Trial Discussion Thread #45 - 14.07.3, Day 36

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Val1 said:
Sorry but you're wrong, I think he didn't put them on until he'd already dragged RS out of the toilet and left her bleeding out on the bathroom floor while he called Stander, security, Netcare and who knows who else, for all we know he may have had one of those pay as you go cell phones too .. and got all his ducks in a row. Then he put his "legs" on to make his grand descent.
Click to expand...

How can she be wrong? OP kicked the door with his prosthetics before dragging Reeva out.
 
Angela Carr said:
How can she be wrong? OP kicked the door with his prosthetics before dragging Reeva out.
Click to expand...

Umm, and what else has OP told us that hasn't panned out or been proven a lie? He could have kicked that door at anytime, perhaps during whatever incident caused the bullet/pellet holes in the bedroom door... so unless they found RS's blood wedged in with the varnish of the door and the plaster of the prosthetic, I have my doubts. As for being wrong, I was referring to her statement that "NO ONE believes OP was on his stumps when he pulled out Reeva from the toilet area."
 
04009margaret said:
Judge Chris Greenland's lastest videos re: A bump in the night......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yO1obCEArHE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WE5nzW92GY
Click to expand...

[Second interview between Bongani Bingwa and Judge Greenland]

BB: Gerrie Nel was quite clear that what adjustment disorder was found as far as the Weskoppies’ reports are concerned relates to OP’s state of mind after the incident. As far as GAD is concerned, none. There were no signs that said he meets the Standard as required to then say that was an influencing factor on the night in question.

JJ: Absolutely correct. I mean Oscar’s emotional and psychological state after the event doesn’t take his case appreciably further down the road because whether he’s guilty or innocent, whether he killed Reeva in cold blood or not, you’d still expect him, as a normal human being, and having done this out of character, to feel traumatised afterwards.

BB: One of the things we need to understand in all of this – I mean we’ve had a lot of evidence today around disability and how disabled people might react differently versus people, you know, with their full abilities in situations of perceived threat. Does this in a way almost imply that disability might lead to someone being unreasonable in a situation. I mean it’s a very thin – you’re on thin ice here.

JJ: Bongani, I think you’ve put your finger on it. We’ve got all this evidence as to how a person who is disabled and challenged will react with a heightened fight/flight reaction, but it presupposes that there is a threat. So if we take the facts in question and we say that the situation was that a window broke after – there was a sound, there was a sound of a window breaking, and after this was confirmed that there was an intruder, then I would say that this evidence is extremely valuable because any person, disabled or not, would then feel threatened. So the fundamental question here is this point: A bump in the night in the security and sanctity of your own home, does a reasonable person feel threatened? I would say no. And these reports don’t say disabled people are unreasonable. What they say is that when they are threatened, they will have a heightened fight/flight response.

BB: But it doesn’t for a moment suggest that because one is disabled, you therefore start unreasonably perceiving threats where there are none?

JG: That’s the way I see it. That’s the way I interpret the evidence. I don’t think these experts are saying that disabled people are unreasonable.

BB: One of the things that, you know, you legal experts have said over and over here on Channel 199 is this idea that the defence has to only offer a version that is reasonably possibly true. I mean aren’t they doing that with these explanations?
JG: [Laughs] Yes. Yes and no. We’ve been down this road before. I can explain it like this. If I pull out a pistol now and point it at you and shoot, shoot you dead, I’m guilty of murder if nothing else happens. The State simply needs to prove that. If nothing else happens, I’m guilty of murder. I can’t get out of it unless I prove – I convince the court – a proper, an excuse that is legally supportable. In other words, I have to show that, that killing of you is legally excusable.
 
Do you guys remember last day of trial (I think) that State (Nel) asked the doctor, who examined OP as to mobility, and he, (Nel) demonstrated/asked holding the arm straight out with a gun? And how OP could balance like that?

And then Defense came up and mentioned the bending of elbow at the waist to the doctor?

And now, this reenactment shows his arm is pretty much straight out.
So if the Defense was part of making this video, they are outright lying/misleading.

Maybe I'm all confused. Had no idea this was going on in the Oscar thread. Been in the Canada one all day.
 
DOES anyone remember if Nel asked OP when he was on the stand if he and the defense team reenacted the scene? If he demonstrated anything to the defense team about what happened that night?
 
Just tried it again and there is an arrow that is going round and round. Dumb question, but in the middle is a triangle (play button) pointing to the right. Did you click it?
 
Not only was he taking acting lessons, the guy has his own show. Totally bizarre.

I don't believe that this video was made for the sole purpose of helping to create a 3d animation.
 
Val1 said:
Sorry but you're wrong, I think he didn't put them on until he'd already dragged RS out of the toilet and left her bleeding out on the bathroom floor while he called Stander, security, Netcare and who knows who else, for all we know he may have had one of those pay as you go cell phones too .. and got all his ducks in a row. Then he put his "legs" on to make his grand descent.
Click to expand...

But WHY? Why would he want to do that? It seems like it would be so much more difficult.

And IF in reality he did do this on his stumps, why lie about it? If he reacted "instinctively" after getting door open, and instantly reached in for her and pulled her out in the open to assess her needs (or extent of the damage), wouldn't it illicit more sympathy, knowing OP struggled with all of of this on his stumps? So then why lie and say he did it with his prothesis on, if he didn't? I don't see the benefit to him.

I do agree that he likely got a "few ducks in a row", before anyone arrived. The extent of it we'll likely never know. He could have even had other socks, shirt & maybe other relevant items hidden or stuffed somewhere, . . . and they left the house the same way his phone & Reeva's purse exited.
 
04009margaret said:
I tried to find contact details for GN....maybe one of our SA members can forward it to him
Click to expand...

I've tried too with no success. I think contact would have to be made with the NPA, but there is only provision for the media to do this.
 
The Evidence Room team:

http://www.evidence-room.net/

The Canadian video at least shows there's audio too so I'm now eagerly awaiting why Scott Roder thinks he's innocent.

E.T.A. I haven't seen this article before - which mentions quite a few who were asked to join the DT

http://time.com/5572/oscar-pistorius-dream-team-murder-trial/

The videos are Pixar meets murder trial: illustrating car crashes and murders with faceless cartoons of people in jagged geometric landscapes. “We don’t give opinions, we don’t say ‘this is how it happens,’ we describe the scene,” says Scott Roder, the 43-year-old chief executive officer of the Evidence Room. “That’s our job: to help people understand the bigger picture.”

Mr Roder seems to be giving his opinion now.
 
I've just sent an email to the NPA and it's gone through. Made it to the attention of Gerri Nel. I attached the link.
 
He walks a lot slower in the Canadian clip.
 
supernovaNic said:
DOES anyone remember if Nel asked OP when he was on the stand if he and the defense team reenacted the scene? If he demonstrated anything to the defense team about what happened that night?
Click to expand...

I remember him asking Dixon about video but not sure if it was just about Dixon's tests at Uncle Arnold's house.
 
vansleuths said:
Just tried it again and there is an arrow that is going round and round. Dumb question, but in the middle is a triangle (play button) pointing to the right. Did you click it?
Click to expand...

I got it to work. I opened it in Internet Explorer and it worked. It would not work in Firefox and kept having that black arrow go round and round.

Thanks, vansleuths.

Watching the video was chilling.
 
jay-jay said:
~rsbm~

It was quite clear that Reeva wanted to be heading back early that evening, in order to give her speech the next day because the journey/traffic would've been much more difficult had she left it until the next day .. not only that but her text to Gina indicated that she wasn't overly happy about not having been able to get back that night. Reeva had also said earlier that day that perhaps OP might like the company of his family that evening (after whatever that bad piece of news was) .. she didn't seem to have any intentions of staying over another night at that point, and it very much sounds like he coerced her into it.
Click to expand...

OSCAR RECALLS FEB 13, 2013 - Sapa
Paralympian Oscar Pistorius on Tuesday recalled his activities on February 13, 2013, the day before he shot dead his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp in his Pretoria home.
He told the High Court in Pretoria Steenkamp had slept over and when they woke up he left early because he had a meeting in Johannesburg and wanted to miss traffic.
"I thought Reeva would go back to Johannesburg," he said.
Pistorius said his meeting ended at noon and he called the estate agent.
They met briefly to discuss documents and so the athlete could sign papers.
After the meeting with the estate agent, Pistorius said he went to see his friend Justin Devaris. His girlfriend, who was a "very close friend" of Steenkamp later arrived.
He was going to meet up with friends and suggested Devaris's girlfriend invite Steenkamp to join her at the movies.
"I phoned Reeva and we had texted back and forth during the day," he said.
Steenkamp said she wanted to finish her washing and Pistorius said she could stay in Pretoria if she wanted to.

[scroll down about two thirds of the way]

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2014/04/08/the-oscar-pistorius-murder-trial-day-18

Also this:

http://cnnworldlive.cnn.com/Event/Oscar_Pistorius_trial_4?Page=62
 
Val1 said:
I thought this was an interesting read that I came across, sorry if someone has already linked it.

The Pistorius narcissist diagnosis: Experts got it wrong

http://www.commdiginews.com/sports/the-pistorius-diagnosis-experts-got-it-wrong-20767/?utm_content=buffer706e7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Click to expand...

I just can't resist this:

How many narcissists does it take to change a light bulb?

One. He holds the bulb while the world revolves around him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 153 more.
Total: 2,339 (members: 154, guests: 2,185)

Online statistics

Members online
154
Guests online
2,185
Total visitors
2,339
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,908
Messages
18,148,769
Members
231,586
Latest member
kzrrz
Back
Top