Trial Discussion Thread #14 - 14.03.28, Day 16

[minor4th]

This is what Oscar claims happened. all the state say is the shots were fired at 3.17, nobody saw Oscar until he carried Reeva down the stairs at around 3.25, it is only his story that he used the bat before the phone calls. He could have easily have for instance have..
3.17 fired shots
3.19 phoned stander
3.20 phoned netcare
3.21-3.25 smashed down door carried her down

You are making the mistake of taking his story as the truth and basing the states case around it.

But you are making the mistake of assuming his story is a lie and basing the case around that.

Oscar did not fire the shots at 3:17 and no one says he did, other than Nel.

 

[minor4th]

And she possibly did do yoga in that shirt....or was it just bedroom twister? she just had to change sometime during the evening and most do that post shower...where is that shirt she was wearing when she arrived? In her bag? We know her pants were not as they are on the ground outside? As I said earlier there is a full four or more hours for Oscar to detail to us prior to them 'sleeping'

I thought it was the same shirt she arrived in. It was described exactly the same as in the picture where she's driving through security.

 

[Interested Bystander]

But pushing the alarm button does not mean armed security is immediately present to protect you

I think the idea is to press the button and leave the property immediately unless there is no way out. Security guards were only a very short distance away.

 

[sorrell skye]

I think that depends. His arm could have fit through a small space, but it may have been difficult for him to bend over enough to reach it if it was, say, blocking his shoulders or torso. It's like trying to reach something beyond a fence that's just out of reach. Your arm can fit through enough but it's still difficult to reach the object.

I'm responding to your post again, MeeBee (I hope you don't mind), because I just read OP's affidavit again.

A panel or panels broke off and I found the key on the floor and unlocked and opened the door.

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

I find OP's entire above description to be unpersuasive.

A panel or panels broke off - this describes a passive action, as if the panels broke off on their own, rather than being actively torn off or bashed off.

Also, it seems that OP couldn't decide how specific he wanted to be when describing the damage to the toilet door - panel or panels. This hearkens back to his description of the phantom "intruder or intruders".

I think he was purposely being vague. He would have certainly known if he had broken off a single panel or if he had broken off almost the entire upper portion of the door, especially since almost the entire upper portion of the door had been ripped out.

He was again vague about where in the toilet room he found the key, but then he got very specific about unlocking and opening the door. It's not necessary to explain that once he found the key he unlocked & opened the door - that's a given, since he had already stated that the door was locked. He wastes words explaining minutia, yet omits words that could shed light on more important details, such as where in the toilet room he found the key.

I'm still suspicious as to why he broke off almost the entire upper portion of the toilet door. I don't think he needed that much room to reach in & retrieve the key from the floor.

 

[steveml]

This story sounds really familiar to me...

William Saletan reads the piece

The Slaughter Of Reeva Steenkamp

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...h_about_reeva_steenkamp_he_s_a_dangerous.html

 

[Rumpole]

Only the stipps heard the first set, it is not a fact that they heard the cricket bat sound's, there is other evidence of damage in the bathroom.
If the second set of sounds was the cricket bat, that means Van der merwe and the Burger's didn't hear the gunshots, seems unlikely.

It does not seem unlikely to me.

That is the point. The other witnesses heard bat noises... their testimony simply did not cover the time of the first bangs...again the State's own phone records confirm the times.

If one set of bangs was NOT the bat then the State would need to explain what caused a third set of bangs and why a KNOWN source of loud noise was not heard at all by every witness... all alert and listening carefully after 3:17.

And I again point out... (silent) cricket bat bashes after shots at 3:17 but before 3:19 is simply impossible in regards time.

I will agree that Stipps evidence is damning for the Prosecution case, even though their testimony is shaded towards bolstering the State case... they are STATE witnesses... but certain truths shine through even so.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

But it would still be a big help in the event that when entering the bathroom he ended up being overpowered leaving Reeva all alone with an intruder(s).

Yes but he would argue the same point over and over that he was going to save Reeva so she wasn't in danger but sadly she was
I feel the lack of pressing an alarm put himself in greater danger .
An audible alarm would likely have frightened the intruder back out of the bathroom.

I would also ask him if he had set the burglar alarm that evening and if not why not if he is generally vulnerable when sleeping without his legs .
When did he last have his security reviewed He has stated that there have been other incidents.

 

[Gavel Rash]

I thought it was the same shirt she arrived in. It was described exactly the same as in the picture where she's driving through security.

See pictures I posted...it is not the same shirt at all. 'Black singlet top' is an endemic description of many types.

 

[sorrell skye]

But pushing the alarm button does not mean armed security is immediately present to protect you

I agree, but then why did you state in your BH affidavit that you shouted to Reeva to phone the police? According to your BH affidavit, you shouted twice to Reeva to phone the police. The police wouldn't have been immediately present to protect you, either. The police would have taken much longer to arrive. Estate security would have arrived much quicker than the police.

 

[Viper]

I think it is accepted by both sides that the toilet window was closed.

Hmmm... I don't recall that. And in the crime scene photo the toilet room window does appear to be open.

How would it support OPs case if the window were closed? Maybe it would make it harder for the 5 witnesses to hear Reeva's horrifying screams, or harder to differentiate between a man's voice and a woman's voice?

 

[screecher]

This simple fact that she did, encapsulates every murderers dilemma.. while they, and in this instance, Oscar, are totally involved on Planet Oscar with their own urgent problem, peoples lives go on. People have the flu. People wake up coughing. People glance over at their clocks... People just do not obey a murderers dictate that they and their dogs, or their children or husbands must mind their own business and let him, Oscar get on with the his business of murdering Reeva.

He was living in the middle of an suburban complex.. he has no control, no control whatever over what else is happening in the other houses surrounding him. Oscars problem was that he didn't shoot Reeva somewhere out in the Namibian desert. He, gunhappy Oscar, chose to fire off among a concentrated gathering of suburban dwellings.. how nuts is that??

people waking up coughing.. then looking over at their alarm is NORMAL.. completely normal. it happens all over the world every damn night , millions do it.

it was Oscars actions that were abnormal.

This. Is. The. BOMB.

 

[G.bng]

I am VERY comfortable with my conclusion that there is nothing there because if there it would be presented in the state's case in chief. That is their basis for charging premeditation - they will not and cannot hold back primary evidence that proves their case just to present it during cross examination.

For me the continual reference to "premeditation", both in the media and here, is misleading because it infers a concept that imo will not be a determining factor in this case while "unlawful", "intentional", and "reasonable" will be. Obviously as you note "the State cannot hold back primary evidence that proves their case just to present it during cross examination" but Nel admitted to the court, with his reluctant and somewhat bumbling opening address, that the state did not know exactly what happened:

" My lady, we argue that the accused version during the bail application and today cannot be reasonably possibly true, should be rejected, and as the only inference from the circumstantial evidence would be that the accused shot and killed the deceased with direct intent to kill her."

so although the state is obliged as you say to disclose all the evidence and detail that which it intends to rely on, which it has done, I don't see that it follows that it is obliged to show exactly how it plans to use it to argue its case, so that if after the defence's evidence it considers it is unable to prove BARD the direct and intentional murder of Reeva the final charging doc does not exclude a finding of murder by "transferred intent" considering that it notes:

"An error in persona will not affect the intention to kill a human being".

So although Roux tried his utmost to argue against a finding of "transferred intent" at the bail hearing, claiming that on the basis of OP's statement the defence would be moving to have the charge of "murder" substituted for that of "culpable homicide", they never did, so imo "transferred intent" is still very much on the table. Of course, there can be no "transferred intent" if the judge finds OP shot lawfully at an unseen intruder (the SA constitution will be a problem here), and/or that OP's was a reasonable response in all of the circumstances which will include OP's condition as a paraplegic/double amputee, but in any case that would only reduce OP's guilt to that of culpable homicide and the Judge's discretion as to whether to hand down a custodial sentence or not, but as far as I can see under SA criminal law OP could never be found not guilty of anything. JMO

 

[james83]

I don't think so. Shooting them dead takes care of the threat.

But if his story is true with his sense of terror, he had no idea what awaited him in the bathroom, he could easily have been killed for all he knew, leaving reeva all alone in the dark.

 

[james83]

It does not seem unlikely to me.

That is the point. The other witnesses heard bat noises... their testimony simply did not cover the time of the first bangs...again the State's own phone records confirm the times.

If one set of bangs was NOT the bat then the State would need to explain what caused a third set of bangs and why a KNOWN source of loud noise was not heard at all by every witness... all alert and listening carefully after 3:17.

And I again point out... (silent) cricket bat bashes after shots at 3:17 but before 3:19 is simply impossible in regards time.

I will agree that Stipps evidence is damning for the Prosecution case, even though their testimony is shaded towards bolstering the State case... they are STATE witnesses... but certain truths shine through even so.

The point i am making is there is a chance that nobody actually heard any bat noises because they possibly not very loud.

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

The photos in the below link are clearer but don't know if they were posted before..


http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/pistorius-trial/pistorius-trial-evidence-revealed-n61796

 

[Really?]

It was reported to be a red tape. To me that suggests the type of tape a physio uses to support muscle injury/weakness.

LOL, I read "psycho" and laughed.........sorry :blushing:

 

[Really?]

I also still believe ther is more phone stuff to come out. Also when Clarice was there as a lawyer she would have been all for his rights 'say nothing' hence he said nothing when initially asked at scene too upset.yeah....and perhaps as mentioned even scurried the phone away for scene. And I also still believe the 'Piet' on phone was a lawyer not 'Peet' his manger. He was given this number either by Stander or his father...he then called the number so that Piet had a number to callback on.

"Better get a lawyer son, better get real good one!"

BBM:
Better call "Saul". Right ?

 

[G.bng]

But it does follow that if one person can mistake Oscar's distressed cries for those of a woman, then people could mistake Oscar's distressed screams for those of a woman.

Besides, Merwe said she heard a woman (Oscar) "crying loudly" - that is very ambiguous and I don't think it's necessarily true that she meant crying as in weeping. I believe she meant crying out - like yelling or screaming.

Pure games with semantics. IDK if you are male or female but I am d**n sure any women can distinguish between "crying" and "crying out" like yelling or screaming and explain it property... we have a lot more experience than men with it.

 

[Rumpole]

The point i am making is there is a chance that nobody actually heard any bat noises because they possibly not very loud.

Sure ok. But unlikely given it was a frenzied bashing to break open a door, so undeniably loud. And you then have to introduce some "other" source of noise that was much louder for some reason. As I say with a presumption of guilt you can keep twisting and turning and striving for alternative explanations. The point of "Occam's Razor" is that it is usually correct to just go with the simplest explanation.

There were two events that we know of that made loud noises, and two sets of loud noises were observed.

EVEN IF the bat was not loud enough to be heard (not likely) I still go back to the fact that the time Nel contends for the shots (3:17) does NOT allow for all that must have happened after the shots but before OP phoned at 3:19

 

[G.bng]

If the state has a theory of what the earlier gunshots were, if not gunshots, they are obliged to disclose that theory and make it part of their case. Nel has not disclosed any theory or made any kind of suggestion that the two sets of "gunshots" were anything other than the gunshots and the cricket bat hitting the door.

It is just not logical or reasonable to hold out for the state to put forth an alternate theory that is suddenly going to explain everything and make it clear that Oscar's statements are false. It's not going to happen - one has to be willing to accept the possibility that the state has little proof of their claims and that they won't be able to clearly show you that Oscar intentional killed Reeva.

All of these doubts that people are experiencing, wondering where is the smoking gun we're waiting for - that doubt exists because the state's evidence is not compelling enough and you want more. That, my friends, is reasonable doubt.

IMO it will be whether a reasonable doubt exists that OP shot to kill an intruder which will be the trump card here.