Trial Discussion Thread #29

[jassy writer]

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.

Fabulous post!

 

[sleuth-d-]

I think OP's entire story was concocted. He needed the stumps/no stumps part of the story so he could make up the LAME excuse that he felt vulnerable and helpless on his stumps.

He actually testified that while holding the fully loaded 9 mm he felt vulnerable because he was on his stumps. In the time it took him to wonder down to the bathroom with the gun he could have put on his prosthetics if he felt so vulnerable without them.

But of course that wouldn't have fit the "I shot because I was terrified on my stumps" version that OP and his lawyers worked out and re-worked.

i agree with what you say. and would add that the stumps off to prosthetics on also allowed for another trip up and down the corridor... all the trips imo which were designed purely to fill in the time between 3:00ish and 3:15ish in his version.

 

[jassy writer]

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.

A witness might start out with the judge presuming they are telling the truth. However as their testimony progresses, if it becomes clear it is full of holes and that there are deliberate lies, that witness will not seem so credible to the judge any more and their testimony will not be so easily believed. One or two inconsistencies is one thing, but OP has many of them, and at least two deliberate and obvious lies.

Even the psychologists discussing this on the Oscar channel agree that he is not showing remorse. Showing true remorse does not just mean pretending to cry. It would mean fully cooperating with the judge and doing his very best to answer the prosecution's questions. As it stands, OP is being uncooperative and very evasive.

 

[G.bng]

Thanks.
I knew 98.5% of humanity agreeing on anything was absurd.

It's OK Apollo, w've all been snookered 1 time or another.

Except maybe less taxes ?!

 

[Murphys_Law]

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.

bib-I hear what you are saying but there is a bit of ambiguity in that portion of the conversation Because Nel has distracted him and has him focused on the time it takes to out his legs on. Also, OP at this point is arguing about the need to get back to the toilette as quick as he can and it seems that taking the time to put on foot socks would run counter to that argument since foot socks are not needed to walk on his prosthetics, while the stump socks not only provide comfort but are necessary to secure a tight fit otherwise the legs can slip around or it the worst case - slip off.

 

[sleuth-d-]

I do think he kicked the door, but not necessarily after the shooting. Maybe as part of intimidation before hand, together with some door slamming that could account for the first set of noises and broken tiles on the side of the hinges. IMO it is also likely that the prosthetics could have come off during the kicking and before shooting. That would explain why the shots through the door is relatively low.

i saw the broken tiles and assumed they were removed after the event as part of forensic removal of the door.

has it been mentioned that the tiles were broken off during the incident?

 

[DebinGA]

Round up of the week which I thought was interesting

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

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

Very interesting. I think the former judge's opinion that the defense should use OP's head injury from his 2009 boat wreck to explain why he might have reacted as he did makes sense. Maybe Roux will put on a neurologist.

 

[soozieqtips]

A witness might start out with the judge presuming they are telling the truth. However as their testimony progresses, if it becomes clear it is full of holes and that there are deliberate lies, that witness will not seem so credible to the judge any more and their testimony will not be so easily believed. One or two inconsistencies is one thing, but OP has many of them, and at least two deliberate and obvious lies.

Even the psychologists discussing this on the Oscar channel agree that he is not showing remorse. Showing true remorse does not just mean pretending to cry. It would mean fully cooperating with the judge and doing his very best to answer the prosecution's questions. As it stands, OP is being uncooperative and very evasive.

BBM - I haven't felt any genuine remorse for murdering Reeva emanating from him since the start of his trial. What I've seen is irritation at having to answer questions that he's already answered (he doesn't like to be caught out lying when he forgets what he's just said), and realisation that he quite possibly won't get away with murder (hence all the howling, wailing and vomiting at certain points of his testimony). Even when he got court adjourned the first time he was describing the murder, I didn't think that was about his loss of Reeva (because I don't think he gave a crap about her). I think it was because by reliving that moment, it 'dawned' on him just how his actions that night were about to affect his future - jail. Tears for him, not out of of loss for a loved one. I know I've always been extremely cynical about his tears, but if there was genuine remorse for murdering her, he would not be evasive, argumentative and constantly blaming others for the holes in his very own version, whichever version, pick a number!

 

[sleuth-d-]

No, the state saying the "State's version" is entirely different than if the accused says it. The accused should be stating the truth. The State is asserting its version based on circumstantial evidence (for sure in this case). Completely different perspectives.


However, IMO, the accused, if innocent, will always be able to tell "what happened" without adding the whole "my version" to his/her testimony.

absolutely. glaringly.

 

[shane13]

Thanks for letting us know that. I don't know why Shane added that link to my original post when he quoted me. :floorlaugh:

Shane---As you can see, I have the Oscar-Speak down pat. I'll be expecting my diploma.

I get it.
Blaming me for your own posting of that fake news story and link.
Yes, you have mastered Oscar-Speak.
Your diploma (like the proverbial check) is in the mail.

 

[Interested Bystander]

i saw the broken tiles and assumed they were removed after the event as part of forensic removal of the door.

has it been mentioned that the tiles were broken off during the incident?

Dixon thought they fell off after OP hit the door with the cricket back which caused vibrations enough to loosen them.

 

[Val1]

In all fairness PT has used the "version" word aplenty too.

Sometimes taken me aback.
At the outset Nel said, it's the State's version that the final shooting occurred at 3:17 AM.

I thought he should have said 'what happened" instead of "version". But also IIRC Dr Stipp called police at 3:15 about hearing the final set of shots.
So WTH?

This is a pretty good summary, for more actual testimony you would need to review the videos.
Day 1
http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/03/08/oscar-pistorius-trial-day-4/
Day 2
http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/03/08/oscar-pistorius-trial-day-5-part-1/

Session 2(Dr. Stipp starts about 17:00 but it's worth listening from the beginning because it has Mr.Johnson as to when he heard the final shots)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFZA03eu9NM

Session 3(Roux trying to get Dr.Stipp to change his testimony)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsQaxImyQVA

 

[Interested Bystander]

Very interesting. I think the former judge's opinion that the defense should use OP's head injury from his 2009 boat wreck to explain why he might have reacted as he did makes sense. Maybe Roux will put on a neurologist.

Not sure that would work though. He has been well known for years to have a very short fuse and for getting into scrapes because of his temper.

 

[Sarahlou]

A witness might start out with the judge presuming they are telling the truth. However as their testimony progresses, if it becomes clear it is full of holes and that there are deliberate lies, that witness will not seem so credible to the judge any more and their testimony will not be so easily believed. One or two inconsistencies is one thing, but OP has many of them, and at least two deliberate and obvious lies.

Even the psychologists discussing this on the Oscar channel agree that he is not showing remorse. Showing true remorse does not just mean pretending to cry. It would mean fully cooperating with the judge and doing his very best to answer the prosecution's questions. As it stands, OP is being uncooperative and very evasive.

Very good point. There is nothing whatsoever about his behaviour after the murder that indicates he is a man who accidently killed his girlfriend.

 

[TrueDetective]

i saw the broken tiles and assumed they were removed after the event as part of forensic removal of the door.

has it been mentioned that the tiles were broken off during the incident?

No, like many other features it has been virtually ignored.

My own guess is either a huge slamming of the door and/or smashing of the door with cricket bat caused them to weaken and then fall off.

It's unusual to see such a neat line but there may have been a relative weakness at that edge due to the frame and hinges and shock waves from a severe slam is the most likely cause IMO.

The whole house was gradually falling to bits it seems.

Certainly on that evening/morning...

 

[soozieqtips]

No, like many other features it has been virtually ignored.

My own guess is either a huge slamming of the door and/or smashing of the door with cricket bat caused them to weaken and then fall off.

It's unusual to see such a neat line but there may have been a relative weakness at that edge due to the frame and hinges and shock waves from a severe slam is the most likely cause IMO.

The whole house was gradually falling to bits it seems.

Certainly on that evening/morning...

BBM - Not unlike his affidavit.

 

[sleuth-d-]

Here. I have found a link which explains it better.

In the actual estate, there were just the three crimes (two involving OP) in the past three years. Elsewhere in that precinct / suburb over that timeframe, there were some additional crimes outside the estate, ten or so in total, but no murders. The numbers that are referred to in the Citizen article imply that all the crimes took place within Pistorius's gated estate, which is not correct.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-cou...s-unfounded-court-told-1.1666015#.U1DnuVWSzh4

thank you for the info.
just a thought. city councillors [or whatever], owners of gated communities, and wealthy residents wouldn't be keen on having intruders murdering people on their compounds.

 

[molly333]

Eleven crimes were reported in Oscar Pistorius’s townhouse complex in three years, the High Court in Pretoria heard on Tuesday. And two of them where related to Oscar: Oscar killing Reeva and his watches being stolen. So that would make really 9 crimes in his complex. That's 3 a year. Oh boy, danger Danger, Will Robinson. :scared:

Didn't Oscar mention that a week before things were stolen from his home but he never reported it?

http://citizen.co.za/149485/three-crimes-silver-woods-estate-three-years-oscar-trial/

Are you saying that 9 crimes in 3 years is a low rate of crime? For a high security estate with walls, electric fences, and security guards? Really?

I read that SA has 8 times the murder rate of the US. And, we aren't exactly shining examples for the world. But, 8 times worse?

So if you can't feel safe in a high security estate, you can't feel safe anywhere in my opinion. Hence the wild west approach to security that Oscar seems to have adopted sounds reasonable to me. He was just horrendously bad at it.

 

[Cherwell]

I have a question for those who are believing and/or defending OP.

Why, when he thought he heard the window being opened, didn't he ask Reeva if she'd heard it?

He has said that she was awake and they had just spoken to one another.

An ex-girlfriend testified that in similar circumstances, he woke her to ask her if she had heard anything.

Everyone on this forum seems to agree that if they hear a noise at night, the first thing they do is check with their partner if they heard it.

All the earwitnesses bear this out. All three couples spoke to one another about the noises they heard that night.

 

[sleuth-d-]

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.

yes, it makes sense that he might want the major revelations nearer to the end of the trial.