Trial Discussion weekend Thread #24

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, a whole 'nother week. The longer Nel keeps him up there, the more time OP gets to make statements for Nel to dispute. And I hope your statement about dropping the charges does not happen, that would be a travesty of justice but I don't disagree with you. However, the judge may want to send a strong statement of noone being above the law. I see OP as a ticking time bomb - shooting out of cars haphazardly, shooting a dog, shooting accidentally at a restaurant, picking fights with people & having to get stitches - that I don't doubt if he "gets off" he will feel vindicated & continue his wreckless behavior & perhaps hurt someone else. Maybe the judge will see it that way too.
 
He is unable to do many things that an able bodied person can do when he does not have on his prosthetics. He is disabled made more able by gadgets but he still has a disability. Heck he even competed in the Special Olympics after the Olympics.

He was hyper vigilant about his own safety, that has been established (IMO) by past behavior, part of his defense is that his hyper vigilance comes from his feeling of vulnerability due to his disability.

BBM: I have to disagree that he was hyper vigilant about his own safety.

I think it bears repeating that he had a broken window on the first floor of his home that was not yet repaired nor boarded. He knew there were ladders lying outside and did not remove them. His security alarm had been disabled (he says). He slept with balcony doors wide open where it would have been much easier for an intruder to enter his home than thru a small bathroom window.

So no, it has not been established that he was hyper vigilant.
 
Z, is this trial big at all in D-land?

I've thought of 1 addn'l reason it might be.

Germans might be able to understand the testimony in Afrikaans, as it is a Dutch-daughter language, and Dutch and German are similar.
So big in Germany or not?

Well, Bild has covered it everyday, (except weekends) and that's the biggest newspaper here. And the Germans I know are very aware of the case. I don't know if it's the language similarity or the fact Germans are so interested in sport of all kinds (it seems to me).

http://www.bild.de/themen/personen/...terhaltung-tv-fotos-videos-28572260.bild.html

ETA: Don't even know why I said 'seems'. There are about 50 people just by my house right now, doing sport of one kind or another. With LOTS of equipment.
 
Could Oscar have been telling the truth about his assault?

While listening to testimony, I wondered why OP or earlier Roux did not bring up photos--and I recall seeing video a year ago too--of Oscar and his black eye.

Presumably from some assault. But maybe someone can check dates. What was the date of the event he was grilled by Nel on?

Here's a photo of OP with black eye. (Don't have the video handy of the charity event I saw.)

Oscar%20Pistorius-1727866.jpg
 
Would it still be as plausible for you if you knew whether he had ever had the occasion to read about a case almost identical to the one he had presented initially?

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Man-who-shot-wife-in-error-can-sympathise-with-Oscar-20140407

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.
 
That's my whole point. He has remorse and so he isn't at ease. He is remorseful because he fired the gun in error, while believing he was shooting at an intruder who was about to emerge from the bathroom.

He fired his gun in error because he heard the sound of wood moving !!!...........an imaginary made up sound that couldn't possibly have happened because we all know, as a fact (according to Oscar lol) that the door was locked the whole time and he had to smash it down.

Totally unbelievable IMO.
 
Steve, Minor, Rumpole

Managed to catch the pre case trial documentary outlining both sides. Oscar's gun firing one shot is horrifically loud, never mind 4. Louder than a plane taking off?? :O
 
In a country where armed intrusion (not just breaking an entering) are common with the same kinds of weapons, and most adults own and carry guns and use them for self-defensive purposes. Context is everything.

Are you sure that most adults in SA "own and carry guns"? See this post

Trial Discussion Thread #22 - 14.04.10, Day 22 - Page 20 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


"This trial, I believe, has a lot of people thinking gun ownership is really common in SA and it doesn't appear to be. 12 guns per 100 residents as opposed to the American 89 in 100. (England and Wales is 6 in 100, for comparison, according to 2007 statistics.)"

And Carol70 (who lives in SA) responds:
"Its true, I don't know anyone who owns a gun either in my social circle or family. Lol, if anyone does, then they clearly don't walk around with it and its not spoken of! "
 
From the German page I linked above, I noticed the old police pics of Oscar shirtless in the garage.

It's odd - and I don't know if it means anything - but on Friday OP described quite graphically how Reeva's head was on his shoulder and he could feel her blood running down. But there doesn't seem to be a trace of blood on his shoulder in the photos?
 
Are you talking about OP?
No. I meant why would Reeva give OP a gift when she was just about to dump him. It would make no sense for Reeva (who admitted to being scared sometimes of OP when he would snap at her etc) to give him a gift and then dump him. No sense at all.
 
Another point, why was Reeva dressed in her shorts & top? I think they were fighting, she was dressed to leave, & locked herself in his bathroom because she was scared of Oscar.

I had been wondering this myself all along, until this Friday when OP said he used her jeans to cover up the hifi LED, which presumably she had taken off to get ready for bed. I then realised her shorts were possibly pyjama or underwear shorts.
 
No. I meant why would Reeva give OP a gift when she was just about to dump him. It would make no sense for Reeva (who admitted to being scared sometimes of OP when he would snap at her etc) to give him a gift and then dump him. No sense at all.

Agreed. The only other scenario involving breaking up with him is when they were arguing and then she decided she was leaving him. Dont think she planned to dump him as she wanted to stay with him overnight.
 
Oscar's 'I will try Milady.'

When Nel crossed Oscar and remnded him that he has to tell the truth [etc.], the above was Ocar's reply.

Couple that with his earlier stating that he is on trial for his life [or words to that effect], together with what "try" often means, it sounds again like Oscar gives himself away.

A "standard" liar, knowing they are about to lie [or already having done so in the case] would merely say, "I will Milady."

Oscar-- if PT case is correct--also knows he has and will lie again; but thinks his wording is a clever way out or such. But it only calls attention to the inference in his reply. Meaning: I will lie if I believe I have to to save my skin.
He also said "I'll try not to lie". Yep. Try not to lie. He has to make a special effort not to lie :confused:
 
If there was an argument it was probably one of those weird spur of the moment tiffs lovers sometimes have, but as we have been told by Reeva's family that she was rather assertive, and we know OP hates to retreat, I can imagine their arguments would get very heated very quickly. Quite a bad combination of temperaments in the first place.
 
He also said "I'll try not to lie". Yep. Try not to lie. He has to make a special effort not to lie :confused:

Yes. It is very telling that he even utters that phrase as a matter of fact.

"I'll try not to lie" sort of betrays that it could be pretty common thing for him to do, IMO.
 
It's anyone's guess.

Fan's probably, Nel should be well versed in fan's as we've spent days on them already.

I can only see him generalizing that a row occurred, as there's no evidence of any merit to suggest that there was an ongoing disagreement.
He could always go for the 'lack of evidence' tactic and suggest the lack of Valentine's present from OP was a catalyst for a fight.

He's got a bit of a hill to climb to make this one stick,

IMO

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 had been wondering this myself all along, until this Friday when OP said he used her jeans to cover up the hifi LED, which presumably she had taken off to get ready for bed. I then realised her shorts were possibly pyjama or underwear shorts.

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.
 
This reminds me - how come no sex that night?! I mean, I don't want to sound wild, but they were supposed to be in the honeymoon phase, deeply in love, hormones going crazy, and they weren't living together (so that it would be more 'normal' not to engage in such activities necessarily every night :D)

This may seem irrelevant, but I see it as a further (circumstantial) evidence of a quarrel between them that night. Otherwise, I don't see them just going straight to bed and baba watching *advertiser censored* and cars, while Reeva doing yoga and watching TV/Facebook entire evening. I mean, c'mon...

Oh, yeah, and her going to bed to sleep in the SAME clothes she exercised in?! With her fresh new boyfriend. No way. Any woman would tell you that.

THANK YOU, Patagonia. Some good solid reasonable common sense also tells us that

*women expect validation that they are special on Valentine's Day. If they were not going to be together the following day, then this evening of the 13th was their lovers' celebration.

*she expected to clear the air of any lingering disagreements and express her love, maybe even telling him she loved him and wanted to work things out but he would have to knock off the jealousy and public comments because it could damage their careers.

*he was loaded on sexual performance herbs, had in addition revved up with *advertiser censored*, expected a terrific evening in bed and she ruined everything by starting a fight (his view).

*it was hot. She was most likely nude in bed (tank top being on back to front indicates haste while dressing), meaning she was most likely bugging him for makeup sex, not bugging him to show him pictures after a fight and at 3:00 in the morning.

*If he pushed her away from touching his neck when he was just a little annoyed, imagine him smacking her because she wants sex and he's exhausted and really angry with her for ruining the evening.

*She has a bloody nose and starts screaming. He slaps her to shut her up and she leaps up, crying, saying, that's it, she's calling the police, and she grabs her phone.

*He grabs the bat and threatens her, she runs from him, he chases in hot pursuit on his stumps, hitting her in the head with the cricket bat at least once, desperate to shut her up.

*She locks herself in the bedroom, he breaks the door, she is faster than he is on his stumps. She grabs her clothes, realizing she has made a big mistake and runs to the bathroom, locking herself in. She apologizes and promises she will not tell anyone...she bets him to calm down.

*He is kicking the door, but no use. He must stop that screaming so he goes for his gun.

*This is when he decides she must die or his brand is dead. He has done too much, she is bleeding and he knows at this point that she certainly will report this--she is a women's advocate-- She will ruin him.

*He starts immediately to make it look like an intruder killing by shouting "Get out of my house!" and "Reeva, call the police!" (since she might have gotten through, who knows?)

*She opens the window calling for help and he mocks her, mingling his screams with hers on the balcony.

*Then he takes his gun to the bathroom door and shoots, pausing to aim through the door, then shoots again.

*Reeva screams in mortal terror after the first shots, falls back in agony dropping her phone in the toilet, then sees him aiming again and covers her head.

*He sees through the door that her head is destroyed, so he is in no rush, calls Stander, starts arranging the room to match his story...etc. Calls NetCare but doesn't speak, so that the public will know he tried to get help for poor Reeva. Tells security everything's fine.

*Meanwhile her life is slowly slipping away and his actions after that are a combination of:

a) a sociopath trying to imitate what a feeling person might do in such circumstances, and

b) what a criminal does to cover up a crime

This is my best guess of what fits the evidence, taking into consideration the ego, oversensitivity towards any disrespect of his person or wishes, appalling lack of self-control and complete disregard for the law.
 
It's anyone's guess.

Fan's probably, Nel should be well versed in fan's as we've spent days on them already.

I can only see him generalizing that a row occurred, as there's no evidence of any merit to suggest that there was an ongoing disagreement.
He could always go for the 'lack of evidence' tactic and suggest the lack of Valentine's present from OP was a catalyst for a fight.

He's got a bit of a hill to climb to make this one stick,

IMO

Her family had a huge problem with that show. Yet another bright, beautiful young woman dead at the hands of someone who claimed to love her. :( (I don't do reasonable doubt well.) If you're interested, Soozie, but thank you for the link - I haven't seen it yet - just know of it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ni-Dewani-familys-anger-at-BBCs-Panorama.html
http://panoramabusted.wordpress.com/

(Sorry for the O/T everybody!)


There were 2 documentaries about the Dewani's. I can't remember if they were both by Panorama. The first documentary was centred on Dewani being guilty, the other being innocent. Both programmes were excellent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
141
Guests online
1,307
Total visitors
1,448

Forum statistics

Threads
599,299
Messages
18,094,101
Members
230,841
Latest member
FastRayne
Back
Top