Did he do it?

Oscar Pistorius I mean. Perhaps I should say, did he mean to do it, because we know by his own admission he definitely did do it. The question milady must answer is, was this a case of deliberate murder or simple reckless endangerment, or some sort of manslaughter?


I don't know if you've been following the trial at all, but the coverage is extremely annoying. Although the camera has been allowed into the courtroom, we have been consistently denied the opportunity to see what we actually want, or even need, to see: the witnesses. And the one witness we were allowed to see, namely the pathologist, then helpfully suggested that the forensic details of his testimony were too upsetting for members of the public- us- to hear. This exceedingly patronising approach, apparently, is unprecedented in South African legal history. But I suppose this is an example of what we might call the "OJ effect": that the trial is so high profile new rules need to be dreamed up to accommodate it. I say it's wrong though.


Watching, well actually no, not watching but listening to Pistorius give evidence today (once again I ask: why can't we see him?) with his voice in a perma-tremor was for me actually quite nauseating. We have seen him show his upset already, vomiting at some of the pathologist's testimony, and I can't help thinking how carefully he must have been coached by his defence team to come over as real upset-like and genuinely remorseful- a role which he will need to play with consummate skill if he is to have any chance of getting off without a lengthy prison sentence. Today, at least before they had to adjourn prematurely because the poor lamb was so distraught, Oscar began to tell us how he basically panicked when he thought there was an intruder in his room. Thing is, I believe him. I do believe this was a case of shooting first and asking questions later. We've seen how he is a man easily moved to anger (remember when he lost the 400metres at the Paralympics and as good as accused the winner of cheating?) and trigger-happy to boot, well, what do you expect?


So there we have it. I say, guilty of a serious form of manslaughter, but not murder. In this I am in disagreement with a close female friend who is convinced he offed her coldly and deliberately. But then she has always been convinced the McCanns murdered little Maddie themselves, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I look forward to seeing how it plays out, as long as I don't have to listen to too much of his hideous wailing/weeping testimony.


SUPPLEMENT: 9.4.14: ZOMBIE KILLER


People who have access to Sky News have already seen the footage of Oscar firing a powerful handgun at a watermelon, which exploded spectacularly. "Softer than brains", he explains, "but definitely a zombie killer". As happens so often with us all, his words have come back to haunt him today, as he was quizzed on his remarks in court. The prosecution reminded Mr P that this was actually what happened to poor Reeva when he fired at her through the famous bathroom door. But I would say this: if Oscar Pistorius actually did blow a zombie's brains out, the first thing he would do is vomit like a drunk after too much cider, then shriek like a girl and finally sob like a baby. All of which goes to show that if you can't stand the sight of blood, you probably shouldn't use a gun.