Trial Discussion Thread #29

lisasalinger said:

Respectfully snipped and BBM

Don't be fooled that this was just an oversight on his behalf and he later clarified his story. He flat out changed his story.

He originally thought he had the best "story" when he said that Reeva was sleeping in his bail affidavit until he was pressed with the following facts:

1. Nobody would ever believe that he didn't warn her about the danger before he charged in to the bathroom with a gun, hence the "low tone" instruction of "get down and call the police." NOTE: The "low tone" instruction of get down and call the police" was not in his bail affidavit.

2. People needed to know how he knew that she was in the bed. If he hadn't seen or heard her before he got up, how did he KNOW she was in the bed. In order for his story to work, he has to fully believe she is there, hence the addition of speaking. NOTE: The speaking to Reeva was not in his bail affidavit.

3. And then add in several neighbors hearing a woman screaming in terror and that ruins his perceived intruder story so HE needed to become the one doing the screaming which he states he was doing immediately upon entering the passage (explaining why she was locked away in a dark toilet room). NOTE: The relentless screaming was not in his bail affidavit.

The only reason he changed his story was to accommodate these facts of the case.

Why does somebody need to constantly change and adapt their story? Because they are lying. There is no other reason.

Click to expand...

Its truly mindblowing how people have fell for the smoke and mirror's nonsense used by the defence.
One person who I guarantee wont be fooling for it is Judge Masipa, justice for Reeva is coming.

K.T said:

I want to talk more about Pistorius behavior, what he said about his actions on the night as well as his manner on the stand (thanks for the link to the editor who reports they heard he took 'acting' classes). Especially in regard to narcissism, fame and insecurity. I think it's fascinating but can only write occasionally though I try to keep up ☺:

We couldn’t see his reactions on television and this profiler was in court and states there was a divide between his emotional and physical reactions. Just to be clear, if you actually feeling the emotions and are crying your body’s involuntary physical reactions should match up with the facial or verbal actions, it's acting more than reacting.

Criminologist Laurie Pieters on the Oscar Channel
http://oscartrial.dstv.com/video/512794/category/0



Dr Mitch Abrams Sports Pyschology on ‘Athletes and Violence’
DR. MITCH ABRAMS - Pistorius Sport Psychology interview - YouTube

Click to expand...

Well, just a guess here, but I don't think that OP will have Dr. Abrams testify on his behalf! LOL

I'm dreading the psycholgical testimony, when it comes. Offering complex mentality excuses for committing murder just infuriates me! On the other hand I know many folks here are enthusiasts of that field, so I thought I would share a video interview of a psychologist that OP would have testify on his behalf. I could not tolerate the introduction so I skipped forward, at 3:00 she starts making sense, a little bit any way :smile:

http://oscartrial.dstv.com/video/512564/category/0

Gbtaketwo said:

Totally agree and just said the same thing on the previous page following on from Vipers earlier post.
IMO it shows he was thinking clearly and was not in a blind panic in fear of his life . Have said this before if I were in that position I would have peppered the whole of that door high and low until I had emptied the magazine .
The grouping of those shots just do not look like random panic stricken shots with the gun held with just one hand.
Although I thought The states Ballistics guy to be a good witness I do wish he had stressed this point a bit more unless of course I have missed something there.

Click to expand...

At the point Mangena testified Pistorius's version of firing one handed by "accident" wasn't known to him or the state, all they knew from Oscar at the time was he heard movement in the toilet and fired.

BlueShoe said:

Wow! Thanks for your thumbnail. Not only does it show the window light, but unless that is a giant standing at the window, it shows how easily a person might be seen walking by. If on his stumps, Oscar would probably be a bit shorter, but not that much (I believe he would only be shorter by the length of one of our poster's hands).

Click to expand...

Thanks.

I did lol at that. :smile:

steveml said:

I've often thought that if Reeva was alive in the toilet whilst OP was breaking down the door, she had an opportunity to try and attract outside attention.

Wooden magazine rack smashing the glass toilet window would be quite a logical action.

Click to expand...

I also definitely think that and was my first thought so stated that a while back ,in fact if she thought he had a gun and was about to shot she may have even smashed it with her bare hands , I would do anything to attract attention under those circumstances Then as the trial unfolded I read about her being close to the door I just assumed she obviously didn't expect to be shot until of course she was.
I feel if she had any idea he had his gun in his hand after attempting to attract attention she would have been behind the wall on the left of the door ,or crouched down making herself as small as possible or stood up on the loo itself.
Basically I would have been anywhere in that loo other than in front of the door.
I think she may well have been frightened but not necessarily by the gun until the moment she was shot .
If she was in there terrified by the threat of the imaginary intruder then i can't accept that she would then be moving around ?
Lots of thoughts are continually swirling around in my mind which may well be answered by the end of the trial.

james83 said:

At the point Mangena testified Pistorius's version of firing one handed by "accident" wasn't known to him or the state, all they knew from Oscar at the time was he heard movement in the toilet and fired.

Click to expand...

It is a shame that Magena could not be recalled after OP gave his evidence to comment specifically on the aiming and grouping of the shots by someone one handed . Hopefully though Nel will make this point during his closing arguments .

kittychi said:

OJ Simpson did the same thing during his trial. IMO he was likely advised to take notes, etc. because he would be on camera and it would be a way for him to look composed rather than flinching and/or freaking out while sitting there.

IMO Same with Oscar. On camera. I can't explain the puking and crying though. Hard to imagine that was advice from his counsel.

Click to expand...

He'll have been heavily coached for sure, though I expect most of it will be fruitless as there's no jury to be swayed.

Yep, I agree. note taking is probably more characteristic of some of the higher profile televised cases.
I've not seen much of this during murder trials I've viewed in court. It may be that defendants are more passive in the UK
as you could easily forget the accused was there on most occasions.

Viper said:

Well, just a guess here, but I don't think that OP will have Dr. Abrams testify on his behalf! LOL

I'm dreading the psycholgical testimony, when it comes. Offering complex mentality excuses for committing murder just infuriates me! On the other hand I know many folks here are enthusiasts of that field, so I thought I would share a video interview of a psychologist that OP would have testify on his behalf. I could not tolerate the introduction so I skipped forward, at 3:00 she starts making sense, a little bit any way :smile:

http://oscartrial.dstv.com/video/512564/category/0

Click to expand...

I couldn't make it skip forward, but in the intro Dr. Pender describes what the brain does when gripped by a sudden fear - the emotional part of the brain "high-jacks" the thinking part of the brain which results in"
1) a strong response 2) which is immediate 3) and wholly inappropriate

That could be very true, but what was his fear at the time? Not the mythical intruder imo, but Reeva living to tell what had occurred between them that last hour or so. And in the moment, Reeva's screams rousing the neighbors to summon police.

nastasya said:

It is my belief that reasonable people like the judge will find this absurd considering OP was holding a 9 mm Parabellum loaded with black talon bullets, and since he willfully placed himself in the room with the perceived danger, directly in front of the person he claimed to be afraid of, when he had multiple alternatives, like leaving the bedroom.

Click to expand...

What is even more unreasonable and absurd is that he never once eyeballed the room or his surroundings to see Reeva...not one confirmation that she was okay....come on that to me is a no brainer and right there shows something is terribly off with his "version". That together with not one but four shorts (not random but close together) tells the story. Sleuthers can analyze the evidence and inconsistencies etc. but at the end of the day these facts remain. He did not try to find Reeva at all because he knew where she was.

Gbtaketwo said:

I also definitely think that and was my first thought so stated that a while back ,in fact if she thought he had a gun and was about to shot she may have even smashed it with her bare hands , I would do anything to attract attention under those circumstances Then as the trial unfolded I read about her being close to the door I just assumed she obviously didn't expect to be shot until of course she was.
I feel if she had any idea he had his gun in his hand after attempting to attract attention she would have been behind the wall on the left of the door ,or crouched down making herself as small as possible or stood up on the loo itself.
Basically I would have been anywhere in that loo other than in front of the door.
I think she may well have been frightened but not necessarily by the gun until the moment she was shot .
If she was in there terrified by the threat of the imaginary intruder then i can't accept that she would then be moving around ?
Lots of thoughts are continually swirling around in my mind which may well be answered by the end of the trial.

Click to expand...

Breaking the window would be my first instinct, if I had some time to gather my thoughts.

Then again if I saw someone holding a gun, I'd probably just panic.

I didn't want it to come across as if I was suggesting Reeva should have used the magazine rack on the window, as we never really know what we'll do in such a situation.
Reeva shouldn't have needed to do anything.

jassy writer said:

I find it interesting that you are prepared to defend so vigorously somebody who has now been caught out on at least two blatant lies during his cross examination. The Tasha's incident alone has made it clear to everyone including the judge that OP is not a credible witness, as he claimed his finger was not on the trigger of a gun that can only fire if there is trigger pull.

You need to go and do more research, and perhaps read up on more educated opinions from those who have analysed this trial.

Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't reply to you earlier. So you believe that I was ignorant of the Tasha incident? ;-) I watched Nel CE OP on it last week. If you're referring in part to his having said he didn't have his finger on the trigger when the gun went off, I might refer you to the comment made by Kelly Phelps of CNN while reviewing that testimony, in which she pointed out that OP would have merely been laying out the skeleton of his defense there, keeping in mind that most of the DT's witnesses have yet to testify, and that one or more will no doubt counter the charge (and contradict the State witness) that this gun (which I seem to recall was a Glock) can't go off accidentally.

As to why I don't just simply follow the crowd and proclaim OP guilty, I am utterly faithful to the universal principle of common justice that an accused party is innocent unless and until proven guilty in a just court of law.

So far I don't see any smoking gun. I do of course see some of the same inconsistencies that others see, but I don't see how they necessarily amount to very much more than a year now after the fact, or that they modify or incontrovertibly conflict with the core of OP's defense, and so for now I have to conclude that his version is essentially true.

In stating that, I'm neither biased towards or against OP. I neither support him nor do I condemn him. What I support is his right to a fair trial with regard to the above-mentioned principle. How often have people been totally convinced of a person's guilt only to be proven entirely wrong? I've been guilty of this myself many times, and many have accused me of actions, too, of which I was entirely innocent. So I'm entirely wary of rushing to judgement about anyone, especially when the DT have only more or less begun to present their case in earnest, and besides, I don't yet see any smoking gun, as I say.

Gbtaketwo said:

It is a shame that Magena could not be recalled after OP gave his evidence to comment specifically on the aiming and grouping of the shots by someone one handed . Hopefully though Nel will make this point during his closing arguments .

Click to expand...

Yep its a great shame because he or any other honest ballistics expert would have ripped the idea of it to pieces.

Emz73 said:

Just wanted to say my sisters a lawyer in the UK, she believes he didn't know Reeva was behind the door because she felt sorry for him when he cried/howled on the stand!

So much for any inside help for me *rolls eyes*

Click to expand...

Additional "roll eyes"....my take in that sometimes the most volatile personalities who respond inappropriately in life (this OP situation being the worst case ) are the most bereaved after they act. His wailing is for many reasons and real. Many terrible killers have wailed after. Just because he is not stoic and unemotional does not mean he did not mean to do just what he did. OP is a very sick man and a threat to others.

steveml said:

Breaking the window would be my first instinct, if I had some time to gather my thoughts.

Then again if I saw someone holding a gun, I'd probably just panic.

I didn't want it to come across as if I was suggesting Reeva should have used the magazine rack on the window, as we never really know what we'll do in such a situation.
Reeva shouldn't have needed to do anything.

Click to expand...

Don't worry I didn't think that for a moment
I doubt that there is anyone on the whole of this forum that would think that Reeva did anything wrong at all. The ONLY person that did something wrong was OP

Has anyone seen this 'map' before? It is rather different from the one we have had posted already. It makes more sense if this is really where Van Der Merwe lives. It also makes clearer where the Burgers live and how there were no intervening houses to block noise at the time.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/211391077/CSI-Oscar-Pistorius

Gbtaketwo said:

It is a shame that Magena could not be recalled after OP gave his evidence to comment specifically on the aiming and grouping of the shots by someone one handed . Hopefully though Nel will make this point during his closing arguments .

Click to expand...

I read somewhere that two gun experts were on Roux's list, but after Dixon, his list might be undergoing major revisions. I'd be surprised not to hear from someone familiar with OP's Glock re sound/handling.

Gbtaketwo said:

It is a shame that Magena could not be recalled after OP gave his evidence to comment specifically on the aiming and grouping of the shots by someone one handed . Hopefully though Nel will make this point during his closing arguments .

Click to expand...

In case you missed it earlier in the thread, this is what Defence Attorney, Martin Hood, licenced firearm holder and expert witness, said on Sky news about the grouping.
------------------------

"The evidence has been that Oscar was shooting one handedly from a position where the gun was at his waist level, and in my experience, and I own more than one firearm, in order to shoot a group like that, you have to have a very firm grip on the firearm, and normally that group is with two hands. And the fact that the group is relatively small, shows that Oscar knew how to hold the fiream properly, and in all probability in my view, and if I were called to be an expert, I would say this - he held it with two hands, and he held it very deliberately to get that grouping at that level.

When you're holding a firearm with one hand, and you're in that very excited state of mind that Pistorius said he was in, you're going to have a lot of shake, and you're not going to get such a small group as that. It's going to be all over the place. The fact that it isn't, in my view suggests that he had far more control than he actually is prepared to admit".

DebinGA said:

I read somewhere that two gun experts were on Roux's list, but after Dixon, his list might be undergoing major revisions. I'd be surprised not to hear from someone familiar with OP's Glock re sound/handling.

Click to expand...

Yes I agree.
I would imagine there will be a lot of defence evidence being looked at again during this break in light of Op's and other defence testimony .

Viper said:

Well, just a guess here, but I don't think that OP will have Dr. Abrams testify on his behalf! LOL

I'm dreading the psycholgical testimony, when it comes. Offering complex mentality excuses for committing murder just infuriates me! On the other hand I know many folks here are enthusiasts of that field, so I thought I would share a video interview of a psychologist that OP would have testify on his behalf. I could not tolerate the introduction so I skipped forward, at 3:00 she starts making sense, a little bit any way :smile:

http://oscartrial.dstv.com/video/512564/category/0

Click to expand...

Sorry can't buy it! No excuse for murder IMO. FFS these 'ideas' are only 'theories'. Let's get a grip here and not be blindsided by purported 'theories': ‎Limbic system - ‎Amygdala hijack - ‎Amygdala (disambiguation) - ‎Fear conditioning. OP should have normal executive function. Whether or not this 'phenomena' applied to OP that night no one can tell. He reported it all retrospectively! It is not a fact in this case. What has his fear conditioning been? Let's get some specific evidence. To the contrary he demonstrates that he handles fear and can focus extraordinarily well to compete at high levels in Olympics conditions etc.

turaj said:

What is even more unreasonable and absurd is that he never once eyeballed the room or his surroundings to see Reeva...not one confirmation that she was okay....come on that to me is a no brainer and right there shows something is terribly off with his "version". That together with not one but four shorts (not random but close together) tells the story. Sleuthers can analyze the evidence and inconsistencies etc. but at the end of the day these facts remain. He did not try to find Reeva at all because he knew where she was.

Click to expand...

Last sentence.

And that is exactly what he said in the witness box when asked why didnt he call out for her in the house, look for her elsewhere, ie that she may have gone out of the bedroom door. He said whywaste time when you know someones in the toilet. If he didnt know it was her he would have had gun handy whilst bashing the door down as intruders might still be in there.

This was in his last day of testimony.

I guess everyone interprets words according to their own mind set but still.... he didnt look for her anywhere calling her name/ where are you did he? Did he even try ringing her phone? Why did he feel for her in the dark in the bedroom and behind the curtains and not "whisper" at least to her?

Bleurgh