Oscar Pistorius Defense

[liesbeth]

Apologies.

I thought you were suggesting that was a reasonable defence - I have read too many posts along those lines and so I am afraid I jumped in.

I know that feeling. I'm a jumper too.

 

[toevlugsoord]

Thanks for that, toeylugsoord. So glad to hear OP say "that's not true" to Nel putting it to him that the Stipps both saw the bathroom light was ON. OP stated to m'lady strongly and clearly, "I made my way to the bathroom without a source of light." Busted!

Yes, there's something very believable to me about the Stipps - I trust what they have testified. It's so odd that he would refute the light, but I guess he has to? You'd think he would at least say he didn't remember when he turned it on, or something.

 

[katydid23]

So I will take a late nap on Sunday, so at midnight I can be awake to listen to the trial resume. It starts again Monday morning, right?

I wonder who the next witness will be? I think they will want to attack the pictures in evidence and show they were 'tampered' with. I wonder who they have on deck for that?

And I imagine they are going to have some of the neighbors who did not hear screaming testify as well.

 

[liesbeth]

Whether telling the truth or lying through his teeth, OP bases his assumption that it was an intruder without considering the possibility of it being Reeva on his having seen and talked with Reeva in bed just moments before.

The conundrum is whether Masipa believes it could be "reasonably possibly true" (RPT) that OP jumped to the conclusion it was a burglar/intruder without thinking it could be Reeva. IMO, unless OP's credibility is so shot with Masipa that she discards practically all of his testimony, which could be but I am not sure it is, imo Masipa could find it was RPT that OP did make that mistake as quite a few others in SA have done, shooting family members for intruders. But in which case Masipa might well still find OP intentionally shot at a burglar. JMO

Where did Oscar say he saw Reeva? Link please.

AFAIK Oscar made a point of saying he never saw Reeva. Just the duvet.

 

[PPKik]

Oscar never told the intruder that he (Oscar) had a gun. He never said: "Stay where you are or I'll shoot." Nope. Oscar screamed at the intruder to get out of the house. He literally told the intruder to get out. How could the sound of the toilet door opening be perceived as an act of aggression by the intruder?

Edit: I meant to ask: How could Oscar not tell someone he had a gun, tell that someone to get out and then think the opening door is an act of aggression?

This is another thing I am having a hard time with, too.

If OP did think he heard someone coming out of the toilet, wouldn't that mean that someone had turned either the handle or the lock?

Unless it was a very unusual lock for an internal door, I wouldn't think it had a long bolt, or a complicated locking mechanism, yet when OP tried to get into the cubicle, the door was locked and the key was on the floor.

If the key had fallen out from vibration from the shooting, it's very odd to me that it happened to be a position to fall out of the door or be blown out of the door.

Along with this there is the obvious question that just about everyone else has asked. How could OP not have heard Reeva answering him, "It's only me Oscar," if she did say such a thing?

I have considered the possibility that OP could have had some brain damage from the boat accident. It was a severe accident and he did have major skull and facial injuries, according to what I have read. I have nothing to back this up, except the strangely contradictory and self-implicating statements he has made, along with the denials.

Wouldn't it, for example, have made so much more sense if he had NOT said he had spoken to Reeva moments before he went to take in the fans?

Why say she was awake and speaking to him? That leaves so many questions to be asked about how he could not have been communicating with a person who was awake. He could have just said he thought she was asleep and hadn't realized she had gone to the toilet.


Was his behaviour reckless and irresponsible with guns before that boating accident?

 

[PPKik]

Where did Oscar say he saw Reeva? Link please.

AFAIK Oscar made a point of saying he never saw Reeva. Just the duvet.

Didn't Oscar say that Reeva said: "Can't you sleep, baba?"


Added: The court heard Pistorius claim he awoke in the early hours of Valentine's Day 2013, probably because of the humidity, to find his model girlfriend was beside him.

Ms Steenkamp, also awake, asked: "can't you sleep, baba?" to which he replied no.

Pistorius told the court he then got up from his position on the left-hand side of the bed and walked without his prosthetics to the other side of the bed closest to the balcony, from which he brought in a fan, closed the sliding door and drew the curtains.

At this point, he would have been no more than a metre from Ms Steenkamp.

However, he maintains the model did not say a word, and he didn't see her get up and move towards the bathroom.

Somewhat incredulously, Mr Nel zeroed in on his actions, repeatedly asking how that was possible.

Pistorius claimed it was "pitch black", he had his back to the bed, and "the fans were blowing in my face".


http://www.smh.com.au/world/oscar-p...ian-your-version-is-a-lie-20140411-36gik.html

 

[liesbeth]

This is another thing I am having a hard time with, too.

If OP did think he heard someone coming out of the toilet, wouldn't that mean that someone had turned either the handle or the lock?

Unless it was a very unusual lock for an internal door, I wouldn't think it had a long bolt, or a complicated locking mechanism, yet when OP tried to get into the cubicle, the door was locked and the key on on the floor.

If the key had fallen out from vibration from the shooting, it's very odd to me that it happened to be a position to fall out of the door or be blown out of the door.

Along with this there is the obvious question that just about everyone else has asked. How could OP not have heard Reeva answering him, "It's only me Oscar," if she did say such a thing?

I have considered the possibility that OP could have had some brain damage from the boat accident. It was a severe accident and he did have major skull and facial injuries, according to what I have read. I have nothing to back this up, except the strangely contradictory and self-implicating statements he has made, along with the denials.

Wouldn't it, for example, have made so much more sense if he had NOT said he had spoken to Reeva moments before he went to take in the fans?

Why say she was awake and speaking to him? That leaves so many questions to be asked about how he could not have been communicating with a person who was awake. He could have just said he thought she was asleep and hadn't realized she had gone to the toilet.

Carrying Reeva downstairs without calling 082 911 for Netcare is another nonsensical-to-the-point-of-bizarre act. What was he trying to do here?
(I'm not counting possibly to hide or dispose of her body, because he had already called too many people.)

Was his behaviour reckless and irresponsible with guns before that boating accident?

I hear what you're saying and I also find his behavior puzzling.

Just a heads up...He called Netcare before going downstairs. Just after he called Stander. The call was 66 seconds and there was an internet (GPRS) connection logged from his phone at the same time.

 

[liesbeth]

Didn't Oscar say that Reeva said: "Can't you sleep, baba?"


Added: The court heard Pistorius claim he awoke in the early hours of Valentine's Day 2013, probably because of the humidity, to find his model girlfriend was beside him.

Ms Steenkamp, also awake, asked: "can't you sleep, baba?" to which he replied no.

Pistorius told the court he then got up from his position on the left-hand side of the bed and walked without his prosthetics to the other side of the bed closest to the balcony, from which he brought in a fan, closed the sliding door and drew the curtains.

At this point, he would have been no more than a metre from Ms Steenkamp.

However, he maintains the model did not say a word, and he didn't see her get up and move towards the bathroom.

Somewhat incredulously, Mr Nel zeroed in on his actions, repeatedly asking how that was possible.

Pistorius claimed it was "pitch black", he had his back to the bed, and "the fans were blowing in my face".


http://www.smh.com.au/world/oscar-p...ian-your-version-is-a-lie-20140411-36gik.html

But he never said he saw her.

Edit: Apologies. That was abrupt. I'll rephrase. I would honestly like a link to his testimony where he said he saw her.

 

[PPKik]

I hear what you're saying and I also find his behavior puzzling.

Just a heads up...He called Netcare before going downstairs. Just after he called Stander. The call was 66 seconds and there was an internet (GPRS) connection logged from his phone at the same time.

ETA: By the time Dr. Stipp assessed Reeva's condition and went outside to speak to Stander, Dr. Stipp testified that he (Dr. Stipp) called for an ambulance. This was long after OP had shot Reeva and made several calls. I am trying to understand if OP had, in fact, called for help earlier, why Dr. Stipp had to call and testified to that.

ETA 2: "At 3.20am he called private ambulance service Netcare 911 and although he did not remember speaking to the operator, he remembered being told to take 'Reeva to the hospital' and not wait. "

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2014/04/09/the-oscar-pistorius-murder-trial-day-19

Is there independent confirmation that OP did speak to someone, even if they did not say "take Reeva to the hospital." If he was told this by Netcare, why did he wait? Also this seems to directly contradict what Dr. Stipp said about having to call for an ambulance.

 

[PPKik]

But he never said he saw her.

It seems to me to be more damaging to OP when he claims he spoke to her rather than "thought" he saw her, but I'm not saying he did say he saw her.

I can't understand, from a defense point of view, why claiming she had spoken to him moments before she went to the toilet, in his version, is better than saying nothing or saying he thought she was asleep.

That is one of the key parts of his story I find utterly unbelievable. If he'd simply thought she was sleeping, while half asleep himself, his story would make far more sense to me. That is one of the main reasons why I have begun to think he may actually have some cognitive or brain functioning impairment.

 

[Trooper]

It seems to me to be more damaging to OP when he claims he spoke to her rather than "thought" he saw her, but I'm not saying he did say he saw her.

I can't understand, from a defense point of view, why claiming she had spoken to him moments before she went to the toilet, in his version, is better than saying nothing or saying the thought she was asleep.

That is one of the key parts of his story I find utterly unbelievable. If he'd simply thought she was sleeping, while half asleep himself, his story would make far more sense to me. That is one of the main reasons why I have begun to think he may actually have some cognitive or brain functioning impairment.

It 's highly likely that the only word of truth Oscar says about that night was to an unexpected visitor, Dr Stipp.... 'I shot her, I killed her!"... ' I thought she was an intruder!'...

and then, he only tells half a truth.. that he shot her, and killed her is indisputable.. . everything else Oscar says is subject to deep skepticism.

 

[Trooper]

If one cuts away all of Oscars embroidery.... and work with what is.. --->

Mrs VD Mewre hears a prolonged argument around 1.30am...going forwards intermittently.

Around 3.07.am going forwards to 3.16am.... the Burgers hear screams, shots , screams..

The Stipps hear screams, shots.. screams..

there is no reason to believe Reeva asks Oscar anything.. no reason to believe Oscar replies to her.. no reason to believe Oscar directs Reeva to call anyone, much less the police.. no reason to believe he hears a 'noise' in the bathroom...no reason to believe the shouting , the demands, the 'fright', the legs, the light, the door , the passage, the firing of the gun, the bafflement as to where Reeva is.. none of that has any basis at all. Not a bit of it.

no reason to believe any of that stuff whatsoever.. that's Oscar telling a story.. what the ear witnesses hear doesn't back it up in any context at all.

 

[Trooper]

Oscar 's story has to unravel backwards from when he fires the gun, and ravel forwards from when he finishes firing the gun..

if it sounds like rubbish, its because it is.

 

[liesbeth]

It seems to me to be more damaging to OP when he claims he spoke to her rather than "thought" he saw her, but I'm not saying he did say he saw her.

I can't understand, from a defense point of view, why claiming she had spoken to him moments before she went to the toilet, in his version, is better than saying nothing or saying the thought she was asleep.

That is one of the key parts of his story I find utterly unbelievable. If he'd simply thought she was sleeping, while half asleep himself, his story would make far more sense to me. That is one of the main reasons why I have begun to think he may actually have some cognitive or brain functioning impairment.

My request was a bit abrupt, wasn't it? Apologies. I asked for the link because G.bng said that Oscar had seen Reeva moments before. This was not my understanding of the facts. I can not give an opinion on his post if we do not have the same facts. So I was asking for a link. I respect G.bng and I think his point may be important, but I can not comment on it if we do not have the same information.

Back to your post.

If you want my honest opinion (and it is pure speculation) I agree with you. His actions and words are not logical. But I do not think that it's because of some cognitive impairment, quite the opposite. He thinks too much.

It is my opinion that he's hiding certain things that happened that night. And to cover the gaps in his version he twists the truth. But this creates new holes. He's had a year to think about this but since the trial started new and unexpected holes appeared and he's had to do some tap dancing to fill those gaps.

 

[toevlugsoord]

Where did Oscar say he saw Reeva? Link please.

AFAIK Oscar made a point of saying he never saw Reeva. Just the duvet.

Here's the day they talk about it, right around 19:40:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_hle5shsDY

Nel: Last you saw Reeva was under the duvet.

OP: Was with her...uh...I remember saying her...her......I could make out from the duvet that it went over her legs when I got out of bed.

Nel: So last you saw her she was under the duvet.

OP: That's correct, milady.

And before with Roux at around 1:10:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMMdyuXfFUg
"She rolled over to me in the bed and said, 'Can't you sleep, my baba?' "

There might be more but those are ones I can remember.

Edited to add that in these examples, no he doesn't say "I saw her" but he alludes to it. But it's interesting that he doesn't explicitly say he saw her.

 

[shane13]

It seems to me to be more damaging to OP when he claims he spoke to her rather than "thought" he saw her, but I'm not saying he did say he saw her.

I can't understand, from a defense point of view, why claiming she had spoken to him moments before she went to the toilet, in his version, is better than saying nothing or saying the thought she was asleep.

That is one of the key parts of his story I find utterly unbelievable. If he'd simply thought she was sleeping, while half asleep himself, his story would make far more sense to me. That is one of the main reasons why I have begun to think he may actually have some cognitive or brain functioning impairment.

BBM
He also changed other things during cross from Nel the same way.

Reply to Nel: "I did not say I heard wood moving. I said I thought I heard wood moving." [Or fairly close.]
Oscar-Speak.

Its almost like the old joke/saying: "Once I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken."

 

[liesbeth]

Whether telling the truth or lying through his teeth, OP bases his assumption that it was an intruder without considering the possibility of it being Reeva on his having seen and talked with Reeva in bed just moments before.

The conundrum is whether Masipa believes it could be "reasonably possibly true" (RPT) that OP jumped to the conclusion it was a burglar/intruder without thinking it could be Reeva.

IMO, unless OP's credibility is so shot with Masipa that she discards practically all of his testimony, which could be but I am not sure it is, imo Masipa could find it was RPT that OP did make that mistake as quite a few others in SA have done, shooting family members for intruders. But in which case Masipa might well still find OP intentionally shot at a burglar. JMO

Setting aside the seeing/not seeing bit.

So you're saying that if the judge decides that OP genuinely believed it was an intruder, she will then ask herself if his actions was RPT. Yes, indeed.

Just to be clear. The judge will take into account OP's state of mind when deciding if he could have honestly thought it was an intruder, so she will put herself in OP's position (subjective test) and decide. Should she decide he really did believe it was an intruder, she will look at evidence (objective test) to see if it could be reasonably, possibly true.

 

[liesbeth]

Here's the day they talk about it, right around 19:40:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_hle5shsDY

Nel: Last you saw Reeva was under the duvet.

OP: Was with her...uh...I remember saying her...her......I could make out from the duvet that it went over her legs when I got out of bed.

Nel: So last you saw her she was under the duvet.

OP: That's correct, milady.

And before with Roux at around 1:10:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMMdyuXfFUg
"She rolled over to me in the bed and said, 'Can't you sleep, my baba?' "

There might be more but those are ones I can remember.

Edited to add that in these examples, no he doesn't say "I saw her" but he alludes to it. But it's interesting that he doesn't explicitly say he saw her.

I also thought it interesting. Why not just say: "I saw her."

 

[liesbeth]

ETA: By the time Dr. Stipp assessed Reeva's condition and went outside to speak to Stander, Dr. Stipp testified that he (Dr. Stipp) called for an ambulance. This was long after OP had shot Reeva and made several calls. I am trying to understand if OP had, in fact, called for help earlier, why Dr. Stipp had to call and testified to that.

ETA 2: "At 3.20am he called private ambulance service Netcare 911 and although he did not remember speaking to the operator, he remembered being told to take 'Reeva to the hospital' and not wait. "

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2014/04/09/the-oscar-pistorius-murder-trial-day-19

Is there independent confirmation that OP did speak to someone, even if they did not say "take Reeva to the hospital." If he was told this by Netcare, why did he wait? Also this seems to directly contradict what Dr. Stipp said about having to call for an ambulance.

https://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/oscar-pistorius-trial-day-15-state-rests/

03:20:02 – GPRS – 79 seconds

03:20:05 – Outgoing call to 082911 (ambulance service) – 66 seconds

03:21:22 – GPRS – 61 seconds

It's on the Vodacom records from Oscar's phone. But at this time we do not know what was said during this conversation.

I wondered about the same thing. If OP had asked for an ambulance, why did Dr. Stipp have to call again?

 

[BritsKate]

It seems to me to be more damaging to OP when he claims he spoke to her rather than "thought" he saw her, but I'm not saying he did say he saw her.

I can't understand, from a defense point of view, why claiming she had spoken to him moments before she went to the toilet, in his version, is better than saying nothing or saying he thought she was asleep.

That is one of the key parts of his story I find utterly unbelievable. If he'd simply thought she was sleeping, while half asleep himself, his story would make far more sense to me. That is one of the main reasons why I have begun to think he may actually have some cognitive or brain functioning impairment.

If Oscar did have such an impairment, it would have been beneficial for the defence team to utilise such an impairment to their advantage and claim involuntary. It would likely have been Oscar's best chance at a full out acquittal of most, if not all, the charges.

That they didn't leads me to believe: he doesn't have such an impairment; he overrode his attorney's advice on strategy (this I doubt because he seems to desire an acquittal); or poor representation (Roux and Oldwadge have decades of experience). So, I'm back at no such impairment or at least not severe enough that the defendant is unable to understand the charges laid against him and participate in his defence.

I think he just got caught up in the liar's curse.


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