Trial Discussion Thread #26 - 14.04.15, Day 23

[Plumeria5]

So the "intruder" locked the bathroom door with a key to do what? He had two choices. Use the potty or read magazines. The key in my opinion is "the key". Why would Reeva lock the door unless she was afraid? The only other reason I could see is that she was trying to call someone and wanted privacy. I will go with the fear factor.

 

[molly333]

It has been accepted by both the PT and DT that the shots were fired first. This is no longer an issue in the trial.
They are both also in agreement that the shots were fired whilst OP was not wearing his prosthesis.

It has also been accepted by both the PT and DT that Reeva did not scream after the first shots. This also is no longer an issue in the trial.

well, see, there you go.

If they agree, then that ends speculation about it.

 

[Lyra500]

Could that have been because he didn't want anyone upstairs as there were telltale signs of a fight, which he went back up to rearrange when doctor was there? He said he held Reeva for 5 minutes, which was the time he needed to come up with an excuse for shooting her.

Good point. I really wish he had been cross-examined more on what went after, because that was just as inexplicable as his version of what went before.

 

[supernovaNic]

I wish there was one of those animated like videos that show a figure on his stumps and shooting at what angle with the gun, where his arm is, tight into side but straight ahead, or angled down, that shows the trajectory.

 

[molly333]

So the "intruder" locked the bathroom door with a key to do what? He had two choices. Use the potty or read magazines. The key in my opinion is "the key". Why would Reeva lock the door unless she was afraid? The only other reason I could see is that she was trying to call someone and wanted privacy. I will go with the fear factor.

Intruder couldn't read magazines. No light.

I've never seen a bathroom with a lock like this. But, I guarantee there were two keys.

 

[Plumeria5]

Intruder couldn't read magazines. No light.

I've never seen a bathroom with a lock like this. But, I guarantee there were two keys.

He could have brought a flashlight for his deed. :facepalm:

 

[Emz73]

I'm starting to get really lost on this thread now, I read articles on the trial, I watch experts on the rolling news and I watch the trial.
I come on here and there's people arguing and arguing about points that nobody else is in the "real" world. How you have a point of view even experts don't agree with??

Maybe Oscarinatitus is catching. Its ruining it for me really, there's nothing wrong with playing devils advocate, but coming out with arguments just to be pedantic is getting boring reading now.

Why not watch the TV/radio, listen to some experts then ask yourself, why do I think I'm right and they are so wrong.

 

[nastasya]

QUESTION:

Does anybody know why OP would make such a big deal about the magazine rack being in the corner?

Or why OP would be adamant that he knew for sure that Reeva didn't get up while he was sleeping and get something to eat?

Wh

 

[beach]

Here is the new thread for today for anyone who wants to make a note of the link. It's not open yet though.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241248&highlight=oscar+pistorius

Thank you, zwiebel. :blowkiss:



I'll unlock it in about 10 minutes.

In the meantime, a few folks should probably take a breather because once I unlock the new thread if I see anymore petty bickering or snarky comments aimed at others I am not going to be <modsnipping> - I'm going to be issuing 3 day TOs.

 

[steveml]

None of what you just posted is accurate.

Even the shots being fired from his stumps was called into doubt by OP's demonstration of crouching and holding the gun low when he fired it.

I think you may be confusing what you believe or want to be correct with what is happening in the case.

Judge Masipa makes her decision based on the evidence. If both sides agree that OP fired without prostheses, that is the line that the judge will take.

If both sides agree that Reeva could not have possibly screamed after the shots were fired, Jugle Masipa will also accept that it is impossible.

She is there to interpret the evidence that has been provided, and will not make decisions based on gut feeling if the evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[nastasya]

Why not watch the TV/radio, listen to some experts then ask yourself, why do I think I'm right and they are so wrong.

I would bet that there are at least 20 members here who know 100x more about this case than any of the experts you've watched on television.

 

[Emz73]

I would bet that there are at least 20 members here who know 100x more about this case than any of the experts you've watched on television.

They aren't the ones disagreeing with the experts though.

 

[Lyra500]

Thanks!

• Pathologist could be off on his time or maybe Reeva got up to eat again
• Van de Merwe doesn't know who she heard arguing
• Stipp heard gunshots, screams, gunshots in that order, implying it could be Oscar he heard screaming
• Johnson and Burger heards screams then gunshots, implying they heard the last portion of what Stipp heard, Oscar screaming
• You can't prove Oscar knew it was her behind that door.
• Not proven his sole purpose was to shoot Reeva

It doesn't have to be Reeva per se, does it?

He shot to kill another person who he believed to be in the toilet cubicle - four times. As I put earlier it should not matter who is behind the door - Reeva, an intruder, the milkman, the Pope. It was a human being who he deliberately shot four times having gone to fetch his pistol and cocked it ready to fire. He perceived a sound which he thought meant they were coming out and shot four times through the door. If he thought they were coming out then he knew they must be just on the other side of the door he was shooting through - murder.

 

[zwiebel]

Video report/ summation of yesterday's cross of OP.

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/pistorius-trial-prosecutor-accuses-fmr-olympian-of-lying-on-stand/

 

[supernovaNic]

Did Nel ever ask OP why he told security, Baba, that "Everything was fine?" If so, what was his response?

 

[BabaJ]

It has been accepted by both the PT and DT that the shots were fired first. This is no longer an issue in the trial.
They are both also in agreement that the shots were fired whilst OP was not wearing his prosthesis.

It has also been accepted by both the PT and DT that Reeva did not scream after the first shots. This also is no longer an issue in the trial.

Oops, I have missed something. I understood that it was accepted that all the shots were fired at the same time. Do you have a link to show the acceptance of the shots being first and Reeva not screaming? Thank you.

By the way, it is great to have all different opinions and views here, this is what makes this board so exciting and addictive :seeya:

 

[nastasya]

I think you may be confusing what you believe or want to be correct with what is happening in the case.

Judge Masipa makes her decision based on the evidence. If both sides agree that OP fired without prostheses, that is the line that the judge will take.

If both sides agree that Reeva could not have possibly screamed after the shots were fired, Jugle Masipa will also accept that it is impossible.

She is there to interpret the evidence that has been provided, and will not make decisions based on gut feeling if the evidence suggests otherwise.

Agreed.

And the prosecution has argued that Reeva screamed after the first shot.

OP claimed she did not scream after the first shot. Then he claimed he couldn't have heard if she did or didn't.

You're right. You have to listen to the evidence. OP has now denied he shot to defend himself. His claim is that the gun went off four times before he had time to think.

How do you think the judge will evaluate that? He claims to have killed Reeva, but he didn't fire in self-defense.

 

[Val1]

The first set of bangs works in the defense favor.

Prosecution ignores it altogether.

They did not ignore it at all. Their expert testified that the hits on the door could have been to scare someone(imo the same with any kicks) and that there was no way to tell which came first, bat hits or gun shots. The only bullet hole in question had a crack going through it but for anyone to claim that this means it came first either has never fired a bullet through a cracked piece of wood or they have an agenda.

All you need to do is look at the door, there was a big chunk broken right out of it above the bullet hole in question. That missing chunk could easily have come before the bullet and left a crack all the way down, then the bullet shot through the crack that OP then wedged the bat in to twist that first panel out to finish "breaking down" the door.

 

[LaLaw2000]

Woah, this thread has taken a big turn since last night when I left!

Here's hoping everyone has a good day and debates do not get out of hand.


:seeya:

 

[beach]

Link to new thread.



Moooove on over please because I'm locking up here.