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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think he went and got the bat to break into the toilet area to get to her after he'd shot her.
 
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).
 
I find it perplexing that OP carried and moved RS downstairs. Why would someone move a mortally wounded victim?

FIRST ON THE SCENE

Pistorius named Johan Stander, a manager at his gated estate, as the first person he called to get an ambulance after shooting Steenkamp. Pistorius says he then called paramedics. An unnamed doctor who lives nearby arrived at Pistorius’ home with Stander, the athlete says, and their testimony on Pistorius’ demeanour could be enlightening. Prosecutors say it was security guards who Pistorius first “walked into” when he carried a dying Steenkamp downstairs.
Click to expand...

graphic photo at link:

http://www.news.com.au/world/oscar-pistorius-trial-what-really-happened/story-fndir2ev-1226843963931
 
zwiebel said:
..... it would be difficult to understand why Reeva wouldn't have heard him dragging himself towards the door.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't underestimate his mobility without his prosthetic legs on. This is not a person who has lost his legs in an accident, he has had these amputated limbs all his life, and walking on them will be quite natural to him. He is probably not even much shorter in height than a lot of us.

Of course he will stress that he has "limited mobility", but he is going to be far nimbler than you or I would be shuffling about on our knees.
 
Trooper said:
'When the athlete last appeared in court, he said when he realised his mistake he did everything to save his lover, battering the toilet door with a cricket bat to get to her.'

I have always been interested in the cricket bat... I have a few round the house, but not upstairs.. one leaves them in the garage, or in the laundry.. ready to grab on the way out.. it's not something you swing about in the bedrooms, or store there.. off season, stored in its cover..it was the cricket season, in South Africa at that time, though... it would most likely be near the back door ... where did he say he got it from?? does anyone have info on that..??
Click to expand...
I did hash this out in a previous thread last year but a lot of families in SA have a various array of weaponry in their bedrooms and about the house. I myself have a machete next to my bed and we have pick axe handles/hammers etc stragically placed around the house for protection (hidden).My son sleeps with his bat under his bed, we do not own guns etc whereby OP did but I can imagine his bat was within easy reach in his bedroom. I don't see OP who was so "paranoid" about crime leaving his bat by the front door so he could be attacked with it if intruders indeed broke in :)
 
Trooper said:
He probably, like a lot of South African blokes, has a bit of a bash in the park.. he is not a player in the competitive sense at all. Having a cricket bat in and of itself is not a matter of suspicion for about 2 billion people all across the globe for whom cricket is life and death, its the matter of him having it so handy for the purpose he rendered it in his zeal to help Reeva.
Click to expand...

Some would even have for decoration.
 
zwiebel said:
I noticed the toilet door didn't have a catch, but an old fashioned keyhole lock. The key wasn't in it though. It made me think that if Reeva had locked herself in and then removed the key, Oscar could have seen through that keyhole right to where she was killed. His shots were very accurate, for someone shooting 'blind' through a door.

But then, if the key was removed and in Reeva's hand, how did he get the door open?
Click to expand...
I need to go over the original statement of OP from the bail hearing as it's been a long time since I read it but think I recall it went something like OP bashed door with bat, reached in for the key and unlocked the door. It was on the floor. In earlier discussions it was debated wether Reeva removed the key herself after locking it or it fell out the keyhole while OP was bashing it ( this is possible as we have the same kind of door and sometimes if it slams, the key pops out)
 
Anyone have a photo of the door? I'm curious as to where the bullet holes are...
 
zwiebel said:
I noticed from the video linked earlier, prosecution are saying they believe Oscar had his prosthetic legs on when he shot Reeva. If they could prove that with his footprints in her blood it would really damage his case.

Sadly though, it appears the crime scene blood was walked through by a detective. Pretty shocking - who would step in blood even if it wasn't a crime scene?

(Graphic pics)
http://sports.nationalpost.com/2013/05/31/graphic-photos-of-oscar-pistorius-crime-scene-leaked/
Click to expand...


The media claimed it was Botha who walked through the crime scene blood BUT

- after the shooting OP put on his prosthetic legs
- then he picked her up from the floor to carry her downstairs. This means he stood in the midst of blood....

so, it must have been his shoe prints in the blood - and to me it looks like a profile of sports shoes.....


Originally Posted by aa9511
I wish she had huddled down in the space between the wall and the toilet on the side farthest from the door.
Click to expand...

Reeva was hit at

- right side of her hip
- right elbow
- right side of her head (above the ear)

She couldn't sit at the toilet bowl (for peeing as Roux claimed in the bail hearing) and she couldn't huddled down in the space between the wall and the toilet.

1. The bloodstains are on the left side of the toilet bowl.

2. She couldn't be hit at the right side of her hip if she had huddled down behind the toilet bowl.

We discussed this in detail in the previous thread, as the crime scene photos were leaked ;)



--------------------------------

Thank you so so much for your very helpful updates of the trial :tyou:

Yesterday the live streams didn't work, today my loadspeaker broken. I'm so frustrated :tears:
.
.
 
zwiebel said:
I'd like to know what building regs are like in SA. What would the construction of the interior walls be like in that apartment? That could be a clue in what could be heard from one room to the next.

If they are hollow or paper thin, it would be difficult to understand why Reeva wouldn't have heard him dragging himself towards the door.
Click to expand...
We don't have the same type of houses as Americans...ours are made of solid brick. We don't have that funny fluffy stuff I see that is between your walls and interior walls made of wood that I see when I watch extreme home makeovers haha :p ...if my kids etc are in their bedrooms and talking, we can't hear them..only if they are shouting and causing a ruckus can we hear them. Our ceilings and roofs are solid,with thick ceramic type tiles, every room is enclosed.
Houses dont have attics and basements unheard of, unless someone wants something like a wine cellar (very rare and only the rich) and that is something you would have to do yourself, houses don't come with them. Hth! :)
 
How did Oscar say he finally knew he'd shot Reeva anyone?
 
Stromm said:
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).
Click to expand...

:wagon: :welcome::welcome6: :welcome4: :welcome5:

Great first post!
 
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.
 
Why are there only two bullet holes? Did he fire through the first holes or something? And WHY would he do that, unless he had a specific place he was aiming at?
 
zwiebel said:
How did Oscar say he finally knew he'd shot Reeva anyone?
Click to expand...
He said that after he shot at the door, he ran back to the bedroom shouting at Reeva to call authorities, when there was no response and he realised she wasn't in the bed...it "dawned" on him that it may indeed have been her in the loo. But like Stromm mentions earlier, this statement seems to be changing as the days go along..
 
Stromm, talking about the lack of urine in the loo, don't think there has been mention of there being no urine, the could have been but it would be difficult to prove exactly when it was deposited there whereby stating that her bladder was empty, it's easier to surmise she emptied it shortly before death??? Let's not forget that crime scene neglected to actually check the inside of the loo, having missed a bullet casing that landed in there that was found by the defence (and I believe it was a few days later)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 95 more.
Total: 544 (members: 96, guests: 448)

Online statistics

Members online
96
Guests online
448
Total visitors
544
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,464
Messages
18,239,773
Members
234,378
Latest member
Moebi69
Back
Top