Trial Discussion Thread #25 - 14.04.14, Day 22

[Viper]

Pistorius (Uncle Arnold) had allowed a book writer to come in to his inner circle:

Quote:

Pistorius’s uncle, Arnold, was deep in conversation with writer John Carlin who is writing a book about the case.

http://www.citypress.co.za/news/families-draw-closer-oscar-trial-continues/

 

[soozieqtips]

That is correct - no mention of speaking to Reeva, or Reeva speaking to him in the bail application.

Or a window sliding and then slamming into the frame, or the toilet door slamming. He said he told his DT all this and 'doesn't know' why none of this was in his bail application or at the plea thingy. But he remembers he was traumatised and on medication when he signed his affidavit, but has no reason for why these significant details were left out of both documents.

His DT are to blame - of course.

 

[minor4th]

Thank you honey :-D

So the toilet wasn't directly behind her or in her way? Thank you x

No, I don't think the toilet was directly behind her. The magazine rack would have been more directly behind her.

 

[aa9511]

Am I right in saying that in his Bail Application he didn't mention that he spoke to Reeva before bringing in the fans? If I am correct, surely it would be emblazoned on your mind the last words you ever spoke to someone before they died and that would be in the BA?

I think he's said he never replied to her. She said "can't sleep Baba?" but in his story, he doesn't reply. He just goes straight to bringing in the fans.

Which makes it even more improbable to believe, just like you are saying.

 

[patCee]

With regard to CH and a possible future conviction/sentancing, the following addresses OP's disability. Not sure though whether the same applies to premeditation.

It is worth noting that our law is only prepared to take account of the immediate external circumstances of an accused – and to hypothetically place the reasonable person in these circumstances. Our law has steadfastly refused to take account of any subjective factors peculiar to an accused, including any disability that the accused suffers with. This has been controversial, but it has been a line from which our courts have not wavered. If the reasonable person would not have made the mistake Pistorius claims to have made, even if the court accepts that Pistorius made this mistake, he may be convicted of culpable homicide.

http://criminallawza.net/2014/03/03/the-pistorius-defence/

 

[Britlaws]

I'm convinced he was wearing his legs now too. Several days ago someone posted a medical study re amputees' balance issues. The study found that vision is pivotal to double amputees' ability to remain upright, but significantly more important to those with below-the-knee amputations like OP. There's no way in the world imo that OP, a world class athlete, would have risked serious injury flailing around in the dark rather than quickly putting on his legs.

For sure Deb, and prosthetics have come a long way since Douglas Bader! OP will be able to bend and flex his knees etc. but may still do things differently than a non amputee. When Mangena gave evidence that the shots in the door from someone of OP's height may have been an uncomfortable position, he was viewing it from the position of a non amputee... such a position might be preferable for OP. Same with the cricket bat strikes.

 

[sleuth-d-]

I don't think the gun was under the bed. I think it was on his nightstand.

agreed.

here is another possible piece to the jigsaw.

always wondered why the gun would be at the bottom of the bed. unusual, not a great place to keep it if you are afraid of intruders.

but for his version, op cannot have it close at hand. he cannot have it close to his [temporary] side of the bed, as then he could just reach for it whilst still in bed... and this would still place him right next to reeva.

he had to have a 'version' that placed the gun out of reach and away from reeva - somewhere that he had to get up to access. all the 'my back is to reeva' fudge; fan faffing; jeans faffing; curtains faffing is just a means towards getting him out of the bed, away from reeva, but close enough to the gun without having to see her.

the actual position of the gun - on his normal bedside table [i.e. window side] was no good either, because there was no way he could get to that without walking right around the bed, down reeva's side and over fans/leads/clipper/ipad... in doing so he would then have to walk right past her, and back again to get to the bathroom. and she would have seen him/heard him etc etc

 

[aa9511]

A bracelet that wasn't in his possession, from a jewellers he didn't name, with the vague idea of some trinkets for the bracelet... that wasn't in his possession.

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[beach]

Heads- up!

Here is the link Theory Thread that I promised.



I'll post mine later. I'm still recovering from middle-of-the-night trial hangover and can't put more than 3 sentences together until I have some sleep. lol

I'm really interested to read everybody's take on what happened that night. I bet we all find it enlightening.

 

[jay-jay]

Nel: and the duvet?

OP: MiLady, I know she wasn't on the bed because I crossed the bed <starting to sound angry now>.. I got on, on the foot (?) .. if you look at the bed on the left foot (?) side I still had to help myself up onto the bed because I wasn't tall enough I didn't want to keep my eyes off the passage and I moved across the bed .. when I got to the other side of the bed I was hoping that she was on the floor like I told her to be

Quoting myself here .. is it an SA thing to say left foot side (or right foot side) as opposed to left hand side (or right hand side)? Just that when OP started to say that bit, he sounded as if he was talking about the foot of the bed and then seemed to change it to 'left foot side' .. it just sounded really odd to me (along with all the rest of that bit about checking for Reeva on the floor with his hands/not checking for Reeva on the floor with his hands)!

 

[anagrammy]

I don't remember any ear witnesses saying they heard "GET DOWN"

It was in the cross today -- or was I asleep sitting up (again) struggling to follow....?

 

[TipDog]

WHY???
The manner of his questioning. He is repeatedly saying things are impossible when in my opinion they are not impossible. One example, he was trying to trip OP up about the duvet. Was the duvet on the bed when he returned to the bedroom or not. Now lets be honest here, if someone has just shot 4 bullets through a door possibly killing someone, whether that shooting was premeditated, done is self defence or in a jealous rage, is it impossible that they would notice whether or not a duvet was on a bed or not? I think even the judge is fed up with him now. Please try to excuse my impatience. I don't know if OP is guilty of premeditated murder or not, but Nel's manner of questioning is damaging OP's chance of a fair trial. Fortunately it is not a jury trial and the judge and her assessors will ensure that a fair trial ensues. I know I will be shot down in flames for my view. So be it.

BIB

Yes. In fact, if OP is telling the truth and saw RS' legs under the duvet, that would have been the exact last place/position he'd remember her to be in. And if she's not on the floor, on the balcony or behind the curtains, then he'd remember her under the duvet and check the duvet. I can't remember his sequencing of how he looked for her, but not remembering if the duvet was on or off the bed suggests that he didn't look to find RS where he last (supposedly) saw her.

As for Nel, we all should remember that he really is doing his job. In the US, he'd be swapping objections with the DT repeatedly but SA is clearly different. Personally, I kind of prefer their method. They don't coddle the "innocent until proven guilty." If you are innocent, the facts will support that. And at this time, I don't believe they do. Of course, I'm not the judge...

Only time will tell.

 

[Goforgold]

OP's stories are just too full of holes to be true.

In my view this means he has something to hide and is likely guilty of the murder of Reeva.

However, the prosecution story still needs work.

Below is my working theory. I welcome any and all comments.

13th Feb
8:00 p.m. Dinner between Reeva and Oscar (true as per OP's testimony)

9:00 p.m. Discussion re: Reeva's modelling contract (OP's testimony) resulted in a fight as OP wanted to control some aspects of her modelling (my presumption based on OP's jealousy and controlling nature).

10:00 p.m - Argument is over but still simmering tempers. Reeva does do some Yoga (as per OP's testimony) and texts her family (I believe at 10:35 p.m) and OP looks at cars.

14th Feb
12:00 a.m. Both still awake and it has just ticked into Valentine's Day. Reeva still angry and depressed over her fight goes and gets food downstairs for comfort(disabling the alarm).

1:00 a.m. Upon getting back upstairs, fight begins when OP asks why Reeva didn't get him any food. Its hot and tempers frayed resulting in a fight escalating as Reeva has gotten him a gift but he hasn't gotten her one for Valentines. Reeva gets emotional and angry over the past issues from their earlier fight in the evening.

2:00 a.m. The fight gets extremely heated (loud arguing heard by Van der Merwe for an hour from 1:56 a.m.).

3:00 a.m. OP finally loses it and slams the bedroom door (breaking it as per evidence) and threatens Reeva.

Reeva screams and gets scared and runs into the bathroom before running into the toilet slamming the door and locking it.

OP comes in brandishing the cricket bat and hits the door. He threatens Reeva asking her to come out.

Reeva threatens to tell the media and continues screaming for help.

3:15 a.m.

OP fires a warning shot through the door and hits her on the hip and tells her to 'get the *advertiser censored** out'.

Reeva then says she will call the police (he is paranoid about his reputation and the police).

At that point he panics and shoots her 3 times.

He spent two minutes breaking the panel and confirming Reeva was seriously hurt behind the door.

He then called Stander (come help me with a problem), Netcare (out of immediate remose but vague description of injuries as he can't see through the door - results in them asking him to bring her in) and Baba (before hanging up).

OP at that time decides to try to cover everything up.

At 3:22 a.m. he opens the door and pulls her out (this explains why there is more blood in the toilet than bathroom).

Baba calls back and OP says everything is fine.

He then carries her partially downstairs (explaining arterial blood) when Stander and Baba arrive (3:26 a.m.)

OP is hoping the Standers will help him cover this issue up but he has no option when Baba also appears.

Sidenotes:
I contend that he was already wearing his prosthetics at the time (was kneeling when he shot Reeva) and already had the cricket bat on hand.

The continuing fights also explains why Reeva was in normal attire rather than night attire.

The blood in the bedroom (duvet etc.) comes from OP going up a few times to try and clear up evidence of his earlier fight with Reeva after Dr. Stipp arrived.

The fan remains blocking the balcony as he never had to move it and never went out anyway.

Bladder empty as she goes to urinate around 1:00 a.m. after her midnight meal.

The jeans thrown outside are a result of the earlier fight.

The bangs heard by the Stipps were from the slamming doors or the cricket bat hitting the door initially.

Reeva's phone was on the bathroom floor after OP tried to check whether she called police (but didn't know her PIN), so he threw the phone in anger and the cover came off

I thought that the cricket bat came first, but ballistic evidence says the shots came first because of the shards of wood which went into her. Could ballistics be wrong?

 

[minor4th]

I need to correct myself on something I said yesterday about culpable homicide and putative self defense. Having listened to a couple of SA legal experts this morning, apparently OP could actually be acquitted even if he erroneously shot and killed Reeva believing he was lawfully shooting in self defense.

Once it is decided that it's reasonably possibly true that he genuinely believed there was an armed intruder in the bathroom/toilet, then that takes away the intent necessary for murder (intent). But then the inquiry is whether, given that belief, he acted reasonably - if he acted reasonably, then he is acquitted. If he did not act reasonably, then he is negligent and has committed culpable homicide.

 

[jay-jay]

Nel: but how did you feel? .. what did you do?

OP: with my hands, MiLady

Nel: now if you felt with your hands you've got everywhere because you were now .. she must be there, that's what you told to be

OP: yes that's where I told her to be

Nel: so you would've checked everywhere then

OP: I didn't check everywhere the place is so small MiLady .. if you can get out there <unidentifiable word) it's so small I don't even know if it's a meter .. I ran my hand along the curtain ..my first thought was that it might be Reeva now in the toilet

Nel: lets take it much slower, you told her to get down, you thought she was on the floor on the right hand side of the bed

OP: I was hoping she was there, yes

Quoting myself again .. I see that he has admitted there to just how small all this area is/was .. so that just makes it all the more ridiculous that he never saw Reeva get out of bed and go down the passageway and into the bathroom/toilet.

 

[soozieqtips]

1st BIB

Agreed, there are some wild theories floating around and some that absolutely seem unrealistic. But given that OP's version isn't realistic unless you wish to twist your brain into hocus pocus mode, it is pretty reasonable that the imagination would run wild with this one. Something happened that night that led to up to the events that unfolded in the murder of a defenseless woman. At this point, IMO, none of us do nor will we ever know what those events were. Given that assumption, it is reasonable that theories get explored, as ludicrous as they may seem.

Bottom line though - a young woman is dead after been shot in a horrific fashion behind a closed door. She knew the truth but, so tragically, isn't here to tell the court. I might would believe somehow, someway, OP got up and shot her by accident if he'd give a straight answer instead of the circus we're witnessing currently. He also might have garnered more respect if he were not trying to get away with and relieved of any responsibility for all charges against him.


2nd BIB

1. No evidence of these two being in love at the time of her death. Her message to him 1.5 weeks prior said she was the girl who fell in love with him - past tense. She also wondered if they couldn't give each other what they need. Given that RS seemed like the kind of woman who mostly spread lovey dovey written messages, that one long diatribe to OP about his behavior (and her being scared of him at times) cannot simply be shrugged off as normal relationship interaction. She made a point in that, a valid one and one that I think was an omen to the morning she died.

2. OP said originally that they were deeply in love but when breaking down on the stand, he said words to the effect of "someone I cared for" - another inconsistency. Nothing points to them being deeply in love or her being loved.

3. No plans to spend VD together. No gift for RS. I find it implausible that while being deeply in love, either of these facts would be present, especially for a couple in their 20s.

But these are just my thoughts...

BBM - Very well-reasoned thoughts they are too. I don't quite understand why some people are still clinging onto old news... like they were in a deeply loving relationship. There were no signs of this being a normal healthy and loving relationship. Reeva was the giver, OP was the taker - and that imbalance is often seen in abusive relationships. I wonder whether he got mad at Reeva for eating food in front of him, when perhaps he was still hungry but having to stick to a diet? From what we've seen of OP, blatantly eating food in front of him when he couldn't eat would surely be a sign of disrespect! And he hasn't mentioned the late night snack Reeva had at all.

 

[kittychi]

That is correct - no mention of speaking to Reeva, or Reeva speaking to him in the bail application.
But he did mention it in the plea explanation.

Right...Reeva was totally mum in that affidavit. She said absolutely nothing either before or after being killed, according to his affidavit.

He changes it from shouted (no "screamed") to whispered to --what word did he use today-- softly?

 

[aa9511]

Re: Changing his defense from putative self defense to involuntary action --

There has been a lot of talk about Oscar changing his defense and what that means or if it helps the state prove murder. Here is my take -

Oscar is not changing his defense, he is just using different terminology than Nel (albeit, he's perseverating).

When Oscar says it was an accident and that he didn't intend to shoot the intruder - I believe what Oscar means is that he didn't plan to kill the intruder and that he didn't have time to reflect on what he was doing. He is not saying that the gun went off by accident or that he had no control over pulling the trigger - he concedes that he pulled the trigger and that it did not go off accidentally.

When he says he didn't intend to shoot or kill the intruder, he seems to be meaning that he didn't want it to come to that - he didn't want to have to shoot anyone or kill anyone; that wasn't his "plan" as he approached the bathroom, although he was aware that he might have to shoot to defend himself (and Reeva).

Going back to the first moments of his cross examination, he said "I didn't intend to shoot Reeva, or anyone else for that matter" and he also said that the whole shooting was an "accident." When he first said those things, I thought to myself "OMG, this guy is a screwball and won't even admit that he shot to defend himself." <--- that is what it sounded like! However, now having listened to him for 3 or 4 days, one can better glean his meaning. It's not that he's changing his defense; he's just using a totally different set of terminology to describe it.

Keep in mind that Roux will redirect him, and he will do so in a way that is not pressured or aggressive. I expect much of this to be clarified in redirect examination. If I were in Roux' position, I would also make a point of getting Oscar to acknowledge that he felt great pressure under cross examination and that the manner of questioning was mentally exhausting and impaired his ability to think clearly. I do believe that is some of what we are seeing.

I have a different interpretation. IMO he is saying he never intended to shoot anyone b/c it takes all of the blame off of him. He doesn't even want to admit to shooting the intruder. But he has to, b/c obviously he shot the gun and even shot and killed someone. There is no way he can get out of it. If you put a dot on Reeva's body as the event, and then you draw a square around the event, Oscar is placing himself on the edge of that square somewhere. He is placing himself as far away from the dot, the event, as he possibly can.

This is not about "different terminology." This is about Oscar's refusal to take responsibility for anything whatsover.

IMO his testimony regardin the restaurant shooting was very, very bad for him. It showed me that he will in no way take responsibility for anything. It showed me that he will try to deny something happening even when there is evidence clearly against his version.

I have NO DOUBT that if someone else were in the room with Reeva and Oscar that night, that Oscar would put the complete and entire blame on that other person. He would say, the other person shot the gun. The other person killed Reeva. It would be Oscar's word vs. the other guy's word, just like the restaurant incident. He would put compete and entire blame on the other person.

JMO.

 

[weeeva]

Originally Posted by TrueDetective View Post
This x-exam is just devastating for OP's credibility to the point of no return.
He is a totally unreliable witness and so his testimony will be discredited which means that his only defence - his version, will be totally rejected.
Verdict = guilty.
If anyone cannot see that, they are disconnected from reality.

Please do not say that I am disconnected from reality. I don't agree with the vast majority on here, or with anyone in my personal life, but majority does not mean right or truth. The way I see it the state has not proved it's case yet.
PS. I had to cut and paste the above post done in blue. The multi-quote did not work for me.

 

[Rumpole]

"Loved" girlfriend?

So loved that she never said "I love you" to him in any of the messages they sent, nor he to her?

So loved her sister in the UK didn't even know she was dating him.

So loved that he told the Sunday Times on 14 January 2013 that he was not in any serious relationship and that woman "lie" when they say they don't mind how busy a man is.

And that's before you get to the jealousy and control issues.

Hmmm.... not sure about your version of love, Rumpole, but to me this does not scream "loving relationship" at all!

I think it is a huge STRETCH to be evoking DV type stuff.

The situation here is two independent people with their own lives and own homes. NOBODY was trapped in the classical DV scenario.

4 short lived Tiffs over 1700 texts is so insignificant as to be really a sign on desperation if that is ALL the State could find to indicate "violence" It is plain silly to draw any conclusion at all about Op being abusive even verbally, and no evidence at all of actual face to face verbal abuse, let alone physical violence.

Just as an aside: When people rush to label minor things such as this as "abuse" they detract from REAL instances of DV. People (usually women) who are battered and eventually some killed. DV is NOT an issue in this case and to evoke that is a travesty in itself.

Parsing out the word " loving" in my post... that I did only include in brackets is not significant to what I say.

Nel can make an issue of a word or a phrase "not making sense" but the Big Fat elephant of a thing that does NOT make sense is a boyfriend deciding to INTENTIONALLY shoot his girlfriend at 3:00 AM... It is Nel's job to explain WHY and HOW such an unlikely event occurred.