Trial Discussion weekend Thread #24

[Gryffindor]

This type of statement from Reeva is one of the reasons why I think she was breaking up with him that night. I don't see her threatening him here--change or else--just coming to the conclusion of the inevitability that their relationship won't work.



“I’m scared of u sometimes and how u snap at me and of how you will react to me,” the doomed bikini model wrote after the South African sprinter embarrassed her at a friend’s engagement party.

“I just want to love and be loved. Be happy and make someone SO happy. Maybe we can’t do that for each other.”


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...-murder-trial-article-1.1731960#ixzz2yo5NvX8U

Only thing is she'd stayed over at his house several nights since then.

 

[beach]

This type of statement from Reeva is one of the reasons why I think she was breaking up with him that night. I don't see her threatening him here--change or else--just coming to the conclusion of the inevitability that their relationship won't work.



“I’m scared of u sometimes and how u snap at me and of how you will react to me,” the doomed bikini model wrote after the South African sprinter embarrassed her at a friend’s engagement party.

“I just want to love and be loved. Be happy and make someone SO happy. Maybe we can’t do that for each other.”


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...-murder-trial-article-1.1731960#ixzz2yo5NvX8U

The part of that text you emphasized stood out to me too.

I don't think she was planning on breaking up with him that night but I do think she was starting to question herself about who he really was. IOW, the newness had started to wear off and she was seeing patterns she didn't want to see but could no longer deny existed.

 

[minor4th]

Oscar made a huge error by conceding he and Reeva(hypothetical) could have escaped the danger another way.

IMO this was the biggest gain the prosecution has made during cross examination.

 

[DebinGA]

As a reminder, these are the 13 points the state is relying on to prove murder (intent/premeditation);

THE STATE’S 13 FACTS:

1. The state relies on the evidence of a witness. During the early hours of 14 February the witness states to have heard, “talking like fighting” and a woman’s voice constantly talking. The witness formed the impression that the woman was arguing. This stopped after the shots were fired. (Merwe)

2. Two witnesses heard a woman scream before shots were fired. (Johnson and Burger)

3. Another two witnesses heard shots followed by the screams of a woman and then further shots. The screams were extinguished at the same time of the last shots. (Dr. and Mrs. Stipp)

4. Pistorius’s website activities from the time that he got home is in direct contrast to that of a loving couple spending time together. (phone/ipad data expert)

5. The amount, trajectory and grouping of the shots fired through a locked door can only be inferred to indicate a direct intention to kill the person behind the closed door. (Malenga - ballistics guy)

6. The position and condition of the gun in the bathroom. (Van Rensburg)

7. On his own version, Pistorius armed himself, walked to the bathroom and shot through the closed door without ascertaining who was behind the door or whether or not he was even faced with any danger. (Pistorius)

8. Steenkamp was clothed when she was shot. (Van Rensburg, Van Staden)

9. Steenkamp was standing upright facing the door when she was
shot. (Malenga)

10. Steenkamp had something to eat hours before she was killed. (medical examiner)

11. The presence of the cellphones in the bathroom militates against a version that Steenkamp innocently went to the toilet at the time. (Van Rensburg, Van Staden)

12. The fact and the way in which Pistorius broke down the toilet door. (Vermuelen)

13. Pistorius’s version “is not reasonably possibly true and it is our case that if rejected by the court the objective facts will prove the murder with direct intent of the deceased”. (Pistorius, legal argument)

Another very important fact is both Dr. and Mrs. Stipp are positive the bathroom light was on long before OP's tale puts him returning to the bathroom after feeling around in the dark for Reeva. Mrs. Stipp was awake several minutes before the first bangs and testified to immediately looking across to OP's house and noting the bathroom light was on.

 

[clearskies1]

Surely the size of that toilet has to come into play when it comes to intent, it is a shockingly small room, she had no chance, also firing 4 times is a big big problem for O.P.

Yes, and unless he knew that he hit his target why would he stop shooting? Why not just keep shooting and empty the gun?

MOO

 

[Chelly]

You're right. It was a text, not a call.

Thanks for that clarification. Clearly Reeva made the decision to spend the night with OP and notified Gina that she would not be returning home from Oscar's house that night.

 

[james83]

Yes, and unless he knew that he hit his target why would he stop shooting? Why not just keep shooting and empty the gun?

MOO

Yes it's a very valid point, if he was in the state of crazy fear/panic that he claims you would think he would have emptied the gun, i couldn't agree more, and it is perfectly valid to think he stopped shooting because Reeva stopped screaming, JMO.

 

[DebinGA]

Yes, and unless he knew that he hit his target why would he stop shooting? Why not just keep shooting and empty the gun?

MOO

In his last installment, OP claimed he didn't even know he was shooting, much less 4 times.

 

[molly333]

Let's say she was breaking up with him that night:
1) why bring valentine gift?
2) why cook dinner?
3) why spend the night?

1) Because she is not going to be with him on Valentine's day. [Tell me why not. They are both in town, so it is the choice of one or the other not to be together on V-day]

2)He manipulated her into cooking dinner [has to do with his 'hurdle' and she was trying to comfort him. I think Reeva still considered him a friend, just didn't want him for a boyfriend any more.]

3)Here's the rub. They got into something that night that kept her there past a reasonable hour to go home. That's what she said in her text--it's too late to safely come home. So what was it? What kept her there late into the night, leading to a shouting match at 2am and death at 3am?


Obviously if no one is buying this, it won't work for the prosecution, either. But this is what I think happened. Or, it was an accident.

 

[Fuskier]

1) Because she is not going to be with him on Valentine's day. [Tell me why not. They are both in town, so it is the choice of one or the other not to be together on V-day]

2)He manipulated her into cooking dinner [has to do with his 'hurdle' and she was trying to comfort him. I think Reeva still considered him a friend, just didn't want him for a boyfriend any more.]

3)Here's the rub. They got into something that night that kept her there past a reasonable hour to go home. That's what she said in her text--it's too late to safely come home. So what was it? What kept her there late into the night, leading to a shouting match at 2am and death at 3am?


Obviously if no one is buying this, it won't work for the prosecution, either. But this is what I think happened. Or, it was an accident.

Clue from Reeva: That's what she said in her text--it's too late to safely come home.

 

[Gryffindor]

Yes it's a very valid point, if he was in the state of crazy fear/panic that he claims you would think he would have emptied the gun, i couldn't agree more, and it is perfectly valid to think he stopped shooting because Reeva stopped screaming, JMO.

Then his charge would have been dolus directus. . . ?

 

[clearskies1]

In his last installment, OP claimed he didn't even know he was shooting, much less 4 times.

True, but based on his other testimony --protecting Reeva, thought he heard a noise behind toilet door -- seems he's really saying he shot in self-defense. But I get your point.
JMO

 

[DebinGA]

True, but based on his other testimony --protecting Reeva, thought he heard a noise behind toilet door -- seems he's really saying he shot in self-defense. But I get your point.
JMO

I'm pretty sure claiming both self-defense and accident won't fly.

 

[molly333]

The part of that text you emphasized stood out to me too.

I don't think she was planning on breaking up with him that night but I do think she was starting to question herself about who he really was. IOW, the newness had started to wear off and she was seeing patterns she didn't want to see but could no longer deny existed.

Yes, and he completely denies any problems on the stand. I can't remember exactly what he said but along the lines of --these texts were just two people learning about each other, it was nothing serious, we had it straightened out the next day, etc.

well, it sounds serious to me. Reeva is thinking out loud in that text, and what she is thinking is not in his favor, long term.

 

[kittychi]

Do you recall how much time lapsed between the murder and the blood test?

He was not taken to hospital for toxicology until late morning or early afternoon on the 14th. Many hours after Reeva was killed.

I don't have an explicit link, all I could find was this:http://bigstory.ap.org/article/pistorius-involved-shooting-home-woman-dead-0

'Hours later after undergoing police questioning, Pistorius left a police station accompanied by officers. He looked down as photographers snapped pictures, the hood on his gray workout jacket pulled up, covering most of his face.'

He had come from an afternoon party. I have always thought alcohol was a catalyst in his actions, it is the only thing that makes sense to me that he would so quickly and irrationally go off into a rage.

I would chalk it up again to police ineptness that a blood alcohol test was not done immediately.

 

[Fuskier]

Surely the size of that toilet has to come into play when it comes to intent, it is a shockingly small room, she had no chance, also firing 4 times is a big big problem for O.P.

Agree firing 4 times plus using 'Black Talon' bullets designed to do maximum damage.

 

[K.T]

As a reminder, these are the 13 points the state is relying on to prove murder (intent/premeditation);

THE STATE’S 13 FACTS:

1. The state relies on the evidence of a witness. During the early hours of 14 February the witness states to have heard, “talking like fighting” and a woman’s voice constantly talking. The witness formed the impression that the woman was arguing. This stopped after the shots were fired. (Merwe)

2. Two witnesses heard a woman scream before shots were fired. (Johnson and Burger)

3. Another two witnesses heard shots followed by the screams of a woman and then further shots. The screams were extinguished at the same time of the last shots. (Dr. and Mrs. Stipp)

4. Pistorius’s website activities from the time that he got home is in direct contrast to that of a loving couple spending time together. (phone/ipad data expert)

5. The amount, trajectory and grouping of the shots fired through a locked door can only be inferred to indicate a direct intention to kill the person behind the closed door. (Malenga - ballistics guy)

6. The position and condition of the gun in the bathroom. (Van Rensburg)

7. On his own version, Pistorius armed himself, walked to the bathroom and shot through the closed door without ascertaining who was behind the door or whether or not he was even faced with any danger. (Pistorius)

8. Steenkamp was clothed when she was shot. (Van Rensburg, Van Staden)

9. Steenkamp was standing upright facing the door when she was
shot. (Malenga)

10. Steenkamp had something to eat hours before she was killed. (medical examiner)

11. The presence of the cellphones in the bathroom militates against a version that Steenkamp innocently went to the toilet at the time. (Van Rensburg, Van Staden)

12. The fact and the way in which Pistorius broke down the toilet door. (Vermuelen)

13. Pistorius’s version “is not reasonably possibly true and it is our case that if rejected by the court the objective facts will prove the murder with direct intent of the deceased”. (Pistorius, legal argument)

Nope. I'm on a mb, in brief.

1. Most important is Pistorius' inconsistencies in his versions are increasingly throwing doubt on his credibility.

2. His latest testimony has shown him to be the aggressor. Including the type of ammunition, size of toilet cubicle, multiple shots and especially Sean Rens' testimony, some legal experts think there's already argument for dolus directus.

Etc.

Well see what happens today

 

[kittychi]

Have now looked at the photo taken at OP's that morning showing Reeva's head wound and concluded that it's a different top. It has a much higher neckline.

I have looked at it too and I don't think you can determine how high the neckline is in the security photo.

It is a stretchy fabric and you cannot tell from the top in evidence how high the neckline is until someone puts it on.

 

[Gryffindor]

He was not taken to hospital for toxicology until late morning or early afternoon on the 14th. Many hours after Reeva was killed.

I don't have an explicit link, all I could find was this:http://bigstory.ap.org/article/pistorius-involved-shooting-home-woman-dead-0

'Hours later after undergoing police questioning, Pistorius left a police station accompanied by officers. He looked down as photographers snapped pictures, the hood on his gray workout jacket pulled up, covering most of his face.'

He had come from an afternoon party. I have always thought alcohol was a catalyst in his actions, it is the only thing that makes sense to me that he would so quickly and irrationally go off into a rage.

I would chalk it up again to police ineptness that a blood alcohol test was not done immediately.

Though he'd driven home

 

[james83]

Then his charge would have been dolus directus. . . ?

That is what he is charged with.