Trial Discussion Thread #13 - 14.03.25, Day 15

[screecher]

from steveml: It's extremely likely OP will testify.

The charge of intention he faces is tested subjectively, so the Judge will want to know his state of mind and perceptions before and during the shooting.

Without this information all the Judge has to work from is the small amount of information in OP's bail affidavit, and testimony from when people arrived at the scene. He really would be leaving it in the hands of the Judge.
__________________BBM
^ It's going to be 'in the hands of the judge' whatever OP does, doesn't do, says, or not says.

OP cannot 'control' or I dare say, manipulate the judge. This is one woman he'll rue ever laying eyes on. ;-)

 

[MeeBee]

OP will testify. I'd put money on it. He has to.

IMO

 

[MeeBee]

Oh LOL...thanks for that!! I am now certain is was netcare who DID tell him to rather take her in. I can't recall if if was stander or the IO when he testified, that said when stander arrived..OP asked him to drive her to the hospital but he said no, he would rather call paramedics. (Actually think it may have been his daughter who told the IO this).

I really hope we get a transcript or get to hear the infamous Netcare call before the end of this trial.

Are Netcare calls usually recorded?

 

[whiterum]

Do y'all think OP would likely help himself by testifying? I don't. His courtroom theatrics have been so over the top that I now see them as defense strategy contrived to affect the judge and allow Roux to claim "the incident" left OP too emotionally shattered to take the stand.

If OP does testify, I expect he'll amp-up his antics and add loud wailing and visible shaking to his repertoire.

I don't think he will either, he will act so distraught that he will be unable to respond to questioning. I would suggest should he take the stand that he address 'My Lady' in a high female voice for added effect :laugh:

 

[Lyra500]

Nope, we discussed this at great length last year after the bail hearing. All we had to go on was that a call was placed netcare at 3.20am. We, even now, have no idea what was said during the call. I suggested it because ambulances do take a notoriously long time to arrive and if possible, you try get to the hospital instead of waiting for an ambulance (depending on the nature of injury of course). I also speculated that the hospital told him to bring her in for a reason as to why the car may have been in the driveway, door open, idling. However, today I saw it was netcare ambulance service he called and NOT the actual hospital...they have excellent response times so should have been there very soon after the call.

But OP claims that Netcare told him to bring Reeva in and not wait for an ambulance and when Dr Stipp was at the house he asked whether an ambulance had been called and was told "No". He then called one himself as I understand things.

If OP was actually advised to bring her in himself then I seriously wonder whether he misled Netcare about the nature of her injuries.

 

[crasshopper]

Are Netcare calls usually recorded?

I'm surprised this hasn't been introduced.

The reason why there is a pause between the 1st and 2nd gun shots is because "the target" fell to the ground, so OP had to change the angle of the gun. He either heard her fall/scream or saw her fall.

The 1:48 am phone use lasting 5 minutes is important - OP was awake, not sleeping- just prior to heated argument, screaming and gun shots.

Also surprised Nel <modsnip> didn't make a stronger point about this 1:48 call. Does anyone know to whom this call was made?

 

[MeeBee]

And didn't I read somewhere that there are Netcare employees on the defense witness list?

 

[Carol70]

Are Netcare calls usually recorded?

I have no idea but I sure hope so! I seriously doubt we will get to hear the call but hopefully there will be transcripts, if they are recorded

 

[patCee]

That's not what the pathologist said though. He said that a scream would be an involuntary reaction, and could continue after the shot to the brain. That surprised me, as I too thought it would stop instantly, but apparently not.

OOPS! what the pathologist said was that the 1st shot was to the hip, the 2nd shot failed, 3rd or 4th shot was to the head and would have stopped her screaming.
This is according to:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-Reeva-Steenkamp-gave-her-time-to-scream.html

 

[kittychi]

I have always mistrusted that. I can't imagine a service telling anyone to MOVE a shotgun victim to a hospital. Maybe I am just inexperienced. I don't know. I do wonder why Nel didn't bring this up in his case in chief.

Makes me wonder if he minimized her injuries during the call and they thought she could be moved about easily, so told him to bring her in.

 

[Suthrnqt]

12.57pm GMT

Journalists in court in Pretoria are reporting that one of Pistorius' legal team, Brian Webber, when asked whether the athlete would be testifying, said: "We have no choice … it's a question of when."

He added it was "likely" that Pistorius would be first to give evidence for the defence.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/25/oscar-pistorius-reeva-steenkamp-trial-day-14

I thought it had been established that OP would testify.

 

[Carol70]

And didn't I read somewhere that there are Netcare employees on the defense witness list?

I'm sure I saw them on the prosecutions list but they were not called???
But think it was the netcare paramedics and not the phone operator.

 

[Carol70]

But OP claims that Netcare told him to bring Reeva in and not wait for an ambulance and when Dr Stipp was at the house he asked whether an ambulance had been called and was told "No". He then called one himself as I understand things.

If OP was actually advised to bring her in himself then I seriously wonder whether he misled Netcare about the nature of her injuries.

I know, I also found it odd when Stipp testified this because I clearly recalled roux stating the netcare call during bail application and still said he wouldn't lie under oath unless he had proof the call was indeed made. So yep, that is very strange. Unless Stipp was asking standers daughter or mr baba if they had called???

 

[MeeBee]

I'm sure I saw them on the prosecutions list but they were not called???
But think it was the netcare paramedics and not the phone operator.

Pgrhaps Nel decided they wouldn't provide anything particularly useful to his case?

 

[Carol70]

It is possible that during the call, all he stated was someone was shot, he needed an ambulance, gave address and then was told to rather bring victim in (maybe wasn't an ambulance available at that time if it was serious etc etc).. I really honestly don't find anything strange about the fact they told him to bring her in!

 

[Carol70]

Pgrhaps Nel decided they wouldn't provide anything particularly useful to his case?

Not to his case maybe, but no doubt Roux will be calling them to discuss his state of mind when making the call, traumatized, crying, screaming etc lol.

 

[Lyra500]

Are Netcare calls usually recorded?

One would hope so.

I can't help thinking that if there was anything truly negative for OP then they would have been called to testify by the prosecution.

I remain horrified by the idea that they suggested OP should stick Reeva's broken and bleeding body in a car and make his own way to the hospital. It just seems so far removed from what we would regard as effective care for traumatic injuries here.

That is why I wondered if he had been economical with the truth when relating Reeva's injuries.

 

[Lyra500]

And didn't I read somewhere that there are Netcare employees on the defense witness list?

I thought they were on the prosecution list.

 

[Cherwell]

Can't say it's impossible, but never ever seen that. Not even in the movies, and they do exaggerate :smile:

I'm glad to say I've never seen anyone fatally shot in the head.

OOPS! what the pathologist said was that the 1st shot was to the hip, the 2nd shot failed, 3rd or 4th shot was to the head and would have stopped her screaming.
This is according to:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-Reeva-Steenkamp-gave-her-time-to-scream.html

It was the ballistics expert who testified about the order of the shots, not the pathologist.

The Telegraph has paraphrased Prof Saayman's words, of course, but I remember being surprised at what he said regarding a final scream continuing to be audible after the shot. I don't remember his exact words, but the gist of it was that the last scream would have continued for a few seconds. I didn't mean that she would have screamed again after that.

 

[delilah]

If you had three starter questions to put to OP on the witness stand, what would they be? I might want to ask:

1. Can you describe in detail all your actions from the time of the fourth shot to unlocking the toilet cubicle? (According to his/Roux's version, there was up to 10 minutes between shots fired and bat on door. That's a heck of a long time).

2. In your affidavit you state that "I believed that when the intruder/s came out of the toilet we would be in grave danger." So at the point at which you fired the shots, you did not believe you were in danger? (So he was not acting in self defence at the point at which he shot an alleged intruder he had never seen).

3. After you fired the first shot, what noises did you here in the toilet cubicle? (No screams, I presume. Did he not hear the sounds of a body slumping from standing to sitting on top of the magazine rack, that would indicate the person had been wounded? Why then fire another three shots other than to murder said person?)