Trial Discussion Thread #30

[molly333]

The admitted killer offered no evidence that his screams could be mistaken for a terrified woman.

The defense did not present any recordings or demonstrations of Pistorius screaming like a woman for witnesses to identify or not.

Why?

More importantly, since the defense had ample opportunity to test the witnesses and did not, there is no evidence on record that they heard anything but Reeva's screams.

The defense case isn't over yet.

 

[wb180]

If my husband didnt know it was me, yes, of course, I'd expect him to be let off. If he was whooping it up with a young thing shortly after, that would be because I'm old lol. The players in this case are young and beautiful. Killing someone to be with someone younger and more beautiful is not an issue. jmo

So you agree with my story then - that's ok but I feel scared for you that your husband is like OP...

 

[molly333]

Yea pretty traumatic that's why he went on holidays, out partying and found a new gf during this time. Oh maybe also because he is gonna go to jail for a very very long time. By the time he comes out, he will be old and no one will remember him

He has a new girlfriend?

 

[nastasya]

This whole scenario of the defense needing to prove that Oscar can scream like a girl is surreal IMO. People do all kinds of unrepeatable things when there is an extreme situation. To induce Oscar to scream like a girl on command is nonsense even if there have been murmurings of the defense having a tape of such screaming.

The scream sequence, scenario, evidence is all inconclusive because of the varying testimonies.

Well then that sucks for OP since he killed Reeva by shooting at her four times, and now it's up to him to explain why he's not guilty of murder.

And the evidence presented is 100% conclusive. 5 witnesses testified to hearing a woman screaming, then gun shots. The defense has not presented ANY evidence to the contrary. None. Zero. Zilch.

All the defense has presented is a series of impossible explanations for why the witnesses could not have heard Reeva scream. The first incredibly stupid explanation was that the first shot was to her head. Remember that? There own expert testified the first shot was to her hip.

Then the defense tried to explain the shot shots had to come before the cricket bat hits. They didn't. The shots came before the piece of wood was pried from the door.

The defense keeps going back and forth on whether Reeva was dead when OP found her. If he shot her at 3:10, there's no explanation for arterial blood spurts 10 minutes later. She would have bled out in the bathroom.

But if he shot her at 3:17, that means the screaming was Reeva.

Just for fun, can you explain how Reeva could have been shot at 3:10, then carried downstairs 10 minutes later, and not left a huge pool of blood in the bathroom? And how there could be arterial blood splatter on the walls and the couch if she was shot and left to bleed out in the bathroom 10 minutes earlier?

 

[wb180]

The defense case isn't over yet.

Yep it isn't over but its like a football game where the opposing team is 5 up against you and there is still 10 mins left on the clock

 

[nastasya]

The defense case isn't over yet.

The state's witnesses are already done.

The defense did not present recordings or a demonstration of OP screaming and ask them if this is what they heard.

The defense could have done that, and chose not to.

That part of the case is done.

 

[wb180]

He has a new girlfriend?

Some say he has but not verified - some girl still studying university.

 

[Fuskier]

Re possible brain injury - IMO we cannot rule it 'in' or 'out' just yet. We don't know if this was neurologically assessed post trauma, so it remains an unexplored possibility at this stage. We have not heard the psychologist/psychiatrists's evidence/testimony yet. We do not know if OP needs pain meds patches either. Possible brain injury does not automatically augur for the DT as is being assumed.
It may confirm for the PT and Milady that problems with anger/aggression acted out in 'rage' was the most likely occurrence that evening. Convicted criminals in jails can have various brain injury which did not impact upon their criminal decision making. It depends on how it effects one's capacity and functioning. It is not an excuse for murder, but a possible factor which may be 'ruled in' or 'ruled out'.

 

[Carmelita]

Why are you ignoring the direct testimony of the star defense witness, Oscar Pistorius?

Mr. Pistorius clearly stated that he did not fire the gun in self-defense. Nel asked him to repeat it, and he did, more than once.

The judge cannot rule it was self-defense if the defendant himself testified that he did not fire the gun in self-defense.

This isn't complicated.

Roux addressed this and I have stated what my opinion of Oscars words meant in multiple posts. Oscar has not testified that he did not fire in self-defense for all intensive legal purposes. Certainly the judge will not stick her pin in a box that is not argued in closing statements by Roux. And I will bet my small dog that Roux will argue putative self defense.

 

[Karmady]

So you agree with my story then - that's ok but I feel scared for you that your husband is like OP...

I have no idea why you'd feel that way. Anyone's husband could be a closet killer. If we thought so, we wouldn't have married them. Most women are married to men that they don't suspect would kill them in a heartbeat. They would trust him to deal with and protect them from the intruder -- particularly when they have no choice (being caught in the potty).

 

[wb180]

A witness in a house 3 football fields away heard excessive quacking followed by the sound of a car backfiring 4 times..

4 other witnesses also heard the sounds

But we know the duck loved OP and that means OP was in a loving relationship

 

[Karmady]

The state's witnesses are already done.

The defense did not present recordings or a demonstration of OP screaming and ask them if this is what they heard.

The defense could have done that, and chose not to.

That part of the case is done.

~bbm

That would never have happened for legal reasons.

jmo

 

[Carmelita]

I think you should do what OP did and runs towards danger to protect ur loved ones. Oh before you run in you should tied one of arms behind your back to mimic how vulnerable you feel.

After you shot the intruder, wait for 17 mins and do nothing coz that's the right thing to do.

I don't understand your post.

 

[wb180]

I have no idea why you'd feel that way. Anyone's husband could be a closet killer. If we thought so, we wouldn't have married them. Most women are married to men that they don't suspect would kill them in a heartbeat. They would trust him to deal with and protect them from the intruder -- particularly when they have no choice (being caught in the potty).

Just thinking about your safety coz you have a husband that just assumes where you are and starts shooting at things...do you ever go to the toilet in the night or do anything while your husband is sleeping? You really should refrain from doing it coz your husband is quite reckless with the gun. Might want to take away his guns and black talons as well.

 

[wb180]

I don't understand your post.

Just telling you to act like OP if you think there is a intruder.

You need to tied one of your arms behind your back to mimic OP vulnerability as he also deliberately creates this vulnerability but not wearing his legs.

 

[Karmady]

Just thinking about your safety coz you have a husband that just assumes where you are and starts shooting at things...do you ever go to the toilet in the night or do anything while your husband is sleeping? You really should refrain from doing it coz your husband is quite reckless with the gun. Might want to take away his guns and black talons as well.

thanks for your concern lol

 

[G.bng]

Agreed. This case is not remotely close to the other one! It's the opposite. OP hung around for God knows how long NOT getting help for Reeva and then when he had the chance to tell Baba to get help - he said "Everything's fine".

But even if OP did "hang around" as you say, and I'm no OP defender in this shooting just I may not coincide on what is imo provable and/or has been proved, and not see the timings and time taken in actions quite so clear cut as some, iirc whether OP helped or didn't help Reeva is not in issue here so will imo be superfluous to the verdict, or if of any incidence at all, and the judge would have to find OP with this did contribute further to her death, at best it would be limited to being an aggravate for sentencing in the same way as premeditation if that were determined.

 

[TorisMom003]

But even if OP did "hang around" as you say, and I'm no OP defender in this shooting just I may not coincide on what is imo provable and/or has been proved, and not see the timings and time taken in actions quite so clear cut as some, iirc whether OP helped or didn't help Reeva is not in issue here so will imo be superfluous to the verdict, or if of any incidence at all, and the judge would have to find OP with this did contribute further to her death, at best it would be limited to being an aggravate for sentencing in the same way as premeditation if that were determined.

Sorry, it's late, I'm tired and I just got done wrangling a 4 1/2 month old pup in the tub for a bath......can you dumb that down some for me please.

 

[Carmelita]

Well then that sucks for OP since he killed Reeva by shooting at her four times, and now it's up to him to explain why he's not guilty of murder.

And the evidence presented is 100% conclusive. 5 witnesses testified to hearing a woman screaming, then gun shots. The defense has not presented ANY evidence to the contrary. None. Zero. Zilch.

All the defense has presented is a series of impossible explanations for why the witnesses could not have heard Reeva scream. The first incredibly stupid explanation was that the first shot was to her head. Remember that? There own expert testified the first shot was to her hip.

Then the defense tried to explain the shot shots had to come before the cricket bat hits. They didn't. The shots came before the piece of wood was pried from the door.

The defense keeps going back and forth on whether Reeva was dead when OP found her. If he shot her at 3:10, there's no explanation for arterial blood spurts 10 minutes later. She would have bled out in the bathroom.

But if he shot her at 3:17, that means the screaming was Reeva.

Just for fun, can you explain how Reeva could have been shot at 3:10, then carried downstairs 10 minutes later, and not left a huge pool of blood in the bathroom? And how there could be arterial blood splatter on the walls and the couch if she was shot and left to bleed out in the bathroom 10 minutes earlier?

That is a lot of speculation not hard evidence. I am about to go to bed so I will address one point.

If he shot her at 3:10, there's no explanation for arterial blood spurts 10 minutes later



Think kinked hose.

 

[nastasya]

OP's defense requires the judge believe he was 100% sure the person behind the door was an intruder.

He couldn't have been 100% sure it was an intruder because he confirmed that he did not verify that Reeva was still in bed.

He did not know with any certainty that the person behind the door was an intruder, nor did he know if that person had any intention to harm him, and yet he shot four times anyway.

He's asking the court to believe that a woman getting up to use the bath room led him to be 100% certain that his life was in imminent danger. That's ludicrous.

Or he has to admit he wasn't certain his life was in danger, and he killed another human just to be on the safe side.