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

[Harmony 2]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/04/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-trial/

Oscar Pistorius on trial: Explore each side's case

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/28/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-trial-interactive/index.html?hpt=bosread

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...rial-Witness-heard-argument-before-shots.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/04/us-safrica-pistorius-idUSBREA220H620140304

 

[Carol70]

Haha, well...I'm still going to agree to disagree and my stance on the matter hasn't changed since last year, I still find his story plausible and a possibility. The witnesses so far have not really impressed me. Burger was strong but as been noted, a bit too strong. I'm still trying to figure out how she could be absolutely so certain on what she heard ( when her own husband wasn't even sure) at that distance. I have a field at the end of my street which is about 50m away and last year there was a mugging there, I heard screaming in the dead of night but for the life of me, I couldn't tell you if it was man or woman or what the hell was happening, only found out after calling neighbourhood watch that a woman was mugged. I believe there was shouting and she indeed heard shots and/or the bat but OP has said he was screaming before shooting, and after. I guess the state has to somehow disprove that he wasn't and it was indeed Reeva screaming or does he have to prove he was screaming?? Not sure.

Second witness is about the first time I have speculated that all is not what it seems...she clearly heard an hour long argument..would like to see how the defence gets out of this however, Roux hardly touched on it?? Weird. BUT she did say she heard crying etc and it sounded like a woman however, her husband told her it was OP..which tells me it is a POSSIBILITY that in fear/terror whatever it could be that OP maybe indeed scream or sound like a female when under duress. Will have to see what happens with Burgers husband tomorrow.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Even in Oscar's own version of events, how did he know he needed a cricket bat to break down the door once he realised it was Reeva, did he somehow know the toilet door would be locked before checking to see if it was?

 

[HauntsForHope]

Did I hear right? A witness this morning said that she knew the arguing was coming from 'Oscars House' because they were always fighting?

 

[Pisto_lius]

I thought again about OP's changed statements


Why suddenly *2 fans* ?

It takes more time to bring two fans in than only one. So, there was more time for claiming

- Reeva went to the toilet for peeing

- she flushed (but OP didn't heard this because he was at the balcony at this time)

- Reeva returned into the bed (but OP didn't noticed this because he was at the balcony at this time)

When OP came in the second time, closed the balcony door, blinds and curtains and heard *a noise* he was sure Reeva lay in bed and was asleep again because he was at the balcony for several minutes.

If OP brought only one fan in and walked with his gun to the bathroom after he closed the balcony door, blinds and curtains, Reeva couldn't have finished her peeing and OP must have heard the toilet flushing.

And then it must have been also clear for him that an intruder doesn't go to pee and operates the toilet flush after OP shouted to him "Come out!" and to Reeva "There is an intruder, call police!"

But he must have thought it was an intruder, so he needs more time = two fans.....


Why suddenly OP heard *bathroom window sliding open* ?

For several reasons:

1. This indicates he wasn't so careless and left the balcony door and the bathroom window open. The bathroom window should have been closed.

2. OP claimed there were ladders below the bathroom window. And this would be the only way an intruder could get into the house.

But this doesn't make sense because how could an intruder slid open the bathroom window from the outside when it was locked from the inside?

3. Judge Nair criticized in the bail hearing the open windows and doors and said OP has to explain this fact under oath. Now, OP changed his statement yesterday and claimed the bathroom window was closed the whole night and was opened just minutes before the shooting but not by him

The defence claims witnesses couldn't have heard an argument and a woman screaming because the (very small) toilet window (where Reeva was) was closed.

What a nonsense! The (big) open bathroom window is directly next to the toilet room. And as the witnesses testified Reeva screamed loud and desperately for her life - the toilet isn't a soundproof room and Reeva hadn't spoken in a normal volume. So, her screams could definitely been heard through the bathroom window.

 

[Pisto_lius]

Another (unproven) allegation by the DT:

After the (final) headshot Reeva was unable to scream any more.

Until now this is only the opinion of the DT because we have not yet heard the post-mortem experts - both parties have their own experts and that not without reason.

You will be surprised how different and contradictory one can interpret experts reports

The experts testimonies about post-mortem, ballistics etc. will be an uphill battle and they will last much longer than the witnesses testimonies. It will go back and forth and everyone will interpret the reports different - everyone for the benefit of his own case...

I'm just saying: empty bladder....

 

[gracielee]

Oscar's story just doesn't have credibility to me. Maybe I'm being extra harsh, but I don't believe him. I think there was some kind of fight or argument that night and whether or not he intended to kill her, he did. 4 shots into a small toilet area is not just a warning. I think he's guilty, not sure about premeditated murder yet, but we're only 2 witnesses in.

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.

 

[sorrell skye]

Even in Oscar's own version of events, how did he know he needed a cricket bat to break down the door once he realised it was Reeva, did he somehow know the toilet door would be locked before checking to see if it was?

According to the bail hearing affidavit:

"I tried to open the toilet door but it was locked."

http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2013/02/19/copy-of-oscar-pistorius-affidavit-click-to-read/

 

[beach]

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.

It might have been Dateline. I watched that special this past weekend and the same ex-boyfriend was interviewed. The report also noted that she was not dressed in night clothes. That was also the first I knew of that. Made me pause for sure.

 

[Interested Bystander]

We are all entitled to an opinion but I struggle to understand how anyone can accept that when OP rushed into the bathroom and yelled to Reeva to call the police, that, knowing Oscar was also in the bathroom, she would not have said "I'm in the toilet, Oscar". She would have heard he was just outside the toilet cubicle door when he was shouting for her to call the police. Why would she not have answered him? This man's alibi is so full of "holes" it is totally unbelievable.

 

[Cherwell]

The report also noted that she was not dressed in night clothes. That was also the first I knew of that. Made me pause for sure.

A young couple in a fairly new relationship, in bed together on Valentine's night? I wouldn't expect "night clothes" to be part of the scene at all. But perhaps that's just me.

 

[sorrell skye]

We are all entitled to an opinion but I struggle to understand how anyone can accept that when OP rushed into the bathroom and yelled to Reeva to call the police, that, knowing Oscar was also in the bathroom, she would not have said "I'm in the toilet, Oscar". She would have heard he was just outside the toilet cubicle door when he was shouting for her to call the police. Why would she not have answered him? This man's alibi is so full of "holes" it is totally unbelievable.

If his version of events is true, one would think Reeva would have asked him what was going on when he told her to call the police.

In OP's version, the lack of back-and-forth dialogue between the two during a would-be home invasion is difficult for me to swallow.

In previous threads, it was speculated that Reeva kept quiet after OP told her to call the police so the *burglar* wouldn't know she was in the toilet. While I agree that's possible, I think it's more likely that she would have verbally responded to OP in some fashion after hearing him say to her "call the police".

My youngest daughter (a teen at the time) & I experienced an attempted home invasion years ago. I can tell you - there was a LOT of back-and-forth dialogue between us as I simultaneously called 911 and woke my daughter up so that we could try to get to safety before the intruder could get inside our house. My primary concern was to make sure my daughter was awake & ready to flee in case the burglar got inside.

Yet, OP didn't turn on the lights, didn't locate the bedroom door key so that, at the very least, Reeva could try to flee to safety, didn't make sure Reeva was awake & alert & ready to take action to protect herself.

Very difficult to swallow.

 

[Mountain Misst]

Oscar Pistorius Trial
Live Radio
http://whoopwhoop.tv/pistoriusradio.htm

Audio only of the trial... discussing the trial during the break.
Also something else to listen to during the break, besides the rain.

Thanks for that audio link, TigerBalm. I can't watch the antics, my blood pressure would go through the roof.
No wonder OP was chewing his nails, although that's a classic 'hurry up' by a parent, carried into adulthood.

 

[Mountain Misst]

She rightly tells the court that a gunshot would be much louder than the cricket bat thing.

As I noted here yesterfday, the bullet breaks the sound barrier and thus its wave packets include sonic booms. Not even Oscar's cricket bat swings will break the sound barrier....

The South African cricket team would have him on their side if he was that good. Maybe between the three-week parcels of court time, OP could give the SA cricket team a boost, they sure need it atm.

 

[Feynman]

My understanding is that they heard a woman screaming, shots rang out and the screaming died off. Then a mans voice yelled, help three times. Everyone said the same thing. The only difference was that some of them heard 4 shots exactly. Her husband thought there may have been 4 5 or 6.

Burger's story is, chronologically, a female screaming for help, then a man calling for help 3 times, then more female screams, then 4 gunshots with female screams trailing off after the last shot

 

[jilly]

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.

Can't wait for the boyfriend. Oscar's going to be seething. Maybe he'll cover his ears again.

 

[Feynman]

Excerpted quote:

Yet, OP didn't turn on the lights, didn't locate the bedroom door key so that, at the very least, Reeva could try to flee to safety, didn't make sure Reeva was awake & alert & ready to take action to protect herself.

On the question of turning on the lights, I wrote this last year: "If there was an intruder in my house and I feared for my life, I would definitely keep the lights off. I know the house like the back of my hand, the intruder doesn't. With the lights on I equalize the playing field. Advantage to me if they're off."

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

We are all entitled to an opinion but I struggle to understand how anyone can accept that when OP rushed into the bathroom and yelled to Reeva to call the police, that, knowing Oscar was also in the bathroom, she would not have said "I'm in the toilet, Oscar". She would have heard he was just outside the toilet cubicle door when he was shouting for her to call the police. Why would she not have answered him? This man's alibi is so full of "holes" it is totally unbelievable.

I also struggle to understand when a woman's screams were heard and just after that she was shot 4 times how on earth can OP's version be possible and plausible ? :facepalm:

 

[Stromm]

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)

Thanks to all for comments and welcomes.

Good point about the late discovery of the bullet casing. This laissez-faire attitude to evidence-collection is really unhelpful! Must admit I still fancy this one as being tricky for the defence to get past (though I could well be wrong). Not arguing at all; you've just got me thinking (out loud).

If there had been urine in the loo I'd have expected the defence to mention that at the bail hearing. It would back up the empty-bladder post mortem info and the expert testimony about a sleeping person producing a measurable volume of urine after a couple of hours. Make the prosecution do all the running to contest source and recency of said urine. Even if the bullet casing had slipped round the U-bend, say, or was concealed from a casual initial glance by toilet paper, there should be crime-scene photos that would confirm or disprove the presence of urine (even if the gathering of that photographic detail was nothing more than a happy accident!).

If somehow the investigators had failed to get even a photograph of the liquid surface in the loo-bowl (despite having to photograph the blood-smeared seat and suchlike) then I'd expect Roux to have shredded Botha over that. That's just surmise, of course, and therefore practically useless. (Just because a plotline is plausible, it doesn't mean it's the only one that is). Still, it's hard to imagine the defence just going "Oh well, them's the breaks!" if Botha and his colleagues had failed to gather basic evidence that would have borne out the defence version of events. I think Roux would have humiliated Botha still further for his lack of professionalism, before adding "No probs! We've got all this bladder data anyway. All you've done is help to prove that the state is trying to frame an innocent man."

If the flushing thing does turn out to a problem for the defence, perhaps they'll try to back out of the empty-bladder implications by producing evidence of (or testimony about the likelihood of) post mortem urine-release. If such evidence exists, the prosecution would presumably have availed themselves of it at the bail hearing, and perhaps it would have suited them not to use it if they wanted to let the defence urine-trap play out.

Or perhaps the defence will have to resort to one of these lines:-

RS hit the flush as she fell to the floor after the fatal gunshot. Plausibility dependent upon (among other things) type and position of flush mechanism. We could be in for the most absurd reconstruction charade since O.J. Simpson spread his fingers until his hand resembled a gecko's, and then struggled to put his own glove on.

OP flushed the loo after he'd broken the door down. He was distraught ... he wasn't thinking straight ... he harboured some deep-seated impulse to undo what had happened ... to 'tidy up' ...


At the very least, that one line from the plea-explanation about OP hearing the bathroom window being opened will severely limit the defence's future options for tactical edits to the timeline. We now have OP back inside the flat, his balcony-door chores complete, at the same instant that RS is opening the bathroom window. With both their subsequent movements anchored to that moment, they can no longer be slid back and forth relative to each other in response to evidentiary developments. As RS moves from the bathroom window to the loo door, OP is setting off along two sides of the bed to get his gun. She's really against the clock to have had a pee and be up off the loo with her shorts pulled up by the time he arrives and starts shooting.

 

[Interested Bystander]

If his version of events is true, one would think Reeva would have asked him what was going on when he told her to call the police.

In OP's version, the lack of back-and-forth dialogue between the two during a would-be home invasion is difficult for me to swallow.

In previous threads, it was speculated that Reeva kept quiet after OP told her to call the police so the *burglar* wouldn't know she was in the toilet. While I agree that's possible, I think it's more likely that she would have verbally responded to OP in some fashion after hearing him say to her "call the police".

My youngest daughter (a teen at the time) & I experienced an attempted home invasion years ago. I can tell you - there was a LOT of back-and-forth dialogue between us as I simultaneously called 911 and woke my daughter up so that we could try to get to safety before the intruder could get inside our house. My primary concern was to make sure my daughter was awake & ready to flee in case the burglar got inside.

Yet, OP didn't turn on the lights, didn't locate the bedroom door key so that, at the very least, Reeva could try to flee to safety, didn't make sure Reeva was awake & alert & ready to take action to protect herself.

Very difficult to swallow.

Is he also asking us to believe that Reeva was in the toilet, spending a penny, without the light on?