Trial Discussion Thread #32

[BritsKate]

If it happened the way the prosecution said, she was not alive on the landing. I don't believe that is arterial blood on the landing. Have we actually seen a picture of it, yet?



Otherwise, he was carrying her upstairs, not downstairs, but that's another story that no one is willing to consider.



IMO

No one is willing to consider it because there is absolutely no evidence to support that theory. Why are we a) inventing evidence with nothing presented to support it and b) considering OP's account to be false when the evidence to support he carried her downstairs after shooting her does exist?

Please answer my question though...you obviously doubt the State, and that's fine, throw out Burger, arterial spray too...do you believe anyone has testified that Reeva could have been alive, even if unconscious, for as long as OP's account would make necessary? By his version, he was carrying her downstairs approximately 10 minutes after shooting her.


Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[soozieqtips]

I'm not sure what you are specifically referring to.

You mean who he called after he discovered Reeva in the toilet closet?

He couldn't remember who or in what order he called people?

OP, in his desperate quest to demonstrate how he was so 'often' a victim of crime, told the court that on one occasion he had almost been shot at. He was able to remember which turnings he had taken off the highway to reach the restaurant car park (where he eventually stopped to call someone to pick him up), but was unable to remember who he called.

Nel said he must be able to remember who he called. He had just been the victim of a serious incident... one in which he could have died. OP still maintains he can't remember who he called.

The day after the 'almost shooting' - OP gets someone to pick him and drive him to collect his car from the restaurant car park. Nel asks who he called to drive him there. OP says he can't remember (again). So a very threatening incident happened to him. Not only can he not remember who he called to pick him up, but he also can't remember who he called the next day to take him to pick up his car - even though he would have been sitting next to the person chatting about it. This wasn't a split second interaction.

Nel tells OP he made the whole thing up and cannot 'remember' who he called because a) it didn't happen and b) he knows it cannot be verified due to him 'forgetting' who he called... twice.

OP has never reported all these occasions when he's been a victim of crime, including one where he was almost shot at. He can't prove anything because he's never reported anything (apart from a stolen watch, maybe). The point is that the one serious incident he could have reported - he didn't. Nothing is on record. And no one can verify that very 'frightening' incident, because once again, OP 'can't remember' who he called... twice.

This lapse of memory has nothing to do with being nervous about recounting the events that night when he murdered Reeva - it has to do with what Nel said. It didn't happen. That's why there's no record and he conveniently can't remember who he called... twice. He doesn't even state if it was the same person he called and sat next to for the journey home and back to his car the next day. That's because there was no person as there was no incident. That's the trouble when you have a pathological liar on the stand. Their credibility gets shot to pieces, and for very good reason.

 

[lithgow1]

OP, in his desperate quest to demonstrate how he was so 'often' a victim of crime, told the court that on one occasion he had almost been shot at. He was able to remember which turnings he had taken off the highway to reach the restaurant car park (where he eventually stopped to call someone to pick him up), but was unable to remember who he called.

Nel said he must be able to remember who he called. He had just been the victim of a serious incident... one in which he could have died. OP still maintains he can't remember who he called.

The day after the 'almost shooting' - OP gets someone to pick him and drive him to collect his car from the restaurant car park. Nel asks who he called to drive him there. OP says he can't remember (again). So a very threatening incident happened to him. Not only can he not remember who he called to pick him up, but he also can't remember who he called the next day to take him to pick up his car - even though he would have been sitting next to the person chatting about it. This wasn't a split second interaction.

Nel tells OP he made the whole thing up and cannot 'remember' who he called because a) it didn't happen and b) he knows it cannot be verified due to him 'forgetting' who he called... twice.

OP has never reported all these occasions when he's been a victim of crime, including one where he was almost shot at. He can't prove anything because he's never reported anything (apart from a stolen watch, maybe). The point is that the one serious incident he could have reported - he didn't. Nothing is on record. And no one can verify that very 'frightening' incident, because once again, OP 'can't remember' who he called... twice.

This lapse of memory has nothing to do with being nervous about recounting the events that night when he murdered Reeva - it has to do with what Nel said. It didn't happen. That's why there's no record and he conveniently can't remember who he called... twice. He doesn't even state if it was the same person he called and sat next to for the journey home and back to his car the next day. That's because there was no person as there was no incident. That's the trouble when you have a pathological liar on the stand. Their credibility gets shot to pieces, and for very good reason.

Thanks for explaining it in more detail that I did. As we both seem to agree - you would remember that a) because it was frightening and b) as I said, because you'd talk about it all the way home. And even if Pistorius couldn't remember you'd think the friend/s he called on the night in question would.

 

[beach]

Thread is closed for now.

Expect TO's to be issued. Review the rules.