Gerrie Nel is surely the very best prosecuting advocate out there. His method and execution of cross examination is simply terrifying. He patiently but ruthlessly destroys the credibility of his witness. If Oscar’s version of the incident were true then surely Reeva would have spoken and replied to him from the toilet after he said “Reeva get down and call the police”! It’s just totally improbable that she would not at any stage say NOTHING! The fact that the first bullet struck Reeva in the right hip can only mean that she was standing in the toilet and facing the door, probably talking to Oscar. There are so many holes, inconsistencies and nonsensical issues with Oscar’s comments, which clearly indicate the amount of lies coming out of his mouth. So incredibly annoying and irritating to hear Oscar say “My Lady” after EVERY question or comment! Surely this is NOT necessary when answering Advocate Nel.
His tears are purely because those words were the final words in an argument before he completely lost it and killed Reeva he's a complete liar and I think that Gerrie Nel is showing Oscar Pistorius up for the liar he is!
Something keeps bothering me. The crime scene photos show Reeva's bedroom slippers neatly together on 'Oscar's side of the bed' and on 'Reeva's side of the bed' the electronic gadgets and electrical cables/leads and floor fan. OP said it was so pitch dark in the room he could not see whether or not Reeva was the bed. He also claimed that he was unstable on his stumps. Yet, he was able to fetch the gun from under the bed on his stumps without disturbing Reeva's slippers on the floor or her belongings on the sofa. And after the shooting, he was able to clamber over the bed and search behind the curtains, again in the dark, without tripping over the gadgets, cables and fan on the floor. Doesn't sound plausible to me.
I absolutely believe him when he says he said "get the fuck out of my house" but he was screaming it to Reeva and he knew he was screaming it to Reeva. That's why he's so emotional. He was totally out of control and shot her in a fit of rage.
at the end there when he says 'get the ***k out of my house' why does he cry when he remembers it if he was talking to 'intruder' he cries because he said those words to Reeva - not so?
Oscar thought Reeva was flirting the night before. When Oscar noticed Reeva had got up and took her phone Oscar thought she was texting a new guy. Out of rage he got his gun and shot her
And also gives credibility as to why she would lock the door at 3am in the morning..to pee!?..yeah right. He must be grilled and through he reluctance to to give concede anything he will lose the plot.
If your version of the event is fact, Mr. Pistorius, your housekeeper would have testified to prevent conviction of an innocent man rather than flee South Africa ASAP.
1:20:24 Get the fuck out of my arse??? Once again my Lady...he's ignoring my questions and is thinking about what the future holds for him...its always about you isn't it Mr Pistorius?
+Harry Callahan no he was watching ,the thunderbirds,and parker talking to my lady...they got the right judge,,,a woman and black...a point of weakness,,,f-ing sook..at least admit to her murder..
Even the family knows he lying. He did it. He admitted he fired the shots. What the hell are they even debating? Screw him. I mean seriously. He was a global inspiration, now he's just a freak. He blew it. Case closed.
Exactly right. The most believable lies told are those with a kernel of truth. He has taken the words he actually did utter, but changed the context completely.
I've kept an open mind throughout this trial, but the evidence against him is compelling. Pistorius is contradicting himself, putting on a display of him crying. "Im not sure" "i don't know" is ridiculously overused - clearly lying through his teeth. Tell the truth, Oscar, for Reeva and her family.
This is more like a KANGAROO COURT. In my opinion OP has made some excellent points, he's a good listener, has a good memory, albeit that he must be under incredible stress. His rebuttals have made a lot of sense. How can he know what Reeva was thinking, whether he's guilty or not, how does he know why she only put her track pants on. He's told the court that she was neat in some senses, but ''her car was a mess''. The SA judicial system/Courtroom procedure is very loose and amateur in its application. If I were Oscar I would be finding a new lawyer as my advocate This guy must be dozing as he's allowed the prosecutor to brow beat his client, call him a liar, twist his words to suit his version of what happened and . The judge has only just now clued in that she should start participating in this trial and call Nells on his brow beating of the witness. She should be calling both sides up to the bench and telling the prosecutor to stop asking the same question over and over again, from asking OP technical questions about stomach contents 6 hours later. There is so much wrong with his cross-examination. Even the prosecutor and judge make mistakes about what was said and the perceptions that they had - and they aren't the ones on trial.
@@gailtrotman465 I partly agree with you. This persecutor is a disaster, missed a lots of opportunity to corner OP and just kept beating him. Some of his arguments can hardly be followed and he was not well prepared. Slow and boring he was, no wonder everybody was dozing off, lol. Still, I think OP's version of events does not make sense in many points goes against common sense and raises lot of questions.
For those of you stating that Nel is grasping at straws...I put this to you, Nel has made issue of the "blue LED light." He has proven that there was more light illumination in the bed area than Oscar "conveniently" is attesting to. The blue light indicates that the DVD player was on, therefore there is an illuminated display on the cable box. If the DVD player was off, a RED light would have illuminated. Being it is blue, there is light illumination on the cable box. In essence, OP has tried to emphasize the darkness of this room; Nel has proven by his emphasis on the "blue light," that there was far more light illumination in the bed area than Oscar wants to admit to. This means he COULD see that Reeva was/was not in bed. Nel has also made issue of the line of blood splatter on the carpet, across the duvet (lifting the duvet shows no splatter underneath it), and behind the headboard of the bed. This is important because it indicates that he injured Reeva in the bed area. She tried to put her pants on in an effort to leave, he wasn't having that (inside out jeans on the floor). Those inside out jeans indicate to me, the desperation of Reeva trying to get away from him (she was trying to put the pants on but clearly was unsuccessful). She fled into the toilet area. This is crucial to premeditation and proves it beyond a reasonable doubt. Just my observation.
Warren Levine only my observation from OP's testimony, the inside out jeans...he either smacked her or hit her with the cricket bat there. The pathologist revealed three fractures at the base of the skull. I suspect Reeva was trying to leave during the argument. He must have grabbed her by her pants while she was putting them on, in an attempt to leave.
Can't really say without autopsy results, and they've been sealed. I don't think he could have cracked her skull in three places by smacking her. Was there any DNA found on the cricket bat? I'd understood that those chips of bone were secondary to the entry wound. I can't even be sure what the angles of entry and exit are for that head wound, so that's all speculative. Bottom line's the same, no matter what the gory details. I don't know if you've read the Rodger manifesto, but after reading that and coming back to Pistorius' psychopathology, I can honestly say I'm thankful Oscar didn't take his freakin' guns and a bunch of extra clips to Reeva's friend's engagement party, because God knows, it could have been a lot worse.
The pathologist DID reveal three fractures at the base of the skull and there was an enormous amount of her blood on the cricket bat. Look at the picture of the cricket bat on the floor entered into evidence. Also, according to the ballistic experts of BOTH defense and prosecution...the wound to the skull entered the parietal lobe and exited the occipital portion of the skull. Her hands were crossed over her head and the bullet tore the webbing between the ring and middle finger prior to entering the parietal portion of the skull blowing out the back of her head (brain matter/bone fragmentation were found in the toilet area). Some of the autopsy report has been revealed by the prosecution during questioning. I have extensive knowledge of anatomy & physiology and am a forensic science geek. In fairness, the base skull (occipital) fractures could also be the result of the bullet exit. Both (cricket bat and/or bullet exit) are valid possibilities.
Oscar is trying to justify everything he did in a fabricated story. He can't justify any of it. It's wrong to panic and kill someone. You must find loved ones before shooting through walls and doors You must investigate things before resorting to violence. You must keep your composure and sanity. His story is stupid and never happened. God help us all if we behave as he said he should have.
As much as I want to believe Oscar he is allowing Nel to wind him up. He is answering more than he needs to and Nel is seizing that moment to catch Oscar out. Especially when Oscar points out minute details but doesn't remember the big details!
The truth will always come out the same no matter how many times he's cross examined, but a lie will always come out with different stories because it never happened that way, crying each time he gets stuck with his answer, this shows it's all a lie, except when he got into the bathroom , you can see the difference as this part he had no problem answering as it was the truthful part, I'm sure Reeva is sitting next to him in court in spirit making sure he pay's for what he did to her.
I know the game is called 'innocent until proven guilty'. But the more I listen to the blade runner, the more doubt creeps into my mind about his innocence. One moment he's soft spoken & portraying innocence and an other, he's all sharp on details and even angry & frustrated. Hearts out to the Steenkamps.
1:04:48 OP said that his house has never been burgled before and in fact the security of the community had been stepped up, which together means that OP had no reason to believe or react the way he, i.e reach for his gun as the first port of call. If he had been burgled or attempts made on his property, then he would have had good reason to reach for his gun to defend himself and Reeva. But based on passed experience, that has shown he has had no threats, why does he think on this occasion that he needed a gun? Why did he not think that in all probability it was Reeva making the noise. It's clear in my mind that he knew exactly where Reeva was.
We have to understand that when we are in a panic situation, we cannot be rational at the same time. We let our self control by our instinct and feelings. OP was in panic mode during 14 feb. He did not have the time to think about what is was doing. We also have to understand, OP is emotional, nervous and tire of the pressure. That has an impact on his concentration in court. OP is emotional because he keep reliving the shooting. It is very easy to criticize OP, but I thingk all of us would react the same way in court, especially when we are accused of murder with the possibility to spend min 25 years in prison.
usownt On my previous comment I did not mention that i believe he words. I simply explain that the way he felt in 14 feb and the way his feeling in court has an impact on his concentration. Of course when you are in a panic mode , you do have a certain level of rationality, but you cannot be completely logic. If he was completely rational I wouldn't shoot and find out that Reeva was in the toilet. I agree that OPs words can be conflicting , but Nel is an expert provoking that. Nel has the ability to use tricky question or technique to make people say what he wants to here. We have to understand that the prosecutor's job is not to find the truth, but to convince the court that the accused is guilty, no matter if it truth or not. The opposite goes for the defense.
I wonder if after hearing OP's testimony and discrepancies if his family is starting to disbelieve him and realize he murdered Reeva because she was going to leave him.
Why doesn't this judge EVER say "let's move on"? How many times is Nel allowed to ask the same question over and over? "Why didn't you say you heard a window open" why did you say you heard a noise"? And that's just ONE example. The whole cross examination has been like this. Even the judge is struggling to keep her eyes open. South Africa has a very strange judicial system. I don't think anyone can get a fair trial . Even though I think he's guilty as sin she's letting him get railroaded up there
The 10 reasons which add up to his guilt: 1. 4 people heard a woman scream. He didnt prove he could scream like a woman. 2. The big fan could never have moved to that position without moving the multi plug extension - the fan story is a joke 3. Reeva's jeans were on the floor 4. If she had gone to the toilet he would have heard her flush it 5. She was wearing shorts and a top on a very hot night 6. She would have responded to his shouts 7. He created an obstacle course where the fans were 8. He stopped shooting after the head shot which killed her 9. She would have to have crawled across the bed to get out of it 10. She ate two hours before her death So m'lady you know what to do..... Then he'll appeal, then his sentence will be slightly reduced. Because he has money he can afford the defence team, the bail , the appeal ..... If youre rich you get a better hearing and longer freedom.
Mr. Pistorius. If you believed an intruder was in the toilet and you were in a life threatening situation, "scared" and "terrified", why, after cautiously advancing down the bathroom passage, did you stand directly facing the toilet door with an open window to your side?
LOL! At first when he got up and started saying that I thought that was some term referring to Gerrie Nel since he's the one addressing him and so if OP was answering him, why was he addressing him like that?!?! lol. It didn't make sense at first then I understood the process because we're used to hearing anyone refer to the judge and "your honor" or "yes sir yes ma'am" etc.
April 9th, session 5, 41:16 - 41:20, OP testifies, "THEY DIDN'T KNOW THE FAN WAS PART OF WHERE THE ACCIDENT HAPPENED." Evidence from Oscar Pistorius that the "ACCIDENT" started in the BEDROOM. Hopefully Mr. Nel will review the testimony, the statement happened so quickly.
Nel should focus on the fact OP said everyone has different instincts n he wanted to get between reva n intruder rather than check 1st. But when he shot at intruder he reversed this instinct at the highest point in threat. He just shot an intruder but goes to the bedroom. What if he missed?? Did he check to see if bullets were successful? We know he couldn't hear so why risk coming back to reva when u set out to do the opposite. This to me is were nels focus should be!!! Anyone agree???
he didn't run back to the bedroom as he knew who he had just killed, listen to his porky pies and laugh behind ur laptop as ur not allowed in the court.
Oscar sounds like an idiot and that makes the judge a bigger idiot for believing his crap. The next appeal should be bases on the fact that the judge must have been in love with Oscar.
Every time Oscar whimpers , sniffles , or cry's , my lady adjourns so poor Oscar can regroup and get himself together . Please . This trial may last as long OJ's did.
Without question the best I’ve ever seen in action, he ripped Oscar to shreds. It must’ve been totally terrifying being cross-examined in that way, and being shown up as a liar, an arrogant defendant, and a witness who recalled everything he needed to, but conveniently couldn’t remember critically important factors pertaining to the case and incident.
It's like shooting a man in the leg and say : 'Oh dear, I'm so, so sorry to have trodden on your foot ! It must be so painful, I feel for your pain !'.
Is anybody else finding it strange, that although he has said he has very limited mobility on his stumps, that he has consistently said that he ran to the bed to get his gun. Sounds like he was pretty able to get around quite quickly on his stumps...OR that he indeed had his legs on,!? A bit surprised that I haven't see someone else pick up on that!?
You guys ever watch a show called Fatal Vision...if not you need to watch it. its about a guy that kill his wife and children and says it was intruders. first he was found not guilty then a retrial was done and he was found guilty.
Oscar dosnt even know his own defense now..Blaming roux for not including certains bits of info ect .. Everyone is a lier or incompetent , only oscar is perfect and right 100% of the time..
It also looks to me like his own family is begining to doubt his story...there just seems something different about there expressoins and body language .
Mr. Nel, if it only takes him 30 seconds to put on his legs like he just said then why didn't he put them on when he felt 'vulnerable' on his stumps when confronting the burglar he thought was in the bathroom? Indeed Mr. Nel.
1:20 I screamed get the fuck out of my house..GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY HOUSE" -- Why would this make him cry to say these words that he spoke to an intruder? Because..he did not scream these words at any intruder. He screamed this to Reeva. He went ballistic on her and screamed "get the fuck out of my house" and when she locked herself in the bathroom he got his gun and killed her. Psycho.
I believe that in a US trial - if his lawyer even risked putting him on the stand - he would try to absolutely ensure that the defendant did not change important details of his testimony. A fine-toothed argument of points about 'tailoring' would never happen; he'd object and object -- even if he was getting overruled -- the moment it was mentioned, and get the defendant off the stand as quickly as possible if he was repeatedly being inconsistent in his testimony.
Here's the thing: An intruder, according to OP, breaks into his house in a high security guarded area, with alarms and dogs, in order to hide in the bathroom. HUH????? and OP could have taken Reeva and walked out of the house had he truly felt they were in danger. and at NO time did OP ever try to ascertain WHERE Reeva was before firing four shots through the door. All righty then.
Masipa was a social worker and then worked as a crime reporter in her earlier years. She has experience therefore in Domestic Violence cases and crime scene anaylsis.
Looking at the picture at 26:05 one can clearly see the length of the fan chord. There's NO WAY that it's long enogh to reach from the extension box to the front of the bed.
I believe the issue of the jeans are key to this case. I believe just the fact that he mentions them means they did more than buy time. I believe he peeled those pants off of her because she was planning on leaving. He threw them on the stereo and that is why he said he used them to cover up the light on the stereo. They found them on the floor right beneath the stereo. Ladies, what do you think? When you take your pants off are they inside out? If she was so neat, why would they be in the middle of the room on the floor? It just doesn't add up. Remember every story has some truth in it.
***** Right, unless the pants are skin tight. But she was wearing boxer shorts. Hhmm. . . . She could not have had those under her jeans. I hope you are having a great start of the week. I spent Mother's Day doing what most mothers do, working. I do not care for the holiday. It seems too contrived. Like another holiday to get people to go out and spend money. Children should honor their parents because God said so. It should not be one day of the year. Do you have a similar day in SA?
***** I haven't watched yet. I had to do my therapy. I am glad I am not the only one who is not a fan of Mother's Day. I am lucky tht my mother is still alive. She is 83. Still gets around and is smart as can be. No senility with her. She has to stay sharp dealing with her genius sons and daughters. I am not including myself in that lot. My own daughter can be such a sh**. She tells me lies, keeps secrets, and talks smack about me, yet on Mother's Day she gives me some flowers. I wish she would give me the $3,000.00 she owes me. Now, that would make a nice Mother's Day present. I am looking forward to listening to today's trial. Why would she give him a card that said she loves him if she was going to break it off? Any thoughts?
***** I have another comment, but I will have to look it up before I can share it with you. One of the comments was when Judge Masipa made the comment that OP was making so many mistakes. That is a dead giveaway that she is not buying his blarney.
Karen Owens ***** Thanks. I just can't believe the judge punted on this one, but I'm pretty sure she didn't want to play to the fairly bloodthirsty crowd and have him led off in shackles. Still, I would have tried to put one through the uprights.
was she also wearing jeans and slops? no top or underwear? My take is that there was an arguement and she had packed to leave his place when all this happened
oscar's cockyness is slowly seeping through in the tone of his voice and seem's to be getting more and more argumentive...does he sense his winning over the judge?
Who fires a gun blindly through a closed door? He should have called out to confirm where Reeva was. Of course we all know he knew her whereabouts. She was in the bathroom.
Oh please. He has selective memory. When it suits him, he remembers, when it doesn't he doesn't. He can't explain many fundamental things and the blood splatter trail is quite convincing. And the amount of times he argues with Nel "no I didn't My Lady" he then has to concede "then I made a mistake My Lady". I'm sorry but he is losing the grip on his already unbelievable story. All I will say is that if I and my man were in such a situation, there is no way he would not think it EXTREMELY odd if I didn't respond. How can anyone be convinced by the arguments proffered by Mr Pistorius, never mind the evidence.
for some that didn't have time to think,he thought about how he carried his gun,thought about not shouting that he was armed so not to panic intruder,thought about not fire warning shots in case it ricocheted and hit him.Yet when it suits he just shot without thinking did every thing without thinking hmmm
No mention of Sex ! Sorry to be the first but new relationship so honeymoon period & a young fit couple.Romantic evening in on Valentines night(Although I would take a lady out to a good restaurant personally),Reeva cooked a Stir Fry they went to bed looked at the Internet & watched TV.Sounds like something was seriously wrong with their relationship so early on or have I missed something ?
Let's look back on the case. The Prosecutors will in fact SUCCESSFULLY APPEAL the case. There MUST be a re-trial. Read my comments below as well as visit my google plus page. There you will find many comments from last year about the case. NO MORE FAMOUS PEOPLE GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER AND HEINOUS CRIMES!
Oh come on, my husband gets up all the time in the middle of the night...I never ask him why is he getting up? I always assume he is going to the bathroom... he isn’t getting up to make cookies.
Exactly! When my husband goes to bed, I usually stay up to watch the late news. Discussing this trial, he said, that if he were to shoot every time he heard the slightest noise, he would have shot me at least a thousand times.
Just getting ready to watch session1 but from reading all of your comments it seems most of you agree that the Judge seems to be very sympathetic to OP and that worrys me!!
May be this is a tactic. To appear sympathic so as to allow Oscar to drop his gard and feel more comfortable lieing. If both the prosecutor and judge look aggressive Oscar would freez up totally.
Only a murderer would want to get away with it, if he had really shot the woman he loved by mistake he'd of done a plea bargain. He would do some time but a lot less than the murder charge. He would be seen to take responsibility for his actions & he would stand more of a chance of rehabilitating himself with the Steenkamp family & the public. He also would have the chance of having some kind of a life afterwards. But he doesn't care about any of that he just wants to get away with murder. His tears are for Oscar, nobody else matters to Oscar but Oscar. For me he comes over as a selfish,cruel & heartless man. I find his behavior on the stand loathsome. Guilty as charged, take him down
He just doesn't come across as someone who is full of remorse having accidentally killed 'the love of his life'. He's fighting to preserve his liberty, whereas for someone who was distraught about an accidental killing, this would be the least of their concern, in my opinion.
bubba bush I could have understood an accidental shooting if, for example, he was home alone with the burglar alarm deactivated, asleep in bed and, as a surprise for valentine morning, Reeva arranged with the housekeeper to sneaked into his house and bedroom and he grabbed his gun and shot her. Gun under his bed, trigger happy, but perfectly plausible. What's implausible is spending the evening and night with someone, you both wake up in the early hours, speak to each other, you hear the bathroom window open, hear someone go into the toilet cubicle and immediately assume that it's an intruder - without even checking where your girlfriend is. Can't buy it.
I think when he said get the fuck out of my house he was talking to Reeva. It was a crime of passion. She had partially digested food in her stomach. I think they got up in the middle of the night and ended up in some kind of argument. There are just too many holes in his story. If he was saying "get the fuck out of my house" she would have responded. If she had food in her stomach, they had to have been up at some point that morning. Oscar keeps getting emotional, and it is because he feels bad. He feels bad because he got so angry and killed her in a fit of rage. He isn't emotional because he killed her by accident. I can't wait for this to be over so we can see him get taken away. He is guilty. His story makes no sense whatsoever.
In another trial session his ex girlfriend said that there was one or maybe more than one occasion when he woke up and asked her if she heard a noise, and now he is saying that he wouldn’t know what to expect if a noise woke them up in the middle of the night. It doesn’t take a genius to recognize that he is tailoring his evidence, kudos to Mr. Nel for doing everything he can to expose him.
Gerrie Nel the best. Oscar looking for pity....shame on you. He looked for a lawyer to free him...only reason. He knows HE killed her. Looking for excuses.
A bit of an "Oops" for the prosecutor at 35:50 where he mistakes the DVD logo for an LED, but such a good prosector. Old Pistorius ended with a bang in the prosecution's favour. Now, back in court for another week and it's all hell let loose again. Just a continuation from last week for Pistorius' grilling for lies. "I spoke to Riva quietly to say "get down". Then, just minutes later, "so you SHOUTED for Riva to get down"? Yes! OOps He's had it now.
All things aside, I can't figure out why he killed her in the first place. Did he actually see her? Is he also color blind or eyesight a little out of focus or does he have some vision impairment? Didn't he notice she was a 10+?! He should've been worshipping the ground she walked on! Loser.
floatershaw One thing for sure is he didn't take the advice the people behind that snowy owl gave and tried to fly by night... :D I haven't seen anyone yet think he's not guilty in the fullest sense. I'm not sure what the levels of murder there are in SA, but since it's already established that he shot and killed her, it's gonna come down to something equivalent to manslaughter or murder in the 3rd degree as opposed to premeditated murder. Any idea?
Can you imagine Nel sitting by the fire, smoking a pipe and stewing because his child has missed curfew? And they try to tell him the reason why. "What you are saying, is not only improbable, but impossible. You are tailoring your version to fit my questions. Do you understand what I am saying"?
I think the significance of some of what the prosecution is getting at could easily be lost on a number of people, causing me to question Nel's tactics at times. Then again I am quite sure he knows what he is doing ... I sure wouldn't want to be subject to his questioning! ( think I would be weeping too!!! )
Maybe. But if he wanted her out the house, why did he shoot her then? He could have shouted similar words e.g. "get the f out of my face", and still got upset.
i have a big problem with his series of events as he tells the prosecutor, i dont think his being entirely honest, i dont know maybe he is innocent maybe he is guilty,maybe Reeva did go to the bathroom to hide from him after a fight or maybe she ran there after he went to look for the intruder to protect herself, it still doesnt justify why 4 gunshots, i am worried now...wish he can be honest about what rily went on that night and save himself and reevas family some nightsleep
