Trial Discussion Thread #34 - 14.05.06 Day 27

[vansleuths]

Unless I missed it, did anyone else find it hypocritical that Roux had the two female witnesses replicate the sounds that OP was making on the night of the death, but Mr. N was not asked.

I'm surprised Nel didn't call him out on this.

 

[steveml]

Thanks for that. Re the screaming and the shots - I think it is more important the screaming leading up to the shots that witnesses were certain was a woman. I'm sure once he started firing the screams would have died away quickly for obvious reasons. Just out of interest, do you think he should get prison time for his actions that night and their consequences, even if it's not the rest of life most of us seem to think he deserves?

One thing I will say for the 'supporters' of OP on here - I often disagree with them but they are generally much more stable in their thinking than the ones on the other forum I read but don't comment on. One tonight was saying that since there was no intruder, how could he be found guilty of killing an imaginary person. Still shaking my head over that one.

I expect OP to receive quite a lengthy jail term. I think he'll probably be found guilty of 2 or 3 of the firearms charges. With regard to the murder charge, there's no doubt in my mind that what he did was reckless in the extreme. I don't accept that he fired four shots in an accidental or spontaneous fashion, I believe that he thought there was an intruder, and would be fully aware that the shots would be likely to kill.

That said, it's obvious he understands the charges, and was trying everything possible to ensure he didn't say the words that Nel wanted him to say. I'm not really into this method, as it seems a bit like entrapment. What should be important in this trial is the mindset of OP at the time. If it's believed he meets the criteria to convict him of premeditated murder, then fine, let's have that charge. If it's a lesser charge, then so be it. What I don't like to see is prosecution and accused engaged in a cat and mouse word game. Nel's thinking 'if I can get him to say these words I've got him' and OP's thinking 'I mustn't say these words otherwise I'll get the maximum sentence'. That shouldn't be how sentences are determined in my opinion.

 

[Val1]

There are several reasons I think OP had his legs on, but the main one is that imo he's psychologically incapable of doing battle with Mr. Intruder on his stumps if his legs were readily available. IIRC OP testified to feeling his way/balancing using his left hand against the left wall of the dark passage, right hand holding his cocked gun. Oh, and screaming so Mr. Intruder would know exactly where he was at the time. Come on, does anyone believe OP did or would do that, because I certainly don't? Ditto arguing with Reeva on his stumps.

Perhaps not, but I can see him grabbing his gun after some disagreement and deliberately walking down the passage to the toilet room and cowardly shooting someone to death when they're behind a closed door(possibly locked in there by him), on his stumps.

 

[Budgie]

This issue tells me that he is LYING when he claims he called Stander for help lifting Reeva up.

---First, he hadn't called netcare yet, so supposedly would not yet hear he needed to bring her in. [which is fishy as well]

2nd, Frank , his man servant was right downstairs. I assume he had a way to reach him. *

3rd, why send security away, if he needed help lifting Reeva?


* HEY< WAIT A MINUTE.....:waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec:


If OP truly thought there were armed invaders in the home, why didn't he warn Frank, who was apparently asleep downstairs ??????????????????????????????

Doesn't he have Franks cell number?

Exactly, why didn't he call out for Frank instead of going to the Balcony and screaming for help. Who let Mr Standard and his daughter into the house?

 

[BritsKate]

I'll admit that at this stage of the game I find it almost impossible to be 'fair minded'. I just don't believe him but in any case I'm not talking about deliberately shooting RS - I believe he did but that's besides the point. I am talking about his 'version' of what led to his accidental killing of her. IMO, even if he was 100% sure it was an intruder, all the actions he took suggest a man who was prepared to kill someone. How do you see him 'confronting' the intruder when he didn't know who was in the toilet and shot them before even trying to find out at a point where he was under NO immediate threat. I'd of thought to confront someone you have to SEE them, not shoot them through a door.

Re the 'fair minded' - I have yet to see a post from you JuneBug where you have seriously questioned any of his actions - it's all been justifications, excuses even, so I'm pretty confident we're both as set in our views: they are just polar opposites.

I don't know about all of you, but I am perfectly happy being biased as hell, small-minded, judgemental, cold-hearted, closed-minded, unfeeling and utterly unreasonable...and I even spent all weekend dusting my best torch and sharpening my old pitchfork. I'm ready! :biggrin:

 

[katydid23]

Substituting our judgement safe behind our keyboards is in my mind terribly irresponsible. Of course there were other options that would have been better in retrospect. But if his story is true he feared an intruder in his EN SUITE BATHROOM. In his mind time was of the essence and and he had split seconds to make a decision. It makes perfect sense to me that he would not use two minutes to put on his legs when the 'intruder' was 10 seconds down a hallway. If he instinctively preferred confronting the intruder in the bathroom rather than having the intruder confront both he AND Reeva in the bedroom, well that makes split second sense to me too. He did what he did and while the outcome was horrible and heartbreaking and unnecessary people should really check their "it makes no sense!" thinking. Seen in the context of the circumstances, which were his circumstances and not ours, it had a certain tragic logic.

I just don't see the logic, I guess. The tragic part, I get.

I think it is rational for us to discuss the other options available to a REASONABLE person in this situation. Why is it irrsponsible for us to discuss his alternatives? That is what the judge must to do come to a decision. Was this behavior 'reasonable' in the given circumstances?

They could have gone onto the balcony with cell phones, and the loaded weapon, called for help and trained the weapon at the sliding door. They both could have left the bedroom and escaped to safety. He could have sat in the pitch dark room, hidden behind the bed, and trained the gun at the hallway entrance, while waiting for security and cops to arrive. He could have called Frank, downstairs, who was probably armed as well. All of these options were there for him, so why did he think they only option was to run on his stumps into a dark hallway, not knowing what was waiting for him?

I know it seems like 20/20 hindsight, but his decision does not seem logical to me. So it makes me wonder if it really happened that way at all.

 

[Val1]

Johnson called security at 3:16 and the call lasted 58 seconds. Right after he hung up from that phone call he heard the second volley of bangshots.

I think the N's woke up to the last shot of the first sounds, and I think those were gunshots. I am uncertain exactly what time that was

Wasn't it the N's that testified to watching Baba arrive at Stipp's and then the two vehicles leaving Stipp's and going to OP's? That would have all happened shortly after their call, correct? So that leaves even less time for the cricket "bangs" to have been heard.... by anyone.

 

[TorisMom003]

Exactly, why didn't he call out for Frank instead of going to the Balcony and screaming for help. Who let Mr Standard and his daughter into the house?

According to OP, he went downstairs and opened the front door. His reason for this was that he could not carry Reeva and open the door at the same time and he was going to take her to the hospital.

And :welcome:

 

[AlwaysShocked]

As far as "checking my makes no sense thinking" this is a crime sleuthing forum. What we do here is try to figure out what does and does not make sense. There is no irresponsibility involved at all in this process. Again, it is a crime sleuthing forum.

Random thoughts:

The South African legal expert - Kelly something - who takes Oscar's part no matter what is being paid to be a talking head to take that part. You see them all the time on "discussion panels". This is her job, so this is what she will do. If a videotape of the actual crime was produced, she would no doubt have a rationalization for it. Something about the videotape being altered by the police using look-alike actors they had hired, no doubt.

Oscar just keeps on keeping on, doesn't he? Rather than admit "I lost my cool. I should not have said that" he falls back on the overused and surely not working for him anymore use of complete denial. In the face of numerous witnesses to the event. Whom he will label as liars. He does seem to be quite thick.

Barry Roux: I like Barry, actually. I think he is a fine advocate who took on a bad case. A very bad case. And he knew not how bad it was when he first took it on. He had defended the brother, correct? In reading the circumstances in that case, he had a whole lot more to work with. This one, not so much.

At this point, Barry is well aware his case is in tatters. His defendant performed outstandingly horribly on the stand and his experts are abandoning him. And even now, as the trial proceeds, the defendant continues to act out and then outright lie. In front of police and reporters, forgodsake! Ahhh, Barry. There will be other, better cases down the road.

I do hope, however, that he chooses to write a book about this case. It will be a good read, I am sure.

Nels: Doing what good Prosecutors do everywhere. Tightening and tightening his case.
Minutely dissecting the points thatreally matter and politely questioning and rather promtly dismissing witnesses who really add nothing to his case.

I do not believe these "no afternoon witnesses" are due to Roux underestimating the time Nels would question the witnesses these past two days. Roux is not that inexperienced. I think Roux had planned for other witnesses who somehow have failed to turn up. Someone wrote there is another expert who has now gone missing in action.
This means people have recognized the stench associated with Pistorius and don't want to be associated with it. And they are willing to risk the wrath of Barry Roux in order to save their own future careers.


I would not be at all surprised if Roux comes in on Thursday and says "the Defense rests, M'Lady"

 

[lithgow1]

I expect OP to receive quite a lengthy jail term. I think he'll probably be found guilty of 2 or 3 of the firearms charges. With regard to the murder charge, there's no doubt in my mind that what he did was reckless in the extreme. I don't accept that he fired four shots in an accidental or spontaneous fashion, I believe that he thought there was an intruder, and would be fully aware that the shots would be likely to kill.

That said, it's obvious he understands the charges, and was trying everything possible to ensure he didn't say the words that Nel wanted him to say. I'm not really into this method, as it seems a bit like entrapment. What should be important in this trial is the mindset of OP at the time. If it's believed he meets the criteria to convict him of premeditated murder, then fine, let's have that charge. If it's a lesser charge, then so be it. What I don't like to see is prosecution and accused engaged in a cat and mouse word game. Nel's thinking 'if I can get him to say these words I've got him' and OP's thinking 'I mustn't say these words otherwise I'll get the maximum sentence'. That shouldn't be how sentences are determined in my opinion.

Some food for thought there. I can't see though how any other approach would work in this case. Pistorius just won't admit to ANYTHING will he, even when it seems to make him look so stubborn, or responsibility shirking, or let's face it, guilty (Tasha's incident).

Again to hark back to the radio show I was so impressed by - the commentators were saying again that his two biggest problems were his own testimony, largely on cross, and the fact that the court still doesn't know exactly what his defence is. That's just their opinions of course. So I see what you mean re the 'gotcha' tactics but can't see any other effective approach when dealing with a defendant like him.

 

[Gryffindor]

I expect OP to receive quite a lengthy jail term. I think he'll probably be found guilty of 2 or 3 of the firearms charges. With regard to the murder charge, there's no doubt in my mind that what he did was reckless in the extreme. I don't accept that he fired four shots in an accidental or spontaneous fashion, I believe that he thought there was an intruder, and would be fully aware that the shots would be likely to kill.

That said, it's obvious he understands the charges, and was trying everything possible to ensure he didn't say the words that Nel wanted him to say. I'm not really into this method, as it seems a bit like entrapment. What should be important in this trial is the mindset of OP at the time. If it's believed he meets the criteria to convict him of premeditated murder, then fine, let's have that charge. If it's a lesser charge, then so be it. What I don't like to see is prosecution and accused engaged in a cat and mouse word game. Nel's thinking 'if I can get him to say these words I've got him' and OP's thinking 'I mustn't say these words otherwise I'll get the maximum sentence'. That shouldn't be how sentences are determined in my opinion.

Agree wholeheartedly. Even purely by the etymological parameters of the origin and definition of "justice".

 

[DebinGA]

"I did not purposefully fire the shots through the door"

"The accident was that I discharged my firearm, because I believed an intruder was coming to attack me"

"The discharge was accidental"

"Before thinking, out of fear, I had fired four shots."

Was OP's inability to intelligibly answer the question of what he was thinking when he shot Reeva Nel's fault?

 

[Cymbaline]

"I did not purposefully fire the shots through the door"

"The accident was that I discharged my firearm, because I believed an intruder was coming to attack me"

"The discharge was accidental"

"Before thinking, out of fear, I had fired four shots."

Was OP's inability to intelligibly answer the question of what he was thinking when he shot Reeva Nel's fault?

Nothing is ever OP's fault. That's how he rolls.

 

[Cherwell]

Doesn't he have Franks cell number?

Pistorius will have his own cell number soon, with any luck :jail:

 

[wb180]

Because "it makes no sense!" is a really high bar! "I wouldn't have done that." OK. "He should have made different decisions." OK. "_______ would have made more sense." OK. But "it makes so sense!" is a hard argument to make in my mind if a poster is serious about being fair minded. Of course it "makes sense" at a very basic level. He thought there was an intruder seconds away in his house in the middle of the the night and got a gun and confronted the intruder by shooting. That very thing has happened countless times around the world, sometimes to incredibly tragic results just as this did. There are many arguments as to why Oscar might be guilty of shooting Reeva deliberately, but "it makes no sense!" is an incredibly weak one IMO.

It makes no sense means a reasonable person won't do what OP did. This 'weak' test is exactly the test the judge will make.

Your argument is the same one that is repeated to support OP - ie what OP does and feels cannot be dismissed as unreasonable because it is highly subjective to him. With that argument everyone can be acquitted.

That is not the test.

 

[Lochlynsmom]

With regard to the blog link, it just shows how easy it is to make so few things seem like so many.

Here it is without the fudge...

OP got up, brought the fans in, covered a blue light, heard a noise, didn't see that Reeva had left the room, got his gun and went to the bathroom.

You can mention turning around at five different angles, feeling around the bedroom, not seeing this, not seeing that etc. etc. At the end of the day it's over-elaborating a few actions to make them appear inconceivable.

I've been in a room in daylight and somebody's left the room without me even knowing it. I bet we all have. Maybe it was something I said tho?

Either OP should have checked to see if Reeva was in the bed and didn't, or it's all a complete lie and he stalked after Reeva because he wanted to kill her.

Whichever you choose to believe I can't see how it was elaborate. An intruder killing isn't elaborate, and a spur of the moment rage killing certainly isn't.

The over-elaborating is what most prosecution supporters have a problem with. The blogger did not make those things up, that was OP's actual testimony. Begs the questions why did he feel the need to elaborate on everything, imo it was because he had to try to make the story believable

 

[soozieqtips]

Pistorius will have his own cell number soon, with any luck :jail:

:floorlaugh:

 

[katydid23]

Because "it makes no sense!" is a really high bar! "I wouldn't have done that." OK. "He should have made different decisions." OK. "_______ would have made more sense." OK. But "it makes so sense!" is a hard argument to make in my mind if a poster is serious about being fair minded. Of course it "makes sense" at a very basic level. He thought there was an intruder seconds away in his house in the middle of the the night and got a gun and confronted the intruder by shooting. That very thing has happened countless times around the world, sometimes to incredibly tragic results just as this did. There are many arguments as to why Oscar might be guilty of shooting Reeva deliberately, but "it makes no sense!" is an incredibly weak one IMO.

I should have qualified it as it ' makes no sense TO ME.' :wave:

 

[crasshopper]

OPs house, with rooms labelled from plan, showing location of neighbouring properties.

ETA : See attachment

Incredibly helpful, thank you for taking the time to label!
Seems perfectly reasonable that the Stipps heard things so clearly. The angle of OP's house, particularly the toilet/bathroom windows and main bedroom balcony resulted in the sound waves being practically directed straight towards their property.

 

[TorisMom003]

I should have qualified it as it ' makes no sense TO ME.' :wave:

Makes no sense to you or to many, many others as well.