Trial Discussion Thread #15

[MeeBee]

Just pure curiosity and probably stupid question :blushing: , which was probably discussed - it is said that the black talon bullets open up when hitting human flesh and break into pieces when hitting a bone. So if fired through a door or any other material don't they open up before hitting the body?

Mangena said they only open up when they hit human flesh.

 

[Interested Bystander]

BBM I can't speak for others, but I have several ideas, or theories if you will. I am not convinced at all that any are accurate. The reason i come to WS is to see what people like yourself are saying, even though I am in the Guilty Camp.

I have read several theories that support the ballistics, forensics and witness statements. Unless there is video of the event, what exactly happened and what led up to Reeva's death will not ever be known IMO.

I also want to mention that maybe intent and premeditation are getting mixed up here at times and these two terms should be distinguished. IMO, he intended to kill and that invalidates his sworn affidavit. However, I do not see yet that the state has proven premeditation the way I define it.

I would like to know what "premeditated" means in a SA court. So many other things are different from my comparison to USA courts, so maybe the def of premeditation is different too.

I have just had a look at his very question again and apparently it means in OPs case (no matter who was behind the door) he fired once and then chose to fire three more times. He had the option to stop after one shot (and there was a pause) but he chose to continue firing. It definitely does not mean that he put a preconceived plan into action.

 

[Val1]

They don't come across as major rows to me. For a major row to occur you would expect some kind of continued disagreement.
At least a few messages backwards and forwards - but there's hardly any evidence to show that these comments went any further.

bbm - Perhaps not but speaking for myself, if I had just been dating someone for a few months and they kept disrespecting me, I'd be done with it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/oscar-pistorius/10727189/Oscar-Pistorius-the-case-against-the-paralympian.html

In another Whatssap message sent just a week before she died, she wrote of her upset after he shouted at her in public at a sports awards ceremony.

“I can't be attacked by outsiders for dating u AND be attacked by you, the one person I deserve protection from," she said.

 

[jay-jay]

Just catching up with today's comments. I came across something to throw into the pot which maybe has not yet become apparent. I traced back the dates of the problem phone calls and it appears there were three in quick succession. If the fourth was around this time maybe this relationship was nearing its conclusion. I think Reeva tried very hard to avoid scenes and to keep things on an even keel as I am sure she had strong feelings for OP. He no doubt had strong feelings for her too but they turned into behaviour that can only be described as emotionally abusive.

Here are the dates of the three calls about which we have heard but for some reason I didn't quite catch the timing and, therefore, their importance.

19th Jan
Included the fact that she smoked pot when she was away at Tropika and he queries what else she did.

27th Jan
OP's obsessive behaviour at Darren's engagement party where he made her leave early and accused her of flirting with her close friend's (I think) husband .


8th Feb only 5 days before the shooting!
OP criticises her in public and she says she certainly didn't feel like a lady that night. I think this must have been at an official function.

Three major rows about his unreasonable behaviour in less than 3 weeks. If we get to hear the fourth was also around this time I think it becomes extremely likely that RS was "calling the whole thing off" after yet another argument on the evening/night of 13th February 2013. I am sure on the 13th Feb she had no idea what was about to erupt and lead to her murder.

MOO

.. and don't forget the WhatsApp messages of the 13th Feb, in which it appears something or another had happened, something which we don't yet know the full story ..

OP's affis portray a couple both "deeply in love" who'd spent a quiet, uneventful evening together until the "unfortunate event" occurred around 3 a.m. But that evening was different, as OP was upset about something on Feb. 13, according to RS's msg to OP that afternoon:
.............................................................................................................
[NBC news] ...On Feb. 13, Steenkamp tries to console Pistorius about something that has gone wrong and tells him, “you’re a nice guy. “
“You are an amazing person with so many blessings,” she writes, “and you are more than cared for. Your health and future monetary blessings far out way this hurdle I can promise u that.”
.............................................................................................................
I can't remember where I read it, but iirc RS went on to msg OP that she'd understand if he wanted to be with his family that night [the 13th], which supports the idea that "the hurdle" was such that RS thought he might prefer the comfort of his family that night. But he msg back that she could work/do laundry at his home [as she'd asked permission to do] and stay over that night "if you wish". OP's affis paint a blissfully in love couple who'd enjoyed a quiet evening at home, but Nel may be able to prove that OP arrived home already angry/upset about something and things went from bad to worse with him as the evening went on.

.. if that is how the day started, then I don't think it's too much of a leap of the imagination to think that later on that day, things weren't going too well either.

 

[MeeBee]

I don't think there is a physical door to the bathroom, going by the plans that have been published.

I would expect the key to the toilet door to be kept in the keyhole (on the inside) at all times, otherwise there's no point in having one. Unless there's a bolt on the inside of the door, butt I've seen no mention of one.

Pics of the door show only a key hole.

 

[screecher]

Catching up

And what I see is those on the firmly guilty side have many different theories about what happened, theories that don't even support the state's case. They themselves are confident in their theories but this is certainly a problem for me and has created even more doubt. If a clear picture of the state's case hasn't come through and a clear picture of what happened that night has not emerged that is a problem. At this point, it should be clearer what the state wants to say. That to me shows that state's case is not as strong as I initially thought it would be. So many unanswered questions yet so many are so convicted they have it all figured out.

Replying to BBM

1. I don't know why it would be a problem. Unless, it's because your posts and reasoning hasn't convinced others to think the same way you do.

2. I think the state has presented a clear pic. OP willfully and with full intent, knowingly murdered an unarmed and unknown human being. Her name being Reeva Steenkamp.

3. I won't speak for others..will say I'm convinced OP committed the intentional murder of Reeva Steenkamp.

....

I think you'll agree, 'he loaded his gun with dum-dums and fired' doesn't sound nearly as sinister or dramatic.

Respectfully snipped

I disagree. Anyone who's familiar with weapons, ammo, with dumdums (aka hollow-point, aka once was 'black talon') or not, murdering an individual as OP did, will find it very sinister.

I'll add...fired four rounds to murder an 'unknown target' (supposedly) who was in an enclosed, very small space, not only sounds sinister and dramatic, it is sinister.

I certainly don't have it all figured out, I wasn't there so can only speculate as to all the details, as can any of us, including both the defense and prosecution teams when it comes right down to it.

However, that does not mean OP is not guilty of murder, in fact, he has already confessed to not only killing someone, but of deliberately firing four lethal gunshots into a very small closed room where the person inside had no way to escape and all without knowing his target or whether they in fact were a threat to him, something he had previously signed his name verifying he understood was against the law.

That OP knew it was RS, I and others do certainly suspect and much of the evidence points to him having known it was her, but I am still willing to hear the rest of the case before I make a final determination of that. As to whether he murdered her(intended or not) I have no doubt.

Replying to BBM

Exactly. This is the foundation as to why I believe OP is guilty of intentional murder.

You may not, but there are certainly others that think they do.

And I agree that OP is guilty and should be punished accordingly. I have said this many, many times. What we are talking about is whether or not he knew Reeva was behind that door and intended to kill her in a murderous rage. That is the state's case, after all isn't it?

Replying to BBM

1. Are you saying it's unacceptable others think they do?

2. OP certainly knew someone was behind that door! That's the point. Couple that with the theory he knew it was Reeva (supposedly his beloved), makes it all the more heinous.

3. No, it isn't.

Not how I read it....

http://www.scribd.com/doc/185695401/Full-document-–-Oscar-Pistorius-indictment



To me and possibly because I'm not a lawyer, "to wit", is merely naming the person he killed, but that the charge is that he unlawfully and intentionally killed "a person".

I'm sure there's a qualified SA lawyer hanging about that will be willing to correct me if I'm wrong.

BBM

Agreed

Well, see that's the problem. I see a lot of people saying he is guilty of intentional murder regardless. That's a nice catch all but I don't think that's how it works or will work. The state's case is quite clearly that he intended to murder Reeva. If that is not then they probably should have taken a different tack.

The way I'm reading this though, the state is pretty clearly saying they believe Oscar intended to kill Reeva.

It is common, IMO, of prosecutors to say either way he's guilty of so and so, especially if they feel they cannot prove their main theory. It doesnt mean OP will found guilty of intentional homicide regardless. It means the judge will weigh her options.

Everyone is entitled to one's own opinion, including yourself. Not a problem.

That's a very good point.

This is one of the reasons that I asked if we could hear some completed theories. I think we've had a couple.

We can all keep adding to the scenario with 'what if's', however what we appear to see at the moment is long list of reasons given for OP's guilt, with very little agreement in the way he committed the crime.

You would expect to see quite a few similarities in the actions taken by OP if the case is so clearly cut and dried.

BBM and replying

Absolutely there is a long 'list' of 'reasons' given for OP's guilt, valid reasons IMO. The short of it, going by OP's two formal versions, he, himself, has confessed to firing off four rounds to murder an unarmed, unseen and unknown target.

He has confessed to doing just that.

what does it matter to anyone as to whom has one opinion and whom has another??


I simply do not see the problem. I mean. .. its not as if this is actually the real court in Pretoria, is it??

people can think he is guilty , people can think he is innocent, what does it matter?

It doesn't. Well, I guess to someone it does :tantrum:

My thoughts exactly.............

Huh? See first quote above.

It's not uncommon for people to put hollow point bullets into a gun they intend to use for self defense. It's so they can make sure that if they need to use it, it would immediately severely incapacitate their target. Obviously, if he thought it was an intruder and he's shooting him with hollow point bullets he is intending to kill them. The state can say either way, it's still intentional murder. Well, the judge will obviously decide, if she rejects the state's theory, whether or not OP should be found guilty of intentional murder of an intruder. It won't just be, well he intended to kill him so guilty. Because of course he did. She will have factors to weigh, just as anyone deciding a self defense case does.

Now I already know what the response will be: but it wasn't an intruder behind the door it was Reeva. Yes, we know that. But it's possible at the time OP didn't.

OP used the word vulnerable. Oh, and stumps. I don't recall OP using the term 'self-defense'.

It will also be interesting to me to see how OP explains that he has been a victim of numerous crimes before that night, none were reported to the authorities. And Nel went a step further by putting on the record that even a mispelling of OPs name would still be in the database. This should be good!

Yeah, OP has a lot of explaining to do. And a lot of time to fabricate his answers to anticipated questions.

Do you think he may say, 'if I wasn't a victim of crime before, I am now. Where's my watches?'

:giggle:

Nah. Given the opportunity, OP probably would say Reeva stole and swallowed his watches. Hence his fingers down her throat. :facepalm:

My point was to try and not buy into the pitch that these are special bullets for a specific purpose, they're not.
I put it to you that a shot to the head with any bullet would not look a great deal more different. Nobody loads a gun for self defence with bullets intended not to kill.

If you don't intend to kill, don't have a gun.

* the owning of a gun is a topic far too big, and would detract from the thread.

Replying to bolded

Incorrect. Unlike full-metal jackets or 'hard ammo', hollow points, soft points, dumdums, expanding ammo are specially designed to cause maximum tissue damage so target is incapacitated. Also, once target is hit, soft points will not continue on or pass through it's target to an unintended target. Had Reeva not been behind that door, the damage done to her would have been much more horrific due to the fact the ammo OP used was slowed down as it went through the door and had already begun to open up and 'mushroom'.

And I put it to you, a shot to the head with a hard point, a full-metal jacket absolutely would look a lot more different than soft point, a dumdum.

So, yeah. The bolded statement is an untruth. More misinformation.

 

[Rumpole]

But other than Oscar's story, what is to say Oscar didn't fire the shots, then call stander before doing anything else?.

No matter what I say... people can and will suggest alternatives... speculate.
It is unlikely that OP was so aware of an upcoming court case involving times of events, that he "faked" anything.
It is not likely that in the minute or so he thought "right, I have shot her, now I have to do all this stuff really fast, slot in a phone call early just to screw up the State case that might be made in the future... I only have a minute"

It was not just one phone call.. it was 3? a few seconds apart, including describing Reeva's injuries and so it was AFTER he had bashed open the door, dragged her body out and was kneeling over her in a pool of blood in the bathroom.

 

[jay-jay]

I think OP said it was on the floor in one of his statements and that's why he had to bust more room out of the panel.

Yes, I know .. pls see all the follow up posts since I posted that one, where various scenarios and theories have been explored :cheers:

 

[MeeBee]

First thanks for replying. However, if we start from the word fabricate as defined the by the Oxford Dictionary:



I really don't mean to "misconstrue" you, but unfortunately I just cannot agree that your use of fabricate does not have an accusatory and judgemental sense, in the same way as when you use it again here in this post:



or when you repeat,



both of which imo cleasly indicate you believe Mrs Stipp was deceitful, the first because that is exactly what "fabricate" means, the second, because as you say the detail was "plain(ly) not part of Mrs Stipp’s memory" you leave no option for her to have included it by mistake so that the only inference I am able to take is that you mean Mrs Stipp purposefully set out to deceive. Damning accusations without any evidence.

Witnesses very often do not coincide on details such as how many shots, screams, lights, etc., and can often recall insignificant details directly after an event with very important ones only coming back to them months later and by chance. It is reasonable to think they can also mistakenly include details they heard as their own, and that it could take quite an effort to sort it all out. Memory is not an exact science and plays tricks on us all. We have all mixed up our memories of an event with those of others, only to later realise the error with, "Ooops, tell a lie... it wasn't X but Y" without any intent, need, motive or reason to lie whatsoever. I "recall" events as a child that I clarify with, "I am not sure if I remember it or if I was told it by my mum, dad, brother, etc."

Now it may be you are using the words incorrectly, but by asserting Mrs Stipp "fabricated" or added a detail "plain(ly) not part of her memory" you deny her the same benefit of the doubt, that, you quite rightly expect for OP. Even if inadvertently, or unconsciously, you can I am sure see how it could smell of hypocrisy to be seeming to uphold one person’s rights while trashing another's.

And what proof is there that Mrs Stipp (and I could include here Burger, Johnson, Mr Stipp, the police, experts, etc.) "fabricated" or affirmed what she knew was "plain(ly)" untrue and that it was not an unwitting mistake which she quickly rectified? I am sure you agree that OP demonstrably has 15-25 years of reasons to lie, but, while Mrs Stipp may have many reasons we could "fabricate" and conjecture about, she has no motive we can affirm as a certainty in the same way. IMO, without hard evidence in contra, independent witnesses deserve an even higher presumption of innocence by a judge or jury than an accused with a life to defend (the prosecution by its very nature can't "presume" innocence otherwise they would not prosecute in the first place), so imo without evidence to the contrary, all witnesses should be presumed to be testifying as best they can, with errors, mistakes and contradictions, simply trying to fulfil their civic duty in the search for truth and justice, trying to help a court decide, after weighing up all the evidence, not just Mrs Stipps, whether or not a murder was committed so that if the judge determines it was then a person who could pose a threat to someone else’s daughter, yours, Mrs Stipp’s or mine, can be contained where they no longer can pose a threat to anyone, at least not for a time.

I have lived most of my life in Spain under a bench system and, as I am sure is the same in SA, (and even the same here in the UK with police, prosecutors, judges and juries, and insurance claim investigators), it is a known fact judges give much more weight to independent witnesses than to those close to an accused such as family, friends (or enemies!), business associates, etc., precisely because wherever there is an interest the likelihood of a hidden agenda is significantly enhanced, whether to favour or prejudice an accused.

So, what do you think could be Mrs Stipp’s hidden agenda for her to lie under oath and try to pervert the course of her nation’s search for truth and justice in respect of OP? And do you doubt OP likely has motives to lie, (even if he did kill Reeva by mistake which under SA law may not save him), contrary to those very same reasons?

I've already explained myself so if that is not what is wanted to be accepted and one still want to take my words in a way I didn't intend that's fine. But I said you were misconstruing my intentions and you still are. So I see no need to respond to the rest of the post.

 

[Really?]

They don't come across as major rows to me. For a major row to occur you would expect some kind of continued disagreement.
At least a few messages backwards and forwards - but there's hardly any evidence to show that these comments went any further.

However as the expert pointed out....the other messages were short one line sentences or just a few words. The messages pointed out were long emotional type ones....about "feelings".....ie .....Houston, we have a problem.

 

[MeeBee]

Isn't that called "brain storming" and it's what an investigation team surely does each time they are faced with a possible crime. I mean if the police simply accepted the first thing a suspect said as absolute truth, never considered the possibility they could be lying, never questioned anything, never looked for contradictions, other evidence, didn't put forward other options until being able to rule them out, then we would certainly reduce our need for courts but there would be a h**l of a lot of dangerous criminals out and about... No?

I'm not talking about the brainstorming aspect of this. Surely, we're all brainstorming. But, again, at this point, if we have to brainstorm the state's case then, again, that's a problem.

 

[Interested Bystander]

They don't come across as major rows to me. For a major row to occur you would expect some kind of continued disagreement.
At least a few messages backwards and forwards - but there's hardly any evidence to show that these comments went any further.

Ah, but I remember you saying you didn't think that this type of behaviour was anything out of the ordinary. I would seriously have to disagree with you there.

My father emotionally abused my mother and I saw a lot of it first hand. She was not even allowed to have a neighbour in for a cup of coffee. Sadly my mother was a very sweet lady who, like Reeva, did everything to keep the peace. What is even stranger is that his 6 brothers and sisters had no knowledge of this behaviour. Had my mother mentioned it to anyone it would have been another day of abuse, complete with his dinner thrown across the room. We tried to get her to leave but, believe it or not, she was too frightened to. Sad but true.

 

[Gryffindor]

Just pondering . . .

Might Reeva have tossed her jeans out the window to MAKE the dogs bark, to attract attention for help??

Plus that bathroom is a mess! The tiles in the corner beneath the bathroom window have loads of huge chunks smashed to pieces! That's not normal wear and tear!! :O

 

[Cherwell]

I don't think people are suggesting witnesses have lied, that's perhaps the wrong word and would suggest some kind of conspiracy (noooo, not going down that road) it's more a case of questioning reliability of recollection.

I disagree. Some posters have used the words liar, lying, lied etc very freely.
I do agree with you that it is not the right word in the contexts in which I have seen it used. Lying is a deliberate and calculated act, and is very far removed from being mistaken.

 

[jay-jay]

The messages don't reveal anything unusual to me.

I think that anyone who has been in a jealous, controlling, abusive, manipulative .. even violent .. relationship .. the minute they started hearing those messages being read out, would've related to every single one of them .. and I think you would either have had to have been in that kind of relationship in order to be able to recognise it, or you would've had to have had some kind of training in it.

Also, anyone who knows anything about domestic abuse and violence will understand that the fact a relationship is perfectly normal and loving for 90% of the time doesn't mean that it's not an abusive one, because that is actually how those kinds of relationships work .. i.e. the abuser is not being abusive or manipulative continually, it comes in bursts and as the relationship progresses it becomes progressively more frequent.

 

[Rumpole]

Rather than twising into contortions to Try (and fail) to explain how OP might have been able to have been making phone calls a minute or so after the gunshots at 3:17... it makes FAR more sense to apply Occam's Razor.

There were TWO sets ob bangs heard. Two known events that caused bangs. Even the State argues the shots came first. IMO it should be beyond question at this stage that the shots were the first set of bangs and the bat was the second. Hard to pin the Stipps down on precise time of the first bangs... could be anywhere from 3:00 to 3:10... but I put it to y'all that shots even at around 3:10 implying 9 minutes for OP to do all the stuff he did clearly do after the shots makes sense. Shots at 3:17 makes no sense at all.

If the time of shots was earlier than 3:10... it still makes sense... there was a LOT of stuff to do.. and it could easily have taken a bit longer that 9 minutes. To suggest a time for shots leaving just over a minute is..... DAFT!

 

[Viper]

No matter what I say... people can and will suggest alternatives... speculate.
It is unlikely that OP was so aware of an upcoming court case involving times of events, that he "faked" anything.
It is not likely that in the minute or so he thought "right, I have shot her, now I have to do all this stuff really fast, slot in a phone call early just to screw up the State case that might be made in the future... I only have a minute"

It was not just one phone call.. it was 3? a few seconds apart, including describing Reeva's injuries and so it was AFTER he had bashed open the door, dragged her body out and was kneeling over her in a pool of blood in the bathroom.

The fact that he said to security…"everything is fine" indicates that he wanted to have some time alone to do stuff…IMO

 

[Really?]

I'm not talking about the brainstorming aspect of this. Surely, we're all brainstorming. But, again, at this point, if we have to brainstorm the state's case then, again, that's a problem.

Sorry MeeBee but the states case is all we have at the moment.....other than OP's initial statements/BH hearing etc....

Just wait till OP is on the stand......we will see how he handles the scenarios put to him by Nel. I'm all ears on that day.......woot.

 

[Rumpole]

The fact that he said to security…"everything is fine" indicates that he wanted to have some time alone to do stuff…IMO

OP phoned first... but the legend lives on! :floorlaugh:

That does not change the fact that there was no time to do all that he had to do before phoning.

WHAT sort of things do you imagine he was doing after fobbing off Baba?

He had even MORE stuff to do after that!!! Going downstairs to open car doors, carrying Reeva's body down stairs etc

Do you think he was also arranging the crime scene having instantly worked out what would be needed? Again he only had a few minutes before people were on the scene. He was having to nip about so fast that night it's a wonder why he did not put on his blades, rather than prosthetic legs

 

[Really?]

Just pondering . . .

Might Reeva have tossed her jeans out the window to MAKE the dogs bark, to attract attention for help??

Plus that bathroom is a mess! The tiles in the corner beneath the bathroom window have loads of huge chunks smashed to pieces! That's not normal wear and tear!! :O

Right?.....I bet he beat the carp out of that room/door/tiles/panel... that night.