General Discussion Thread #1 -Bail Hearing

[Inobu]

One thing I can say he has thrown everyone for a loop. The urine issue is really too erroneous to follow. She could have gone to the toilet at anytime before going to sleep, after the yoga or at 2 am which prompted the alleged argument.

The variable is too much.

The defense has thrown the urine assumption to place Reeva in the toilet but like I said before. The slippers proves that her trip to the bathroom was not a normal trip.

People who place slippers at their bed side use them religiously. It is a natural habit in which the always put them on in their sleepy walk to where ever in the middle of the night. One can assume that she brought the slippers there and placed them for use.

Take this guys affidavit with a grain of salt. He actions are no where close to being that of someone who killed a love one by mistake.

Look at his affidavit.

I am absolutely mortified by the events and the devastating loss of my beloved Reeva. With the benefit of hindsight I believe that Reeva went to the toilet when I went out on the balcony to bring the fan in. I cannot bear to think of the suffering I have caused her and her family, knowing how much she was loved. I also know that the events of that tragic night were as I have described them and that in due course I have no doubt the police and expert investigators will bear this out.

Always a preface to set the tone.

Look at the videos of the people who have killed their loved ones. They are walking dead. The sense of guilt shuts them down. This guy.........

Inobu

 

[SyraKelly]

wouldn't most of you go & see what your spouse is doing if they are not in bed?
I really don't think she would have walked by that balcony and not ask him what he was doing and her not help him!!
So him saying she went to the bathroom while he went on the balcony does not ring true to me!!

 

[commspecialist]

I really don't understand how it matters who was in the toilet. Going up to a locked, tiny enclosure with a gun and shooting at someone trapped in there four times is still premeditated murder.

But his testimony made no sense from day one. Why did he never notice or check to see if Reeva was in bed or not? If you don't know the whereabouts of your girlfriend when you suspect an intruder, you'd be nuts to fire blindly through a door.

Even if he's telling the truth, he's trigger-happy, ruthless and paranoid and still needs to be put behind bars.

 

[emmavoberry]

Reviewing discussions here and excellent links, I have adopted a different mind-set about OP's. I am now buying that, given the givens in SA, what could seem to an outsider to be irrational, implausible, inexplicable reactions, are, in fact, plausible, even sensible responses to the facts of life there.

However, as another sleuthed pointed out (so much better than I could articulate it), OP's narrative as it relates to Ms. Steenkamp's role in things, and its glaring lack of any verbal or non-verbal interactions with her--and especially evidence of any feedback to support his belief that she was in bed, not in the bathroom--well, there's just such an absence of her as a stage partner as to cause me to have thought it a fabrication.

Now, another good sleuth points out that we do tend to believe what we expect is true and to operate under that belief despite a basis for it. I mean if I believe I put my glasses down on the night table, that's where I will reach when I try to find them.

But one more thing: if I thoroughly embrace OP's lack of combat field awareness(he's not a trained soldier after all), buy that exigencies of the moment wiped out his parallel vision, rendering him able to focus only on a rational need to kill or be killed, I'm still baffled by his report of what he did after he'd shot through the stall.

Let me imagine. Complete silence now. He knows the stall is a mere cubicle so anyone who was in there is no longer among the living. But how does he know he's not under siege from the rooftop, the front door, the next onslaught of surviving intruders wielding machetes and AK47s?

He wouldn't be crazy to think he and Reeva are still imperiled. And how does he turn off the adrenaline, relinquish combat mode, throw down his weapon and scoot all that way back down the dim corridor to the bedroom for the sole purpose of putting on his prosthetics? Note, he does not say he was hell-bent to get back to the bed part of the bedroom in order to check on Reeva or push a panic button located there only, or grab a cell phone to summon the troops, report the dire situation--but to put on his legs.

Yes, he feels vulnerable without them. But is he not even more vulnerable in transit, in the dark, abandoning his weapon to put the prosthetic on? I'd think he'd either be frozen in place with gun trained on the open window, or spinning about trying to cover any other attack points, summoning the help that hasn't come yet--because I mean he thinks his dogs have been poisoned, electrified walls breached, posted security maybe in on it, yet his priority is to put on his prosthetics, unduly exposing and disarming himself in the process...Of course, he must now turn on the light. THAT is when he sees Reeva is not in bed, puts it all together, and breaks down the door to try to save her.

I'd like some one to give me a rationale for THIS action. In this, I do see
incongruity. Until now, he has operated under what I can see now is not an unrealistic assumption. I now see how the sound of the slightest movement in his home could set him on a course I once thought only massive dosages of steroids could propel. But why, suddenly, does he think he's out of danger? How now does he so easily emerge from a reasonably induced panic to return to the bedroom--not even calling back first to see if the coast is clear, or if he's needed there to protect Reeva, turn the light on when he had thought the dark protective, all to make himself steadier and sturdier on his prosthetics? I can think of some possibilities, after eliminating others, but I'd love a little feedback. Sorry for the length.

 

[Estelle]

This is a must read article.

from Daily Telegraph, by Allison Pearson, 20th February 2013.

Oscar Pistorius case: The Blonde is the victim here, Blade

Oscar Pistorius’s story has more holes than a colander. I don’t feel an ounce of pity for him.

The irrelevance of Oscar Pistorius's girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp to the main event was confirmed by a tabloid headline. 'Blade Slays Blonde', it proclaimed, not bothering to give her the dignity of a name.

If you have just accidentally shot dead the woman you love, what do you do? Is
it:

a) Dial 999 and summon an ambulance
b) Call your girlfriend’s parents and beg forgiveness
c) Go to a church and pray hard
d) Hire a leading PR to manage your reputation.

Call me a foolish romantic, but I would rule out “d” right away. If you were innocent and grief-stricken, why would your thoughts turn to “crisis communications”? Yet this is exactly what Oscar Pistorius did within hours of the violent death of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp at his home in Pretoria.

The 26-year-old Paralympian called up Stuart Higgins, the former editor of The Sun and now a public relations expert. Pistorius’s PR team lost no time in relaunching his website to put the most positive spin on what they variously describe as “these tragic events” and “this terrible, terrible tragedy”. Looking at the website, with its stirring pictures of the Blade Runner in action, you notice that the words murder and death do not feature. For, lo, we have enterd the soothing land of PR euphemism, where world-famous
disabled heroes do not gun down.

Among those paying tribute to Oscar is his uncle, Arnold Pistorius. “Words cannot adequately describe our feelings,” says Arnold. “The lives of our entire family have been turned upside down for ever by this unimaginable human tragedy and Reeva’s family have suffered a terrible loss.”

Observe that it is the Pistorius family which has suffered “an unimaginable human tragedy” – their golden boy faces a career-wrecking charge of premeditated murder. The family of Reeva Steenkamp, the victim of the crime who appears to have been shot three times while in the toilet, has merely suffered “a terrible loss”.

Reeva’s irrelevance to the main event was confirmed by a tabloid headline. “Blade Slays Blonde”, it proclaimed, not bothering to give her the dignity of a name. On Tuesday, as a hearse took Reeva’s body to the crematorium, Oscar Pistorius sobbed throughout a bail hearing. It was an affecting performance. One might almost call it Oscar-winning. Commentators began to admit they felt a sneaky sympathy for the stricken track star. Even the magistrate asked him if he was feeling all right.

And so, very cunningly, the tragedy is appropriated from the dead woman and becomes the tragedy of the man accused of killing her. The fact that, according to a neighbour, he silenced Steenkamp’s screams with two further gunshots, is of little consequence to Pistorius’s supporters.

“I didn’t have my prosthetic legs on. I felt vulnerable,” explained Pistorius, playing the disability card for the first time in a life that has, until now, been remarkably free of self-pity. He was explaining why he fired at a locked bathroom door behind which he was convinced there was a burglar. Because burglars always lock themselves in bathrooms, don’t they? To steal the soap and the hand towel. Just as girlfriends always lock the door when they need a pee in the middle of the night. And men who think there’s a
burglar in the bathroom never bother to shout out first and give their girlfriend a chance to say, “Baby, put the gun down, it’s only me.”

Pistorius’s story has more holes than a colander. I don’t feel an ounce of pity for him. Of course, his PR man, Stuart Higgins, begs to differ: “Our job is to capture some of the support that Oscar is receiving from all over the world, lots of positive messages from people who still believe in him,” explained Higgins.

Fame – that is, real global fame of the kind Oscar Pistorius enjoys – has its own protective forcefield. You can believe in a star even when you no longer believe the story they’re trying to peddle. That’s why Michael Jackson kept selling records. That’s why, even now, there are Lance Armstrong fans who have clung to the faith. When fans say they still “believe” in a celebrity, what they mean is: “I refuse to let any unpleasant facts interfere with the noble image I have of you.” Even if those unpleasant facts include the corpse of a 29-year-old model and law student who was, by all accounts, as
lovely as her face.

At the height of the Jimmy Savile scandal, the entertainer’s niece told ITV’s This Morning that her relatives were angry when she decided to speak out about what creepy Uncle Jimmy had done to her. “Without his fame, they’d be nothing,” explained the niece.

Fame can do that. It zips people’s lips and mortgages their hearts. Only weeks ago, Oscar Pistorius fired a gun in a restaurant. The bullet narrowly missed a friend’s foot, but police were not called. If a complaint had been made, maybe the testosterone-fuelled athlete might have realised he was not above the law. But the restaurant owner was happy to accept that no gun had been fired because Oscar’s friends lied to protect his reputation.

The obvious comparison here is with O J Simpson, who went on trial in Los Angeles in 1995 for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Brown and her friend Ron Goldman. Like Pistorius, Simpson had form when it came to domestic violence. The prosecution thought it had a solid case. But, also like Blade Runner, O J was a good-looking sports god who had overcome considerable odds to find fame, fortune and a beautiful blonde. Race was a complicating factor, but it was O J’s celebrity that turned a vicious murder case into
the Trial of the Century. Last September, 18 years after Simpson was sensationally acquitted, Kato Kaelin (a TV personality and witness at the trial) was asked if Simpson killed Brown and Goldman. Kaelin replied: “The statute of limitations has now passed… so I can now say… yes, he did it.”


Asked why he let O J Simpson get away with murder, Kaelin said: “I was too scared. I was terrified… People hated me. I’ve been spat upon. They threw gum in my coffee.”

Fame can do that, too. Never underestimate the human desire not to know the worst about our heroes.

Let me leave you with a piercing irony. Just days before Reeva Steenkamp was killed, she sent tweets offering her support for female victims of violence. Her country has a deplorable record in that area. On average, a South African woman is killed every eight hours by her partner or relative.

After her funeral, Steenkamp’s Uncle Mike told reporters that his niece wanted to be an activist for ending abuse against women. “Unfortunately, it has swung right around, but I think that the Lord knows that her statement is more powerful now,” he said.

It certainly is. When Oscar Pistorius’s case comes to court, it should be the man who faces the murder charge, not the sporting legend. Gold medallists can be made of baser metals. There is only one victim of unimaginable human tragedy here. Her name was Reeva Steenkamp. "

.

 

[Estelle]

Reviewing discussions here and excellent links, I have adopted a different mind-set about OP's. I am now buying that, given the givens in SA, what could seem to an outsider to be irrational, implausible, inexplicable reactions, are, in fact, plausible, even sensible responses to the facts of life there.

However, as another sleuthed pointed out (so much better than I could articulate it), OP's narrative as it relates to Ms. Steenkamp's role in things, and its glaring lack of any verbal or non-verbal interactions with her--and especially evidence of any feedback to support his belief that she was in bed, not in the bathroom--well, there's just such an absence of her as a stage partner as to cause me to have thought it a fabrication.

Now, another good sleuth points out that we do tend to believe what we expect is true and to operate under that belief despite a basis for it. I mean if I believe I put my glasses down on the night table, that's where I will reach when I try to find them.

But one more thing: if I thoroughly embrace OP's lack of combat field awareness(he's not a trained soldier after all), buy that exigencies of the moment wiped out his parallel vision, rendering him able to focus only on a rational need to kill or be killed, I'm still baffled by his report of what he did after he'd shot through the stall.

Let me imagine. Complete silence now. He knows the stall is a mere cubicle so anyone who was in there is no longer among the living. But how does he know he's not under siege from the rooftop, the front door, the next onslaught of surviving intruders wielding machetes and AK47s?

He wouldn't be crazy to think he and Reeva are still imperiled. And how does he turn off the adrenaline, relinquish combat mode, throw down his weapon and scoot all that way back down the dim corridor to the bedroom for the sole purpose of putting on his prosthetics? Note, he does not say he was hell-bent to get back to the bed part of the bedroom in order to check on Reeva or push a panic button located there only, or grab a cell phone to summon the troops, report the dire situation--but to put on his legs.

Yes, he feels vulnerable without them. But is he not even more vulnerable in transit, in the dark, abandoning his weapon to put the prosthetic on? I'd think he'd either be frozen in place with gun trained on the open window, or spinning about trying to cover any other attack points, summoning the help that hasn't come yet--because I mean he thinks his dogs have been poisoned, electrified walls breached, posted security maybe in on it, yet his priority is to put on his prosthetics, unduly exposing and disarming himself in the process...Of course, he must now turn on the light. THAT is when he sees Reeva is not in bed, puts it all together, and breaks down the door to try to save her.

I'd like some one to give me a rationale for THIS action. In this, I do see
incongruity. Until now, he has operated under what I can see now is not an unrealistic assumption. I now see how the sound of the slightest movement in his home could set him on a course I once thought only massive dosages of steroids could propel. But why, suddenly, does he think he's out of danger? How now does he so easily emerge from a reasonably induced panic to return to the bedroom--not even calling back first to see if the coast is clear, or if he's needed there to protect Reeva, turn the light on when he had thought the dark protective, all to make himself steadier and sturdier on his prosthetics? I can think of some possibilities, after eliminating others, but I'd love a little feedback. Sorry for the length.

That's a very good point. No one has pointed out so far that there could have been more than one intruder! He made an assumption that there would only be one (Reeva). What he did after he'd shot through the stall is very telling and you have spelt it out very well here.

It's as if he could then relax and think "Job done" and now I have to invent my story.

 

[Yoda]

Reviewing discussions here and excellent links, I have adopted a different mind-set about OP's. I am now buying that, given the givens in SA, what could seem to an outsider to be irrational, implausible, inexplicable reactions, are, in fact, plausible, even sensible responses to the facts of life there.

However, as another sleuthed pointed out (so much better than I could articulate it), OP's narrative as it relates to Ms. Steenkamp's role in things, and its glaring lack of any verbal or non-verbal interactions with her--and especially evidence of any feedback to support his belief that she was in bed, not in the bathroom--well, there's just such an absence of her as a stage partner as to cause me to have thought it a fabrication.

Now, another good sleuth points out that we do tend to believe what we expect is true and to operate under that belief despite a basis for it. I mean if I believe I put my glasses down on the night table, that's where I will reach when I try to find them.

But one more thing: if I thoroughly embrace OP's lack of combat field awareness(he's not a trained soldier after all), buy that exigencies of the moment wiped out his parallel vision, rendering him able to focus only on a rational need to kill or be killed, I'm still baffled by his report of what he did after he'd shot through the stall.

Let me imagine. Complete silence now. He knows the stall is a mere cubicle so anyone who was in there is no longer among the living. But how does he know he's not under siege from the rooftop, the front door, the next onslaught of surviving intruders wielding machetes and AK47s?

He wouldn't be crazy to think he and Reeva are still imperiled. And how does he turn off the adrenaline, relinquish combat mode, throw down his weapon and scoot all that way back down the dim corridor to the bedroom for the sole purpose of putting on his prosthetics? Note, he does not say he was hell-bent to get back to the bed part of the bedroom in order to check on Reeva or push a panic button located there only, or grab a cell phone to summon the troops, report the dire situation--but to put on his legs.

Yes, he feels vulnerable without them. But is he not even more vulnerable in transit, in the dark, abandoning his weapon to put the prosthetic on? I'd think he'd either be frozen in place with gun trained on the open window, or spinning about trying to cover any other attack points, summoning the help that hasn't come yet--because I mean he thinks his dogs have been poisoned, electrified walls breached, posted security maybe in on it, yet his priority is to put on his prosthetics, unduly exposing and disarming himself in the process...Of course, he must now turn on the light. THAT is when he sees Reeva is not in bed, puts it all together, and breaks down the door to try to save her.

I'd like some one to give me a rationale for THIS action. In this, I do see
incongruity. Until now, he has operated under what I can see now is not an unrealistic assumption. I now see how the sound of the slightest movement in his home could set him on a course I once thought only massive dosages of steroids could propel. But why, suddenly, does he think he's out of danger? How now does he so easily emerge from a reasonably induced panic to return to the bedroom--not even calling back first to see if the coast is clear, or if he's needed there to protect Reeva, turn the light on when he had thought the dark protective, all to make himself steadier and sturdier on his prosthetics? I can think of some possibilities, after eliminating others, but I'd love a little feedback. Sorry for the length.

:welcome: Excellent point about OP's fear not being consistent.
He heard a noise in the bathroom, but what if the intruders were elsewhere in the house too. Why feel safe after shooting at a closed door? The intruder could have been hiding on the other side of the bed or in the shower. He dropped,or placed, his gun on the bathroom floor. If he was really fearing an intruder wouldn't he hold onto that gun for dear life? Even as he went to check on Reeva in the bedroom?

Question- is there a pattern for home invasions in this area? Is it usually just one perp? Or is it more often than not two, three, or more? It sounds like from what I have read that it is usually multiple perps. his high anxiety over intruders may be normal for this area, but if home invasions are usually committed by multiple perps then his response doesn't correlate to what he would expect if his home was being invaded. Jmo


And again welcome to web sleuths!

 

[wfgodot]

.....

Karyn Maughan ‏@karynmaughan
Big question for today isn't whether #OscarPistorius will get bail - but how much and with what conditions? @eNCAnews

 

[Yoda]

"and on average there are four members in an armed robbery gang."

Research on residential robberies by Dr. Rudolph Zinn of the School of Criminal Justice at UNISA

 

[Inobu]

It is best that you go to the scanned copy of the affidavit.

It has his actual verbiage where he uses "intruder/s was/were"

His affidavit insults peoples intelligences in my opinion. That is why I keep ranting about. It is like a poorly written screen play. Where the author uses rhetoric to employ emotions.

When one follows the events it goes from firing 4 shots killing an intruder to "oh you know what? that could have been Reeva in there, let me go to the bedroom and check. Reeva!! Oh no I shot Reeva, I need to go save her. Oh!! (thinking-- put on my legs so I can kick down the door NO I need the bat! I can break down the door. (Bam Bam) I gotta get Reeva out!!!

Call Stander. Hey Stander I just shot Reeva, call the ambulance for me......hang up. (Dial Netcare South Africas 911 service) send a ambulance. Oh I better unlock the front door. (Going down stairs) (Doors unlock)
I better go back up stairs and get Reeva someone told me to take her to the hospital. (Carrying Reeva down the stairs) Enter everyone to see her in his arms.)


This is exactly what he wants people to believe and some do?!!

Inobu

 

[wfgodot]

.....

Karyn Maughan ‏@karynmaughan
Legal expert tells @eNCAnews that accused in #OscarPistorius's position would normally get bail of around R150000 @eNCAnews

 

[Estelle]

andrew harding‏@BBCAndrewH

“@karynmaughan: Legal expert says that accused in #OscarPistorius's position would normally get bail of around R150000 (about £11000)

Only 11,000 pounds? Is that all?

 

[Estelle]

Last interview: Reeva Steenkamp feared lies would ruin relationship with Oscar Pistorius

February 22, 2013

•Reeva Steenkamp gave interview seven days before her death
•Feared negative publicity would ruin relationship with Pistorius
•She respected and admired the Olympian, now accused of killing her
•Pistorius hearing: More drama as cop booted off team

Reeva Steenkamp said in her final interview she wanted to get away from 'glamour' modelling.

THE woman shot dead in double-amputee Olympian runner Oscar Pistorius' house was a model, a law school graduate and an entrepreneur committed to empowering women.....

REEVA Steenkamp was worried lies could ruin her relationship with Oscar Pistorius, the model said in her final interview - a week before she was shot dead in her boyfriend's house.

In the interview with heat magazine, Steenkamp said she “respects and admires” Pistorius. But she also feared that negative publicity could harm the so-called Blade Runner’s career on the track.“We haven’t been talking to the media because I don’t want to get it tainted,” she told the magazine.

Reeva Steenkamp gave her final interview to South Africa's heat magazine, in which she aired concerns that 'lies' would ruin relationship with Oscar Pistorius. “I don’t want anything coming in the way of his career. He’s such an amazing athlete.”

In the heat interview, Steenkamp added: “You know what they do, they make things up, ‘Reeva cheats on Oscar’ and rubbish like that. “I wouldn’t want lies about us jeopardising it.”

<modsnip

http://www.news.com.au/world/last-i...-oscar-pistorius/story-fndir2ev-1226583316933

 

[Lola]

andrew harding &#8207;@BBCAndrewH
Nel: #OscarPistorius acting like business as usual by wanting passport back after bailed. "It cannot be business as usual."

Nel: that is why we say increases flight risk on bail.

Nel: #OscarPistorius affidavit shows athlete thinks "I've done nothing wrong" - no admission of culpable homicide.

Nel focuses on #OscarPistorius affidavit saying athlete to blame for any interpretation put on statement. "Danger on his shoulders."

 

[Carol70]

I went back and had a look.

Yes, possibly he might have "thought the worst", though my guess is you'd have to be a pretty eager burglar, preferably with a silenced firearm, to want to go up against those two (I've seen pics; here's one) prior to clambering up to a 2nd floor window. I'd not want to get close enough to poison them with a dodgy steak.

/SNIP

It's not obvious, but I'd hazard a guess you are living somewhere in SA, and to my mind this (naturally) colours your responses towards OP's actions and inactions.

Please note: this is NOT (Absolutely NOT) intended as a slight.

Far from it, it's actually massively, enormously useful to get a local mind-set and to see how his actions might be perceived (re that article from The Star, for instance).

For those fortunate not to have to live with the perpetual fear of home intrusions or the alarm going off (what's a burglar alarm???) it might seem that OP's behaviour is not just quixotic, but downright garden variety paranoid. If one lives in a gated community with electric fencing, guard dogs, CCTV cameras, and roaming security in vans carrying assault rifles, maybe what went down in the early hours of Feb 14th all makes a weird kind of sense.

Re the article, however, there ARE some comments below that debunk it somewhat and tend to suggest that you can find the überfearful in any community, however innocuous.

Perception of risk is a funny thing - and often something that has more to do with media reporting than actual likelihood of getting raped, mugged, killed, etc. Just ask most UK Daily Mail readers...

Hehe, yes..Im in Cape Town (considered one of the safer cities) and I havent been shy with the fact that Im very biased and trying very hard to believe in his story- Im definately on the defence but will happily submit should it be PROVED that he is lying!

As for your points about SA safety, yes... it does appear to outsiders that we live in some third world country where there are savages running around murdering and raping everything in sight (besides the elephants and lions that roam our streets ), its not quite like that...Its a beatiful country. I DO walk in my neighbourhood to the shops, walk my dogs, drive at night (if its safe to do so, I dont stop at red lights), visit resturants, museums, the beach, take holidays, go camping etc etc. However, we DO live with a very high sense of alertness and always on guard. We DONT pull into our garage before making sure there is no-one lurking about, we do not allow our children to play in the park at the end of our street, in fact, they dont play in the street at all, I do not know my neighbors because we never see them, everyone enters their properties as fast as possible and the walls are high so there is no friendly wave or chat over the fence, we live with security, security and more security. When our home was invaded while we slept, the first thought on waking was "thank god we are alive and my daughter and myself not raped"..and then I thought for ****s sake, why should I be thankful to be alive after a night spent sleeping in MY OWN HOME????

Most of SA have been touched with crime, OP's fear and terror of being invaded is credible. I was quite upset to forget my ipad at home this morning on my way to work so I could video my drive through our suburban neighbourhood on my way to work, so that you can see for yourself the true level of the average South Africans paranoia for real and not by some media pictures or reports!

Lolz, sorry for the essay!

ETA: Im not a journo, Im not OP who lives in a fancy estate, We are a normal family living in suburbia with 2 kiddies, 3 dogs and the 8ft white wall

 

[Lola]

10:19 - Nel: why would a person, at 3am, when hearing there's an intruder not scream out?

10:18 - Nel: To find his version probable, one must stretch.

10:17 - Nel: Even after detective's concessions, the position of the firearm, cartridges and cellphones remains.

10:17 - Nel: we say that the state has a strong case.

Nel: The same with remorse. Those are the pitfalls of an affidavit. The court should see him in the box.

 

[Lola]

andrew harding &#8207;@BBCAndrewH
Nel: Reeva in toilet - why did she not shout "what's going on?.. Improbable" version from #OscarPistorius who now fighting sobs behind me.

 

[Lola]

i'm beginning to think that his sobbing is like a "tell" in poker. when the prosecution gets to the truth - he cries.

 

[Lola]

#OscarPistorius Nel: on the witness statements - is it coincidence that a neighbour heard arguments, screems and shots? Improbable. BB

#OscarPistorius Nel: he elected to make a statement, which allows me and the state to make these inferences. BB

#OscarPistorius Nel: he slept on the left, she on the right - they didn't bump in to each other when he went out? BB

 

[Lola]

andrew harding &#8207;@BBCAndrewH
Nel: we agree #OscarPistorius cried at scene. But is it because he feels sorry for himself cos thinks career over?