Trial Discussion weekend Thread #18

[steveml]

LOL..I seem to remember Reeva complaining about a certain song or artist he played in the car that he knew she didn't like.

The forgotten password had to be more than media spin since it necessitated an expensive trip to the US to pry the password out of it.

I'm not so sure. I have the iPhone 5 and to unlock it there isn't a password as such. It's just 4 numbers.

 

[kittychi]

More evidence of police bias and dishonesty. The more I read the more I'm wondering if all the misleading and incorrect information that has been reported in the media is simply an attempt to taint the public against OP and bolster their claims. We already know they did that with the reports that OP used the cricket bat to bash RS's head.

IMO - The police bungling could also have been purposeful to protect a national hero. We have heard plenty of stories of OP's drinking and drama without him being charged with anything.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

I'm not so sure. I have the iPhone 5 and to unlock it there isn't a password as such. It's just 4 numbers.

Yes that's what my kids have just told me .
They think he will have given phone PIN number but not the apple account ID until much later ,
Which leads to all the other things .

 

[Britlaws]

I was trying to say something similar yesterday.
Prosecution have demonstrated that OP knew gun rules about when he could lawfully shoot . He armed himself . He went towards an unarmed non threatening person ( premeditation can be seconds or minutes of planning ). He shot four times through a closed door without establishing who he was shooting at .That being the case it is now up to the defence to prove why OP thinks he acted unlawfully ?
The prosecution don't need to prove a motive or to disprove his version beyond the above points ?
I get a bit confused at the differences between UK law and SA law which seems to be very clear about when it is ok to shoot a target .
I also think I read somewhere that pre meditation case can be strengthened further if it is proven that OP has tried to cover up a crime by lying after the fact and alleging he thought an intruder was in the toilet .Whether or not that has been established will be down to the judge after the defence ?

Even though he knew the gun rules, he is likely going to argue that with the terror he faced, given his disability, he genuinely feared etc. and that didn't allow a rational assessment at the time, and the judge will determine whether that (along with all the other evidence) was a genuine belief and it was reasonable for him in HIS circumstances to hold it. If the state had prima facie evidence of his motive to kill Reeva, there wouldn't be all the self defence parlarva. All they really have is prima facie evidence of his motive to kill the person behind the door and circumstancial evidence that he knew it was Reeva, which they will argue rebutts his assertion that he acted in self defence.

Re your last point, if the Judge finds him guilty of murder, she will take into account his NG plea when sentencing. Obviously evidence that establishes that a defendant is lying or has lied is going to strengthen any cases against them.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Even though he knew the gun rules, he is likely going to argue that with the terror he faced, given his disability, he genuinely feared etc. and that didn't allow a rational assessment at the time, and the judge will determine whether that (along with all the other evidence) was a genuine belief and it was reasonable for him in HIS circumstances to hold it. If the state had prima facie evidence of his motive to kill Reeva, there wouldn't be all the self defence parlarva. All they really have is prima facie evidence of his motive to kill the person behind the door and circumstancial evidence that he knew it was Reeva, which they will argue rebutts his assertion that he acted in self defence.

Re your last point, if the Judge finds him guilty of murder, she will take into account his NG plea when sentencing. Obviously evidence that establishes that a defendant is lying or has lied is going to strengthen any cases against them.

Thanks . I will be watching the defence case with interest

Just adding a note here that the vulnerability and fear part might be challenging to prove because although we know he is disabled he didn't seem to live as someone would do who feels vunerable .
We don't live in a dangerous place but still set our alarms on a night and also have outside detectors panic buttons etc.
Despite all that if my hubby was away which makes me feel vulnerable I could never sleep at all with any windows open anywhere in our house .

 

[kittychi]

I'm not so sure. I have the iPhone 5 and to unlock it there isn't a password as such. It's just 4 numbers.

It was the WhatsApp password that was "forgotten" not the phone password. WhatsApp is an app that can be used for text messaging without using your cell phone's data allowance.

ETA: As an aside, recently Facebook bought WhatsApp, so its function may change. Facebook says no, though.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Forgive me if I have this wrong but I think there is much misunderstanding about the elements of the offence charged and what has to be proven. Without any legal gumpf, the charge is that:

1) OP intentionally or recklessly killed someone AND
2) that none of the available defences to this apply - e.g. putative self defence, insanity etc.

OP has admitted that he did #1. The state still has to prove this just in case, for example, if OP claims at the trial that his statements were made under duress. So, despite his admission, they still have to prove the elements of the offence - that he made the decision to pick up the gun, chose himself to fire it into a confined space with lethal/deadly ammo, and that his actions did or were very likely to kill the occupant in the toilet and they did in fact die as a direct result of this. They dont have to prove that he knew that they would die, just that it was very likely they would (reckless, called dolus eventualis). They also dont even have prove for #1 that OP knew who he was killing, or was likely to kill. In my opinion, little in reality was needed to prove #1 and I think this has been established - his gun, he fired it, the ballistics evidence, the injuries etc. I recall a remark by the judge when Nell requested adjournment before the public holiday, she said "she thought it was reasonable as the state had made a case". The defence has given no indication that him being the killer is disputed.

The most difficult part is #2, the putative self defence and that is what the case is about. The test is subjective, i.e. what OP felt/thought at the time and his fear of intruders, he thought it was an intruder etc. It is difficult to rebutt something in someones head. So all the state can do is to try to prove things like he knew it was Reeva and not a burglar as she screamed and if witnesses in the neighbourhood heard them he must have too, if he was so fearful of crime and had been a victim, how come he had never reported one before, that she was scared of him and they'd had problems, increasing the likelihood of an argument and rebutting the 'deeply in love' as well as generally discrediting his testimony by establishing he has lied and evidencing his general recklessness etc. etc.. They are doing this to prove that #2 - putative self defence doesn't apply, rather than prove #1 that he killed someone. So, this sort of evidence can't be considered for it's worth in proving he killed, it has to be considered re it's worth in establishing that his thoughts at the time were reasonable given his circumstances.

Hmm, I hope that makes some sense!

:goodpost:

 

[kittychi]

Websleuths is like a good book, you can't put down.......I am definitely going......or maybe I'm already gone.....:truce:

LOL, yes!

And a thank you from me to MeeBee, Minor4th, Rumpole and Steveml for keeping it interesting and thought provoking against some pretty heavy odds. (IMO)

:gthanks:

 

[soozieqtips]

So could the information regarding OP forgetting his phone password have all been media spin?

It appears that the phone wasn't locked at all. The password he couldn't remember was for his iTunes account.

Maybe the deliberate attempt to mislead was because he had a bad taste in music...

http://www.enca.com/south-africa/exclusive-enca-gains-access-oscars-itunes-account

BIB - that's not true and is misleading. It was not for his iTunes account. Where did you read that? It was for whatever unlocked his WhatsApp account, which he had been using up until at least a week before he murdered Reeva.

ETA - if I forget my iTunes password, I can easily set another one.

 

[Insp.Dots]

I was writing about the butt dial possibility a few days ago. What got me thinking about it was OP's call to his voice mail. At first I thought he could have been calling his voice mail because he was on the phone calling so many people between 3:18 and 3:55 that he may have had an incoming call from someone that he only left a voice message for.

03:18:45 – GPRS – 75 seconds

03:19:03 – Outgoing call to 2251 (Johan Stander) – 24 seconds

03:20:02 – GPRS – 79 seconds

03:20:05 – Outgoing call to 082911 (ambulance service) – 66 seconds

03:21:22 – GPRS – 61 seconds

03:21:33 – Outgoing call to 6797 (Baba, security) – 9 seconds

03:21:47 – Outgoing call to 121 (voicemail) – 7 seconds

03:22:05 – Incoming call from 6797 (Baba, security)

03:55:02 – Outgoing call to 8888 (Justin Devaris) – 123 seconds

Then during trial it was thought the voice mail call was a mistake.

I think 7 seconds is a long time to listen to a "mistake" call. If you look at your phone and count it out, it is long! Especially when you have other calls to make.

His use of the phone during those crucial moments is hard to fit in with the timeline of his carrying her, Reeva still being alive, and OP trying to save her at the bottom of the stairs when Dr. Stipp came in. Dr. Stipp's arrival came after all those phone calls. That whole time period is mush.

If he couldn't speak to Baba OP had already spoken to Stander and then when Baba did call back Oscar could speak again and told him things were OK. That is why I called the Baba phone call a butt dial, OP did not mean to call him.

I think Stander is Manager of the whole estate and security, but also a friend. Presumably that means he is also Baba's boss. Hopefully it will make more sense when Stander is called to the stand.

With regard to the call to voice mail, the police expert said and totally agreed with Roux that it was a mistake call, and pressed by accident. If OP called from the bathroom, he will most likely say he was still trying to 'help' Reeva at the same time as making the calls.
Whether intentional or not I can see that OP would be in a very emotional and perhaps irrational, panicked state at this point.
What went on in those crucial minutes no doubt will be scrutinized by both sets of Lawyers this week and will hopefully answer a lot of our questions.:twocents:

 

[Britlaws]

Thanks . I will be watching the defence case with interest

We all will, if we ever get round to hearing it! Forgetting its 'celebrity' status, this is an interesting case for many reasons. I have to say that the dignity of the Steenkamp family is to be commended and my heart goes out to them.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

We all will, if we ever get round to hearing it! Forgetting its 'celebrity' status, this is an interesting case for many reasons. I have to say that the dignity of the Steencamp family is to be commended and my heart goes out to them.

I agree . I feel so sad every time I see Reeva's poor mother in court

 

[Gryffindor]

WhatsApp requires internet connection. Wi-Fi or 3g/4g. It's available on Android and Apple devices. NOT exclusive to Apple.

5s uses fingerprint access for actual device, 5c doesn't. Both have P.I.N. access as do ALL devices. Android has face recognition blah blah blah LOL (tech nonsense)

Anyhoo, this it's all irrelevant as Oscar's iPhone was jail-broken so wasn't limited/restricted by Apple's security methods for access anyway ;-)

NB. Internet access does use data allowance if it's 3g/4g. Only Wi-Fi doesn't utilise your monthly tariff allowance x

 

[Gryffindor]

#OscarTrial Defence also plans on calling neighbor closest to Pistorius who will confirm Oscar's version that he was screaming like a girl

From @DeboraPatta Twitter

 

[Insp.Dots]

Is she the one that was tormenting RS just before that Valentine's?

http://www.2oceansvibe.com/2013/02/22/what-the-heck-is-going-on-here-tweets-express-sympathy-for-reeva-steenkamp-days-before-her-death/

No, it was allegedly ST that made disparaging comments to RS, she considered her partly to blame for her own breakdown with OP. IMO

If you looked through Twitter accounts before some Tweets were removed, it showed quite an insight into their relationship. It upset Reeva and she ended up reporting and blocking. From what I gathered OP was insecure, he had someone trying to put him off Reeva and name calling, hence the what's app comment, I am not a stripper etc. She was upset that OP was listening to any of it and not telling them to mind their own business. He was then trying to make up to her but seemed to then excuse his behaviour by saying it wasn't his fault and he had to be careful who he saw etc.....not exactly the way to instil undying love!
FWIW I think OP is a charmer, very good at gaining attention and sympathy from females, he had massive insecurities with women because he felt 'less than a man' without his legs. He played the big I am, but was totally paranoid that RS would leave him for a 2-legged hunk. He also worried that she was only with him to further her fame and career, thanks to others interference.
On the whole, he dated younger women as they were easier to impress and more likely, in his mind to be moulded by him into the perfect girlfriend.
He had it all, money, cars, guns, bikes, famous friends, adoration from millions around the world and everyone bowing to him. To the point of making excuses for inexcusable behaviour. How could anyone criticize a man who had spent his life fighting adversity, and doing so much for disabled people across the globe. All this gave him a superiority complex, he believed their hype and thought he was indestructible!
He had it all.......EXCEPT legs...deep down none of the fame, money etc could solve that inferiority and that to me is his downfall!!:jail:

 

[Gryffindor]

Just received this reply from Debora too :-D

I asked her if PT can x-examine about the bedroom door, jeans outside etc, even if the DT don't raise it.


"@Jilltweety they can examine on pretty much anything if it's relevant" (from @DeboraPatta

 

[DebinGA]

On the other hand. Botha going first and reporting on Autopsy, will just remind everyone of the horrific injuries caused by OP himself.

Interesting to note, whilst going over reports, OP seems to be one of those who have a very high vomit/gag reflex. He regularly vomit s during intense or stressful situations. So....be ready for the re-appearance of the bucket!

Any evidence OP vomitted upstairs or down at the crime scene? If not, hmm.

 

[Gryffindor]

Hi Dots, I think Val was mentioning a tweet about a week before 14th Feb, where one of Reeva's pals had said, "I want an Oscar" (meaning the award)

Reeva replied, " ok, but you can't have mine" (joking, taking the meaning as HER bloke)

A random girl then replied to Reeva, saying, "You think he's YOURS?? Oh dear, Reeves, Reeves, Reeves . . . "

 

[Cherwell]

As for the ex of roughly 5 years - Oscar wasn't at the height of his fame, wasn't the well-known, idolized Oscar Pistorius, had no reputation, image, sponsorships, deals etc to uphold. No ego at that point. He wasn't the Oscar he is today.

In fact, he'd dated Samantha for 3 years. So Oscar was with this Jenna lassie when he was about 18-23 or 17-22??

Wasn't it five years "off and on" ? Sounds as if it was quite casual.

Yes, here's the quote

‘I have dated Oscar on and off for 5 YEARS, NOT ONCE has he EVER lifted a finger to me or made me fear for my life.'

 

[Insp.Dots]

Any evidence OP vomitted upstairs or down at the crime scene? If not, hmm.

Who knows Roux did mention it, so no doubt one of the DT witnesses will say it at some point. Not that it makes any difference whatsoever in the final judgment.