Trial Discussion Thread #29

[soozieqtips]

I don't know? What do you think he was doing?

The time of the first sounds is not exact, as witnesses have given different times. Merwe says around 3:00, Stipp says shortly after 3:00 and Mrs Stipp says 2:58 - 2:59. Oscar says it would have been a bit later, but that's only based on him trying to recreate it - he didn't look at a clock or make note of the time.

The time of the second sounds is fixed at 3:16 - 3:17 according to the phone calls to security and witness testimony that all corroborates this time frame.

So we've got evidence that there was something in the range of 4 - 20 minutes between the shots and cricket bat hitting the door.

OP's timescale is quite a way off the witnesses, and as he admits he didn't even look at the time, I'd have to discount his estimate and base the time on witnesses who actually looked at their clocks. I don't know what he did do in those 15-20 minutes. But I do know what he didn't do - get any help for Reeva.

 

[Carmelita]

And while the law may allow a putative self-defence to absolve one's intent to commit murder when it comes to an intruder, either armed or not, it draws a line if that intruder is running away or trying to escape. So even an 'intruder' being locked in the toilet is going to factor in heavily in my opinion.

http://www.londonllb.com/2013/02/oscar-pistorius-and-transferred-malice.html

IMO a SA judge would assume as any rational person would assume that an intruder entered a home with ill intent. An ill intended intruder inside a small cubicle is a clear and imminent danger.

 

[james83]

Sorry, I think this bit needs to be clarified. From listening to her evidence it seems that her hearing Oscar crying out was after "a commotion" outside his house. This is when people started to arrive in cars etc. She actually testified to hearing none of the screaming at all. Roux explained to her that this was because the Pistorius bedroom is on the opposite side of the house from where she was.

Agree evidence suggests she heard the 2nd set of sound's.

 

[TipDog]

Originally Posted by turaj
"No trained professional here but if I were his "acting coach" or his "shrink" I would tell him to stop leaning forward with his hands in his ears like a very disturbed child and sit up like a man.I know this is not doing anything except making the judge wonder if this guy could even function in society. Also Roux should stop it. I guess they figure it is better than the bucket but if he can't take it...confess and stop the insanity. His story is so unbelievable he can't stand to listen to it himself~~
Good point. Acting like someone holding a live grenade with finger about to pull the pin, right in front of the judge, doesn't seem like the wisest way to convince her to let him go free."

OP did not want to be shown on TV while testifying even though he was on camera for days previously, even shown vomiting. And while in the dock, during the most difficult parts of the trial, and during some compelling testimony against his version, again he becomes emotional or hides his facial expression in some way.

I think he has been coached to prevent the cameras from seeing his body language since he is lying. He has seen, or been told, how body language worked against many other criminals, including Jody Arias and criminals give away their guilt with body language constantly.

That's the only reasonable explanation for why Vomiting Oz was not vomiting instantly when he saw the gore that he wrought in that tiny bathroom. He DID see it, and close up, flushing the toilet. Maybe that's why he flushed it-- that he vomited?

And, of course, he can't say that.

BIB 1

I think it had more to do with vanity, quite honestly. After all, the one person who decides his fate could see his body language.

BIB 2

Adrenaline. He may have puked later once that left his body. Or not. I felt his extreme puking in court had more to do with nerves and confrontation with his own psyche. No one is all evil, just as no one is a pure saint. I do think some of his remorse is genuine. I'm not in the camp that believes this was an execution or well thought out murder. I've maintained all along that I believe it was fueled by rage and he snapped while holding his gun.

 

[Mr Ron]

To me, he sounds like a man in falsetto, but not like a woman.

Yeah, he doesn't sound particularly like a woman to me either. However it is apparent that he did to Mrs Van Der Merwe.

 

[Emz73]

I think this sums it up...it always should have been putative self-defence until Oscar screwed up on the witness stand - many times over - denying any intention to do anything.

Roux attempted to rehabilitate such damage on his redirect with Oscar. Some people feel he was successful - it was an honest slip by a rattled defendant - and now we're back to putative self-defence.

Others believe it irreparably damaged any claim to putative self-defence which requires some intent.

I think both views are opinion at this point. But from your link earlier, I wanted to share this, because I think it's still relevant:

http://criminallawza.net/

IMO I haven't heard him say I intentionally killed somebody as I thought they were going to attack me?
It would be difficult to prove he was in immediate danger and also that he didn't realise the law surrounding this.
I think he disagreed with his defence and choose to change it himself.
He's had a year to read all this and I believe when he wants to win, he ill research it. You don't get to be a worldwide successful athlete without an intelligent thought out drive.

 

[minor4th]

Sorry, I think this bit needs to be clarified. From listening to her evidence it seems that her hearing Oscar crying out was after "a commotion" outside his house. This is when people started to arrive in cars etc. She actually testified to hearing none of the screaming at all. Roux explained to her that this was because the Pistorius bedroom is on the opposite side of the house from where she was.

Ok, thanks for that clarification. Still - she heard 4 bangs around 3:00. To me that suggests that she heard the gunshots.

 

[steveml]

Good point. I've often wondered how involved OP is in his own defense. It does appear, from his performance under cross examination, that he doesn't trust his defence/defense team enough to follow their instructions.

When OP said he had been through all the photographs many times, and asked Nel to enlarge the photo of the thin cable that was running in front of the stereo speaker, it seemed clear that he has been heavily involved.

The constant note-taking during the trial was also an indication of this. It's uncharacteristic for a defendant to do this, and will no doubt split opinion.

There's very little empathy towards OP due to the nature of the shooting, which is understandable, and human nature makes us expect nothing but remorse.
It doesn't sit well with many people that someone should be defending their actions in such a way, and again this is entirely understandable.

 

[nastasya]

Feel free to share this image of the top 10 curious things about the Oscar Pistorius defense case.

I'm sure I missed a lot. I quit after 10.

 

[minor4th]

Agree evidence suggests she heard the 2nd set of sound's.

How in the world does that suggest that she heard the 2nd sounds?

 

[Feynman]

I think they are referring to me. As for perjury, that's a difficult charge to prosecute. It requires proof of a willful and intentional lie. It requires two mutually exclusive/destructive statements under oath that cannot be explained by the declarant as being mistakes or misunderstandings or errors.

For example - if Oscar said in one sworn statement "I didn't know Reeva was in my house the night of the shooting" and in another sworn statement he says "On the night of the shooting, Reeva and I had dinner together at my house and then we both went to sleep in my bed" <---- that would be perjury because there is no error or mistake that could be explained to account for those two totally contradictory statements.

Aside from that, criminal defendants are rarely charged with perjury because there are much more significant charges that are being tried - like murder.

I do think we have proof of a willful and intentional lie in the Tasha's incident. I think Masipa could add a few years to a CH guilty finding based on that.

 

[DebinGA]

IMO a SA judge would assume as any rational person would assume that an intruder entered a home with ill intent. An ill intended intruder inside a small cubicle is a clear and imminent danger.

Not if facing an experienced shooter pointing a gun with ammo that could stop an elephant.

 

[TipDog]

IMO a SA judge would assume as any rational person would assume that an intruder entered a home with ill intent. An ill intended intruder inside a small cubicle is a clear and imminent danger.

Not sure I agree on this one - I'm pretty certain I've read that it is not uncommon for children to sneak into homes over there. All the more reason to identify who is behind a door. In fact, if a child had snuck into OP's home (OP was SA golden boy up until this happened and had many fans), that child could very conceivably duck into the toilet closet out of fear once OP started yelling.

This could have been a CH trial only with OP facing charges that he shot a child to death due to recklessness.

 

[Hatfield]

If one puts the post mortem, ballistic, blood staining evidence aside, most of the remaining physical evidence was introduced into the record very early in the trial by way of photos with no narrative.

Since the photos were introduced into the court record as evidence, it is now up to the defence to respond to the evidence or ignore at their own peril.

The brilliance of Gerrie Nel's method, is that he neither gives anything away nor does he ever get boxed in with a flawed/under developed narrative. This method of keeping his cards pinned to his chest makes it extremely difficult for his opponents to mount an effective line of attack because they do not know what they should be countering.

The puzzling case of the jeans beneath the toilette window, the curious pellet shots through the bedroom door, combined with the intriguing pellet-like bruises/wounds con Reeva's back, and the inexplicable damage to OP's legs are irreconcilable with OP's version (any/all of them) of that evening. These plot holes have not escaped the eyes of many here at WS, and they certainly have not escaped the eyes of My Lady.

Should the defence (or the prosecution in closing) not offer up an reasonable explanation for these discordant bits of evidence, then it is within the judge's and accessors' purview to inquire directly.

Regarding his legs. I thought I saw that one of his legs looked all banged up in a photo. I think the photo may have been taken at police station.

My theory on that is he did use his foot to try to kick in the door and one time his leg did go through the door and his leg got scraped injured as it broke through the door. This may have been the point where he really got mad and went and got the gun.

 

[Mr Ron]

Agree evidence suggests she heard the 2nd set of sound's.

I've only got to the second witness so I haven't heard testimony relating to two sets of sounds yet. I understand the general argument though.

What I would say so far is that the fact she was awake for the entire period and only heard one set of loud bangs indicates a large distinction between the gunshots and bat strikes with regards to loudness

There is the caveat that Roux managed to discover that she was physically shocked after hearing the 'bangs' and this might cause some doubt as to her mental ability to register things. She denied she was incapacitated in any way though, only weak. Does Mr Van Der Merwe testify? I would be interested to hear how many sets of bangs he heard.

Basically her testimony makes me worry further about the admissability of defence comparison tests in which both sets of sounds appeared to be of similar loudness.

 

[TipDog]

Yeah, he doesn't sound particularly like a woman to me either. However it is apparent that he did to Mrs Van Der Merwe.

good point

 

[minor4th]

OP's timescale is quite a way off the witnesses, and as he admits he didn't even look at the time, I'd have to discount his estimate and base the time on witnesses who actually looked at their clocks. I don't know what he did do in those 15-20 minutes. But I do know what he didn't do - get any help for Reeva.

I agree to discounting Oscar's guess at 5 minutes when he didn't look at a clock, and I give much more weight to the witnesses who looked at their clocks and made note of the time.

So I would say the time between shots was more like 10-12 minutes. Stipp thought it was much shorter than that though and was surprised when the defense suggested it was 7 minutes or 10 minutes. In any event, we don't have an exact timeline on this.

As to what he was doing - according to his version, he did not immediately know it was Reeva he shot and didn't know for sure until he broke down the door at 3:16. So during that time, he was going to his bedroom, feeling for Reeva on the bed, going to the balcony to open the sliding door and scream and yell, he put on his legs and went back to he bathroom and tried to kick the door, more yelling and crying, went back to his bedroom and got the cricket bat and then back to the bathroom to whack at the door, eventually breaking it and pulling the panels out, reached down to retrieve the key and unlocked the toilet door and entered to find Reeva mortally wounded - sat there crying for a moment, tried to get Reeva out but was having trouble.

Then it was 3:19 and he called Stander, and a few seconds later called Netcare.

 

[soozieqtips]

Feel free to share this image of the top 10 curious things about the Oscar Pistorius defense case.

I'm sure I missed a lot. I quit after 10.

I can't make it big enough to read.

 

[Emz73]

Right, so this was before Nel had finished his cross examination and before Roux had done his redirect.

That's why I said that it seemed like his defense was changing at first, but it was subsequently clarified that it wasn't.

So, no, I'm not disagreeing with a SA professor

James Grant still hasn't changed his view. There was nothing in the redirect to determine Oscars position. So you are disagreeing with him. Oscar still has never said I shot an intruder on purpose because my life was in danger but I'm sorry about that as I didn't realise the law.

 

[james83]

How in the world does that suggest that she heard the 2nd sounds?

Quite simple really, after the first sound's there was screaming, after the 2nd there wasn't.

Stipp says she also heard a man screaming but she couldn't hear what he was saying. Everything went silent after "the second set of shots."

Van der Merwe: after hearing the four shots there was total silence.