Trial Discussion Thread #1 - 14.03.03-06, Day 1-4

[sorrell skye]

Oh crap, you're right. I'll fix it. I did see the full statement in print the other day.

If you're able to find the full statement that would be awesome!

 

[Estelle]

Apologies for repeating some material discussed earlier. Just trying to get my thoughts in order, to see if anyone sees things differently.

Intrigued by those subtle changes between OP's bail-application affidavit and his plea-explanation on Day 1 of the trial. Since the changes will look suspicious, and will be picked-up on, the defence must really think it's important to get these details into evidence even at the cost of consistency. What are they worried about? Presumably they're anticipating OP's original story being dismantled in specific ways, and are trying to head it off. The plea-explanation is an odd document (to the layman, at least). It's by no means a complete account. OP merely wishes to "emphasise" the seemingly arbitrary points it contains. Would it perhaps have been more accurate if he'd said "I wish to change my story in the following respects pre-emptively, before it looks as though I've been cornered into doing so"?

Bail: "After Reeva finished her yoga exercises she got into bed and we both fell asleep ... During the early morning hours of 14 February 2013, I woke up"

Trial: "I had shortly before spoken to Reeva, who was in bed beside me"

The bail version distinctly implies that only OP woke in the middle of the night. At the time the defence must have thought this reinforced his claimed assumption that RS was still in bed when he heard the noise from the bathroom. The story had to be that it would have seemed impossible to him that she could have gone from fast asleep to wide awake, realised she needed a pee and nipped off to the loo without him being aware of it, all while he was getting the fan in from the balcony right next to the bed. Defence must now have concluded that it'll seem impossible to everyone else as well. As he wasn't quite explicit at the bail hearing about it being only him who'd woken, perhaps they're hoping they can now get away with calmly mentioning that both OP and RS had been awake.

But I think it creates more problems for the defence than it solves. RS - according to OP's version - is on the balcony side of the bed. She's more mobile. Why doesn't she skip out of bed to get the fan in rather than leave it to OP (who makes so much of his limited mobility on his stumps when talking up his feeling of vulnerability)? And when he comes back in and hears the noise from the loo, why doesn't he whisper to her "What was that? ... Did you hear that?"? He doesn't say a word to her; just walks round to his side of the bed, gets his gun, and heads for the loo shouting to the intruder to get out of his house and to Reeva to call the police. Why leave it that long to get her to summon help? And if he thinks he needs his gun to deal with these people, wouldn't he tell her quietly to take cover rather than just leave her lying in bed, wide-awake but oblivious to what's about to go down?


Bail: "I woke, went onto the balcony to bring the fan in."

Trial: "During the early hours of the morning I brought two fans in from the balcony"

Well I suppose there must have been two fans inside the flat when the police arrived, for the new version to have any chance of plausibility. I expect he'll say the fans were rammed tight up against opposite ends of the balcony when he went to get them. He needs every second out there he can get. I still think that if RS was awake enough to chat in bed, and was planning a trip to the loo, she could have said "I'll get the fans in while I'm up". It just seems pointedly unhelpful (and oddly furtive) of her to watch him struggling the long way around the bed and then waiting until he's safely out on the balcony before she sneaks off to the loo.


Bail: "I noticed that the bathroom window was open."

Trial: "I heard the bathroom window sliding open"

The original version was always going to have to go. I think his lawyers liked him only noticing that the window was open once he got to the bathroom because it allowed him a sudden intensifying of fear right at the moment that he was in front of the loo door behind which the intruders would have been hiding. Thereby portraying a split-second panic-induced decision to open fire.

But his security paranoia was already well-established, by himself on Twitter for one thing. He'd also acknowledged that trait by stating that he'd locked his bedroom door, though the real point of that detail might have been to accentuate his feeling of being trapped and hence trigger-happy. The defence must now have realised that it's utterly implausible for such a person to go to bed knowing that the bathroom window was open with a ladder outside. So the original "I heard a noise in the bathroom" now becomes "I heard the bathroom window sliding open". At the bail hearing he couldn't put his finger on what that noise was: it seemed to have been just a troubling, indistinct noise. In the intervening year he's crystallised it in his mind. Not sure I buy that. I think you tend to recognise instantly the characteristic sounds made by your domicile - especially those made more familiar by repetition. And if you don't recognise such a sound on the moment, it's unlikely that it'll come to you months later.

As for what the fans were doing out on the balcony in the first place, I suspect they might have been inside all the time. My preferred scenario is that at no point thus far that evening had they intended to go to sleep, so the balcony doors and the bathroom window had been left open to create a through-draught as it was a hot night. Possibly the defence team took a mental inventory of the configuration and contents of the bedroom so as to come up with something to get OP out of the room and keep him occupied while RS could disappear to the loo. They needed the balcony doors to be closed after retrieving the fans, so that OP could spend time on doors, blinds and curtains while RS was heading for the loo. But they needed a story to get the doors open again, since that was presumably how they were when the police arrived. Hence OP's incongruous and futile actions in running to the balcony to shout for help - across empty streets in the middle of the night - when you'd expect him to be torn between ringing for an ambulance and getting access to RS to administer first-aid.

Of course this is all speculation presented as 'facts' solely in the interests of (relative!) concision. Nothing no one else has thought of, I don't suppose. (Except the bits that are rubbish).

:goodpost:

 

[minor4th]

If you're able to find the full statement that would be awesome!

I fixed it in the comment above. The BBC says this is the full statement and it sounds about right from what I remember hearing.

 

[sorrell skye]

I fixed it in the comment above. The BBC says this is the full statement and it sounds about right from what I remember hearing.

TY for finding that! Although it's not the full statement that was read by his attorney, it contains the relevant info. I remember the full statement going on forever, with open brackets & close brackets and denying the charges in the strongest possible terms and so forth.

But this portion will suffice for discussion of the changes between the 2013 affidavit and the 2014 trial statement. Thank You!

 

[kittychi]

Did anyone heard about this today ? (as I mentioned before I couldn't follow any live stream)

I read the updates given at WS and a lot of tweets but never before found this information





This completely contradicts what was said at the bail hearing





and it also completely contradicts what the pathologist of the DT (Perumal) said in an interview (at 24:26)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj8TF4MrO8Q#t=1467
.
.

So how is the bullet (or casing, or...) in the toilet bowl accounted for?

 

[minor4th]

Did anyone heard about this today ? (as I mentioned before I couldn't follow any live stream)

I read the updates given at WS and a lot of tweets but never before found this information





This completely contradicts what was said at the bail hearing





and it also completely contradicts what the pathologist of the DT (Perumal) said in an interview (at 24:26)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj8TF4MrO8Q#t=1467
.
.

This case is so infuriating because of these contradictions - even in scientific evidence that is easily verified by reference to the autopsy. I do not understand how so many pieces of information are in dispute!

 

[minor4th]

TY for finding that! Although it's not the full statement that was read by his attorney, it contains the relevant info. I remember the full statement going on forever, with open brackets & close brackets and denying the charges in the strongest possible terms and so forth.

But this portion will suffice for discussion of the changes between the 2013 affidavit and the 2014 trial statement. Thank You!

This is the part that was attributable directly to OP, and I think the lawyer did meander around with comments about the law and the evidence while he was giving Oscar's statement. I'm not sure if this is the entire statement from OP though. I'll keep looking a bit.

 

[Harmony 2]

I find it perplexing that OP carried and moved RS downstairs. Why would someone move a mortally wounded victim?



graphic photo at link:

http://www.news.com.au/world/oscar-pistorius-trial-what-really-happened/story-fndir2ev-1226843963931

I found the answer to my question in the bail hearing statement Minor4th posted:

16.17 I returned to the bathroom and picked Reeva up as I had been told not to wait for the paramedics, but to take her to hospital. I carried her downstairs in order to take her to the hospital. On my way down Stander arrived. A doctor who lives in the complex also arrived. Downstairs, I tried to render the assistance to Reeva that I could, but she died in my arms.

 

[Stromm]

On a couple of Roux's flights of fancy:-

Today's testimony suggests that OP could well cry like a woman. That doesn't seem such a trump-card for the defence. It's in the essential nature of crying that it can often have an androgynous quality. Strangulated high-pitched squeaks are naturally produced by the lachrymose of either sex.

Screaming like a woman is a whole different thing, though. Reports of OP's effeminate blubbing ought not be extrapolated into a presumption that he screams similarly. Since this matter could well be pivotal to the outcome of the trial, I don't think it'll be sufficient for Roux just to wheel in a witness who says "Yeah he screams like a woman. I've heard it." If it's important to the defence that the judge and her advocates are persuaded that it is so, OP is probably going to have to demonstrate his screaming style in court, I should think.

I watch a lot of cricket (in person). The sound of bat on ball - if it's a really well-timed, full-blooded stroke - can sound a little bit like a gunshot. Much more so if it's coming your way, I've noticed. I still think there's something fundamentally different about the timbre, though, and it's difficult to imagine that you'd really confuse the two sounds.

But it sounds a lot more like a gunshot than the sound of a bat on a wooden door does. An angry batsman - perhaps disgruntled at having been wrongly given out by the umpire - will sometimes clout any woodwork within reach once he's off the field. Over the years I reckon I've heard enough batsmen savaging dressing-room doors with their bats (from a distance of maybe 80 metres) to be able to tell you that it's absolutely nothing like a gunshot. (I'm not around guns all that much, but I've heard urban gunfire on a few occasions while staying at a mate's flat in London). The cricket-bat-on-door sound has none of the explosive quality that gunfire often (though not always) has, nor any suggestion of what might be described as a loud report or a rifle-crack. It hasn't got that tight, percussive feel that some other types of gunfire have, either. It's a dull, leaden thud, with - crucially, I think - instant decay. Closer, if anything, to the sound of a bat hitting a cardboard box, only with more grunt behind it. I really think we can forget about that one.

 

[aa9511]

From the blood splatter on the seat, I think she may have been trying to do just that when she was shot. I still think it's odd a person would aim at where the toilet was when thinking an intruder was in there.

It also seems like there were only two bulletholes in the door. Could that explain the pause between shots? Oscar maybe fired once, then looked through the hole it made to get a view of where the 'intruder' was?

Yes, from the pics, it looks like he knew exactly the direction the "intruder" was in the toilet room. Almost like....he had heard the "intruder" from the bathroom. So he knew exactly which direction to point the gun in.

 

[minor4th]

TY for finding that! Although it's not the full statement that was read by his attorney, it contains the relevant info. I remember the full statement going on forever, with open brackets & close brackets and denying the charges in the strongest possible terms and so forth.

But this portion will suffice for discussion of the changes between the 2013 affidavit and the 2014 trial statement. Thank You!

I cannot find a complete statement. i may transcribe it from the video because this is really bothering me now

 

[aa9511]

Apologies for repeating some material discussed earlier. Just trying to get my thoughts in order, to see if anyone sees things differently.

Intrigued by those subtle changes between OP's bail-application affidavit and his plea-explanation on Day 1 of the trial. Since the changes will look suspicious, and will be picked-up on, the defence must really think it's important to get these details into evidence even at the cost of consistency. What are they worried about? Presumably they're anticipating OP's original story being dismantled in specific ways, and are trying to head it off. The plea-explanation is an odd document (to the layman, at least). It's by no means a complete account. OP merely wishes to "emphasise" the seemingly arbitrary points it contains. Would it perhaps have been more accurate if he'd said "I wish to change my story in the following respects pre-emptively, before it looks as though I've been cornered into doing so"?

Bail: "After Reeva finished her yoga exercises she got into bed and we both fell asleep ... During the early morning hours of 14 February 2013, I woke up"

Trial: "I had shortly before spoken to Reeva, who was in bed beside me"

The bail version distinctly implies that only OP woke in the middle of the night. At the time the defence must have thought this reinforced his claimed assumption that RS was still in bed when he heard the noise from the bathroom. The story had to be that it would have seemed impossible to him that she could have gone from fast asleep to wide awake, realised she needed a pee and nipped off to the loo without him being aware of it, all while he was getting the fan in from the balcony right next to the bed. Defence must now have concluded that it'll seem impossible to everyone else as well. As he wasn't quite explicit at the bail hearing about it being only him who'd woken, perhaps they're hoping they can now get away with calmly mentioning that both OP and RS had been awake.

But I think it creates more problems for the defence than it solves. RS - according to OP's version - is on the balcony side of the bed. She's more mobile. Why doesn't she skip out of bed to get the fan in rather than leave it to OP (who makes so much of his limited mobility on his stumps when talking up his feeling of vulnerability)? And when he comes back in and hears the noise from the loo, why doesn't he whisper to her "What was that? ... Did you hear that?"? He doesn't say a word to her; just walks round to his side of the bed, gets his gun, and heads for the loo shouting to the intruder to get out of his house and to Reeva to call the police. Why leave it that long to get her to summon help? And if he thinks he needs his gun to deal with these people, wouldn't he tell her quietly to take cover rather than just leave her lying in bed, wide-awake but oblivious to what's about to go down?


Bail: "I woke, went onto the balcony to bring the fan in."

Trial: "During the early hours of the morning I brought two fans in from the balcony"

Well I suppose there must have been two fans inside the flat when the police arrived, for the new version to have any chance of plausibility. I expect he'll say the fans were rammed tight up against opposite ends of the balcony when he went to get them. He needs every second out there he can get. I still think that if RS was awake enough to chat in bed, and was planning a trip to the loo, she could have said "I'll get the fans in while I'm up". It just seems pointedly unhelpful (and oddly furtive) of her to watch him struggling the long way around the bed and then waiting until he's safely out on the balcony before she sneaks off to the loo.


Bail: "I noticed that the bathroom window was open."

Trial: "I heard the bathroom window sliding open"

The original version was always going to have to go. I think his lawyers liked him only noticing that the window was open once he got to the bathroom because it allowed him a sudden intensifying of fear right at the moment that he was in front of the loo door behind which the intruders would have been hiding. Thereby portraying a split-second panic-induced decision to open fire.

But his security paranoia was already well-established, by himself on Twitter for one thing. He'd also acknowledged that trait by stating that he'd locked his bedroom door, though the real point of that detail might have been to accentuate his feeling of being trapped and hence trigger-happy. The defence must now have realised that it's utterly implausible for such a person to go to bed knowing that the bathroom window was open with a ladder outside. So the original "I heard a noise in the bathroom" now becomes "I heard the bathroom window sliding open". At the bail hearing he couldn't put his finger on what that noise was: it seemed to have been just a troubling, indistinct noise. In the intervening year he's crystallised it in his mind. Not sure I buy that. I think you tend to recognise instantly the characteristic sounds made by your domicile - especially those made more familiar by repetition. And if you don't recognise such a sound on the moment, it's unlikely that it'll come to you months later.

As for what the fans were doing out on the balcony in the first place, I suspect they might have been inside all the time. My preferred scenario is that at no point thus far that evening had they intended to go to sleep, so the balcony doors and the bathroom window had been left open to create a through-draught as it was a hot night. Possibly the defence team took a mental inventory of the configuration and contents of the bedroom so as to come up with something to get OP out of the room and keep him occupied while RS could disappear to the loo. They needed the balcony doors to be closed after retrieving the fans, so that OP could spend time on doors, blinds and curtains while RS was heading for the loo. But they needed a story to get the doors open again, since that was presumably how they were when the police arrived. Hence OP's incongruous and futile actions in running to the balcony to shout for help - across empty streets in the middle of the night - when you'd expect him to be torn between ringing for an ambulance and getting access to RS to administer first-aid.

Of course this is all speculation presented as 'facts' solely in the interests of (relative!) concision. Nothing no one else has thought of, I don't suppose. (Except the bits that are rubbish).

BRAVO!!! WOW!!!!

This is brilliant!!

I so wish the prosecution will pont all of this out!!

 

[Trooper]

a trivial matter, I know. .. but is there any evidence of Oscars gift to Reeva for Valentines day??? Her gift to him was in the house, unopened..... now.. I know that its not every bloke that even knows about Valentines day.. but he says they were deeply in love, the relationship was relatively new... among their peers, exchanging gifts was usual on this day...

of course, he may have been planning to get a pressie the next day.. I don't know.. but... no mention of him having a gift ready for the day all wrapped up ready to go on the night of the shooting. ..

 

[aa9511]

I find it perplexing that OP carried and moved RS downstairs. Why would someone move a mortally wounded victim?



graphic photo at link:

http://www.news.com.au/world/oscar-pistorius-trial-what-really-happened/story-fndir2ev-1226843963931

Well, in the guilty view, I think he thought that this action would make it seem like he was really panicked about her and would support his story that it was all an accident. He was over-compensating. Over-acting, if you will.

I believe the natural thing for a person to do would be to run out and call out for someone to help and find someone to help, then bring that person back to where the body is.

JMO.

 

[aa9511]

The Curious Incident of the Loo in the Night-Time. (It didn't flush!)

As inconceivable as it is that OP would have left the bathroom window open before going to sleep (hence the abandonment of that story), it's also an odd thing for RS to do (to open it) when she went to the loo. But I suppose they prefer that story because it is merely odd rather than inconceivable, and RS isn't around to be required to justify it. OP can say "I really don't know why she opened it. There's nothing I can tell you."

Perhaps he can speculate idly along the lines of "Reeva knew I was getting the fans in to cool the place down, so I suppose she thought opening the bathroom window would help." But for that to be a good idea (from the security point of view) they'd have to have been in agreement that they wouldn't be going to sleep for quite a while - even though it was already 3 a.m.

Also it compresses her available peeing time-slot beyond reason. In the defence version, RS absolutely has to have actually urinated. At the bail hearing, Roux made a big deal of the empty bladder found in the post-mortem, and even got an expert in to say that you'd expect a bladder to contain some urine even after just a couple of hours in bed (since last pee).

Obviously there was no urine left in the loo-bowl, or this wouldn't have needed discussing at the bail hearing. Since she had to have urinated for the defence story to work then she had to have flushed - which would be really audible in a silent flat at 3 a.m. from not very far away.

Now 'the noise' has been identified (by OP) as RS sliding open the bathroom window. At this point OP is back inside with the fans, and has got the doors, blinds and curtains shut. So RS has to enter the loo, close and lock the door, sit down, urinate, stand up and pull up her shorts, and flush the loo. And get all that done before OP is close enough to hear the flush. Well he'd have heard it even if he was still out on the balcony, of course, but in the manoeuvrings the defence are getting stuck with, RS would have done well to have even finished peeing by the time OP reached the loo door with his gun. For the defence version to make sense - i.e., that it was a routine loo-trip, and she wasn't fleeing a raging OP - she has to have finished and and flushed, which would have alerted OP not to empty a magazine into the door. But OP will presumably maintain that there was no flushing. It's quite a vexing conundrum, even for the casual observer. Glad I haven't got to explain the solution to the judge.

OMG goooood points!!!!

 

[Tssiemer]

Uggh I'm so on the fence on this case!!

 

[aa9511]

Todays' testimony brought out that the argument lasted an hour starting at 1:56 am. It woke her up and she looked at the clock, annoyed because her son had an exam in the morning.

I saw this on HLN but couldn't make out the words very well.

How did she describe the arguing? What did she hear? Could she make out any of the words?

If there was arguing, then there is no question anymore. IMO.

TIA.

 

[aa9511]

I believe it was on CNN this past week-end, a synopsis of this case just prior to the trial starting. For the first time I heard Reeva was not dressed in night clothes. she was dressed in shorts and a top. It was alluded to that Reeva was dressed to leave, not sleeping in the bed. Also heard about her lunch with her previous boyfriend the day prior to the killing. He too is on the prosecution witness list. Waiting to hear what/if any calls or texts were made or attempted to be made from the phone/s in the toilet with Reeva.

SOmething occurred to me, that perhaps OP made a big deal of what was on her cell phone, which is why she took the phone into the bathroom with her. Maybe he had checked her phone and found the number or text from the ex-boyfriend when he had called or texted her about meeting the day before.

 

[sorrell skye]

Estelle Van Der Merwe, a neighbour, said the row had lasted about an hour.

"It seemed like somebody was involved in a fight," said Ms Van Der Merwe, who lives in the same gated Pretoria housing estate as the Paralympic athlete. "People were talking in loud voices."

The argument woke her at about 01:56 local time (23:56 GMT) and lasted about an hour. After that, she heard four loud sounds in succession.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26432447

IMO, this testimony seriously damages OP's claim that he & Reeva had been asleep since shortly after 10:00 p.m.

In previous threads, some of us have speculated that the two never went to bed or to sleep, but had been awake throughout the night arguing, the argument escalated, ending with OP shooting Reeva in a rage.

I think the testimony given thus far supports that speculation.

We'll see what else comes out during the trial that either continues to support that scenario or refutes it.

 

[Tssiemer]

Sooo... wouldn't the cops have that info of what was on her phone?