Trial Discussion Thread #10 - 14.03.19, Day 13

[TorisMom003]

I'm not sure what lies you;re talking about that have shown that Oscar's story is full of lies. Can you elaborate?

OP claimed to have brought in one fan, then that changed to two fans. OP claimed that the "intruder" never made a sound in the toilet area even though that "intruder" was shot in the hip first then after a pause three more bullets were fired with two of them hitting her. OP either lied on the questionnaire he filled out in order to buy guns or he lied during his statement concerning shooting an "intruder" that was not where he could see them and see that they had/did not have a weapon that was/was not pointed at him. OP lied that he AND Reeva went to bed for the night at 10 pm. OP lied about being so afraid of someone coming into his home in the middle of the night. OP stated at one point that Reeva was asleep when he brought in the fan/s then turned around and stated that he spoke to Reeva before he went out to get the fan/s.

Those are off the top of my head.

 

[TorisMom003]

When security patrols OP's house, do they only go to the front, only go to the back, or go to both?

 

[lisasalinger]

But, but, but ... the state agrees that he was on his stumps when he fired the shots. So that is true, and not a fabrication to invoke the "vulnerable" defense. But now some are suggesting that he was on his stumps when he subsequently broke through the door with the bat, and I'm asking what would be the purpose of lying about that? I can see no way that can benefit OP's account at all, and it would be a risky thing to lie about if he was trying to come up with a story that would fit in with whatever crime scene evidence would be collected.

My conclusion - there's really nothing to suggest that OP remained on his stumps while breaking down the door and no reason to think he fabricated this part (other than Vermuelen's sketchy demonstration and attempt to hide photos depicting the cricket bat hitting the higher mark on the door)

BBM

This is a really good question, Minor.

OP had damage to his prosthetics that has not been explained yet. Maybe that damage happened during an earlier fight. He may not have been wearing them at the time but maybe somehow they got damaged in the course of something being thrown or a scuffle near the bed...

Now he has to explain it away somehow so he is saying that he used his legs to try to kick in the door.

It seems like a stretch as I'm typing this, but maybe.

 

[lisasalinger]

BBM

This is a really good question, Minor.

OP had damage to his prosthetics that has not been explained yet. Maybe that damage happened during an earlier fight. He may not have been wearing them at the time but maybe somehow they got damaged in the course of something being thrown or a scuffle near the bed...

Now he has to explain it away somehow so he is saying that he used his legs to try to kick in the door.

It seems like a stretch as I'm typing this, but maybe.

Further thinking about this... the damage to his leg is not on the foot but further up. His prosthetic didn't bust through the door (hence the need for the bat) so what caused that? Again, perhaps something that was going on prior to the gunshots?

 

[minor4th]

BBM



This is a really good question, Minor.



OP had damage to his prosthetics that has not been explained yet. Maybe that damage happened during an earlier fight. He may not have been wearing them at the time but maybe somehow they got damaged in the course of something being thrown or a scuffle near the bed...



Now he has to explain it away somehow so he is saying that he used his legs to try to kick in the door.



It seems like a stretch as I'm typing this, but maybe.

I really don't think he has to explain anything away about damage to his prosthetics because there's been no evidence or allegation that they were damaged on February 13.

Maybe it happened while he was playing football with his pals in 2012 (random date) or when hiking through bramble or while training his dogs or any other number of possibilities.

 

[lisasalinger]

I really don't think he has to explain anything away about damage to his prosthetics because there's been no evidence or allegation that they were damaged on February 13.

Maybe it happened while he was playing football with his pals in 2012 (random date) or when hiking through bramble or while training his dogs or any other number of possibilities.

Does that also mean he doesn't have to explain the (apparent) bullet hole or damage to his bedroom door because it may have happened on a different day?

Sure, there is a possibility that things can happen at different times but you can't just assume they happened at a different time. When you have blood-soaked legs on a man who just killed his girlfriend, and there is damage to those legs, I think it's pretty reasonable to investigate the cause.

Also, don't forget - Roux made mention of the fact that part of the leg was cut out and sent for testing and he asked one of the State's experts about the findings, which they could not testify to. I'm sure this will come up again - he didn't ask that question for nothing.

 

[minor4th]

When security patrols OP's house, do they only go to the front, only go to the back, or go to both?

I don't know for sure but I got the impression they don't get out of their cart and patrol the entire perimeter of his property. My understanding is they drive by with their cart and activate a security checkpoint to record that they patrolled at a particular time.

 

[minor4th]

Does that also mean he doesn't have to explain the (apparent) bullet hole or damage to his bedroom door because it may have happened on a different day?



Sure, there is a possibility that things can happen at different times but you can't just assume they happened at a different time. When you have blood-soaked legs on a man who just killed his girlfriend, and there is damage to those legs, I think it's pretty reasonable to investigate the cause.



Also, don't forget - Roux made mention of the fact that part of the leg was cut out and sent for testing and he asked one of the State's experts about the findings, which they could not testify to. I'm sure this will come up again - he didn't ask that question for nothing.

I do not think he has to explain anything about the hole and damage to his bedroom door but I bet he can - even if he makes it all up, there's nothing to contradict any explanation he might give. There's simply no evidence or allegations at all about the door damage, other than it existed as of 2-14.

And yes you certainly would assume damaged legs and door have no relevance to the events of 2-14 in the absence of any evidence from the State to the contrary. It is not the Court's job to come up with speculative theories about what might have happened - it's the courts job to deal with what has been proven by the state.

I forgot about the piece of leg sent for testing. Not sure where Roux was going with that but we'll fund out

 

[LemonMousse]

I've looked at the outdoor photos that were shown and it's unclear to me where exactly they are in relation to the bathroom window, or any other part of the house. Do you know?

Yes, it was me that spotted it initially. The photo was one of a small group taken outside the house underneath the bathroom window. There's one picture looking up at the window, and down on the ground you can see a dog standing in front of the jeans, which are a few feet to the left of the window. Then there's a picture of the close-up of the jeans.

I'll go back to YT in the morning and get a screenshot of the other picture so you can see where they lie in relation to the window.

It is peculiar. It could have a perfectly reasonable explanation, but then why would Nel include it? I doubt he does anything by accident.

 

[minor4th]

OP claimed to have brought in one fan, then that changed to two fans. OP claimed that the "intruder" never made a sound in the toilet area even though that "intruder" was shot in the hip first then after a pause three more bullets were fired with two of them hitting her. OP either lied on the questionnaire he filled out in order to buy guns or he lied during his statement concerning shooting an "intruder" that was not where he could see them and see that they had/did not have a weapon that was/was not pointed at him. OP lied that he AND Reeva went to bed for the night at 10 pm. OP lied about being so afraid of someone coming into his home in the middle of the night. OP stated at one point that Reeva was asleep when he brought in the fan/s then turned around and stated that he spoke to Reeva before he went out to get the fan/s.



Those are off the top of my head.

I don't think those amount to "lies" that have been proven.

1. First saying he brought in "a fan" or "the fan" and later saying he brought in "two fans" does not sound like a lie but a more specific clarification. This discrepancy should he addressed when OP takes the stand - but that change in his statements indicates nothing about anything relevant in the case that I can think of.

2. OP claimed that no screams or voices came from the other side of the door after he started shooting. This has certainly not been proven to be false. Is it possible that Reeva screamed at some point while shots were being fired? Sure. Is it also possible she didn't scream? Sure. Is it possible that she screamed and Oscar didn't hear it because the gunshots in a small enclosed space caused his ears to ring such that he could not have heard any noises from the bathroom? Sure. All possible - hence, not proven to be a lie.

3. About "lying" on his firearms questionnaire or lying in his bail affidavit and plea statement - these two are not mutually exclusive because the firearms questionnaire did not present the exact situation he was faced with in 2-14.

4. I don't know why you think he lied about being afraid of an intruder in the middle of the night since he has a history of this mind of fear and reaction. Whether it's reasonable is another question, but I do not think you can say that this has been proven a lie.

5. About saying Reeva was asleep vs. he had talked to her shortly before he went out to get the fans -- this is something that Oscar needs to explain before you can call it a lie. He didn't say in his original statement that they both went to sleep at 10:00 and didn't wake up until Oscar went out to move the fans. And in his second statement, he's not clear about exactly when he spoke to Reeva. He may have an explanation that clears it up or he may not, but without hearing his testimony I think it's premature to call this a lie.

 

[lisasalinger]

Yes, it was me that spotted it initially. The photo was one of a small group taken outside the house underneath the bathroom window. There's one picture looking up at the window, and down on the ground you can see a dog standing in front of the jeans, which are a few feet to the left of the window. Then there's a picture of the close-up of the jeans.

I'll go back to YT in the morning and get a screenshot of the other picture so you can see where they lie in relation to the window.

It is peculiar. It could have a perfectly reasonable explanation, but then why would Nel include it? I doubt he does anything by accident.

Got it, thanks! I took screenshots of everything too, but just didn't notice it before with the dog standing there. It is indeed peculiar.

 

[KALI]

Simple as that.
Did he kill her? Yup. Did he know he was killing her, or the highly likely thought that he was killing her?
I think so.
I think, that he disengaged from a rational person.
Whether it's his narrcistic personality or drugs, or both, he pulled the trigger over and over again, to where he knew he would likely kill her.
He needs to spend a very long time in prison for taking this vibrant woman away. I don't care who he was before he made this decision.
His actions that night, have erased every thing he accomplished before.
My opinion.

Yes and the judge will also have to decide if OP is being truthful about Reeva not making a peep after being shot in the hip before he fired 3 more shots at her. IMO OP's story is full of lies, some that have been shown to be lies by testimony now. If OP truly thought there was an intruder in the house and that was why he shot and killed Reeva, then why all of the lies? Why not call for police immediately after he "realized" that it was Reeva that he shot? If OP was innocent of premeditated murder, there would be no reason to lie at all.

MOO

 

[Feynman]

Just rumor-mongering?

Taken from the Media Links page:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsX8GFKSh6A&list=UUPgLNge0xqQHWM5B5EFH9Cg&index=3

"When asked if the arrested individual has ever been involved in earlier incidents involving LE, particularly any related to assault or domestic abuse, LE responded that they wouldn't say anything specific to the person arrested but they would say that they had indeed been involved in previous incidents at the home of OP."

Yes, that was South African Police spokeswoman Denise Beukes, who said on Feb. 14 2013 that there had been previous reports at Oscar’s home which were “allegations of a domestic nature.”; I've seen the video of the press conference. But she was talking about events much further in the past - not the events of Feb. 13-14 2013.

 

[Feynman]

Exactly so. My mind has changed on different aspects many times throughout the trial. I'm neither convinced of OP's innocence or his guilt at this point. All I can say is that I do not believe the state has made its case for premeditated murder, and the mere suggestion that they might have had an argument is evidence of nothing.

Arguing in the 2am - 3 am window certainly proves OP is lying in his affidavit and his trial plea. Let's recall that a serious chunk of the latter is devoted to the rebutting the "argument" allegation. Why would Roux put such emphasis on this if it wasn't important?

 

[Trooper]

He ha a lot of stuff to be getting on with after the shots....

Screaming (like a woman), shouting, going back to bedroom, putting his legs on, going back to bathroom, kicking toilet door, maybe another trip to bedroom to get bat?, bashing door... more shouting and screaming, dragging body from toilet and trying first aid or whatever, then maybe phoning, carrying body down stairs.

Goodness, he was such a busy boy that night.....

 

[Feynman]

Funny, because Sam Taylor said that on two occasions when OP thought there were intruders, he woke her up before setting off with his gun. Yet for some reason, he decided not to wake Reeva, or check where she was. He killed her instead.

I just had a thought: Could this be the reason OP says in his trial plea that "During the early hours of the morning, I brought two fans in from the balcony. I HAD SHORTLY BEFORE SPOKEN TO REEVA, who was in bed beside me."? If he had just spoken to her, then she's already awake. Hence no need to wake her.

 

[Feynman]

excerpted quote:

Believability is not based entirely upon emotion, imo. I am basing it upon common sense. If I hear scary noises in the middle of the night, the FIRST thing I do is check where my husband and kids are, to make sure it is not them making the noise. That is basic common sense, not emotion based.

In my opinion, it's not common sense to say "I would do X', therefore if OP claims to have not done X, then he is lying. OP is not you. You would do the above, which is admirable. OP may not be so admirable. In fact, he appears to be, at a minimum, a gun-crazy, irrational, paranoid, easily frightened scaredy-cat prone to engaging in all kinds of bizarre (and non-common-sensical) actions.

 

[Feynman]

excerpted quote:

OP said they had gone to bed at 10pm .... Then his intruder scenario. He left out the hour long fight overheard by multiple neighbors from 2-3 am.

The "fight" from 2-3am was heard by only one neighbor, Estelle Van Der Merwe.

 

[minor4th]

Arguing in the 2am - 3 am window certainly proves OP is lying in his affidavit and his trial plea. Let's recall that a serious chunk of the latter is devoted to the rebutting the "argument" allegation. Why would Roux put such emphasis on this if it wasn't important?

But the one and only witness who heard one voice arguing between 2-3 a.m did not identify the sounds as coming from Oscar's house. In fact, she emphasized that she did NOT know where the sounds were coming from.

I think it is very important for Roux/Pistorius to rebut the "argument" theory because that is the State's theory for premeditation - OP does need to make it clear there was no argument. I do not think one witness who heard one voice arguing from some unknown location proves that Oscar and Reeva were fighting.

In addition, we have not heard one single bit of testimony or evidence that has suggested that there was trouble in the relationship or that Oscar has any sort of history of violence/abuse in his many previous romantic relationships.

 

[Rumpole]

But even given ALL of the above, it does not mean that he didn't know it was Reeva that he was shooting at. All of this may be true, and he still can be GUILTY of murder.

Yes, that is true but the burden is on the State to PROVE he knew it was Reeva. He says he thought it was an intruder. As I have stated it's a 50/50 as far as I am concerned... but OP remains innocent until proven guilty. What is there in the State's case that proves beyond reasonable doubt that OP shot at the door knowing Reeva was behind it?

I would say NOTHING.