Trial Discussion Thread #25 - 14.04.14, Day 22

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was deposed as a witness for a lawsuit. I swore that car, the one I witnessed getting into the accident, the one I ran up to, leaned into, and basically was a part of for a good 30 minutes ...was WHITE. It wasn't. It was green. They showed me the photos when I wouldn't budge. It shocked me.

Respectfully snipped.

I'm so sorry you had to experience that :(

Yes, there's also the fact that eyewitness testimony has been proven to be unreliable. Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus works in this field and some of her lectures are available online. She does a lot of work for the Innocence Project.

For example, the earwitness testimony in this case has irregularities. But, as far as I know, they have some crucial elements in common. For example, gunshots, then female screams, more gunshots, then silence.
 
I also need to listen to that bit again where OP is tesifying about when he 'realised it could be Reeva' .. then checked the bed from the bathroom side, then got off the bed on the balcony side .. then I'm sure he said he checked the floor with his hands before checking the curtains .. but then later on he said he went straight to check the curtains after having checked the bed, and that he only checked along the side of the bed by walking along it! I swear that is what he said! I need to go back and verify ..

OK, have checked it now and he definitely does contradict himself quite substantially on that one .. first saying that he checked the floor with his hands, but then going on to say that he never checked it with his hands only that by walking along the passageway between the bed and the balcony side wall he would've known she was there because he would've tripped over her while walking along that bit! :facepalm:

I've type it out virtually verbatim (all apart from the occasional 'erm' or duplication of insignificant words):



Nel: and the duvet?

OP: MiLady, I know she wasn't on the bed because I crossed the bed <starting to sound angry now>.. I got on, on the foot (?) .. if you look at the bed on the left foot (?) side I still had to help myself up onto the bed because I wasn't tall enough I didn't want to keep my eyes off the passage and I moved across the bed .. when I got to the other side of the bed I was hoping that she was on the floor like I told her to be

Nel: so you what .. you check on the floor?

OP: yes MiLady


Nel: so you had visibility ... you could see if she was on the floor or not

OP: no I couldn't see

Nel: so how did you check to if she was on the floor as you asked her?

OP .. feel MiLady

Nel: but how did you feel? .. what did you do?

OP: with my hands, MiLady

Nel: now if you felt with your hands you've got everywhere because you were now .. she must be there, that's what you told to be

OP: yes that's where I told her to be

Nel: so you would've checked everywhere then

OP: I didn't check everywhere the place is so small MiLady .. if you can get out there <unidentifiable word) it's so small I don't even know if it's a meter .. I ran my hand along the curtain ..my first thought was that it might be Reeva now in the toilet

Nel: lets take it much slower, you told her to get down, you thought she was on the floor on the right hand side of the bed

OP: I was hoping she was there, yes

Nel: now you get onto the bed, and across the bed to the right hand side, am I right?

OP: that's correct MiLady

Nel: and it's pitch dark on your version

OP: that's correct MiLady

Nel: and that your first intention is to feel if she is on the floor

OP: No, my first intention was to feel if she was on the bed, MiLady

Nel: but then she wasn't

OP: that's correct

Nel: and second intention, second thing

OP: was to check that she if was behind the curtains

Nel: why behind the curtains and not on the floor

OP: because I wouldve tripped over her if she was on the floor

Nel: no but why did you not check on it, you didn't check on the floor

OP: MiLady, by walking in the passage if you came across her I would've tripped over her

Nel: but Mr Pistorius, you said 'go down'you thought she was there on the floor why did you not check?

OP: I did check MiLady .. by walking that passage, by walking I got off the right hand side of the bed in the passage between the bed and the curtains .. by walking through that part of the bed around back to the bathroom, that's how I checked.


.. starts from 20:49 in, here ..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_hle5shsDY
 
Hi Minor

For 1st shot to the hip, was Reeva standing square on, parallel with the door, between the door and toilet (sandwiched)? Judging by trajectory of 1st shot to hip.

Or more centrally parallel behind door? Trying to figure how she could have fallen onto magazine rack . . .

Looks like over near toilet roll holder from trajectory rods pic, though she'd have fallen back onto the toilet???

Help! :p

Hi Gryffindor :)

According to Botha she was close to the door because of splinters that caused punctate wounds.

Both Botha and Saayman agree that when she was shot in the hip, she would have fallen backwards.

Because of the size of the bathroom and arrangement of toilet and magazine rack, I think it's impossible to really predict how she would fall because those objects would interfere with her fall (hope I'm making sense)
 
The amount of urine in her bladder is consistent with having just peed. Normally there's about a teaspoon left in there and that's how much she had - 5ml.

I was meaning that to believe his version, I doubt if there was enough time for her to urinate between him hearing the window open, grabbing his gun, charging down the corridor, hearing the door kicked closed/lock. If his version isn't true and they were arguing, she probably urinated either just before arguing or during the argument.
 
Do we have a comprehensive list of liars yet?

Both Stipps need to be added.

I said a while back why didn't OP assume Reeva had fled the house during his rampage, and why didn't he assume there were any other intruders?

As Nel says: "Your version makes no sense!.
 
Hi Gryffindor :)

According to Botha she was close to the door because of splinters that caused punctate wounds.

Both Botha and Saayman agree that when she was shot in the hip, she would have fallen backwards.

Because of the size of the bathroom and arrangement of toilet and magazine rack, I think it's impossible to really predict how she would fall because those objects would interfere with her fall (hope I'm making sense)

Thank you honey :-D

So the toilet wasn't directly behind her or in her way? Thank you x
 
Not sure I'm remembering correctly, but was there something about bloodstains on both sides of the duvet when it was first entered into evidence? Anyone else remember this? If so, will the additional bloodstains be mentioned as well? Not sure my memory is correct, but if so, this is intriguing.
 
Oh gosh...poor, poor Reeva. She was so excited for Valentines Day... Her last moments must have been so terrifying, hiding in the bathroom from your own boyfriend. It's really affecting me today. Hopefully he is genuinely remorseful. Reeva deserves justice
 


WHY???
The manner of his questioning. He is repeatedly saying things are impossible when in my opinion they are not impossible. One example, he was trying to trip OP up about the duvet. Was the duvet on the bed when he returned to the bedroom or not. Now lets be honest here, if someone has just shot 4 bullets through a door possibly killing someone, whether that shooting was premeditated, done is self defence or in a jealous rage, is it impossible that they would notice whether or not a duvet was on a bed or not? I think even the judge is fed up with him now. Please try to excuse my impatience. I don't know if OP is guilty of premeditated murder or not, but Nel's manner of questioning is damaging OP's chance of a fair trial. Fortunately it is not a jury trial and the judge and her assessors will ensure that a fair trial ensues. I know I will be shot down in flames for my view. So be it.
 
I would think that the first thing he would do is make sure Reeva is awake? He "covered" for that by saying oh, Reeva was still awake when I woke up and she said "can't sleep, Baba." THAT IS WHY HE HAD TO PUT INTO HIS STORY THAT REEVA WAS STILL AWAKE.Also to make his story more believable that she got up to go to the bathroom.

B/c if she was still sleeping, it wouldn't matter if he whispered to her "get down, call police," etc., b/c she would not know what was going on b/c she would be asleep.

Any way one looks at it, his story makes ZERO sense.

The first thing he would have done if this was a real burglar situation, is first talk to Reeva and double-check with her that "did you hear that sound?" I thought Nel made a great point with that on Friday. There would have been some kind of talk with Reeva, especially since she was already awake, per his story. And on top of that, I think he is too much of a wimp to just go charging up to the burglar w/o getting Reeva involved. JMO. He would have definately asked her if she heard that sound or not and what she thought it sounded like, could it be a burglar?

JMO.


Am I right in saying that in his Bail Application he didn't mention that he spoke to Reeva before bringing in the fans? If I am correct, surely it would be emblazoned on your mind the last words you ever spoke to someone before they died and that would be in the BA?
 
I must have missed it.

What did Oscar get her for valentines day?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A bracelet that wasn't in his possession, from a jewellers he didn't name, with the vague idea of some trinkets for the bracelet... that wasn't in his possession.
 
OP's stories are just too full of holes to be true.

In my view this means he has something to hide and is likely guilty of the murder of Reeva.

However, the prosecution story still needs work.

Below is my working theory. I welcome any and all comments.

13th Feb
8:00 p.m. Dinner between Reeva and Oscar (true as per OP's testimony)

9:00 p.m. Discussion re: Reeva's modelling contract (OP's testimony) resulted in a fight as OP wanted to control some aspects of her modelling (my presumption based on OP's jealousy and controlling nature).

10:00 p.m - Argument is over but still simmering tempers. Reeva does do some Yoga (as per OP's testimony) and texts her family (I believe at 10:35 p.m) and OP looks at cars.

14th Feb
12:00 a.m. Both still awake and it has just ticked into Valentine's Day. Reeva still angry and depressed over her fight goes and gets food downstairs for comfort(disabling the alarm).

1:00 a.m. Upon getting back upstairs, fight begins when OP asks why Reeva didn't get him any food. Its hot and tempers frayed resulting in a fight escalating as Reeva has gotten him a gift but he hasn't gotten her one for Valentines. Reeva gets emotional and angry over the past issues from their earlier fight in the evening.

2:00 a.m. The fight gets extremely heated (loud arguing heard by Van der Merwe for an hour from 1:56 a.m.).

3:00 a.m. OP finally loses it and slams the bedroom door (breaking it as per evidence) and threatens Reeva.

Reeva screams and gets scared and runs into the bathroom before running into the toilet slamming the door and locking it.

OP comes in brandishing the cricket bat and hits the door. He threatens Reeva asking her to come out.

Reeva threatens to tell the media and continues screaming for help.

3:15 a.m.

OP fires a warning shot through the door and hits her on the hip and tells her to 'get the *advertiser censored** out'.

Reeva then says she will call the police (he is paranoid about his reputation and the police).

At that point he panics and shoots her 3 times.

He spent two minutes breaking the panel and confirming Reeva was seriously hurt behind the door.

He then called Stander (come help me with a problem), Netcare (out of immediate remose but vague description of injuries as he can't see through the door - results in them asking him to bring her in) and Baba (before hanging up).

OP at that time decides to try to cover everything up.

At 3:22 a.m. he opens the door and pulls her out (this explains why there is more blood in the toilet than bathroom).

Baba calls back and OP says everything is fine.

He then carries her partially downstairs (explaining arterial blood) when Stander and Baba arrive (3:26 a.m.)

OP is hoping the Standers will help him cover this issue up but he has no option when Baba also appears.

Sidenotes:
I contend that he was already wearing his prosthetics at the time (was kneeling when he shot Reeva) and already had the cricket bat on hand.

The continuing fights also explains why Reeva was in normal attire rather than night attire.

The blood in the bedroom (duvet etc.) comes from OP going up a few times to try and clear up evidence of his earlier fight with Reeva after Dr. Stipp arrived.

The fan remains blocking the balcony as he never had to move it and never went out anyway.

Bladder empty as she goes to urinate around 1:00 a.m. after her midnight meal.

The jeans thrown outside are a result of the earlier fight.

The bangs heard by the Stipps were from the slamming doors or the cricket bat hitting the door initially.

Reeva's phone was on the bathroom floor after OP tried to check whether she called police (but didn't know her PIN), so he threw the phone in anger and the cover came off

I like this. How would you explain the "GET DOWN" that was heard by earwitnesses? Could she have been standing on the bed knowing that he couldn't jump up there and grab her because of his prosthetics?

And where do you think the inside-out fat jeans come in?

Thanks!
 
I must have missed it.

What did Oscar get her for valentines day?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nowt, by the sounds of it .. he claims he was going to get some charms for her bracelet on the day he killed her but we have no real evidence for that
 
I don't have the time to go through all the comment, since trial finished today. So apologies for not replying to some posts.
 
Am I right in saying that in his Bail Application he didn't mention that he spoke to Reeva before bringing in the fans? If I am correct, surely it would be emblazoned on your mind the last words you ever spoke to someone before they died and that would be in the BA?

That is correct - no mention of speaking to Reeva, or Reeva speaking to him in the bail application.
But he did mention it in the plea explanation.
 
The State DO have to present some version of events.

Look at all the wild theories posted here? Ranging fom OP chasing Reeva all around the house on his stumps, smashing doors, windows, firing an air rifle, watching Gay *advertiser censored*, firing extra shots out the window. Bashing the toilet door but leaving it delicately poised so that he can see Reeva etc etc etc. There has to be a REALISTIC version... a hypothesis of when the "argument" started.. and why? Why would a rational young man decide to chase, trap his (loved) girlfriend and shoot her at 3:00AM????... that is the biggest thing that "Does not make any sense"... The State do have to propose why such a bizarre event occurred at all. There is also the evidence and time line arising from State's own witnesses. It all fits OP's version and NOT the State's version, I gather from hints such as shots at 3:17... that is impossible and makes the State's version impossible from the outset (whatever the other details are)... stuff like that needs to be presented.. and the Defense have to have the opportunity to tear it apart... in the same way that Nel is attempting to tear OP's version apart.

I put it to you that it will be easy peasy to tear the State's version apart. Their own witnesses have already done that. :)


1st BIB

Agreed, there are some wild theories floating around and some that absolutely seem unrealistic. But given that OP's version isn't realistic unless you wish to twist your brain into hocus pocus mode, it is pretty reasonable that the imagination would run wild with this one. Something happened that night that led to up to the events that unfolded in the murder of a defenseless woman. At this point, IMO, none of us do nor will we ever know what those events were. Given that assumption, it is reasonable that theories get explored, as ludicrous as they may seem.

Bottom line though - a young woman is dead after been shot in a horrific fashion behind a closed door. She knew the truth but, so tragically, isn't here to tell the court. I might would believe somehow, someway, OP got up and shot her by accident if he'd give a straight answer instead of the circus we're witnessing currently. He also might have garnered more respect if he were not trying to get away with and relieved of any responsibility for all charges against him.


2nd BIB

1. No evidence of these two being in love at the time of her death. Her message to him 1.5 weeks prior said she was the girl who fell in love with him - past tense. She also wondered if they couldn't give each other what they need. Given that RS seemed like the kind of woman who mostly spread lovey dovey written messages, that one long diatribe to OP about his behavior (and her being scared of him at times) cannot simply be shrugged off as normal relationship interaction. She made a point in that, a valid one and one that I think was an omen to the morning she died.

2. OP said originally that they were deeply in love but when breaking down on the stand, he said words to the effect of "someone I cared for" - another inconsistency. Nothing points to them being deeply in love or her being loved.

3. No plans to spend VD together. No gift for RS. I find it implausible that while being deeply in love, either of these facts would be present, especially for a couple in their 20s.

But these are just my thoughts...
 
Re: Changing his defense from putative self defense to involuntary action --

There has been a lot of talk about Oscar changing his defense and what that means or if it helps the state prove murder. Here is my take -

Oscar is not changing his defense, he is just using different terminology than Nel (albeit, he's perseverating).

When Oscar says it was an accident and that he didn't intend to shoot the intruder - I believe what Oscar means is that he didn't plan to kill the intruder and that he didn't have time to reflect on what he was doing. He is not saying that the gun went off by accident or that he had no control over pulling the trigger - he concedes that he pulled the trigger and that it did not go off accidentally.

When he says he didn't intend to shoot or kill the intruder, he seems to be meaning that he didn't want it to come to that - he didn't want to have to shoot anyone or kill anyone; that wasn't his "plan" as he approached the bathroom, although he was aware that he might have to shoot to defend himself (and Reeva).

Going back to the first moments of his cross examination, he said "I didn't intend to shoot Reeva, or anyone else for that matter" and he also said that the whole shooting was an "accident." When he first said those things, I thought to myself "OMG, this guy is a screwball and won't even admit that he shot to defend himself." <--- that is what it sounded like! However, now having listened to him for 3 or 4 days, one can better glean his meaning. It's not that he's changing his defense; he's just using a totally different set of terminology to describe it.

Keep in mind that Roux will redirect him, and he will do so in a way that is not pressured or aggressive. I expect much of this to be clarified in redirect examination. If I were in Roux' position, I would also make a point of getting Oscar to acknowledge that he felt great pressure under cross examination and that the manner of questioning was mentally exhausting and impaired his ability to think clearly. I do believe that is some of what we are seeing.
 
I like this. How would you explain the "GET DOWN" that was heard by earwitnesses? Could she have been standing on the bed knowing that he couldn't jump up there and grab her because of his prosthetics?

And where do you think the inside-out fat jeans come in?

Thanks!

I don't remember any ear witnesses saying they heard "GET DOWN"
 
WHY???
The manner of his questioning. He is repeatedly saying things are impossible when in my opinion they are not impossible. One example, he was trying to trip OP up about the duvet. Was the duvet on the bed when he returned to the bedroom or not. Now lets be honest here, if someone has just shot 4 bullets through a door possibly killing someone, whether that shooting was premeditated, done is self defence or in a jealous rage, is it impossible that they would notice whether or not a duvet was on a bed or not? I think even the judge is fed up with him now. Please try to excuse my impatience. I don't know if OP is guilty of premeditated murder or not, but Nel's manner of questioning is damaging OP's chance of a fair trial. Fortunately it is not a jury trial and the judge and her assessors will ensure that a fair trial ensues. I know I will be shot down in flames for my view. So be it.

Prosecutors always do this (when they have the chance of having the defendant on the stand). That's why usually defense attorneys DON"T want their clients on the stand - it is a huge risk and the benefit has to be more than the risk.

Nel reminds me a lot of Juan Martinez in his attention to detail. Some prosecutors, I have noticed during the trial-watching I've done, don't have that "talent." I have watched a couple where the prosecutors did a, IMO, not-so-good job with the defendant on the stand.

JMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
160
Guests online
2,372
Total visitors
2,532

Forum statistics

Threads
600,440
Messages
18,108,810
Members
230,991
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top