Oscar Pistorius Defense

[shane13]

In my opinion, it's an entire list of improbabilities that have to occur to make Oscar's version possible which makes it rather impossible. On their own, each item can be debated as 'not impossible' but as the list grows it becomes less likely. That's how this case will be decided as well. Even the reasonable person test will be based on the entirety of the case. The more the subjective factors, the more the defendant should have foreseen the consequences and the less likely a putative self-defence claim being successful becomes. It isn't limited to him believing his life was in danger and whether that's reasonable or not. A great deal will be weighed to make that determination.

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

While there are many things in his affidavits that are improbale, perhaps we should focus on those that may be impossible or virtually so.

Among the witnesses that the State could have brought are the manufacturers of the 2 guns in question, and they could have stated that what OP descibed in both the Reeva killing and the Tasha's event are impossible via their guns. Maybe a physicist or two could also have addressed the issues.

So can we address what is impossible in his statements or testimony?

Or even in his other incidents too. Like the boating accident that OP claims was due to the sun getting in his eyes, when witnesses said it occurred after sundown IIRC.

 

[Greater Than]

I was just wondering how much OP's failure to determine exactly who was in the cubicle, or even try to do so, will be a factor in the final deliberations. IIRC Pistorius had no answers to Nel's questions regarding this. You'd think that when the judge and assessors are looking at the questions regarding reasonable behaviour, OP's failure to not ask (or scream) 'Who is in there?', especially as a gun-owner with a weapon and seemingly the upper hand, will be another black mark against him. Any thoughts?

I think it will be a big factor. Sean Rens from the International Firearm Training Academy testified about OP's answers on the firearm competency questionnaire:

Question: You’re at home alone, you see men jump over the wall, it’s late at night - can you shoot?
Pistorius answered: No.

Question: The men break into your house, start stealing your hifi, can you shoot?

Pistorius answered: No.

Question: The burglars become aware of you, tell you to go away. There is a gate between you and them. Can you shoot?

Pistorius answered: No.

Question: The burglars come at you with a knife and a firearm, you are not behind a gate. Can you shoot?

Pistorius answered: Yes.

On a question of the importance of target identification, Pistorius answered, “Know your target and what lies beyond.”

With regards to the legal requirements to use of lethal force, Pistorius answered, “The attack must be against you, a person and be unlawful.”

Question: In a closed book test the scenarios were again presented - can you shoot?

Pistorius answered: No, life is not in danger.

http://ewn.co.za/2014/03/17/Oscar-Pistorius-gun-dealer-testifies

BBM - He knew it was illegal to shoot at an unseen target. I think his knowledge of question #3 also damages his defense. He knew it would be unlawful to shoot if there was a gate between he and a burglar, so a door between he and an "intruder" would apply as well IMO.

 

[homegirl]

BIB. That is what he is saying now, but it does not pass the smell test. Remember that OP says the police moved the mag rack over to the blood pool and set it in the blood pool. So OPs story is the mag rack was actually close to the door on the right side wall. Crazy. He is using the wood sound of the mag rack to say the intruder was opening the toilet door to come out and kill him and Reeva in one breath, and in the next breath he is saying that he did not shoot at the wood sound behind the door (his imaginary intruder made the sound) because all of his bullets went to the left side of the WC, away from where he says the mag rack was located and where unfortunately the intruder happened to be standing. How did the intruder make the mag rack, over on the right side wall, produce a wood sound when Reeva was standing to the left side? Hmm...

Oh, and the gun accidentally fired four times too, OP never intentionally fired any of the four bullets in putative self defense, according to OP himself.

This case is about to be over, OPs defense case is not going very well.

The Defense Team says that Reeva was standing close to the door,with her right side towards it, and leaning slightly forward. To kick the magazine rack, she would have to be standing on her right leg with her left leg raised and stretched way over to the magazine rack when she was hit in the hip. OP said he shot immediately when hearing the wood move. With all of her weight on her right leg, she would have collapsed right there next to the door.

Plus, everything you said.

 

[shane13]

I think it will be a big factor. Sean Rens from the International Firearm Training Academy testified about OP's answers on the firearm competency questionnaire:



BBM - He knew it was illegal to shoot at an unseen target. I think his knowledge of question #3 also damages his defense. He knew it would be unlawful to shoot if there was a gate between he and a burglar, so a door between he and an "intruder" would apply as well IMO.

Good points.
And with the shooting expert, Nel did a great job--voiding much of OP's testimony before he even said it. Moo

 

[screecher]

...he meant only to protect himself and Reeva.

RSBM

That fundamental lie set the stage for his entire, ever-changing, lying 'versions'. But, hey. Ya know? That's who OP is.

IF "he meant only to protect himself and Reeva.", why oh why, didn't he take Reeva and himself out of the bedroom, down the stairs and out the house? AWAY from the intruder?

His premise is inherently flawed.

OP uses his weapons as an extension of his hands, and coupled with the sense of entitlement, unwillingness to control his anger and refusal to take responsibility for himself, well...he is a very dangerous individual.

What happened to Reeva, will happen again and again to others, if OP does not spend the rest of his life in prison.

 

[Greater Than]

Oscar claims that he interpreted the noise he heard as the door of the toilet opening which meant the intruder was moving further into his home in what could only reasonably be interpreted as a move of aggression, it would not be unreasonable to think that the intruder is of ill will at this point.

He should have claimed he heard or saw the door handle turn if he wanted his story to be believable. The door doesn't just rub against wood to open. With his type of door, the lever has to be depressed first. This lever will move down on the opposite side of the door which will indicate someone is opening it from the inside.

 

[Cherwell]

Reeva could have emptied her bladder before she closed/opened the window.

The time line does not make Oscar's version impossible.

The problem with that is that she would have flushed the loo. No reason not to, she knew he was awake and up. If he could allegedly hear the bathroom window sliding open, he surely would have heard the flush. Looking at the house plan, the WC is actually very close to the bed, closer than the window.

That would depend on how quickly Oscar started screaming after Reeva had emptied her bladder.

I don't understand your point. He had no reason to scream until he heard a noise. Your hypothetical order of events here would be

Reeva goes into the WC, urinates, flushes.
Reeva exits WC.
Reeva opens window.

I'm saying he would have heard the flush before the window sound.

 

[katydid23]

It is possible that Reeva opened the window and this is the first sound Oscar heard, Oscar started screaming about an intruder and for Reeva to call the police and then Reeva slammed the door, thereby making what Oscar claimed he heard not outside of the realm of possibility.

I do agree that the real question is why he interpreted the first noise as an intruder unless he truthfully believed that Reeva was in bed which again lends credibility to Oscars version of events.

If so, then why didnt Reeva call the police?

And saying he truly 'believed' that she was in bed, is not sufficient evidence for a reasonable man, upon grabbing a deadly weapon. He could not believe she was in bed, he NEEDED to verify that fact. And he never did so. He himself said that his back was always turned away from the bed and it was pitch black and she never answered his requests. So why would he believe she was in bed?

 

[Greater Than]

One could reasonably expect that if it was the first step in obeying the instructions that an intruder would announce their intentions and ask if they could come out. If I'm on the inside of a door and someone is hysterically screaming me for me to get the F* out of their house that last thing I am going to do is silently open the door and move towards that screaming person.

I'll say this if I knew an intruder was in my home and I was all that stood between them and my loved one and they decided to open a door that stood between us it would not end well for them.

BBM1 - How do we know the "intruder" (Reeva) didn't announce she was coming out, or say anything at all for that matter? The only two people who truly know are the deceased and the man who is facing a life prison sentence.

BBM2 - What if the intruder was actually holding your loved one captive behind that door but you didn't know because you didn't confirm where your loved one was before shooting?

 

[katydid23]

That would depend on how quickly Oscar started screaming after Reeva had emptied her bladder.

so u r saying he might not have heard her flush cuz he was already screaming and running down the hall?

 

[screecher]

...
I'll say this if I knew an intruder was in my home and I was all that stood between them and my loved one and they decided to open a door that stood between us it would not end well for them.

RSBM

Ah, but, the topic being OP and not you, (according to OP's version) there was a hallway and two doors between OP, Reeva and the 'intruder'. AND a free and clear way to safety for OP to take Reeva and himself to safety.

 

[BritsKate]

I find it kinda ironic that it was explained Reeva being mute was entirely reasonable because she would have been afraid of an intruder...but an 'intruder' getting caught would speak out. If it were me, I'd be petrified, and be trying to scramble out of the toilet window before verbally confronting the owner of the house I broke into who is screaming at me to get out.

 

[Viper]

Reeva could have emptied her bladder before she closed/opened the window.

The time line does not make Oscar's version impossible.

BIB. OK. Here, let OP tell you when Reeva voided her bladder! :facepalm:

Go to about the seven (7) minute mark and wait for it!

http://youtu.be/qQBha2ZCAjU

 

[homegirl]

BIB. That is what he is saying now, but it does not pass the smell test. Remember that OP says the police moved the mag rack over to the blood pool and set it in the blood pool. So OPs story is the mag rack was actually close to the door on the right side wall. Crazy. He is using the wood sound of the mag rack to say the intruder was opening the toilet door to come out and kill him and Reeva in one breath, and in the next breath he is saying that he did not shoot at the wood sound behind the door (his imaginary intruder made the sound) because all of his bullets went to the left side of the WC, away from where he says the mag rack was located and where unfortunately the intruder happened to be standing. How did the intruder make the mag rack, over on the right side wall, produce a wood sound when Reeva was standing to the left side? Hmm...

Oh, and the gun accidentally fired four times too, OP never intentionally fired any of the four bullets in putative self defense, according to OP himself.

This case is about to be over, OPs defense case is not going very well.

I didn't read carefully enough. IIRC OP said that his housekeeper kept it in the middle of the back wall (bedroom side). I think he meant centered, on the back wall, between the toilet and the shower wall. He said that when he entered the WC it was in the corner of the back wall and the right ( shower) wall. He implied that it was bumped into that corner when Reeva fell onto it. Dixon said she fell onto the left end of the rack. If it had moved when she fell on it, it would have been bumped to the left, towards the toilet, not to the right
.

I don't know why OP chose to lie about where the magazine rack was and where Reeva was. He listened to the State's evidence, despite having his fingers in his ears. Crazy is right.

 

[Greater Than]

BIB. That is what he is saying now, but it does not pass the smell test. Remember that OP says the police moved the mag rack over to the blood pool and set it in the blood pool. So OPs story is the mag rack was actually close to the door on the right side wall. Crazy. He is using the wood sound of the mag rack to say the intruder was opening the toilet door to come out and kill him and Reeva in one breath, and in the next breath he is saying that he did not shoot at the wood sound behind the door (his imaginary intruder made the sound) because all of his bullets went to the left side of the WC, away from where he says the mag rack was located and where unfortunately the intruder happened to be standing. How did the intruder make the mag rack, over on the right side wall, produce a wood sound when Reeva was standing to the left side? Hmm...

Oh, and the gun accidentally fired four times too, OP never intentionally fired any of the four bullets in putative self defense, according to OP himself.

This case is about to be over, OPs defense case is not going very well.

BBM - Which his own expert witness directly contradicted. Oops.

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

Whole testimony is made up of so many calculated absurd lies one after another which make a big bs as a whole . OP 's unluckiness is that if he avoids one single absurdity, his whole story falls apart.

A poster had mentioned that he would be a bit more credible if he had at least mentioned that tha bathroom light was on as Stipps testified. if he says the bathroom light was on , the story again fails cause the reason he couldn't see Reeva was because he was too scared to switch a light then how would he explain switching it at bathroom which is closer to the supposed intruder ?

Another point is him saying "get down " to Reeva which was inserted to the testimony . In the affidavit , Reeva was not awake and it had dawned on him when he reached the bed that it could have been Reeva in the toilet. This was so weird and needed to be tailoring . How on earth could Reeva be in bed sleeping or waiting for him after him shouting and screaming and shooting 4 bullets causing whole estate jump out of their beds? Thus of course tailoring again putting Reeva in a hiding position on the floor and comes our new get down thing so he is crawling on the floor in the pitch dark gun in hand to find Reeva.

Phew! I really am speechless with this defence ..

 

[shane13]

Whole testimony is made up of so many calculated absurd lies one after another which make a big bs as a whole . OP 's unluckiness is that if he avoids one single absurdity, his whole story falls apart.

A poster had mentioned that he would be a bit more credible if he had at least mentioned that tha bathroom light was on as Stipps testified. if he says the bathroom light was on , the story again fails cause the reason he couldn't see Reeva was because he was too scared to switch a light then how would he explain switching it at bathroom which is closer to the supposed intruder ?

Another point is him saying "get down " to Reeva which was inserted to the testimony . In the affidavit , Reeva was not awake and it had dawned on him when he reached the bed that it could have been Reeva in the toilet. This was so weird and needed to be tailoring . How on earth could Reeva be in bed sleeping or waiting for him after him shouting and screaming and shooting 4 bullets causing whole estate jump out of their beds? Thus of course tailoring again putting Reeva in a hiding position on the floor and comes our new get down thing so he is crawling on the floor in the pitch dark gun in hand to find Reeva.

Phew! I really am speechless with this defence ..

BBM: Desperation compounded by not comprehending Oscar-Speak.
I.e.,tranlation difficulty. And I am the only one, and I won't go there.

 

[Carmelita]

I don't understand your point. He had no reason to scream until he heard a noise. Your hypothetical order of events here would be

Reeva goes into the WC, urinates, flushes.
Reeva exits WC.
Reeva opens window.

I'm saying he would have heard the flush before the window sound.

I am saying that Reeva could have emptied her bladder and opened the window without flushing the toilet.

 

[Carmelita]

If so, then why didnt Reeva call the police?

And saying he truly 'believed' that she was in bed, is not sufficient evidence for a reasonable man, upon grabbing a deadly weapon. He could not believe she was in bed, he NEEDED to verify that fact. And he never did so. He himself said that his back was always turned away from the bed and it was pitch black and she never answered his requests. So why would he believe she was in bed?

I don't know why Reeva didn't call the police.

I agree with your second point as I have stated many times. He should have known for a fact where Reeva was at.

He believed she was in bed by his account because that is the last place he had knowledge of her being. He acted out of fear and panic is his claim and he made a fatal assumption that he believed to be a true fact.

 

[Carmelita]

so u r saying he might not have heard her flush cuz he was already screaming and running down the hall?

No I am saying perhaps a hot sweaty Reeva peed and before she flushed she opened a window and that she then never flushed the toilet because Oscar started screaming.