Trial Discussion Thread #21 - 14.04.09, Day 19

[Rumpole]

Are there any limits/norms in regards how long a cross examination can go on?

I am sure Nel COULD go on for weeks. But there must be a point where questioning crosses over into interrogation and torture. I believe that incessant questioning is an aspect of torture technique. There often comes a time when some people being interrogated will say anything just to make it stop.

Besides... I, myself, find watching and listening to Nel to be torture. I find him to be a nasty unpleasant little man to listen to. I do not have any concerns about what Nel might achieve. Nothing, would be my guess. I just want to make the torture stop and get on and see what other witnesses Roux has to offer. Like any torture victim... I just want Nel to STOP!! :banghead:

The lead questioning of OP was only about 2 days, taking early adjournments into consideration, and half of that was background and life history which I imagine is not open to cross examination. So... about a day of evidence stuff? Will the cross take about the same time? Nel done by the end of the next day?

 

[Peliman]

OP can not be found guilty of any crime involving the shooting at/killing of, an intruder. There was no intruder. No intruder was in any way harmed or even threatened.

OP may well have fired at what he imagined to be an intruder, but me MISSED.

The "imaginary intruder" got away, vanished, was never there.

What did happen is that OP "missed" the "intruder" and hit Reeva... ACCIDENTALLY.

I hope that clears things up for everybody.

Hey I get it, the intruder he imagined was screaming like a woman.

 

[Val1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by minor4th View Post
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?

I'd like to know that too, because yesterday's version is much worse for him imo.

Why would he have lied in his bail application and said RS was asleep if in fact, as he stated yesterday, that not only was she awake when he woke up all hot and sweaty but that she had not slept at all and asked him "couldn't you sleep Baba?", all before he went to move the fans, close the sliding doors and pull the curtains(now can't remember closing the blinds)? After which it not only wasn't pitch black that he couldn't see, but in fact OP says he saw her jeans laying on the floor and picked them up to put over the led light that was bothering him and that's when "everything changed", iirc.

 

[Viper]

Nope. The fans are visible because the balcony doors are open. Close the doors, blinds, curtains, it gets pitch dark. THE PT HAS NEVER DISPUTED THIS. You don't need light to find a gun you put under/by the bed; you can easily feel your way around to that. (Haven't we all done something similar in pitch dark?)

I have to say that I am "mortified" that I am discussing this issue. :smile:

But, BIB, after it was pitch black OP decided that he needed to make it more pitch black by covering a LED light of the stereo. To do that he picked up Reeva's jeans from the floor to use to drape the stereo. It was at that precise moment that he heard the bathroom window opening; he never got around to covering the stereo.

So he has a light in the pitch black bedroom and he sees Reeva's jeans to use as a drape.

OP and the others that created this fantastic fairy tale really do deserve the congratulations from everyone following this case. To start with a blank canvass and paint a story this stupid and then expect a judge to believe it is a masterpiece, well they do have cojones don't they!!!

 

[jay-jay]

Hey Minor.

What's a suspended sentence verdict which may be issued? Jail time which Oscar doesn't actually serve?

Thank you

Would you like/want him to get a suspended sentence?

 

[Duchy]

Love Nel's facial expressions, and his silent laughter!

and the leg :blushing:

 

[G.bng]

And before the police arrived when OP and Ms. Stander went upstairs. Wonder what all was moved around then? And how exactly can the defense prove that the police contaminated the crime scene but yet the numerous people in the home that were there for OP (Stander, Ms. Stander, sister, etc) didn't contaminate the crime scene themselves.

MOO

And if any of the "hundreds", or was it "thousands", of photos of objects being "moved" are like the two of the cricket bat taken from different angles, height and distance, that Roux in his ignorance was trying to claim as proof that the bat was moved because the lettering didn't line up with the tiles in two photos one taken from the front and one from behind, then bring them on because he left himself looking like a complete and utter imbecile.

It sadly seems that SA lawyers are as nasty, pompous and arrogant as their uk counterparts!

 

[nastasya]

Perhaps you didn't read the entire affidavit ...

"With the benefit of hindsight I believe that Reeva went to the toilet when I went out on the balcony to bring the fan in. "

Killer now has admitted and/or claimed:

• killing victim
• making false claim in affidavit explaining why he didn't know victim was in bathroom
• affidavit version of events was created by lawyers
• defense team "re-worked" killer's version of events
• making screaming sounds at time witnesses heard screaming
• barging through bedroom door
• waiting inordinate amount of time before making any phone calls after shooting
• not seeing Reeva's body until after breaking door, bending over, and piking up key

How can he explain not seeing Reeva's body in the toilet when he bent over to get the key?

My guess... he's lying about that. He couldn't have missed seeing her when he broke open the door panels.

The only conclusion is that if he's lying about finding the key on the floor, the door was locked from the outside. The killer had Reeva locked in the toilet room. That's why she was screaming in terror.

What else could it be? He's either lying about finding the key on the floor, or lying about not seeing her body when he broke open the door panels.

 

[Feynman]

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.

I thought OP said he used the wall as support while firing the gun. The angular distance from bathroom windows to WC is likely small if you're at the entrance to the bathroom. I have trouble with your description.

 

[vansleuths]

I've read so much about how OP family comforts him after a "hard day" at court.

I was just wondering, did the Steenkamp's have any other children or was Reeva an only child?

 

[Duchy]

Totally agree, it can't be described in one word.

There should be a single dictionary word for each side of the bed (from the position of facing the headboard).

Collins, Oxford, etc. missed a trick there.

:smile:

It is usually described left of right from standing at the foot of the bed and facing the bed.

 

[IfIMay]

Nope. The fans are visible because the balcony doors are open. Close the doors, blinds, curtains, it gets pitch dark. THE PT HAS NEVER DISPUTED THIS. You don't need light to find a gun you put under/by the bed; you can easily feel your way around to that. (Haven't we all done something similar in pitch dark?)

So you can easily search around and feel for a gun under the bed but not for a full sized human being in the bed, that you love, and that is not responding to you!?

 

[jay-jay]

He actually says 'I'll try not to lie, milady. As I said..' at 2:19 in the link below and you're right that it is in the same area as his religion...but that's not the only time he says something peculiar. He'll try not to lie and he'll tell the truth - as much as he can remember. It just seems really weird to qualify such statements.

You'll either tell the truth or you won't. End of. MOO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rb_KaqfS6Y

He also states, at 1:28 in "I am here to tell the truth, I'm here to tell the truth as much as I can remember on that night".

Just to clarify, for those upthread who have said that he only meant 'I will try not to lie" was in context of his religion and the way he lives his life generally .. listen to the clip in Kate's post, because it is quite clear that he has said he will 'try' to tell the truth in context of this trial and Nel is trying to nail him down on that very point for the purposes of the trial, it wasn't just talking about OP's general life/religion. Nel says to him "but as a Christian, you will not lie?" and OP answers "I'll try not to lie, My Lady, but as I said I am human, I am here to tell the truth".

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Yyyesss!!!! And why had she have taken the phone into this room???????????????

I suppose he could say she took it with her to use as a light to guide her but then didn't ? OP never saw a light in the bedroom ,she managed to get out of bed and out of the room in total darkness .
If she did indeed have the phone with her why didn't she phone the police when he screamed at her to do so

Something else just occurred to me
Mrs stipp's said she was positive that she saw a light on in the Toilet ...... A faint light not like a main light and not as bright as the bathroom light That could have been Reeva's phone light .
Maybe she was trying to make a call but the signal was blocked.The light on the phone would have faintly illuminated the toilet .
I hope we will be hearing more of this from Nel
Must make Mrs stipp's evidence even more credible ?( which was always the case to me anyway )

 

[jay-jay]

Killer now has admitted and/or claimed:

• killing victim
• making false claim in affidavit explaining why he didn't know victim was in bathroom
• affidavit version of events was created by lawyers
• defense team "re-worked" killer's version of events
• making screaming sounds at time witnesses heard screaming
• barging through bedroom door
• waiting inordinate amount of time before making any phone calls after shooting
• not seeing Reeva's body until after breaking door, bending over, and piking up key

.. add to that list the fact that, although he has been sworn in under oath to to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (or whatever the equivalent is in SA) ... he then goes on to say during his testimony to court earlier today that he will "try not to lie" when asked by Nel.

 

[Forensics]

Pray may be the key word in the event of a fire.

I really don't know the answer to that yet. I've still got fans in my head.

:smile:

Perhaps he's fanning the flames!

 

[minor4th]

But that's NOT what the law in South Africa says. It states that if Oscar knew shooting through that door could lead to someone's death and he proceeded anyway it is murder with the requisite intent being proven by dolus eventualis.

The only thing that stops it from being murder is mitigating the requisite intent with putative self-defence. It doesn't matter if it was Reeva or an intruder which Nel made very clear during the bail proceedings.





http://sacns.scripturelink.net/2014/03/oscar-pistorius-will-not-be-acquitted.html
http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/oscar-pistorius-criminal-law-101/

Nope that is not the law in South Africa.

If he foresaw that shooting what he thought was an intruder would have actually killed Reeva - and he shot anyway and deliberately took that risk, that could be dolus eventualis.

Uh, irrespective of what Nel is arguing about error in personae, that's a bogus argument and he knows it.

It is putative self defense. If it's reasonably possibly true that Oscar thought he was shooting to protect himself and Reeva from an intruder come to harm him - then it's culpable homicide at best. If there's no intent, it's not murder

 

[minor4th]

I've read so much about how OP family comforts him after a "hard day" at court.

I was just wondering, did the Steenkamp's have any other children or was Reeva an only child?

They have other children. I believe Reeva was the youngest

 

[nastasya]

OP can not be found guilty of any crime involving the shooting at/killing of, an intruder. There was no intruder. No intruder was in any way harmed or even threatened.

OP may well have fired at what he imagined to be an intruder, but me MISSED.

The "imaginary intruder" got away, vanished, was never there.

What did happen is that OP "missed" the "intruder" and hit Reeva... ACCIDENTALLY.

I hope that clears things up for everybody.

Your premise is 100% false.

Killer did not "miss" the imaginary intruder. Killer shot and killed Reeva.

Killer aimed his gun at the closed toilet door and fired four times.

Killer successfully killed the person at whom he was aiming his weapon.

Killer's explanation is contradicted by 5 witnesses who heard a woman's voice prior to gunshots.

Killer admitted signing a materially false affidavit in which he denied his original reason for not knowing Reeva went to the bathroom.

 

[Duchy]

If you read that Vanity Fair article, his father raised the kids to shoot first & ask questions later. It was a family moto

Well....it's clear his father didn't raise the kids to shoot first and answer questions later::nevermind:ut em up: