Trial Discussion Thread #23 - 14.04.11, Day 21

[molly333]

....and what intruder puts light on in bathroom? Witness says light was on.

"I was never ready to shoot", really so much of his testimony is laughable if it were not so serious.

And whoever brought up the point about how much urine Reeva had in bladder, she had no reason for going to bathroom with phone. And OP said he took his time getting to bathroom, and her pants were not down. And if he was shouting "Reeva phone the police"......why didn't she? I don't think Reeva thought he would shoot her.

And how many times has OP now said, he did it all to protect Reeva....the hypocrisy....

I hope we don't see the OJ verdict again!!

I missed the witness testimony. Did witnesses say the part of the bathroom where the tub was had a light on?

Are you thinking Reeva did not take her phone into the bathroom? What was her last use of it?

Reeva either was hiding there from him or just using the bathroom. Is there a third possibility?

If she was hiding from him, why stand in front of the door? Worst place to stand if she knew he had a gun.

 

[minor4th]

Most news reports...CNN,SKY etc thought this was his worst day. Funny how people see things differently.

I am still not finished listening for today. Also, my comment was not so much on the substance of the testimony as how he conducted himself. But of course that's going to be interpreted differently.

 

[shane13]

Well, don't forget that all that 'fan bringing in' thing was all just part of OP's testimony/fairy story so we don't even know whether that bit happened (asking Reeva to bring in the fans) or not, let alone whether it could've triggered an argument.

Did you see what I posted on page 1 of this thread in this regard?

 

[minor4th]

You don't call a witness a liar when he's in the box. The judge said this. Is that true? Does she mean you can't use the word "liar" but you can say it another way like 'you are not telling the truth.' And is OP a witness?

OP is a witness - meaning he is giving testimony.

It's not proper to call a witness a liar while the witness is giving testimony because it is exclusively the function of the judge to determine the credibility of a witness. So Nel calling him a liar while he's still testifying kind of has the effect of usurping the Judge's role in making that determination.

 

[Cherwell]

Reeva would not know that OP was mistaking her for an intruder. For all Reeva knew the intruder could have been on the balcony or in the bedroom. Also she would not want an intruder to know where she was, so would keep quiet.

So she wouldn't have slammed the loo door. She would have closed it gently and quietly.

But I believe she did slam the loo door. It's one of the bits of truth that OP has inadvertently let slip into his web of lies.

 

[Carol70]

My parents visited a few years ago and fell in love with it and it's people. I hope to visit myself one day. Just not anywhere near paranoid, gun-toting olympic athletes. :wink:

whew. I love that Nel ended giving Oscar the weekend to come up with new lines, additions, qualifications and fabrications. He's got a lot to remember over the break.

And I hope you do...haha, us normal folks in the suburbs might live behind the highest walls and not know our neighbours but we are very welcoming! I am very Proudly South African. I'm married to a Brit and the few times he has mentioned it might be time to get our passports, he would have to drag me screaming and kicking.

 

[Emz73]

It sounded to me as if Nel was deliberately trying to confuse him and get him rattled .. and it was working a bit because OP was distinctly getting annoyed and frustrated at that particular part, but he stopped just short of really snapping back at Nel .. he is really having to control that temper at times, but I bet Nel wants him to snap. I'm pretty sure that Nel knows exactly how the alarm system works, and about the two separate occasions of having the house painting, etc.

That's exactly what Nel is trying to do. That's all they've got really in proving he knew she was behind the door. It will happen I'm sure.
He will slip up in temper.

Slowee slowee catchee monkee

 

[Feynman]

Me too and everyone else I know says the same. Protect first, ask questions later. I sleep with a machete next to my bed, I would not hesitate to use it and hopefully, never have to.

"Protect" and firing four lethal black talons at close range at an unidentifed person cornered in a small cubicle are not the same thing.

 

[molly333]

OP is a witness - meaning he is giving testimony.

It's not proper to call a witness a liar while the witness is giving testimony because it is exclusively the function of the judge to determine the credibility of a witness. So Nel calling him a liar while he's still testifying kind of has the effect of usurping the Judge's role in making that determination.

This prosecutor is so good, that poor Oscar doesn't have a chance. He doesn't see it coming. Prosecutor: "There, you've done it again, Mr. Pistorius. You have changed your version." "It's all about you, Mr. Pistorius." "You won't take responsibility for anything, Mr. Pistorius."

Oscar is just no match. He's referring to his 'version' now, and taking responsibility for all sorts of things he shouldn't, just to prove he can.

My favorite was when he tricked Oscar into asking to see the zombie video and then argued to the Judge the defendant asked to see it.

 

[fox1lady]

Think its safe to say that he killed her, RS specifically, and it was accidentally as he is saying (as I would like to believe it was as well), that he will be distraught about this entire incident for the remainder of his life.

Also why do most people think he is being self-centered on the stand now when all he is doing is giving HIS version of what happened. There is going to be a lot of 'I' sentences, no point in speaking for someone else.

Him being distraught while being under cross is gonna happen.

I think there was an argument... possibly started by OP going off on one at Reeva for leaving the balcony doors open and HIM having to go and close them and bring the fans in. My version is his me lady... she told him to go eff himself and then knowing that he was in a rage she ran into the bathroom and then into toilet and locked the door. He was trying to get the bathroom door open using his weight but couldn't so got the cricket bat Not really sure what happened from there but wait up I'll be back :twocents:

 

[jay-jay]

Did you see what I posted on page 1 of this thread in this regard?

.. this bit here, do you mean?

Here's my theory what happened:
After the incident defence was coming up with a story, they needed an affidavit..
BR:"We need a reason for you to go out of the room for a moment so that she has time to go to the toilet.."
OP "Let's say I went downstairs to get something to drink..and then heard noise from the toilet"
BR "No.. you wouldn't do that in the pitch black..and on your stumps..stairs and everything.
What if..what if we say you went onto the balcony to bring the fan in..it was a hot night and so forth"
And so they decided.

... yes, did see your post but didn't really have time to read it fully as the trial was just about to start this morning! I agree, it might very well have been something like that in the way they went about deciding on a way of him not having seen Reeva go to the bathroom .. they would probably have been better off with the going downstairs one! Mind you, that wouldn't have fitted the timeline (too long .. Reeva would've been to the loo and back in bed by then) plus also OP wouldn't have heard the bathroom window sliding open, so it had to be something which happened upstairs in that open plan bedroom/bathroom/toilet ensuite area.

 

[lisasalinger]

Yeah, you just can't predict what someone would do.

Do I really think it happened the way he said? No.

But, I can't prove it.

The only possibility I've seen so far that might work towards guilt--I think she was dressed in street clothes, and the contents of her stomach showing she ate at 1am not 7pm.

That would suggest they never went to bed that night and the fight started downstairs with her fleeing to the bedroom.

But it's not enough for me, yet.

But that is exactly what circumstantial evidence is!

The circumstances of the case thus far are that Oscar has hugely evaded responsible for counts 2 thru 4 even though there is an abundance of evidence against him. In other words, he is proven to be a liar. Take that and keep it in mind for Count 1.

He has proven that the fans were never outside. He was always in the same room with Reeva and she was awake. It was not pitch black. He could see from the LED light and could see the passageway.

That is the basis of this case. Not seeing her.

That circumstance alone tells me he's guilty!

Then keep following his "version"... It gets less and less plausible.

 

[katydid23]

Common sense varies.

Fight or flight is an innate response to each individual.

Nel cannot determine categorically what an individual person would or wouldn't do in such circumstances.

But Nel can determine when someone's details do not fit correctly into their version of events.

 

[katydid23]

I'm sure I can hear Roux whispering...

anic: anic: anic:

 

[fox1lady]

Oscar's right. The State have changed their case and proposals within it numerous times. Is the State actually tailoring its case as per evidence, witnesses and statements???

He has also said a number of times that his version has stayed the same !!! WTH how many times has he changed his story?

 

[AlwaysShocked]

OP is a witness - meaning he is giving testimony.

It's not proper to call a witness a liar while the witness is giving testimony because it is exclusively the function of the judge to determine the credibility of a witness. So Nel calling him a liar while he's still testifying kind of has the effect of usurping the Judge's role in making that determination.

Wow, minor! You have an impressive knowledge of South African law!

 

[Carol70]

"Protect" and firing four lethal black talons at close range at an unidentifed person cornered in a small cubicle are not the same thing.

Feynman, don't do that, I think you know exactly what I meant. You have been one of the most reasonable voices of madness here in the last 12 months..don't slip please.

 

[molly333]

But that is exactly what circumstantial evidence is!

The circumstances of the case thus far are that Oscar has hugely evaded responsible for counts 2 thru 4 even though there is an abundance of evidence against him. In other words, he is proven to be a liar. Take that and keep it in mind for Count 1.

He has proven that the fans were never outside. He was always in the same room with Reeva and she was awake. It was not pitch black. He could see from the LED light and could see the passageway.

That is the basis of this case. Not seeing her.

That circumstance alone tells me he's guilty!

Then keep following his "version"... It gets less and less plausible.

Well, but, LED or no, that room would have been pitch black when he closed the curtains. The other thing that happens is it takes several minutes for your eyes to adjust. I do believe he could have walked right past Reeva and not seen her. Or not seen she wasn't in the bed. That is very possible. Try it in your own bedroom if you can.

I don't see where it was proven the fans were never outside. The big fan had one leg outside, and then he brought it in and put it on the corner of the bed. I don't see where that was ever challenged except by the police picture which is still suspect.

 

[molly333]

anic: anic: anic:

I think Roux really failed his client, writing all that detail down in bail and other pleadings that the Prosecutor could then get his hands on.

 

[Emz73]

I am still not finished listening for today. Also, my comment was not so much on the substance of the testimony as how he conducted himself. But of course that's going to be interpreted differently.

Ok, let you off then :fence: