Trial Discussion weekend Thread #24

[Deleted member 102539]

Lead story in the SA Sunday Times today (title: Oscar IS a liar)

In some of the most sensational exchanges in South African legal history, murder accused Oscar Pistorius was repeatedly accused of lying during cross examination by pit bull prosecutor Gerrie Nel this week.

Now the Sunday Times can reveal the lies Pistorius told this newspaper just weeks before that fatal Valentine ’s Day last year.

The athlete was so obsessed with maintaining his squeaky clean public image and lucrative sponsorship deals that he repeatedly lied to try to cover up an assault during December 2012, for which he had to receive medical attention.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/20...ied-about-reputation-after-altercations-reeva
[modsnip]

Thank you for that!!!
I would say: OMG!!!

 

[Emz73]

But he chose to be disabled when he went to confront intruder. Can't give him a lesser burden if he chose to do that.

Oh also means he is not hyper vigilant to his own safety.

Exactly. In a few "seconds" OP is FASTER, has more STAMINA, is STRONGER than the AVERAGE male.
Plus he had a powerful GUN, a cricket BAT and SECURITY GUARDs in a phone calls reach.

And that's a disadvantage?? He did make that choice.

 

[Bazinga]

I can't imagine OP prancing around on his stumps having a prolonged argument with Reeva. I think he would be too self conscious and embarrassed. It appears to me that he feels like half a man without his prosthetics, which is understandable, but could be a dangerous frame of mind to live in.

I think there was an argument. I also think in an argument OP would put his legs on, to be taller and I feel his talk of embarrassment about his legs rings true. I've wondered if Reeva locked Oscar out of the bedroom at first. His legs were in the bedroom and iPads etc. He bashed the door and forced it open. I wonder if reeva then ran to the toilet with his legs. It could explain his fury and why he was still on his stumps and also the damage to his prosthetic legs. I think Reeva never phoned police because she underestimated Oscar.

 

[Zinn]

I admit, I was kinda wishing that one of those wounds on RS' back had been verified as from a pellet matching one in OP's air rifle. Perhaps if the defense raises enough doubt about whether it could have come from the magazine rack the prosecution can float that theory? :/

That's an interesting thought. Given the damage to the bedroom door, I've wondered if Reeva may have initially locked herself in the bedroom suite before retreating further into the bathroom. A shot through the door could certainly cause someone to retreat further.

I'm also still wondering if there might be a connection between the back injury and the hair clipper.

Here's a screenshot Websleuths member Lisa Salinger posted on her excellent blog: http://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/zoom-of-floor2.png

It seems strange to me that a hair clipper would be found next to the bed, but OP mentioned he sometimes charges it there. I'm wondering if it could be associated with the "tram track" striation pattern in the injury on Reeva's back. Could she have fallen out of bed onto it, for instance? Or could there be a relationship between the clipper, the back injury, and the blood found on the duvet and the wall near the bed? IIRC, Roux specifically mentioned the injury to her back didn't remove the hair from the skin. It was not in the context of the injury being related to the clipper, but I find that interesting.

As always, all of the above is just my opinion.

 

[Emz73]

Is that the one that said something about ---on Valentines, blah blah blah, and if you get the chance shoot your gf 4 times--- the evening of the 13th?

Not sure. But she's still at now. Many confront her but she doesn't care. She HATES reeva. Very strange. She seems to know Gina etc too. They ignore her.

 

[soozieqtips]

I don't see the reasoning that Nel should go 'easy' on OP because OP isn't used to being treated unkindly! Tough. OP was used to treating other people unkindly. Reeva was murdered because of him! Nel wouldn't be doing his job properly if he was to treat OP with kid gloves. I think some are forgetting the horror Reeva must have endured while locked in that small toilet scared for her life. If Nel was treating OP that badly, the Judge or his DT would have stepped in by now, but strangely enough they've been very quiet, apart from Roux questioning something about the jeans on the duvet and a cable near the speaker cabinet, and the Judge admonishing Nel for calling OP a liar. And that appears to be down to Judge discretion, because Nel has called people pathological liars before and not been reprimanded for it. Those who want justice to be seen to be done for Reeva should not be mocking and ridiculing Nel for doing his job - while commending Roux for doing the same thing (and making an innocent witness cry - a witness who hadn't committed murder, by the way).

 

[Suthrnqt]

Lead story in the SA Sunday Times today (title: Oscar IS a liar)

In some of the most sensational exchanges in South African legal history, murder accused Oscar Pistorius was repeatedly accused of lying during cross examination by pit bull prosecutor Gerrie Nel this week.

Now the Sunday Times can reveal the lies Pistorius told this newspaper just weeks before that fatal Valentine ’s Day last year.

The athlete was so obsessed with maintaining his squeaky clean public image and lucrative sponsorship deals that he repeatedly lied to try to cover up an assault during December 2012, for which he had to receive medical attention.[modsnip]http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2014/04/13/oscar-was-worried-about-reputation-after-altercations-reeva

I wonder how many other lies have been told by OP??

 

[weeeva]

No and there is no proof that he did that at all. OP claims that he did that. OP lies. At one point yesterday OP claimed that he whispered to Reeva to get down and phone police. Then he turned around and said that he spoke softly to Reeva to get down and phone police. Then he turned around and said he never said he whispered to Reeva, he just spoke softly.

OP also lied about the Tasha's incident. The gun did not, in any way form or fashion, go off by itself while HE was holding it. OP clearly had to pull the trigger yet he still claimed over and over and over and over again that his finger was not on the trigger or anywhere near the trigger.

To take something that OP says as the truth without questioning it is, IMO, foolish.

MOO

No offence Toris, but is that not splitting hairs? To say in one sentence that he whispered and in another sentence that he spoke softly, in my mind is not lying.
If he said he had spoke in a normal voice or a raised voice then said he had whispered, that to me would be a lie.
As for the gun charges I believe he is guilty and has make a complete fool of himself by denying it.

 

[Val1]

Yes his story would still be as plausible for me if I knew he was aware of the case you are referring too. If the story of the man in the other case was plausible why would OP's story not be plausible too?
There would be a doubt there for me to consider, but I would have no proof that OP was using this man's story to cover his own tracks.

The reason I posted that link is because you didn't think OP could think up a story that fast, the case in that link is the story OP used, almost word for word.

I'm fairly confident that if OP keeps up with the news at all in his part of the world, I have no reason to think otherwise, he would have read or heard about it and for sure his defense team would have.

Our memory under stress can pop out with the most amazing information so it's not surprising to me, especially when "intruders" has been his fallback reason for fear for so much of his life, that a story like that would come to the fore in a crisis. Imho.

 

[Val1]

No offence Toris, but is that not splitting hairs? To say in one sentence that he whispered and in another sentence that he spoke softly, in my mind is not lying.
If he said he had spoke in a normal voice or a raised voice then said he had whispered, that to me would be a lie.
As for the gun charges I believe he is guilty and has make a complete fool of himself by denying it. Does that make me less of fool because I agree with you?

Lol, you missed the point of that post, he said he whispered, then he said he didn't say he said he whispered.

 

[Murphys_Law]

There's been suggestions that they were his jeans, not hers. IDK.

and as has been mentioned more than once, it seems odd that she would be wearing anything in bed on a hot night, let alone clothes she had either been wearing earlier or exercising in. With a fairly new boyfriend, whom she didn't live with, and didn't see every day? Nah.

At 1:03:30 of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBvvA4cL5Zc
We pick up the exchange about the jeans:

Nel: ... and whose jeans were those?
OP: Those were Reeva's jeans, My Lady.

Nel appeared a bit surprized by the answer and noted it in his binder.

Why in h3ll would Reeva's jeans be:
a) inside out!!; and
b) on the floor a meter from the stereo cabinet (which is where OP said the jeans were just before he picked them up)?

If they were Reeva's jeans, and if she had been wearing them -- did he rip them off of her? I just can't believe undressing under normal circumstances would result in the jeans being inside out and tossed toward the foot of the bed and within a metre of the stereo system.

 

[soozieqtips]

The reason I posted that link is because you didn't think OP could think up a story that fast, the case in that link is the story OP used, almost word for word.

I'm fairly confident that if OP keeps up with the news at all in his part of the world, I have no reason to think otherwise, he would have read or heard about it and for sure his defense team would have.

Our memory under stress can pop out with the most amazing information so it's not surprising to me, especially when "intruders" has been his fallback reason for fear for so much of his life, that a story like that would come to the fore in a crisis. Imho.

When Nel asked OP why he didn't take Reeva to the closest exit, the bedroom door - OP said "I don't know". His whole defence is built around his extreme vulnerability and fear of intruders. Yet his actions throughout his life have shown him to be extremely confrontational. That Nel is bringing up all these examples where OP has confronted situations in which truly vulnerable people would not have, just shows how weak his defence is. Oh, and for OP to say it wasn't his 'personality' to walk away (or words to that effect) again shows he's no shrinking violet when it comes to facing danger head on. And the occasion when OP was 'almost' shot at, but can't recall who he called to collect him, or who took him to collect his car the next day?!! Surprised that one of his family or friends hasn't backed up this story. His family and friends must all be watching the trial, so whoever he called knows who they are!!!

 

[Val1]

That's an interesting thought. Given the damage to the bedroom door, I've wondered if Reeva may have initially locked herself in the bedroom suite before retreating further into the bathroom. A shot through the door could certainly cause someone to retreat further.

I'm also still wondering if there might be a connection between the back injury and the hair clipper.

Here's a screenshot Websleuths member Lisa Salinger posted on her excellent blog: http://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/zoom-of-floor2.png

It seems strange to me that a hair clipper would be found next to the bed, but OP mentioned he sometimes charges it there. I'm wondering if it could be associated with the "tram track" striation pattern in the injury on Reeva's back. Could she have fallen out of bed onto it, for instance? Or could there be a relationship between the clipper, the back injury, and the blood found on the duvet and the wall near the bed? IIRC, Roux specifically mentioned the injury to her back didn't remove the hair from the skin. It was not in the context of the injury being related to the clipper, but I find that interesting.

As always, all of the above is just my opinion.

Who knows.. it seems smooth as a baby's behind is all the rage these days for both young men and women, perhaps they were grooming each other and someone got nicked...

 

[Val1]

When Nel asked OP why he didn't take Reeva to the closest exit, the bedroom door - OP said "I don't know". His whole defence is built around his extreme vulnerability and fear of intruders. Yet his actions throughout his life have shown him to be extremely confrontational. That Nel is bringing up all these examples where OP has confronted situations in which truly vulnerable people would not have, just shows how weak his defence is. Oh, and for OP to say it wasn't his 'personality' to walk away (or words to that effect) again shows he's no shrinking violet when it comes to facing danger head on. And the occasion when OP was 'almost' shot at, but can't recall who he called to collect him, or who took him to collect his car the next day?!! Surprised that one of his family or friends hasn't backed up this story. His family and friends must all be watching the trial, so whoever he called knows who they are!!!

Careful, you're falling into the rabbit hole... Start again, who said what?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I think the problem I'm having with that notion is that although OP may be, at least verbally, blaming himself for things, he is not accepting that blame.

There is a difference, you can usually tell it by the "but" or "if only" that follows. Right now all I see is OP playing the victim and trying to avoid any penalty for what he has done.

"She told me he pushed her a bit into a corner. She felt caged in. I told her I would talk to him. I told him not to force himself on her. Back off.
"He agreed, but his face showed me what he was thinking: 'Oh, this guy is talking nonsense'."

Mr Myers described his anger when he heard about Reeva's death, and that it was Pistorius who had killed her.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...as-told-to-back-off-from-Reeva-Steenkamp.html

 

[soozieqtips]

Careful, you're falling into the rabbit hole... Start again, who said what?

I can't remember Milady :laugh:

 

[BritsKate]

How do we know they didn't? Do we know that? He said he opened it on her birthday so it must have been passed along to him, they may have looked at it before he ever got it...

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk

I'm still catching up but I think this is really important to mention - he got her birthday wrong.


Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[DebinGA]

There's been suggestions that they were his jeans, not hers. IDK.

and as has been mentioned more than once, it seems odd that she would be wearing anything in bed on a hot night, let alone clothes she had either been wearing earlier or exercising in. With a fairly new boyfriend, whom she didn't live with, and didn't see every day? Nah.

Very early on a SA police spokesman was quoted saying RS's clothing would be a very important part of the case, as she had "nighties" there but wasn't wearing them when killed.

 

[Really?]

Well I guess Nel's method is working then as OP isn't thinking themselves better out of tricky situations. In fact for OP it is going downhill, maybe coz his brain needs to think about all the versions and all the other witness testimonies and also think how his answer affects Nels next question.

Heck, he even said he has to "think" about how to answer a question as to not incriminate himself....wth. Lol

 

[Deleted member 102539]

No offence Toris, but is that not splitting hairs? To say in one sentence that he whispered and in another sentence that he spoke softly, in my mind is not lying.
Not lying but completely unnecessary and only been told to gloss over something else?
If he said he had spoke in a normal voice or a raised voice then said he had whispered, that to me would be a lie.
As for the gun charges I believe he is guilty and has make a complete fool of himself by denying it.

.....