Trial Discussion Thread #21 - 14.04.09, Day 19

[Feynman]

I don't see this nit-picking getting Nel anywhere... he is just short of questioning the punctuation in the bail application.
It is obvious what the story is regarding the fans. Let it go Nel.

Op NEVER said he was on the balcony when he heard the noise. It was always after he shut the door and drew to curtains, and so unless OP could do that while on the balcony, jump off and runaround the house and back up to the bedroom... he clearly drew the curtains while in the bedroom????

No, but being out on the balcony was a "reason" he didn't see/hear Reeva get up.

 

[kaos]

How do the legal eagles here explain the difference between the affidavit saying they "both went to sleep" to the updated version of him having a conversation with Reeva and asking her if she was "having trouble sleeping".

I see it as quite crucial to his credibility as he'd definitely remember the last time he saw her alive and even what he said to her. It's something most people remember when a loved one dies or is killed.

 

[minor4th]

Well...Imo, if it was an accident then it might be a very difficult thing to say out loud and hear. I'm putting myself in his shoes and I just get it. Like, if, god forbid I killed someone I loved by accident and the prosecutor came at me trying to get me to, essentially, admit to something I've already admitted to, but with that phraseology, I'd find it very difficult to say, "yes, I killed [insert name].

Think about those trials where a person accidentally shot a loved one thinking they're an intruder. What purpose would it serve to make them say, "I killed so and so?" I just don't understand.

Oh, I think it's incredibly difficult for him to say those words. I think he feels tremendous shame and guilt about it.

 

[sleuth-d-]

His post-shooting account of his actions undermines his account of pre-shooting state of mind, reasoning. Immediately after shooting through door, he abandons his ground to get his legs. He swaps out combat posture for more height, stability in terms of "footing," whereas pre-shooting he rushes to confront perceived danger without this advantage. Post-shooting, by his own account of it, he acts as if he knows what he could not yet know--that there is no threat and Reeva is not in bed.

Moving back down the corridor, he is not watching his back, aware of possible hiding places, entry points. It seems the fear-propelled adrenaline no longer surges. He does not call out to Reeva, is not concerned about her safety any longer, or his own, only getting his legs on, for which he must turn on the light, thus noticing Reeva is not in bed and putting two and two together.

Posters here say that in SA typically more than one invader enters. How does OP know he has vanquished first intruder? That first could still be alive and pursue him down corridor. A second could climb up bathroom window. And Reeva, whom he tried to protect no longer needs protection? No longer a need to call out, ask for her help or in any way relate to her as he moves down the hall, or when he gets into the bedroom, even before turning on the light?

In post-shooting account, as in pre, there's a person missing: Reeva. No accounting for Reeva's part in the script. More baffling is that all thoughts of, reactions to extreme danger factor so easily dissipate with the discharge of the gun.

agree with all of this.

op's action of stopping the shooting, and no longer worrying about a second intruder coming up the ladder [or being elsewhere]... would lead me to the conclusion that he did know there was only one person; they were in the toilet; and they been incapacitated after the four shots.

at the time - according to his version of events - he could not know this for certain. [for instance, there could have been 2/3/4 more 'intruders' about to climb in through the window.]

 

[MsY]

LOL! OP could not have gotten a worse luck of the draw with this judge! She's a former woman's right advocate and reporter. She sentenced a rapist to 258 years! - convicted of three rapes in the women's homes. She cited the issue of a woman being safe in her own home as a factor in her sentencing - oh no...

I think she's fab. And whatever she decides I will gladly accept.

 

[DebinGA]

What about the part yesterday when he testified that even after he shot 4 shots, he was still IN TERROR that "the burglar" was going to come after him, or maybe "burglar #2" from the ladder was going to come after him?

OP claimed that on stumps he had to move continuously to keep his balance, so he's moving constantly in the bathroom with gun raised. At the same time, his eyes were moving back and forth from WC door to bathroom window where other intruders could suddenly attack him. So, legs moving, eyes roving, arms raised with gun pointed, and OP still managed to hit Reeva with 3 of his 4 shots.

 

[MeeBee]

Oh, I think it's incredibly difficult for him to say those words. I think he feels tremendous shame and guilt about it.

I truly wouldn't be able to say them, either, without breaking down.

Conversely, I don't think a sociopath or someone who doesn't feel genuine remorse deep down would have trouble saying them, at all.

 

[supernovaNic]

What's the 411 on (state) Nel? Thank you (Watching the trial now on wildabouttrial)

Also, so Reeva had her phone with her in the bathroom. What does Oscar say why he thinks Reeva took the phone with her in the middle of the night to pee?

Has Reeva's phone records been released? Did she maybe receive a call in the middle of the night? Or a text? Or did she go in the bathroom to make a call? Sorry I'm late to the game and any info you guys are willing to throw at me would be appreciated

 

[steveml]

Oh, I think it's incredibly difficult for him to say those words. I think he feels tremendous shame and guilt about it.

Hence mortified. People seem to conveniently omit the fact that this word also means shame when referring to OP's use of the term.

 

[minor4th]

After sentencing a policeman who shot and killed his wife after a row about a divorce settlement, Judge Masipa said:

“No one is above the law.
You deserve to go to jail for life because you are not a protector.
You are a killer,”.

http://www.citypress.co.za/news/eloquent-reserved-judge-oscar-pistorius-trial/

I can't find any information on whether she's heard cases where the murderers are famous people in the public eye.

Yes, that was a very clear case of domestic homicide with witnesses and a history of domestic abuse and threats. Good for Masipa for putting him away for life.

I don't think you can compare that case to the Pistorius case, however.

 

[IfIMay]

4 years of college, but only 3 years of post-graduate school

And you're somewhat correct. I could argue the other side of the case just as well.

why don't you try it.. just to show you are "unbiased"? What are the State's strong points?

 

[nastasya]

Don't know how OP can refer to this as a 'mistake'. The word just doesn't fit.

Great point.

The killer's implication is that if the person in the toilet was actually a real intruder it wouldn't have been a mistake.

This is showing a total lack of remorse and total lack of acknowledging committing murder as defined by the SA criminal code.

The judge looks at the law and evaluates the facts. The fact is the killer has no remorse for breaking the most basic law - you just can't shoot somebody for no good reason.

The killer sunk his own boat when he explained how he doesn't even know why he shot and killed the victim.

It wasn't an accident, and it wasn't reasoned self-defense.

 

[aa9511]

Nel asked for adjournment so Oscar can pull himself together.

:facepalm:

OP couldn't last but a few minutes without being caught in a corner with his lies. And what does he resort to? Oh but of course his sob session. Rescues him every time.

 

[katydid23]

Well of course he knows that shooting someone will likely kill them.

I think he was only trying to articulate that he didn't stop and actually form the thought "I am going to shoot 4 black talon bullets through the bathroom door to deliberately kill the intruder."

If that's what he was trying to get across, I believe him - he panicked and shot his gun before he really thought about what he was doing.

It doesn't matter as far as his culpability goes IMO

BBM

That is quite a pass that you are giving him there. He shot 4 black talons through a blind door, having no idea who was on the other side, and he hadn't 'really thought about what he was doing?'

So he was in such a sheer panic that even though he had lots of thoughts, which he described, he hadn't thought that he might kill someone on the other end of his bullets?

Just like when he signed his original bail statement, which he now wants to divorce himself from, you see no issue with his signing it legally as his truth? It seems he gets a pass on that too, as you say it is just semantics. Whereas Lady Stipp was branded an outright liar. Odd, imo.

 

[aa9511]

Yes, sorry. Wasn't trying to suggest this was something OP manipulated. I'm just a bit cross with Nel for that. I think he messed up.

If he was there, if he already saw it, if he, in that gruesome state, carried her all the way out of the bathroom, out of the house, and down the stairs - why is he now saying he "won't look at it."

Regardless of whether defense or not, he did that.

I don't think Nel crossed the line.

Oscar did that. He needs to own up and at least acknowledge that he is on trial for her murder, and in a trial there are going to be gruesome photos shown, of course, because of the nature of the trial.

Instead of crying like a little boy, be a man about it.

He had no problem being a "tough man" at the shooting range, at the restaurant, in the car. He had no problem being a "tough man" when he purchased each one of his many guns.

So come on Oscar, why don't you be your "tough man" now? Oh I see when the going really gets tough, "tough man" cries like a baby.

JMO.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

I was just about to reply saying the exact same thing .. that is certainly how it works in the UK .. they actually force you to stop talking about the actual emergency in the first instance and make you give your address first (in a fairly specific way, too .. no good trying to give them directions or anything, they don't want to hear all that and they tell you that too, because the very first piece of information they need is a specific location in order to get an ambulance on it's way) .. and then they go on to ask all the things you've listed there. I also find it very difficult to believe they would ever tell someone to bundle up someone with extensive bullet injuries like that, get them into a car and drive them to hospital .. that's just nuts. Maybe it all just works differently in SA, but that scenario certainly wouldn't happen in the UK .. ever.

Yes in the UK That would be my expectation of an emergency call,they even kept me on the phone when I thought someone had broken into my house.
They kept speaking to me until the police arrived .
The thing that really puzzles me is why the Netcare operative or call recording weren't presented as evidence by the prosecution .
It indicates that OP may have been truthful about it or that Nel really thinks he has enough without it . I guess we will have to listen to the rest of the trial and hope this is cleared up .

 

[emmavoberry]

With all due respect, I disagree. Sociopaths and the criminally minded in general tend to cannily avoid taking responsibility as active agents, often using passive constructions to frame their deeds. Just as anecdote, I recall a murderer who had choked his victim to death saying something to the effect of he "reacted" to HER prodding him until "she was taken by death." OP talks about when "the tragedy happened." Accidental or not, he caused the tragedy.

 

[nastasya]

Well...Imo, if it was an accident then it might be a very difficult thing to say out loud and hear. I'm putting myself in his shoes and I just get it. Like, if, god forbid I killed someone I loved by accident and the prosecutor came at me trying to get me to, essentially, admit to something I've already admitted to, but with that phraseology, I'd find it very difficult to say, "yes, I killed [insert name].

Think about those cases where a person accidentally shot a loved one thinking they're an intruder. What purpose would it serve to make them say, "I killed so and so?" I just don't understand.

What difference would it make for the killer not to just say it then?

This is a murder trial, not a tea party.

The witnesses take an oath under penalty of perjury to answer the questions truthfully.

Q: "Did you kill Reeva?"

Answer is either yes or no.

Are you suggesting that the killer is so emotionally immature that he is unable to verbalize certain words?

Do you think the killer is so attached to having things the way HE wants them, and nobody else, that he won't allow Nel to get what he wants?

Sounds like the same type of person who would shoot a woman who locked herself in the bathroom and tell security everything's ok.

 

[foxbluff]

apologies if this has already been cleared up, but i heard op had two [sleepy] dogs.
were they not at the house that night?
if they were, where were they...?

thanks for any pointers to information, and/or clarification

Op testified about his (3) dogs. Of the (3), the only one that wasn't a heavy sleeper died in 2011.

You're find that testimony on Pg. 19-20. I'm pretty sure that's Thread#19.

I would link to it for you but my old WinsXP keeps crashing on me.

 

[katydid23]

Well of course he knows that shooting someone will likely kill them.

I think he was only trying to articulate that he didn't stop and actually form the thought "I am going to shoot 4 black talon bullets through the bathroom door to deliberately kill the intruder."

If that's what he was trying to get across, I believe him - he panicked and shot his gun before he really thought about what he was doing.

It doesn't matter as far as his culpability goes IMO

BBM

Actually, the bolded portion is patently untrue. He did in fact plan to shoot through the door to 'save and protect Reeva.' What else does it mean when he says he shot at the door to protect Reeva, other than he planned to stop those on the other side, with deadly bullets.

It seems that the state's witnesses were picked apart and scrutinized and criticized by many here. Yet OP's testimony is being given quite a bit of slack. People are saying ' what he 'meant to say' was this. I find it interesting.