Trial Discussion Thread #13 - 14.03.25, Day 15

[Linda7NJ]

Sorrell, I just remembered that June Steenkamp denied that Reeva was ever in an abusive relationship...will quote my post from last year:


I honestly think she was stronger than that, and judging from the messages, to me it seems she is not afraid to speak her mind. In fact, she seems to berate him for bad behavior (rightly so) and he falls over himself apologizing.

Isn't that typical and the reason women stay in abusive relationships? If they were mean and rotten all the time, leaving would be easy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[minor4th]

"If it's true that one ear witness mistook Oscar's screaming as the screams of a woman, then it stands to reason that 5 witnesses would make the same mistake."

It seems that only Barry Roux is saying the witness mistook Oscar's screaming as the screams of a woman. The witness certainly did not concur with that.

No, IMO, it does not "stand to reason" that if one witness was mistaken (which I do not believe) that the next four witnesses "would make the same mistake".

Sure it does. If a scream sounds like a woman to one witness, it's natural that the same screams would sound like a woman to all who heard them.

If it turns out that it could only have been Oscar screaming, as alleged by Roux (and supported by the state's evidence), then it stands to reason that all of the witnesses have made the exact same mistake.

ETA: We already know that one witness mistook Oscar's "loud crying" for a woman, so it is within reason that the other ear witnesses made the same mistake. That is not difficult to understand, I don't think.

 

[Carol70]

My iDevices periodically back themselves up to iCloud storage when they are plugged in to charge and connected to a wifi. This could take five minutes or longer.

App or iOS updates might similarly take some time if try are set to automatically download.

Lol, yes, yours might take 5 mins or so on the amazing line speeds you get over the seas, here in the stone ages, only the very privileged get up to 20mgs, most households sit with 2-4mg lines....it takes an entire night to back up my iCloud, do updates etc.(on a 2mg line which is, don't laugh, probably the same as good old dial up if you were this side )

 

[JuneBug67]

BBM

IMO, the way I'm reading this, I'm pretty sure the use of an oxymoron is being used.

"...climate of fear...personal safety...."

Reeva was in fear of OP. Yet she carried no weapons.

OP claims a love of weapons and IMO, uses his stumps as an excuse for his rages and irrational behavior while going into a so-called 'defensive' mode using those weapons.

I dare say any sympathy he may garner will only be from his family and others who have the same wacked-out mindset as he. The ones who are able to identify with him.

Personally, I'm unable to bend my brain around what he's done.

No, not an oxymoron. It is my impression that the prevalence of a certain type of criminal activity in SA will leave many normal people accepting of the possibility of a deep fear in the middle of the night. If he manages to communicate credible remorse and regret I think it is very likely he will have his supporters.

What he did was madness in hindsight, even crediting his own story. But in SA, at 3:00 am, maybe it's a kind of ultimately forgiveable madness. As has been pointed out, others in comparable circumstances have been viewed with sympathy.

 

[screecher]

It depends whether or not a case can be made that OP's behaviour that night was due to his vulnerability as a man with a severe disability, a man at much greater disadvantage than an able bodied person.

Ah, imo, the case has been made OP is a man who carries with him a sense of entitlement, is majorly self-involved with an inflated ego, who does what he wants, how he wants, when he wants, with no regard to where he is, nor who he is with. Nevermind his rages and his love of weapons. I certainly don't see him as a disadvantaged man with a severe disability.

IF OP always was in fear and felt vulnerable, why did he not hire bodyguards???

 

[lisasalinger]

I want to run through the timeline of the final moments. For right now I'm using the Stipp's ear witness testimony since they were the closest plus phone records.


2:59am - Approximate time of first 3 bangs according to the Stipp's clock. Clock said 3:02am, but it runs about 3-4 minutes fast. Defense theory that these are the shots that killed Reeva

3:14am- 3 more bangs are heard according to the Stipps. I am basing this on Mrs. Stipp's clock saying 3:17, but it's 3 to 4 minutes fast. Prosecution theory that these are the shots that killed Reeva. Defense believes this is the bat

3:15:51am- Dr. Stipp gets thru to Baba to report shots heard, 16 second phone call. We know he tried calling 10111 first and didn't get thru, so there was a little bit of lag time between shot being heard and him getting thru at this time.

3:19am - Oscar calls Johan Stander. Under the defense theory, this is about 19 minutes after the shots. Under the prosecution theory, this is about 5 minutes after the shots

3:20am - Oscar calls Netcare

3:21am - Oscar calls, and receives a call, from Baba. Oscar's outgoing call likely a mistake, only crying/no words. Baba gets thru to Oscar, speaks to him and Oscar says "everything is fine"

3:24am The Standers and Baba are on the scene. They may have arrived a minute or two sooner?

 

[nastasya]

Well, Stander wasn't just a friend, he was security. And I think it's been established that things are a little different in other countries in that it's not unusual to call security first when there's an emergency.

That analysis lacks any logic because the killer immediately DID call the ambulance service after ending the call with Stander.

This means the killer either had the ambulance number already in his phone, knew the number, or Stander told him the number to call. Those are the only possibilities. All three of those possibilities are in direct contradiction to killer's claim that he called Stander to tell him to call an ambulance, and that Stander did not call the ambulance.

 

[JuneBug67]

He's more able bodied than I and I'm a healthy woman.

Yeah a woman, women are targeted all the time. I'm short too. Does that give me some sort of excuse to kill willy nilly??? No!

All IMO




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is of course not just an issue of height when any amputee is on their own legs, though that is part of it. It's also one of speed, stability, agility, confidence etc. It's not reasonable IMO to not acknowledge this would be on his mind.

 

[Val1]

It is of course not just an issue of height when any amputee is on their own legs, though that is part of it. It's also one of speed, stability, agility, confidence etc. It's not reasonable IMO to not acknowledge this would be on his mind.

You do know that the accused is an olympic athlete who won against other olympic athletes that were not amputees? So imo,

speed, stability, agility, confidence etc.

does not even factor in, emotional maturity otoh may.

 

[sorrell skye]

Sorrell, I just remembered that June Steenkamp denied that Reeva was ever in an abusive relationship...will quote my post from last year:


I honestly think she was stronger than that, and judging from the messages, to me it seems she is not afraid to speak her mind. In fact, she seems to berate him for bad behavior (rightly so) and he falls over himself apologizing.

TY Carol!

I'm glad to know that Reeva had not been in a prior abusive relationship.

I agree with you about Reeva not being afraid to speak her mind. I think she was a strong, independent woman, but I also think she bent over backwards to please OP and went out of her way to try to avoid doing anything that would make him angry or cause him to criticize her. Although I think she was a strong woman, I get the feeling she may have also been a people-pleaser - she wanted to make others happy (nothing at all wrong with that, IMO, unless one is in a relationship with an abuser. Abusers are notorious for entering into relationships with people-pleasers, because they can manipulate them).

The thing about OP apologizing: I don't know that he apologized as much as he blamed his behavior on circumstances and on Reeva. Based on a text message to her, he didn't seem to take responsibility for his behavior, except to say "I'm sorry" "The fact that I'm tired and sick isn't an excuse".

But then he spent the majority of his text excusing his behavior and blaming Reeva for his actions. I've no doubt that in his mind he thought he was 'explaining' his behavior. But, in reality, he was justifying his behavior and blaming Reeva for why he said & did some of the things he said & did. As far as I'm concerned, that's not a sincere apology. He was basically saying it was Reeva's fault he acted the way he did, and if she would change her behavior then he wouldn't get so mad at her and mistreat her. I think he was trying to manipulate her, rather than actually taking personal responsibility.

Here's a link to an 'apology' text he sent Reeva. Zwiebel posted it upthread:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Trial Discussion Thread #13 - 14.03.25, Day 17

 

[steveml]

Pathologist said Reeva could breath for a few mins after head shot and as the saying goes, well vaguely similar, where there's a breath there's a scream, and my bet is that an action/reaction is involuntary both in and out of court.

Not after a head shot I'm afraid, it's the other way round.

The state pathologist told the court that only the head shot would have stopped Reeva from screaming, but with the impact of the other shots on her body,
it would have been 'unusual' if she had not cried out.

As soon as the head shot is made - there would be silence.

 

[minor4th]

You do know that the accused is an olympic athlete who won against other olympic athletes that were not amputees? So imo, does not even factor in, emotional maturity otoh may.

We're not talking about running a race with prosthetics on, we're talking about responding to a perceived threat in the middle of the night, in the dark, with no prosthetics on.

So, yeah, I would definitely say it factors in. And besides, if it's even reasonably possibly true that Oscar felt vulnerable as he said, then it has to be accepted.

 

[lisasalinger]

I want to run through the timeline of the final moments. For right now I'm using the Stipp's ear witness testimony since they were the closest plus phone records.


2:59am - Approximate time of first 3 bangs according to the Stipp's clock. Clock said 3:02am, but it runs about 3-4 minutes fast. Defense theory that these are the shots that killed Reeva

3:14am- 3 more bangs are heard according to the Stipps. I am basing this on Mrs. Stipp's clock saying 3:17, but it's 3 to 4 minutes fast. Prosecution theory that these are the shots that killed Reeva. Defense believes this is the bat

3:15:51am- Dr. Stipp gets thru to Baba to report shots heard, 16 second phone call. We know he tried calling 10111 first and didn't get thru, so there was a little bit of lag time between shot being heard and him getting thru at this time.

3:19am - Oscar calls Johan Stander. Under the defense theory, this is about 19 minutes after the shots. Under the prosecution theory, this is about 5 minutes after the shots

3:20am - Oscar calls Netcare

3:21am - Oscar calls, and receives a call, from Baba. Oscar's outgoing call likely a mistake, only crying/no words. Baba gets thru to Oscar, speaks to him and Oscar says "everything is fine"

3:24am The Standers and Baba are on the scene. They may have arrived a minute or two sooner?

I'm quoting myself

The 15 minute time lapse in between bangs, that we uncovered through Mrs. Stipp's testimony yesterday, is concerning to me.

If the defense believes that the initial shots were around 3am and then the next set of bangs (the bat) were heard almost 15 minutes later, isn't that a problem? It should not have taken Oscar 15 minutes after the shots to go get the bat. The Stipps say there was continual female screaming all throughout this time. According to Oscar, he didn't know yet that it was Reeva in the toilet.

So for 15 minutes he was screaming in agony, not having any confirmation of where Reeva was, before he broke down the door to access what was behind it?

Help me understand? It certainly doesn't look good that it took him 19 minutes to call anybody.

 

[screecher]

No, not an oxymoron. It is my impression that the prevalence of a certain type of criminal activity in SA will leave many normal people accepting of the possibility of a deep fear in the middle of the night. If he manages to communicate credible remorse and regret I think it is very likely he will have his supporters.

What he did was madness in hindsight, even crediting his own story. But in SA, at 3:00 am, maybe it's a kind of ultimately forgiveable madness. As has been pointed out, others in comparable circumstances have been viewed with sympathy.

I don't disagree with you JuneBug. I don't live in SA so can't speak to that. I do believe you.

What I'm saying is regarding to OP, IF he lived in fear and felt so damned vulnerable why not hire guards??? Why not use an outside and inside alarm system? Especially considering he had female overnight guests and feared for their safety too?

I would hope the majority of people in SA and elsewhere could/would see through his manipulations and excuses.

 

[JuneBug67]

You do know that the accused is an olympic athlete who won against other olympic athletes that were not amputees? So imo, does not even factor in, emotional maturity otoh may.

He excelled on an Olympic running track with purpose designed prostheses. Not remotely relevant to standing on a few inches of bone below his knees in the middle of the night facing what he may have believed was an intruder.

 

[steveml]

I think 01.48 was the time her phone switched off. That is why I questioned whether it switched off automatically or whether it had to be switched off. Then I posted that most likely, as it was an iPhone, that its battery ran low. I know they tend to run a day at most and it seems they used their phones quite a lot for calls, texts, internet etc.

That's not too far off I guess. My iPhone only lasts about 1.5 days on a brand new battery if I leave it and don't use it for anything.

 

[Lyra500]

Sure it does. If a scream sounds like a woman to one witness, it's natural that the same screams would sound like a woman to all who heard them.

If it turns out that it could only have been Oscar screaming, as alleged by Roux (and supported by the state's evidence), then it stands to reason that all of the witnesses have made the exact same mistake.

ETA: We already know that one witness mistook Oscar's "loud crying" for a woman, so it is within reason that the other ear witnesses made the same mistake. That is not difficult to understand, I don't think.

I am sorry but I totally disagree with this and do not think it is a true representation of the facts. Loud crying and screaming in fear of your life are two entirely different things in any case.

How is it supported by states evidence?

Why state things as fact when they are actually just the defence position?

That particular witness was not talking about screaming, she said she heard someone crying and carrying on. Her husband said it was OP. This was after all the shots and proves nothing about any of the witnesses being mistaken about hearing a woman's terrified screams before the gun shots. To me it fits well with events since it could very easily have been Oscar Pistorius, either crying for Reeva or for himself as it dawned on him exactly the damage he had done. I believe he shot her in a temper - when the red mist had gone I can quite believe that he would have been distraught.

When OP's legal team ran the 'tests' with screaming at least one of the ear witnesses clearly identified the fact that the screams were a man screaming at a low and high register rather than a woman.

 

[Really?]

I think it's a win for the defense for a couple of reasons - and I'm just talking about this one witness, not the whole case.

1. Vermeulen was further discredited because he said he didn't investigate that mark with the cricket bat when pictures show that he actually did.

2. It leaves the inference that the third mark could have been caused by the cricket bat because the state's investigation could not rule it out - in fact it looks like they investigated it because they considered the mark could have been caused by the cricket bat, but they intentionally excluded that from the evidence they presented.

So it would be an additional cricket bat bang ...corresponding with the 3 bangs at 3:17 (second set), according to the defense case. I don't know how it could help the prosecution.

still a murderer though....:hand:..hehe

 

[Linda7NJ]

He excelled on an Olympic running track with purpose designed prostheses. Not remotely relevant to standing on a few inches of bone below his knees in the middle of the night facing what he may have believed was an intruder.

He wasn't facing anyone.

He was safely on the other side of a closed door with a weapon.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nastasya]

Yes but he has pleaded "not guilty" to the charge put to him as premeditated murder. If the state can't prove he intentionally killed Reeva (and knew it was her in the bathroom), and the defence does manage to make a good case of he truly did think his life was in danger and he was trying to protect himself and Reeva, he could very well walk, as the documented cases of this nature I have pointed out before have proved. At most, he could get a suspended with his gun licenses being revoked.

Besides the fact, the states case was Reeva died at 3.17 from a shot to the head, we now know this is not possible.

So if it's not possible the killer shot Reeva in the head at 3:17 when do you think he killed her?