Trial Discussion Thread #32

[TorisMom003]

Molly, sorry for not going back and quoting all of your posts about the police searching the entire house but I will answer with what I heard from the testimony of Van Rensburg.

The police did search the entire house, going so far as to get the key to unlock the door that leads to the hot tub outside. The police followed the blood trail. If the blood trail had led them to another room other than the master bedroom and the master bathroom, they would have gone to where it led them. They did not simply take OP's word as to where he killed Reeva at.

 

[shane13]

BBM - Peter Sellers if he wasn't dead!

Well who's your British comedian with the black hair?
Played the bumbling priest in Four Weddings and a Funeral.

 

[TorisMom003]

I'm going to find this testimony. Truly compelling, especially as the police had yet to be called.

Does anyone know who ultimately called the police and when or how they arrived on the scene?

I know who it wasn't, OP. For some reason I'm thinking that security phoned police.

 

[Lyra500]

This has just been posted by Barry Bateman. Article from Every African women.
http://everyafricanwoman.com/?p=1608

Thank you. An excellent piece with a clear and concise explanation of why the murder charge against OP does not depend on whether he thought it was Reeva or not - which is something a number of FMs have put forward repeatedly.

 

[soozieqtips]

Well who's your British comedian with the black hair?
Played the bumbling priest in Four Weddings and a Funeral.

Rowan Atkinson aka Mr Bean? Yep. He'd do!

 

[soozieqtips]

I know who it wasn't, OP. For some reason I'm thinking that security phoned police.

Reeva, call the police. Call the police!

And then he doesn't call the police

 

[TorisMom003]

Does anyone know if OP was wearing a watch when he was at the police station on Feb 14th?

 

[shane13]

I'm going to find this testimony. Truly compelling, especially as the police had yet to be called.

Does anyone know who ultimately called the police and when or how they arrived on the scene?

Well you are snipping.
You have to either use the whole post or at least state that you have snipped.

 

[TorisMom003]

Reeva, call the police. Call the police!

And then he doesn't call the police

Exactly. Which tells me he never told Reeva to phone police. Of course he changed that during his testimony to Reeva phone police or security.

 

[weeeva]

From OP's point of view, she's in bed just a few feet away from him, remember? And he doesn't think it's the slightest bit odd that she must have also heard a window sliding open and hit the frame, but doesn't acknowledge this noise with him at all? Too ridiculous.

If he is making everything else up, why would he not make that up too? Unless he is not making everything else up of course.

 

[crasshopper]

Viper, you and I come to two completey conclusions about the testimony you quoted.
I don't see a specific discussion of the arterial spurts found.

As I said, and I have seen nothing that will change my mind on this for now. Unless someone provides me with a referenced article in the forensic literature, a textbook passage or case report where your theoretical compression/decompression mimics or closely mimics arterial spurts, my opinion will stay the same.

If true the literature shouldn't be too hard to find, they have done lots of experimentation with dogs and other animals to establish data and confirm or exclude principles of spatter analysis.

While I appreciate your enthusiasm for the topic, let's just agree to disagree on this point.

...let's focus on the jeans, bullets and the real reason the rope and plastic bags were near her body ;-)

Edit:

RSBM
From the link, quote:
"He said Steenkamp's long hair was bloodsoaked, as were her shorts which both held large bodies of blood, which mainly contributed to the drip trail."

"The railings appeared to have been brushed by Steenkamp's hair."
From the link, quote:
"Defence advocate Barry Roux asked the colonel if it was possible if blood on Pistorius's hands could have spattered onto walls and other surfaces while in motion.

Van der Nest said it was."


http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/analyst-explains-reeva-s-blood-trail-1.1663753#.U1qBH7-9LTq

 

[soozieqtips]

Exactly. Which tells me he never told Reeva to phone police. Of course he changed that during his testimony to Reeva phone police or security.

He changed it to 'call police and security'. So many additions here and there I can't keep up. And they're random, too. Why insert 'security' into it at all? Unless he thought that was what a 'reasonable' person would do, so thought it prudent to add it to show he was thinking reasonably. Except, as we know, he wasn't thinking, because he didn't have time to think. He was too busy having 'many thoughts'...

 

[Paysee]

Why would they take Oscar's word for anything? He was standing over a dead body.

Don't you think it would be prudent for the police to thoroughly search the entire house? Why didn't they?

MOO

What makes you say the police did not thoroughly search the entire house? Perhaps they just didn't find anything significant.

 

[shane13]

Exactly. Which tells me he never told Reeva to phone police. Of course he changed that during his testimony to Reeva phone police or security.

Well this relates to the deep stuff that Murphy's law caught.
"Why is/isn't Reeva calling the police?"
Where I found a great dip in his voice and the indeteminate is or isn't.

But I think Murphy was right: OP was letting it be known what made him kill her--she was trying to call the police. IMO after an hour of being held against her will and/or a more "minor" assault.

 

[kittychi]

Did you see those choices for Nel? Daniel Craig or Mel Gibson.

Who would you have for Roux?

Is there a Pacino role or DeNiro role here? Or are they too old now?

I guess Charlize Theron is certain for Reeva being blonde and SAn.

And who shall play everyone's favorite geologist, Dixon?

Roux: Will Ferrell
Dixon: Will Ferrell

 

[TorisMom003]

If he is making everything else up, why would he not make that up too? Unless he is not making everything else up of course.

OP is making it all up (or the vast majority of it with tiny bits of truth sprinkled in) and it makes no sense that he didn't think of those things when making up his version. He had a while now to decide what to say was his version. The problem is, his version makes no sense. If OP was telling the truth, that he heard a noise, and Reeva was awake then she too would have heard the noise. However, since neither were asleep, they were arguing and there was no noise from an intruder OP is having to try and make a version up that sounds convincing. Unfortunately for OP he can't keep his version straight, changing it three times now, and it is not convincing.

MOO

 

[asanque]

He changed it to 'call police and security'. So many additions here and there I can't keep up. And they're random, too. Why insert 'security' into it at all? Unless he thought that was what a 'reasonable' person would do, so thought it prudent to add it to show he was thinking reasonably. Except, as we know, he wasn't thinking, because he didn't have time to think. He was too busy having 'many thoughts'...

OP's story is that he was terrified so he told Reeva to call the police

BUT:
1. If he was so terrified, why wouldn't he check to see if Reeva had heard him and was actually calling the police?
2. Reeva may not have heard the window open and would have no idea why she was calling the police, surely she would have then asked 'Why?'
3. He claims he spoke in a 'low tone' to her to stop alerting the intruder and also didn't turn on the light for the same reason. However, he then screamed at the top of his lungs at the intruder. :banghead:
4. Even after shooting the 'intruder', he didn't call the police himself (despite the possibility of there being another intruder and that the 'intruder' he shot could still have been alive before he checked.)

 

[soozieqtips]

If he is making everything else up, why would he not make that up too? Unless he is not making everything else up of course.

BBM - He couldn't make that up though, could he, because how could Reeva possibly have got to the toilet in time for him to kill her if she'd spoken to him just a second before he retrieved his gun? OP said everything happened quickly. He can't have Reeva speaking to him again after saying "Can't you sleep Baba" because there's just no time for her to have been able to get out of bed, walk down the passageway into the bathroom (open a window), and then enter the toilet, because OP would have been charging down the passageway at the same time as her.

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

As someone with nil reliable medical knowledge I can understand the logic of what you are saying. So if OP wants to say she was alive when carried downstairs, I'm trying to understand the advantage to him. Unless it's

1) That he wanted to show he was trying to reach medical care for her.

2) The blood on the stairs, sofa and in the bedroom, particularly the headboard, would need to have another more sinister explanation.

3)The advantage to him could also be to explain the rope/s for tournique found downstairs. If she was already dead upstairs what is the point of making tournique etc?

4)To seem in a dramatic rescue mode saying she died in my arms.

5) To explain why he contaminated the crime scene ; she was alive and he would take her to the hospital.

 

[nastasya]

this trial is way over the half way mark and yet this hard fact still has to be outlined, and underlined and emphasized.. astounding, really.

OP has three huge hurdles.

1 - he has to convince people his story is even close to true. Changing substantive details like going to the deck for the fans, then not going to the deck impeach his entire story. Nobody can believe his story is true because there is no one story.

Which story is true? Reeva asleep or awake? Going on the deck or not going on the deck? Trying to shoot an intruder or the gun going off on it's own?

He had no one story, so you can't say you believe "his story."

2 - even if his story was true, he has the burden of proof to show that chasing after somebody retreating after he warned them to leave, and then shooting them, is not premeditated murder. It is the definition of premeditated murder.

3 - Forget the experts for a second. Every witness to the crime testified they heard a woman's voice. They heard gun shots. OP, after knowing he killed Reeva, didn't seek help from anybody but Stander. He turned away help.

He has no supporting evidence that any one of his versions is true, and even if they were, chasing after somebody with a gun and killing them is still premeditated murder.