Trial Discussion Thread #21 - 14.04.09, Day 19

[aa9511]

R: Dr S refers to 3.12 approx

O: I've marked out how far I walked on my stumps...as far as I remember, it was about five mins before I hit the door with the bat that I fired my weapon.

R: So consistent with the time of 3.12..

So now we know why Oscar took his slow time "feeling" his way all around the bed for Reeva after he shot Mr. Intruder (to use another poster's word...hope you don't mind!).

He had to somehow make it to "5 minutes."

So while Oscar is giving his bed a pat-down, he doesn't think to just reach to the MIDDLE of the bed and feel if there was Reeva there? Or better yet...how about just turning on the bedroom light??

This is crazy and ridiculous.

No way. I'm calling it right now that the judge will give down a GUILTY verdict. There is no way his story makes any kind of sense.

No reasonable doubt, IMO. Guilty. And the verdict will be Guilty.

JMO.

 

[BritsKate]

I believe it was to protect themselves from getting blood on them. In my first aide course we were taught if we didn't have PPE available to use a plastic shopping bag instead.

That makes sense and so did not moving her from the floor where she was left. It was just emotion-jarring for me at the time which is why I remember the testimony as vividly as I do.


Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[04009margaret]

I do see some of that going on, but more than that I see Nel asking confusing questions that really can't be answered with a simple yes or no without explanation.

You obviously haven't got to the point where Roux tries to protect OP by objecting & telling the court that OP didn't say what OP actually did say lol The poor judge even had to tell Roux that his client did say what he said lol

 

[Viper]

Because his bail affidavit said he went onto the balcony?

I don't think so. And if you don't see the difference between a witness giving a full accounting in a police statement and a bail affidavit that lays out a minimum - I can't explain it any better than I have.9

BIB Absolutely! That lie was used to explain why he did not see Reeva leave the bed and go in to the bathroom. That is very significant. That he changed it is also significant! And he is paying the price for that right now.

BTW I can only deduce that after giving it great consideration his team recognized that if he was on the balcony light would illuminate the bedroom, so he must have been able to see Reeva missing. Hence the change to the fairy tale.

 

[04009margaret]

Yesss, Oscar, we knowwww. :facepalm: That's why you discarded the bat and went with the gun instead. Much easier to handle a gun rather than a bat on your stumps. :facepalm: Perhaps you can blame your stumps for killing Reeva, then.

I ran to the bathroom

 

[minor4th]

You obviously haven't got to the point where Roux tries to protect OP by objecting & telling the court that OP didn't say what OP actually did say lol The poor judge even had to tell Roux that his client did say what he said lol

I'm listening again because I didn't hear him say his gun went off accidentally

 

[soozieqtips]

Because his bail affidavit said he went onto the balcony?

I don't think so. And if you don't see the difference between a witness giving a full accounting in a police statement and a bail affidavit that lays out a minimum - I can't explain it any better than I have.9

BBM - He's changed a whole lot more than that. You said if OP had done the same thing as Mrs Stipp, you'd be the first to come down on him (or words similar to that) but now even though he's done exactly that - you're excusing him by saying his affidavit was only the 'bare bones' of what happened and not a police statement.
His sworn affidavit is what got him out on bail. He signed it. It is not accurate.

He has admitted it is not accurate and blamed Roux for it (probably because he ran out of people to blame). He had FIVE days to compile his affidavit, and his memory would surely have been better then than it is now, over a year later. Five days is a LOT of time to recall information, especially as he was the murderer and was right there when it happened. I don't see how you can bend the rules for him and crucify Stipp for doing something similar, but who at least did the correct thing and amended her statement - something OP saw fit not to do, and is now quite rightly being called out for it.

 

[Insp.Dots]

It does make perfect sense. And I agree for the most part.

I think he is very far removed from the every day person on the street, and that kind of shows.

I also think he has a big hang up about his disability - some of this I got from reading his book - and I believe it's uncomfortable for him to admit to shortcomings and vulnerabilities related to his disability. He has spent his whole life trying to negate it.

Yep, how he feels inside is the key. And he may be a good-looking, healthy young man, but in his head without his prosthetics he is the opposite. It doesn't bode well when his girlfriend's are absolutely stunning. Sad thing is Reeva most probably genuinely loved him, stumps and all. I have started the book but never get to finish it! Must admit the psychology is the interesting bit for me.

Though I keep wishing this was just a film or book we were discussing. It is truly tragic on all sides and so needless. IMHO

 

[nastasya]

He's the most indignant witness I've ever seen.

Seems to think he doesn't have to answer questions that he's already pretended to answer.

"Did your gun go off accidentally?"

"I was in fear for my life. I thought the intruders were going to come out and attack me"

"Did your gun go off accidentally?"

"I wasn't thinking. I knew I had to protect myself"

"Did your gun go off accidentally?"

"I wasn't thinking..... I had many thoughts...."

"Did your gun go off accidentally?"

This is interesting because the killer has the burden of proof to show that his killing of the victim was an exception to the SA murder laws.

By not answering the question, he is failing to provide evidence in his own support.

The problem is he has no defense. The gun didn't accidentally go off four times. He knew he was firing the gun at somebody who never threatened him.

He's trying to come up with a unique defense of accidental self-defense, when the killing was neither.

 

[wb180]

"Before I knew it, I [accidentally] fired 4 shots at the door."

This need to be meme as well!

E.g. Before I knew it, I accidentally booked myself tickets to New York and did a rendition of I Dreamed a Dream in Les Miserables broadway show on a Saturday matinee. Then I knew it.

 

[BritsKate]

I'm at the part where Nel is asking if he intended to shoot at the intruders. This is a mess.

Nel is saying that Oscar claimed to fire his weapon accidentally. Huh?

No. Pistorius offered that he fired accidentally. Then Nel jumps on that line with Oscar ultimately stating he doesn't know what he means by accidental. We agree it was a mess but likely for different reasons.


Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[minor4th]

BIB Absolutely! That lie was used to explain why he did not see Reeva leave the bed and go in to the bathroom. That is very significant. That he changed it is also significant! And he is paying the price for that right now.

BTW I can only deduce that after giving it great consideration his team recognized that if he was on the balcony light would illuminate the bedroom, so he must have been able to see Reeva missing. Hence the change to the fairy tale.

Could be. But why change it from went out on the balcony to say he only went to the balcony? If it was a fabrication in the first place, why not just stick with the fabrication as he initially told it?

 

[wb180]

"My life is on the line. Of course I'm thinking about the consequences of my answers."

Another OP classic lol

 

[04009margaret]

Let me add that as Oscar is now a PROVEN liar, having signed and NOT corrected an affidavit he knew to be false, we must throw out the rest of his testimony per the Stipp detractors.

How many times did Nel warn him to please.....you'll get into trouble lol

 

[TorisMom003]

From the bail application statement:


SIGNED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS THE ____ DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013, THE DEPONENT HAVING ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE KNOWS AND UNDERSTANDS THE CONTENTS OF
THIS AFFIDAVIT, THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION TO TAKING THE PRESCRIBED OATH AND THAT
HE CONSIDERS THE OATH TO BE BINDING UPON HIS CONSCIENCE. __________________________ __

COMMISSIONER OF OATHS

So OP signed this bail application statement that is a legally binding document. Yet in court today he states that he did not write, type this up that his defense lawyer did and that he only signed it. Now who in the world will sign a legally binding document without reading it or ensuring that it is true and accurate? Also let's not forget that OP "helped" Reeva with her work contracts, changing things etc, so one would think that he clearly knows all about the importance of the accuracy of legally binding documents.

But of course I expected that there would be excuses made for OP when his bail application statement was not the same as to what he is testifying to.

MOO

 

[04009margaret]

I heard a discussion this afternoon where some attorneys were giving their opinion on today's proceedings and one said jokingly that Nel would even prosecute his grandmother. However, they did all seem to think he was not doing anything unusual/unfair for a prosecution attorney. The only guy who thought he was a bit harsh was a psychologist but he would, wouldn't he and I would expect him to. He had no real interest in the case, only whether OP was being too pressurised.

One I heard said if he was Nel, he wouldn't have shown OP 1 photo, he would have shown him every autopsy photo

 

[aa9511]

Yesterday he testified that when he had finally managed to get into the toilet cubicle he 'sat over Reeva' .. and sobbed that she 'wasn't breathing' .. so he already knew she wasn't breathing some minutes before the point where he was bringing her downstairs with his fingers in her mouth .. not sure why he would think she was breathing again, or that he was helping her to breathe in any way

And if he thought she WAS NOT breathing at that point, WHY DID HE TAKE HER DOWNSTAIRS?? He already described in detail how difficult it was for him to take her down. Not only opening doors, but physical act of picking her up and carrying her down.

Plus, he admitted he saw her arm was broken.

Not to forget, the gruesome brain/skull condition.

Even with her brain coming out of her skull (sorry to be gruesome), he thought she was breathing??????

No, impossible. Because in that condition, she WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BREATHING. Because she would have already died. So IMO, it is 100% that she wasn't breathing. So when he says she was breathing, HE IS LYING.

So there was no need to carry her downstairs.

He admits in his own testimony, that after the ambulance took her away, he "knew she had already passed."

Yet all his actions contradict this.

BECAUSE HIS ACTIONS WERE ALL FOR SHOW AFTER THE FACT.

Shameless. Hard for me to find any kind of sympathy for him, even with his sobbing and vomiting.

JMO.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Emergency calls are free in SA.

http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Travel-g293740-s603/South-Africa:Emergencies.html

"The nationwide emergency phone number for the ambulance service is 10177 - you will not need to dial an area code. Ambulance services are run by both the provincial health departments as well as private companies. The largest private emergency response company is Netcare911. They will respond to emergencies whether you are a member or not and their number is 082 911. Go to The Netcare911 website for more information: www.netcare911.co.za
The mobile phone companies have their own emergency numbers which can be dialed even if the phone is out of credit or locked:
The number for Cell C is 084 -140
The number for Vodacom is 082 - 147
The number for MTN is 083 - 112
However, the standard GSM emergency number (112) number should work on all mobile phone providers, regardless of whether or not the phone has credit."


Maybe if you have just blown your lover's brains out the free emergency number will not spring to mind?

:banghead:

 

[Viper]

BIB .. I'm pretty sure that door bashing bit came just after when he went downstairs to open the front door (ready for when he brought Reeva down .. which I think is a bit nuts anyway, if you wan't to do something that quickly .. he should've just brought Reeva straight down, placed her on the floor, opened the door, and then out into the car) .. it was when he went back upstairs to get her that he bashed the door in (when has he ever had to do that before, just because of humidity and expansion, and can't get his bedroom door to open? :facepalm .. but anyway, agree with the rest of your post, the point still stands.

Hi Jay Jay! Hey I was just sharing what OP said happened to his bedroom doors, I don't believe any of that. IMO he beat / bashed through his bedroom doors to get at Reeva when she first locked him out for her own safety and protection. All of the "the doors are solid wood, but they are briitle, and they expeand and get stuck" nonsense is just the cover story that Roux and Co created for OP.

 

[wb180]

Could be. But why change it from went out on the balcony to say he only went to the balcony? If it was a fabrication in the first place, why not just stick with the fabrication as he initially told it?

Who knows - various reasons I guess.

Maybe:
1. He forgot he need this to show he didn't hear RS. He forgot maybe because he changed the story about RS being asleep (since newest version was she was awake and he actually whispered to her before he went screaming into the battlefield on his stumps and his gun)? Ie He was relying on the pitch darkness now for not realizing RS left the bed.

2. He needed an explanation of how he heard the window sliding in the bathroom

I dont know - Im guessing. Im not OP