Trial Discussion Thread #27 - 14.04.16, Day 24

[Julian]

Worse is the today article, "Oscar’s ‘involuntary action’: Thin ice, Mr Pistorius" by Pierre de Vos (Prof. Constitutional law Cape Town University) in the Daily Maverick that looks at the possibility of OP having changed his “putative self-defence” plea to that of “involuntary action” (...)

Gosh! Just spent at least one and a half hours reading today's posts! It seems Dixon was, perhaps, not as favourable to Oscar Pistorius as he might have been, I gather...

In any case, I do thank G.bng for the reference to De Vos's article. I'll read that in a moment...

 

[Hatfield]

That is a good point and not one I had thought of before .

He obviously did not call emergency people too right after shooting her because his ears would still be ringing. It takes quite awhile for your ears to stop ringing from loud bullet sounds in closed quarters.

 

[soozieqtips]

True.



That's a non sequitur. If it's true, then whether they believe it or not, then she is not, she will not be gone forever. But they are Christians,
so I know they believe it.

BBM - You don't know what they believe.

 

[minor4th]

YES, I stand corrected. It was Mrs. Stipp:
"Sorry, but that is incorrect. She lied under oath when she knowingly signed a false affidavit. I cannot believe that any of you are willing to just dismiss that as a simple mistake.

We don't know when and under what circumstances she changed it, but it doesn't matter - she swore to something she knew was false. Are you saying in general we can't rely on sworn statements from lay witnesses because they are lay witnesses and don't know what it means to make a sworn statement? That does not make any sense at all to me.

If Oscar signed a sworn statement that contained knowingly false information, would you write it off as a simple and irrelevant mistake? Heck no - you would call him a calculating liar and likely declare that nothing he says can be believed. It's no different except that her dishonesty does not support the outcome you desire IMO"
======================================================


So after this post was written, back in thread 12, we have seen that OP has said there were 'errors' in his statement. And he said it was because his attorneys wrote it out, and he just signed it. Does this trouble you?

Heck yes it troubles me and his credibility has suffered in my eyes because of it.

 

[James50]

You do realise Oscar was screaming...a blood curdling terrified scream that went on for 10 minutes or so....because he shot into a door? A DOOR. After he found Reeva he didn't utter a word. Unless you count a "everything is fine"

You have to put all of this into context. Like many people with physical disabilities, they tend to be extremely sensitive and histrionic in situation in which most others would not be. We've seen this in his court behaviour. So, I can easily see how someone like this who moreover feels extremely vulnerable on his stumps might get himself into a frenzied state because he is panicking and then feel like an idiot and shocked into a prolonged silence when he finds out that he shot Reevan and not an intruder.

 

[emmavoberry]

Maybe he was angry enough to go after Reeva with the bat. She locked herself in the toilet. On his stumps he bashed the door but couldn't get at her. He got his gun and shot her. Then he put on his legs and broke open the door.

1) He could already have had his legs on(up arguing with her), gone after her with bat, bashed door to get at her, then got gun (do we know for sure he kept it in bedroom?Or closer to bathroom?)and shot, then broke open door.

Could he have been shooting downwards at some point, to hit her as she crouched on toilet or once she had fallen? He needn't have been kneeling or crouched, simply aimed gun lower--which would imply he heard or saw that she was on toilet or slumped down in stall. I'm not clear on how it is known that she was pressed full height against the stall door at first.

2) If she was in stall to escape him and he had to put legs on, that would have given her time to phone for help. Unless he had shot her, disabled her.
3) Could he have originally been on stumps because they were preparing for bed when an argument broke out, she runs, he hastily puts legs on in pursuit--
4) Is it established that at the time of the incident (when he supposedly hears intruder and the whole thing is kicked off) they were in the bedroom? Could have been in the hallway or the bathroom together when all heck breaks out.
5) If he did not have legs on during the entire time he shot at her, he could have put them on post-shooting, as he says he did, but not for the reason he says. Not to be less vulnerable to more intruders or ready for police or security when he called, but to do whatever he was going to do in full knowledge that he had killed Reeva--as cover up of that knowledge.

I have never been able to believe he would abandon his combat readiness and his gun to get his legs on without knowing if the intruder was dead behind the door, or whether more were coming.

I still want to know why no follow-up on his explanation for screaming as being that he wanted to ask her "why are you calling the police?" Will we hear more about this? Did I miss something and he has said it was a slip of the tongue? Did Murphy'sLaw and others not hear correctly?

 

[James50]

BBM - You don't know what they believe.

They are Christians, That isn't in dispute. Christians believe in the afterlife. So, yes, I do know they believe in this.

 

[soozieqtips]

Even more staggering during her testimony was when she was looking at a photo of her house - the curtains by the window overlooking OP's house, and she categorically stated that she wasn't there when the photo was taken. They zoomed in on the photo and saw HER hand holding the curtain.
Astonishing and wonderful theater.

BBM - Not nearly as astonishing as OP and the magic gun that discharged itself without his finger on the trigger. The gun that was impossible to discharge without his finger on the trigger. Now THAT was astonishing.

 

[minor4th]

I think you may be referring to Mrs Stipp's ?

I think she's thinking of Mrs Stipp - but I also don't think all of Mrs Stipp's testimony should be disregarded, especially the aspects that are corroborated by Dr Stipp and other evidence. I just think some of her claims should be viewed with skepticism since she is prone to make mistakes and has memory problems.

I feel the exact same way about Oscar. The parts of his account that I believe are the parts that are supported by other evidence. The rest I am skeptical about.

 

[G.bng]

He didn't think at all.

The gun fired on it's own according to OP.

Yes... how very very convenient!

But unfortunately too convenient as it seems it could be OP's "new" defence much talked about, i.e. "involuntary action" which if successful is an acquittal. However, from articles and reported cases criteria is strict and it's rare albeit it would be State's burden to prove OP shot "voluntary" but the law at least presumes voluntary first and there will need to be expert opinion on his psychology to back it. Nice article I have posted a couple of times now so won't repeat, "Oscar’s ‘involuntary action’: Thin ice, Mr Pistorius" by Pierre de Vos for the Daily Maverick analyses the possibility.

 

[james83]

Did any of the witnesses say they heard a woman screaming, "Reeva! Reeva!" - ?

B/C that is what OP said he screamed, iirc. If "help, help, help" was heard along with the blood curdling screams of a man who sounds like a woman screaming, why wasn't "Reeva, Reeva!" over and over heard?

This has always been a problem for me because i guarantee that any person in the situation Oscar claim's he was in when it dawned on him it might be Reeva in the toilet would be shouting there partner's name over and over at the top of there voice, and the Stipps for one would have certainly heard that.

 

[Emz73]

Did any of the witnesses say they heard a woman screaming, "Reeva! Reeva!" - ?

B/C that is what OP said he screamed, iirc. If "help, help, help" was heard along with the blood curdling screams of a man who sounds like a woman screaming, why wasn't "Reeva, Reeva!" over and over heard?

Yep that too.
Because its all a load of bull crap.

All this is confusing me. I don't know what came first, last, bat, guns, balls...who knows.
Just keep thinking it will end up a massive whitewash.

 

[minor4th]

You have to put all of this into context. Like many people with physical disabilities, they tend to be extremely sensitive and histrionic in situation in which most others would not be. We've seen this in his court behaviour. So, I can easily see how someone like this who moreover feels extremely vulnerable on his stumps might get himself into a frenzied state because he is panicking and then feel like an idiot and shocked into a prolonged silence when he finds out that he shot Reevan and not an intruder.

Histrionic is exactly the word that has been going through my head about Oscar. Just didn't want to say it out loud because I get scared to post what I really think a lot of times - I'm scared of the reaction I'll get from many other posters.

 

[TipDog]

You have to put all of this into context. Like many people with physical disabilities, they tend to be extremely sensitive and histrionic in situation in which most others would not be. We've seen this in his court behaviour. So, I can easily see how someone like this who moreover feels extremely vulnerable on his stumps might get himself into a frenzied state because he is panicking and then feel like an idiot and shocked into a prolonged silence when he finds out that he shot Reevan and not an intruder.

I follow your logic and you make a valid point with respect to him being highly sensitive (which I think contributes to his anger management issues).

However, and correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't OP say he screamed those blood curdling screams because he realized that it might be Reeva behind that door? If so, then his being shocked (or embarrassed) won't fit in his version.

And as has been pointed out on here many times, why did he just make an assumption that Reeva hadn't excited off the balcony? (In fact, had there been an intruder and OP had been so foolish and reckless to go rushing on his stumps, vulnerable, into a possible line of fire, it is not inconceivable that Reeva might have dodged out that bedroom door and locked it behind her for her own protection followed by calling the police and so forth. Reeva, unlike OP, was incredibly bright.)

 

[Gbtaketwo]

I think she's thinking of Mrs Stipp - but I also don't think all of Mrs Stipp's testimony should be disregarded, especially the aspects that are corroborated by Dr Stipp and other evidence. I just think some of her claims should be viewed with skepticism since she is prone to make mistakes and has memory problems.

I feel the exact same way about Oscar. The parts of his account that I believe are the parts that are supported by other evidence. The rest I am skeptical about.

She may have memory problems but they are no where near in the league of OP
Mrs Stipp's has no reason to lie whereas OP could be facing 25 years in a cell so that is a big incentive to lie .
For Reeva's sake I have always wanted to believe it was a tragic accident but it is just stretching my imagination too much to believe that .
I remain open to persuasion of strong evidence from the defence but have not seen anything yet that leads me to change my view and will not hold my breath.
I am not talking here from a legal viewpoint just a personal view

 

[TipDog]

This has always been a problem for me because i guarantee that any person in the situation Oscar claim's he was in when it dawned on him it might be Reeva in the toilet would be shouting there partner's name over and over at the top of there voice, and the Stipps for one would have certainly heard that.

OP said this on the stand - that when he was screaming, "Reeva! Reeva!" was one of the things that came out of his mouth (along with praying to the Lord). And I agree with you about how the the Stipps would have heard him if he'd screamed her name over and over again. BIG hole in his version right there.

 

[minor4th]

She may have memory problems but they are no where near in the league of OP
Mrs Stipp's has no reason to lie whereas OP could be facing 25 years in a cell so that is a big incentive to lie .
For Reeva's sake I have always wanted to believe it was a tragic accident but it is just stretching my imagination too much to believe that .
I remain open to persuasion of strong evidence from the defence but have not seen anything yet that leads me to change my view and will not hold my breath.
I am not talking here from a legal viewpoint just a personal view

I disagree. Personal viewpoint.

 

[TorisMom003]

OP's version is nothing but a giant, huge hole. IMO of course.

 

[Emz73]

You have to put all of this into context. Like many people with physical disabilities, they tend to be extremely sensitive and histrionic in situation in which most others would not be. We've seen this in his court behaviour. So, I can easily see how someone like this who moreover feels extremely vulnerable on his stumps might get himself into a frenzied state because he is panicking and then feel like an idiot and shocked into a prolonged silence when he finds out that he shot Reevan and not an intruder.

People with physical disabilities tend to be extremely sensitive and histrionic????

No words.

 

[Linda7NJ]

BBM - Not nearly as astonishing as OP and the magic gun that discharged itself without his finger on the trigger. The gun that was impossible to discharge without his finger on the trigger. Now THAT was astonishing.

Ok, just stop! You're making too much sense!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk