Trial Discussion Thread #48

[Cherwell]

"I am not sure which witnesses the State will rely upon in order to attempt to prove its case against me. Nonetheless, I undertake not to communicate with any witness, whoever he or she may be, and any other persons whose names may appear on a list of “State witnesses”, to be provided by the State."
- Oscar Pistorius, Bail Application

I still do not understand how his very public comment to Gina Myers* in the courtroom is not a violation of his bail conditions? How and why was it virtually ignored by the Court?

* Even viewed and heard by a court police officer!

Because although she'd been on the list as a potential witness, she wasn't called, and therefore OP didn't violate his bail conditions. Nel wouldn't have missed something like that, nor would the judge.

I don't think that the fact that someone hadn't been called as a witness would matter, though - because there remains the possibility of the prosecution re-opening its case, so they could still be called. The bail condition does specify "persons whose names may appear on a list of State witnesses".

BUT

I'm fairly sure that the ban on talking to witnesses was lifted, along with most (if not all) of the original bail conditions.

 

[Greater Than]

Hi everyone,
Have been monitoring here for quite a while, and feel that I would like to contribute. I have my trash can lid ready, and I don a hard hat. Big breath. Here goes. Putting aside the emotion, tears on both sides throughout evidence presented, I can still see that a young person with a disability, regardless of how accomplished, would feel fearful and threatened if suddenly he was aware of a noise he did not expect in a different room, especially in a place like South Africa with a culture overabundance of nervous trigger-fingers.
Is this reasonable, Yes. Is this a reasonable yarn to apply for guilty young person with a disability, also yes.
When I add history of brash behaviour of youth, which is not altogether uncommon or unusual for me, it does not necessarily add that much to the 'guilty of murder' cause. His mother was very nervous of home invasion and violation as well.

All I can think is if I was in the same situation and mindset I could fire off a volley of shots without thinking. There is also the idea that he lost his temper and head ( another thing that young men can do ) and fired at she that incensed him.

The judge and team have the data. They will make the right decision I am sure. I cannot imagine much would get past the Judge. She comes across as wise and dependable.

:truce:

1. Welcome!

2. BIB1 - A young man with a disability hardly feels fearful and threatened while holding a loaded 9mm parabellum in his hands.

BIB2 - Then you would be on trial for murder too.

 

[kaos]

BIB1 - He said he thought she was dead, but when he pulled her onto him to cradle her he could hear her breathing.

He didn't insist Carice Stander put her finger in Reeva's mouth. OP did that himself.

BIB2 - The defense was grasping at straws. The length of the power strip cord will not make or break this case. The PT used the photo evidence of the power strip to argue that there isn't room for small fan's plug, and then further argued that the length of the cord is too short for the large fan to have been where OP claims it was.

The PT would not have known that OP was going to accuse the police of moving the fan, nor would they have known where OP was going to claim it was until he got on the stand. The only way the DT could defend that the cord is, in fact, long enough to reach where OP said he put the fan was to ask the PT to produce the cord. Whether they know where the cord is or not, they knew the PT didn't have it to submit as evidence. They just wanted to call the PT out on it.

Masipa saying on record that it was worrisome that the PT didn't have it was to demonstrate she didn't dismiss the DT's objection IMO. Like you said, she along with everyone else knows not every item in the room would be taken as evidence without knowing it played any role at all in the crime or the defense.

MOO

Pistorius under CE by Nel

Whilst I leant over the partition to get in, I saw the key, so I took it and I unlocked the door, and I flung the door open, and I threw it open. And I sat over Reeva and I cried and I don't know how long I was there for. She wasn't breathing.

From Carice's testimony

Carice: Most of the time he had his finger in her... in her mouth as well... trying to help her breath I suppose because at a stage when I asked him to fetch the tape or the bags to help me to tie...he asked me if I could please just keep my finger there, just keep your finger there.

Roux: finger where?

Carice: In her mouth

 

[kittychi]

Hi everyone,
Have been monitoring here for quite a while, and feel that I would like to contribute. I have my trash can lid ready, and I don a hard hat. Big breath. Here goes. Putting aside the emotion, tears on both sides throughout evidence presented, I can still see that a young person with a disability, regardless of how accomplished, would feel fearful and threatened if suddenly he was aware of a noise he did not expect in a different room, especially in a place like South Africa with a culture overabundance of nervous trigger-fingers.
Is this reasonable, Yes. Is this a reasonable yarn to apply for guilty young person with a disability, also yes.
When I add history of brash behaviour of youth, which is not altogether uncommon or unusual for me, it does not necessarily add that much to the 'guilty of murder' cause. His mother was very nervous of home invasion and violation as well.

All I can think is if I was in the same situation and mindset I could fire off a volley of shots without thinking. There is also the idea that he lost his temper and head ( another thing that young men can do ) and fired at she that incensed him.

The judge and team have the data. They will make the right decision I am sure. I cannot imagine much would get past the Judge. She comes across as wise and dependable.

:truce:

Hi HoolyDooly, welcome to the discussion!

I have a different point of view than you and I will do my best to explain it here.

BBM: There are other incidences documented where OP heard noises in the night. One when his cousin stayed with him and he got up and went around the house with his gun. Another was when, in his words, he went into "full combat mode" at a noise coming from the washing machine. He did not shoot his gun in either of those instances. In neither of those instances did he have a woman in his bed with him.

Samantha Taylor testified that when she stayed with him, if he heard a noise he would say "did you hear that?" to see if she heard the same thing. Reeva was staying with him (IMO they were not in bed) and he did not check with her if she heard a noise. Why not? And why in this instance does he not only pull his gun, but he shoots; not once, but four times through a door, without knowing where his partner was.

If you can, go back and read his bail affidavit--you will find a link for it at the beginning of each thread. Read through that and when you get to the end does it hit you that Reeva was totally silent during this entire event? (Even though he testified that she was awake when he went to get the fans.) That she played no role whatsoever? That he would go forward and confront danger with his gun cocked, yell to her to call the police, and then shoot his gun without waiting for a response from her? Not one reference to any verbiage or action by her in his story. Absolutely. Nothing. It is like she just wasn't there. I find it rather unfathomable that this man would forget that he has a beautiful blond woman in his bed.

To me, this shows two things: 1) his made up story had a big black hole in it that he forgot to cover and 2) he totally dismissed Reeva's existence and her death. To me, the voice of the entire affidavit reads like a kid in school making up a story and excuses to wriggle out of taking responsibility for something he did.

Also, IMO any remorse he has shown has been for himself, for his loss of life as he knew it, not for causing an "accident" resulting in Reeva's death (because he didn't cause it, don'tcha know).

 

[soozieqtips]

1. Welcome!

2. BIB1 - A young man with a disability hardly feels fearful and threatened while holding a loaded 9mm parabellum in his hands.

BIB2 - Then you would be on trial for murder too.

BIB - especially when the 'intruder' is safely contained behind a closed door, and the killer is outside pointing straight at the door. I think his recklessness isn't so much to do with his age, as it is to do with his love of booze, guns, and himself.

 

[soozieqtips]

I don't think that the fact that someone hadn't been called as a witness would matter, though - because there remains the possibility of the prosecution re-opening its case, so they could still be called. The bail condition does specify "persons whose names may appear on a list of State witnesses".

BUT

I'm fairly sure that the ban on talking to witnesses was lifted, along with most (if not all) of the original bail conditions.

Thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression Myers wasn't going to be called, but I hadn't taken into account the possible re-opening of the case. And I'd forgotten OP was allowed to talk to witnesses after his bail restrictions were lifted within a matter of weeks. I'd had a vague idea that his DT were allowed to talk to the witnesses, but that OP wasn't allowed to approach them directly. Mind you, he seems rather averse to having any restrictions being placed on him, so perhaps he wouldn't have taken any notice, especially as he's had the inconvenience of putting his life on 'hold' to answer a murder charge :violin:

 

[kaos]

Hi everyone,
Have been monitoring here for quite a while, and feel that I would like to contribute. I have my trash can lid ready, and I don a hard hat. Big breath. Here goes. Putting aside the emotion, tears on both sides throughout evidence presented, I can still see that a young person with a disability, regardless of how accomplished, would feel fearful and threatened if suddenly he was aware of a noise he did not expect in a different room, especially in a place like South Africa with a culture overabundance of nervous trigger-fingers.
Is this reasonable, Yes. Is this a reasonable yarn to apply for guilty young person with a disability, also yes.
When I add history of brash behaviour of youth, which is not altogether uncommon or unusual for me, it does not necessarily add that much to the 'guilty of murder' cause. His mother was very nervous of home invasion and violation as well.

All I can think is if I was in the same situation and mindset I could fire off a volley of shots without thinking. There is also the idea that he lost his temper and head ( another thing that young men can do ) and fired at she that incensed him.

The judge and team have the data. They will make the right decision I am sure. I cannot imagine much would get past the Judge. She comes across as wise and dependable.

:truce:

Welcome

Have to disagree though. It takes him as little as a few seconds to put his legs on (despite him being timed by the Evidence Room team putting on two pairs of stump socks before his prosthetics and taking something like 27 seconds) and instead he chose to use those seconds reaching under the bed for his gun, unholstering that gun and going towards the source of the 'noise'. He had an alarm, he had phones, he had an exit, he had choices - Reeva didn't.

 

[kaos]

Hi HoolyDooly, welcome to the discussion!

I have a different point of view than you and I will do my best to explain it here.

BBM: There are other incidences documented where OP heard noises in the night. One when his cousin stayed with him and he got up and went around the house with his gun. Another was when, in his words, he went into "full combat mode" at a noise coming from the washing machine. He did not shoot his gun in either of those instances. In neither of those instances did he have a woman in his bed with him.

Samantha Taylor testified that when she stayed with him, if he heard a noise he would say "did you hear that?" to see if she heard the same thing. Reeva was staying with him (IMO they were not in bed) and he did not check with her if she heard a noise. Why not? And why in this instance does he not only pull his gun, but he shoots; not once, but four times through a door, without knowing where his partner was.

If you can, go back and read his bail affidavit--you will find a link for it at the beginning of each thread. Read through that and when you get to the end does it hit you that Reeva was totally silent during this entire event? (Even though he testified that she was awake when he went to get the fans.) That she played no role whatsoever? That he would go forward and confront danger with his gun cocked, yell to her to call the police, and then shoot his gun without waiting for a response from her? Not one reference to any verbiage or action by her in his story. Absolutely. Nothing. It is like she just wasn't there. I find it rather unfathomable that this man would forget that he has a beautiful blond woman in his bed.

To me, this shows two things: 1) his made up story had a big black hole in it that he forgot to cover and 2) he totally dismissed Reeva's existence and her death. To me, the voice of the entire affidavit reads like a kid in school making up a story and excuses to wriggle out of taking responsibility for something he did.

Also, IMO any remorse he has shown has been for himself, for his loss of life as he knew it, not for causing an "accident" resulting in Reeva's death (because he didn't cause it, don'tcha know).

Something that struck me when watching OP on the stand again was remembering that Reeva liked to 'mother' him and at one point she allegedly says "Can't you sleep baba?". So she's apparently aware that he's awake and yet this motherly woman doesn't say anything like "I'm going to the bathroom, do you want a glass of water" or "will I open the bathroom window to let some air in for you?"

 

[rachael123]

I think he saw a message on her ipad from her former boyfriend that said he still loved her.When you get a message it lights up and it was on his so-called side of the bed.He saw it and went into a rage.Suprised more computer evidence was not entered.

 

[vansleuths]

Up until February 14, 2013, OP never considered himself disabled whatsoever.

In fact, he even refuses to park in handicapped parking spaces.

Now, charged with murder, cowardly OP is desperately trying to hide behind his disability.

Like a bully schoolboy, hiding behind his mother’s skirt, wailing and lying when angry parents come calling.

He was not hiding behind his disability when he fired four shots through a closed, locked door.
He very aggressively went after the “danger”!

HOW can one claim “vulnerability” via “disability” (and therefore, innocence of murder) when one has very successfully neutralized the “threat”, killed the “intruder” and ends up the last man standing?

In this instance, I’d say able-bodied Reeva Steenkamp was the one at a supremely serious disadvantage.

A 9mm Parabellum loaded with Black Talons, in the hand of a trained, certified shooter, tends to instantly remove disabilities.
It must - otherwise “terrified”, “vulnerable”, “disabled” Oscar Pistorius would never have done what he did - under his version.

The Judge should NOT consider his “disability”.

Why would she?

Oscar Pistorius never has.

BIB I'm not defending OP, but I just want to show another side to this. In public, many people put on a brave front. People go to work with mental and physical difficulties, never letting anyone know what their frailties or problems are. It's only when they get home, alone and in the still of darkness that they feel the emptiness and weakness of whatever is affecting them.

OP may say in public that he was not disabled, but I'm sure in private, he did feel inadequacies.

 

[vansleuths]

That would be nice but I think it's got to the stage where there really can't be anymore evidence produced against him. When you have five independent witnesses hearing screams and a list of contradictions/tailoring/inconsistencies/improbabilities as long as the Nile, what else does a prosecutor need? The only thing that would make the case stronger would be an eye-witness or confession!

I was looking through the list of witnesses that were going to be called by the state and about 80% of them weren't called. There were so many. I can't help but think this was because they were unnecessary. I mean how many ear-witnesses do you need until there's a ceiling of proof already reached and it's just wasting time?

BIB If Nel was vindictive, he could have called every single PT witness he had and made OP broke. Court time would have been extended by months and we all know Roux charges $5,000/day.

 

[vansleuths]

It was only supposed to be a video for a cartoon re enactment according to OP's sources.
...but they also have said that this piece should have aired after the trial. Nike should sue :happydance:.

BIB Sue for what? Nike sells their shirts in every public store, There's nothing to say OP can't wear a Nike shirt.

 

[HoolyDooly]

1. Welcome!

2. BIB1 - A young man with a disability hardly feels fearful and threatened while holding a loaded 9mm parabellum in his hands.

BIB2 - Then you would be on trial for murder too.

Yes that is true. Having a loaded gun does change the dynamics, and yes I would expect to be arrested.

 

[808]

BIB Sue for what? Nike sells their shirts in every public store, There's nothing to say OP can't wear a Nike shirt.

True but I think they dropped him as a poster boy so without being too flippant I think they might have grounds for sue-age.

 

[vansleuths]

True but I think they dropped him as a poster boy so without being too flippant I think they might have grounds for sue-age.

They did drop him, but that doesn't mean he can't use their products. If in their original contract, it was written that once the contract is finished, OP cannot wear any Nike apparel, then their would be grounds to sue.

 

[Greater Than]

They did drop him, but that doesn't mean he can't use their products. If in their original contract, it was written that once the contract is finished, OP cannot wear any Nike apparel, then their would be grounds to sue.

Post #1473 http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ead-45-14-07-3-Day-36&p=10711079#post10711079

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Hi everyone,
Have been monitoring here for quite a while, and feel that I would like to contribute. I have my trash can lid ready, and I don a hard hat. Big breath. Here goes. Putting aside the emotion, tears on both sides throughout evidence presented, I can still see that a young person with a disability, regardless of how accomplished, would feel fearful and threatened if suddenly he was aware of a noise he did not expect in a different room, especially in a place like South Africa with a culture overabundance of nervous trigger-fingers.
Is this reasonable, Yes. Is this a reasonable yarn to apply for guilty young person with a disability, also yes.
When I add history of brash behaviour of youth, which is not altogether uncommon or unusual for me, it does not necessarily add that much to the 'guilty of murder' cause. His mother was very nervous of home invasion and violation as well.

All I can think is if I was in the same situation and mindset I could fire off a volley of shots without thinking. There is also the idea that he lost his temper and head ( another thing that young men can do ) and fired at she that incensed him.

The judge and team have the data. They will make the right decision I am sure. I cannot imagine much would get past the Judge. She comes across as wise and dependable.

:truce:

There appear to be LOTS of nervous, anxious people in South Africa. How come the vast majority of them have never committed murder?

I’m very curious as to how you arrived at the conclusion that OP’s actions were reasonable. You’re saying that a reasonable man would not expect to hear noise from the bathroom when his GIRLFRIEND is sharing his bed and house?!!! Why would OP automatically first assume it was an “intruder”??? It’s impossibly bizarre.

Being young does not excuse one from murder.
Living in SA does not excuse one from murder.
Having a disability does not automatically excuse one from murder.

Remember, throughout his entire life, right up until Feb. 14, 2013, Oscar himself categorically denied being disabled. Now he cowers behind his “disability”.

One cannot pick and choose when one’s disabled or not, whenever it’s convenient.

 

[wb180]

Hi everyone,
Have been monitoring here for quite a while, and feel that I would like to contribute. I have my trash can lid ready, and I don a hard hat. Big breath. Here goes. Putting aside the emotion, tears on both sides throughout evidence presented, I can still see that a young person with a disability, regardless of how accomplished, would feel fearful and threatened if suddenly he was aware of a noise he did not expect in a different room, especially in a place like South Africa with a culture overabundance of nervous trigger-fingers.
Is this reasonable, Yes. Is this a reasonable yarn to apply for guilty young person with a disability, also yes.
When I add history of brash behaviour of youth, which is not altogether uncommon or unusual for me, it does not necessarily add that much to the 'guilty of murder' cause. His mother was very nervous of home invasion and violation as well.

All I can think is if I was in the same situation and mindset I could fire off a volley of shots without thinking. There is also the idea that he lost his temper and head ( another thing that young men can do ) and fired at she that incensed him.

The judge and team have the data. They will make the right decision I am sure. I cannot imagine much would get past the Judge. She comes across as wise and dependable.

:truce:

Thanks for joining. However there has been various evidence that contradict that his actions were reasonable. This is even putting aside the fact he lied on the stand.

 

[JudgeJudi]

“Oscar Pistorius is a professing Evangelical Christian, who grew up in a Christian home.

‘I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. I execute each strike with intent. I beat my body and make it my slave...’
I execute each strike with intent. No doubt about that either.

His late mother, Sheila, a devout Christian wrote him the following letter:

'The real loser is never the person who crosses the finishing line last. The real loser is the person who sits on the side. The person who does not even try to compete.'

No, the real loser is the fraud who pretends to be what he is not, and worse, deprives others of being who they are. On the race track, and in life. The real fraud borrows authority from a fraudulent religion and claims that fraud to be ‘good’. All fraud does is debase people’s lives. If you made a conscious decision to debase (which means demean, humiliate, disgrace, dishonour, lower) another person’s life, you could do worse than shooting them 4 times, or cheating them, and then claiming – falsely – that you mistook them for a burglar. Is it fair to demand your place in the sun only to shove someone else into the dirt, and they will never see the sun or the sky again?"
http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Oscar-Pistorius-has-cheated-someone-of-her-right-to-live-20130215

The whole article is worth reading.

 

[kittychi]

This would be if you believed the part of his story that they switched sides, though he could have seen such a message earlier in he evening. Seems more likely to me that whatever it was, was brewing for awhile and with mounting anger and rage (and IMO alcohol) climaxed into Reeva's horrific and terrifying death.