Oscar Pistorius Trial: Thursday 10 April 2014, Session 2 - YouTube
Can somebody , legally , clarify if the exchange at 1:18:43-1:19:56 is where Nel proves intent , or just dis-prove accidental discharge?
How would the court have seen this?
Thank you
Edit: The answer at 1:19:56 , when totally nailed to the wall "Mylady i'm getting confused" .....i though was bad , REALLY bad.
BBM
Both.
A couple of times earlier than the time stamps you cite (and again afterwards IIRC), Oscar admits he remembers pulling the trigger. During this exchange, he never claims he accidently fired the gun. In fact just the opposite when Nel offers an "accidental discharge of the weapon" as one of OP's "versions", Oscar corrects him to clarify that he never claimed it was an accidental discharge.
Very interesting exchange -
Nel: "We know for a fact there were no intruders in your house that night."
OP: "That's correct, Milady."
Nel: "We know for a fact there was no ladder against the wall."
OP: "That's correct, Milady."
Nel: "We know for a fact that was Reeva in there."
OP: "That's correct, Milady."
Nel: "So there was no reason for you to shoot. Objectively speaking, after the fact....As we stand here today, you had no reason to shoot."
OP: "That's correct, Milady."
Nel: "If you had waited a second to see if the door had opened, you would not have fired?"
OP: "That's a possibility, Milady."
Nel: "She was in there. We know it now! If you had waited, you would not have fired."
OP: "If Reeva had come out or she had spoken to me, then I wouldn't have fired."
BBM #1: I cannot believe Oscar said, "That's a possibility..."
A possibility???
It's truly a miracle we didn't see Roux grab the green bucket to puke when he said that.
BBM #2: When nailed to the wall, in typical OP fashion, he shifts the blame. If only Reeva had come out and spoken to him, this would never have happened.
And as you cite above, he claims confusion. This happens continuously throughout his testimony. This time it looked particularly bad considering intent is the crux of the legal issue that will seal his fate.
Regarding the earlier exchange I referenced (approx. 1:16:30 - not exact as I was listening and not marking.)
OP: "I fired the gun out of fear. At the time I interpreted it as somebody coming out of the bathroom."
Nel: "You never wanted to shoot at intruders coming out of the toilet?"
OP: "That's correct, Milady."
Nel: "So whatever happened...noises, whatever...never caused you to pull the trigger. It went off accidently"
OP: "That's the opposite of what I'm saying, Milady."
As to how the Court will interpret it, well.... who knows? I do think Judge Masipa will review the record very carefully and from what I've read, she's nobody's fool.
eta for clarity in re. your original question: If OP didn't accidently discharge the firearm (as he admits), then he intended to shoot.