Trial Discussion Thread #40

[Val1]

Oh and when did Oscar know the ladder was not put away? I have a hard time believing Oscar would leave his balcony door open knowing someone could move it to the balcony and come in. If Frank moved it the dogs wouldn't bark because they know Frank.

According to the pics taken the morning of the 14th, the ladders were under the bedroom balcony. Better yet, if OP knew they were there, then how does he explain intruders being able to move that big hulking ladder from directly under his open balcony doors all the way around the house to under the bathroom window without hearing that commotion, let alone why would they?

 

[BatGunKick]

Haha bless you. Most here think the bat came first, as Reeva couldn't of been dying for 17 minutes. There's a handful who "support" OP or believe the DT version. What's the majoritys view in SA?

Majority of what I have read on our news sites (www.iol.co.za) - search for Oscar Pistorius, and you will see some very insightful (and very entertaining) comments under most articles. Most here in SA believe he is lying through his teeth. Before the trial it was largely divided as he was seen as a hero - but after his bail statement and people heard "his version" most were just gobsmacked at the improbability of it all:


He's brave enough to confront danger, but feels vulnerable.
It's so dark he can't see Reeva, but light enough to navigate around a million objects in the room without knocking a thing over.
He's worried about security, but sleeps with windows in his bedroom open
He doesn't trust the police, yet in his version keeps telling Reeva to call them
After shooting into the door, he immediately thinks it's Reeva that he's shot - even though he spent a good 5min previously thinking it was an intruder. For all he knew, she went downstairs or to a neighbor for help.

Most of all, I think if you had to point to one thing (evidence wise) it would be the blood spatter on the duvet (that was on the floor) the blood spatter runs off the duvet onto the carpet. This means it was on the floor of the bedroom where he said the fan was. He keeps saying the police moved things - yet the judge would then have to believe that they lined up the blood spatter perfectly, which is a real stretch - seeing as at that time the police had no clue what his "version" would even be.

Once the evidence started coming to the fore, it's just been a tidal wave here of realization that he's full of it.

 

[BatGunKick]

The bat gun kick theory is a good one, thanks for,posting.

Another post that would be useful to see would be the following. A post of full OP version in chronological order, in black. Interspersed, in red would be any evidence or testimony that contradicts it. For example, ate dinner at 7pm, and last meal at 7pm ([in red] stomach contents imply last meal at 1am)

Thanks a great idea, think I'll tackle that tomorrow

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Majority of what I have read on our news sites (www.iol.co.za) - search for Oscar Pistorius, and you will see some very insightful (and very entertaining) comments under most articles. Most here in SA believe he is lying through his teeth. Before the trial it was largely divided as he was seen as a hero - but after his bail statement and people heard "his version" most were just gobsmacked at the improbability of it all:


He's brave enough to confront danger, but feels vulnerable.
It's so dark he can't see Reeva, but light enough to navigate around a million objects in the room without knocking a thing over.
He's worried about security, but sleeps with windows in his bedroom open
He doesn't trust the police, yet in his version keeps telling Reeva to call them
After shooting into the door, he immediately thinks it's Reeva that he's shot - even though he spent a good 5min previously thinking it was an intruder. For all he knew, she went downstairs or to a neighbor for help.

Most of all, I think if you had to point to one thing (evidence wise) it would be the blood spatter on the duvet (that was on the floor) the blood spatter runs off the duvet onto the carpet. This means it was on the floor of the bedroom where he said the fan was. He keeps saying the police moved things - yet the judge would then have to believe that they lined up the blood spatter perfectly, which is a real stretch - seeing as at that time the police had no clue what his "version" would even be.

Once the evidence started coming to the fore, it's just been a tidal wave here of realization that he's full of it.

:goodpost:

 

[Val1]

Thanks a great idea, think I'll tackle that tomorrow

Haha, just don't forget to use his own testimony where he contradicts himself...

 

[BatGunKick]

THE WATCH.
Hey - does anyone else think there is a significance to the watch that Oscar said went "missing"...? I have a sneaky suspicion that it has become such a big point to Oscar because it holds significance - could the watch have been broken before 3:17am during the fight? Blood was found on the watch box, and so I'm thinking if it broke before 3:17am it would be definite evidence his story is untrue. Wondering if at some point he saw the watch damage and that the time was stopped before the shooting... so he took it off and hid it and then put on a new one, getting blood on the box? (remember he asked his sister to return to the house and fetch another watch for him the following morning). This means he left the house without a watch. She could also have then retrieved the broken one and destroyed it?

He even mentioned in his testimony - interrupting Judge Masipa to remind her his watch was taken.

<modsnip>

At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.
- Aristotle

 

[BatGunKick]

Haha, just don't forget to use his own testimony where he contradicts himself...

Jeepers - there are so many contradictions in his testimony :floorlaugh:

 

[luvmygarden]

You have been following the trial right?
Are you suggesting the ladder was actually elongated and had both feet on terra ferma with it's extremities on the sill of a window somewhere in the house ?

Please elaborate as your question has no bearing on the case at present

Apologies for my pompous attitude:floorlaugh:

I was rethinking Op's stated fear. He repeated the ladder was unsecured. His fear and eyes were on the closed toilet door and the window because of possible intruder (and ladder). He came home around 6 ish, went up took a shower, did internet, went downstairs where Reeva was in kitchen, went back up to the bedroom with Reeva all the while the balcony door is open. My question in my mind was when did he check to see the ladder out, I bet he didn't. So if he didn't know for sure where the ladder was, not secured in the garage or maybe in the garage secured how did his fear of the window and ladder at 3 a.m. cause him to have to shoot his weapon 4 times. Starting at the beginning (op version) he had to assume the ladder was out and not checking for sure why would he keep the balcony door open? The intruder had a good chance of moving it to the balcony. So I feel his fear was created as a defense not fact. Did he awake Frank to put the ladder out to have proof of his fear? Was the ladder out all night?

Oscar's lies started at the window open, the ladder out and a noise. Why so quiet Frank? I think he has a story to tell. Who is keeping Frank from talking. At this point Oscar has told so many lies, changed up his story so many times even in a matter of minutes in court he did it to Nel. I have a hard time believing he will walk out of court at the end of trial without handcuffs and a police escort to his new digs in prison. All this other stuff creates drama to his story. After watching a few trials CAnthony, JArias, Drew Peterson, all the peripheral information that the court has to drudge out seems a waste of time. I wish they could just keep it simple. LOL
I shouldn't have started re-watching from the beginning to pass time till Tuesday. Made me have a million questions

 

[anagrammy]

I find Her Ladyship hard to read by her questions and statements. Something tells me she was looking for some help in this area and Nels gave it to her when he mentioned the word 'appeal'.

I don't care what was in his mind either. It's unlikely he has some psychotic disorder like schizophrenia. He knows right from wrong. Whatever he has, I believe that he will be found criminally responsible.

I was initially a little upset about this out patient bit but as CCCrim pointed out, we won't be sitting around for months waiting for a bed for Oscar. I was VERY happy to read that the hours of attendance will be 5am-9pm. I hope Oscar doesn't get special treatment from that!

I wouldn't be so sure he isn't schizophrenic. I have a son in his forties with major psychiatric illness and he exhibits symptoms similar to OP. Every day is a struggle with rage--over the slightest things, such as asking the same question twice. Or speaking after he has said he needs to go home. He exhibits lack of affect, which is that blankness you see, the expressionlessness, but I will see his teeth grinding. Or pure hatred in his eyes. And then--poof! It's gone and he'll brighten and say, "What a beautiful day! Thanks, Mom, see ya."

What the real life experience of schizophrenia is like is what you see on his sister's face. She's anxious because she doesn't know which Oscar will be manifesting at any given moment. He says he is "fighting for his life" and he sees anyone who gets in his way or opposes him as part of the conspiracy to take his life. He screams at them in a show of hostility to keep them from taking what is rightfully his (his brand, his good reputation).

The problem is that the schizophrenic has impaired judgment and literally cannot tell if something is a problem or not a problem, so the safest thing is to consider everything a problem. Something innocuous is said by someone and the schizophrenic will interpret it as a slight, or an attack, or a disrespect which must be confronted. Pistorius' life history is full of these and believe me, what has been discussed is the tip of the iceberg. Family life managing a privileged mentally ill national hero is no picnic.

You might say, "Oh, that couldn't be possible since most schizophrenics are diagnosed between 18 and 23. OP's unusual upbringing which focused on "you are normal" plus his status as a member of the uniquely privileged SA elite, would serve to enable him to hide his mental illness and manage it with medication. But meds can only do so much--they are often undone by alcohol consumption. So an absence of history of treatment may not be accurate in OP's case.

This would also explain why Roux freaked (a legal term LOL) and so vigorously objected to the evaluation suggested by his own expert witness.

As a final note of comparison of symptoms, my son HATES to be questioned, especially about his feelings or anything to do with his internal mental process. With repetitive questions, he gets angrier and angrier. Sometimes he cracks and jumps up yelling, "You think I'm gay!" or "You want me to say I feel happy? Well I'm HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY until he is right in their face and they are clearly alarmed."

In my opinion as a layperson, without observation it is very difficult to diagose major mental illness. The case management team that works with my son never sees him switch to the pleasant, affable man because their office is a trigger for him. If he hadn't already been diagnosed due to a psychotic break, they might say he has an anger management issue, or maybe an anxiety disorder.

Just my own two cents, folks, you are welcome to disagree and I am always interested in WS contrasting opinions. It's what makes it so interesting here.

 

[Zim]

I can never quite understand how the prosecution ear witnesses can be portrayed as unreliable, conspiring, stupid, devious (or any combination) whilst the DT ear witnesses are then quoted as incontrovertible proof of OP's version of events - sometimes by the same person!

Either ear witnesses have something to offer or the do not. One cannot say that when they appear for the prosecution they are rubbish but then quote the ones that appear for the defence as confirmation of events. If it is a question of individual reliability or whether they are 'good' witnesses or not, that may be different. However, i have found some of the claims about the PT witnesses pretty unacceptable given that they were all reputable professionals, didn't really want to get involved but felt duty bound to do so.

JMOO obviously.

I have thought about the ear witnesses a lot.

I believe we can 'tune' ourselves for certain noise. I am not being disrespectful here but maybe some witnesses had grown up with noisy streets and gunfire....and some had not.

I grew up with very large thunderstorms and am used to the loud noises and bangs of said thunderstorms. My husband and children did not. I sleep right thru huge storms and everyone else, dogs included pile into the bedroom terrified !

Same house...they hear everything, I hear nothing !

PS....however a child crying, even softly.....I am up

 

[JudgeJudi]

<respectfully snipped>

I am not surprised that he is now being evaluated as it is about time. I do not think he has ever been punished in his life and he has to learn to take responsibility for his actions. Originally, I thought he would claim diminished responsibility as his behaviour seemed so bizarre that I assumed that he must have something wrong with him psychologically but it was not GAD that I thought he might have.

First, I&#8217;d like to thanks Cape Town Crim. and Trooper for all your insightful comments. I&#8217;m way behind on this thread due to my son's wedding so apologies if this has already been canvassed.

Dr Vorster is held in high regard by the courts and the legal fraternity. I believe that in the limited time she had available to conduct her interviews with OP, family members and friends she had formed a very definite opinion as to OP&#8217;s state of mind and made a conscious decision prior to entering court that she would reveal same if given the opportunity. She was a very confident witness and even though she appeared to backpedal on day 2, she wanted the court to know that OP has issues that need to be addressed. Being such an important witness for the defence, this would have been absolutely galling. I also believe she deliberately entered the courtroom via the entrance she took to avoid speaking to anyone from the DT.

The very fact that she said OP was dangerous, dangerous if he could access a gun coupled with the fact that he could be lying speaks volumes. She could just as easily have watered these comments down. No stranger to the courtroom, IMO she was deliberately opening the door for Nel to cross-examine her in such a way that he could elicit what he needed to have OP evaluated.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Jeepers - there are so many contradictions in his testimony :floorlaugh:

Hi BatGunKick. Your theory is excellent. I think you've got the phone call timeline wrong though. OP calls Stander at 03:19:03 and NetCare at 03:20:05 before calling Baba, according to the VodaCom call records. I guess it's possible that his call to Baba could have been to chase Stander (e.g. "where are you?") and he called the wrong number. Stander's number was identified in OP's phone as "Johan Silverwoods" according to Moller's evidence, but I don't think we know how he identified Silverwoods Security. Perhaps they could be confused if his phone list was sorted by surname and Silverwoods was recorded in the surname for Stander? Pure speculation on my part though.

 

[Val1]

THE WATCH.
Hey - does anyone else think there is a significance to the watch that Oscar said went "missing"...? I have a sneaky suspicion that it has become such a big point to Oscar because it holds significance - could the watch have been broken before 3:17am during the fight? Blood was found on the watch box, and so I'm thinking if it broke before 3:17am it would be definite evidence his story is untrue. Wondering if at some point he saw the watch damage and that the time was stopped before the shooting... so he took it off and hid it and then put on a new one, getting blood on the box? (remember he asked his sister to return to the house and fetch another watch for him the following morning). This means he left the house without a watch. She could also have then retrieved the broken one and destroyed it?

He even mentioned in his testimony - interrupting Judge Masipa to remind her his watch was taken.

<modsnip>

At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.
- Aristotle

I've been trying to keep track of that myself, the only watch he ever seems to wear in court(at least that I've noted) is one that isn't even visible in that box of watches that was supposedly stolen from. If anyone has a link to a better pic of the watches in the box I'd appreciate it. Anyway, I'm thinking he's wearing the one that went "missing", who'd think to look for him wearing it...

The watch it appears he always wears looks like the one that had a pic taken of it back in 2010.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2282675/Oscar-Pistorius-case-The-gun-Blade-Runner-kept-bed-pictured.html

 

[Jake18]

<respectfully snipped>



First, I’d like to thanks Cape Town Crim. and Trooper for all your insightful comments. I’m way behind on this thread due to my son's wedding so apologies if this has already been canvassed.

Dr Vorster is held in high regard by the courts and the legal fraternity. I believe that in the limited time she had available to conduct her interviews with OP, family members and friends she had formed a very definite opinion as to OP’s state of mind and made a conscious decision prior to entering court that she would reveal same if given the opportunity. She was a very confident witness and even though she appeared to backpedal on day 2, she wanted the court to know that OP has issues that need to be addressed. Being such an important witness for the defence, this would have been absolutely galling. I also believe she deliberately entered the courtroom via the entrance she took to avoid speaking to anyone from the DT.

The very fact that she said OP was dangerous, dangerous if he could access a gun coupled with the fact that he could be lying speaks volumes. She could just as easily have watered these comments down. No stranger to the courtroom, IMO she was deliberately opening the door for Nel to cross-examine her in such a way that he could elicit what he needed to have OP evaluated.

Judgejudi, I can't reliably bold things with my phone but ITA with your last paragraph. While I was running I was thinking how it seemed a stretch for such a well respected psychiatrist to state how GAD could be make you "dangerous" with a gun - I mean, I get the stepwise progression of hyper vigilance leading to an overreaction to an intruder etc etc but in my (limited) experience of people with anxiety disorders it seems to make people sad rather than dangerous (Estelle, I'm not forgetting that case in 1992!) and although possible (anything's possible) turning a simply anxious person into a dangerous one seemed like a leap. BUT, if, in general, some of his personality traits were concerning answering "yes" to Nel allows her to do the responsible thing as a doctor without overtly compromising her position as a DT paid expert.

 

[Zim]

bbm - Since RS's parents have so far refused to come to a settlement about the financial loss incurred with RS's death until after the court case(not letting this case get brushed under the carpet like everything else has according to OP's own ghost writer for his book), I'm willing to bet that the Pistorius clan was simply looking at the bottom line by accosting Mrs.S in court where she had no alternative but to put up with the three of them. That's not to say that they may not also be sorry that she lost her only child, but the motivation for their actions was not to me indicative of that.

Reeva was not an only child. She has an older brother and sister.

 

[Val1]

Reeva was not an only child. She has an older brother and sister.

Edit: I stand corrected:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2603268/Pistorius-lying-head-shot-sister-fit-rage-Reevas-family-reveal-horror-smirking-Bladerunner-face-court.html

&#8216;My mother had been divorced and was bringing me up alone when she met and married Barry. He has been my dad ever since. I had a happy childhood on a farm with horses in a country town outside Cape Town.

&#8216;When I was 18 my mother became pregnant with Reeva.

 

[JudgeJudi]

The phone was recovered in the toilet, but who knows who put it there. was it Reeva or OP himself. He might have thrown it in there himself in a staging move.

Also, I have a possible scenario. I have wondered if Reeva went in there and locked herself in, after arguing with OP. She might have had it in there and threatened to call police. But she probably wouldn't have wanted to actually call them at that time. She surely had no idea he was going to get his loaded weapon. She probably thought he would cool down and they could talk things through. Too late for that, once she made the threat though. :moo:

I don't believe Reeva locked him out, but rather, I think he locked her in. The crime scene photos show the key in the keyhole on the outside of the toilet door. He testified that after the shooting he got the cricket bat and used it on the door, broke away the panels and reached through to pick up the key, but with the panels removed, why did he need a key at all?

My theory is that after locking her in the toilet, he hit the door with the bat and was able to crouch forward and look through the hole. "Know your target". He then fired the first shot, re-aimed and then fired 3 more shots which were grouped together.

Have I missed something here?

 

[JudgeJudi]

I can't see how he could not have shot to kill. He fired four times, knowing his ammunition, knowing the size of the cubicle, knowing he was just a metre or two away and we all know the end results of those shots - three out of four hit and all caused likely fatal injuries. He can't have not known.

I forgot to add to the 'warning shot' bit before that the reason the ricochet was dangerous was because he may have injured himself. He knew exactly what those bullets were designed to do H4M.

Not to mention "Pistorius posted a photograph of himself at a shooting range in November 2011 on Twitter, boasting about his score: "Had a 96% headshot over 300m from 50shots! Bam!" So what would his accuracy have been merely a few feet away?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/14/oscar-pistorius-murder-girlfriends-shooting

 

[JudgeJudi]

His own witness ,Prof Vorster has already stated that the disorder she believes he has is treatable and should have been diagnosed and treated for a very very long time. That is not the issue.

It is not the responsibility OR the task of the panel to treat, or manage whatever disorder they may find. Or not. . he would be referred onwards. The panel itself is not formed to the view to treat Oscar's disorder, should he have one. This is the mistake that is being made. Their job is an impartial evaluation. And evaluation ONLY. nothing more. They have no mandate to treat Oscar.. has Oscar expressed a wish to you that he wants to be treated?? Absolutely not. Their impartiality would be compromised should they suddenly become his counsellors. This irrational thinking is probably due to a misreading of the statute, or the concept of court appointed evaluation. Keep in mind, this is not at the request of Oscar. far from.

On Sky News a forensic psychiatrist said, inter alia, "The court needs to know if he suffers from some illness that prevents him from being held responsible, is it a ruse or is his behaviour not significant enough to raise a defence of no capacity or diminished capacity. What’s important is that the experts will prepare a report to say that he can carry on, he cannot carry on or there should be treatment. It doesn’t matter what the outcome is, it gives guidance to the court which direction they can go in and that they have to go in, and it also eliminates the possibility at a point in the future that his capacity becomes an issue for an appeal.

If all the experts agree on what the diagnosis is, there is no issue. If Masipa accepts the joint minute she will act in accordance with it. If there is any dissenting opinion, she has a discretion and could refer him for treatment, she could ask for further expert reports or she could accept the majority. "

 

[CriLondon]

Good morning all from a warm and sunny London !

I see it has been a night ( night for me lol) of bat-gun-kick discussions , i'd like to thank those who have contributed with information/ideas/theories.

Thank you!