Trial Discussion Thread #32

[Viper]

I want to add a moment of comic relief if I may! This is a very short video of comedian Chris Rock; I don't know if he is known internationally. Unfortunately it has one profane word (typical of comedians today), so if that would offend please don't click on the link.

http://youtu.be/VZrFVtmRXrw

 

[Suthrnqt]

Yeah, I just don't think that level of executive functioning is expected to take place in one's thought process while in the throes of a panic or terror (according to OP).

In the light of day, and far removed from the situation, it's quite easy to come up with a lot of rational alternatives and hypotheticals, but those really cannot be superimposed in hindsight on Oscar's alleged fearful state of mind at the moment.

Well according to OP, Reeva was awake. And the noises of the ladder and the window would have been heard by Reeva before OP panicked/became fearful. Hmmm.

 

[minor4th]

Yes, but the point is that it (the ladder) was part of his thinking behind an intruder having gained entry through the bathroom window therefore, if he hadn't heard any actual noise relating to the sound of a ladder being moved or put up against the wall (that would make a noise, too) then he would automatically have known it wasn't possible for the ladder to have been used or for it to have been an intruder coming in through the bathroom window. Even just something like this proves that his whole story is a fabrication.

Yeah, I don't really believe that he even thought about the ladder at the moment (if he really did believe there was an intruder). I think he added that detail about the ladders in hindsight. In fact, I'm not sure he even said he thought about the ladders at the time.

This does not prove that his whole story is a fabrication. It does indicate that, at a minimum, he is trying to bolster his account by making references (in hindsight) to circumstances that existed at the time

 

[Carmelita]

They are the same gun. They're based on the Beretta 92 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Taurus sells it as the P92. Vektor sells it as the Z88 under license from Beretta for use by the SAPS.

The gun used in that other case that was cited was the accused police officer's service weapon (Z88) and it is semi-automatic, and virtually identical to OP's Taurus.

The way the judge described it, I think some have interpreted as "automatic" but he's just quoting what the accused's counsel described as the mechanism for reloading bullets in a semi-automatic with a recoil reloading mechanism.

Bottom line: same gun

The gun from the other case was modified to be a single suppression multi-fire gun. Oscars gun had to have the trigger pulled for each shot that is the functional difference.

And good evening Minor

 

[steveml]

The screams, the screams, the earwitnesses say they heard.....on and on.

Facts: 1. Ear witness testimony is even less reliable than eyewitness testimony which research for decades has demonstrated is often unreliable.

2. Research indicates it is most difficult for an earwitness to accurateky hear and report about unfamiliar voices or the voices of strangers.

3. Studies indicate that subjects fail to differentiate male versus female voices (taped) over 60% of the time.

Nuf said.

Charl Johnson went onto the balcony and thought he heard 3 or 4 screams. Presuming you can only hold a note for a few seconds, I can't image how the screaming can have gone on for long.

It's really only Annette Stipp's testimony that leads us to believe that there was constant screaming for any length of time. Her testimony claims that 'the screaming continued, it didn't stop'.

Once again we are stuck with the same problem as the gunshots. There isn't a witness that has been able to put any time frame on this. Not even an estimate.

 

[jay-jay]

Yeah, I just don't think that level of executive functioning is expected to take place in one's thought process while in the throes of a panic or terror (according to OP).

In the light of day, and far removed from the situation, it's quite easy to come up with a lot of rational alternatives and hypotheticals, but those really cannot be superimposed in hindsight on Oscar's alleged fearful state of mind at the moment.

Oh, I think it's quite the contrary .. you brain does actually process all these thoughts .. v.quickly in fact. It would've processed the fact that, without the noise of any ladder (or any other means of getting up to the bathroom window) there was no possibility of an intruder being able to gain entry. It would also have processed the fact that the window couldn't be opened from the outside .. it would also have processed the fact that an intruder would have come in via an easier entry point (i.e. the open balcony doors) if there really was one. It would also have processed the fact that it would be far more likely to be the person who is sharing your bedroom, and who you've just spoken to, has nipped off to the loo for a pee. The brain is a magnificant thing, it can process all of those thoughts in a flash and come to the most logical conclusion .. i.e. that it was Reeva. Because of that (and together with all the other lies and contradictions, not only about that night but in regard to all the other incidents like the boating one and Tashas) it makes the whole of OP's account a complete fabrication.

 

[minor4th]

The gun from the other case was modified to be a single suppression multi-fire gun. Oscars gun had to have the trigger pulled for each shot that is the functional difference.

And good evening Minor

Good evening. I did not realize that the other gun had been modified. I missed that! Yes, that does make a big difference.

 

[crasshopper]

The gun from the other case was modified to be a single suppression multi-fire gun. Oscars gun had to have the trigger pulled for each shot that is the functional difference.

Thank you both for the informative posts on this topic! :scared:

 

[Ncl1968]

Thank you. I have a smart phone/iphone and I didn't know that.

Not sure. If netcare is a mobile friendly number.. I found this on trip adviser....
The nationwide emergency phone number for the police is 10111 - you will not need to dial an area code. For more details on the South African Police Service, go to the SAPS website for more information: http://www.saps.gov.za

The nationwide emergency phone number for the ambulance service is 10177 - you will not need to dial an area code. Ambulance services are run by both the provincial health departments as well as private companies. The largest private emergency response company is Netcare911. They will respond to emergencies whether you are a member or not and their number is 082 911. Go to The Netcare911 website for more information: www.netcare911.co.za

The mobile phone companies have their own emergency numbers which can be dialed even if the phone is out of credit or locked:

The number for Cell C is 084 -140
The number for Vodacom is 082 - 147
The number for MTN is 083 - 112

However, the standard GSM emergency number (112) number should work on all mobile phone providers, regardless of whether or not the phone has credit

 

[sleuth-d-]

re: nel cross exam of op

clothes

op: when i arrived she was wearing HER pyjamas ...

when she was found i thought rs was wearing HIS white basketball shorts

... 19:30 ...

Oscar Pistorius Trial: Tuesday 15 April 2014, Session 1 - YouTube

 

[james83]

1) The conversation O.P and Reeva apparently had before he gets up seems odd "can't you sleep baba?", "no i can't", surely she would have asked why or what's the matter?, sound's a bit made up.

2) Doesn't notice or hear her pick up her phone and roll from one side of the bed to the other whilst he is in the same room

3) No reason for Reeva not to turn any light's on on her way to toilet

4) Why would Reeva bother opening a window in the bathroom at 3am?, doesn't make sense.

5) O.P Hears the alleged noise and doesn't do the thing that every one on the planet would do in the same situation, i.e say "what was that?" "did you hear that?".

6) Picks up his gun and says "Call the police and get down"?, and thinks nothing of it when he get's no reply, surely you would make sure your partner understood exactly what you were doing

7) Just as he enters the passage he says "I shouted for Reeva to get on the floor, I shouted for her to phone the police, I screamed at the people to get out".
So nice of him to let the potential intruder(s) know there's a defenceless woman laying on the floor of his bedroom.

8) Then bizarrely gets near the entrance of the bathroom and decides he better not shout in case he gives his position away, after already doing that seconds earlier.

9) Hears toilet door slam shut but quite amazingly doesn't hear the door lock.

10) He's in the bathroom, he's screaming again at Reeva to call the police, he then say's he stood there for "some time" Reeva according to him has her phone with her, but yet Reeva doesn't phone the police?.

11) it is totally ridiculous to think Reeva wouldn't respond at this stage, she must be able to hear he is right outside the door.

12) The speed at which it dawns on him it might be Reeva in the toilet, doesn't ring true, i mean not even checking the bedroom door, do me a favour.

13) The alleged screaming like a woman, while he suspects it might be reeva in the toilet, the only thing he would have been doing is screaming the name "reeva" over and over.

It's just occurred to me that before the shot's Oscar is claiming that in bathroom this happened
"At this point I started screaming again for Reeva to phone the police. I wasn't sure where to point the firearm, I had it pointed at the toilet but my eyes were going between the window and the toilet. I stood there for some time. Not sure how long. I wasn't sure if someone was going to come out of the toilet to attack me. I wasn't sure if someone was going to come up the ladder, and point a firearm in my house and start shooting. So I just stared and I kept on screaming.

Mrs Stipp was awake Before the first set of sounds which according to Oscar were the gunshot's, he say's he was doing a lot of screaming literally just before the first set of sound's, so why did Mrs Stipp not hear them?, the first thing she hear's are the first set of sound's then screaming.

 

[Carmelita]

Respectfully, please realise that I'm not trying to tell anyone how or what to post - with big cases like these though, people drop in and out, and very often expect WS to be accurate for at least what's been presented at trial. So it becomes very confusing to say something never happened in court rather than 'X said so and so but I disagree with it' or 'in my opinion nothing relevant was testified to by X', kwim?

It allows other people to at least seek out other sources, ask for further clarification if needed, and form their own opinions. Not to mention saving others from having to dig for links.

MOO

Hi Britskate,

I'm guessing this is addressed to me? I'm sorry and I will try to be clearer in my posts, I was not stating that it was never said, I was simply stating that it was speculation, even if it was testified to by the states expert.

A lot of things were said at trial, surely they are not all facts as they are mutually exclusive statements.

 

[Hope4More]

Oh, I think it's quite the contrary .. you brain does actually process all these thoughts .. v.quickly in fact. It would've processed the fact that, without the noise of any ladder (or any other means of getting up to the bathroom window) there was no possibility of an intruder being able to gain entry. It would also have processed the fact that the window couldn't be opened from the outside .. it would also have processed the fact that an intruder would have come in via an easier entry point (i.e. the open balcony doors) if there really was one. It would also have processed the fact that it would be far more likely to be the person who is sharing your bedroom, and who you've just spoken to, has nipped off to the loo for a pee. The brain is a magnificant thing, it can process all of those thoughts in a flash and come to the most logical conclusion .. i.e. that it was Reeva. Because of that (and together with all the other lies and contradictions, not only about that night but in regard to all the other incidents like the boating one and Tashas) it makes the whole of OP's account a complete fabrication.

<modsnip> Look up cognitive labeling theory. It is a solid accepted basic psychological concept.

Very roughly translated, it holds that we hear what we think we hear, we see what we expect to see, we interpret an experience based on our own assumptions.

 

[Val1]

Mr Fossil, re the 5th phone which conveniently disappeared for 16 days. I live here in South Africa and we are all too familiar with the massive corruption in all things and our Justice system is no stranger to it either.

I fully accept his proven logic that all videos have excised the Nel stipulation of the 5th phone which went missing for 16 days. I've said before on WS one can sense that Shane is an "eerbare man" (a genuine, honest person). If he says he heard it, then you better believe it.

I had heard it too, though at the time I didn't pay a lot of attention to it as I was new to the trial and thought it was some simple housekeeping matter(there were a lot of those in JA's trial).

Iirc they were handing in something(**) they were both stipulating to regarding the "missing" cell(the missing part is what had caught my attention and by then it was over) and then the camera shut off until the judge walked in for the beginning of the day's testimony. I had about three different live feeds open while waiting for the day to begin and was checking this thread on firefox when the voices about the cell caught my attention so can't even remember which live feed it had been, just that it seemed to have been either before the time that the testimony normal started or right at 12:30 which is in itself odd given how late they usually start. :/

(** thinking back it seems it may have been the data they had recovered from the March 5th xly or whatever retrieval that was, that might even be where I recall overhearing one of the DT saying "they can't do that!" to which Roux replied "yes they can")

 

[Val1]

Hi Britskate,

I'm guessing this is addressed to me? I'm sorry and I will try to be clearer in my posts, I was not stating that it was never said, I was simply stating that it was speculation, even if it was testified to by the states expert.

A lot of things were said at trial, surely they are not all facts as they are mutually exclusive statements.

There were a lot of "let me put it to you"'s..... was definitely confusing at the beginning for me, I'm more used to lawyers coming right out and saying "let's speculate".

 

[Gbtaketwo]

But OP himself, in his bail affidavit, mentioned the ladders as being part of his thought process.

"I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised that someone was in the bathroom. I felt a sense of terror rushing over me. There are no burglar bars across the bathroom window and I knew that contractors who worked at my house had left the ladders outside."

His statement is quite incredible . If he had seen the ladders had been left outside by the contractors then why not put them away in the garage like they had supposedly done on the previous occasions . As I have said once before my husband was very angry when he had discovered some had been left outside our house ,if he had seen them the night before he would have moved them himself.
Why would a person vulnerable to the prospect of crime ignore something like this and then go to sleep with the doors open .
Mmmmmm but then again unless I hear from the contractors that they had been left outside I might be capable of thinking he took them out of the garage at the same time as he went downstairs to open the door or maybe someone else could have done .
I am assuming and hoping that Nel will have checked up on this.

 

[jay-jay]

Yeah, I don't really believe that he even thought about the ladder at the moment (if he really did believe there was an intruder). I think he added that detail about the ladders in hindsight. In fact, I'm not sure he even said he thought about the ladders at the time.

This does not prove that his whole story is a fabrication. It does indicate that, at a minimum, he is trying to bolster his account by making references (in hindsight) to circumstances that existed at the time

BIB Yes, but that also is beside the point because his thought processes would've calculated that there was no other way for an intruder to have got up to the bathroom window without the ladders .. and then his brain, in a nano-second would've thought, "hey hang on but I didn't hear any ladders" (while at the same time, his thought processes would also be deducing that Reeva was the most likely person to be making that noise). If you really believe that OP's brain is not capable of working these things out, and if you are right, then he is still one highly dangerous individual because his brain doesn't seem to be able to work out when you shouldn't go charging at someone with a weapon, and killing them in the process. Now that he finally has killed, then he should be removed from society for everyone else's protection .. if his brain really is that incapable of normal thought process that most other people have and which keeps them and other people safe.

 

[Lochlynsmom]

BBM

You've answered something totally different, where have I said the two crimes are comparable?

The point made is that it's not implausible that someone would fire 4 shots at an alleged intruder.

Nothing more, nothing less.

This woman saw her target.
An actual person with a weapon(blow torch)... not a door. I believe she should be subject to the same laws as OP but totally different set of facts.

 

[jay-jay]

Guessing we are now approaching "silly hour" again.

Yes, I think I'll be off for the evening now! :seeya:

 

[Karmady]

The gun from the other case was modified to be a single suppression multi-fire gun. Oscars gun had to have the trigger pulled for each shot that is the functional difference.

And good evening Minor

Where are you seeing that, please. I read the link when it was posted and just skimmed it again. I'm missing that. TIA :seeya:

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