Trial Discussion Thread #45 - 14.07.3, Day 36

foxbluff said:

I agree. IMHO, I've always considered that they may very well have been watching *advertiser censored* together.

Click to expand...

.. so why would he say she was downstairs cooking chicken stir fry at the time then, if that really was the case they watched it together?

I've been busy travelling for work and am just catching up on this week. Did this witness say that he didn't read the record of what has gone on thus far and then later say that he had to read the record AGAIN to be sure of what he was talking about?

This psych delay ruined this trial for me. It was going to end before my work went crazy and now I have less time to think about this.

I see what you mean.

I don't know abt you (or others), but since all this time of reading all OP's different versions of events, I can't rely on anything he says.

Just jumping off your post here: Something that I've noticed throughout following this trial, is that there are many posters who don't believe OP's version of events, excepting, imo, so many seem to accept that RS must have eaten around 1 am by herself. My guess has always been that they both ate at 1 am (I'm hoping I have the time right).

ETA: ooops... I meant this as a reply to jay-jay's post...

Viper said:

Is there a mobile device viewing option? I could not find it in the user CP. I'm going to go blind reading here, I cannot even see the names of the posters! LOL!!!

Click to expand...

Here's where you can ask questions about the new format:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...MESSAGE-to-MEMBERS-ONLY*forum-upgrade*/page14

HTH

MeeBee said:

I'm not sure that's what people were saying. It's not at people don't argue about *advertiser censored* or that it doesn't bother some women, of course it does. What people were saying was that watching *advertiser censored*, any time, whether your girlfriend is in the house or not, is not a sign of OP or anyone being a terrible or evil person, as others were saying. It's dumb and probably not right. But not, IMO, a condemnable, horrible act. He's a guy. That's what guys do. Now, did it lead to an argument? Sure, it's possible. And personally, it doesn't bother me. My husband watches *advertiser censored*. I don't really care.

Click to expand...

I have to agreed with your post that surfing *advertiser censored*, bad sex or the lack of any sex that night played any part in Reeva's barbaric murder at the hands of her superstar sports celebrity bf OP in the early hours of Valentine's day. Any theory that surfing *advertiser censored* at 8:30 pm and fighting over it for the next six hours by any couple who were supposed to be madly in love and couldn't be happier is an exaggeration that the prosecution realized would deal a body blow to their comprehensive case against OP.

jay-jay said:

.. so why would he say she was downstairs cooking chicken stir fry at the time then, if that really was the case they watched it together?

Click to expand...

I'm guessing because he had also said what a good christian RS was, praying for him all the time.... I believe one of her texts had kind of referred to this type of thing though, when she said she wasn't a prude.

MeeBee said:

I'm not sure, but was he sleeping on the balcony side or the other side? I remember him saying something about airing his legs out by the open balcony doors while he slept. In thought he was also sleeping on the balcony side but this part has got me all over her place.

Click to expand...

OP claimed he was sleeping on the LHS of the bed (that being from the perspective of someone looking towards the bed) so on the side nearer the bathroom, not the balcony side. Ipad was on the floor on the balcony side. Legs were at the foot of the bed, I think on the RHS.

OP said he normally slept on the RHS, but was on the LHS on account of an injury to his right shoulder.

That's how I remember his account anyway.

eimajjjj

Originally Posted by Judgejudi
[snipped]

Have you just pretty much copied, edited and pasted my post from before (below) or is ths mere coincidence?!
===============================================================================


I'd say coincidence.

katydid23 said:

I'd say coincidence.

Click to expand...

Okay, katy, I'll bite... coincidence about what?

Viper said:

Is there a mobile device viewing option? I could not find it in the user CP. I'm going to go blind reading here, I cannot even see the names of the posters! LOL!!!

Click to expand...

I can't find a thank you button.. Maybe team op walk out with it....
Regarding the small fan that had its cord under a speaker nel showed op a close up of the extension cord and there was not a spare socket to plug it into....
Can't remember op response tho..
Doh!

Ncl1968 said:

I can't find a thank you button.. Maybe team op walk out with it....
Regarding the small fan that had its cord under a speaker nel showed op a close up of the extension cord and there was not a spare socket to plug it into....
Can't remember op response tho..
Doh!

Click to expand...

Bottom left of post in the grey bar.

Chelly said:

Near the start of the trial, I suggested an argument between Reeva and OP may have developed due to OP's viewing *advertiser censored* while Reeva was visiting. I was told that young people today of both sexes consider *advertiser censored* "no big deal" and probably not worthy of an argument.

Click to expand...

I don,t think the *advertiser censored* had anything to do with the argument. Reevas contract with CapacityRelationsr could have caused conflict. The marketing company had created a very solid plan for her to generate more money so she could pay her bills and help out her parents, and according to Sarit Tomlinson of Capacity Relations , it was very important that she follow that path. This would have conflicted with oscars plans of her joining him on overseas tours, and he had already asked his manager to book plane tickets etc for her.
JMO.

I wonder if Sarit Tomlinson of Capacity Relations would make a useful witness IF the State decides to reopen the case.

DT has led character evidence that OP had made plans for RS to accompany him… if Capacity Relations can show that RS could not have accompanied OP this would be significant.

OP stated that he 'helped' RS with her contract after dinner on 13 February 2013… this could be 'the' or 'one of the' factors that triggered the argument which escalated.

Getting back to the word "ran", it is interesting to note that in Oscar affidavit he only uses the word "ran" AFTER he had put on his prosthetics.
Could this mean he used that word in error when talking to Prof Derman, hence the Prof had to ask OP whT did he mean when he said the word ran.

Regarding the testimony of the last few days and how terribly unstable Oscar apparently is without his legs it's worth remembering this

Mr Pistorius said the gunshots left his ears ringing, and he kept on shouting for Ms Steenkamp to phone the police. He said he retreated back to the bedroom and found Ms Steenkamp was not in bed.

"At that point, the first thing I thought was maybe she got down onto the floor like I told her to, maybe she was just scared... I can't remember what I said but I was trying to talk out to her.

"It was upon that time, my Lady, that it first dawned upon me that it could be Reeva that was in the bathroom or in the toilet. I jumped out of the other side of the bed and I ran my hands along the curtains to see that she wasn't hiding.

"I didn't want to believe it was Reeva in the toilet, I was so scared that someone was coming in to attack us. I made my way inside the bathroom... I tried to grab the handle, rip open the door. I pushed the door to open and it was locked.

"I ran back to the room, I opened the curtains, opened the doors(with cocked gun in hand) and shouted from the balcony for help. I screamed, 'Help, help, help.' I screamed for somebody to help me.

"I put my prosthetic legs on. I ran as far as I could back to the bathroom, I ran into the door. It didn't move at all. I tried to kick the door but nothing happened."

Now does what we've heard from Mr Derman tie up with this "Version".

A. When startled by a real or imagined threat, individuals have 3 possible primal non-cognitive responses : FREEZE or FLIGHT or FIGHT

B. As time elapses from the initial startle, the response abates and the cognitive brain regains control.

C. Oscar Pistorius has developed from early childhood a dominating fight response because of his vulnerability


Startle #1 - Bathroom window slams open

– OP froze in place for a moment

This reaction is consistent with a freeze response contrary to his dominating fight response

When he 'unfroze', OP was regaining his cognitive mind and his following actions clearly indicate a cognitive process.

– OP rushed as quick as he could to get his gun
– OP grabbed his gun from underneath the bed
– OP removed his gun from the holster
– OP disengaged the safety on his gun
– OP whispered to RS to get down and phone the police
– OP proceeded in the passageway to the bathroom with firearm extended in front of him
– OP shouted for the intruders to get out of his house
– OP shouted for RS to get down and phone the police
– OP stopped shouting as he approached the end of the passageway

These actions must come from a thinking mind : we find precise actions, awareness of possible threat scenarios, self-preservation tactics, etc.

A primal non-cognitive response could NOT have produced such a deliberate and reasoned succession of actions.


Startle #2 - Toilet door slams shut

– OP proceeded into the bathroom entrance pressing against the wall on the left-hand side

This confrontational act of moving towards a perceived threat is certainly consistent with a fight response.

Surprisingly and contrary to his response to the 1st startle, OP did NOT freeze at all.

The following actions seem to indicate the abatement of the primal response and the return of the cognitive mind.

– OP noticed that the bathroom window was indeed open
– OP peered around the corner to where the shower is and saw nobody
– OP retreated a step or two
– OP screamed for RS to phone the police
– OP kept pointing the firearm at the toilet door whilst keeping an eye on the window
– OP stood there for some time

These actions must come from a thinking mind : we find precise actions, awareness of possible threat scenarios, self-preservation tactics, etc.

This indicates that the fight response had indeed abated.

Interestingly, after hearing the bathroom window slam open and hearing the toilet door slam close, OP's dominating fight response ONLY takes him as far as confirming that the bathroom window is indeed open, that the toilet door is indeed closed and waiting patiently for a 3rd startle !!


Startle #3 - Sound of wood moving inside the toilet cubicle

– OP immediately fired 4 shots at the door in rapid succession

This aggressive act is surely consistent with a fight response.

Surprisingly and contrary to his reaction to the 1st startle, OP did NOT freeze at all.

OP's actions immediately after the shooting are quite surprising

– OP's ears were ringing from the gunshots
– OP was scared to retreat because he wasn’t sure if someone was on the ladder or in the toilet

OP is now even more vulnerable than before : he is on his stumps, in the dark and now he is partially deaf… the 3 startles were purely of an auditory nature… now OP could no longer rely on his hearing to perceive threats... his anxiety and fight response should now be even greater !

OP stated that he perceived further threats on a ladder and in the toilet BUT his heightened fight response does NOT make him confront those perceived threats at all !!… how is this possible ?!?

Instead, OP stated that he wanted to retreat, which would be a flight response but couldn't because he was scared, which would be a freeze response.

– OP stood in bathroom for a while
– OP kept on shouting for RS to phone the police
– OP retreated backwards to the bedroom

3 successive startles have led OP to shoot 4 times at a perceived threat but WITHOUT any confirmation or even any indication of the absence of the other perceived threats, OP consciously decides to retreat.

This indicates that the fight response has abated AND with the return of his cognitive mind, OP's choice is to retreat.

Interestingly enough, OP's cognitive mind had also returned after the 1st and 2nd startles BUT OP NEVER choose to retreat on those occasions !?!


Even if one believes every single word of Oscar's latest version of events, Oscar's actions contradict Wayne Derman's expert testimony.

Yet another Defence witness which contradicts Oscar Pistorius… at least the Defence is perfectly consistent and predictable… that's at least something, isn't it ?

AJ_DS said:

I wonder if Sarit Tomlinson of Capacity Relations would make a useful witness IF the State decides to reopen the case.

DT has led character evidence that OP had made plans for RS to accompany him… if Capacity Relations can show that RS could not have accompanied OP this would be significant.

OP stated that he 'helped' RS with her contract after dinner on 13 February 2013… this could be 'the' or 'one of the' factors that triggered the argument which escalated.

Click to expand...

Agreed!


OT. I absolutely love your avatar! I'm so jealous!

Brazil 2 - Colombia 1 (Colombia's one goal was thanks to a BS penalty kick that they should not have been given! But I digress. :smile

partial quote

james83 said:

"I didn't want to believe it was Reeva in the toilet, I was so scared that someone was coming in to attack us. I made my way inside the bathroom... I tried to grab the handle, rip open the door. I pushed the door to open and it was locked.

"I ran back to the room, I opened the curtains, opened the doors(with cocked gun in hand) and shouted from the balcony for help. I screamed, 'Help, help, help.' I screamed for somebody to help me.

"I put my prosthetic legs on. I ran as far as I could back to the bathroom, I ran into the door. It didn't move at all. I tried to kick the door but nothing happened."

Now does what we've heard from Mr Derman tie up with this "Version".

Click to expand...

If accurate, it partially supports Derman's contention that the trial record shows OP as saying he ran on his stumps at some point. Not towards the bathroom mind you, but back towards the bedroom.

Weird situation.

Feynman said:

partial quoteIf accurate, it partially supports Derman's contention that the trial record shows OP as saying he ran on his stumps at some point. Not towards the bathroom mind you, but back towards the bedroom.

Weird situation.

Click to expand...

Nel argued with Oldwage about this at length. OP said that he ran to the passage. He then moved slowly like a Ninja, but he did say that he ran to the passage. So he ran before he killed her and he ran afterwards, on his stumps. I believe him, too bad Dr. D does not. OP also walked to the bathroom on his stumps to brush his teeth and walked back on his stumps to get back in to bed. Either OP has mobility on his stumps, as he testified that he does, or he does not have mobility on his stumps, as Dr. D wants us to now believe. This is the DT version(s), LOL!

Viper said:

Nel argued with Oldwage about this at length. OP said that he ran to the passage. He then moved slowly like a Ninja, but he did say that he ran to the passage. So he ran before he killed her and he ran afterwards, on his stumps. I believe him, too bad Dr. D does not. OP also walked to the bathroom on his stumps to brush his teeth and walked back on his stumps to get back in to bed. Either OP has mobility on his stumps, as he testified that he does, or he does not have mobility on his stumps, as Dr. D wants us to now believe. This is the DT version(s), LOL!

Click to expand...

BBM - in his affidavit, he went from having 'mobility' on his stumps to 'limited mobility', and then to running here and rushing there