Trial Discussion Thread #48

ColonelMustard · Jul 17, 2014

Lux et Veritas said:
Oscar Mystery #948 - OP actually expected to find Reeva still in bed after FOUR LOUD gunshots?!! Seriously???

Wouldn’t a reasonable woman be terrified and scream out to her boyfriend to confirm he was safe - not knowing if it was HE who had been shot?!!! (Remember, it was “pitch black” and Reeva couldn’t possibly see who was shooting in the bathroom.)

Yet OP insists that Reeva never, ever said one word, never made one sound and never screamed that entire time. Not only that, she NEVER called the police as OP repeatedly instructed her! 100% pure bullsh#t. His version is simply not in the realm of possibility. If I heard even one gunshot, never mind four, I’d be hiding, running, screaming, calling 911 or all of the above.

Gunshots do not elicit silence - they elicit raw, primal FEAR.

I've been thinking about this issue ever since Nel was challenging OP on it. Everyone is different. If there's a minority on this, I'm in it.

Before I go on, that I have to preface my statement by saying there's no WAY that I wouldn't initially communicate about a noise I heard. Whether I were OP - OR - Reeva, I would - 150% - say, "Did you hear that?" or "What was that?" (of course, mine would be liberally peppered with expletives.)

After that, I would say NOTHING - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!! If I stayed in the room, if I was in the toilet, wherever I was I would say NOTHING. Also, in the bedroom, I would NOT stay on the bed. If I was in the toilet, I would NOT stand facing the door. That's just me.

I watched a documentary on the Columbine High School shootings. It wasn't the same thing but there were plenty of people just like me. Immediately after the shootings, the "rescuers" couldn't get kids and teachers who were hiding to say where they were or get them to come out. They were too terrified that the original shooters - or other shooters - were out there and/or that the rescuers themselves weren't a ruse. Nobody knew who anybody was and who was friend or foe. ( In that example, some of the students' friends were the foes.

Until I was 10000000% sure that --- I ---- knew what was going on and could assess FOR MYSELF the threat level/safety level, I wouldn't move or say one word or make a sound.

Had there been an intruder that night and Reeva had called the police, there's no telling whether, if she had said anything or made any quick moves, the police wouldn't have shot HER! That stuff happens...

Nope, I'd lie there and pretend that I was dead --- if the fright hadn't already killed me, first.

Lux et Veritas · Jul 17, 2014

Oscar Mystery #9,675 - Fact: OP wears glasses (one must assume he wears contacts when he’s without glasses). Fact: Police crime scene photos show OP 1) standing in the garage and 2) being taken away to the police station. In NO photos is he shown wearing glasses. WHY?

Only two explanations are possible.

#1 He didn’t bother putting on his glasses to see the “intruder” before he shot four bullets through the closed door. (Wouldn’t one logically first put on their glasses to clearly confront danger, especially when handling a gun, especially on stumps? This guy thought it was smart to go into “battle” with TWO self-inflicted disadvantages - although a 9mm is a great equalizer.)
#2 He was wearing his contacts. WHY?

Only two explanations are possible.

#1 He somehow found time to stop and put on his contacts - all while trying to “find” Reeva, bash down the toilet door, put on his legs, pull Reeva from the toilet, cry over Reeva for X minutes, scream on the balcony, use the phone multiple times, go downstairs to open the door and back up again, carry Reeva downstairs, retrieve tape and plastic bags, try to “save” Reeva, retrieve Reeva’s handbag and puke multiple times in the kitchen. (Could you put in contacts with shaky, bloody hands?)
#2 He was wearing his contacts the ENTIRE time - he never removed them. WHY was he wearing contacts @ 3:15am if, as he claimed, he went to sleep at 10pm?

Only one explanation is possible.

OP is a 100% liar. His entire story is false. They never went to sleep at 10pm but were both awake from 6pm up till the shooting (it doesn’t help OP’s case that he’s a self-admitted insomniac - see @oscarpistorius).

A simple case of absent glasses helps explain at least two crucial things: Food in Reeva’s stomach from a 1am meal is absolutely not only possible but probable and Mrs. Van der Merwe hearing intermittent arguing between 1:56am and about 3am is validated.

ColonelMustard · Jul 17, 2014

AJ_DS said:
Thanks ColonelMustard.

I would hate to have to disappoint you but there is noting particularly significant about the timing of the message… the only thing is that Reeva most probably sent a Whatsapp message just before she activated a Hotspot on her phone to be able able to work on the laptop computer.

The content of that message is the important bit… as Nel indicated to Masipa to go and have a look in the Whatsapp data.

I can't really speculate on the content of the message... there is absolutely no information to infer its content

However, I strongly suspect Nel would not have gone to all the trouble to specifically point out this GPRS connection if the Whatsapp message was irrelevant to the State's case… and the fact that Roux did not address it at all means that it is not helpful to the Defence.

Hope this helps … feel free to ask more questions if I was not clear enough… english not my first language and I suck at typing !!

Hope this helps

… feel free to ask more questions if I was not clear enough… english not my first language and I suck at typing !!

HAAAAA! English is my first language so I have NO excuses! BY the way, your Eglish is actually EXCELLENT and so is your typing!!

1. Will Masipa and (those other two people up there) get all sorts of photos and whatsapp messages that may never have been mentioned / shown in court to us? Like, Nel reads out 10 but they get all 7,000 that exist?

2. Do the SA police videotape crime scenes or only take photos?

3. Nel was frustrated about where OP was saying he put down the two fans and finally told him to show the exact spot(s) with the pointer. Wouldn't that be the FIRST thing I'd want to get the accused to do?

ColonelMustard · Jul 17, 2014

Lux et Veritas said:
Oscar Mystery #9,675 - Fact: OP wears glasses (one must assume he wears contacts when he’s without glasses). Fact: Police crime scene photos show OP 1) standing in the garage and 2) being taken away to the police station. In NO photos is he shown wearing glasses. WHY?

Only two explanations are possible.

#1 He didn’t bother putting on his glasses to see the “intruder” before he shot four bullets through the closed door. (Wouldn’t one logically first put on their glasses to clearly confront danger, especially when handling a gun, especially on stumps? This guy thought it was smart to go into “battle” with TWO self-inflicted disadvantages - although a 9mm is a great equalizer.)
#2 He was wearing his contacts. WHY?

Only two explanations are possible.

#1 He somehow found time to stop and put on his contacts - all while trying to “find” Reeva, bash down the toilet door, put on his legs, pull Reeva from the toilet, cry over Reeva for X minutes, scream on the balcony, use the phone multiple times, go downstairs to open the door and back up again, carry Reeva downstairs, retrieve tape and plastic bags, try to “save” Reeva, retrieve Reeva’s handbag and puke multiple times in the kitchen. (Could you put in contacts with shaky, bloody hands?)
#2 He was wearing his contacts the ENTIRE time - he never removed them. WHY was he wearing contacts @ 3:15am if, as he claimed, he went to sleep at 10pm?

Only one explanation is possible.

OP is a 100% liar. His entire story is false. They never went to sleep at 10pm but were both awake from 6pm up till the shooting (it doesn’t help OP’s case that he’s a self-admitted insomniac - see @oscarpistorius).

A simple case of absent glasses helps explain at least two crucial things: Food in Reeva’s stomach from a 1am meal is absolutely not only possible but probable and Mrs. Van der Merwe hearing intermittent arguing between 1:56am and about 3am is validated.

It's a longshot but I know a few people who wear glasses without prescriptions only for "style."

Lux et Veritas · Jul 17, 2014

ColonelMustard said:
I've been thinking about this issue ever since Nel was challenging OP on it. Everyone is different. If there's a minority on this, I'm in it.

Before I go on, that I have to preface my statement by saying there's no WAY that I wouldn't initially communicate about a noise I heard. Whether I were OP - OR - Reeva, I would - 150% - say, "Did you hear that?" or "What was that?" (of course, mine would be liberally peppered with expletives.)

After that, I would say NOTHING - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!! If I stayed in the room, if I was in the toilet, wherever I was I would say NOTHING. Also, in the bedroom, I would NOT stay on the bed. If I was in the toilet, I would NOT stand facing the door. That's just me.

I watched a documentary on the Columbine High School shootings. It wasn't the same thing but there were plenty of people just like me. Immediately after the shootings, the "rescuers" couldn't get kids and teachers who were hiding to say where they were or get them to come out. They were too terrified that the original shooters - or other shooters - were out there and/or that the rescuers themselves weren't a ruse. Nobody knew who anybody was and who was friend or foe. ( In that example, some of the students' friends were the foes.

Until I was 10000000% sure that --- I ---- knew what was going on and could assess FOR MYSELF the threat level/safety level, I wouldn't move or say one word or make a sound.

Had there been an intruder that night and Reeva had called the police, there's no telling whether, if she had said anything or made any quick moves, the police wouldn't have shot HER! That stuff happens...

Nope, I'd lie there and pretend that I was dead --- if the fright hadn't already killed me, first.

ColonelMustard, thank you, you bring up a very valid point and excellent observation! The phrase "paralyzed with fear" comes to mind. You are absolutely correct that some people do freeze with fear. Could this have happened to Reeva in OP's version? Yes. He, himself, claimed to first freeze with fear (but he very quickly got over it).

However, that still doesn't absolve OP of never first asking Reeva if she too heard the "noise" (he would have then realized she wasn't in bed) and never 100% guaranteeing where she was before he went off to do battle.

Lux et Veritas · Jul 17, 2014

ColonelMustard said:
It's a longshot but I know a few people who wear glasses without prescriptions only for "style."

Mmm...good point. Valid possibility. I will have to think on this even more! LOL

But then that raises another question - if his glasses are non-prescription and fashion only, was he then shooting blind without his contacts (which is even worse for his case!)? And when did he put them on?

Greater Than · Jul 17, 2014

liesbeth said:
You're not wrong. Neither is AJ.

Even if I'm mistaken and you are wrong, you're in good company, Greater Than, because *Gerrie Nel has said he will argue that Oscar is lying and he'll ask the judge to reject his testimony. The judge will have to consider Oscar's version in order to reject it.

I think it's as AJ's said above, it depends on your definition of PPD. And in this case I believe Oscar's version is his defense. You can't separate the two.

I've read your quoted Proved It?-post and I agree with you. The judge will have to decide if she accepts/rejects Oscar's version of PPD before she can decide if it's murder.

What I'm trying to say is that it's true that in a criminal trial the burden of proof usually rests on the State alone. The State must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. And all the defense has to do is create reasonable doubt. If they succeed the accused can not be convicted.

But in a case of putative private defense the accused/Oscar also has a burden of proof. Oscar can't just say, "I shot her. I thought she was an intruder." He has to prove that it was an honest mistake.

So AJ is right. And so are you in your Proved-It? post.

* Point 13 in this link:
http://ewn.co.za/2014/02/21/State-to-rely-on-13-facts-in-Oscar-Pistorius-trial

Edit: Added paragraphs and the last sentence. And I welcome correction.

Edit 2: Here's a link that explains it better than I can.
http://newyorkcriminaldefenseblawg....-by-a-criminal-defense-attorney-april-8-2014/

BBM - THANK YOU! This is exactly why the proper order in which to evaluate the state's case versus the defense's case has had me so conflicted - because each side has its own burden of proof.

I personally find it easier in my mind to prove OP's guilt by disproving his version and his defense. For example, OP claimed he thought an attack was imminent when he heard wood movement because he associated that wood-moving sound with the door opening, but that is disproved by the forensic evidence that Reeva was standing in front of and close to the door. She was nowhere near the magazine rack to bump it and make a wood-moving sound. We could easily do this with almost every element of his version. So in my view, when his version and defense are disproven, the state's case is simultaneously and automatically proven. Add in the eye witnesses' evidence that the bathroom light was on before the gunshots, and the ear witnesses' evidence that there was an argument and that Reeva was heard screaming before and during the gunshots, not only does this further prove his guilt, but it's also possible proof of premeditation.

I still may be completely backwards with how I'm looking at this but IMO, any way you slice it, OP is guilty.

Greater Than · Jul 17, 2014

liesbeth said:
And if this is how the family usually treats him - protecting him and excusing his actions - no wonder he refuses to take responsibility for killing Reeva.

MOO.

Same with Darren Fresco for initially taking the rap for the Tasha's incident because OP asked him to.

They're all enablers.

MOO

Greater Than · Jul 18, 2014

ColonelMustard said:
Is this the kind of tabulation/calculation Masipa and (the other two up there) will do? Will they make lists like this for everything? If not, how will they do it? It's such a MASSIVE amount of info. to cull through.

Another question: Might those three watch/rewatch any/all of live streaming trial videos that we're all watching? To me, how someone says what they say is as important - if sometimes not MORE important - than what they say.

I can't answer how Masipa and the assessors will will weigh out the evidence. I don't even know which side's case she'll consider first. :floorlaugh:

As for watching videos of the live stream, I don't know for sure but I'm inclined to say no. I believe they can only view the exhibits that were entered into evidence, the record, and the notes they took during the witness' testimonies. I could be wrong though.

K.T · Jul 18, 2014

Greater Than said:
Same with Darren Fresco for initially taking the rap for the Tasha's incident because OP asked him to.

They're all enablers.

MOO

Definitely. Plus, the constant public relation misdirection by Pistorius family to call anyone who speaks out about Pistorius aggression “attention seeking” is hypocritical. There is a pattern about Pistorius aggression and there is a pattern about how his family and friends cover-up these incidents.

Pistorius is an athlete whose career was based around media attention-seeking. He hired the most expensive and well-known PR guru’s to stage manage his career, flooded publications with press releases and sound bites. He intensively courted the press to create a brand, doing countless interviews, photo-shoots, advertising campaigns, speaking engagements about his charity, achievements, success, training.
We’ve seen reality television dancing, lifestyle shows like the Seychelles (soon to be ex) girlfriend holiday. He was organizing a ‘celebrity relationship’ Heat magazine cover shoot and interview about Steenkamp (another possible source of friction) just before she was killed.

Meanwhile during the trial the Pistorius clan continually sent out press releases, family statements, did media interviews, schmoozed with the press in the courthouse to promote the accused version of events.

Yet the people that the Pistorius clan and their supporters claim to be “attention seeking” are anyone who spoke out about his aggression or negative incidents, like Cassidy Taylor-Memmory, Fresco and Taylor, Jared Mortimer. Or the boating crash 7 months before he broke the door on Memmory, or the drunken concert incident etc...

Val1 · Jul 18, 2014

ColonelMustard said:
I've been thinking about this issue ever since Nel was challenging OP on it. Everyone is different. If there's a minority on this, I'm in it.

Before I go on, that I have to preface my statement by saying there's no WAY that I wouldn't initially communicate about a noise I heard. Whether I were OP - OR - Reeva, I would - 150% - say, "Did you hear that?" or "What was that?" (of course, mine would be liberally peppered with expletives.)

After that, I would say NOTHING - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!! If I stayed in the room, if I was in the toilet, wherever I was I would say NOTHING. Also, in the bedroom, I would NOT stay on the bed. If I was in the toilet, I would NOT stand facing the door. That's just me.

I watched a documentary on the Columbine High School shootings. It wasn't the same thing but there were plenty of people just like me. Immediately after the shootings, the "rescuers" couldn't get kids and teachers who were hiding to say where they were or get them to come out. They were too terrified that the original shooters - or other shooters - were out there and/or that the rescuers themselves weren't a ruse. Nobody knew who anybody was and who was friend or foe. ( In that example, some of the students' friends were the foes.

Until I was 10000000% sure that --- I ---- knew what was going on and could assess FOR MYSELF the threat level/safety level, I wouldn't move or say one word or make a sound.

Had there been an intruder that night and Reeva had called the police, there's no telling whether, if she had said anything or made any quick moves, the police wouldn't have shot HER! That stuff happens...

Nope, I'd lie there and pretend that I was dead --- if the fright hadn't already killed me, first.

That is assuming of course that RS had heard a noise, any noise, other than the ones she herself had made ...

Otoh, how would you react if your newish bf who you had previously told, in writing no less(barely 2 weeks previously), that he sometimes scared you with the way he reacted(over reacted) to you/things and after a bit of a tiff where you'd stalked off to the bathroom to sulk, opening the bathroom window because you were hot too and he had insisted on closing the only other ventilation in the suite when you suddenly hear him screaming your name and to "Get the *advertiser censored** out of my house? Get the *advertiser censored** out of my house! when you didn't respond initially to his petulance(possibly had even heard him retrieving his gun and cocking it as he "ran" after you taunting you to call the police after you'd "somehow" ended up with non-gunshot related bruises to your front thigh and back of your leg/s?), at which point you closed and possibly locked the toilet room door because you were now "scared" yet again of how he seemed to be over reacting to whatever had been said, seen, done or not done(didn't close the patio doors like he'd asked... or heck maybe even just because he was angry that you had been so inconsiderate of his need for sleep and you'd woken him somehow, maybe by tripping over all that crap by the bed on your way downstairs for a late snack)?

That's the big problem with all this for me, we're only hearing the story(take your pick which version) of the one person who freely admits he did the killing and that is after he's had a year and a whole legal team to study all the evidence against him.

K.T · Jul 18, 2014

Memmory and Mortimer incidents compared:

Pistorius claimed Memmory was drunk, "abusive", in a fight with another partygoer she later kicked his door repeatedly and injured her foot herself. This is the opposite of what Memmory claimed and she won the out-of-court settlement.
“Pistorius says [about Memmory aggression incident] that he had felt threatened, humiliated, scared and vulnerable because of the complaint, arrest and being in custody.” His two friends claimed the police were “incompetent”. (Hello, pattern)
Johan Stander did interviews to defend Pistorius version in the press in 2009: (Hello, Stander)

“Stander added that although Pistorius had thrown numerous parties since he moved in, all of them had been peaceful.
"His parties are loved by everyone, even the old couples at the estate look forward to going to them."
When asked about the incident, Stander said Memory had probably been drunk.
"At parties, alcohol always flows freely, and Memory had a lot to drink. She hit a (stormwater) drain on her way out of the estate," he added.
According to Stoltz, Memory reported the incident to the police only three hours later, and admitted she had been drinking alcohol.
A friend of Pistorius, who did not want to be named, has alleged that Pistorius had been arrested by two incompetent policeman.

Frans Stander, the estate's general manager, this week spoke of his shock at the arrest.
"Oscar is the most decent man you will ever meet in your life. He treats everyone with so much respect and I have never received a complaint about him since his been living here, that's why I was shocked at what had happened," he said.
http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-afr...r-1.459034?ot=inmsa.ArticlePrintPageLayout.ot

Pistorius team claims Mortimer was the "aggressor", abusive, "aggressively interrogating the accused". This is the opposite of what Mortimer said that happened.
Pistorius was feeling “loneliness and alienation” compared to "attention seeking" and "peddling untruths designed for maximum attention and maximum damage" Mortimer. Pistorius and his cousin were in a ‘quiet booth’ until they were inflicted with ‘unwelcome attention’.
Uncle Leo and PR rep Annalise Burgess defend Pistorius and rush to the press after their ‘investigation’.

Pistorius’ family says, however, that Mortimer’s version is untrue.
“My investigations indicate that Mortimer was the aggressor and eyewitnesses confirm this,” said Leo Pistorius.
He also denied that Pistorius had offended the president’s family.
“We wish to categorically state that there is absolutely no truth to this man’s assertions that Oscar, for instance, insulted the president of South Africa or boasted about our family’s so-called influence,” he said.
http://www.citypress.co.za/news/jared-mortimer-just-looking-attention-says-oscar-pistorius-family/

Neither of these Pistorius defenders in 2009 or 2014 were at the incidents but did engage the press and say possibly libelous comments against Memmory and Mortimer.

kittychi · Jul 18, 2014

Lux et Veritas said:
Mmm...good point. Valid possibility. I will have to think on this even more! LOL

But then that raises another question - if his glasses are non-prescription and fashion only, was he then shooting blind without his contacts (which is even worse for his case!)? And when did he put them on?

IMO, brilliant line of thinking there, Lux. :applause:

K.T · Jul 18, 2014

Greater Than said:
OP admitting to ANY wrongdoing? NEVER!!!

Everyone is a liar or simply mistaken. Let's take a look at the list of people OP accuses of lying.

LIARS
Sam Taylor - liar (shot through sunroof)
Daren Fresco - liar (said "one up" at Tasha's/shot through sunroof)
Baba - liar ("everything is fine, security")
Police - liars (moved evidence)
Dr. Stipp - liar (bathroom light on/woman scream)
Mrs. Stipp - liar (bathroom light on/woman scream)
Burger - liar (woman scream)
Johnson - liar (woman scream)
Van der Merwe - liar (arguing/woman scream)
Reeva - liar (scared of him)
Roux - liar (double taps/mistakes on bail application)
Nel - liar (entire case)

Now let's look at, based on evidence, what OP lied about since the DT did not prove otherwise.

OP LIED ABOUT
Tasha's (I did not pull trigger)
Shot through car sunroof (never happened)
Illegal ammo (it's dads)
Where large fan was and that it was on (blocks access to balcony where he says he called for help/turned off)
Where small fan was and that it was on (in corner, facing curtains/unplugged)
Where the duvet was (jeans on top of it/lines up with blood trail on carpet)
Felt for Reeva behind the curtains (iPad, hair clipper, cords in the way)
Time of shots (his first phone call at 3:19 claimed she was still breathing)
Netcare told him to take her to hospital
Called Stander because he couldn't pick up Reeva (he walked down the stairs carrying her unassisted)
Where the magazine rack was (blood pool around leg of rack)
Magazine rack made a wood noise (she was standing in front of and close to door when first shot-not near rack)
They were asleep (she was fully dressed in gym clothes and had eaten recently)
Reason Olympic roommate requested to be moved

And finally, discrepancies in his own account of what happened (i.e. lying/tailoring evidence).

DISCREPENCIES
Double taps / no double taps
Went onto the balcony / never went onto the balcony
1 fan / 2 fans
She was asleep / she talked to him "can't sleep, baba?"
Heard noise, went into bathroom and noticed window open / heard window slam against frame
Realized intruder was in toilet because he noticed toilet door was closed / heard toilet door slam
Heard movement / heard wood sound and thought it was the door opening
Putative self defense / accident. Didn't intend to fire shots into door

I'm sure this is not a complete list, but at the very least it illustrates that OP is a liar and not credible. If his credibility is called into question by milady, then his entire account of that night is worthless. MOO

This is fantastic, thank you.
Started something similiar but was distracted by a nasal whine...

Off the top of my head add-in Pistorius to the lied column. He agreed he was a liar to Nel.

Pistorius also lied about the boat crash - two witnesses told Daily Maverick said it was not sunset but completely dark when he hit the jetty.

K.T · Jul 18, 2014

AJ_DS said:
I suspect everyone in the family knows he is guilty of murder even if I'm pretty sure OP has never admitted it… those people are not stupid… so they adopt the adage "blood is thicker than water" and stick by OP's side no matter what. <RSBM>

BIB: Sorry another topic - AJ, thanks for the timeline post on the last thread about the GPS/messages of Pistorius and Steenkamp movements on Feb 13th. It was very informative.

Can you, or anyone, help me understand how the 10th birthday party of Firzt fitted into his movements? Such a strange comment by Valerie Berkow-Kaye...and I couldn't find the tweet she reportedly sent.

Do you think Pistorius is lying to Steenkamp or are Divarus etc. affidavits incorrect. So, from his testimony, he had a business meeting with his financial advisers, late lunch with Divarus/Ryan and an afternoon party?

On the afternoon of February 13, just hours before the shooting, Pistorius attended the 10th birthday party of Firzt, the estate agent he was buying the house from.

One of the staff attendees, Valerie Berkowkaye, tweeted: “He delighted all of us with his interesting childhood stories and was most charming and personable. It is clearly a very tragic accident.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...rius-planned-a-life-with-Reeva-Steenkamp.html

kaos · Jul 18, 2014

K.T said:
Memmory and Mortimer incidents compared:

Pistorius claimed Memmory was drunk, "abusive", in a fight with another partygoer she later kicked his door repeatedly and injured her foot herself. This is the opposite of what Memmory claimed and she won the out-of-court settlement.

“Pistorius says [about Memmory aggression incident] that he had felt threatened, humiliated, scared and vulnerable because of the complaint, arrest and being in custody.” His two friends claimed the police were “incompetent”. (Hello, pattern)

Johan Stander did interviews to defend Pistorius version in the press in 2009:

Pistorius team claims Mortimer was the "aggressor", abusive, "aggressively interrogating the accused". This is the opposite of what Mortimer said that happened.

Pistorius was feeling “loneliness and alienation” compared to "attention seeking" and "peddling untruths designed for maximum attention and maximum damage" Mortimer. Pistorius and his cousin were in a ‘quiet booth’ until they were inflicted with ‘unwelcome attention’.

Uncle Leo and PR rep Annalise Burgess defend Pistorius and rush to the press after their ‘investigation’.

Neither of these Pistorius defenders in 2009 or 2014 were at the incidents but did engage the press and say possibly libelous comments against Memmory and Mortimer.

That now makes more sense as to why OP called Stander first.

Going back to the animation video made me think about Reeva's position in the toilet. Somebody had to brief the 'dream team' about OP's version for them to create the scenario that Reeva was cowering in the toilet and as the forensics proved she was closer to the door during the trial, I'm inclined to believe that at some point OP knew she was cowering in the corner.

I'm on to Dr Stipp's testimony now and forgot just how sarcastic Roux was with him - even to the extent of implying that if Reeva was so scared and terrified that she had time to open the toilet window to shout for help. Effectively blaming her for not being able to scream her way out of her own death.

Remember the 'screaming' tests that were also done outside the Stipp's house where OP's DT tried to catch out the Stipps? Shouldn't those tests have been submitted as evidence?

Val1 · Jul 18, 2014

K.T said:
BIB: Sorry another topic - AJ, thanks for the timeline post on the last thread about the GPS/messages of Pistorius and Steenkamp movements on Feb 13th. It was very informative.

Can you, or anyone, help me understand how the 10th birthday party of Firzt fitted into his movements? Such a strange comment by Valerie Berkow-Kaye...and I couldn't find the tweet she reportedly sent.

Do you think Pistorius is lying to Steenkamp or are Divarus etc. affidavits incorrect. So, from his testimony, he had a business meeting with his financial advisers, late lunch with Divarus/Ryan and an afternoon party?

Perhaps the time difference has caused some of the confusion? This article states it was the evening as opposed to the afternoon in your article, same source...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/9876309/Oscar-Pistorius-murder-charge-bloodied-cricket-bat-central-piece-of-evidence-against-him.html

An estate agent who attended a party with Pistorius on the evening of Feb 13 — hours before the shooting said he was “delightful, charming and happy”.

Valerie Berkow-Kaye said: “We were all mesmerised by such a smiley, delightful person. He certainly wasn’t planning a murder on Wednesday afternoon.”

kezown · Jul 18, 2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=l_hle5shsDY#t=1014

16:55 - 17:03 'I wanted to ask Reeva why she's phoning the police'

Is this an insight into what actually happened? Did anyone else notice this? I would have loved Nel to have picked this up and grilled Oscar like he did when he said 'I checked the balcony'. So many slip ups on this day of the trail, an excellent day for the prosecution IMO. I just hope the judge notices these when reviewing the record.

K.T · Jul 18, 2014

kaos said:
That now makes more sense as to why OP called Stander first.

Remember the 'screaming' tests that were also done outside the Stipp's house where OP's DT tried to catch out the Stipps? Shouldn't those tests have been submitted as evidence?

1. Stander and his blond lawyer daughter are Pistorius' allies, they unquestioningly believe his actions and opinion. Witnesses for his tears, no medical help, mouthpieces for media or a court trial. Remember: Stipp said Standers were later talking in a group, straight after shooting, worrying if the shooting would get out to the media and even took Steenkamp's bag from crime scene. That is disturbing, blind loyalty.

2. IMO defense wouldn’t present the sound tests because those tests actually bolstered the prosecution testimony of ear witnesses – making Dr Stipp, Annette Stipp and Estelle Van Der Merwe seem more credible at recognizing sounds

The defense had two sound tests in Silverlakes - Feb 21st defense, two people arguing and a week later one male screaming test.

Prosecution neighbours said the male/s arguing and screaming test was nothing like the Feb 14th shooting night, plus the witnesses could differentiate between the two arguing voices and could identify it was a male not a female screaming. That's a big problem for Pistorius version.

Annette Stipp: On February 21 this year the Stipps were again woken in the night by people arguing. She told her husband they were not getting up or getting involved.
Eventually her husband got up to silence the dogs and close their sliding doors.
The next day neighbours told them there had been a commotion in the night which was assumed to have been sound tests.
On another occasion the had been woken at 3am by a man screaming at a higher and lower pitch.
Stipp was annoyed by the disturbance, assuming that this was a sound test. She had no doubt that the all the screams were those of a man.
http://www.enca.com/south-africa/oscar-trial-witness-recalls-terrifying-screams

Estelle Van der Merwe: Last month, she was woken by loud male voices, which sounded as if they were fighting. When she looked out of the window, she saw a man leaving Pistorius’s home.
During cross-examination, defence advocate Barry Roux SC cleared this up and told Van der Merwe the sounds she heard on February 21 was the defence team conducting tests from Pistorius’s home between 2 and 3am.
http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/i-heard-fighting-and-then-shots-1.1656395#.U8jE6ajd2BA

Dr Stipp: “He also addresses the sound tests that they conducted on February 21st this year. He wants to know what Dr. Stipp heard. Dr.Stipp heard loud voices that sounded like they were arguing. But he did not hear screaming. The voices sounded male.”
http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/oscar-pistorius-trial-day-5-part-1/

Interested Bystander · Jul 18, 2014

Lux et Veritas said:
Oscar Mystery #9,675 - Fact: OP wears glasses (one must assume he wears contacts when he’s without glasses). Fact: Police crime scene photos show OP 1) standing in the garage and 2) being taken away to the police station. In NO photos is he shown wearing glasses. WHY?

Only two explanations are possible.

#1 He didn’t bother putting on his glasses to see the “intruder” before he shot four bullets through the closed door. (Wouldn’t one logically first put on their glasses to clearly confront danger, especially when handling a gun, especially on stumps? This guy thought it was smart to go into “battle” with TWO self-inflicted disadvantages - although a 9mm is a great equalizer.)
#2 He was wearing his contacts. WHY?

Only two explanations are possible.

#1 He somehow found time to stop and put on his contacts - all while trying to “find” Reeva, bash down the toilet door, put on his legs, pull Reeva from the toilet, cry over Reeva for X minutes, scream on the balcony, use the phone multiple times, go downstairs to open the door and back up again, carry Reeva downstairs, retrieve tape and plastic bags, try to “save” Reeva, retrieve Reeva’s handbag and puke multiple times in the kitchen. (Could you put in contacts with shaky, bloody hands?)
#2 He was wearing his contacts the ENTIRE time - he never removed them. WHY was he wearing contacts @ 3:15am if, as he claimed, he went to sleep at 10pm?

Only one explanation is possible.

OP is a 100% liar. His entire story is false. They never went to sleep at 10pm but were both awake from 6pm up till the shooting (it doesn’t help OP’s case that he’s a self-admitted insomniac - see @oscarpistorius).

A simple case of absent glasses helps explain at least two crucial things: Food in Reeva’s stomach from a 1am meal is absolutely not only possible but probable and Mrs. Van der Merwe hearing intermittent arguing between 1:56am and about 3am is validated.

There is one other possibility but we shall never know if it applies to him - there are now contact lenses that can be worn overnight.

Trial Discussion Thread #48

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Retired Moderator

Retired Moderator

Retired Moderator

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics