Oscar has nothing to lose, he's lost everything! His sponsors, his girlfriend, his career, his assets and possessions, the lot! He's lost it all. You'd think he'd maintain a bit of dignity and just tell the truth - out of respect for Reeva and her family (which would be the most respectful and dignified approach) instead of squirming his way around the questions being put to him, just admit it! Just tell the truth Oscar you have nothing else to lose! The dignity is fading fast! Whichever way one looks at this - he killed someone and he WILL go to jail and has lost everything so he might as well start telling the truth! His character just looks awful in a court of law, seemingly lying constantly to save HIMSELF!! He's making himself look awfully selfish. And that is not good in a court of law, and in a case such as this. Character is very important, and he's digging himself an almighty hole in that sense! I don't think he's evil, I think he made a mistake in a rage in an argument. What a tragic event...
"I don't remember"," I am not sure", "They (all the witnesses, both ear-witnesses and eye witnesses) are either lying or are mistaken." Repeated hysterical eruptions when the questioning gets too close to the truth. Anybody catching the pattern here?
OP has typical short man syndrome. Starting fights everywhere but too cowardly to follow through. Oscar got his ass beat by the guys he threatened - the only fight he won was against an unarmed woman.
Does anyone else think the tears just make him seem more guilty? He appears to have the emotional intelligence of a toddler: throws tantrums when angry and bursts into tears when in trouble.
And he takes a higher pitch voice each time he cries, so that he sounds like a woman. The defense claims that the screaming of a woman that the neighbors heard was actually Oscar crying.
Beirut27 I read somewhere that families only survive the terrible 2's because toddlers aren't strong enough to kill. Humans have no innate conscience and are selfish by nature at that age. If you are a good parent you will teach your child early that actions have consequences, and what it means to have empathy (i.e. "don't hit your brother", "share your toys" etc). Seems that no-one ever taught these basics to OP, and over the years of being rewarded for bad behaviors, given liberties due to his disability and being worshipped as a celebrity, he just got worse. Narcissistic manchild. Toddler with a gun.
When they wanted his password for his phone and he said he couldn't remember it I was like wow, this guy is so stupid. Yes, it's possible to forget your own password but only for a short time, you just take a minute and relax and it will come back to you. Am I right?
Alaa von Alsburg What about "not remembering" the name of the friend who rescued you the night you almost got killed on the highway! This guy is a f'in clown.
***** Yes, that was absurd as well...he has made so many ridiculous statements even if he is acquitted anywhere he goes everyone will think of him as a joke, a monster, an evil creature.
The longer he is on the stand the more I dislike his character. Everything is about him. He only cares about himself. Whatever he says always goes back to him. Poor Reeva. She was so kind and caring. Her texts say so much about her love for him, a love he did not deserve.
Maybe, you should read the texts she wrote to him. I believe she really loved him. You are entitled to your opinion. By the way, did she deserve to die because she loved him, or even if she wanted to hold on to him? She was a graduate from law school and intended to work in the area of abused women. Token, what school did you graduate from?
very true and some how I felt like Reeva was in an abusive relationship (emotional) she was scared of him coz on doz texts she almost reported everythng dat sh was up to and apologized so many times.....
lesson :if you are in an abusive relationship with a man and particularly a man like OP just ran out of it their behaviour is not going to change because you love them
***** That is great news to me. I have watched so many trial in the US where the defendants testify and appear to be lying throughout, yet they still get away with murder. Thank you for telling me what the papers are saying in SA. I hope he does not get away with murder.
2:43:13 - he says his personality pushes him to "confront the danger". It's in his nature. But he didn't "confront the danger" on the highway. He "sped off" and hid at Rhapsody's - according to him.
Prosecutor Nel is 'doing him slowly'..... it's lovely to watch. Fancy that... Reeva standing behind a door a couple of meters from Oscar.... who's shouting for her.... and she doesn't as much as whisper boo.... damn laughable if it weren't so tragic.
I know ! His story, or rather stories, plural, is/are so pathetic that one feels like giggling. Unfortunately this bad actor is also a murderer who slaughtered a young woman and her loved ones have to endure.
Yelling Elk Totally agree, Nel is on his way to a big crescendo I can feel it. I've said from the get go that anyone who believes OP's "cock and bull" story should be put before a firing squad and shot for stupidity. His alibi is complete and utter spurious nonsense.
ezekielthemack Yep... Nel's approach is much like a cat cruelly playing with a mouse before killing it. I think his basic strategy... is to go over and over minute details in so many different ways, purely in order to make it stick. A big one he's going to clout OP over the head with is.... 'Why is it that... on all the other many occasions Oscar had been a potential victim of crime did he 'choose NOT to call the police' (even after being shot at on the hwy that night)... but felt it necessary to have Reeva call them on this night... just because 'someone was in the toilet'?
OP is guilty. in a nutshell, here`s why: (op fires his first shot) nel: "did reeva scream?" OP: "no she didn`t". nel: "you couldn`t hear her, due to the first shot. your ears were ringing." OP: "yes, that`s what I mean." nel: "then how can you say that she didn`t scream?" fact is, it was impossible for OP to say that reeva DIDN`T scream. if his account were truthful, he would without doubt have said: "I don`t know, I couldn`t hear, because my ears were ringing". OP`s story is a complete construct: from this point in, it`s pretty much a clear-cut case, if you ask me.
I'm in Thailand working at this time and last night I went out and partied a little bit and returned to where I'm staying. I got into bed and started thinking about beautiful Reeva and the horrific terror she must have felt in her last minutes on Earth. What must have been going through her mind thinking that someone she thought she was in a loving relationship with was doing to her on Valentines Day, of all days. I burst into tears and cried myself to sleep. May darling Reeva rest in peace forever. May Pistorious spend the rest of his time on Earth behind bars. Much love to the beautiful, righteous people of South Africa.
Alaa, that was a beautiful thought that you expressed. I just want to add that Reeva is not alone. Eighty percent of women in the United States are killed by a husband or boyfriend. Those are alarming statistics. It is the reason a few of the girls following this trial spoke about the importance of not ignoring "red flags." They are always there early on, but a great number of women choose to ignore them. We want to believe that he didn't mean it. He is having a bad day. He is under a lot of stress, etc. When a man begins to berate you in front of others, when he starts telling you how to act, how to talk, how to dress, demands constant attention, he does not love you. He is trying to control you. This gets worse the longer you stay in the relationship, so if you see the pattern starting GET OUT OF THE RELATIONSHIP. Don't make excuses and don't wait to see if things get better. They won't. They will only get worse. Too many women confuse intense attention for love. Personally, I am tired of seeing women being murdered by men who supposedly 'loved' them.
Karen Owens Spot on. The danger for the vast majority of women is inside the home and not outside of it, but a lot of men try to convince women that the danger is outside as a form of control. They met in November and the relationship did not really take off until a couple of months later, in January. She told her mother they were fighting a lot and and if she's already frightened of him sometimes and has to walk on egg shells around him at such an early state.......alarm bells are ringing...he kills her in the February.
Yes, that is exactly what I am talking about. Her mother also said she was not that kind of person who fought with everyone. She said Reeva was very easy going and kind. Just because your Prince Charming wants to have sex doesn't mean he is making love to you. Women really confuse the issues. It takes a long time to really get to know a person. I think many women are in love with the idea of being in love.
Karen Owens Yes you are right about that...I had a boyfriend in New York City several years ago that was a very handsome guy. Only after a few weeks into the relationship one night he slapped me in a public place in front of several people because I wasn't ready to go home yet. I said ok lets go and when we got back to (my) place I told him to pack his stuff and get the (f) out and never come back. He started saying how sorry he was for doing that I said I understand you are sorry however GET OUT OF MY APARTMENT NOW! He left and to this day I have never seen him again.
I knew that Nel was going to end off and peak his cross examination for Friday by asking the glaring question of why would Reeva not call out or even make a sound throughout all the times that he spoke to her and screamed at the intruders. This is one thing that is impossible to explain. His reasoning that she might have been terrified and therefore did not make a sound is virtually impossible to believe, since even if she was truly terrified to respond to Oscar because she believed there were intruders in the house, the odds are almost certain that she would have paniced and screamed or let out SOME paniced sound. We all know that woman are very vocal when they get paniced. Plus Nel brought up another legitimate question - Why in the world would a buglar retreat into a confined space when realizing he had been discovered?? There are so many issues in Oscar's version of events that do not pass the common sense test that it was crazy of him to take the stand. I wonder if his lawyers argued with him not to testify? Im sure they must have. Obviously he wanted to testify because any accused who is willing to testify must be innocent and telling the truth and obviously is not scared of testifying because their testimony is backed by the evidence in the crime scene. So his intent was to show the judge "Look, I'm so innocent that I am willing to testify myself." However, when you are guilty and the evidence at the crime scene does not support your version, it is crazy to take the stand! Nel is just slaughtering him and his testimony! This has just become a spectacle of watching a guilty man try unsuccessfully to squirm his way out of lying. This shows terrible judgement on Oscar's part and would explain his terrible paniced judgement to proceed to kill her after he shot the first shot in a fit of insanity brought on by a very volitile mix of steroids and rage. I am almost certain that he was taking steroids after hearing how important it was for him to make a living out of his athletics career and especially after hearing that he trained 7 days a week. Training 7 days a week is a recipe for over-training unless you are on steroids. Another incredibly bad judgement of his was to fake getting shot at on the freeway (obviously by doing so he wanted to show why he was so paranoid that fateful evening when he thought intruders were entering his house) and then saying someone picked him up and drove him home, since even if he truly forgot who picked him up (highly unlikely), surely the person who picked him up would come to his defense if it were true. So yet another lie to be caught on. I would sum up that his terrible judgement put him in the predicament that he got himself into that night and its his terrible judgement that has got him slaughtered on the witness stand. If he had decent judgement he would have realized that ANYWAY he is going to be charged at least with manslaughter and spend at least 15 years in jail. This is not about jail time or no jail time but about what length of jail time. Therefore he should have taken responsibilty and told the truth and pleaded temporary insanity which I believe is how it all began. I just cannot believe a sane person would pull the trigger and throw away in an instant such a fairy-tale success story. By doing this he would very possibly recieve credit from the judge for owning up and taking responsibiilty and if temporary insanity could be proven (likely since there are quite a few documented cases of murder suicide cases by people who were known to have taken steroids, like a number of Pro WWF wrestlers in the states) he might have stood a good chance of getting less than a 25 year to life murder sentence. But what he has chosen to do is just turning out to be a train wreck!
I agree. Why would she not answer him when he was banging on the door with the bat? When he was yelling out suggesting an intruder was in the toilet (while she knew she was in there herself i.e. nothing to be scared of). He's just a disgusting lying sack of crap making her look like an idiot and treating everyone listening to him as idiots who'd believe his rubbish.
We've been listening in awe for days, to the divine work of art that is Mr Nels cross-examination of Mr Pistorius. He ebbs and flows along the river of details pulling everything and everyone on a wave of inevitability taking us to the one and only place we can go; that on the night in question Mr Pistorius intentionally shot and killed Miss Steenkamp. Why? We will likely never know exactly why he has done this but Gerrie Nel will ensure that we all know, he did it beyond a reasonable doubt.
My prayers are with Reeva and her family and friends. I can tell Reeva was a star and a gentle soul. I saw the picture of her with the Golden Retrievers and I knew she was gentle by the way they were around her. Much love, Canada.
03:04:50 "Reeva, call the cops !!" .... *silence* .... "Oh, she must've been so scared no word came out of her mouth" .... it hurts listening to that garbage. Kudos to Reeva's friends and family to pull through this so stoically.
omg why is this trial going on still? lock the guy up, he fired the shots thats it...he killed a beautiful soul that had a bright future. Plz do us and Reeva's parents, relatives and friends a big favour and throw this guy in jail, where he belongs
What was amazing for me was that apparently someone shot at him from a car and he drove to a public area scared for his life and doesn't remember who he called? I find that amazing. And someone drove him home and he can't remember who and he can't remember who got his car the next morning - unbelievable!!!!
I think Oscar DID, indeed, scream "get out of my house", and he was screaming it at Reeva. I think after he shot her, he realized that somebody outside probably heard him, so he conjured up a good reason for having shouted it...to an *intruder*. He's a clever sociopath, as most sociopath's are.
I also think Oscar DID hear the door slam...Reeva slammed it on him when he came after her, screaming, "get out of my house". That's what clever liars do...they mix their lies with just the right amount of 'truth' so it sounds more believable. That also makes it easier for him to 'remember' and 'repeat' his whole cock-and-bull story.
I think your right.. But I do believe he loved her as he is deeply upset. I reckon in a rage he's shot her and then thought.. Shit.. What have I done. It seems to have been one of them relationships where there was too much jealousy on his part and he lashed out.
@@chezza2116 I know it's an old comment but i find it hard to think that she wasn't a little tiny bit put off bye his legs and him being a sociopath he probably sensed that a bit and couldn't handle her being so attractive and happy with her life and her body.
At one point he says there were "many many thoughts" that went through his mind. Then later when it doesn't suite him anymore he says he didn't have time to think. Which one is it Oscar? Even grabbing your gun takes thought, deciding to walk to the bathroom takes thought, deciding to look for intruders takes thought, deciding that maybe they had gained access using a ladder takes thought! The excuse of " I didn't have time to think" holds no water in this case because the whole event took minutes to unfold not seconds. Also he says he heard the door slam shut, yet he did not hear it lock? We know for a fact it was locked. Why didn't Nell ask this question? Its important because if he didn't hear it lock why not? He was not far away. If he did hear it lock it would not fit in with his story, so it suites him to leave that part out. It was an important question to ask IMO. In any case, its a shame for Reeva's family that they will probably never know the reason he killed her because he lies and lies and lies about everything.
one thing that bothers me is the fact that he carried her downstairs and then did CPR...if I had just shot someone and wanted to save them I would immediately put them on the floor where I was and try to save their life immediately...not carry them anywhere
He made one big mistake....he says he became very quiet as he was slowly walking down the passage toward the bathroom door, because he didn't want to give away his position. Yet why does he then say he is screaming and shouting for the intruder to leave, and Reeva to get down and phone the police. Contradiction after contradiction...how long can Oscar hold onto his lie before he breaks down and confesses that he intentionally killed her? Oscar is running fast away from the truth and responsibility for what he did. Nel is right behind him closing fast in on Oscar.
When a person has told many lies about an event it is IMPOSSIBLE to keep the story straight, 2:55:00...they will trip themselves up over and over as they are trying to convince anyone listening to them that they are being truthful. This is just the same as the Jodi Arias trial here in the US, when she took the stand she looked like an idiot with all of her lies, When she was caught in a lie by Mr. Martinez she would stare into space and get all teary eyed. When you are telling the truth there ain't nothing to remember!
Nel has gotten better each day. Today, he was brilliant. Can't wait for the nail in the coffin, which will probably occur sometime Monday, when he brings up the fact that Reeva was dressed.
3.17. Got to love to nerve of Pistorius (and people like him) who say 'firearm' instead of gun, like they can't even admit to the violence inherent in their having a gun as a private citizen. You're not a police officer OP, you're a gun nut. Say 'gun'.... what a coward.
The way Pistorius is expressing himself corresponds very well with the hypothesis that he is lying. It does not correspond at all with the hypothesis that he’s speaking the truth. The difference (and particularly the mismatch with the truth-telling hypothesis) is such that the way Pistorius expresses himself constitutes a very convincing case that he’s lying. Consider: if Pistorius telling the truth, there are two clear facts in the background of his story: 1) she was in the bathroom, 2) he was mistaking her for an intruder. This means that a lot of ‘woulds’ (etc.) that he uses between 3:03:40 and 3:08:32 are clearly inappropriate. For example, given these two facts, it is bizarre to say: ‘if I was approaching her and she was in the toilet’ (3:04:56), or to say ‘she would have been terrified’ (3:04:48) rather than ‘she must have been terrified’ or something similar. Many more examples could be given. Pistorius’s language gives him away. (I have made an extensive argument further down, some 3 hours ago.)
osip...a brilliant post. his language is completely wrong..he had a year to get his story right..he didnt think about grammar..why? because he is an idiot.
Most people have forgotten that there is a possibility that Oscar might be telling the truth, regardless of how unlikely that possibility is. this man might be telling the truth!!! Some stories may sound false/suspicious but it does not mean that they are not true. you and I were not there so lets stop with our biased conclusions and be neutral until the end of this trial
Yes Rebaone, but we are listening to Oscar's testimony just like the judge. We will form an opinion as well based on all the evidence, as to whether he's guilty or not. We are playing jurors, just like everybody else listening in or reading the evidence, wanting to know the truth.....Even though Oscar at times sounds like a very intelligent and talented man...he has tremendous flaws that are being exposed. He sounds like a chronic liar, a gun fanatic, a rebel with little respect for the law, and he has a bad temper, and problems with relationships with woman. Taking all this into account, its highly probable that he killed his Reeva, in a crime of passion, which most murders fall into.
@Rebaone Mmusi, I agree with you. Whether he is telling the truth or not, he deserves a fair trial. Just like everyone else he is presumed innocent until proven guilty and has a right to tell his story. I'm glad the judge is the one who will make a decision, not a group of blood thirsty viewers.
Can anyone answer my question. Since Oscar said he shouted at whoever was in the toilet cubicle before he opened fire, why didn't Reeva answer back since it was her locked inside the toilet cubicle!?
At the start I thought OP was guilty of manslaughter, but after today I am strongly veering towards murder. Nel didnt want to phrase it perhaps because of OPs disability, but for me the big question is why would someone with stumps for legs put himself and his lover in danger by approaching the alleged burglars when he could have sat on the bed, aimed his gun, and waited for the burglars to appear in the passageway while Reeva phoned the Police? And then claim that he felt "vulnerable" to explain why he fired? I am not convinced that Reeva fled for her life by running in to the bathroom, or else she would have run out of the house. Perhaps they were having an argument while she was in the bathroom, and something she said touched a nerve. OPs state of mind appears to be borderline psychotic at times: from tearful to being eerily objective, or he is sticking to a script which he has had a year to rehearse. Pre-sentence, I wonder if the Judge will recommend psychiatric assessment, and after today perhaps OP should be put on suicide-watch. Taking his own life would not be justice for Reeva nor offer any closure to her family.
Absolutely! When he first cliamed that he went for his gun under the bed was the time fo him to have called the cops, but he didn't ! He didn't because he knew exactly where Reeva was after she ran into the bathroom to calm him down and to isolate herself and hopefully diffuse the argument that had taken place.
Laurence Smith Let's not forget that the prosecution has to support its accusations w/ evidence, He's innocent until proven guilty. We're just assuming there has been an argument. Nel is on fire, though.. I predict an appeal to a "Guilty" verdict and Pistorius hiring a better defence team.
The Prosecution Lawyer did ask the Accused many times why he did not stay in the bedroom. He just did not mention the latter's lack of mobility you have referred to here. I too, thought that the version of the Accused was plausible, until I heard the biggest self-contradiction by the Accused: If the intruder was armed and so dangerous that the Accused had to arm himself to shoot him in self-defense, WHY WOULD SUCH A DANGEROUS INTRUDER HIDE IN THE TOILET? The Accused mentioned that he was afraid the intruder might come and shoot him and the Deceased. Yet, he saw no contradiction in such an intruder hiding in the toilet instead. Add in the claim that the Accused heard no replies from behind the toilet door after he had screamed and shouted to her, and we have a totally implausible story.
Averagebum Bum I wonder if everyone also noticed that the Accused paused lengthily when asked if the toilet door was usually shut or open. Another indication that the Accused was possibly trying to create an answer in favour of his story. If I remember correctly, there was another lengthy pause when the Accused was asked if he was sure he heard no reply from the Deceased behind the door.
I remember the exact route and the colour of the gun muzzle the night someone shot at me M'Lady but I can't remember the person I called, who picked me up and retrieved my car for me the next day. That person helped me through the trauma of almost being killed but my brain has completely forgotten them M'Lady, oops.
He's too far gone into his trial to now start telling the truth. But once you brush all of the fluff aside, in my opinion, it comes down to a man who saw red after a heated rage, probably tried to scare her with his gun , just like a wife beater would do with his fists, and only then after, realises the impact of what he has done. How can a man remember so much, but yet also forget so much, so much crucial evidence? I honestly believe this man will try and kill himself if it goes bad.
I don't understand, so he wakes up because he's warm... then closes the doors? and he doesn't place the fans in front of the door instead brings them next to TV? Doesn't make sense to me...
"I'm making mistakes because I'm tired" Well of course he's tired, He's mentally exhausted because lying on such a massive scale is an extremely mentally challenging thing to do. Keeping track of all those lies must be pretty darn tiring. His story defies all logic and common sense, especially the whole "Reeva didn't say a single word during the entire event even though I was shouting and screaming" part. I'm surprised his case hasn't already collapsed under the weight of It's own ludicrousness. I bet if he had the choice to either, A) kill himself and bring Reeva back, or B)kill his own mother and get off scott free, he would choose the later. He's a selfish, twisted sociopathic liar. I've absolutely no doubt he's going to be in jail for a long, long time.
A few points on the trial so far: 1. The gun in the restaurant - I've seen a video of the Glock pistol. Apparently they all have the same safety feature which renders it impossible to fire the gun without putting one's finger right around the trigger and pulling it. How therefore could the weapon have possibly gone off spontaineously? Nel did dwell on this a bit but as I recall he did not ask OP exacly how he was holding the weapon. 2. The shooting incident on the motorway when OP was shot at - How could OP possibly not remember who collected him from the restaurant car-park and drove him home after such an event? Again Nel jumped on this, but he did not ask whether it was an man or a woman or how far the car-park was from his house to establish the journey time or the make of car (in view of OP's interest in cars). 3. The jeans on the duvet - to my mind it is absolutely clear the jeans are sitting on a flap which is part of the duvet. It is not padded, which is perfectly normal, but it is part of the duvet. This clearly has Roux worried. 4. The noise OS heard on the night of the killing - He claims this to be the sliding window in the passage. Does a sliding window really make much noise when opened? 5. The shooting - how is it possible that RS did not a) react to OP's yelling in the middle of the night in close proximity? b) make a sound after OP fired the first shot through the toilet door?
I love how Nel bounces around from incident to incident to throw Oscar off of his game. If Oscar has rehearsed all of this, it will be harder for him to keep his story straight if he's thrown off topic. I LOVE IT.
Agree, Nel ought to be given the title 'BULLDOG' not B Roux - then OP decides too snivel when the questions become 2 much/can't answer. Sick of hearing about his prosthesis/fear/protecting Reeva (RIP). Why can't OP just admit he shot through the door - end of? or is this due to the law in SA as 'using reasonable force'? But then, methinks why would OP be directly in front of the door because the 'intruder' could be armed & fired likewise from the other side!! OP is digging a very large hole & by Monday he will either sccumb to a breakdown - with a new trial ahead. The bloke is guilty but won't admit it.
Oscar's "instinct" or "thought" was he could get out of this mess and outsmart Nel...No doubt Oscar is very clever...but he's no match for Nel. It's a landslide win for the state
lisa anderson That's right, the "phantom intruder" could have had a gun as well...I never thought of it that way...according to him instead of grabbing up Reeva and running out of the house he goes (toward) the danger but according to him, "not to shoot" but for what??? To shout at them to get out??? His version makes no sense...
Doubt if this trial will end before 2015! Pistorius 'broke' 2nd time (hammering from the 'Great Nel' too much..) Methinks the judge swaying as too much sympathy allowed via breaks in court. Why isn't there a jury service in SA? OP tied up in a serious tangle now, he can't answer Nel and switching stories - 20/1 OP will 'sob' again OOOP's here we go.... Judge calls counsel to chambers!!! Fess up Pistorius and get your a*** to Jail.
Slips in your testimony Mr. Pistorius. 1st slip 9 April 2014, session 5, 41:16. "They didn't know the fan was part of where the accident happened." 2nd slip 10 April 2014, session 3, 48:03 "My only thought was to get Reeva, to get help for Reeva." "To get Reeva" was your thought.
He doesn´t want to take ANY RESPONSIBILTY ! He wants to get away with it. He wants to spend a nice life with socialising, doing stuff....have a good job one day. He doesn´t want to spend 15 years or more in a small prison cell. Of course he doesn´t want. No real private apology to Reeva´s parents......and so many things he denies during the whole trial. From the very beginning i thought....this all sounds so improbable !!!!!!
The lawyer is not being called my lady, because there is no jury all answers from the defendant and witnesses are directed towards the judge. They look at the judge when answering.
Mr. Pistorius, If you believed intruders were in your toilet and on a ladder outside the bathroom window, and you were "scared", "terrified", believed you were in a life threatening situation, why, after cautiously advancing down the bathroom passage did you stand facing the toilet door with an opened window to your side?
When you tell the truth you don't have to have a good memory; when you lie you have trouble keeping track of all of them which is why OP is getting "tired."
good afternoon , if you was a burglar why would you break into bathroom and the lock yourself in a toilet , ? unless of course you wanted to nick the bathroom suite
The jeans being inside-out: My take is she was trying to put them on over her shorts to leave. He kept her from doing it, pulled them down (peeling them down) as she fought to put them on. She probably stumbled over onto the floor and he completed 'peeling' them off her legs, ergo inside-out. She then scrambled to the first escape route, the hall to the bathroom, then into the toilet and locked the door. However, to myself, it begs the question on how she got to have her cellphone with her? But could explain the jeans inside-out. I would assume the window was already open also, that's how the neighbors heard all the 'noises'. Does anybody know why his 'legs' were on the left side of the bed near the balcony door, when he says he slept on the right side?
He gets “shot” at on the highway, he remembers exactly which off ramp he took as an “escape route”, he remembers exactly where he went to feel safe to make a call, and yet HE CANT REMEMBER WHO HE CALLED, Wow that makes absolutely ZERO sense! I can remember calling my siblings 20 years ago when worrying about being followed on a road. The reality of this is that the “alleged incident on the highway NEVER HAPPENED”. Oscar displays a lot of arrogance and impatience to Mr Nel, showing also that he was uncomfortable and edgy being in the witness box. I truly believe that he should be imprisoned for life, without the possibility of parole. The fact that he murdered Reeva, LIED EXCESSIVELY in court, COULDN’T REMEMBER SO MANY THINGS in court, and the total irresponsible and narcissistic behaviour he displays throughout his adult life, he doesn’t not deserve any mercy from the authorities.
Occams Razor. 'When you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better." In this case, it is the Prosecution's theory that fits the bill. So , many astute, well thought out, comments here. Including the ones I don't agree with. I have some faves,@Olivia Westbrook,@sturoc0, @Carrie Aldighieri, I have enjoyed your views, so much. I follow many high profile trials, and this is my first experience with a trial out of my home country. I know many derogatory comments have been made about SA's procedures, but I am, for one, very impressed. There are some things that America could learn here, I believe. OP is the worst kind of killer. Worse than any serial killer, rage killer, etc...he will kill you, simply because he has no real regard for 'life'. Narcissism at it's finest.
Anyone with just half a brain, can clearly see that Oscar's version of what happened that night is simply ridiculous... (it's the stuff of a child) and that Prosecutor Nel is doing a grand job of proving this! But with that said.... I just can't shake this horrible feeling... that this is 'unfortunately' just going to end up another O J Simpson type case, with a hugely popular public figure getting off scott free. Don't be surprised, if even after all this... We see Oscar Pistorius sitting there with an empathetic Oprah Winfrey... crocodile tears in his eyes... telling the entire world his pain in killing the love of his life. After a few months... all will be forgiven and it'll be Reeva Who?
***** When Oscar tells how he told Reeva to get down he never cries. He justifies his actions. He feels everything he fabricated was honorable. He only cries for Himself.
As for the led light. I cannot sleep if my laptop led is glowing. It does not give light to my bedroom but for some reason bothers me when I sleep. I often but not always put a sock over it. Such nit picking. Does Nel not have anything better? Yawn.
Nel is going through every detail with a fine tooth comb. It's necessary in order to get the results he wants. Simply proving his case by putting on record for everyone that OP is a liar.
Mo Watson My LED laptop light bothers me too when I am trying to sleep! Sometimes I roll over so I can't see it and other times I get up out of bed and cover it in my case with a cigarette packet!
I've noticed a few times not necessary today but when he gives evidence it sounds like he is reading from something. Obviously he is not but it proves to me he gas rehearsed a version and not telling the truth of the cuff. Guilty as sin. It would be a tragedy if he gets not guilty
As this trial has progressed, I'm liking the judge more and more. Her comment to OP regarding his fatigue and how it was unfair to him and the court was right on. As was her rebuke of Nel when he called OP a liar to his face and then laughed at one of his answers another time (causing members in the peanut gallery to also chuckle).
Her comment regarding the fatigue was made because if he openly admitted that he was foggy-headed on the stand and they let things continue, it would've been grounds for appeal.
Every time his feet are put to the fire he starts that fake crying. You can hear the phoniness in his voice. I am almost glad we don't have to watch his body language as well.
YESSSSSSSS...I think Pistorious chose not to be on camera because he didn't want body language experts around the world to (see) him as he is testifying!
If we had to watch him we would probably all need a bucket too ! Reeva's mother, June, has given a very interesting interview to the Daily Mirror and she says that whenever he's not being grilled he turns the waterworks off, takes notes and uses his mobile... He must have miraculously remembered the pin code or he couldn't, eh ?
Wow i love this prosecutor..he has OP's back against the wall. I really wanted to believe OP's version, he seemed truly devastated about it ...or was it being sorry for himself?.....but not anymore. I just worry that the judge is feeling bad for him, I hope not!!!
Listen carefully to how OP said, (addressing the state prosecutor), "There are many things "I" could have done, I could have run onto the balcony.. NEVER AT ANY STAGE DID YOU SAY "WE" (referring to Reeva & himself) could have done this or that. It is most obvious there was only a 'ME' and what "I" could have said to make my version more believable.
Olivia Westbrook Hi Olivia, Listen from exactly 2:35:00 onward... "I" was very vulnerable (okay, so if that was the case, first thing he would have done is put the legs on). 2:41:00 - " I could have gone to the balcony" (to escape)...
Charlie Percival Beverley meant before he went to the bathroom to confront the intruder and meaning he is only thinking of himself not him and reeva,he should have thought of him and reeva to get out instead of confronting and going to the bathroom where he thought the noise is
Beverley Langkilde exactly, he didn't mention Reeva being vulnerable to the alleged burglars. He's just making up a story and must be too slow to realise some people would notice that error.
Wtf - did i just hear OP say that with Samantha Taylor he said the "relationship was over , i packed her bags" - what does he think he is to the melody of YMCA sing ....... SO-CI-O-PATH !
To those who feel Gerrie Nel has been harsh or bullied Oscar Pistorius you all need to think how would you want a Prosecution Lawyer to approach his cross examination of an accused murderer? He can't treat a witness with kid-gloves or go easy on them when ultimately he is there to get at the truth, to prove what they are being accused of...Oscar Pistorius hasn't done himself any favors when he is being confrontational and evasive with his responses...saying "I don't know or I don't remember" isn't a good form of defence or at all convincing!
Yes, Candy Kittens but I wonder if it was somebody they cared about who had been brutally killed how would they want the person prosecuting to behave in that trial? This is tragic but ultimately Oscar Pistorius is responsible for taking a life in a reckless and senseless manner!
The only thing that is so hard to see is Reeva mother over there hearing all this nonsense argument and the worse thing is to see that there was not reason at all for her poor daughter to be killed, thinking as mother oh God gives strength to Reeva mother to go through of all of it. I feel so hard and so sorry for her
Following on from Nel's line of argument: If Reeva heard Pistorius screaming and she was so terrified that she fled, slamming and locking the toilet door to hide herself away, too petrified to even speak/call out, why on Earth would she then, moments later, decide to open the toilet door? I can think of two possible answers: Maybe she wasn't trying to open the door but just bumped into it, and that was enough for OP to open fire. Alternatively, in the quiet that followed OP's screaming, when unknown to Reeva he was pointing his gun at the door, maybe Reeva actually realised that Pistorius had mistaken her for an intruder. She realised, because when she got out of bed she had deliberately done so quietly, and she had even noticed that OP, with his back turned in the dark, hadn't noticed her. So she decided to open the toilet door to surprise him, but her silence and the sound of the door was enough reason for OP to open fire. From all the evidence one thing is clear: Pistorius loved to go shooting. He loved it so much. He loved to go into 'combat mode' and creep around his house like in the movies. He loved it so much he tweeted about going into 'combat mode' with his gun, when he heard a noise from his washing machine. Going into combat mode was a natural response for him, such was his investment in and love of guns. So his story of jumping to the conclusion that a noise = intruder is actually consistent with his previous behaviour. On a different tack, according to OP Reeva was awake when he woke up and complained that he couldn't sleep. OP was so hot and bothered that he decided to bring the fans in, close all the windows and curtains, even block out the LED light from the amp (making the room pitch black - providing a rather too perfect alibi for why he didn't see her) So, knowing fully that OP wanted the windows shut, why would Reeva instantly get up and go and open the bathroom window? To annoy him? If she still wanted a window open, which it seems she did, wouldn't she say something about it?
mrip75 No! But I'm obsessed with the trial and I'm trying to test/make sense of OP's version. I swing between thinking he's totally guilty, because his story is too implausible for words, and then thinking but what if, even though it's implausible, it's actually true? You have to keep an open mind. I think from what's happened so far he seems guilty for both of the gun charges he denies - in the restaurant and car - and at least for culpable homicide. I don't think he'll get done for murder, and my gut feeling is that he's not guilty of murder. I believe his grief, and I think it would be obvious if he was 100% lying on the stand.
Simon Raven He is lying and it's very obvious that he is. You are making a decision based on his emotions. Do you understand that he is crying for himself? Every time Nells corners him in a lie he begins to cry. As far as an open mind, I went into this trial with one and I firmly believe at this point in the trial he is guilty as sin!
IMPORTANT DISCOVERY IN THE O.P TRIAL. at 1:18:20 - 1:18:30 Oscar says he whispers/says in a soft tone. at 1:21:09 he repeats that he said it in a soft tone.. at 2:34:50 he says he was screaming for burglar to leave and screaming for his girlfriend to ring the police.. am I correct in what I have found.?
No sorry... no revelations here... he stated he was speaking in a 'soft tone' whilst he was still in the bedroom (supposedly talking to Reeva).... the 'shouting' took place later, at the toilet door (and apparently... Reeva didn't hear a thing).
yes, I see, he started shouting and screaming as he entered the passageway.(where was the passageway?). so he spoke softly , then within seconds started shouting and screaming. doesn't make any sense at all
Also, GERRIE ...!!! In Pistorius' mind the extension cable was then also wound back up and/or pushed back under the bedside table by the police after the 'they had moved the fan and thrown the duvet onto the floor'
I just don't get it. How come the judge ask the accused if He is tired and that's maybe the reason He is making mistsakes cmon totally subjective question!! improper for judge. Now i can imagine what is gonna be the outcome of this trial!
Why tell Reeva in a soft voice to get down and call the police but then later tell her the same thing by shouting at her. If he did so in a soft voice there may have been reasons like not informing trespassers of what they were doing. Also why repeat the same command at 2 different instances without checking for feedback from her.
When questioning him about the black mercedes shooting incident on the highway, Nel should have gone after him a bit more. OP says he doesn't remember who picked him up. Nel should have asked him if he remembers what car the person was driving in (the person who came to pick him up), or if he remembers the drive home at all. Then when he said no, Nel could mention how strange it is that he remembers every little detail (including the color of the flash) up until the point someone came to pick him up...after that he remembers absolutely nothing about that night. We all know he is lying, but this would have exposed his lies even more!
On April 9th, session 5, 41:16 - 41:20, OP testifies, "THEY DIDN'T KNOW THE FAN WAS PART OF WHERE THE ACCIDENT HAPPENED." Evidence directly from Oscar Pistorius that the "ACCIDENT" event started in the BEDROOM.
Oscar thought an intruder had entered into his harse... into his harse? No Oscar... that wasn't an intruder in the harse with you... you knew it was Reeva... and you shot her dead.... in the harse.
The prosecutor has just pulled the best argument of all, OP has just stated he couldn't have heard her scream because he was deafened with the sound of the gun and then said none of the neighbours could have heard her scream. He's just fell flat on his face never mind tripped himself up!! Nice on Mr Prosecutor.
Have any of you ever been in court? I have been, for maintenance! My ex took me to court because he wanted a reduction in support. I felt like a criminal as I was gruelled by his lawyer, about where I live, the schools the kids go to, how I live my life blah blah blah. At some point I wanted to give up. Yes, I cried a number of times and almost peed on myself. You loose words. You make mistakes and say things that you are suppossed to say. You blurp and blurp as you just to prove or justify something. Every time I had to attend court I would not sleep or eat. Without telling them my kids would ask, "My is it that day again" They noticed that the day before court I was restless, fidgety, snappy, withdrawn. I would have severe palpitations as my name was called. You had to stand there and be gruelled about your income and expenditure and the number of boyfriends you had (How I wished! As I had none at the time). You stand there and you are treated like a criminal! Its a place I don't want to be again! I can imagine the anxiety Oscar is experiencing no wonder he is making so much mistakes....and in his case he killed someone and is fighting for survival....before attacking me....he still has to be found guilty or not...
I agree, everyone always thinks they know what the defendant should have said etc. This prosecutor is a bully, and asks him over and over to make specuations about things, and does not accept his answers. sometimes, even if telling the truth, people do not remember every single thing! It was indeed a traumatic event, the brain filters many things out. In addition, he is being very careful with his words because he is painfully aware each word has the potentially to be twisted into something incriminating even if its not. I believe him ,I feel bad for him, he sounds tired because he just shot his girlfriend and he didnt mean to and that is something I cant even imagine but must be inbearably painful. But everyone thinks they know how it would have gone, he "would have seen her on the bed" etc, etc, but it is not IMPOSSIBLE for him to not have....they try to make him say things because THEY insist they are improbable or impossible, but thats not necessarily true
I am puzzled by today’s ruling. I believe a very convincing case can be made that P is guilty of murder (see my comment on the 4th Session of Sept. 11) and I don't see why this case should be juridically insufficient -- even in a murder trial, where a high standard of evidence is rightly required. I republish an earlier analysis of a crucial 2-minute episode from the process below. By itself, it is not going to be enough juridically but, as I said, a more general case can also convincingly be made. --Republishment of a reaction of April: Between 3:03:40 - 3:05:40 Pistorius gives himself away and repeatedly shows himself to be lying. I paraphrase: Nel: This is the most improbable thing: you shouted and she, at three meters... Pistorius: I didn’t know she was in the bathroom. Nel: ... she did not shout back. And it’s a fact she was in the bathroom. If your version of events were true, she would have spoken up. Pistorius: True, she would have been terrified [but could have kept quiet]... I presume she would... My comments: First off, that she was in the bathroom is indeed a fact if anything is. Otherwise there would have been no killing. But then the above 'woulds' (of Pistorius's) are very strange (and there are many of them between 3:03:40 and 3:08:32). I can think of two explanations for them: 1) Let's suppose Pistorius accepts it as a fact that she was in the bathroom. If he is telling the truth, he’d go on to think aloud: why didn’t she shout? ‘I think she didn’t shout because...’ If he’s lying, he’d go on to think aloud: how can I incorporate this fact into my story? ‘[In my story] she wouldn’t shout because...’ The ‘would’ only makes sense if he’s lying. 2) Alternatively -and this may be what’s happening most of the time- the 'woulds' could indicate that Pistorius continues to treat a clear fact (that she was in the bathroom) as a hypothesis. If he’s telling the truth, it makes no sense to treat an incontrovertible fact in such a way. Pistorius would think aloud: it was her in the bathroom. She must have been terrified. But suppose he’s lying. Pistorius must then have a coherent story (maintaining he didn’t k n o w she was in the bathroom). But the story must also fit the facts (e.g. that she w a s in the bathroom). It is easy to imagine that this can become confusing in his mind, and that he therefore no longer clearly sees an incontrovertible fact (that she was in the bathroom) for what it is. Relatedly, his lying can in fact also explain something peculiar about the first lines of the above conversation. Nel is saying: Your version is improbable, because it sits very uneasily with the fact that your girlfriend was in the bathroom. Pistorius seems to want to reply (even before Nell is done): My version doesn’t sit uneasily with this fact because I didn’t b e l i e v e my girlfriend to be in the bathroom. But what Pistorius b e l i e v e d is irrelevant for the fit with the facts, as long as the facts remain the same (she w a s in the bathroom). What is going on here? I surmise that Pistorius mistakenly uses an element which is important for the coherence of his story ('I believed her to be in the bedroom') for arguing that his story fits the facts ('because I believed she was in the bedroom, the fact that she was in the bathroom is not relevant'). More particularly, this is what I think is going on. Pistorius is lying and -in trying to be convincing- he has so much anchored in his mind his versions of what he believed at the time, that these versions have taken on too much reality for him. I am suggesting that it has become something quite similar to a fact for him, or to a credible version of the facts, ‘that she was in the bedroom’ and ‘that there was an intruder’. If this suggestion were accepted, his response in the first few lines of the above conversation would become much more understandable, and so would his treatment of ‘she was in the bathroom’ as a mere hypothesis. But of course these responses remain odd given the actual facts and contribute to exposing him: they fit the hypothesis of him lying but not the hypothesis of him speaking the truth.
Idk if the laws are this much different than the laws in the US when it comes to attorneys protecting their clients but it seems like there’s no objections from the defense when the prosecutor asked a question over and over again.. there’s no ask and answer objections, no badgering the witnesses objections or no objections to any relevance, Etc.
Oscar is a pro athlete who spends his whole life on the track and has no reason to be particularly well read or articulate but I'm impressed with his intellect so far, he's putting up a good fight. Any one of us would make mistakes over such bullish cross examination it's not necessarily conclusive.
they are serious questions or key questions to his testimony as nel said there will be implications if his answer is not right.it just proves one thing he is guilty
Adina Hamilton Semantics, litigation, attention to the minutae of evidence - these are all the field of a lawyer, Oscar's in Nel's house now. I'm just surprised at how well he can stand his ground and spar with him. Interesting that even though I can have an objective opinion about his eloquence in the stand, everyone thinks I must believe in his innocence.
Nel is the boss. Barry Roux's argument about the picture angle is so irrational, I wonder why did the Judge let him get away with it. Pistorius is so guilty and it is so transparent through his answers.
maybe Reeve saying "leave me alone go away" Mabey? There should have been made a cardboard cutout of Reeve's body standing behind the door and matching the holes in her body with the door , they have everything else why not?
This is a goddamned KANGAROO COURT. Criminal Procedure in SA is a joke and juvenile in it's application. The man is disabled, the area he lives in causing him to feel unsafe, he feels doubly disabled, the room is pitch dark and his girlfriend was just there beside him. Why wouldn't he feel that she is still right there? OP gives his version of what happened and the prosecutor tells him he is lying, twists his every word and phrase and the judge sits there, his lawyer does nothing, no objections to the brow beating that his client is undergoing. Was this prosecutor an interrogator during the Apartheid era because he comes across that way in the manner that he questions the key witness as though he's a child. And, the Defense lawyer is not acting as an advocate for his client. It's CRAZY! INSANE! In America, Canada, Britain the judge would have both of the sides up for a sidebar to reprimand the prosecutor for browbeating the witness! This judge just sits there! He wouldn't be allowed to offer opinion or say ''You see, Mr. Petorius, you're lying or you're not listening, or you said this during your bail hearing.'' Or telling OP HIS opinion about what actually happened. WAS HE THERE? The witness would give his statement and further clarifying questions would be asked until all aspects of the issue are exhausted. Then the judge would take the statements of the witness into consideration when concluding her verdict. The prosecutor is insulting the intelligence of the judge as to her ability to make a cogent decision.
That's probably because Oscar IS lying. Anyone (even if you're not a lawyer) can see that. It's BLATANTLY obvious It's fabricated to the very end. How unrealistic that an intruder would shut himself in the toilet door. What was he doing? Taking a shit before robbing the house? Reeva didn't even speak the whole duration of the incident, apart from when he woke (even that bit has been added since the very first version). There is nothing wrong with SA justice system, and the judge is coming across with the attitude 'Innocent til proven guilty' which is a very professional attitude as a judge. I love My Lady!
It's not like he was home alone!He knew full well Reeva was there and awake he left the room does he really think she can't get up and go to the loo.That sacred of crime he fell asleep with the balcony door wide open at that time of night!
the USA has the worst unfair Justice system worldwide .Do not blame the New South Africa and their Judge .And of course he is lying like captain Blue Bear and that what Mr Nel want to know after OP version , with this very very long cross examination cause the court need the truth .
joe blitz Not only the court : Reeva's family deserve the truth too ; not that they are likely to get it from Pistorius, but the trial is there to find and expose it.
I haven't seen any Kangaroos in this court case yet, maybe I'm blind. I'm quite impressed by the SA court so far, I live in England. And so because of all these vague facts, being disabled, in a bad area etc, he should be found not guilty automatically? The details don't matter. If someone is sat in the witness box potentially lying, I doubt the prosecutor would uncover this by being friendly and accommodating. I don't think Reeva's family would appreciate that either. He has to "test" the witness, put him/her under pressure, exploit inconsistences. If he didn't do that, then how else is he supposed to get to the truth? He doesn't have to have been there, no lawyer on earth would have been at the scene of the crime. The judge maybe seen to be not reprimanding, because she is thinking the exact same as the prosecutor, why? Why are you not answering the question? Time and time again. She has yet to say to OP, answer the question, which a British judge might. Nel is right to call him out and say he is lying. And even discounting the immense pressure OP is under, combined with his tiredness, he is bound to get things confused and appear so. There are still clear evasions in his testimony.
sabcdigitalnews thank you for the live streaming and the uploads so grateful for it hope you have a great weekend :D
You welcome 🎉
Beautiful x examination artistry from Nel from 2.40 onwards - a master - he's met these characters many a time before - a bread and butter case
Agreed!
Completely agree. Not letting up through the cries.
Oscar has nothing to lose, he's lost everything! His sponsors, his girlfriend, his career, his assets and possessions, the lot! He's lost it all. You'd think he'd maintain a bit of dignity and just tell the truth - out of respect for Reeva and her family (which would be the most respectful and dignified approach) instead of squirming his way around the questions being put to him, just admit it! Just tell the truth Oscar you have nothing else to lose! The dignity is fading fast! Whichever way one looks at this - he killed someone and he WILL go to jail and has lost everything so he might as well start telling the truth! His character just looks awful in a court of law, seemingly lying constantly to save HIMSELF!! He's making himself look awfully selfish. And that is not good in a court of law, and in a case such as this. Character is very important, and he's digging himself an almighty hole in that sense! I don't think he's evil, I think he made a mistake in a rage in an argument. What a tragic event...
That's not reality
He’d rather walk around court room in his stumps to gather sympathy 😢 he’s already been released 😢
"I don't remember"," I am not sure", "They (all the witnesses, both ear-witnesses and eye witnesses) are either lying or are mistaken." Repeated hysterical eruptions when the questioning gets too close to the truth. Anybody catching the pattern here?
I sure am. Also, he cannot remember who the witnesses are who can verify his stories.
OP has typical short man syndrome. Starting fights everywhere but too cowardly to follow through. Oscar got his ass beat by the guys he threatened - the only fight he won was against an unarmed woman.
poor reeva her prime life has been taken away by this sick man..
Does anyone else think the tears just make him seem more guilty? He appears to have the emotional intelligence of a toddler: throws tantrums when angry and bursts into tears when in trouble.
And he takes a higher pitch voice each time he cries, so that he sounds like a woman. The defense claims that the screaming of a woman that the neighbors heard was actually Oscar crying.
Yep, fortunately toddlers don't have a gun to shoot the people who cross him.
Beirut27
I read somewhere that families only survive the terrible 2's because toddlers aren't strong enough to kill. Humans have no innate conscience and are selfish by nature at that age. If you are a good parent you will teach your child early that actions have consequences, and what it means to have empathy (i.e. "don't hit your brother", "share your toys" etc). Seems that no-one ever taught these basics to OP, and over the years of being rewarded for bad behaviors, given liberties due to his disability and being worshipped as a celebrity, he just got worse. Narcissistic manchild. Toddler with a gun.
*****
bouncyshak He also dated a 17 year old
Nel: "Is your name Oscar Pistorius?"
OP: "I can't remember, M'Lady"
When they wanted his password for his phone and he said he couldn't remember it I was like wow, this guy is so stupid. Yes, it's possible to forget your own password but only for a short time, you just take a minute and relax and it will come back to you. Am I right?
Alaa von Alsburg
What about "not remembering" the name of the friend who rescued you the night you almost got killed on the highway! This guy is a f'in clown.
Derek Kent
Pistorius wishes he was as awesome as Archer, lol.
***** Yes, that was absurd as well...he has made so many ridiculous statements even if he is acquitted anywhere he goes everyone will think of him as a joke, a monster, an evil creature.
*****
It's here: 45:09
2:55:45 - Go Nel!! Nail his ass to the wall. OP is just digging his grave deeper & deeper with every word he says.
Oscar, Oscar "OH WHAT TANGLED WEBS WE WEAVE WHEN FIRST WE PRACTICE TO DECEIVE!"
The longer he is on the stand the more I dislike his character. Everything is about him. He only cares about himself. Whatever he says always goes back to him. Poor Reeva. She was so kind and caring. Her texts say so much about her love for him, a love he did not deserve.
Maybe, you should read the texts she wrote to him. I believe she really loved him. You are entitled to your opinion. By the way, did she deserve to die because she loved him, or even if she wanted to hold on to him? She was a graduate from law school and intended to work in the area of abused women. Token, what school did you graduate from?
I am not so sure he will be convicted. I hope he is, but so far it has been circumstantial evidence.
very true and some how I felt like Reeva was in an abusive relationship (emotional) she was scared of him coz on doz texts she almost reported everythng dat sh was up to and apologized so many times.....
lesson :if you are in an abusive relationship with a man and particularly a man like OP just ran out of it their behaviour is not going to change because you love them
***** That is great news to me. I have watched so many trial in the US where the defendants testify and appear to be lying throughout, yet they still get away with murder. Thank you for telling me what the papers are saying in SA. I hope he does not get away with murder.
The pit bull caught OP with the screaming bit and proved that OP is making stuff up to protect himself. Probably the biggest blow so far.
2:43:13 - he says his personality pushes him to "confront the danger". It's in his nature. But he didn't "confront the danger" on the highway. He "sped off" and hid at Rhapsody's - according to him.
Prosecutor Nel is 'doing him slowly'..... it's lovely to watch. Fancy that... Reeva standing behind a door a couple of meters from Oscar.... who's shouting for her.... and she doesn't as much as whisper boo.... damn laughable if it weren't so tragic.
I know ! His story, or rather stories, plural, is/are so pathetic that one feels like giggling. Unfortunately this bad actor is also a murderer who slaughtered a young woman and her loved ones have to endure.
Yelling Elk Totally agree, Nel is on his way to a big crescendo I can feel it. I've said from the get go that anyone who believes OP's "cock and bull" story should be put before a firing squad and shot for stupidity. His alibi is complete and utter spurious nonsense.
ezekielthemack
Interesting suggestion : if we shot dead all fools, this, our planet, would be a desert instead of being overcrowded...
ezekielthemack
Yep... Nel's approach is much like a cat cruelly playing with a mouse before killing it. I think his basic strategy... is to go over and over minute details in so many different ways, purely in order to make it stick. A big one he's going to clout OP over the head with is.... 'Why is it that... on all the other many occasions Oscar had been a potential victim of crime did he 'choose NOT to call the police' (even after being shot at on the hwy that night)... but felt it necessary to have Reeva call them on this night... just because 'someone was in the toilet'?
OP is guilty. in a nutshell, here`s why:
(op fires his first shot)
nel: "did reeva scream?"
OP: "no she didn`t".
nel: "you couldn`t hear her, due to the first shot. your ears were ringing."
OP: "yes, that`s what I mean."
nel: "then how can you say that she didn`t scream?"
fact is, it was impossible for OP to say that reeva DIDN`T scream. if his account were truthful, he would without doubt have said: "I don`t know, I couldn`t hear, because my ears were ringing".
OP`s story is a complete construct: from this point in, it`s pretty much a clear-cut case, if you ask me.
I'm in Thailand working at this time and last night I went out and partied a little bit and returned to where I'm staying. I got into bed and started thinking about beautiful Reeva and the horrific terror she must have felt in her last minutes on Earth. What must have been going through her mind thinking that someone she thought she was in a loving relationship with was doing to her on Valentines Day, of all days. I burst into tears and cried myself to sleep. May darling Reeva rest in peace forever. May Pistorious spend the rest of his time on Earth behind bars.
Much love to the beautiful, righteous people of South Africa.
Alaa, that was a beautiful thought that you expressed. I just want to add that Reeva is not alone. Eighty percent of women in the United States are killed by a husband or boyfriend. Those are alarming statistics. It is the reason a few of the girls following this trial spoke about the importance of not ignoring "red flags." They are always there early on, but a great number of women choose to ignore them. We want to believe that he didn't mean it. He is having a bad day. He is under a lot of stress, etc. When a man begins to berate you in front of others, when he starts telling you how to act, how to talk, how to dress, demands constant attention, he does not love you. He is trying to control you. This gets worse the longer you stay in the relationship, so if you see the pattern starting GET OUT OF THE RELATIONSHIP. Don't make excuses and don't wait to see if things get better. They won't. They will only get worse. Too many women confuse intense attention for love. Personally, I am tired of seeing women being murdered by men who supposedly 'loved' them.
Karen Owens Spot on. The danger for the vast majority of women is inside the home and not outside of it, but a lot of men try to convince women that the danger is outside as a form of control. They met in November and the relationship did not really take off until a couple of months later, in January. She told her mother they were fighting a lot and and if she's already frightened of him sometimes and has to walk on egg shells around him at such an early state.......alarm bells are ringing...he kills her in the February.
Yes, that is exactly what I am talking about. Her mother also said she was not that kind of person who fought with everyone. She said Reeva was very easy going and kind. Just because your Prince Charming wants to have sex doesn't mean he is making love to you. Women really confuse the issues. It takes a long time to really get to know a person. I think many women are in love with the idea of being in love.
Karen Owens Yes you are right about that...I had a boyfriend in New York City several years ago that was a very handsome guy. Only after a few weeks into the relationship one night he slapped me in a public place in front of several people because I wasn't ready to go home yet. I said ok lets go and when we got back to (my) place I told him to pack his stuff and get the (f) out and never come back. He started saying how sorry he was for doing that I said I understand you are sorry however GET OUT OF MY APARTMENT NOW! He left and to this day I have never seen him again.
Good for you. I am glad you got him out of your life. He was an abusive creep.
"She wasn't scared of an intruder, she was scared of YOU."
I knew that Nel was going to end off and peak his cross examination for Friday by asking the glaring question of why would Reeva not call out or even make a sound throughout all the times that he spoke to her and screamed at the intruders. This is one thing that is impossible to explain. His reasoning that she might have been terrified and therefore did not make a sound is virtually impossible to believe, since even if she was truly terrified to respond to Oscar because she believed there were intruders in the house, the odds are almost certain that she would have paniced and screamed or let out SOME paniced sound. We all know that woman are very vocal when they get paniced.
Plus Nel brought up another legitimate question - Why in the world would a buglar retreat into a confined space when realizing he had been discovered?? There are so many issues in Oscar's version of events that do not pass the common sense test that it was crazy of him to take the stand. I wonder if his lawyers argued with him not to testify? Im sure they must have. Obviously he wanted to testify because any accused who is willing to testify must be innocent and telling the truth and obviously is not scared of testifying because their testimony is backed by the evidence in the crime scene. So his intent was to show the judge "Look, I'm so innocent that I am willing to testify myself." However, when you are guilty and the evidence at the crime scene does not support your version, it is crazy to take the stand! Nel is just slaughtering him and his testimony! This has just become a spectacle of watching a guilty man try unsuccessfully to squirm his way out of lying.
This shows terrible judgement on Oscar's part and would explain his terrible paniced judgement to proceed to kill her after he shot the first shot in a fit of insanity brought on by a very volitile mix of steroids and rage. I am almost certain that he was taking steroids after hearing how important it was for him to make a living out of his athletics career and especially after hearing that he trained 7 days a week. Training 7 days a week is a recipe for over-training unless you are on steroids.
Another incredibly bad judgement of his was to fake getting shot at on the freeway (obviously by doing so he wanted to show why he was so paranoid that fateful evening when he thought intruders were entering his house) and then saying someone picked him up and drove him home, since even if he truly forgot who picked him up (highly unlikely), surely the person who picked him up would come to his defense if it were true. So yet another lie to be caught on.
I would sum up that his terrible judgement put him in the predicament that he got himself into that night and its his terrible judgement that has got him slaughtered on the witness stand.
If he had decent judgement he would have realized that ANYWAY he is going to be charged at least with manslaughter and spend at least 15 years in jail. This is not about jail time or no jail time but about what length of jail time. Therefore he should have taken responsibilty and told the truth and pleaded temporary insanity which I believe is how it all began. I just cannot believe a sane person would pull the trigger and throw away in an instant such a fairy-tale success story.
By doing this he would very possibly recieve credit from the judge for owning up and taking responsibiilty and if temporary insanity could be proven (likely since there are quite a few documented cases of murder suicide cases by people who were known to have taken steroids, like a number of Pro WWF wrestlers in the states) he might have stood a good chance of getting less than a 25 year to life murder sentence.
But what he has chosen to do is just turning out to be a train wreck!
I agree. Why would she not answer him when he was banging on the door with the bat? When he was yelling out suggesting an intruder was in the toilet (while she knew she was in there herself i.e. nothing to be scared of). He's just a disgusting lying sack of crap making her look like an idiot and treating everyone listening to him as idiots who'd believe his rubbish.
Juls CloudJumper
Hmm i think you can definitely drop the 'B' out of that condition. Nothing 'B' about Pistorius' 'PD' lol
Juls R Not becoming prisoner disorder? ;)
😊
Thanks for taking the time to read such a long comment lol @@GadijaGadijakader
We've been listening in awe for days, to the divine work of art that is Mr Nels cross-examination of Mr Pistorius.
He ebbs and flows along the river of details pulling everything and everyone on a wave of inevitability taking us to the one and only place we can go; that on the night in question Mr Pistorius intentionally shot and killed Miss Steenkamp.
Why? We will likely never know exactly why he has done this but Gerrie Nel
will ensure that we all know, he did it beyond a reasonable doubt.
My prayers are with Reeva and her family and friends. I can tell Reeva was a star and a gentle soul. I saw the picture of her with the Golden Retrievers and I knew she was gentle by the way they were around her. Much love, Canada.
I'm just glad that Reeva has Nels to speak for her, and My Lady to hear.
Monday seems a long way off.
16:30 "I will, gladly"
You just know Nel is enjoying this, catching Oscar in a lie. He's just having a field day with the murderer.
indeed
To not admit hearing Reeva scream is insane,and highly implausible!
But then if he admits to that he is done for!
He's a great and deliberate liar!!
03:04:50 "Reeva, call the cops !!" .... *silence* .... "Oh, she must've been so scared no word came out of her mouth" .... it hurts listening to that garbage. Kudos to Reeva's friends and family to pull through this so stoically.
omg why is this trial going on still? lock the guy up, he fired the shots thats it...he killed a beautiful soul that had a bright future. Plz do us and Reeva's parents, relatives and friends a big favour and throw this guy in jail, where he belongs
They're trying to determine if it was murder, or just manslaughter. I don't think there is a question that he will be locked up, just for how long.
Should be 25 to L
Jose Dede
What if it can be proven that it was manslaughter?
Then perhaps 10 years?
not bad too...just have to sit in there
right
What was amazing for me was that apparently someone shot at him from a car and he drove to a public area scared for his life and doesn't remember who he called? I find that amazing. And someone drove him home and he can't remember who and he can't remember who got his car the next morning - unbelievable!!!!
I think Oscar DID, indeed, scream "get out of my house", and he was screaming it at Reeva. I think after he shot her, he realized that somebody outside probably heard him, so he conjured up a good reason for having shouted it...to an *intruder*. He's a clever sociopath, as most sociopath's are.
I also think Oscar DID hear the door slam...Reeva slammed it on him when he came after her, screaming, "get out of my house". That's what clever liars do...they mix their lies with just the right amount of 'truth' so it sounds more believable. That also makes it easier for him to 'remember' and 'repeat' his whole cock-and-bull story.
I think your right.. But I do believe he loved her as he is deeply upset. I reckon in a rage he's shot her and then thought.. Shit.. What have I done. It seems to have been one of them relationships where there was too much jealousy on his part and he lashed out.
@@chezza2116 I know it's an old comment but i find it hard to think that she wasn't a little tiny bit put off bye his legs and him being a sociopath he probably sensed that a bit and couldn't handle her being so attractive and happy with her life and her body.
@@tomparker962 lol
@@tomparker6876 👍
At one point he says there were "many many thoughts" that went through his mind. Then later when it doesn't suite him anymore he says he didn't have time to think. Which one is it Oscar? Even grabbing your gun takes thought, deciding to walk to the bathroom takes thought, deciding to look for intruders takes thought, deciding that maybe they had gained access using a ladder takes thought! The excuse of " I didn't have time to think" holds no water in this case because the whole event took minutes to unfold not seconds. Also he says he heard the door slam shut, yet he did not hear it lock? We know for a fact it was locked. Why didn't Nell ask this question? Its important because if he didn't hear it lock why not? He was not far away. If he did hear it lock it would not fit in with his story, so it suites him to leave that part out. It was an important question to ask IMO. In any case, its a shame for Reeva's family that they will probably never know the reason he killed her because he lies and lies and lies about everything.
one thing that bothers me is the fact that he carried her downstairs and then did CPR...if I had just shot someone and wanted to save them I would immediately put them on the floor where I was and try to save their life immediately...not carry them anywhere
Awww Deborah I save you forever x
He made one big mistake....he says he became very quiet as he was slowly walking down the passage toward the bathroom door, because he didn't want to give away his position. Yet why does he then say he is screaming and shouting for the intruder to leave, and Reeva to get down and phone the police. Contradiction after contradiction...how long can Oscar hold onto his lie before he breaks down and confesses that he intentionally killed her? Oscar is running fast away from the truth and responsibility for what he did. Nel is right behind him closing fast in on Oscar.
Beause he said that was AFTER he had shot that he was yelling at her to call the police, not before on his way to the bathroom...
When a person has told many lies about an event it is IMPOSSIBLE to keep the story straight, 2:55:00...they will trip themselves up over and over as they are trying to convince anyone listening to them that they are being truthful. This is just the same as the Jodi Arias trial here in the US, when she took the stand she looked like an idiot with all of her lies, When she was caught in a lie by Mr. Martinez she would stare into space and get all teary eyed. When you are telling the truth there ain't nothing to remember!
Nel has gotten better each day. Today, he was brilliant. Can't wait for the nail in the coffin, which will probably occur sometime Monday, when he brings up the fact that Reeva was dressed.
Why would anyone go to the toilet at 3 am and LOCK the toilet door???
Exactly! And took her phone with her too? I believe she was terrified...I just cannot believe a word he says
Good catch... taking your phone to the toilet at 3 am and lock the door...
That's strange it's TRUE when you are sleepy you not thinking about to lock the door specially when he was sleeping but he is not obviously
Here he goes again. He starts to whine and cry to the judge as soon as he has his feet put to the fire. I hate his manipulation.
3.17. Got to love to nerve of Pistorius (and people like him) who say 'firearm' instead of gun, like they can't even admit to the violence inherent in their having a gun as a private citizen.
You're not a police officer OP, you're a gun nut. Say 'gun'.... what a coward.
Yes you are right he will say "firearm" for his gun and "discharge" for shooting
- you won't hear "gun" or "shoot" from this guys mouth
smeg42 Yep. This is a guy who has 'taken responsibility' in his own words.
~So Solo: You are right on. I just wish more people realized that the devil is in the details.
If Oscar gets off - he planning a sleepover party at his place - you are all invited. Sleep well. Lol
Enjoying lockdown 6 years later?
Who is still watching this in 2020?
I am 😊
Me, for the second time. First was in 2017.
2024 we still here. This was probably the best court case in the history of court cases.
2020? no papa we are here 2024🤣🤣
I love this lawyer. He cracks me up.
Which lawyer?
The way Pistorius is expressing himself corresponds very well with the hypothesis that he is lying. It does not correspond at all with the hypothesis that he’s speaking the truth. The difference (and particularly the mismatch with the truth-telling hypothesis) is such that the way Pistorius expresses himself constitutes a very convincing case that he’s lying. Consider: if Pistorius telling the truth, there are two clear facts in the background of his story: 1) she was in the bathroom, 2) he was mistaking her for an intruder. This means that a lot of ‘woulds’ (etc.) that he uses between 3:03:40 and 3:08:32 are clearly inappropriate. For example, given these two facts, it is bizarre to say: ‘if I was approaching her and she was in the toilet’ (3:04:56), or to say ‘she would have been terrified’ (3:04:48) rather than ‘she must have been terrified’ or something similar. Many more examples could be given. Pistorius’s language gives him away. (I have made an extensive argument further down, some 3 hours ago.)
osip...a brilliant post. his language is completely wrong..he had a year to get his story right..he didnt think about grammar..why? because he is an idiot.
Most people have forgotten that there is a possibility that Oscar might be telling the truth, regardless of how unlikely that possibility is. this man might be telling the truth!!! Some stories may sound false/suspicious but it does not mean that they are not true. you and I were not there so lets stop with our biased conclusions and be neutral until the end of this trial
Not according to the evidence from the horses mouth on the stand! OP is a lying murderer.
Yes Rebaone, but we are listening to Oscar's testimony just like the judge.
We will form an opinion as well based on all the evidence, as to whether he's guilty or not. We are playing jurors, just like everybody else listening in or reading the evidence, wanting to know the truth.....Even though Oscar at times sounds like a very intelligent and talented man...he has tremendous flaws that are being exposed.
He sounds like a chronic liar, a gun fanatic, a rebel with little respect for the law, and he has a bad temper, and problems with relationships with woman.
Taking all this into account, its highly probable that he killed his Reeva,
in a crime of passion, which most murders fall into.
@Rebaone Mmusi, I agree with you. Whether he is telling the truth or not, he deserves a fair trial. Just like everyone else he is presumed innocent until proven guilty and has a right to tell his story. I'm glad the judge is the one who will make a decision, not a group of blood thirsty viewers.
Can anyone answer my question.
Since Oscar said he shouted at whoever was in the toilet cubicle before he opened fire, why didn't Reeva answer back since it was her locked inside the toilet cubicle!?
What planet you on
At the start I thought OP was guilty of manslaughter, but after today I am strongly veering towards murder. Nel didnt want to phrase it perhaps because of OPs disability, but for me the big question is why would someone with stumps for legs put himself and his lover in danger by approaching the alleged burglars when he could have sat on the bed, aimed his gun, and waited for the burglars to appear in the passageway while Reeva phoned the Police? And then claim that he felt "vulnerable" to explain why he fired? I am not convinced that Reeva fled for her life by running in to the bathroom, or else she would have run out of the house. Perhaps they were having an argument while she was in the bathroom, and something she said touched a nerve. OPs state of mind appears to be borderline psychotic at times: from tearful to being eerily objective, or he is sticking to a script which he has had a year to rehearse. Pre-sentence, I wonder if the Judge will recommend psychiatric assessment, and after today perhaps OP should be put on suicide-watch. Taking his own life would not be justice for Reeva nor offer any closure to her family.
Absolutely! When he first cliamed that he went for his gun under the bed was the time fo him to have called the cops, but he didn't ! He didn't because he knew exactly where Reeva was after she ran into the bathroom to calm him down and to isolate herself and hopefully diffuse the argument that had taken place.
Laurence Smith Let's not forget that the prosecution has to support its accusations w/ evidence, He's innocent until proven guilty. We're just assuming there has been an argument. Nel is on fire, though.. I predict an appeal to a "Guilty" verdict and Pistorius hiring a better defence team.
andysort OP is guilty of killing Reeva. The point is whether it was murder, or manslaughter if his defense can support his story about the intruders.
The Prosecution Lawyer did ask the Accused many times why he did not stay in the bedroom. He just did not mention the latter's lack of mobility you have referred to here.
I too, thought that the version of the Accused was plausible, until I heard the biggest self-contradiction by the Accused: If the intruder was armed and so dangerous that the Accused had to arm himself to shoot him in self-defense, WHY WOULD SUCH A DANGEROUS INTRUDER HIDE IN THE TOILET?
The Accused mentioned that he was afraid the intruder might come and shoot him and the Deceased. Yet, he saw no contradiction in such an intruder hiding in the toilet instead.
Add in the claim that the Accused heard no replies from behind the toilet door after he had screamed and shouted to her, and we have a totally implausible story.
Averagebum Bum
I wonder if everyone also noticed that the Accused paused lengthily when asked if the toilet door was usually shut or open. Another indication that the Accused was possibly trying to create an answer in favour of his story.
If I remember correctly, there was another lengthy pause when the Accused was asked if he was sure he heard no reply from the Deceased behind the door.
he screamed get out of my house and Reeva said nothing just waited in the toilet . Comon oscar
lol that is why nel said it is improbable,he thinks the people are stupid and the judge is stupid this shows to the judge how pathetic he is
I remember the exact route and the colour of the gun muzzle the night someone shot at me M'Lady but I can't remember the person I called, who picked me up and retrieved my car for me the next day. That person helped me through the trauma of almost being killed but my brain has completely forgotten them M'Lady, oops.
He's too far gone into his trial to now start telling the truth. But once you brush all of the fluff aside, in my opinion, it comes down to a man who saw red after a heated rage, probably tried to scare her with his gun , just like a wife beater would do with his fists, and only then after, realises the impact of what he has done. How can a man remember so much, but yet also forget so much, so much crucial evidence? I honestly believe this man will try and kill himself if it goes bad.
he is a dangerous man I think he snaps so easily
I don't understand, so he wakes up because he's warm... then closes the doors? and he doesn't place the fans in front of the door instead brings them next to TV? Doesn't make sense to me...
Yes, you make a good point. I thought exactly the same thing. I'm surprised that Nel didn't bring that up
Richard Hayes He might be saving it for later. as the final nail.
"I'm making mistakes because I'm tired" Well of course he's tired, He's mentally exhausted because lying on such a massive scale is an extremely mentally challenging thing to do. Keeping track of all those lies must be pretty darn tiring.
His story defies all logic and common sense, especially the whole "Reeva didn't say a single word during the entire event even though I was shouting and screaming" part. I'm surprised his case hasn't already collapsed under the weight of It's own ludicrousness.
I bet if he had the choice to either, A) kill himself and bring Reeva back, or B)kill his own mother and get off scott free, he would choose the later. He's a selfish, twisted sociopathic liar. I've absolutely no doubt he's going to be in jail for a long, long time.
***** That's right, every time the prosecutor corners him he gets emotional. I doubt he's upset about Reeva though, he just feels sorry for himself.
He’s out😔
@@fashngobese9468 he isn’t
Thanx for the upload.
A few points on the trial so far:
1. The gun in the restaurant - I've seen a video of the Glock pistol. Apparently they all have the same safety feature which renders it impossible to fire the gun without putting one's finger right around the trigger and pulling it. How therefore could the weapon have possibly gone off spontaineously? Nel did dwell on this a bit but as I recall he did not ask OP exacly how he was holding the weapon.
2. The shooting incident on the motorway when OP was shot at - How could OP possibly not remember who collected him from the restaurant car-park and drove him home after such an event? Again Nel jumped on this, but he did not ask whether it was an man or a woman or how far the car-park was from his house to establish the journey time or the make of car (in view of OP's interest in cars).
3. The jeans on the duvet - to my mind it is absolutely clear the jeans are sitting on a flap which is part of the duvet. It is not padded, which is perfectly normal, but it is part of the duvet. This clearly has Roux worried.
4. The noise OS heard on the night of the killing - He claims this to be the sliding window in the passage. Does a sliding window really make much noise when opened?
5. The shooting - how is it possible that RS did not a) react to OP's yelling in the middle of the night in close proximity? b) make a sound after OP fired the first shot through the toilet door?
Mr Nell is channeling Juan Martinez today! You go Gerrie!
I love how Nel bounces around from incident to incident to throw Oscar off of his game. If Oscar has rehearsed all of this, it will be harder for him to keep his story straight if he's thrown off topic. I LOVE IT.
Agree, Nel ought to be given the title 'BULLDOG' not B Roux - then OP decides too snivel when the questions become 2 much/can't answer. Sick of hearing about his prosthesis/fear/protecting Reeva (RIP). Why can't OP just admit he shot through the door - end of? or is this due to the law in SA as 'using reasonable force'? But then, methinks why would OP be directly in front of the door because the 'intruder' could be armed & fired likewise from the other side!! OP is digging a very large hole & by Monday he will either sccumb to a breakdown - with a new trial ahead. The bloke is guilty but won't admit it.
Oscar's "instinct" or "thought" was he could get out of this mess and outsmart Nel...No doubt Oscar is very clever...but he's no match for Nel.
It's a landslide win for the state
lisa anderson That's right, the "phantom intruder" could have had a gun as well...I never thought of it that way...according to him instead of grabbing up Reeva and running out of the house he goes (toward) the danger but according to him, "not to shoot" but for what??? To shout at them to get out??? His version makes no sense...
Doubt if this trial will end before 2015! Pistorius 'broke' 2nd time (hammering from the 'Great Nel' too much..) Methinks the judge swaying as too much sympathy allowed via breaks in court. Why isn't there a jury service in SA? OP tied up in a serious tangle now, he can't answer Nel and switching stories - 20/1 OP will 'sob' again OOOP's here we go.... Judge calls counsel to chambers!!!
Fess up Pistorius and get your a*** to Jail.
Slips in your testimony Mr. Pistorius. 1st slip 9 April 2014, session 5, 41:16. "They didn't know the fan was part of where the accident happened." 2nd slip 10 April 2014, session 3, 48:03 "My only thought was to get Reeva, to get help for Reeva." "To get Reeva" was your thought.
He doesn´t want to take ANY RESPONSIBILTY ! He wants to get away with it. He wants to spend a nice life with socialising, doing stuff....have a good job one day. He doesn´t want to spend 15 years or more in a small prison cell. Of course he doesn´t want. No real private apology to Reeva´s parents......and so many things he denies during the whole trial. From the very beginning i thought....this all sounds so improbable !!!!!!
If I was that lawyer I'd be pissed too if someone keeps calling me "my lady"
The lawyer is not being called my lady, because there is no jury all answers from the defendant and witnesses are directed towards the judge. They look at the judge when answering.
@@Sparrowdean thanks for explaining. I didn't know that and was confused
@@958342 You're welcomed.
😆 🤣 😂 😹
@@Sparrowdean6 years later to answer
Mr. Pistorius, If you believed intruders were in your toilet and on a ladder outside the bathroom window, and you were "scared", "terrified", believed you were in a life threatening situation, why, after cautiously advancing down the bathroom passage did you stand facing the toilet door with an opened window to your side?
When you tell the truth you don't have to have a good memory; when you lie you have trouble keeping track of all of them which is why OP is getting "tired."
good afternoon , if you was a burglar why would you break into bathroom and the lock yourself in a toilet , ? unless of course you wanted to nick the bathroom suite
The jeans being inside-out: My take is she was trying to put them on over her shorts to leave. He kept her from doing it, pulled them down (peeling them down) as she fought to put them on. She probably stumbled over onto the floor and he completed 'peeling' them off her legs, ergo inside-out. She then scrambled to the first escape route, the hall to the bathroom, then into the toilet and locked the door. However, to myself, it begs the question on how she got to have her cellphone with her? But could explain the jeans inside-out. I would assume the window was already open also, that's how the neighbors heard all the 'noises'. Does anybody know why his 'legs' were on the left side of the bed near the balcony door, when he says he slept on the right side?
He gets “shot” at on the highway, he remembers exactly which off ramp he took as an “escape route”, he remembers exactly where he went to feel safe to make a call, and yet HE CANT REMEMBER WHO HE CALLED, Wow that makes absolutely ZERO sense!
I can remember calling my siblings 20 years ago when worrying about being followed on a road.
The reality of this is that the “alleged incident on the highway NEVER HAPPENED”.
Oscar displays a lot of arrogance and impatience to Mr Nel, showing also that he was uncomfortable and edgy being in the witness box.
I truly believe that he should be imprisoned for life, without the possibility of parole. The fact that he murdered Reeva, LIED EXCESSIVELY in court, COULDN’T REMEMBER SO MANY THINGS in court, and the total irresponsible and narcissistic behaviour he displays throughout his adult life, he doesn’t not deserve any mercy from the authorities.
Would it be unfair of me to say he doesn't have a leg to stand on?
Love it L.
Nels stumped Oscar with many questions.
ignatious munhenzva Good one!
I'd say, Disgusting
Occams Razor. 'When you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better." In this case, it is the Prosecution's theory that fits the bill. So , many astute, well thought out, comments here. Including the ones I don't agree with. I have some faves,@Olivia Westbrook,@sturoc0, @Carrie Aldighieri, I have enjoyed your views, so much. I follow many high profile trials, and this is my first experience with a trial out of my home country. I know many derogatory comments have been made about SA's procedures, but I am, for one, very impressed. There are some things that America could learn here, I believe. OP is the worst kind of killer. Worse than any serial killer, rage killer, etc...he will kill you, simply because he has no real regard for 'life'. Narcissism at it's finest.
Thank you for your kind words Corina.
Anyone with just half a brain, can clearly see that Oscar's version of what happened that night is simply ridiculous... (it's the stuff of a child) and that Prosecutor Nel is doing a grand job of proving this! But with that said....
I just can't shake this horrible feeling... that this is 'unfortunately' just going to end up another O J Simpson type case, with a hugely popular public figure getting off scott free.
Don't be surprised, if even after all this... We see Oscar Pistorius sitting there with an empathetic Oprah Winfrey... crocodile tears in his eyes... telling the entire world his pain in killing the love of his life. After a few months... all will be forgiven and it'll be Reeva Who?
Fractional Reserver
Fortunately... I tend to agree....
Ha! Ha! he want have a gun in prison.
***** When Oscar tells how he told Reeva to get down he never cries. He justifies his actions. He feels everything he fabricated was honorable. He only cries for Himself.
His lawyer hates him too or else he would never let this guy anywhere near a witness box - he is burying himself single handedly
Yes...yesterday at one point when the camera was on him Mr. Roux looked like he had fallen asleep!
As for the led light. I cannot sleep if my laptop led is glowing. It does not give light to my bedroom but for some reason bothers me when I sleep. I often but not always put a sock over it. Such nit picking. Does Nel not have anything better? Yawn.
He's leading to something - he is building his case... OP is lying and he is showing how inconsistent he is...
Nel is going through every detail with a fine tooth comb. It's necessary in order to get the results he wants. Simply proving his case by putting on record for everyone that OP is a liar.
Charlie Percival Using a sock is easier thanks. Everyone is different. It bothers me that's all I know. Don't ask me why.
Mo Watson
My LED laptop light bothers me too when I am trying to sleep! Sometimes I roll over so I can't see it and other times I get up out of bed and cover it in my case with a cigarette packet!
Tip Thief lol I also do the roll over if I am too tired to get out of bed :)
When I've listened in depth to prosecutor Gerrie Nel cross examine Oscar, I've come to the conclusion, Mr Pistorious doesn't have a leg to stand on.
he is telling lies on top of lies
....and now the FOG rolls in about the fans again! LOL
I've noticed a few times not necessary today but when he gives evidence it sounds like he is reading from something. Obviously he is not but it proves to me he gas rehearsed a version and not telling the truth of the cuff. Guilty as sin. It would be a tragedy if he gets not guilty
As this trial has progressed, I'm liking the judge more and more. Her comment to OP regarding his fatigue and how it was unfair to him and the court was right on. As was her rebuke of Nel when he called OP a liar to his face and then laughed at one of his answers another time (causing members in the peanut gallery to also chuckle).
Her comment regarding the fatigue was made because if he openly admitted that he was foggy-headed on the stand and they let things continue, it would've been grounds for appeal.
She's the worst judge I've ever witnessed in my life
If Oscar is found not guilty it gives people licence to shoot their partner and pretend they thought it was an intruder.Cause his story is utter BS
hopefully found guilty but if he does walk then money truly walks and talks
Every time his feet are put to the fire he starts that fake crying. You can hear the phoniness in his voice. I am almost glad we don't have to watch his body language as well.
YESSSSSSSS...I think Pistorious chose not to be on camera because he didn't want body language experts around the world to (see) him as he is testifying!
If we had to watch him we would probably all need a bucket too !
Reeva's mother, June, has given a very interesting interview to the Daily Mirror and she says that whenever he's not being grilled he turns the waterworks off, takes notes and uses his mobile... He must have miraculously remembered the pin code or he couldn't, eh ?
Beirut27 LOL
Julie, you are so right.
Beirut27
That is sickening to hear. He believes the judge is on his side. That is why he takes that whiny tone every time he is being grilled.
Wow i love this prosecutor..he has OP's back against the wall. I really wanted to believe OP's version, he seemed truly devastated about it ...or was it being sorry for himself?.....but not anymore. I just worry that the judge is feeling bad for him, I hope not!!!
How in the hell can he say he went over to the bathroom "not wanting to shoot someone". Gun in hand and safety disengaged. WTF?!
Listen carefully to how OP said, (addressing the state prosecutor), "There are many things "I" could have done, I could have run onto the balcony.. NEVER AT ANY STAGE DID YOU SAY "WE" (referring to Reeva & himself) could have done this or that. It is most obvious there was only a 'ME' and what "I" could have said to make my version more believable.
Really good point Beverley. I'll have to go back and listen to it all again now.
Olivia Westbrook Hi Olivia, Listen from exactly 2:35:00 onward... "I" was very vulnerable (okay, so if that was the case, first thing he would have done is put the legs on). 2:41:00 - " I could have gone to the balcony" (to escape)...
Charlie Percival Beverley meant before he went to the bathroom to confront the intruder and meaning he is only thinking of himself not him and reeva,he should have thought of him and reeva to get out instead of confronting and going to the bathroom where he thought the noise is
Beverley Langkilde exactly, he didn't mention Reeva being vulnerable to the alleged burglars. He's just making up a story and must be too slow to realise some people would notice that error.
I went back and listened again - he did use the 'we' word.
Wtf - did i just hear OP say that with Samantha Taylor he said the "relationship was over , i packed her bags" -
what does he think he is
to the melody of YMCA sing ....... SO-CI-O-PATH !
Carrie Aldighieri I missed the race track testimony when was it?
To those who feel Gerrie Nel has been harsh or bullied Oscar Pistorius you all need to think how would you want a Prosecution Lawyer to approach his cross examination of an accused murderer? He can't treat a witness with kid-gloves or go easy on them when ultimately he is there to get at the truth, to prove what they are being accused of...Oscar Pistorius hasn't done himself any favors when he is being confrontational and evasive with his responses...saying "I don't know or I don't remember" isn't a good form of defence or at all convincing!
Don't you find it interesting that they always say that? Remember Jody Arias?
Yes, Candy Kittens but I wonder if it was somebody they cared about who had been brutally killed how would they want the person prosecuting to behave in that trial? This is tragic but ultimately Oscar Pistorius is responsible for taking a life in a reckless and senseless manner!
Totally agree!
The only thing that is so hard to see is Reeva mother over there hearing all this nonsense argument and the worse thing is to see that there was not reason at all for her poor daughter to be killed, thinking as mother oh God gives strength to Reeva mother to go through of all of it. I feel so hard and so sorry for her
Following on from Nel's line of argument: If Reeva heard Pistorius screaming and she was so terrified that she fled, slamming and locking the toilet door to hide herself away, too petrified to even speak/call out, why on Earth would she then, moments later, decide to open the toilet door? I can think of two possible answers:
Maybe she wasn't trying to open the door but just bumped into it, and that was enough for OP to open fire.
Alternatively, in the quiet that followed OP's screaming, when unknown to Reeva he was pointing his gun at the door, maybe Reeva actually realised that Pistorius had mistaken her for an intruder. She realised, because when she got out of bed she had deliberately done so quietly, and she had even noticed that OP, with his back turned in the dark, hadn't noticed her. So she decided to open the toilet door to surprise him, but her silence and the sound of the door was enough reason for OP to open fire.
From all the evidence one thing is clear: Pistorius loved to go shooting. He loved it so much. He loved to go into 'combat mode' and creep around his house like in the movies. He loved it so much he tweeted about going into 'combat mode' with his gun, when he heard a noise from his washing machine. Going into combat mode was a natural response for him, such was his investment in and love of guns. So his story of jumping to the conclusion that a noise = intruder is actually consistent with his previous behaviour.
On a different tack, according to OP Reeva was awake when he woke up and complained that he couldn't sleep. OP was so hot and bothered that he decided to bring the fans in, close all the windows and curtains, even block out the LED light from the amp (making the room pitch black - providing a rather too perfect alibi for why he didn't see her) So, knowing fully that OP wanted the windows shut, why would Reeva instantly get up and go and open the bathroom window? To annoy him? If she still wanted a window open, which it seems she did, wouldn't she say something about it?
LOL!!!! Are you related to Oscar?
mrip75 No! But I'm obsessed with the trial and I'm trying to test/make sense of OP's version. I swing between thinking he's totally guilty, because his story is too implausible for words, and then thinking but what if, even though it's implausible, it's actually true? You have to keep an open mind. I think from what's happened so far he seems guilty for both of the gun charges he denies - in the restaurant and car - and at least for culpable homicide. I don't think he'll get done for murder, and my gut feeling is that he's not guilty of murder. I believe his grief, and I think it would be obvious if he was 100% lying on the stand.
Simon Raven
He is lying and it's very obvious that he is. You are making a decision based on his emotions. Do you understand that he is crying for himself? Every time Nells corners him in a lie he begins to cry. As far as an open mind, I went into this trial with one and I firmly believe at this point in the trial he is guilty as sin!
"Your version never happened and you have to keep up with an untruth. That's why you're making these mistakes."
That's the crux of all of this.
IMPORTANT DISCOVERY IN THE O.P TRIAL.
at 1:18:20 - 1:18:30 Oscar says he whispers/says in a soft tone.
at 1:21:09 he repeats that he said it in a soft tone..
at 2:34:50 he says he was screaming for burglar to leave and screaming for his girlfriend to ring the police.. am I correct in what I have found.?
Yes you are correct because that's what I heard. Yesterday was a different story.
No sorry... no revelations here... he stated he was speaking in a 'soft tone' whilst he was still in the bedroom (supposedly talking to Reeva).... the 'shouting' took place later, at the toilet door (and apparently... Reeva didn't hear a thing).
yes, I see, he started shouting and screaming as he entered the passageway.(where was the passageway?). so he spoke softly , then within seconds started shouting and screaming. doesn't make any sense at all
Also, GERRIE ...!!! In Pistorius' mind the extension cable was then also wound back up and/or pushed back under the bedside table by the police after the 'they had moved the fan and thrown the duvet onto the floor'
I just don't get it. How come the judge ask the accused if He is tired and that's maybe the reason He is making mistsakes cmon totally subjective question!! improper for judge. Now i can imagine what is gonna be the outcome of this trial!
Why tell Reeva in a soft voice to get down and call the police but then later tell her the same thing by shouting at her. If he did so in a soft voice there may have been reasons like not informing trespassers of what they were doing. Also why repeat the same command at 2 different instances without checking for feedback from her.
When questioning him about the black mercedes shooting incident on the highway, Nel should have gone after him a bit more. OP says he doesn't remember who picked him up. Nel should have asked him if he remembers what car the person was driving in (the person who came to pick him up), or if he remembers the drive home at all. Then when he said no, Nel could mention how strange it is that he remembers every little detail (including the color of the flash) up until the point someone came to pick him up...after that he remembers absolutely nothing about that night. We all know he is lying, but this would have exposed his lies even more!
On April 9th, session 5, 41:16 - 41:20, OP testifies, "THEY DIDN'T KNOW THE FAN WAS PART OF WHERE THE ACCIDENT HAPPENED." Evidence directly from Oscar Pistorius that the "ACCIDENT" event started in the BEDROOM.
Oscar thought an intruder had entered into his harse... into his harse? No Oscar... that wasn't an intruder in the harse with you... you knew it was Reeva... and you shot her dead.... in the harse.
Jacky J Jones
hihihihi... good one!
I think there should be merchandise of the judge.. Pictures of her on cups.. Posters.. Stuffed toys etc. She's wicked!! Love her.
The prosecutor has just pulled the best argument of all, OP has just stated he couldn't have heard her scream because he was deafened with the sound of the gun and then said none of the neighbours could have heard her scream. He's just fell flat on his face never mind tripped himself up!! Nice on Mr Prosecutor.
Has any one else felt that this trial is a bit like 'GROUND HOG DAY revisited .? Road runner beep beep!
Have any of you ever been in court? I have been, for maintenance! My ex took me to court because he wanted a reduction in support. I felt like a criminal as I was gruelled by his lawyer, about where I live, the schools the kids go to, how I live my life blah blah blah. At some point I wanted to give up. Yes, I cried a number of times and almost peed on myself. You loose words. You make mistakes and say things that you are suppossed to say. You blurp and blurp as you just to prove or justify something. Every time I had to attend court I would not sleep or eat. Without telling them my kids would ask, "My is it that day again" They noticed that the day before court I was restless, fidgety, snappy, withdrawn. I would have severe palpitations as my name was called. You had to stand there and be gruelled about your income and expenditure and the number of boyfriends you had (How I wished! As I had none at the time). You stand there and you are treated like a criminal! Its a place I don't want to be again! I can imagine the anxiety Oscar is experiencing no wonder he is making so much mistakes....and in his case he killed someone and is fighting for survival....before attacking me....he still has to be found guilty or not...
I agree, everyone always thinks they know what the defendant should have said etc. This prosecutor is a bully, and asks him over and over to make specuations about things, and does not accept his answers. sometimes, even if telling the truth, people do not remember every single thing! It was indeed a traumatic event, the brain filters many things out. In addition, he is being very careful with his words because he is painfully aware each word has the potentially to be twisted into something incriminating even if its not. I believe him ,I feel bad for him, he sounds tired because he just shot his girlfriend and he didnt mean to and that is something I cant even imagine but must be inbearably painful. But everyone thinks they know how it would have gone, he "would have seen her on the bed" etc, etc, but it is not IMPOSSIBLE for him to not have....they try to make him say things because THEY insist they are improbable or impossible, but thats not necessarily true
I think it is so cool how they bow to each other it's so honorable. ^__^
I love when Nell takes his cape and hovers it over his head ;)
I am puzzled by today’s ruling. I believe a very convincing case can be made that P is guilty of murder (see my comment on the 4th Session of Sept. 11) and I don't see why this case should be juridically insufficient -- even in a murder trial, where a high standard of evidence is rightly required.
I republish an earlier analysis of a crucial 2-minute episode from the process below. By itself, it is not going to be enough juridically but, as I said, a more general case can also convincingly be made.
--Republishment of a reaction of April:
Between 3:03:40 - 3:05:40 Pistorius gives himself away and repeatedly shows himself to be lying. I paraphrase:
Nel: This is the most improbable thing: you shouted and she, at three meters...
Pistorius: I didn’t know she was in the bathroom.
Nel: ... she did not shout back. And it’s a fact she was in the bathroom. If your version of events were true, she would have spoken up.
Pistorius: True, she would have been terrified [but could have kept quiet]... I presume she would...
My comments:
First off, that she was in the bathroom is indeed a fact if anything is. Otherwise there would have been no killing.
But then the above 'woulds' (of Pistorius's) are very strange (and there are many of them between 3:03:40 and 3:08:32). I can think of two explanations for them:
1) Let's suppose Pistorius accepts it as a fact that she was in the bathroom. If he is telling the truth, he’d go on to think aloud: why didn’t she shout? ‘I think she didn’t shout because...’
If he’s lying, he’d go on to think aloud: how can I incorporate this fact into my story? ‘[In my story] she wouldn’t shout because...’
The ‘would’ only makes sense if he’s lying.
2) Alternatively -and this may be what’s happening most of the time- the 'woulds' could indicate that Pistorius continues to treat a clear fact (that she was in the bathroom) as a hypothesis. If he’s telling the truth, it makes no sense to treat an incontrovertible fact in such a way. Pistorius would think aloud: it was her in the bathroom. She must have been terrified.
But suppose he’s lying. Pistorius must then have a coherent story (maintaining he didn’t k n o w she was in the bathroom). But the story must also fit the facts (e.g. that she w a s in the bathroom). It is easy to imagine that this can become confusing in his mind, and that he therefore no longer clearly sees an incontrovertible fact (that she was in the bathroom) for what it is.
Relatedly, his lying can in fact also explain something peculiar about the first lines of the above conversation. Nel is saying: Your version is improbable, because it sits very uneasily with the fact that your girlfriend was in the bathroom. Pistorius seems to want to reply (even before Nell is done): My version doesn’t sit uneasily with this fact because I didn’t b e l i e v e my girlfriend to be in the bathroom. But what Pistorius b e l i e v e d is irrelevant for the fit with the facts, as long as the facts remain the same (she w a s in the bathroom).
What is going on here? I surmise that Pistorius mistakenly uses an element which is important for the coherence of his story ('I believed her to be in the bedroom') for arguing that his story fits the facts ('because I believed she was in the bedroom, the fact that she was in the bathroom is not relevant').
More particularly, this is what I think is going on. Pistorius is lying and -in trying to be convincing- he has so much anchored in his mind his versions of what he believed at the time, that these versions have taken on too much reality for him. I am suggesting that it has become something quite similar to a fact for him, or to a credible version of the facts, ‘that she was in the bedroom’ and ‘that there was an intruder’. If this suggestion were accepted, his response in the first few lines of the above conversation would become much more understandable, and so would his treatment of ‘she was in the bathroom’ as a mere hypothesis. But of course these responses remain odd given the actual facts and contribute to exposing him: they fit the hypothesis of him lying but not the hypothesis of him speaking the truth.
For anyone who believes Oscar's story sing your song : If your happy and you know it shake your meds - lol
Can you make the video available for mobile users please
Idk if the laws are this much different than the laws in the US when it comes to attorneys protecting their clients but it seems like there’s no objections from the defense when the prosecutor asked a question over and over again.. there’s no ask and answer objections, no badgering the witnesses objections or no objections to any relevance, Etc.
3:04:00 "she is 3 meters away from you and never uttered a word" - she would shout out, you are in the same room.. SHOCKING!!!!
Lights stop illuminating their surrounding once Pistorius is near them... wow. *He starts to defy the law of physics!*
He defied the law of physics the day before as well, describing the gun that fired itself without a trigger being pulled!
He made a mistake bcos his tired,are you kidding me?
Oscar is a pro athlete who spends his whole life on the track and has no reason to be particularly well read or articulate but I'm impressed with his intellect so far, he's putting up a good fight. Any one of us would make mistakes over such bullish cross examination it's not necessarily conclusive.
wow, and just who is it you murdered recently? I used to like OP, he was no dummy, but he now has to answer some serious questions.
uberlover what kind of ridiculous comment is that? what kind of cross examination you wanted Oscar to get?
they are serious questions or key questions to his testimony as nel said there will be implications if his answer is not right.it just proves one thing he is guilty
Adina Hamilton Semantics, litigation, attention to the minutae of evidence - these are all the field of a lawyer, Oscar's in Nel's house now. I'm just surprised at how well he can stand his ground and spar with him. Interesting that even though I can have an objective opinion about his eloquence in the stand, everyone thinks I must believe in his innocence.
How disrespectful of pro athletes to assume level of education to be lesser
Nel is the boss. Barry Roux's argument about the picture angle is so irrational, I wonder why did the Judge let him get away with it. Pistorius is so guilty and it is so transparent through his answers.
maybe Reeve saying "leave me alone go away" Mabey? There should have been made a cardboard cutout of Reeve's body standing behind the door and matching the holes in her body with the door , they have everything else why not?
This is a goddamned KANGAROO COURT. Criminal Procedure in SA is a joke and juvenile in it's application. The man is disabled, the area he lives in causing him to feel unsafe, he feels doubly disabled, the room is pitch dark and his girlfriend was just there beside him. Why wouldn't he feel that she is still right there? OP gives his version of what happened and the prosecutor tells him he is lying, twists his every word and phrase and the judge sits there, his lawyer does nothing, no objections to the brow beating that his client is undergoing. Was this prosecutor an interrogator during the Apartheid era because he comes across that way in the manner that he questions the key witness as though he's a child. And, the Defense lawyer is not acting as an advocate for his client. It's CRAZY! INSANE! In America, Canada, Britain the judge would have both of the sides up for a sidebar to reprimand the prosecutor for browbeating the witness! This judge just sits there! He wouldn't be allowed to offer opinion or say ''You see, Mr. Petorius, you're lying or you're not listening, or you said this during your bail hearing.'' Or telling OP HIS opinion about what actually happened. WAS HE THERE? The witness would give his statement and further clarifying questions would be asked until all aspects of the issue are exhausted. Then the judge would take the statements of the witness into consideration when concluding her verdict. The prosecutor is insulting the intelligence of the judge as to her ability to make a cogent decision.
That's probably because Oscar IS lying. Anyone (even if you're not a lawyer) can see that. It's BLATANTLY obvious It's fabricated to the very end. How unrealistic that an intruder would shut himself in the toilet door. What was he doing? Taking a shit before robbing the house? Reeva didn't even speak the whole duration of the incident, apart from when he woke (even that bit has been added since the very first version). There is nothing wrong with SA justice system, and the judge is coming across with the attitude 'Innocent til proven guilty' which is a very professional attitude as a judge. I love My Lady!
It's not like he was home alone!He knew full well Reeva was there and awake he left the room does he really think she can't get up and go to the loo.That sacred of crime he fell asleep with the balcony door wide open at that time of night!
the USA has the worst unfair Justice system worldwide .Do not blame the New South Africa and their Judge .And of course he is lying like captain Blue Bear and that what Mr Nel want to know after OP version , with this very very long cross examination cause the court need the truth .
joe blitz
Not only the court : Reeva's family deserve the truth too ; not that they are likely to get it from Pistorius, but the trial is there to find and expose it.
I haven't seen any Kangaroos in this court case yet, maybe I'm blind. I'm quite impressed by the SA court so far, I live in England. And so because of all these vague facts, being disabled, in a bad area etc, he should be found not guilty automatically? The details don't matter. If someone is sat in the witness box potentially lying, I doubt the prosecutor would uncover this by being friendly and accommodating. I don't think Reeva's family would appreciate that either. He has to "test" the witness, put him/her under pressure, exploit inconsistences. If he didn't do that, then how else is he supposed to get to the truth? He doesn't have to have been there, no lawyer on earth would have been at the scene of the crime. The judge maybe seen to be not reprimanding, because she is thinking the exact same as the prosecutor, why? Why are you not answering the question? Time and time again. She has yet to say to OP, answer the question, which a British judge might. Nel is right to call him out and say he is lying. And even discounting the immense pressure OP is under, combined with his tiredness, he is bound to get things confused and appear so. There are still clear evasions in his testimony.