Trial Discussion Thread #32

[sorrell skye]

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

According to his BH affidavit and his testimony, he stated that he believed an intruder or intruders had entered through his bathroom window.

Unless he believed that 10-15' tall giants had climbed in through his bathroom window, the only way to gain access via that window would have been on a ladder.

I agree that he didn't think about the ladders when he first claimed in his foyer to the witnesses that he shot Reeva by mistake. I think he remembered later that ladders were left outside and used this fact to try to bolster his alleged belief in an intruder.

The thing is, if he was as security conscious as he would have the Court believe, I don't think he would have allowed those ladders to be left where they were.

Anecdotal personal story: my partner isn't security conscious in the least. On the other hand, I'm extremely security conscious - even more so after a failed home invasion attempt at our house a number of years ago. My partner had been leaving our extension ladder outside after cleaning out the gutters because he didn't think it was a big deal. I had a conversation with him about it and insisted that he store the ladder in our locked garage in an effort to prevent being burglarized.

IMO, security conscious folks take steps within their power to increase their safety. Security conscious folks don't leave ladders laying about outside that make it easier for burglars to gain access to their homes.

 

[soozieqtips]

Nel: Are you sure Mr Pistorius, that Reeva did not scream after the first shot?

OP: (emotional) Milady. At no point did Reeva shout out... (voice getting higher) or scream... I wish she'd let me know she was there... she did not do that.

Nel: I see. Just listen to my question. After you fired the first shot... did she scream?

OP: No Milady

Nel: Are you sure?

OP: Yes Milady

Nel: Would you have heard her?

Pause

OP: I don't think I would have heard her

Nel (interrupts): Exactly

OP: It was a gunshot that went off Milady. My ears were ringing

Nel: That's why I'm asking you the question. How can you exclude the fact that she was screaming if you couldn't hear? People heard............... a woman scream............ during the shots....... is that possible?

Pause

OP: No it's not possible

Nel: Why?

OP: Because a woman didn't scream at any point Milady

Nel: You can't say that

OP: I cannot say no one screamed during the shots... I can say no one screamed Milady. There wasn't a woman screaming

Nel: How can you say that? Are you making a mistake again? .... The mistake is... you forgot about your ears ringing

OP: I'm not talking about the shooting Milady (getting irritated) I'm talking about the entire evening.

Nel: No... I'm talking about the shooting... you can't get away with that every time, that you don't know what I'm talking about. Sometimes you have to take responsibility. In fact you knew... that Reeva was behind the door... and you shot at her. That's the only thing that makes sense.
---------------------------------------

So OP says he cannot say no one screamed during the shots... but he can say there wasn't a woman screaming at any point that evening... and that no one screamed. Is that more Oscar speak??

 

[BritsKate]

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.

RBBM

It seemed that way by your first post so my apologies if I misinterpreted it - it was really just a gentle reminder for all of us to make sure we're clear. Trial threads get confusing, especially if you don't or can't keep up with threads regularly. Lots of times a member will pop in when they're able, just to ask a question or request an update. And this trial already gets top prize for confusing!

 

[Lochlynsmom]

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

Lol! At minimum he is grasping at any thread to make his intruder story believable. The problem is the intruder is a cover and now he has to cover his tracks. This is why his version is convoluted. IMO

 

[steveml]

This woman saw her target.
An actually 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.

The nature of the target or the charges she will face wasn't in question.

Can I presume we're in agreement that it is perfectly plausible for someone to fire 4 shots at an alleged intruder?

 

[crasshopper]

There were a lot of "let me put it to you"'s..... was definitely confusing at the beginning for me...

I have to say I now find this "let me put it to you" quite catchy ;-)
Now adopting it for personal use, of course WITH the accent!

 

[Emz73]

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

Don't forget to take that "F" with you!!!

:blowkiss:

 

[Viper]

Crasshopper I saw your post at the beginning of this thread where you were saying that it was just your speculation that Nest used a complex forensic computer program to analyze the blood on the walls. Thank you for confirming that it was just speculation! Because it threw me for a loop when Nest conceded to Mr. Roux that the blood over the bed, that Nest had determined was from arterial spurt, could actually have been just blood from OPs hands that was cast off. So much for all of that "S pattern" stuff, uh. But I am still interested in reviewing the computer forensics that are used in the US, would you mind reposting them? I can't seem to find your post that had the 2-3 links.

Also, I would like to discuss with you how Reeva's heart was able to beat for nine (9) minutes without respiratory function. That would be a new medical first, right? And since Reeva had not one but two severed arteries, how do you explain the absense of significant blood pooling? I know you posted that the blood pooling was less than you would have expected, but with two severed arteries, one in her arm and one in her head, really doesn't it look like she bled to death in the WC and her heart stopped pumping blood in less than a minute or two?

 

[jay-jay]

<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.

Oh, really ..

.. actually, you are right about people seeing what they want to see and hearing what they want to hear, there's a lot of it about

 

[minor4th]

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

Yeah, I don't think this was modified to be an automatic weapon now that I've gone back and read it again. This is what was said:

According to Steyl, a Z88 9mm Parabellum expels bullets in rapid succession. Once the trigger is pressed, the pistol will fire after which the recoil operation automatically extracts, ejects and reloads the chamber until all rounds are fired. Thus the appellant could not have paused in between the shots to deliberately and intentionally shoot the deceased.

That is simply a description of the recoil mechanism of reloading a semi-automatic weapon. I guess the point that was being argued is that the accused did not actually deliberately *advertiser censored* the weapon for all 3 shots, which would have been more persuasive that he had time to deliberate and reflect on his actions for each and every shot.

 

[Carmelita]

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

I will have to find it as from my memory the reason the that the judge allowed the appeal is that it was a single suppression multi fire weapon so the defendant could not reasonably be expected to shoot off a single bullet.

 

[soozieqtips]

The point being that if there really was an intruder coming through the bathroom window, then you would expect Reeva to hear the ladder being moved and placed against the wall. Since he said she was awake.

And he heard the window sliding open and hitting the frame above the noise of the fan. As Reeva wasn't near the fan/s, the noise would have been much louder to her, yet she never said 'Did you hear that'? She just observed him reach under the bed for his gun and didn't mention the noise before he went charging off on his stumps? No wonder Nel keeps trotting out his favourite catchphrase "It's so improbable, it cannot be reasonably possibly true".

 

[Lochlynsmom]

Nel: Are you sure Mr Pistorius, that Reeva did not scream after the first shot?

OP: (emotional) Milady. At no point did Reeva shout out... (voice getting higher) or scream... I wish she'd let me know she was there... she did not do that.

Nel: I see. Just listen to my question. After you fired the first shot... did she scream?

OP: No Milady

Nel: Are you sure?

OP: Yes Milady

Nel: Would you have heard her?

Pause

OP: I don't think I would have heard her

Nel (interrupts): Exactly

OP: It was a gunshot that went off Milady. My ears were ringing

Nel: That's why I'm asking you the question. How can you exclude the fact that she was screaming if you couldn't hear? People heard............... a woman scream............ during the shots....... is that possible?

Pause

OP: No it's not possible

Nel: Why?

OP: Because a woman didn't scream at any point Milady

Nel: You can't say that

OP: I cannot say no one screamed during the shots... I can say no one screamed Milady. There wasn't a woman screaming

Nel: How can you say that? Are you making a mistake again? .... The mistake is... you forgot about your ears ringing

OP: I'm not talking about the shooting Milady (getting irritated) I'm talking about the entire evening.

Nel: No... I'm talking about the shooting... you can't get away with that every time, that you don't know what I'm talking about. Sometimes you have to take responsibility. In fact you knew... that Reeva was behind the door... and you shot at her. That's the only thing that makes sense.
---------------------------------------

So OP says he cannot say no one screamed during the shots... but he can say there wasn't a woman screaming at any point that evening... and that no one screamed. Is that more Oscar speak??

Wow! That says it all. Stealing this from another poster, sorry I don't know who to credit but "tailor much"

 

[jay-jay]

1) I wasn't sure if someone was going to come up the ladder, and point a firearm in my house and start shooting.

~snipped~

.. and there he is talking about that ladder again .. the one that magically got there without him or Reeva ever having heard a single sound of it being moved into that position .. and them with their balcony windows open an all! :facepalm:

 

[nastasya]

<modsnip>

Ok, let's assume your studies are correct.

What's the cumulative probability of 5 out of 5 people identifying a voice as female?

4/10 x 4/10 x 4/10 x 4/10 x 4/10 = 1.02% chance that all five witnesses would all misidentify the same voice as female.

Hope Nel reads WS...

 

[Carmelita]

Yeah, I don't think this was modified to be an automatic weapon now that I've gone back and read it again. This is what was said:



That is simply a description of the recoil mechanism of reloading a semi-automatic weapon. I guess the point that was being argued is that the accused did not actually deliberately *advertiser censored* the weapon for all 3 shots, which would have been more persuasive that he had time to deliberate and reflect on his actions for each and every shot.

Well I may well be wrong. I'll have to read some more maybe it was not modified after all.

 

[nastasya]

The nature of the target or the charges she will face wasn't in question.

Can I presume we're in agreement that it is perfectly plausible for someone to fire 4 shots at an alleged intruder?

Why is this relevant to the OP case?

OP denies intentionally firing shots at an intruder.

 

[Lochlynsmom]

The nature of the target or the charges she will face wasn't in question.

Can I presume we're in agreement that it is perfectly plausible for someone to fire 4 shots at an alleged intruder?

Absolutely, if you can concede OP shot at a door not an intruder.:loveyou:

 

[soozieqtips]

Wow! That says it all. Stealing this from another poster, sorry I don't know who to credit but "tailor much"

I typed it up from the Sky News round up after listening to that part of the questioning again, so you can credit Sky!

And tailor, muchly? :floorlaugh:

 

[Viper]

I will have to find it as from my memory the reason the that the judge allowed the appeal is that it was a single suppression multi fire weapon so the defendant could not reasonably be expected to shoot off a single bullet.

BIB. Oh yes, please do! All of a sudden I am really interested in that other case and learning that the gun that was used is something other than a variant that is capable of firing 3 bullets in a single trigger pull. I am very interested, so thanks for researching that for all of us!