From a legal perspective I always find the way a proscutor can attack a defendant and put words into their mouths an interesting one so I was actually quite impressed with the way P 'waspishly' answered one of the prosecutor's questions, mentioning how his story had stayed the same whilst the state's had changed. My view is that technically a proescutor should only be able to talk about facts and or use these facts to establish perhaps a motive - but no, as we know, a prosecutor can essentially and quite literally fabricate (because noone actually knows) a colourful allegation or scenario to provide a court reaction just to prove a point, relying on emotion rather than facts.

One minor detail interested me today when I finally read a account of the trial : that P was so cavalier with weapons he once actually discharged one in a restaurant. Anyone who has experince with weapons but nonetheless does this is quite capable of doing it again - in fact he even claims to have opened fire when startled...if I was his defence lawyer I would be underlining the fact my client was basically highly incompetent and an absolute nervous wreck with handling weapons...not every person experienced with weapons is a good handler!

This prosecutor has an amazing reputation, but at this point he has been unable to demonstrate 2 things.

1. A motive
2. An admission

Without these 2, all he has is the ability to mentally disintegrate OP and in the process hoping for an extraction of 1 & 2.

The Tony Martin case was different because he'd booby trapped the whole house & sat waiting for them with a loaded gun. i.e it wasn't a spur of the moment decision to shoot the boy. Strange thing was around the same time another bloke shot someone on his allotment. The 82 years old and shot the burglar through the door. He got a 4k pound compensation order against him as the burglar suffered a loss of income. That bit made me laugh, loss of income meant other people got to keep their stuff.
I get up & walk to the other end of the house to use the bathroom in the night, the very idea of taking a dump in the same room you sleep in is beyond weird. I've not fathomed the Australian thinking on open plan bedroom/en-suites yet.

I stayed in a very nice, boutique, 5 star hotel in Jakarta last year. The whole bedroom, office, bathroom, the works was all open plan. There wasn't a single door in the whole place once you passed the front door.

Luckily I was staying there alone.

That's just wrong. So wrong.

Kind of reminded me of my time in prison.

I know! It's like farting in a lift (elevator) - wrong on so many levels.

Does he really need to prove a motive? If so, does every naturally violent person get away with their acts of violence because there is no specific motive, other than they cannot control their temper.

As I have said before, the prosecutor does not have to prove motive. He only needs to prove that Oscar Pistorius shot Reeva Steenkamp with the intention to do harm. He also doesn't need an admission of anything. He only has to prove to the judge that OP shot her with the intention of doing serious physical harm to whoever was behind that door.

Of course not, but if he could it would be bye bye to OP.

The prosecution at this stage is like a leaky boat. Its all speculation and nothing is concrete.

...... and at this point proving that beyond reasonable doubt is not happening.

I wonder what Nel has up his sleeve.

My guess........an arm?

Well, nothing concrete except the fact that OP doesn't dispute he shot her 4 times.
When did I say beyond a reasonable doubt? What I said was that the prosecution has to show the judge that Pistorius shot with the intention to do harm.

I personally think Nel is doing a fine job of showing the holes in OP's story.

All four of them.

Boom boom boom boom