Trial Discussion Thread #14 - 14.03.28, Day 16

[Interested Bystander]

I am perplexed about that too because from what I understand he is most definitely not a paraplegic. Could it be by using they think "paraplegic" makes him sound more vulnerable than "double amputee"?



I must have missed that, did OP have a panic button ?

Yes, Pieter Baba, the guard, brought it up under cross examination but Roux started to talk over him very quickly. It was easily missed. If I can find the time I will run through Baba's cross examination again and see if I can post the link on here. All the videos of the cross examinations are on You Tube. Baba appeared on two days and I am not sure which one it was in.

 

[steveml]

I am perplexed about that too because from what I understand he is most definitely not a paraplegic. Could it be by using they think "paraplegic" makes him sound more vulnerable than "double amputee"?



I must have missed that, did OP have a panic button ?

'Earlier in the day, Silver Woods Estate security guard Pieter Baba told Mr Roux during cross-examination that Mr Pistorius’s home had been fitted with an alarm system. Mr Baba questioned why, if the Paralympian athlete thought there were intruders in his house, he did not press the panic button'.

Source:
http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/20...in-court-as-pistorius-hears-graphic-testimony

 

[G.bng]

"Even if he argues successfully about his disability..."

Yes, "even if". And if he does I will be very surprised. Because if he is as vulnerable on his stumps and so scared and in such terror as he wants us to beleive, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever (not even for a "reasonable paraplegic", or as I think more correct a "reasonable double amputee") that he would run out to meet the intruders he thought wee armed and about to kill them, when by the floor-plan, with two corners for the intruder/s to hide behind, and two cubicles for them to hid in, he would have been recklessly and unnecessarily risking his and Reeva's life every step had the intruders been intent on ambushing and killing them. To the contrary, calls made, prothesis donned and waiting for security and/or police to arrive behind a locked door with his gun aimed on it, he would have been in a nigh unassailable position.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Do you mean the bedroom doors? The ones that have so much damage from someone obviously beating them open because he was locked out of the bedroom. One of the doors has a hole in it from someone inside firing the air gun's pellet at someone on the outside. And OPs legs are beat really badly damaged, as though he was wearing them and trying to "knee" kick a door to break through its locks.
Thanks .
All of this will be presented by Nel. The judge will be able to make a decision of when these things occurred, the words "reasonable" and "believable" are important. People often focus on one small thing and show how OPs story can be plausible regarding that one small thing, but when all of the small things are considered together along with OPs story his story looks implausible.

The door I was referring to was the toilet . I don't know why but I have always had a gut feeling that he knew where his victim was .
I am not legally trained so sometimes I don't always understand how things work in a trial .People use the expression that if there is reasonable doubt then you have to take on face value the statement that OP has given and acquit .
I feel his statement is riddled with implausible statements but then you get the argument well there is a one in a million chance that it could have happened that way . The list of things a reasonable person would have to give him the benefit of doubt on is pretty long And then there is the added vulnerability issue .
I am 5ft and weigh 57kg in that situation I could feel very vunerable but wouldn't charged towards the danger . I have no doubt at all that OP has vulnerability physical and mentally but it is worrying that it could be enough to get away with murder .
Is his disability going to carry more weight than that of say a petite female .
Lets say I had shot my Hubby in the same circumstances would that be seen as reasonable justification to kill him . I bet even on stumps OP is only as vunerable as I would be against an intruder because he is very fit and strong as well as being disabled .this also then begs the question about gun laws Do the gun laws in South African allow a vunerable person to have a gun without an assessment of vulnerability ? Because if they can use it as an excuse to get away with murder then I rather think there should be

 

[G.bng]

I heard on Sky this morning that Nel andRoux have agreed that OP will be 2nd up on the stand. The Defence Pathologist seems to be 1st up. No reason given that I know of. I thought in SA law it was the who defendant had to appear first.

I reckon Roux, with the pathologist first, may be hoping his pathologist is so convincing about food intake, order of wounds, etc. that he will after that testimony be able to plead "No case to answer"... jmo and one I am still not fully sure about.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I am perplexed about that too because from what I understand he is most definitely not a paraplegic. Could it be they think "paraplegic" makes him sound more vulnerable than "double amputee"?



I must have missed that, did OP have a panic button ?

Here you go:-

Highlights package of the Trial: Day 6, 10 March 2014 - YouTube

I have found where Baba asks why OP didn’t use the alarm but it is on Trial Highlights of the proceedings which goes straight on to another testimony so you don’t hear OP move on rapidly to another point. I got the distinct feeling Roux did not want to hear Baba’s comment. Interesting that it was brought up in the highlights. Someone obviously thought it was important.

See 1.13 minutes.

 

[G.bng]

It's sloppy journalism from someone who doesn't know what 'paraplegic' means. She probably thinks it's a synonym for 'disabled'.

I thought the same, but then she has it in quotes as direct speech from someone in the defence team... maybe just DT being sloppy!

 

[Viper]

I am obviously slow on the uptake here because I only just thought a little more
about the damaged to the toilet door.
OP is likely to state that a lot of the other damage to his house was done prior to the night of the shooting, so the splits to the right hand side of the door near the locks might also have been done earlier .
She could have been locked behind a door that had already been damaged .
I do wish the live in staff had given evidence for the prosecution because they must have something of value to add to this .
At least they could have confirmed what the condition of the house was when they last went in . A narrower time frame would have been better than supposition .
Or maybe I just just stop thinking so much

The door I was referring to was the toilet . I don't know why but I have always had a gut feeling that he knew where his victim was .
I am not legally trained so sometimes I don't always understand how things work in a trial .People use the expression that if there is reasonable doubt then you have to take on face value the statement that OP has given and acquit .
I feel his statement is riddled with implausible statements but then you get the argument well there is a one in a million chance that it could have happened that way . The list of things a reasonable person would have to give him the benefit of doubt on is pretty long And then there is the added vulnerability issue .
I am 5ft and weigh 57kg in that situation I could feel very vunerable but wouldn't charged towards the danger . I have no doubt at all that OP has vulnerability physical and mentally but it is worrying that it could be enough to get away with murder .
Is his disability going to carry more weight than that of say a petite female .
Lets say I had shot my Hubby in the same circumstances would that be seen as reasonable justification to kill him . I bet even on stumps OP is only as vunerable as I would be against an intruder because he is very fit and strong as well as being disabled .this also then begs the question about gun laws Do the gun laws in South African allow a vunerable person to have a gun without an assessment vulnerability ? Because if they can use it as an excuse to get away with murder then I rather think there should be :-)

BIB. LOL!!! Thanks for that! :smile:

 

[whiterum]

No. From what I have read he can be lethal in cross examination. I think he has such a different style from Roux that he appears not to get involved. Whilst Roux blusters on about little or nothing and endlessly repeats himself, Nel stands quietly by watching the performance. I think he has probably brought into evidence everything he needs for a good cross examination but I have no legal experience, so what do I know - LOL.

I agree, IMO Nel's argument so far is solid it has evidence based support, he has a definite goal and will not need to rely on bullying, excessive nit-picking and farcical implausible claims such as OP screams like a woman . IMO Nel will eventually wipe the floor with Roux illowfight:

 

[Gbtaketwo]

I reckon Roux, with the pathologist first, may be hoping his pathologist is so convincing about food intake, order of wounds, etc. that he will after that testimony be able to plead "No case to answer"... jmo and one I am still not fully sure about.

Yes the food issue seems a big problem for the DT
The defence pathologist is being paid the come up with a solution 9.30pm to 3.15 am is a big amount of time to try and sweep under the carpet .
Will be watching that with interest .

 

[G.bng]

Yes, Pieter Baba, the guard, brought it up under cross examination but Roux started to talk over him very quickly. It was easily missed. If I can find the time I will run through Baba's cross examination again and see if I can post the link on here. All the videos of the cross examinations are on You Tube. Baba appeared on two days and I am not sure which one it was in.

Thanks Bystander but don't worry about a link because I saw Baba's testimony and know where the videos are, just I must have turned away when he said that. Certainly brings to mind the expression, "why have a dog and bark yourself".

Presumably all the security at the estate must cost the residents a fair packet and there is what looks like a 10 or more foot wall surrounding it difficult to scale. And why would OP jump to the conclusion burglars had entered a top floor which necessitates using a ladder when if they are able to open a latch on the top floor you'd think they'd be able to do the same on a window of the more accessible ground floor... or even make use of the broken window pane. And why did OP stress there were no burglar bars on the bathroom window when there are no burglar bars on any windows. I do so hope Nell and his team are on the ball with all these contradictions because one alone may not, but together they all add up to something not adding up!

 

[steveml]

One thing that concerns me slightly is that prosecution did not call Johan Stander to the stand.

As he was the first person on the scene, he would normally be quite crucial as a witness. I would therefore presume he wasn't useful to the prosecution.

Any thoughts?

 

[Harmony 2]

Please do not sleuth the families of the judge, assessors or parties involved in this case...

 

[Cherwell]

I thought the same, but then she has it in quotes as direct speech from someone in the defence team... maybe just DT being sloppy!

If that's the case, a decent journalist would have highlighted the misuse of the term. So still poor journalism.

 

[Viper]

IDK but I suspect that the pathologist is going before OP so that OP can cry, cover his ears, vomit, and retch all through the doctor's testimony; and then take the stand and continue to be inconsolable throughout his own testimony. Nel asked the photographer about why he took a photo of Reeva's shirt as she lay dead, he responded that he was photographing a hole in the shirt. There are actually two bullet holes on the right chest. Nel asked that question for a reason, I suspect that it has to do with disproving OPs expert pathologist's version of the sequence of the shots hitting Reeva.

It is interesting that OP had an alarm and panic buttons wired to the estate security and yet there is no record of him ever using it; just a record of him charging to investigate noises but not shooting at the source of the noise. I am interested to hear him explain what was so different about a WC door from his past confrontation with a washing machine and a friend that spent the night.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Here is some further comment about OP's alarm system.

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2014-03-25-the-states-case-against-oscar-pistorius/
Witness 9: Pieter Baba
Position: Security guard, Pistorius’ estate.
Testimony summary: Received calls from neighbours who had heard bangs from Pistorius. Says he called Pistorius and Pistorius said “Everything is okay”, but he could hear Pistorius crying. Also pointed out that Pistorius had full alarm system and could have pressed panic button if felt himself under threat.

 

[screecher]

Oh .. I've just managed to find the answer to that here:

http://www.enca.com/south-africa/oscar-trial-witnesses-recount-murder-scene-oscar-vomits



OK, so that straightens out for me that she was still actually clothed when OP brought her down the stairs and that he hadn't removed them prior to that (i.e. in some attempt to contaminate evidence).

Thanks jay-jay.

"...contaminate evidence...." and stage an alternate crime scene?

Hence, his reply "everything is okay", that reply has ALWAYS bothered me, as it totally does NOT MAKE SENSE.

UNLESS...OP dragged Reeva out of the crime scene, carried her downstairs, then leaving her on the floor, inside the front door...because...his initial plan was to say, being filled with terror and feeling uber vulnerable, he heard what he believed to be a burglar, not wanting to turn lights on so said burglar would be unable to see him, he then pumped said burglar with hollow point ammo, only to find, after turning lights on, Reeva.

"everything is okay" to Baba...OP needed more time to set the stage. The phrase makes sense to me now.

 

[Cherwell]

I am not legally trained so sometimes I don't always understand how things work in a trial. People use the expression that if there is reasonable doubt then you have to take on face value the statement that OP has given and acquit .
I feel his statement is riddled with implausible statements but then you get the argument well there is a one in a million chance that it could have happened that way . The list of things a reasonable person would have to give him the benefit of doubt on is pretty long.

It's "beyond reasonable doubt" - not any doubt. You don't have to acquit on the basis of a "one in a million chance" that the defendant's story is true.

And then there is the added vulnerability issue. I am 5ft and weigh 57kg in that situation I could feel very vulnerable but wouldn't charged towards the danger . I have no doubt at all that OP has vulnerability physical and mentally but it is worrying that it could be enough to get away with murder .
Is his disability going to carry more weight than that of say a petite female .
Lets say I had shot my Hubby in the same circumstances would that be seen as reasonable justification to kill him . I bet even on stumps OP is only as vulnerable as I would be against an intruder because he is very fit and strong as well as being disabled .this also then begs the question about gun laws Do the gun laws in South African allow a vulnerable person to have a gun without an assessment of vulnerability ? Because if they can use it as an excuse to get away with murder then I rather think there should be

I think you make a very good point. OP is way stronger and fitter than many people, with or without his legs on.

 

[G.bng]

One thing that concerns me slightly is that prosecution did not call Johan Stander to the stand.

As he was the first person on the scene, he would normally be quite crucial as a witness. I would therefore presume he wasn't useful to the prosecution.

Any thoughts?

Ooops... pressed post button by mistake.

Hostile and without favouring the prosecution case. For OP to call him first, and at 03:00 am, it sounds like he could be quite friendly with OP. In Spain where it's a bench system, judges don't put much weight on the testimony of people close to an accused because they either tend to cover up for them out of loyalty or they have terrible memories and can't remember many things!

 

[Cherwell]

One thing that concerns me slightly is that prosecution did not call Johan Stander to the stand.

As he was the first person on the scene, he would normally be quite crucial as a witness. I would therefore presume he wasn't useful to the prosecution.

Any thoughts?

What would you ask him (for the prosecution)?