Trial Discussion Thread #29

[Emz73]

Barry Bateman. He's said its only bullet hole D that could not of been bat then shot.

"Hole D, the crack enters top right of hole, exits bottom left, if bullet post crack it would be straight line"

That's the same one as you've all been saying about, so bat still could of came before shots.

 

[jassy writer]

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/

SupernovaNic, that article is wrong! In the whole history of OP's estate, there were precisely three crimes (in a number of years).

Crime one: OP shooting Reeva.
Crime two: OP's watch mysteriously disappearing.
Crime three: There was a burglary in another of the homes a few years ago. Not sure of the circumstances but do remember it was explained in court.

Sorry. this post was edited because you did use a source! My apologies!! It just so happens that the source quoted the court's facts wrongly... I was listening at the time. Three crimes only!

 

[supernovaNic]

SupernovaNic, I don't know where on earth you're getting the above stats from but they are completely incorrect! In the whole history of OP's estate, there were precisely three crimes (in a number of years).

Crime one: OP shooting Reeva.
Crime two: OP's watch mysteriously disappearing.
Crime three: There was a burglary in another of the homes a few years ago. Not sure of the circumstances but do remember it was explained in court.

That is all. Check your sources.

Wow. That's not very nice. I put a link.

 

[jassy writer]

(also, according to that article, it was a townhouse complex which is also incorrect... it is an upmarket residential estate. In SA a townhouse complex would be high density living, akin to an apartment block.)

 

[jassy writer]

Sorry, SupernovaNic, you did!

Apologies again. Did not mean to sound grumpy. Just so happens the reporter who wrote that article got it totally wrong! Will try to find an accurate one for you.

 

[Clutchbag]

I can't see OP being convicted of anything so far. Nel has so far failed to make the case as far as I'm concerned. All I see are a lot of people (Nel among them) who take an invidious position and come up with speculative scenarios of what happened, whereas the only version that rings true to me is the one OP has elaborated all along.

Taking into account his highly strung persona and tendency to make hasty judgements, it all fits in very well for me. A lot of people are angry with him for having killed Reeva but I feel they need to be careful not to allow that anger to colour their view of what actually happened. Others just assume that he's lying because they find it hard to put themselves in his shoes. Many South Africans believe him because they KNOW what it's like to be worried about intruders, whereas Americans and others don't understand this very well as house break ins in America and Europe etc. are rare by comparison.

There may be details here and there that don't sound right, but they don't alter the core narrative. <modsnip>

So you are disregarding the neighbour's statement which said she heard a petrified woman's screams before and in between the gunshots? No one wants an innocent man convicted.

Had to look up "invidious". Damn right because he has bare faced lied in court. Not very clever that is it? if you want your story believed.

 

[katydid23]

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?

But there is a big difference between the states case, which is based upon speculation, and OP's, which is supposedly the truth.

The state was not present at the time of the killing, so by necessity, they need to craft a version which is based upon the facts and forensics available to them. But they cannot KNOW with all certainty, if the shooter was on stumps or prosthetics, or had the lights on or off. So the state does have a few 'versions' they will set forth.

However, OP should ONLY HAVE ONE. :facepalm:

 

[jassy writer]

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

 

[wb180]

As somebody who lives in South Africa, I'd like to explain that there is a huge difference in lifestyle for those people who live in high security estates like OP's.

The people in these estates pay a lot of money (in property and in rates) to ensure that their security is of the highest standard. Extreme precautions are taken when visitors arrive and nobody who is not "vetted", fingerprinted and in possession of a South African ID would even be allowed to work in these estates as a gardener etc.

People in these estates absolutely do not live in a "state of fear". Honestly, not many South Africans really do live in a "state of fear"! There are a few who like to dwell on the crime stats (and not being nasty here but there is OFTEN a racist slant to their attitudes), and there are certain areas that are regarded as less "safe" than other areas in terms of crime stats, particularly house robberies. However no high security estate would fall into an unsafe category.

This is why residents pay so much money to live there. They are safely shielded from any threat of house robbery, any random crime, any "riff raff" that might make their lives unsafe or uncomfortable.

In a more densely populated, larger and extremely wealthy high security estate close to where I live, the biggest perpetrators of "crime" by far are the spoilt, rich teenagers who live in the estates and who go out at night and cause trouble!

Agreed - I don't understand how the conclusion can be made that OP lived in a state of fear based on the evidence that has been presented.

 

[wb180]

But there is a big difference between the states case, which is based upon speculation, and OP's, which is supposedly the truth.

The state was not present at the time of the killing, so by necessity, they need to craft a version which is based upon the facts and forensics available to them. But they cannot KNOW with all certainty, if the shooter was on stumps or prosthetics, or had the lights on or off. So the state does have a few 'versions' they will set forth.

However, OP should ONLY HAVE ONE. :facepalm:

Also I don't think the State ever changed their charge/stance once they started prosecuting OP.

Back when they were talking about stumps or legs, I recall that was still part of the investigation/gathering evidence.

 

[nastasya]

I was thinking today about the duvet. The duvet alone is enough to prove OP's story is totally fabricated.

First he said the duvet was covering Reeva's legs.

He described walking over the area where the duvet was found 4 different times.

But the duvet was found on the floor next to blood spatter. There was blood on the duvet. There were that OP claimed he dropped clearly over the corner of the duvet.

Unless the defense can show that the police planted the blood and moved the duvet and jeans there's no way OP's version can be true.

If he lied about the duvet then he lied about everything else. The witnesses heard Reeva's terrified screams, not OP's.

 

[wb180]

I was thinking today about the duvet. The duvet alone is enough to prove OP's story is totally fabricated.

First he said the duvet was covering Reeva's legs.

He described walking over the area where the duvet was found 4 different times.

But the duvet was found on the floor next to blood spatter. There was blood on the duvet. There were that OP claimed he dropped clearly over the corner of the duvet.

Unless the defense can show that the police planted the blood and moved the duvet and jeans there's no way OP's version can be true.

If he lied about the duvet then he lied about everything else. The witnesses heard Reeva's terrified screams, not OP's.

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...

 

[nastasya]

Barry Bateman. He's said its only bullet hole D that could not of been bat then shot.

"Hole D, the crack enters top right of hole, exits bottom left, if bullet post crack it would be straight line"

That's the same one as you've all been saying about, so bat still could of came before shots.

First noises bat hitting door.

Woman screaming.

Gunshots.

OP pries open door with bat, puts crack through bullet hole D.

Not complicated at all.

 

[kaos]

Originally Posted by aa9511

Because when he came home, he took his shoes off, as many ppl like to do. He kept his socks on, also as many do. He never took his prosthetics off that night.

Jmo.

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.

 

[nastasya]

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...

The other thing that stands out as completely ridiculous is the bedroom door story.

He went downstairs.

Opened the front doors for Standers.

Went back upstairs and instead of opening the left hand door, he barged through it with he left should to make sure he could carry Reeva downstairs even though the other side of the double doors was already open.

Here's the big problem with that story.

If the door was jammed by the humidity, barging into it wouldn't have causes the door to be damaged. He would have simply pushed the door open.

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

 

[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.

The gun story is ridiculous too.

He said he took the gun out of the bathroom, then put on his prosthetic legs while holding the gun, looked for his socks while still holding the cocked gun, ran back into the bathroom, shouldered the door, then set the gun down.

He had to say he took the gun out of the bathroom because if he would have admitted he left it there after shooting the "intruder" the entire story would make no sense.

But it also makes no sense he put his legs on and carried the gun back into the bathroom.

How does anybody believe this crap?

 

[Suthrnqt]

Marking my spot.....

 

[kaos]

The gun story is ridiculous too.

He said he took the gun out of the bathroom, then put on his prosthetic legs while holding the gun, looked for his socks while still holding the cocked gun, ran back into the bathroom, shouldered the door, then set the gun down.

He had to say he took the gun out of the bathroom because if he would have admitted he left it there after shooting the "intruder" the entire story would make no sense.

But it also makes no sense he put his legs on and carried the gun back into the bathroom.

How does anybody believe this crap?

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.

 

[44ALLAN]

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?

 

[Elemar]

Let's not forget the numerous times OP referred to the events of 14th February 2013 as 'that evening'. In fact I am sure he said this in his last session of x examination. He said 'it was a very traumatic evening'. Now the way I see it, someone who had slept for 5 hours, waking up at 3am would not see the events as occurring in the evening, they would see it as happening in the morning or maybe even night but never evening. To me, that is proof that OP never went to sleep that night as he is remembering things as happening in the context of the previous day.