Trial Discussion Thread #21 - 14.04.09, Day 19

[wishIknewmore]

I think it was one pic, zoomed in. I am watching it on tv and have been able to rewind and rewatch. Poor Reeva.

Not sure if this was posted already but here's ain't to 1 of the shots I don't want to attach it since its horrific. http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2014/04/09/reeva-s-bloody-photo-shown-in-court-graphic-image

 

[DebinGA]

I think that is his defense. He said he thought the intruder was about to attack him

Didn't OP describe today the gun just going off without his knowingly pulling the trigger, much less 4 times? Did he say he fired purposely at the door believing someone was there?

 

[nastasya]

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.

Would you like to share an example of one of those "confusing" questions Nel asked that can't be answered with a yes or no?

"Did you go on the balcony?"

"Did you fire the gun accidentally?

"Were you watching *advertiser censored* on the iPad?"

 

[minor4th]

Didn't OP describe today the gun just going off without his knowingly pulling the trigger, much less 4 times?

Not really. He hemmed and hawed about it but eventually said that yes he pulled the trigger and the gun didn't go off by accident - but that he shot without having time for reflection or forming a deliberate intent to kill an intruder.

 

[MeeBee]

Didn't OP describe today the gun just going off without his knowingly pulling the trigger, much less 4 times?

I think he was being confusing and deliberately trying to avoid the word "intent" and its derivatives. I think what he was trying to say, in rather lay terms, that he wasn't thinking when he shot at the door, he just did it after feeling a rush of fear when he thought the intruder was coming and didn't really know what he was doing. I don't think he was saying the gun just went off, just that he didn't do it with intent, he just did it.

I hope I'm making sense, lol.

 

[Interested Bystander]

his first call didn't prove to be to the emergency services though. it was to a friend who could help him. so a locked phone was no use to him.

He did say he couldn't ring help because the phone in the Loo (Reeva's) was locked. I feel sure he should have known that a locked phoned will still ring emergency numbers. I do wonder whether he even bothered to try because it should have worked if he rang 112 or several other numbers that get automatically transferred even with no SIM card or call credit available.

I think he was thinking of ringing Stander not an Emergency Number. But we shall never know. I am sure if I had just shot my lover accidentally I would immediately dial an emergency number not a friend.

 

[MeeBee]

Would you like to share an example of one of those "confusing" questions Nel asked that can't be answered with a yes or no?

"Did you go on the balcony?"

"Did you fire the gun accidentally?

"Were you watching *advertiser censored* on the iPad?"

BBM: did he ask this today???

 

[minor4th]

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

I don't think the defense is saying that everyone on the scene besides the police took great care to preserve the crime scene and evidence. Obviously OP moved Reeva and phones and other items during the course of the events.

The point is - what you see in crime scene photos cannot be relied upon as being an accurate depiction of the exact scene immediately after the incident.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Not really. He hemmed and hawed about it but eventually said that yes he pulled the trigger and the gun didn't go off by accident - but that he shot without having time for reflection or forming a deliberate intent to kill an intruder.

I would happily agree with that if it was only one shot.

 

[04009margaret]

I agree that there's a difference - Mrs. Stipp was clearly lying (or she was tricked by the police into signing a statement that they fudged) and Oscar's was an in-artful use of words that has now been clarified - no reason for him to contradict himself and give a different version now. It's not like he totally made up seeing a person that he didn't see.

Yes, it was a mistake to shoot through the door - he mistakenly believed it to be an intruder. That ain't murder. Is he minimizing it at times? YES, of course he is.

This is where the system is so stacked against a lay man in legal verbiage. I know exactly what happened to the witnesses statements in this case. My daughter had the exact same thing happen to her in court when she was robbed at knife point on our local train platform. Lawyers twist your words during cross & if you've never experienced a courtroom before, you aren't aware that every single word in your statement matters. The police are aware of this but fail to advise witnesses about it, probably because their overworked & bogged down by the paperwork involved. My daughters attacker had a lawyer that twisted every single word in her statement, example "She had a knife in her hand & a heavy chain wrapped around her wrist. She held the knife against my chest & asked for my money." This got interpreted to, "so she wasn't demanding your money, so she couldn't have been robbing you as you claim. Are you sure she wasn't just asking you to lend or donate her some money." Lawyers will run to town on the difference of a single word....ask....demand. As for the chain, he suggested that she mistook that as she uses that chain to walk her dog.

 

[ShadyLady]

There is a method to Nel's madness. He would not have gotten anywhere with OP if he had not done all of those crazy detours and antics first, in order to shake OP free from his memorized answers.

If he had just calmly walked up and began asking about the 'correct' issues, OP would have used his memorized scripted answers and seemed credible. But Nel came at him so quickly from so many surprising places, OP was off balance and we saw the holes in his stories.

Pistorus, so guilty....just listening now, and hearing his futile attempts at threading the needle with his lies. IMO

'I was here....I was there....the fan had one leg on the carpet....'

I do hope judge gets it right.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I do not use guns but I imagine one has to apply a reasonable amount of pressure to the trigger to make it fire, ie intentionally apply pressure. As Roux would say is that so, or not so? Perhaps someone would like to venture an opinion. Does OP's gun have a safety catch on it too? Is that something that has to be released with each bullet or only at the start of several shots?

 

[MeeBee]

I do not use guns but I imagine one has to apply a reasonable amount of pressure to the trigger to make it fire, ie intentionally apply pressure. As Roux would say is that so, or not so? Perhaps someone would like to venture an opinion. Does OP's gun have a safety catch on it too? Is that something that has to be released with each bullet or only at the start of several shots?

The safety only has to be switched once.

 

[04009margaret]

Yep, it's a 4-digit number lock. :smile:

Thought so, I refused to update mine to the iphone 5 because of the trouble they had with maps lol They put cities in the ocean, so I went with Samsung

 

[jassy writer]

I think Nel's questioning today was FANTASTIC.

He blew a hole right through the story of the two fans and in such a clever way that OP did not even realise he was doing it. OP himself admitted that the second plug point for two prong plugs was used to recharge his clippers and that he had plugged it in. Then Nel asked him if he saw anything wrong with the photo... he still did not realise until Nel pointed it out.

Ditto the way Nel is showing to the entire courtroom and to My Lady that OP cannot and will not answer simple direct questions with anything other than rehearsed responses. As Nel pointed out, he is "arguing", not "answering". Together with Nel's accusation that OP refuse to take responsibility, this is painting a picture of somebody who will lie because they simply cannot face the truth...

 

[04009margaret]

They apparently heard crying - no screaming at all. The screaming Oscar yesterday admitted.

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

So that also means the help, help, help screamed from the balcony. They must be like my husband, an earthquake wouldn't wake him.

 

[luvmygarden]

Originally Posted by 04009margaret
I think his whole story is a lie & he has now convinced himself that it's true, including emotions that go with that story. He only becomes distraught when he has to confront what he has done to Reeva & when he thinks of the consequences for himself.

I disagree

xxxxxxxxxxx

OP is distraught because he said he doesn't know what the implications of his answers would be. He wants to give the answers that will keep him a free man. He is messing up with this attitude I fear.

 

[jassy writer]

Another quick comment that my BF observed... plugging things in and out is a right PITA, especially when you need adaptors, and you do tend to remember which things are plugged where. If I think now, I know exactly which plug point my computer uses, and our fan uses, and the bedside lamp uses. I know which plug point the blender in the kitchen uses and that we have to swop it for a different plug point when we use the ice cream maker (both two prong and the adaptor has to move as well).

 

[strydohj]

I will read all the comment now but wanted to ask so long: Why did OP pushed and kicked the closed door if was opening to the outside?

 

[supernovaNic]

So it's over already for today? Mediate just shows videos for yesterday(Day17). Thank you.