Oscar Pistorius Defense

[lithgow1]

re: those lies, on lies, on lies... do you think it is possible that, in his desire to have done 'nothing', he has even destroyed the defence of an horrific accident?

IMO he may well have. Many commentators say it was misguided to plead not guilty to the lesser firearms charges, especially the Tasha's incident, and the inconsistencies and tailoring of testimony on the murder charge cannot help him in any way I can see.

It was interesting that a poster the other day said that Kelly Phelps (CNN SA legal person) stated that the defence would be addressing the 'miracle' gunshot. That should be interesting. Ms Phelps is so obviously pro-Pistorius though that I tend to discount her. She claimed that Mr Dixon's testimony was fine as it was just laying a foundation for the experts to follow and never once acknowledged how discredited his testimony was and thus how shaky a fiundation he had laid.

 

[BritsKate]

re: those lies, on lies, on lies... do you think it is possible that, in his desire to have done 'nothing', he has even destroyed the defence of an horrific accident?

Absolutely! The way the reasonable person test works is based on what a theoretical reasonable person in the same circumstances can foresee and what they do to avoid the same consequences. So, the choice of gun, not getting a visual assessment of Reeva, the choice of ammunition, Reeva never saying a word to him and him not questioning that, and so much more because of his testimony, now get added to the mixing pot. Some people seem to think if he says he's afraid that's enough to establish a putative self-defence. It isn't even close. The more factors added to the mixing pot of a reasonable person, the more the defendant should have foreseen. This is the way murder, dolus eventualis is determined to as far as I can tell.

All that said though, I think he sank his own claim to putative the very second he uttered 'I didn't intend to shoot anyone'. I know it's been argued OP doesn't know the law well and didn't understand it's implications. I tend to believe OP has a great understanding of the law but his own ego supersedes such knowledge. He didn't say it once - he said repeatedly he didn't even so much as intend to shoot - but putative requires some intent to defend oneself. He just can't have it both ways. I'm not an attorney though so I'm waiting to see how that all plays out in the Judge's decision.

(I don't believe Roux will argue involuntary as a defence because the burden on the defendant is overwhelming. It's very difficult to prove. I think Roux will still attempt the only thing he can - putative self-defence. And I personally believe it will fail.)

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

Indeed I agree with you. but that's not in his affidavit or plea. We were trying to see that might actually be true in his statements.

That "get the Fvck outta my house' was screamed out for the purpose of "sounding like a woman."

It will be interesting to see if Roux and Co let that be the only time they get into that or if--as promised--they will try to present "proof' as Roux earlier claimed.

Do you think DT will present some [more] evidence of this?

I expect one more uninspired attempt ..not sure how i can swallow another one though

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Indeed I agree with you. but that's not in his affidavit or plea. We were trying to see that might actually be true in his statements.

That "get the Fvck outta my house' was screamed out for the purpose of "sounding like a woman."

It will be interesting to see if Roux and Co let that be the only time they get into that or if--as promised--they will try to present "proof' as Roux earlier claimed.

Do you think DT will present some [more] evidence of this?

Thanks.
You would think they would have to try and make sure the screams heard could be OP's if they don't surely it would be very difficult for the judge to ignore the independent witness testimony of a female screaming for quite a while .
Even his description of his screaming doesn't really gel well with the witness statements . A lot of his noise was actually shouting not screaming and there is a big difference between the two ?

 

[shane13]

I wonder how many people saw the TV show, “The Practise” about a DT?

They were known in Boston for strongly defending the worst alleged offenders—including murderers, serial killers, drug dealers.

They had their infamous “Plan B”.that was if they were desperate, they’d pin the murder on someone they knew had little or no evidence did it. Sometimes this was the spouse or brother etc of the alleged killer. (Shockingly sometimes it did pan out that way—to their own surprise.)

There are actually numerous parallels with Roux and Oldwage--and this case.
In one episode, one of the DT’s old law school prof. was tried for shooting several times—might have been the whole clip—at someone who was stalking him.

The lead atty interviewed a ballistics expert who first said, the semi would need to have its trigger pulled each time, and he could not say otherwise.

The lead atty then said, “We are going to find a ballstics expert who will say that in his fear, the prof.’s hand was jerking, and that while he intended to pull the trigger only once, it was his hand jerking in fear that was responsible for the subsequent shots. Could you be that ballistics expert?"

And that expert, in his Dixonian best, said, “Yeah I think so.”

 

[shane13]

Thanks.
You would think they would have to try and make sure the screams heard could be OP's if they don't surely it would be very difficult for the judge to ignore the independent witness testimony of a female screaming for quite a while .
Even his description of his screaming doesn't really gel well with the witness statements . A lot of his noise was actually shouting not screaming and there is a big difference between the two ?

I think he felt he needed to do a 2nd set of "helps' because he knew how bad his first one was fitting in with my schadenfeude/sadism theory of him rejoicing at her fear and suffering.

So IMO, his second set of 'help, help, help' is also meant to confuse and confound regarding his first mocking set of "help, help, help.'

 

[shane13]

I expect one more uninspired attempt ..not sure how i can swallow another one though

M.S.:
You have to watch further proceedings after taking these pills.
They may be available generically, but I gave them their brand name:

Damnitol.

 

[lithgow1]

That was a timely post shane13 in that it touches on something I've been wondering about. It's my understanding that a defence attorney cannot knowingly lie in court on behalf of a client. If that's the case, does that mean that OP has told his attorneys the same story he is now telling in court and we are all discussing? So, they take his story and then attempt to build the best defence around that without knowing either way if he is being truthful or not?

Thanks a lot in advance for any info re this.

 

[kittychi]

Indeed I agree with you. but that's not in his affidavit or plea. We were trying to see that might actually be true in his statements.

That "get the Fvck outta my house' was screamed out for the purpose of "sounding like a woman."

It will be interesting to see if Roux and Co let that be the only time they get into that or if--as promised--they will try to present "proof' as Roux earlier claimed.

Do you think DT will present some [more] evidence of this?

LOL, as I said on a previous thread: If they replicate that in court and witnesses identify it as what they heard, I will give everyone on this board $100 US.

So in answer to your question, Shane: "No."

:winkaway: :scream:

 

[BritsKate]

Thanks.
You would think they would have to try and make sure the screams heard could be OP's if they don't surely it would be very difficult for the judge to ignore the independent witness testimony of a female screaming for quite a while .
Even his description of his screaming doesn't really gel well with the witness statements . A lot of his noise was actually shouting not screaming and there is a big difference between the two ?

The problem for the defence goes a lot deeper (to borrow a variant of Shane's phrase ) than just a woman screaming, even if they put forth a recording to suggest Oscar screams like a woman.

We're still left with: no reference of how the woman screaming blood-curdling screams sounded that night (as you said); a man yelling intermingled with the woman screaming; that man yelling before the bangs at 3:17 (according to Burger and Johnson, whose testimony OP must concede as he attempts to explain what they heard); that the nearest neighbours heard no screaming; Roux attempting to explain OP screaming during the second set of bangs (he was screaming and shouting while breaking down the door in his version) yet once he gets through he stops screaming on seeing Reeva as he doesn't see the 'point'; and that, according to the defence timeline, Oscar would have had to have been shouting and screaming, like a man and a woman, for approximately 10-15 minutes before those second bangs. Assuming they can pull this off, they still have to explain why OP left Reeva laying on the toilet floor for at least 8 minutes before calling netcare, after calling Stander, and how the heck she defied all medical probability to stay alive for more than 10 minutes to die on the floor downstairs.

(I've tried really hard to give the defence the benefit of the doubt but the timeline of those screams as a whole is just so illogical it defies rationale.)

 

[shane13]

That was a timely post shane13 in that it touches on something I've been wondering about. It's my understanding that a defence attorney cannot knowingly lie in court on behalf of a client. If that's the case, does that mean that OP has told his attorneys the same story he is now telling in court and we are all discussing? So, they take his story and then attempt to build the best defence around that without knowing either way if he is being truthful or not?

Thanks a lot in advance for any info re this.

Well Lithgow, what an atty can or should do [by law and ethics of their profession] and what he or she actually does may not be the same thing.

Did you read my "Full Logic of taking the 5th phone"? And of course the fact that the DT had it for 16 days. W.O. Botha in testimony and interviews seems to have made it clear that either Carl or Oldwage took--and was given--the 5th phone.

Some def. attys are either so fearful or so disinterested, that it's like having the Pros for your own atty.

OTOH, I had a close friend for many years who was a defense atty.
Heard many things from him.

One tale he told me went like this.
He spoke with the D.A. on a case involving his client who had not yet been arrested.

The Pros told him he was about to arrest my friend's client.
My friend then called up his client.

Went like this; "I just had a lovely conversation with the prosecutor. Then some inanities. Ya know Joe, i just saw the weather forecast for here. It is about to get really bad here--the weather.

I just happended to also see the forecast for Puerto Rico and Cuba. Surprisingly great weather there is forecast."

Client fled.

What laws or ethics are on the books, and what really happens...

And I did not now get into the really big picture which this case does intersect with. ["This one runs deep."]

Estelle from Australia posted 2x on something re the Pistorious family last year.


I will leave it to her to repost.

 

[james83]

I don't believe he can scream anything like a woman, because if he could i'm pretty sure a recording would have been played to the witness's when they were being cross examined, probably alongside a recording of an actual woman screaming, it would have been pretty effective to get a witness to concede that the scream's sounded similar.

 

[homegirl]

I remember reading from a few people on here that they thought OP said he sat ON the toilet seat to move her, but I don't believe he did. This is what I got after I listened to the testimony a few times:




Oscar crouched down over Reeva and put his left arm underneath her right arm and checked to see if she was breathing or had a pulse. He didn’t feel that she did so he pulled her on top of him. At that point he heard her breathing so he immediately tried to pick her up and get her out.

He wasn’t able to pick her up so he scuffled around with his legs which he theorizes is how the magazine rack got moved, he may have kicked it. At this point he was seated against the left hand part of the door frame inside the toilet room with Reeva’s weight on top of him. He managed to turn her around and get her on the ground.

He placed her half way between the toilet room and the frame. (this is presumably where there is a pool of blood seen just outside the toilet door.)

He was trying to pick her up but he couldn’t. He then moved her in to the bathroom.

If you discover that I have this wrong let me know and I can go back and correct it. Thanks

P.S. No way did he scuffle around that toilet room. The blood pool and droplets do not indicate any struggle inside that room. I believe he walked in, lifted her head off the bowl and got her out.

Lisa, first, Thank You for your incredibly marvelous blog. It is truly amazing. I don't know how you do it. I refer to it constantly.

I think the Op version you talk about here is the last one he told. I remember him saying on direct that, when he got into the WC, She wasn't breathing. Sob, sob, howl". Then court adjourned for the day because OP's shirt was wet or something.

I remember him saying all of the following at some time or another. I sat over her.(This was probably where the idea that he sat on the toilet seat came from.) / I pulled her onto me. I sat on my bum, holding her, crying./ I don't now how long I sat there./ I heard her struggling to breath.
Then what you said.

BBM Agreed, there is no sign that he scuffled around in there and no sign that
he sat anywhere. And don't forget that he supposedly knocked the plank from the door into the WC. It should have been there at this time in his version, but of course, I couldn't have been.

I wrote a long post about it in thread #32 , page 20, post 496. I don't know if you saw it. I am going to repost it in the thread about the doors, along with part 2 (not posted yet).

I read something on your blog about that plank being where it should be, if he has knocked it inwards, but couldn't find it again when I looked for it. I would appreciate your opinion on this. I have thought a lot about it.

I did not include the plank in my graphic because it was getting kind of crowded in there, and I didn't want to confuse the issue. Here is a depiction of just the final position/per OP, with the magazine rack in the right corner, and the plank laying as found by the police-lying on top of the blood trail.

 

[lithgow1]

Thanks a lot for taking the time with that explanation. As you say what the law is and what happens in reality may not be the same. In fact it sounds like they can be quite separate. So in a way, it seems the defence could always cover their a's by reverting to 'well my client told me that was the truth and so I repeated it. I didn't know he was lying' or something like that.

It would be fascinating I reckon to have been able to listen in to Pistorius and his lawyers, particularly after OP blamed them for ommissions etc when he was on the stand. I get the impression he would be a 'difficult' client. But he has money so ....

I did read your posts re the fifth phone - it sounds very dodgy. It will also be interesting to see what comes out if/when either of the Standers takes the stand.

 

[crasshopper]

The problem for the defence goes a lot deeper (to borrow a variant of Shane's phrase ) than just a woman screaming, even if they put forth a recording to suggest Oscar screams like a woman.

We're still left with: no reference of how the woman screaming blood-curdling screams sounded that night (as you said); a man yelling intermingled with the woman screaming; that man yelling before the bangs at 3:17 (according to Burger and Johnson, whose testimony OP must concede as he attempts to explain what they heard); that the nearest neighbours heard no screaming; Roux attempting to explain OP screaming during the second set of bangs (he was screaming and shouting while breaking down the door in his version) yet once he gets through he stops screaming on seeing Reeva as he doesn't see the 'point'; and that, according to the defence timeline, Oscar would have had to have been shouting and screaming, like a man and a woman, for approximately 10-15 minutes before those second bangs. Assuming they can pull this off, they still have to explain why OP left Reeva laying on the toilet floor for at least 8 minutes before calling netcare, after calling Stander, and how the heck she defied all medical probability to stay alive for more than 10 minutes to die on the floor downstairs.

(I've tried really hard to give the defence the benefit of the doubt but the timeline of those screams as a whole is just so illogical it defies rationale.)

ITA, however, I just want to point out in case anyone is confused, I don't think Reeva was alive after the shot to the brain. All I have said is that her heart could have kept beating...weakly or erratically until he got her to the top of the stairwell...which possibly took OP all of 5 minutes.

Great post!

I hope someone from Nel's team peruses our board!

 

[shane13]

Thanks a lot for taking the time with that explanation. As you say what the law is and what happens in reality may not be the same. In fact it sounds like they can be quite separate. So in a way, it seems the defence could always cover their a's by reverting to 'well my client told me that was the truth and so I repeated it. I didn't know he was lying' or something like that.

It would be fascinating I reckon to have been able to listen in to Pistorius and his lawyers, particularly after OP blamed them for ommissions etc when he was on the stand. I get the impression he would be a 'difficult' client. But he has money so ....

I did read your posts re the fifth phone - it sounds very dodgy. It will also be interesting to see what comes out if/when either of the Standers takes the stand.

Yes, and perhaps the key point in my piece on the full logic of taking the 5th phone from the crime scene, is that whoever did so and the probable top cop who gave it, had to know they would get away with it. Which has been borne out.

Likewise SA, despite Constitutional guarantee of Freedom of the Press--or in this case, the most crucial evidence, is kept from the people and a "packet' is ordered by the judge to be made up by someone.

So laws, even Consitutional laws are abrogated here...

This one runs very deep.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Well Lithgow, what an atty can or should do [by law and ethics of their profession] and what he or she actually does may not be the same thing.

Did you read my "Full Logic of taking the 5th phone"? And of course the fact that the DT had it for 16 days. W.O. Botha in testimony and interviews seems to have made it clear that either Carl or Oldwage took--and was given--the 5th phone.

Some def. attys are either so fearful or so disinterested, that it's like having the Pros for your own atty.

OTOH, I had a close friend for many years who was a defense atty.
Heard many things from him.

One tale he told me went like this.
He spoke with the D.A. on a case involvong his client who had not yet been arrested.

The Pros told him he was about to arrest my friend's client.
My friend then called up his client.

Went like this; "I just had a lovely conversation with the prosecutor. Then some inanities. Ya know Joe, i just saw the weather forecast for here. It is about to get really bad here--the weather.

I just happended to also see the forecast for Puerto Rico and Cuba. Surprisingly great weather there is forecast."

Client fled.

What laws or ethics are on the books, and what really happens...

And I did not now get into the really big picture which this case does intersect with. ["This one runs deep."]

Estelle from Australia posted 2x on something re the Pistorious family last year.


I will leave it to her to repost.

I have been thinking about the phone again today . I may be wrong but I thought there maybe testimony to the fact that Clarisa Stander made calls on behalf of OP ? Was there some suggestion that it was put on charge in the kitchen afterwards ?
If that is the case and it was last thought to be in her possession last you would think the prosecution would want to have called her to give evidence rather than rely on the defence calling her and then being able to cross examine her unless they may be waiting until the trial is over before taking action if any about the missing phone.
Is the judge likely to take the missing phone into account when judging the defence case overall and in particular OP believability ? Or as it does not appear to have been investigated will she disregard its removal from the scene
entirely ?

 

[DebinGA]

OP claimed he found Reeva sitting on the WC floor, not resting on the magazine rack. Dixon helpfully provided proof that that was a provable lie. OP claimed the bathroom/passage were dark before the shooting and for some minutes afterwards. Dr. and Mrs. Stipp both saw the light ON immediately after the first bangs. How many provable lies does OP get before his whole testimony is discounted?

 

[fox1lady]

I think he said he felt for it rather than saw it, he knew roughly where he had put it....that's his story anyhow.

So he would have been feeling around the bed using his left or right hand along the bottom left or right of the bed and felt his way along in the pitch blackness to reach the part of the bed where he would then bend and feel for the gun underneath the bed. At no point would he have noticed, whilst feeling, that Reeva hadn't stirred, moved or spoken to him... how bizarre! How big is this bed???

 

[shane13]

So he would have been feeling around the bed using his left or right hand along the bottom left or right of the bed and felt his way along in the pitch blackness to reach the part of the bed where he would then bend and feel for the gun underneath the bed. At no point would he have noticed, whilst feeling, that Reeva hadn't stirred, moved or spoken to him... how bizarre! How big is this bed???

Or the light was on the whole time.