Trial Discussion Thread #30

[soozieqtips]

And don't forget after he fired the shots and was still on his stumps

Mr Pistorius said the gunshots left his ears ringing, and he kept on shouting for Ms Steenkamp to phone the police. He said he retreated back to the bedroom and found Ms Steenkamp was not in bed.

"At that point, the first thing I thought was maybe she got down onto the floor like I told her to, maybe she was just scared... I can't remember what I said but I was trying to talk out to her.

"It was upon that time, my Lady, that it first dawned upon me that it could be Reeva that was in the bathroom or in the toilet
I jumped out of the other side of the bed and I ran my hands along the curtains to see that she wasn't hiding.

"I didn't want to believe it was Reeva in the toilet, I was so scared that someone was coming in to attack us. I made my way inside the bathroom... I tried to grab the handle, rip open the door. I pushed the door to open and it was locked.

"I ran back to the room, I opened the curtains, opened the doors and shouted from the balcony for help.
I screamed, 'Help, help, help.' I screamed for somebody to help me.

All of that on his stumps with a cocked gun in one hand, and yet people still believe him!!!, LOL.

BBM (in red) - and then after screaming for help - Baba called... and OP suddenly didn't need any help because everything was fine!!

 

[james83]

BBM (in red) - and then after screaming for help - Baba called... and OP suddenly didn't need any help because everything was fine!!

LOL, what was he actually trying to achieve by shouting help from the balcony of his locked house?.

 

[Val1]

This "head injury" thing is something I find funny, because IIRC he had a severe facial injury, not a head (brain) injury.

Hmm, but he and apparently others do think he's "special".

My hb was brain injured but to this day he refuses to accept it. His insurance company didn't want to either, claimed it was just a broken jaw, burst eardrums, and concussion with head lacerations. In fact, most don't notice it unless they spend more than the occasional encounter with him. However, he does now spin on a dime, has depression, short-term memory loss(repeats himself and can't remember everyday simple things), trouble sleeping, many BPD symptoms, etc etc. I repeat, I will never allow a firearm in my house.

 

[TipDog]

It was a definite inconsistency, and one of many. He changes the extent of his mobility to suit whatever he needs it to suit at any given time. He can rush into a tiled bathroom on stumps (mobility aplenty) - but can't leave by the closest exit (extremely limited mobility). He really is one of a kind, and not in the good way.

He is also a terrible liar.

 

[TipDog]

<No disrespect. Snipped for brevity.>

All of that on his stumps with a cocked gun in one hand, and yet people still believe him!!!, LOL.

I'm someone who's never held a cocked gun in my hand. Does this make it very easy for it to fire? As in, it's impossible that OP could have done all the things he said he did without the gun going off?

(I'm being serious as I know NOTHING about guns :blushing

 

[james83]

I'm someone who's never held a cocked gun in my hand. Does this make it very easy for it to fire? As in, it's impossible that OP could have done all the things he said he did without the gun going off?

(I'm being serious as I know NOTHING about guns :blushing

Very very easy to fire, and he claims he got up onto the bed with it to check if Reeva was there before jumping off the other side to see if she was on the floor LOL.
Sounds impossible but in Oscar land anything goes it seems.

 

[patCee]

Hi, I posted this on a previous thread, and have now posted again as the subject of OP's vulnerability due to disability is being discussed. Seems disability is not a 'get out of jail free' card.

It is worth noting that our law is only prepared to take account of the immediate external circumstances of an accused – and to hypothetically place the reasonable person in these circumstances. Our law has steadfastly refused to take account of any subjective factors peculiar to an accused, including any disability that the accused suffers with. This has been controversial, but it has been a line from which our courts have not wavered. If the reasonable person would not have made the mistake Pistorius claims to have made, even if the court accepts that Pistorius made this mistake, he may be convicted of culpable homicide.

http://criminallawza.net/2014/03/03/the-pistorius-defence/

 

[Lyra500]

I have been really bemused that some still seem minded to take OP's version of events as a baseline for what actually happened.

His bail affidavit, statement at the start of the trial and witness box testimony were each incredible in their own way, with more and more 'detail' being added to try and counter the evidence. His evasiveness, selective memory and outright lying in the witness box all serve to make his story even more suspect in my view.

A number of FMs have said that the simplest explanation is usually the truth and I really am minded to agree.

If you have five separate witnesses who heard a woman's terrified screams followed by what they thought were four gunshots, then silence and around about the same time you have a dead woman who was shot at four times, then the simplest explanation is that those witnesses heard the murder of the dead woman.

The above explanation requires no suspension of disbelief or common sense, no fabrication of fanciful reasons to explain why the murder suspect didn't do a number of perfectly obvious things which would have rendered the actions he took in his 'version' unnecessary.

No need to start wondering whether the introduction of a cricket bat is a serious explanation for the sounds. Basic physics says that gun shots are louder and carry further than any cricket bat hitting a wooden door. It therefore seems highly unlikely that only one person heard the gunfire (Dr Stipp) but they all heard the cricket bat. I believe they all heard Reeva screaming for her life and being shot dead at around 3:17.

I posted a link to this site before - I think it is probably worth re-posting....

http://www.dbxacoustics.com/acoustic-questions-pistorius-case/

No need to wonder why, knowing that Reeva was awake, OP did not ask her whether she had heard a sound, or at least wait for a response to his alleged instruction to call the police.

No need to wonder why someone who was too scared to turn the light on started screaming like a woman whilst approaching the threat that terrified him so much.

No need to marvel over the fact that while citing the slippery tiles on the hall outside the bedroom as a reason not to leave that way, OP chose to take a loaded an cocked gun to the tiled bathroom.

No need to think up explanations for why the bedroom and bathroom looked like a bomb had hit them.

No need to try and find an explanation for how OP could possibly hear any movement in the toilet cubicle while he was screaming

No need to wonder why an ambulance wasn't called immediately and why the security guard was assured that everything was fine.

No need to find an innocent explanation for why the DT felt it necessary to remove vital evidence from the crime scene (telephone)

Really - one explanation requires no mental gymnastics or fanciful fabrications- the other requires a degree of dismissal of discrepancies and explaining away which is beyond reason.

Just my personal opinion as always.

 

[G.bng]

I will repost it, but you have to remember (as I said when I posted it) that Oscar's case is the FIRST in SA legal history, in which putative self defense is being offered as a defense, when there was NO contact at all between the perceived aggressor and the accused (Oscar).
The putative self defense 'offering' is only as good as the psychologist testifying for the defense and Oscar's OWN testimony (which was a disaster)

If putative self defence is successful in Oscar's specific case, the backlash will be unreal, as the precedent is too tragic to contend with. Courts full......


http://www.justice.gov.za/sca/judgments/sca_2014/sca2014-052.pdf

I doubt he is going to be successful. He won't evade both murder and culpable homicide. Case law almost makes that impossible. This chap (Mkhize) had an altercation with those he felt threatened him, making his fears real.

Oscar heard a 'window slide'.

Just my opinion.

There is an eerily similar case with no contact between perceived aggressor and accused, of a man, Mdunge, who heard the bathroom door open and startled shot his wife thinking she was a burglar. It ended in a plea bargain so I have so far only found two mentions of it on the web, both News24, i.e.: (1st article here - "Man 'accidentally' kills pregnant wife", and 2nd article here - "Man who shot wife in error can sympathise with Oscar"). It appears Mdunge was going to be charged with murder (1st article) but he pled out to 8 years wholly suspended sentence for culpable homicide (2nd article). For those who don't know the details I re-formatted a part of the second article from News 24 to save space as the original layout is double spacing almost line by line:

There are striking similarities, and important differences between the Pistorius and Mdunge incidents, according to legal sources. On 21 February last year - just days after Pistorius was arrested - the prosecution in Mdunge’s case accepted a plea of guilty to the lesser charge of culpable homicide in connection with Thobile’s shooting, in terms of an agreement negotiated by his attorney, Deshika Naidu, and advocate Ranjiv Nirghin. Culpable homicide is the reckless, rather than intentional, killing of a person.

In his plea, Mdunge said he and Thobile were asleep at their home when he was woken at about 00:00 on 13 April 2011 “by a strange noise like a window opening”. He thought that a burglar was trying to get into the house. The accused was "fearful of his life" and grabbed the gun that he keeps in his bedside pedestal drawer at night for protection from unwanted intruders in his home. The accused then made his way to the entrance door of the room and could hear the noise coming from the bathroom. The accused then slowly made his way to the bathroom door to investigate the noise, thinking that the burglar was hiding in the bathroom. As the accused reached the bathroom door, the bathroom door suddenly slid open and the accused, afraid for his life, panicked at being startled by the door suddenly opening and he fired a shot from his gun at the person who opened the door. After the accused had discharged the shot he realised that it was his wife that he had shot, thinking she was a burglar, it was said in Mdunge’s plea statement.

It added that Mdunge “immediately” rushed Thobile to Mediclinic Hospital, where doctors tried to save her life, but she later died. When police got there at about 01:50, Mdunge explained to them what had happened and handed over his firearm to them.

Important differences: A legal source said two important differences between Mdunge’s case and that of Pistorius, which could influence the court, are the testimony by State witnesses that they heard a woman screaming during the shooting, and the fact that Pistorius had fired four shots through the closed bathroom door without ascertaining who or what was on the other side. Mdunge fired only one shot out of fright as the door was opening. On the other hand, both men had failed to check whether their partners were still in bed when they took out their guns, and both walked towards the room where they anticipated danger was lurking.

BIB - As I said, eerily similar, so it's the differences that are gonna be the crunch!

 

[Fuskier]

Wasn't that whole accident his own fault anyway because of irresponsible speeding

IMO it's also possible it could have been the 'thrill of it' i.e the speeding cars, the speeding boat, the fascination with guns, the 'thrill' of the firing range, the assault on previous girlfriend, etc.
In his own words at Court: "I go towards danger".
Hypothetically, it's not impossible that in that moment the 'thrill of the kill'. There was nobody else around at 3.00 am in the morning.
It's not impossible that a non-specific desire to kill may have been lurking in his mind for some time. Some call it 'ideation'. In other words, he could have been like a bomb ready to go off.
It is not impossible that his desire was 'rationalized' in his own mind, that he had pre-thought that he could 'blur' such an event with an intruder story which would present as acceptable to others. The mind is a tricky thing.
It is also not impossible then, that after the 'thrill' of the kill, once his 'rage' was discharged and subsided, he realized what he had done was permanent, irreversible. He then feared the social consequences.

IMO some of his reported behaviour post the kill seems 'calculated', not consistent with being in 'shock' at such a devastating accident.

Hypotheticals and my opinion only.

 

[Irisha]

:laughcry:

Because he might never stop screaming and you don't want to have to deal with that in court.

scuse me? ................hwow: ...........:banghead:

 

[Irisha]

If I were Reeva, I would lock myself in the bathroom and wait quietly for the all clear from my boyfriend. I would call the police, though, if I could--if I had a telephone that worked.

Would you have confirmed anything verbally with said bf. Look for an exit out of the house instead of an bathroom that could corner you from said intruders.

 

[G.bng]

Did the police make any effort to test if OP's "I heard a noise in the bathroom" tale was even possible?

bail affi: "I heard a noise in the bathroom and realized that someone was in the bathroom."

trial statement read by Outwage: "I heard the bathroom window sliding open. I believed that an intruder or intruders had entered the bathroom through the bathroom window which was not fixed with burglar bars."

OP during Nel's cross: "The noise [from the bathroom] was hard. The sliding of the window and it hitting the window frame -- it was clear"

OP's bathroom window has three panels the same size. The middle panel [seems imo] to be fixed/stationary. The two outer panels [seem imo] to slide inward away from the window frame to cover all or part of the middle panel, when opened.

Question: Was it possible for OP to have heard a window sliding open and hitting the window frame? NO imo, unless the window isn't as I described, which is entirely possible from my just looking at pics.

Pic [notice handles placement]: http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01675/SNN1805BATH---_1675168a.jpg

It could be as you describe, but it could also that only the one nearest the toilet moves, that all three move, or that the first two move in "cascade" back to the last, which is the possibility I am toying with as it looks like the first is set forward the middle a little further back and the one nearest the toilet a bit further back still. Whichever system, I've had windows and doors similar to most types and to my knowledge you always have a stop which makes a thud, clash, or whatever depending on what it is and what it's made of, not least because if one section gets pushed to far behind the other, like when the stop is broken or missing, they sure are the devil to get back to where they should be, even more of a hassle if you have to use a ladder to do it.

 

[G.bng]

I was thinking of the case where the man shot and killed his pregnant wife coming out of the bathroom, thinking she was a burglar.

If ever a case looked suspicious, that was it.

And, it's very close to this one.

I've just posted that case up-thread... but what makes you think that one looks suspicious and OP's story not ?!

 

[molly333]

I've just posted that case up-thread... but what makes you think that one looks suspicious and OP's story not ?!

I did think OP looked suspicious. I began being very suspicious.

I have ended up--not proven.

And, the prosecutor's case in chief is over.

 

[TipDog]

I did think OP looked suspicious. I began being very suspicious.

I have ended up--not proven.

And, the prosecutor's case in chief is over.

So, CH then?

 

[molly333]

Nel saying Pros got the 5th phone frm DT after they had it for 16 days, taken from the crime scene.
Roux acknowledging this.

Are you saying the evidence of a crime was deep-sixed?

 

[Viper]

So, CH then?

With a suspended sentence. It's plausible.




:floorlaugh:

 

[molly333]

So, CH then?

Maybe. Like I said, that charge makes no sense to me.

But that's what the lawyers seem to think.

Or maybe not.

 

[TipDog]

With a suspended sentence. It's plausible.




:floorlaugh:

Stop that! :croc:

I'm being serious when I ask her if that's what she thinks?