The fact that these were only a few texts of many - he should have just acknowledged the truth that he sometimes did raise his voice or sometimes was picky about things.  

His approach may sell with the public, but it remains to be seen whether it helps or hurts his case with the judge -- the only person whose opinion matters in the end.

Great to read your SANE take on things. It has given me the will to continue watching the trial, though it is unpleasant to watch at times.

After last night I wrote to a friend saying that it was getting to be unpleasant watching the trial, but added perhaps it's just an "overdose" of Nel. :)

But, what I don't understand is why Oscar isn't taking Nel's gift and capitalizing on it. As much as Nel's personality and brutish cross examination style is offensive Oscar's evasive and non-sensical answers make him seem dishonest.

(Paraphrasing somewhat) When asked, "did you shoot through the door?" Instead of answering with a simple, "yes," he went on with a silly response such as, "the gun was in my hand." Then asked, "did you pull the trigger?" Again, instead of answering with a, "yes," he answered, "no." The prosecutor leaped on this, and, asked, incredulously, "You, already admitted you shot Reeva through the door. How did you shoot her if you didn't pull the trigger?" And, Oscar said something ridiculous like, "the gun was in my hand and I, accidently shot Reeva through the door." "But my finger was not on the trigger, I didn't pull the trigger; it was an accident."

In trying to out-spar Nel with these silly verbal acrobatics all he did was appear evasive, slippery, and......guilty.

But capable of premeditated murder? Normally, I'm not one who tends to look very kindly upon people who are prone to emotive outbursts and crying jags. But in this particular instance, the defendant's very real tears and sobs appear to be a painfully obvious display of personal remorse, such that any willingness on his part to have engaged in a wanton act of murder in this case seems very highly unlikely, to me at least. I now consider him too much of an emotional weakling to have been capable of committing the capital crime for which he is charged.

Does that sound like I'm making any sense, Jeralyn? I certainly don't mean to sound callous or derogatory toward Oscar Pistorious. I just think that underneath all the bravado, bluster and bombast of this world-class athlete, there actually lies a rather naïve and child-like soul which might be insensitive at times, but otherwise would not consciously seek to physically harm someone he loves. Thus, any idea of premeditation on his part is almost entirely out of the question, as far as I'm concerned.

I do agree with you that if the events in question do point to a crime having been committed, it would be more likely in support of a charge of culpable homicide, given what looks to be the defendant's recklessness in shooting through a closed door without ever knowing who or what was on the other side.

I certainly don't believe that Ms. Steenkamp herself was ever his intended target at any time. From everything I've watched, heard and read thus far, I think that when he heard an unfamiliar noise, he just panicked and freaked out and started firing without ever really fully engaging his cognitive functions. At the very least, it constitutes a wholly disastrous mistake in personal judgment on his part, the consequences with which he will no doubt have to live for the rest of his days.

Ultimately, though, it's up to presiding Judge Thokozile Masipa to determine Mr. Pistorious' fate, and it's not our call as observers. Agreed again, state prosecutor Gerrie Nel is over the top, certainly by American standards, and his badgering of the defendant was at times quite ugly to watch.

But given Judge Masipa's rather stern rebuke of Mr. Nel today over his inappropriate laughter at the defendant's answers -- which compelled his immediate apology to her, and hopefully chastened him for the remainder of the trial -- I'd offer that she clearly has his number and that the guy's campy TV melodramatic-style theatrics probably aren't doing anything at all to bolster the state's case with her.

Í assume that under cross examination he will be asked:

1. What made you so sure that Reeva was in bed and not in the bathroom?

2. She didn't reply to your scream that she call the police, did she?  

3. Why didn't you wait outside the alcove with your gun drawn and comfort Reeva instead of going to the bathroom door and opening fire?
   

Yes, bullies can feel remorseful. But so can their victims, and as well as the bystanders who watched the wrongdoing occur to someone else but did nothing to stop it.

In Pistorious's case, I just don't see the evidence that shows him guilty of willful murder. Rather, I see someone who is stunted in his own adolescence, and also held captive by the same paranoia about race and crime that afflicts so many white Afrikaaners in his country in the post-Apartheid era.

And I see someone whose aforementioned paranoia led him to make a catastrophic mistake in personal judgment that cost someone her life, and whose aforementioned emotional immaturity leads him to offer evasive answers about his own responsibility when confronted by authority figures with an unpleasant situation of his own doing -- not unlike a 13-year-old who gets questioned by his mother regarding his having taken the family car for a short spin around the block while she was at work. (I know that's an awkward analogy, Tracy, but having also parented adolescents yourself, I think you probably understand my meaning.)

From my perspective, the defendant's gratuitous displays of personal remorse tend to underscore my opinion about his emotional immaturity. When coupled with the evidence presented thus far, it leads me to believe that his personality is more reflective of someone who is a diva rather than a an outright bully in the traditional sense of the term, and that he is likely incapable of premeditated murder of his girlfriend.

I think he's instead incredibly vulnerable from a legal standpoint on the charge of culpable homicide.