Trial Discussion Thread #29

[soozieqtips]

The judge is only 66. That surprises me she looks quite frail

She may have aged during the trial. I know I have!

 

[nastasya]

Oscar Pistorius Trial: Monday 14 April 2014, Session 3 - YouTube

At 46 mins into the above video is where OP testifies he was trying to find his socks on
the floor.

I don't believe that he was on his stumps either but find it bizarre that he's claiming to be looking for not just his prosthetics in the dark with his gun in his hand, but also his socks.

Apologies to the mods but I can't work out how to just post the link to the video instead of it embedding in my post.

At 17:00 OP said, re Reeva phoning the police:

"I wanted to ask Reeva, why - if she was phoning the police."

I believe this is what he wanted to know when she took her phone into the toilet. He wanted to know if she was running into the bathroom to phone the police.

I also believe he could have been on his knees, begging her not to phone the police, when he shot her. This would explain how he could have been wearing his prosthetics, and still shot from the lower position.

 

[DebinGA]

Just a slight correction He jumped onto the bottom of the bed at the left hand side with a cocked gun in his hand, manoeuvred himself over to the right hand side all the time facing the bathroom passage (and deducted from this that Reeva wasn't on the bed) felt around the curtain area for Reeva with cocked gun in hand, went back to the bathroom with cocked gun in hand to shoulder the door, then went back to the bedroom with cocked gun in hand, unlocked and opened the balcony doors with cocked gun in hand, put on prosthetics and socks with cocked gun in hand and then went back to the bathroom where he put the gun down.

BBM to add to it .... and turned on the bathroom light...that both Stipps testified was definitely ON when they looked over a few seconds after hearing the first bangs and subsequent screams.

 

[kaos]

I can't help thinking that Nel has kept lots of stuff back to use in X-exam of the defense witnesses.
Bedroom door damage/blood on watch case etc etc.
I still feel as though he has some major things up his sleeve for the grand finale.
He quizzed OP on the duvet and blood spatter etc and got OP to say it must have been caused when he came back into the bedroom to get his phones...............after holding Reeva in the toilet after shooting her.
Well.............my eureka moment lol.................if that was the case then he would have been covered in blood so where are the bloody footprints coming back down the corridor and into the bedroom and back again?
Is Nel keeping this for the coup de grace or have I missed an explanation for this somewhere?

I was actually wondering where the footprints were myself but I missed quite a bit from the start of the trial so it could have been covered then. I can't believe there would have been bloody sockprints just in the toilet area.

 

[weeeva]

Amygdala Hi-jacking

I watched a psychologist describe the symptoms of this term. Very interesting and something I was trying to describe when I brought up the fight or flight instinct. I take it Roux will have an expert to testify about this.
Sorry I don't know how to post a link for this, but is it easy to find by googling.

 

[DebinGA]

Fear of Reeva calling police or her screams rousing neighbors to call police was almost certainly why he killed her.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I can't help thinking that Nel has kept lots of stuff back to use in X-exam of the defense witnesses.
Bedroom door damage/blood on watch case etc etc.
I still feel as though he has some major things up his sleeve for the grand finale.
He quizzed OP on the duvet and blood spatter etc and got OP to say it must have been caused when he came back into the bedroom to get his phones...............after holding Reeva in the toilet after shooting her.
Well.............my eureka moment lol.................if that was the case then he would have been covered in blood so where are the bloody footprints coming back down the corridor and into the bedroom and back again?
Is Nel keeping this for the coup de grace or have I missed an explanation for this somewhere?

I posted, a few threads back, the same question as to why there was no blood on the bottom of his socks? Nobody ventured an answer. I still cannot fathom out, with all that blood in the bathroom, how the bottom of his socks were not covered with it. Unless he was on his stumps (which at some time he had cleaned/washed) until he carried Reeva downstairs but even then there appears to be nothing, other than a dusty sole. The photo that triggered my doubt was the one in the garage. If he had been walking through it, blood would have wicked up his socks at the sides but there was none.

 

[soozieqtips]

Don't be sure about that. I can turn on a dime, but so far all I see is more and more confirmation that OP is telling the truth, more or less.

What I believe people do is to put themselves in OP's situation without regard to the context and say "this is what I'd do." That doesn't work for me. It's a non-starter AFAIC. The only to get OP is to imagine what it must be like to be HIM, not US in HIS position.

<modsnip>

BBM - Well, if I have to imagine myself to be OP, I must accept I am a trigger-happy denier of everything that's been proved to me. I must accept it is okay to be reckless, blame other people for my wrongdoings, accuse anyone and everyone (who doesn't agree with my 'version') of lying, assume the world starts and ends with me, shoot a dog in the back of the head after running it over and say nothing to the owner (who is standing right there) shoot a gun in a restaurant (with a child at the next table) and then categorically deny my finger was ever on the trigger, get my friend to take the blame, and then deny I got my friend to take the blame... and so on and so forth.

If I am OP, I know that I must not have anything negative about me reported in the media. My image must not be tarnished, and my sponsors must not have reason to cut me off. I must present an image to the world that is not my real image. My livelihood depends on it. So after murdering Reeva in the toilet after another of my unpredictable outbursts, it is not important to me to call for help. But it is important to me to call people who are not medical experts, remove things from my safe, have my friends and family come over and trample all over the crime scene, ensure one of my phones 'disappears', omit significant information from my affidavit so I can get bail, and then make sure the 'private' memorial I hold for Reeva is released into the public domain.

If anyone reads my book, they can see my mother bought me up to be strong and capable and never treated me as disabled. I have never retreated from danger because 'it is not my personality to do so' and on many occasions I have confronted danger when it was not necessary to do so. I have been the victim of many many crimes, but have never reported them to the police, and one time, when I was almost shot at and had to pull into a restaurant car park to call someone to get me... I could not remember who I called!! And then... having forgot who I called, I could not remember the person who took me back to collect my car the next day, even though I was sitting in their car and talking to them on the way.

To escape a murder charge, I must show the Judge how very vulnerable I am because of my disability and how I am constantly in fear of intruders. It's a shame then, that I forgot to get my window fixed, check if the alarm was working and slept for 5 hours with my balcony doors open. I have no explanation for that - nor can I explain why I didn't have time to think, while also having 'many thoughts'.

The point is the majority of decent human beings are so far removed from OP and they type of person he has proved himself to be, that they can't actually imagine being him. Further, they don't have to put themselves in his position to have an opinion on what he should have done. Even the Judge can't do that. What she can do, however, is to look at his past behaviour of lies, deceit and blame, and decide whether the fairytale he's invented could 'reasonably possibly be true' - and it's my opinion (and many others opinions) it is so improbable, that it cannot reasonably possibly be true.

 

[james83]

the irony of Oscar's story is if there was an armed intruder in the bathroom, Oscar would have almost certainly been the one who ended up dead.

 

[kaos]

Fab post soozieqtips.

 

[Murphys_Law]

Oscar Pistorius Trial: Monday 14 April 2014, Session 3 - YouTube

At 46 mins into the above video is where OP testifies he was trying to find his socks on
the floor.

I don't believe that he was on his stumps either but find it bizarre that he's claiming to be looking for not just his prosthetics in the dark with his gun in his hand, but also his socks.

Apologies to the mods but I can't work out how to just post the link to the video instead of it embedding in my post.

Good catch on the "socks"

I strongly believe he is referring to his stump socks not the foot socks.

Further, I think the stump socks that OP was wearing when van Staden photographed him in the garage were put on:
- after Reeva had been placed at the foot of the stairs
- before the police had arrived on the scene.

Recall that he made at least 3 trips upstairs between the time that Reeva had been placed downstairs and when the police arrived. It is my belief that he was on his prosthetics most if not all of the evening (certainly after 2:00am)and that the photographed socks were put on after the event,probably during one of his 3 unescorted trips upstairs .

In support of this theory, I have assembled and attached a collage of photos of OP's taken by van Staden shortly after van Staden arrived. The stump socks which I assume are some type of cotton blend, appear to have no blood on them, while his prosthetic legs are covered with blood right up to the stump socks.

The retrieval of his stump socks post-event may also be the reason for blood drops on the duvet and carpet near the bed.

 

[DebinGA]

He lied in so many places I lost count. It was like 10/15 mins in and he was already contradicting his bail statement on the balcony, let alone all the other stuff...

I bet every prosecutor dreams of having the "embarrassment of riches" OP has given Nel.

 

[Interested Bystander]

BBM - Well, if I have to imagine myself to be OP, I must accept I am a trigger-happy denier of everything that's been proved to me. I must accept it is okay to be reckless, blame other people for my wrongdoings, accuse anyone and everyone (who doesn't agree with my 'version') of lying, assume the world starts and ends with me, shoot a dog in the back of the head after running it over and say nothing to the owner (who is standing right there) shoot a gun in a restaurant (with a child at the next table) and then categorically deny my finger was ever on the trigger, get my friend to take the blame, and then deny I got my friend to take the blame... and so on and so forth.

If I am OP, I know that I must not have anything negative about me reported in the media. My image must not be tarnished, and my sponsors must not have reason to cut me off. I must present an image to the world that is not my real image. My livelihood depends on it. So after murdering Reeva in the toilet after another of my unpredictable outbursts, it is not important to me to call for help. But it is important to me to call people who are not medical experts, remove things from my safe, have my friends and family come over and trample all over the crime scene, ensure one of my phones 'disappears', omit significant information from my affidavit so I can get bail, and then make sure the 'private' memorial I hold for Reeva is released into the public domain.

If anyone reads my book, they can see my mother bought me up to be strong and capable and never treated me as disabled. I have never retreated from danger because 'it is not my personality to do so' and on many occasions I have confronted danger when it was not necessary to do so. I have been the victim of many many crimes, but have never reported them to the police, and one time, when I was almost shot at and had to pull into a restaurant car park to call someone to get me... I could not remember who I called!! And then... having forgot who I called, I could not remember the person who took me back to collect my car the next day, even though I was sitting in their car and talking to them on the way.

To escape a murder charge, I must show the Judge how very vulnerable I am because of my disability and how I am constantly in fear of intruders. It's a shame then, that I forgot to get my window fixed, check if the alarm was working and slept for 5 hours with my balcony doors open. I have no explanation for that - nor can I explain why I didn't have time to think, while also having 'many thoughts'.

The point is the majority of decent human beings are so far removed from OP and they type of person he has proved himself to be, that they can't actually imagine being him. Further, they don't have to put themselves in his position to have an opinion on what he should have done. Even the Judge can't do that. What she can do, however, is to look at his past behaviour of lies, deceit and blame, and decide whether the fairytale he's invented could 'reasonably possibly be true' - and it's my opinion (and many others opinions) it is so improbable, that it cannot reasonably possibly be true.

:goodpost:

 

[benn25]

Round up of the week which I thought was interesting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8jrG08YJcY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbKeIrZNgHE

 

[Interested Bystander]

Good catch on the "socks"

I strongly believe he is referring to his stump socks not the foot socks.

Further, I think the stump socks that OP was wearing when van Staden photographed him in the garage were put on:
- after Reeva had been placed at the foot of the stairs
- before the police had arrived on the scene.

Recall that he made at least 3 trips upstairs between the time that Reeva had been placed downstairs and when the police arrived. It is my belief that he was on his prosthetics most if not all of the evening (certainly after 2:00am)and that the photographed socks were put on after the event,probably during one of his 3 unescorted trips upstairs .

In support of this theory, I have assembled and attached a collage of photos of OP's taken by van Staden shortly after van Staden arrived. The stump socks which I assume are some type of cotton blend, appear to have no blood on them, while his prosthetic legs are covered with blood right up to the stump socks.

The retrieval of his stump socks post-event may also be the reason for blood drops on the duvet and carpet near the bed.

He has his prostheses on in the photo so are they not socks for his prostheses? I have no idea if the stump socks are different but would have thought they were more tube like.

Was the sock shown in court meant to be one of those he was wearing at the crime scene?

 

[Murphys_Law]

a MOST excellent post soozieqtips!!!!!

 

[patCee]

snipped......

Did OP ever explain the bashed in panel on the bathtub?

Vermuelan looked at that. He observed a minute scratch in the dent. Did not know what caused the dent, inconclusive.

 

[weeeva]

Don't be sure about that. I can turn on a dime, but so far all I see is more and more confirmation that OP is telling the truth, more or less.

What I believe people do is to put themselves in OP's situation without regard to the context and say "this is what I'd do." That doesn't work for me. It's a non-starter AFAIC. The only to get OP is to imagine what it must be like to be HIM, not US in HIS position.

<modsnip>

Yes, you have to be able to presume that he is telling the truth from the start. To do this you have be able to see it from his view point, as a judge or/and jury is expected to do. If every juror went to a trial presuming guilt, then there would be no fair trials at all. Unless the evidence changes drastically when the trial resumes I can see myself sitting on the fence for ever more. I don't like that feeling, I hope I am convinced one way or another when it is all over. I can't bear the thought of an innocent man going to jail.

 

[Murphys_Law]

He has his prostheses on in the photo so are they not socks for his prostheses? I have no idea if the stump socks are different but would have thought they were more tube like.

BIB1 - Yes, he has his stump socks on and his foot socks.
BIB2 - They are tube like

see attachment of the prosthetics and stump socks taken a few years ago.

 

[kaos]

Good catch on the "socks"

I strongly believe he is referring to his stump socks not the foot socks.

Further, I think the stump socks that OP was wearing when van Staden photographed him in the garage were put on:
- after Reeva had been placed at the foot of the stairs
- before the police had arrived on the scene.

Recall that he made at least 3 trips upstairs between the time that Reeva had been placed downstairs and when the police arrived. It is my belief that he was on his prosthetics most if not all of the evening (certainly after 2:00am)and that the photographed socks were put on after the event,probably during one of his 3 unescorted trips upstairs .

In support of this theory, I have assembled and attached a collage of photos of OP's taken by van Staden shortly after van Staden arrived. The stump socks which I assume are some type of cotton blend, appear to have no blood on them, while his prosthetic legs are covered with blood right up to the stump socks.

The retrieval of his stump socks post-event may also be the reason for blood drops on the duvet and carpet near the bed.

I was curious at first whether he was talking about stump socks or ordinary footsocks because I know the stump ones are usually worn to protect against rubbing and the cold. If it was a hot night though, then he'd have no need for stump socks in bed and no need to be wearing them unless he has his prosthetics on. He did say he was looking for his socks after he'd put his prosthetics on so that could really only mean his footsocks.