Oscar Pistorius Defense

[JudgeJudi]

The "watermelon shooting" video also shows the kick back of the gun OP used to kill Reeva. It shows me that OP definitely had to aim deliberately after firing each shot. If OP had not, then all three of the following shots would have been further up and slightly to the right instead of the placing that is seen on the door.

link for a video of the "watermelon shooting"
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=2AE9119BFE86CA4D72042AE9119BFE86CA4D7204

link for picture of door
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-27041156

MOO

Thanks for the watermelon video. He also says "I don't see myself as disabled". My, how times have changed.

 

[liesbeth]

I believe liesbeth's point (though I don't mean to speak for her) is that the intruder may have been opening the door to get out of Oscar's house. Further, I'd add that 'wood moving' could have been a theoretical intruder clambering out of an open toilet window. The important point for both of us is that Oscar opened fire after screaming at the intruder to get out but leaving no time or ability for the intruder to actually do so.

And this brings us right back to a putative self-defence claim being nullified if one kills an intruder who is attempting to, or in the midst of, fleeing.

Very nicely put. That was indeed my point, BritsKate. Thank you.

We can not ignore the fact that Oscar fired through a closed door. AFAIK no putative self defense case has ever been successful (here in S.A.) where the defendant fired through a closed door. And keep in mind that the defendants in these cases actually saw something that caused their mistaken belief.

Oscar never saw anything. He just heard a noise. A movement. Wood on wood. So his case is unique. Not only did he fire through a closed door, but he did it after hearing a noise.

ETA: He never saw a threat. And the noise he heard does not qualify as a threat either.

 

[liesbeth]

Double post. Please see above.

 

[JudgeJudi]

BIB Respectfully, but oh no! I have been re watching much of Nel's cross of OP. OP fought with Nel about this at nauseam.

There are many things that OP needs the court to believe the police moved or changed before they took the crime scene photos, and this is absolutely positively one of them. Some others are the fan, the curtains, the lamp and patio lights, the duvet, and the jeans. These things affect OP's, his Defense Team's, ability to portray his story as plausible. With respect to the magazine rack it affects their ability to claim that OP did not aim at the sound(s) that Reeva or the intruder were making behind the closed door and his hitting her with three of the four bullets was coincidental, not intentional.

And OP's version contains what appears to be yet another lie. "Remember there’s been argument about whether the jeans were found ‘on top, of the duvet or ‘beside’ the duvet, with OP arguing they couldn’t be on top because duvet was on bed and moved to the floor by police. Nel now points out blood spatter that is on duvet, jeans and carpet saying it proves the jeans were on top of duvet and blood dripped as OP carried Reeva downstairs. OP now says he doesn’t ‘remember ‘ duvet being on the floor despite having earlier been sure he saw duvet on the bed. It’s these apparently small details that Nel is using to paint a big picture of a web of lies that’s not holding up!"

http://everyafricanwoman.com/?p=1561

 

[nastasya]

Very nicely put. That was indeed my point, BritsKate. Thank you.

We can not ignore the fact that Oscar fired through a closed door. AFAIK no putative self defense case has ever been successful (here in S.A.) where the defendant fired through a closed door. And keep in mind that the defendants in these cases actually saw something that caused their mistaken belief that there was a threat.

Oscar never saw anything. He just heard a noise. A movement. Wood on wood. So his case is unique. Not only did he fire through a closed door, but he did it after hearing a noise. He never saw a threat. And the noise he heard does not qualify as a threat either.

You bring up a great point - he only heard a noise.

And what was the last noise, according to his own story, that he heard before the noise in the bathroom?

Reeva speaking to him.

Zero chance that he hears his girlfriend talking to him and 60 seconds later hears the sound of the window opening in the bathroom, on a hot night when he just said he was bringing in the fans, and doesn't even consider it might be her.

Zero.

 

[JudgeJudi]

As my title noted there are similarities and differences between the 2 shootings.

I think most police forces do use hollow points for the reasons that article went into. Indeed many or most rounds sold in gunshops in the USA now are hollow points.

One difference is that in the cops case, the bullets had to go thru the metal door and the rest of the door.

Another difference is that black talons are different and even more deadly than standard hollow points.

Perhaps this is the reason they were discontinued by the manufacturer. This was another issue that Dixon danced around in his own Oscar-Speak. He claimed at one point he used BTs for his experiments, then later IIRC claimed to have used an allegedly near-identical round.

I think the black talons are probably unique in the devastation they cause.

"Despite its unique design, the Black Talon was found to be comparable in performance to conventional hollow-points."

Black Talon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PPKik]

RSBM

I haven't read anywhere that he had any skull injuries, just facial. In this article the doctor said his brain was functioning normally. Do you have a link?

Sorry, I don't have a better link than The Guardian link you used. But there is this also from The Guardian:

BBM


"Pistorius, the winner of three Paralympic gold medals and the holder of world records in the 100, 200 and 400 metres, was flung from a speedboat he was steering on the Vaal River, south of Johannesburg. There were obvious concerns that his injuries could prove fatal when he was *airlifted to a Johannesburg hospital known to deal with head injuries and was placed on a ventilator upon arrival."

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/feb/22/oscar-pistorius-recovers-from-boating-accident


My post was more a question than an assertion, I hope. It occurred to me that some of OP's testimony not only doesn't make sense, but is even counter to what a liar would use in a more effective defense, in my opinion. Claiming that Reeva was awake and talking to him, was an example I used.

Not being trained in the medical field, I don't know more about brain injuries than the curious Internet user, but I do believe brain injuries can be insidious. (Remember Natasha Richardson and the minor fall that she had that killed her?)

I wish I could do better than link a bunch of articles on brain injuries (I won't).

Some kind of impaired cognitive functioning seemed like something worth considering when you take into account all the inexplicably weird and disturbing things OP did that night and testified about. I was looking at that possibility as a way to try to explain, not mitigate.

 

[liesbeth]

Sorry, I don't have a better link than The Guardian link you used. But there is this also from The Guardian:

BBM


"Pistorius, the winner of three Paralympic gold medals and the holder of world records in the 100, 200 and 400 metres, was flung from a speedboat he was steering on the Vaal River, south of Johannesburg. There were obvious concerns that his injuries could prove fatal when he was *airlifted to a Johannesburg hospital known to deal with head injuries and was placed on a ventilator upon arrival."

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/feb/22/oscar-pistorius-recovers-from-boating-accident


My post was more a question than an assertion, I hope. It occurred to me that some of OP's testimony not only doesn't make sense, but is even counter to what a liar would use in a more effective defense, in my opinion. Claiming that Reeva was awake and talking to him, was an example I used.
Not being trained in the medical field, I don't know more about brain injuries than the curious Internet user, but I do believe brain injuries can be insidious. (Remember Natasha Richardson and the minor fall that she had that killed her?)

I wish I could do better than link a bunch of articles on brain injuries (I won't).

Some kind of impaired cognitive functioning seemed like something worth considering when you take into account all the inexplicably weird and disturbing things OP did that night and testified about. I was looking at that possibility as a way to try to explain, not mitigate.

Wasn't there a lady (a friend of OP's mother, iirc) who tried to stop the bail proceedings? She also thought he had some sort of damage and should be admitted for observation.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Strange. I thought I recalled him denyng that was him.
You wouldn't have a quick link, T?

Re shooting the watermelon.

He did admit it.

3:36-5:35

Oscar Pistorius Trial: Wednesday 9 April 2014, Session 3 - YouTube

 

[PPKik]

Wasn't there a lady (a friend of OP's mother, iirc) who tried to stop the bail proceedings? She also thought he had some sort of damage and should be admitted for observation.

That sounds like something worth looking into! I have not read or heard about this lady, or, that anyone tried to get him admitted for observation. Do you think it was related to his general behaviour or the shooting?

This thought began to occur to me for several reasons beside his actions on the morning of Feb. 14.

His continued reckless and potentially deadly behaviour with firearms is off the charts for anyone, let alone someone who has had training and understands, supposedly, the law, the use of deadly force, supposedly, and the the four basic safety rules which are essential to the safe handling of firearms.

The two firearms incidents, for which he has been charged with recklessly firing guns in public, occurred after his boating accident in 2009. I wonder what he was like before the accident? Did he own guns then?

 

[Cymbaline]

Wasn't there a lady (a friend of OP's mother, iirc) who tried to stop the bail proceedings? She also thought he had some sort of damage and should be admitted for observation.

Yes! Annette? The exwife of the doctor who did OP's amputation.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Well you have well noted the strangeness of Oscar-Speak.
But I will to try to get to the blood matters.

A few things to consider. GRAPHIC: There prob. is brain matter involved.
I also think Pros witness described Reeva's hair and an object in her hair (bun holder?) doing things.

Which prosecution witness discussed the object in her hair ? I hadn't noticed that information.
If it was a bun holder I am surprised that she would have worn it for bed.
My girls wear them but never sleep in them .
With the position of the pillows on the bed ,the duvet on the floor ,the clothes ,ear witness hearing a possibly argument, the stomach contents and now a potential bun holder still being in place I am more than ever really quite convinced they had not retired to bed for the night as OP alleges .

 

[Britlaws]

I posted this on the other thread but it probably is better here...

I haven't been here in a week and sooo many posts to read now! But has anyone listened to the audio played at Byron Smith's trial where he shot the teenagers? Truly shocking The poor girl screamed in between multiple shots before he finished her off. What kind of person can keep shooting at a screaming woman? If OP's case was an accident, he would have heard her scream or cry in pain or something after the first shot, and it's that which I can't get past.

 

[Cymbaline]

I posted this on the other thread but it probably is better here...

I haven't been here in a week and sooo many posts to read now! But has anyone listened to the audio played at Byron Smith's trial where he shot the teenagers? Truly shocking The poor girl screamed in between multiple shots before he finished her off. What kind of person can keep shooting at a screaming woman? If OP's case was an accident, he would have heard her scream or cry in pain or something after the first shot, and it's that which I can't get past.

Do you have a link? I'll listen to it.

 

[PPKik]

Wasn't there a lady (a friend of OP's mother, iirc) who tried to stop the bail proceedings? She also thought he had some sort of damage and should be admitted for observation.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/woman-intervenes-in-oscar-ruling-1.1652405#.U2NSK-hX-uY


Pretoria - A woman, only known as Annamarie, addressed the High Court in Pretoria on Tuesday, opposing an application for the murder trial of paralympian Oscar Pistorius to be broadcast.

In February last year, the same woman requested to address the Pretoria Magistrate's Court on his “mental state” during the sports star's bail hearing.

She asked the court to put Pistorius under independent psychiatric observation for 60 days.

She also wanted Pretoria chief Magistrate Desmond Nair removed from Pistorius's bail bid.

Annamarie claims to be the ex-wife of Dr Gerald Versfeld who amputated Pistorius's legs when he was a child. She believed Pistorius had a mental breakdown.

On Tuesday, Judge Dunstan Mlambo told the woman to sit down, saying she was wasting the court's time.


Uh oh.


http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/oscar-s-dead-mom-asked-me-to-help-him-1.1475017#.U2NVG-hX-uY


Pretoria - Oscar Pistorius’s dead biological mother came to her in a dream and asked her to help her son.

This is what a woman who claims to have known Pistorius since he was a toddler is saying.

She said her last name was uncertain as she was previously Riethmiller and also previously Versfeld – “ex-wife of Oscar’s orthopaedic surgeon, Dr Gerald Versfeld.

Annamarie explained to the judge that she felt Pistorius snapped the night he shot Steenkamp as this was not the “Oscar I knew as a little boy”.

 

[Britlaws]

Do you have a link? I'll listen to it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ded-65-year-old-killer-set-trap-basement.html

I am not putting OP in the same camp as this guy, but the scenario where your victim doesn't make a sound when you shoot her 3 times before the fatal shot so you at least know it's a woman doesn't exist for me (or is highly improbable).

 

[nastasya]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ded-65-year-old-killer-set-trap-basement.html

I am not putting OP in the same camp as this guy, but the scenario where your victim doesn't make a sound when you shoot her 3 times before the fatal shot so you at least know it's a woman doesn't exist for me (or is highly improbable).

OP not in this category???

Seriously???

According to OP's version he describes himself exactly in this category. What this guy did is what OP claims he did.

What OP really did was much worse than this guy. He didn't kill an intruder. He killed an unarmed woman who was hiding behind a locked bathroom door. I'm sure her screams were much like that of the teen girl who was shot.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I posted this on the other thread but it probably is better here...

I haven't been here in a week and sooo many posts to read now! But has anyone listened to the audio played at Byron Smith's trial where he shot the teenagers? Truly shocking The poor girl screamed in between multiple shots before he finished her off. What kind of person can keep shooting at a screaming woman? If OP's case was an accident, he would have heard her scream or cry in pain or something after the first shot, and it's that which I can't get past.

I've heard it too, and I'm shocked beyond belief.

 

[Cherwell]

You bring up a great point - he only heard a noise.

And what was the last noise, according to his own story, that he heard before the noise in the bathroom?

Reeva speaking to him.

Zero chance that he hears his girlfriend talking to him and 60 seconds later hears the sound of the window opening in the bathroom, on a hot night when he just said he was bringing in the fans, and doesn't even consider it might be her.

Zero.

It's a very poor story, implausible, but I suppose it was the only thing he could come up with. The devil is in the details now.

 

[Britlaws]

OP not in this category???

Seriously???

According to OP's version he describes himself exactly in this category. What this guy did is what OP claims he did.

What OP really did was much worse than this guy. He didn't kill an intruder. He killed an unarmed woman who was hiding behind a locked bathroom door. I'm sure her screams were much like that of the teen girl who was shot.

No, what I meant was, this guy was a bit of a nut job and he hatched quite a meticulous plan beforehand - he apparently even took snacks for whilst he sat in wait! His behavior was far more obsessive and irrational. Whereas I think OP just lost it and the red mist kept him firing. They are both in the same league as far as public protection goes but with OP I think it is his immediate anger when he doesn't get his own way (or someone dares challenges him) and also his attitude that he is untouchable that is the issue.