Trial Discussion Thread #5 - 14.03.11-12, Day 7-8

[Dmacky]

Well one thing for sure is it has been Roux's intention to cause maximum confusion with timing's, we are proof that he succeeded, LOL.

And another speciality of Roux's is telling the states witnesses that the screams they heard that night "cannot be" ~

 

[Dmacky]

There is just no way on this earth anyone goes charging out of there bedroom without telling there partner what you believe is happening, is it instinctive.
Also he was apparently fearful of a break in yet allows ladders to be left outside of his house, lol.

lol ~ And he is too afraid to turn on the lights, but SCREAMS for Reeva to call the police

 

[Pisto_lius]

The door we saw in court was assembled - at the scene panels were loose [had been removed, lay on bathroom floor] and only two pieces on right still intact....

Roux says panels had been removed, lay on bathroom floor

[....]

Roux: when you received door in what condition was it? Vermeulen: didn't receive it, but saw it...

Vermeulen: panels were loose, two pieces on right still intact...it was in a body bag.

Vermeulen: Capt Mangena brought the door, I didn't open the bag...it was crowded there, defence experts were there

[....]

Roux: will get to that...there in bathroom at the scene, when door was assembled, did you or did you not see the little pieces?

Vermeulen points to a small piece he could see... but Roux calls for photos, regarding other pieces

Vermeulen points out photo from crime scene which shows piece of wood that had broken out of the door, panel loose on floor

https://twitter.com/oscartrial199

I stand by my opinion :

- first OP used the bat....

- panels loosed and he pressed them to the side so he was able to look into the toilet room....

- then he shot through the door....

- later he ripped the loosed panels with hands

And all the time OP was on his stumps....

Before he pulled out Reeva into the bathroom he put his prosthetics on - for a better balance - that's when he stumbled over the plank on the floor (like Vermeulen said).... that's the *mark made by prosthesis* Roux stated....

 

[zqtpie]

I, too, went to bed feeling less than optimistic.

I don't know if the Judge is favoring Roux. I maintain trust she's remaining impartial and only appears to be giving Roux latitude so as not to give any misperception of bias toward the State. According to my reading, My Lady has a history of coming down hard on perpetrators of domestic violence.

I trust she will weigh all the witness testimony, forensic evidence, and apply her years of experience and wisdom when deciding the verdict, whatever her verdict may be.

One of the interesting things I read recently is that if she finds OP guilty of premeditated murder, she must explain why she did so. According to SA law, she can't simply deliver a guilty verdict.

I wonder if the same holds true if she acquits him of the premeditated murder charge?

I totally agree. And I think m'lady cannot help but be sickened by the gruesomeness of this crime, much less the senselessness of such a bright life extinguished.

 

[Harmony 2]

Thank you Carol and nice to meet you to
I can't speak for the masses but my own opinion on why he is guilty is firstly i find it very very improbable that his first reaction upon hearing what he believed was an intruder wasn't to make girlfriend aware, and by aware i mean awake, personally i would consider this to be a natural reaction, it would have taken seconds to make her aware, it could even have been done when he was picking his gun up, would anyone really charge out of there bedroom with a gun without making there partner aware?, it just wouldn't happen.
Secondly instead of waking her up in a calm manor as i believe anyone would, in his story he decides to wait until he is on his way to the bathroom before shouting out to Reeva(in his own words he was to scared to turn the bedroom light on but happy to shout???).
Also would he really give no warning to whoever he thought was in the toilet?.
Why fire 4 bullets?, surely if you have to fire you would fire once and listen?.
Just my opinon but to me it is obvious this was murder.

But let me be clear i fully respect your opinion and anyone else who is willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

Hi James,

Even if there had been an intruder, OP did not know if the intruder was holding RS as a hostage in the toilet area with his hand over her mouth. He went in there with a shoot first and ask questions later attitude.

 

[Dmacky]

The door we saw in court was assembled - at the scene panels were loose [had been removed, lay on bathroom floor] and only two pieces on right still intact....




I stand by my opinion :

- first OP used the bat....

- panels loosed and he pressed them to the side so he was able to look into the toilet room....

- then he shot through the door....

- later he ripped the loosed panels with hands

And all the time OP was on his stumps....

Before he pulled out Reeva into the bathroom he put his prosthetics on - for a better balance - that's when he stumbled over the plank on the floor (like Vermeulen said).... that's the *mark made by prosthesis* Roux stated....

Excellent post my lady :giggle: (Or my lord)

 

[Cherwell]

Plus, who LOCKS themselves in the bathroom/toilet if your in a loving relationship??? I don't even close the door most of the time. :giggle:

Not this again. Lots of people do. I would certainly lock the loo door if I'd only been seeing a guy for three months, and I always, always close the door unless I'm alone in the house.
We all do what we feel comfortable with, regardless of what other people may do.

 

[james83]

lol ~ And he is too afraid to turn on the lights, but SCREAMS for Reeva to call the police

Pitch black bedroom yet has no trouble finding his gun under the bed, laughable.

 

[FrancesB]

I reckon Ms Steenkamp was in this area/position at the time she was shot. Big question is, if the door was locked why was she in front of it?




For what possible reason would she have been standing here? If the door was locked?

 

[sorrell skye]

Right, there would seem to be no reason to lie about that point. And if it were true that he was on his prosthetics when he hit the door with the bat - there seems to be nothing beneficial there for the state as far as proving their case. and nothing incriminating for the defense.

For that reason, I believe that he was not lying about that - shored up by the fact that Roux said they have forensics that show he kicked door with prosthetics, and Roux made no argument or objection to Roux putting this to the witness.

BBM

Did you mean Nel made no argument or objection to Roux putting this to the witness?

If, so, you are correct. But then, Nel seems to object to very little. Sometimes, as I watch Roux's cross, I wonder if Nel is still present in the courtroom lol. I know he is, but he seems to let Roux get away with things that I've never seen a US prosecutor allow a defense attorney to get away with without raising, at the very least, a foundational objection. Perhaps it has to do with the difference in the US jury trial procedure and the SA trial procedure (no jury).

One thing is clear to me: the State was negligent in not requesting the Col (a materials examiner) to analyze the door for any and all materials. If they had, he would have probably found the alleged sock fibers Roux was going on about.

Even so, if the Col had performed a thorough forensic exam of the door (I doubt he did a thorough examination, since he admitted to finding an additional mark on the door the morning of his testimony that he hadn't noticed before), he would have undoubtedly discovered the alleged sock fibers (after all, he's a materials technician). One would think he would have notified the investigators and/or the prosecutor's office of his discovery and would have sought further instruction. I've seen cases where this has happened - a forensic specialist found material other than what they were tasked to examine, and they contacted the investigators to relay that information and to seek guidance as to how to proceed.

The Col testified that he was only asked to examine the door with regard to cricket bat marks. Why the State asked an analyst who isn't certified in tool marks to examine a piece of evidence for tool marks is beyond me (especially since the Col stated during cross examination that there were analysts in the lab who are certified in tool marks).

At times, as I've watched this trial, I've wondered if the State is truly invested in securing a guilty verdict, or are they just going through the motions? IDK

 

[james83]

Hi James,

Even if there had been an intruder, OP did not know if the intruder was holding RS as a hostage in the toilet area with his hand over her mouth. He went in there with a shoot first and ask questions later attitude.

For me even if i suspend belief and imagine his story is true he should still receive the maximum sentence for culpable homicide, to give no warning and fire that many shots is beyond reckless, and it would set a very dangerous precedent if he gets away lightly.

 

[soozieqtips]

Thanks, and I hear you. It's quite unbelievable that anyone could be so stupid.
But I look at it like this, my family have been victim to a home invasion, I was asleep on the couch when the intruder/s more than likely stood over me, I cannot even begin to imagine what I would have done if I had woken at that moment, I like to think that I would have just pretended to carry on sleeping until they left but something tells me adrenalin would kick in and it would not be possible to control my actions. And I would have probably been left with a whole lot of "could have, would have, should have" kwim? I honesty don't know and in no hurry to test the theory anytime soon

BBM - horrible situation for you to be in Carol, but OP's position was completely different. The 'intruder' wasn't standing over him and wasn't even in the same room as him. OP was safer than the 'intruder' was!

 

[Dmacky]

Not this again. Lots of people do. I would certainly lock the loo door if I'd only been seeing a guy for three months, and I always, always close the door unless I'm alone in the house.
We all do what we feel comfortable with, regardless of what other people may do.

I agree, but in the middle of the night I think I would turn on the light IF I closed and LOCKED the door. It seems she would need the light on to even see where the keyhole was. MOO

 

[lucegirl]

A few random thoughts...

For his story to work, Reeva had to have been in the bathroom to do what one usually does in the bathroom. I am guessing the police did not take a sample from the toilet water to check for evidence - fluid, TP?. If she had pottied, she would not yet have flushed or Oscar would have heard the flush and should have known it was Reeva (if he was really unsure of who was in there). Since he says there was no noise, she either had gone or was in the process of going, and then wouldn't there be some indication of that at the crime scene? In other words, the lack of evidence that it was an innocent, yet ill-fated trip to the bathroom coinciding with moving a fan inside isn't a believable story because she would have tipped him off by flushing or there would have been some indication that she had just gone or was going at the crime scene. Sorry for the gross - it's just making me crazy that for his story to work - the trip to the bathroom is supposed to be completely ordinary and uneventful. And she wouldn't be clutching strands of her own hair but a piece of TP - right?

Secondly, I just re-read the indictment and was reminded that he is charged with premeditated murder of Reeva. He is still guilty if he intended to kill an intruder but it turns out it is not an intruder. I am not sure what it is called in SA, but in the US - that's the "transferred intent" doctrine. A case of mistaken identity is not a defense to murder. So I assume, he is claiming self defense, which I would assume requires him to testify. I am curious what the various burdens of proof are in SA. As in the Jodi case, she had the burden to prove self defense but it was a lower burden than the State's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Anyone know what Oscar would have to prove to establish self defense? I would think premeditated murder would be a slam dunk even if there was an intruder becasue he certainly intended to kill someone - 4 shots into a locked death trap with those insanely deisgned to kill bullets. Sickening.

 

[james83]

BBM

Did you mean Nel made no argument or objection to Roux putting this to the witness?

If, so, you are correct. But then, Nel seems to object to very little. Sometimes, as I watch Roux's cross, I wonder if Nel is still present in the courtroom lol. I know he is, but he seems to let Roux get away with things that I've never seen a US prosecutor allow a defense attorney to get away with without raising, at the very least, a foundational objection. Perhaps it has to do with the difference in the US jury trial procedure and the SA trial procedure (no jury).

One thing is clear to me: the State was negligent in not requesting the Col (a materials examiner) to analyze the door for any and all materials. If they had, he would have probably found the alleged sock fibers Roux was going on about.

Even so, if the Col had performed a thorough forensic exam of the door (I doubt he did a thorough examination, since he admitted to finding an additional mark on the door the morning of his testimony that he hadn't noticed before), he would have undoubtedly discovered the alleged sock fibers (after all, he's a materials technician). One would think he would have notified the investigators and/or the prosecutor's office of his discovery and would have sought further instruction. I've seen cases where this has happened - a forensic specialist found material other than what they were tasked to examine, and they contacted the investigators to relay that information and to seek guidance as to how to proceed.

The Col testified that he was only asked to examine the door with regard to cricket bat marks. Why the State asked an analyst who isn't certified in tool marks to examine a piece of evidence for tool marks is beyond me (especially since the Col stated during cross examination that there were analysts in the lab who are certified in tool marks).

At times, as I've watched this trial, I've wondered if the State is truly invested in securing a guilty verdict, or are they just going through the motions? IDK

I agree there is a danger of the state's case turning to farce, there's been some awful blunders.
I would also say much of this is down to Roux's undoubted brilliance at causing chaos and confusion.
I hope Nel comes to life when it's his turn to grill the defence witness's.

 

[soozieqtips]

I totally agree with you James. Plus, who LOCKS themselves in the bathroom/toilet if your in a loving relationship??? I don't even close the door most of the time. :giggle: Especially in the middle of the night! She was afraid of him that night ! I still think that she had his phone and that is what sent him into a rage. MOO

With what's transpired so far, I do think OP killed Reeva in a rage. He appears to have a short temper and a gun fetish. The bullets he used were designed to cause maximum damage, which they did. However, the toilet locking means nothing to me. When I've been with a new partner ('new' being just a few months) I always lock the door, no matter what time of night it is. I'd hate the thought of him barging in while I was on the loo!! So this is one thing I don't think proves anything. One of my married friends (married for over 20 years) locks the door when she's having a bath. Some women just aren't comfortable with leaving doors open while bathing or peeing.

 

[soozieqtips]

I agree, but in the middle of the night I think I would turn on the light IF I closed and LOCKED the door. It seems she would need the light on to even see where the keyhole was. MOO

Good point. I'd always put the light on.

 

[turaj]

I agree there is a danger of the state's case turning to farce, there's been some awful blunders.
I would also say much of this is down to Roux's undoubted brilliance at causing chaos and confusion.
I hope Nel comes to life when it's his turn to grill the defence witness's.

I can't stand Roux; however it is clear he is really using the Col. for his own case and being very effective. I too am wondering what the state is up to here? Is OP such a "national treasure" that they really don't want to hold him accountable?

 

[AlwaysShocked]

"Originally Posted by Carol70 View Post
Baba testifies that he got back to the guard house at 2.55 when a few minutes later,(just past 3)his colleague arrived to tell him he had heard gunshots. I'm sure that's what he said but will confirm if I can"

Does ANYONE remember this being Mr. Baba's testimony?? Because I sure don't! No "colleague arrived to tell him he had heard gunshots" that I know of.


"Speaking through an Afrikaans interpreter for most of his evidence, Mr Baba told the court on Friday he was alerted to the sound of gunshots from neighbours of the double-amputee and drove in the direction of Mr Pistorius’ house.

When he arrived there, he called Mr Pistorius on his mobile phone.

“Pistorius told me, 'security, everything is fine',” he told the court in English.

A short time after the call ended, Mr Pistorius phoned him back.

“That’s when I realised he was crying,” Mr Baba said."


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/three-w...orius-trial-20140310-hvh3k.html#ixzz2vnNdKseZ
---------------------

I went back and listened to the testimony again. My bad here. Baba testified that "after 3:00" another guard did indeed come in and "report hearing gunshots". He further testified that "moments later the phone rang" and it was a resident reporting hearing gunshots. He then went to investigate.

 

[zqtpie]

BBM

Did you mean Nel made no argument or objection to Roux putting this to the witness?

If, so, you are correct. But then, Nel seems to object to very little. Sometimes, as I watch Roux's cross, I wonder if Nel is still present in the courtroom lol. I know he is, but he seems to let Roux get away with things that I've never seen a US prosecutor allow a defense attorney to get away with without raising, at the very least, a foundational objection. Perhaps it has to do with the difference in the US jury trial procedure and the SA trial procedure (no jury).

One thing is clear to me: the State was negligent in not requesting the Col (a materials examiner) to analyze the door for any and all materials. If they had, he would have probably found the alleged sock fibers Roux was going on about.

Even so, if the Col had performed a thorough forensic exam of the door (I doubt he did a thorough examination, since he admitted to finding an additional mark on the door the morning of his testimony that he hadn't noticed before), he would have undoubtedly discovered the alleged sock fibers (after all, he's a materials technician). One would think he would have notified the investigators and/or the prosecutor's office of his discovery and would have sought further instruction. I've seen cases where this has happened - a forensic specialist found material other than what they were tasked to examine, and they contacted the investigators to relay that information and to seek guidance as to how to proceed.

The Col testified that he was only asked to examine the door with regard to cricket bat marks. Why the State asked an analyst who isn't certified in tool marks to examine a piece of evidence for tool marks is beyond me (especially since the Col stated during cross examination that there were analysts in the lab who are certified in tool marks).

At times, as I've watched this trial, I've wondered if the State is truly invested in securing a guilty verdict, or are they just going through the motions? IDK

You make some great points. I have often thought that Nel has been daydreaming through this trial. Seems as though he is being very passive while Roux is browbeating everyone. I don't get it.