical. If he went to the baloney it explains why Reeva would get up and leave the room without him noticing. If he never went fully unto the balcony then it is impossible that she would get out of bed and go to the toilet without him noticing or without saying anything to him given that he is up as well!

[@pw082]

Barry is the man! That's why he's the best in the business idk!

[@nickharris9761]

He is not bad , had a shit case to defend though so likely to lose.

[@Blakelerock22]

Nick Harris Roux is either incompetent or crooked.

[@HaveYouHeardMe]

Blakelerock22 Roux is BOTH incompetent AND crooked.

[@ericvandyk8567]

He talk so much even Pistorius believe him ..what a joke

[@nickharris9761]

Roux said Derman is most qualified person in country - Yes Roux as a sport scientist , not a psychologist or a forensic expert - Roux you are so desperate

[@gman6429]

you guys are still live, LOL!

[@carolynyanik8336]

Oscar Pistorius demonstrated to the court he can attach his leg prostheses in approx. 30-40 seconds. Running around on his stumps (if that is true) was by choice. He had time to fetch his gun from it's holster, he had time to put on his "legs" which would render him less vunerable. And so, this world-class athlete, who exercised above-average reasonableness, as demonstrated by his willpower, determination, and achievements, in an instant became less reasonable by normal standards because he has a disability, hmmmmmmmm.

[@donkeyshot8472]

roux on pistorius or: how to fabricate a victim out of a culprit. or: it was reeva steenkamp`s fault that OP had to shoot her. nice try.

[@abeck9289]

Ok guys, now you can all get back to your Cornwell and Gerritsen and Grisham books. This is reality and a legal process. Thank godness one has to study law to be able to make an objective decision based on facts and not imagination

[@akonampongo4706]

feel sorry for oscar, hope they wont punish him dat much!!

[@kalikrome1543]

This is what top lawyers do when they have no case, lol. Dramatic histrionics, overblown reactions to the microscopic slivers of doubt leftover by the state. This windbag has earned his money I suppose, but mr roux, even just as a defense atty, will have to live with this association to op for the remainder of his career. I don't expect to see him around for appeals.

[@brynjones7371]

Roux is embarrassing, his presentation is that of an amateur debater at university.

[@xx_harry_20_xx80]

dat face doe XD 0:00

[@Shazvana]

I have watched as much of this trial as possible and this is just my opinion.....yes, I know he shot her but I do not believe it was intentional/planned/on purpose etc, I feel this was a tragic accident.

[@dirkbogarde44]

Stumpy boy is going down.

[@billywilliamswilliams4198]

got away with murder

[@utopia4957]

Un grande temporale tempesta in arrivo

[@utopia4957]

Aiutano pure a Gessica Antonella a prendere la patente e Angela assassina da lode

[@ericvandyk8567]

Fool

[@utopia625]

Auguri non ci posso farenulla

[@utopia4957]

Oggi l'assassina cuore rosso venerdì papa geometra

[@utopia4957]

Pinna serra e poliziotto e fratello bibite e dalu fidanzate dove sarà Caterina vigile Olbia aereoporti e invece Loredana ragazzaadre o sulas sorelle amici