Oscar Pistorius Defense

[jay-jay]

[/B]

Definitely, as she was elevated on the magazine rack.

But don't forget .. in his BS he doesn't even say that he lifted her, he says he 'pulled' her .. "I battled to get her out of the toilet and pulled her into the bathroom."

 

[TorisMom003]

BIB - yet another total inconsistency, isn't it (and I agree with the rest of what you say there, too).

Also, I can't make out whether he called Stander to ask for help lifting Reeva or whether it was to ask him to call for an ambulance .. he appears to have said both. If he did actually ask him to call for an ambulance, then why did he himself then call Netcare as well?

Absolutely none of this adds up or makes any sense, because it's all fabricated.

OP claimed in his BAS (bail application statement) that he called Stander and told him to call for an ambulance. This did not change until OP was on the stand and then said that he called Stander because he needed help in lifting Reeva to take her to the hospital. Even though the call to Stander was before the call to Netcare and being told (supposedly) to bring Reeva to the hospital instead of waiting for the ambulance. Because of this, I don't believe that Stander will be called by the defense. OP has changed his version about that call twice now and the defense would have to cross their fingers and pray that Stander goes with the version that OP said in court.

MOO

 

[Cherwell]

But don't forget .. in his BS he doesn't even say that he lifted her, he says he 'pulled' her .. "I battled to get her out of the toilet and pulled her into the bathroom."

Another good point.

His versions really do have more holes than a fishnet stocking.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Not sure if this has already been posted or if it is OK to post but I thought it was interesting
,it is regarding a paraplegic who has finally been granted bail but has had to wear an electronic tag for a non violent crime .

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/arti...car-pistorius-vs.-ronnie-fakude/#.U2Klc8u9KSM

 

[lisasalinger]

BIB at the top: Yes! He said it twice in fact under direct by Roux.

BIB lower: He was referring to the one door that is held in place by pushing a locking pin at the top and the bottom, that door is fixed in place and does not normally remain free to open. It would be really stupid to try to barge that instead of just pulling the pins to release the door, but that is what he said. He said he wanted it and the other door open to make carrying Reeve through them easier. But by adding that he barged it he was laying out his explanation about why the doors, both of them, had been barged and broken. But it turns out that he did not have to do that because Nel did not include that event in the actual murder. Nel picked up the action when the argument started in the bedroom and Reeva fled to the toilet closet.

And it obviously was not crucially important to get it open all the way, considering it was still closed when the crime scene was photographed (see pic below).

There is no way in the world that he kicked that door... at least not with just a sock. The front of his prosthetic (the toes) would have been mangled! That's a thick door.

But not only was there damage to that left door, there was also damage on the right door up above the handle. It looks to me like he could have potentially put something in between the two doors and pried them open.

It makes me nuts that Nel didn't challenge him on these doors :banghead:

 

[Gbtaketwo]

April 9th was the first day that Nel was able to cross examine OP. I can't find a video of the 2nd session from that day, when Nel first began his cross. At first OP denied ever hearing the phrase "zombie stopper". Nel pressed him on this matter, asking him what would he (OP) say if there was a video of OP being present when that phrase was said. OP said that he would ask to see the video. Then we had the delay while the defense fought tooth and nail to not have the "watermelon shooting" video shown. After the video was shown Nel again asked about zombie stopper to which OP admitted that it was him that said that sentence.

I am still shocked that OP actually said he wanted to see this video which opened it up to being shown in court. It must have raised Roux's blood pressure with the stress of it ? Defending a client like OP must be one of his most challenging cases ever .

 

[G.bng]

Where did Oscar say he saw Reeva? Link please.

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

Gosh I really can't keep up with y'all!

I stand corrected. You are right... OP never said he visualized Reeva merely that he saw the duvet rise over what he assumed were her legs under it.

Mea culpa accepted, I don't think my error alters what I was trying to explain, i.e. that OP supports his jumping to the conclusion it was an intruder in the toilet without stopping to consider whether it could have been Reeva by:

• a) saying he had an exchange with Reeva on the bed
• b) saying he "saw" the duvet rise over what he assumed were her legs
• c) saying he could neither have heard or seen Reeva slip out of the room due to the fan noise in his face, having his back turned, and the room being extremely dark (apart from a blue led light) once the curtains were closed.

IMO, and this is just my theory so please don't jump on me, were Masipa to discard the State's case of OP's intent to kill Reeva (for lack of evidence, witnesses still to testify contradicting the screams, or whatever), if Masipa finds the above three statements to be all reasonably possibly true then IMO it would be one of the first steps, if not the first, for a finding that it is reasonably possibly true that he genuinely feared an intruder had violated the home as well as reasonably possibly true he assumed Reeva was still in bed when, in the grip of panic, he grabbed his gun and went down the passage to confront the perceived intruder. (I personally don't consider this that much of a leap considering that OP could have easily bolstered this part of his "alibi" by adding that apart from seeing the duvet rise, which he assumed to be because it was over her legs, he also saw, (or thought he saw), a shadowy outline of Reeva's top part on the white sheet above where the duvet reached.)

On the other hand if Masipa accepts as reasonably possibly true OP's claim that in the dark, with his back to the bed and the noise of the fans in his face, it was reasonably possibly true that he did not hear Reeva leave the room, then imo she would not have to overly exert herself to find it reasonably possibly true that OP assumed Reeva was still in bed at the time when in the grip of fear and panic, as he alleges he was, he grabbed his gun and went towards the toilet.

OP's claims there was a verbal exchange between Reeva and himself clearly goes towards supporting a reasonable and possible assumption on his part. Which is the crux of what I was trying to explain, i.e. that according to OP's story he justifies his assumption that Reeva couldn't have been the one in the toilet with statements that support her being still in bed the last time he "looked" (duvet over legs) and heard her speak, i.e. their exchange. JMO

 

[Ncl1968]

For that to happen the judge would have to believe reeva got up in darkness and in silence

 

[sleuth-d-]

BIB - yet another total inconsistency, isn't it (and I agree with the rest of what you say there, too).

Also, I can't make out whether he called Stander to ask for help lifting Reeva or whether it was to ask him to call for an ambulance .. he appears to have said both. If he did actually ask him to call for an ambulance, then why did he himself then call Netcare as well?

Absolutely none of this adds up or makes any sense, because it's all fabricated.

i looked at the stander comments again...

4:25 9 april, session 1. with roux.
op "i phoned him to ask for help, to help me, come and help, i couldn't pick reeva up, i was struggling to pick her up."

nel hardly mentions stander in the cross examination. nel questions about the netcare call, and the baba call/conversation.

so, on closer inspection, op doesn't really talk about stander giving help picking rs up. just that he wanted 'help' from stander. at the time of the above answer, he was part way through the line regarding his struggle to pick up rs.

nevertheless, i still think he would pick her up easily.

 

[Cherwell]

Gosh I really can't keep up with y'all!

I stand corrected. You are right... OP never said he visualized Reeva merely that he saw the duvet rise over what he assumed were her legs under it.

Mea culpa accepted, I don't think my error alters what I was trying to explain, i.e. that OP supports his jumping to the conclusion it was an intruder in the toilet without stopping to consider whether it could have been Reeva by:

• a) saying he had an exchange with Reeva on the bed
• b) saying he "saw" the duvet rise over what he assumed were her legs
• c) saying he could neither have heard or seen Reeva slip out of the room due to the fan noise in his face, having his back turned, and the room being extremely dark (apart from a blue led light) once the curtains were closed.

IMO, and this is just my theory so please don't jump on me, were Masipa to discard the State's case of OP's intent to kill Reeva (for lack of evidence, witnesses still to testify contradicting the screams, or whatever), if Masipa finds the above three statements to be all reasonably possibly true then IMO it would be one of the first steps, if not the first, for a finding that it is reasonably possibly true that he genuinely feared an intruder had violated the home as well as reasonably possibly true he assumed Reeva was still in bed when, in the grip of panic, he grabbed his gun and went down the passage to confront the perceived intruder. (I personally don't consider this that much of a leap considering that OP could have easily bolstered this part of his "alibi" by adding that apart from seeing the duvet rise, which he assumed to be because it was over her legs, he also saw, (or thought he saw), a shadowy outline of Reeva's top part on the white sheet above where the duvet reached.)

On the other hand if Masipa accepts as reasonably possibly true OP's claim that in the dark, with his back to the bed and the noise of the fans in his face, it was reasonably possibly true that he did not hear Reeva leave the room, then imo she would not have to overly exert herself to find it reasonably possibly true that OP assumed Reeva was still in bed at the time when in the grip of fear and panic, as he alleges he was, he grabbed his gun and went towards the toilet.

OP's claims there was a verbal exchange between Reeva and himself clearly goes towards supporting a reasonable and possible assumption on his part. Which is the crux of what I was trying to explain, i.e. that according to OP's story he justifies his assumption that Reeva couldn't have been the one in the toilet with statements that support her being still in bed the last time he "looked" (duvet over legs) and heard her speak, i.e. their exchange.

See, that says the exact opposite to me. The very fact that she has just spoken to him reinforces the likelihood that she might have got up and gone into the bathroom.

People awake in the middle of the night often go to the loo. That's often why they've woken up.

 

[sleuth-d-]

And it obviously was not crucially important to get it open all the way, considering it was still closed when the crime scene was photographed (see pic below).

There is no way in the world that he kicked that door... at least not with just a sock. The front of his prosthetic (the toes) would have been mangled! That's a thick door.

But not only was there damage to that left door, there was also damage on the right door up above the handle. It looks to me like he could have potentially put something in between the two doors and pried them open.

It makes me nuts that Nel didn't challenge him on these doors :banghead:

the images are a great help, thank you.
i agree there appears to have been an event/altercation around the bedroom door too.

your first image also shows blood drips on the floor to the right. as if he moved over to the right. if he carried rs through the open double doors surely these would be more central.

the dents in the door also look like cricket bat marks to me, caused by the rounded edge of the bat. [i will be performing dixon-esque follow-up tests at the weekend]

 

[katydid23]

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

But as I said in an earlier post, it's unimaginable that they would have told him to bring her in if he'd told them that she had 3 gunshot wounds and one of those was to the head. It defies belief that they wouldn't have sent an ambulance. It will be interesting to see if the DT call their Netcare witness and hear what they put in their records.

This is so curious to me. I have to think that if netcare had anything to say that was detrimental to Op's case then Nel would have called them to testify.

But I would be so surprised if they actually testify that OP called and said he shot his gf 3 times and that he was told to bring her in himself. However, since Nel did not call them, maybe they will say just that.

 

[vansleuths]

In terms of OP's defence, he says it is punitive self defence, but on the stand, he said he accidentally shot.

I know people on this forum have been jumping on him for this discrepancy, but could it not really have been both?

He could have said, I heard a noise and to protect Reeva and myself, I armed myself and ran to the bathroom (punative self defence). I had the area covered. Once I got there I heard a noise and the gun went off (accidentally).

I know the PT is trying to tie him down but why can't it be both?

 

[Greater Than]

*Snipped by me to simplify it for my own mind*

I think that this is a case were it being a bench trial rather than a jury trial will be beneficial to the defense. It is not a hard stretch for me to imagine Oscar screaming like a woman after hearing his pitch get higher and higher when Nel was demanding that Oscar look at the picture of Reeva's head. I don't think it will be difficult for the judge and her assessors to draw the same reasonable conclusion.

I agree that Oscar's state of mind will come into the judges decision as will his disability.

BBM - As will the fact that he's an elite athlete. An Olympian. To compete at that level, one must be as strong in mind as in body. He is trained to remain focused during moments of extreme mental and emotional stress. This will work against him IMO.

 

[DebinGA]

His experience and proficiency with his 9mm Glock won't help him either. There was no possibility of firing 4x "accidentally".

 

[BritsKate]

In terms of OP's defence, he says it is punitive self defence, but on the stand, he said he accidentally shot.

I know people on this forum have been jumping on him for this discrepancy, but could it not really have been both?

He could have said, I heard a noise and to protect Reeva and myself, I armed myself and ran to the bathroom (punative self defence). I had the area covered. Once I got there I heard a noise and the gun went off (accidentally).

I know the PT is trying to tie him down but why can't it be both?

South African law allows for one affirmative defence. Given the circumstances of this crime and the charges laid against him, he could only have claimed putative physical self-defence or involuntary (like traumatic brain injury, temporary insanity, sleepwalking, etc).

Putative private self-defence means Oscar believed his life was in danger and killed an 'intruder', albeit unlawfully, to defend himself and protect his own life. He specifically stated he never intended to shoot and never intended to kill, even an intruder, which makes many question whether he himself has nullified putative self-defence because it absolutely requires intent to do something to protect oneself. Some feel Oscar, not understanding the legal nuances or consequences of his testimony, simply misspoke.

It can't be truly accidental though. First, he took a gun and fired four highly lethal bullets in a confined area being a licenced firearm owner. Despite stating he never aimed, those four bullets ended up in very close proximity to one another. And there is no way a gun accidentally fired all by itself, with two separate safeties, four times.

It really comes down to a matter of intent. Murder requires intent. The reason Oscar claimed he never intended to shoot or kill an intruder, in my opinion, was because he fired through a closed door with no warning shot, did not tell the 'intruder' he had a firearm, screamed at the intruder to get out and then immediately opened fire, without allowing the 'intruder' time or ability to leave the premises. Simply because he fired through a closed door may be enough, all on its own, to make this murder even if there was no intent and the intruder scenario is believed. None of us knows for certain because Oscar's case is the first of its kind. Every other defendant who has claimed such a defence had at least a visual of a perceived aggressor. They saw what they perceived to be a physical threat. Oscar shot a door because he heard a noise, according to him. A noise later contradicted by his own defence expert - which, if real, may well have been an 'intruder' escaping. A putative self-defence cannot be claimed if a defendant kills an intruder while they are attempting to flee.

 

[Carmelita]

BBM - As will the fact that he's an elite athlete. An Olympian. To compete at that level, one must be as strong in mind as in body. He is trained to remain focused during moments of extreme mental and emotional stress. This will work against him IMO.

Have you ever seen an elite athlete have a melt down? They are combustible people.

 

[Greater Than]

Thank you!
You are right.

I think this may have been a day after he first dened it?

But anyway he admits that's his quote.

But listen at abut 5:00 Nel appears to finally pin him down after OP tries to wiggle out of referring to a human's brain. But then let's him go.

Nel: "You want to respond to that?"

OP: "No Milady."

Nel: "OK you don't have to."

Just when he had him cornered.
Strsnge... JMO

I don't find it strange at all. Nel told him he didn't mean a zombie's brain, but that he was referring to something else (a human's brain). If OP was going to continue denying he was referring to a human he would have responded to Nel's accusation with, "no I wasn't." By retreating and saying he did not want to respond, Nel won the point. He's not going to stay on the topic to give OP the opportunity to deny it again, he's going to move on.

 

[BritsKate]

Have you ever seen an elite athlete have a melt down? They are combustible people.

I wonder if combustible people are more likely to commit murder?

 

[sleuth-d-]

His experience and proficiency with his 9mm Glock won't help him either. There was no possibility of firing 4x "accidentally".

and, 'not a good grouping'. an amazing comment.
did he think it was late night target practice.

how cold, callous and unthinking, to talk like this about the shots that killed his girlfriend, and... in front of her mother. total lack of empathy, typical of the man.