Trial Discussion Thread #11 weekend thread

[steveml]

There is only a problem with timings if we assume that OP is telling the truth. And I'd really like someone to explain to me why we should assume any such thing. Presumption of innocence is not the same as assumption of innocence.

Of course it's possible - I would even say probable given the circumstances - that OP called Stander and Netcare before he broke the door open.

He knew what he had done. He was probably petrified of having to see what he had done. His initial reaction could have been that he simply couldn't face the reality of what he'd done.

He irrationally calls for help from the balcony (to who?) when there's a panic alarm in the same room. He then calls Stander - probably saying something like "Something awful's happened". I very, very, very much doubt he told Stander that Reeva was lying in the toilet, barely breathing and covered in blood because what decent human being would not instantly hang up and call an ambulance after hearing that? And we know that Stander didn't call them until Stipp was there. The most rational explanation for this is that Stander didn't know exactly what the situation was - Oscar didn't say because Oscar didn't know yet.

Likewise the call to Netcare.

This also explains the "everything is fine" as he didn't want them involved before Stander arrived, who may have to told him to wait till he got there.

I think OP then broke the door on his stumps, pulled her out into the bathroom on his stumps - then went and got his legs, went downstairs and opened the door, came back and carried her down. No bloody footprints on the carpets, because his feet had not walked in any blood.

If we believe OP, nothing makes sense. If we disbelieve OP, everything does.

Odd that, huh?

To be honest, all I've seen so far are suggested theories without any concession that any parts of OP's story may be correct. An invented story is vary rarely totally invented. It's usually a combination of things that did actually occur, and things that have been changed to suit the required outcome.

So, from what we've heard so far the trial should be over really quickly, as it's simply a case of everything OP has said is a lie and everything else fits in with the crime. No need for Nel or Roux then. This should be a walk in the park. :wink:

 

[lisasalinger]

I believe that the test results will show that a cricket bat striking a door, in that bathroom of that house, cannot be heard from inside any of the witnesses houses. I believe they only heard the gunshot noises. I believe many folks here have pointed out the differences in the types of sounds the two make and the way that they do or do not travel; others have commented on how sounds are absorbed by the materials like the walls, furniture, floors, and windows. I wish someone would make a video enactment of the two, from inside a home on the 2nd level in a bathroom. Not being snarky, I really do.

Wouldn't it be cool if the State did secreting sound testing (just like the Defense did on Feb of this year), hit the door with the bat, and NOBODY heard it anywhere.

 

[zwiebel]

These are the best pics I have handy right now. The first one is pretty blurry.

The broken tiles are just behind the door. The one large white piece is actually a bathroom scale and the other smaller pieces of white are the broken tile. I'm not sure if there is a door stopper on that wall, or if the door actually reaches that wall. I suppose the Defense could suggest that one of the "flying" panels hit the wall and broke the tiles.

I do not recall Nel bringing up the cause of the broken tiles with any of the investigators.

Those flying door panels still get me. Bashed in, but they managed to fly outwards? It probably doesn't mean much either way, but it's another little inconsistency lacking a proper explanation.

 

[lisasalinger]

Does anyone have links to photos of the smashed tiles in the bathroom? Did Nel bring this up with any of the police and forensics witnesses?

OP seemed to be a fairly neat and tidy person about the house but he had broken aircon, a bashed-in bath panel, broken window downstairs, "bullet" hole in, and damage to, his bedroom door...

I've seen some others suggest that just because there is damage, doesn't mean it's related to the shooting. I will somewhat agree that certain things may not be related, but they absolutely must investigate those items to find out. We can't just assume they are not related. And the trial is nowhere near over, so to say that they are not relevant as fact would be incorrect.

It's kind of like investigators looking at a murder scene, finding a 2nd dead body in the closet and assuming that somebody else shot that person at a different time, so no big deal.

 

[Insp.Dots]

I also believe that the phone which was not delibaretely not handed to police , was thr one OP made the calls and that's why maybe he put into the scene the ones not used for months.

That did cross my mind. The frustrating thing is the Police should have contained the crime scene and all access to it and should have got his phone immediately. The mistakes that Both a and whoever else made those errors have made the States case extra hard as they have had to deal with all the anomalies. Ie: unsecured crime scene, evidence lost, evidence stolen. Mistakes with photographs. Leaked information etc. Botha charged on intentional killing stating that OP definitely had his prosthetics on which alone proved pre-med and that he found steroids. This was immediately grabbed on by the media who in turn convinced a large amount of people OP was Guilty of Murder...end of!!
Don't get me wrong I am pretty much decided he is guilty but I would feel a lot better about OP receiving a life sentence without a shadow of a doubt or any grounds for future appeal. That is the Justice Reeva and her loved ones deserve!
Rant over

 

[lisasalinger]

To be honest, all I've seen so far are suggested theories without any concession that any parts of OP's story may be correct. An invented story is vary rarely totally invented. It's usually a combination of things that did actually occur, and things that have been changed to suit the required outcome.

So, from what we've heard so far the trial should be over really quickly, as it's simply a case of everything OP has said is a lie and everything else fits in with the crime. No need for Nel or Roux then. This should be a walk in the park. :wink:

But think about that... if he did shoot her intentionally then he darn well would need to put together a nifty story to explain it. I agree that it's unlikely 100% of his story is a lie but many elements of it would need to be manufactured.

The fact that many inconsistencies have been found (numerous reports of a woman screaming before shots, bathroom light on, eating 2 hours before death, shorts pulled up when shot, facing the door when shot, the head wound being the 3rd or 4th shot leaving time and all likelihood to scream, etc, etc) make me REALLY question OP's story. That's why we are so critical... or I should say why I am critical. I can't speak for others.

I'm not just discounting everything he says for the sake of discounting it. I'm discounting elements of it because I believe the evidence proves otherwise.

 

[MeeBee]

To be honest, all I've seen so far are suggested theories without any concession that any parts of OP's story may be correct. An invented story is vary rarely totally invented. It's usually a combination of things that did actually occur, and things that have been changed to suit the required outcome.

So, from what we've heard so far the trial should be over really quickly, as it's simply a case of everything OP has said is a lie and everything else fits in with the crime. No need for Nel or Roux then. This should be a walk in the park. :wink:

Thank you. No one has said to assume his version is true. There's absolutely nothing wrong with considering it though. All that's being floated are possibilities. It's getting a little old being accused of being an apologist. All one needs to do is look at my initial posts on this forum to see that is far from the truth. I was totally ready to convict. I have real doubts now though and these doubts disturb me. All I am doing is forcing myself to look at all angles of possibility to make sure that I am giving the accused a fair shot and not missing anything and sussing through all the possible scenarios to make sure I've considered everything. If I were on the jury this is exactly what I would be doing. It doesn't mean I believe him. It means I need to be very sure of his guilt before condemning him a cold blooded killer. I could never on good conscious send a man to prison for the rest of his life on this evidence alone.

 

[zwiebel]

On the thread of the guy about to be extradited from the UK to SA to stand trial for arranging the murder of his new bride (Derwani), I linked a documentary. In that, experts point out omissions in ballistics, powder residue and phone evidence.

They are reminiscent of some omissions we seem to have in this case. I really hope they are cleared up next week. Otherwise, there will be some gaps in the case state has presented so far, I think. From the bedroom door to the bath panel and the phone records, and some witness discrepancies...

 

[Interested Bystander]

I felt I needed time away from the board and to listen to a few of the testimonies again but I went to You Tube and got totally diverted. I do not watch TV other than the news but I found myself logged in to a couple of Journeyman TV programmes. Being in the UK I have never heard of them but found them quite compelling.

It seems there is already a film together with a title about the Pistorius Murder. It will be called Oscar - the Fall of a Titan. I am sure our American members will know all about it but I confess to being a bit surprised that this film was already started before the Trial was underway. Quite interesting.

The second distraction was again a Journeyman TV programme but this time an interview with Robert Shapiro of OJSimpson fame. Insight into how a Defence Lawyer's mind works, well at least his.


[video=youtube;e1DfpuTHGYg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1DfpuTHGYg[/video]

The OJ Simpson Lawyer's Verdict On Pistorius

 

[lisasalinger]

But think about that... if he did shoot her intentionally then he darn well would need to put together a nifty story to explain it. I agree that it's unlikely 100% of his story is a lie but many elements of it would need to be manufactured.

The fact that many inconsistencies have been found (numerous reports of a woman screaming before shots, bathroom light on, eating 2 hours before death, shorts pulled up when shot, facing the door when shot, the head wound being the 3rd or 4th shot leaving time and all likelihood to scream, etc, etc) make me REALLY question OP's story. That's why we are so critical... or I should say why I am critical. I can't speak for others.

I'm not just discounting everything he says for the sake of discounting it. I'm discounting elements of it because I believe the evidence proves otherwise.

And I have to go back to a post that I made a few pages back and add... it is absolutely impossible for me to believe that the supposed cricket bat sounds (the 2nd round of sounds) caused the screaming to stop.

I have to reiterate this again... does it make any sense whatsoever that Oscar would be shrieking in despair BEFORE he finds Reeva in the toilet?

If he hasn't broken down the door yet, and he doesn't know for sure that it is her, why is he shrieking like a woman?

But as soon as he hits the door (the last set of sounds) he immediately stops making noise. Seeing the massive violent injuries that he has inflicted on his loved one has absolutely no effect on him...just silence?

If you want to believe that the cricket bats are the second set of sounds then you need to believe he made no shrieking cries after he found her. It doesn't add up.

Asking me to believe that is like asking me to believe that the earth is square.

 

[steveml]

I've seen some others suggest that just because there is damage, doesn't mean it's related to the shooting. I will somewhat agree that certain things may not be related, but they absolutely must investigate those items to find out. We can't just assume they are not related. And the trial is nowhere near over, so to say that they are not relevant as fact would be incorrect.

It's kind of like investigators looking at a murder scene, finding a 2nd dead body in the closet and assuming that somebody else shot that person at a different time, so no big deal.

You'll find that many things aren't even introduced to the case. The problem is that you only have to change you line of reasoning once, and a big part of the perceived evidence becomes irrelevant.

For example, if the blood in the bedroom isn't conclusive, Nel may simply not suggest that there was anything untoward in the bedroom. This would mean he probably wouldn't use the bedroom door, even if it's got marks and a hole. It's pointless introducing evidence if it's not going to form part of your story. He knows Roux is unlikely to introduce it as it may incriminate his own client. Basically, an attorney want's his main evidence focused on, too many unnecessary exhibits damage his case. The same goes for quantity of witnesses.

 

[steveml]

But think about that... if he did shoot her intentionally then he darn well would need to put together a nifty story to explain it. I agree that it's unlikely 100% of his story is a lie but many elements of it would need to be manufactured.

The fact that many inconsistencies have been found (numerous reports of a woman screaming before shots, bathroom light on, eating 2 hours before death, shorts pulled up when shot, facing the door when shot, the head wound being the 3rd or 4th shot leaving time and all likelihood to scream, etc, etc) make me REALLY question OP's story. That's why we are so critical... or I should say why I am critical. I can't speak for others.

I'm not just discounting everything he says for the sake of discounting it. I'm discounting elements of it because I believe the evidence proves otherwise.

That's fine. Have you then put yourself in the shoes of Roux, and tested your theories with his potential comebacks? If you have, great and well done. If you haven't, all you've actually achieved is to build a case around OP's guilt, by suggesting all the probabilities in favour of the defense. That's easy because it's only half the job.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

To be honest, all I've seen so far are suggested theories without any concession that any parts of OP's story may be correct. An invented story is vary rarely totally invented. It's usually a combination of things that did actually occur, and things that have been changed to suit the required outcome.

So, from what we've heard so far the trial should be over really quickly, as it's simply a case of everything OP has said is a lie and everything else fits in with the crime. No need for Nel or Roux then. This should be a walk in the park. :wink:

Well his statement is definitely not all invented because he did shoot her and has admitted to shooting her ,we are merely discussing a mixture of the evidence that has been presented so far along with some personal hunches with regard to things that don't quite add up

Many crimes are solved when the police have a hunch or gut feeling and then go looking for clues one way or the other . We are mostly discussing our hunches whether they be right or wrong with other possible scenarios .
We haven't heard from the defence yet so only have the prosecution evidence to mull over which is of course that he is lying . Maybe when the defence starts we may all have different opinions . I don't feel we should be judged for our opinions now .

 

[james83]

To be honest, all I've seen so far are suggested theories without any concession that any parts of OP's story may be correct. An invented story is vary rarely totally invented. It's usually a combination of things that did actually occur, and things that have been changed to suit the required outcome.

So, from what we've heard so far the trial should be over really quickly, as it's simply a case of everything OP has said is a lie and everything else fits in with the crime. No need for Nel or Roux then. This should be a walk in the park. :wink:

Not true, i totally believe the part where he says he fired the gun 4 times.

 

[MeeBee]

You'll find that many things aren't even introduced to the case. The problem is that you only have to change you line of reasoning once, and a big part of the perceived evidence becomes irrelevant.

For example, if the blood in the bedroom isn't conclusive, Nel may simply not suggest that there was anything untoward in the bedroom. This would mean he probably wouldn't use the bedroom door, even if it's got marks and a hole. It's pointless introducing evidence if it's not going to form part of your story. He knows Roux is unlikely to introduce it as it may incriminate his own client. Basically, an attorney want's his main evidence focused on, too many unnecessary exhibits damage his case. The same goes for quantity of witnesses.

We saw this in the Jodi Arias trial. Photos of strings or fibers were presented that the state never offered up any explanation for and it was confusing. Maybe it's not quite the same because the defense tried to insinuate they were something they couldn't possibly be and the state only put the pictures up to show the jury and let them decide (I think he also mentioned that they were to dainty to be rope fibers). But it's true that there is evidence sometimes that neither side can link to their case even if they have their theories. We can speculate all we want but if it never becomes relevant then it might as well not exist.

 

[lisasalinger]

That's fine. Have you then put yourself in the shoes of Roux, and tested your theories with his potential comebacks? If you have, great and well done. If you haven't, all you've actually achieved is to build a case around OP's guilt, by suggesting all the probabilities in favour of the defense. That's easy because it's only half the job.

I agree with you completely that you have to consider both sides. I did at one point take Oscar's version of events and interjected the witness testimony & physical evidence (that we had at the time) to see if it worked. For me, it did not. I respect that others see it differently. But I can confirm that I have gone through the mechanics of each piece presented and compared it to the other side. And will continue to do so.

 

[steveml]

Thank you. No one has said to assume his version is true. There's absolutely nothing wrong with considering it though. All that's being floated are possibilities. It's getting a little old being accused of being an apologist. All one needs to do is look at my initial posts on this forum to see that is far from the truth. I was totally ready to convict. I have real doubts now though and these doubts disturb me. All I am doing is forcing myself to look at all angles of possibility to make sure that I am giving the accused a fair shot and not missing anything and sussing through all the possible scenarios to make sure I've considered everything. If I were on the jury this is exactly what I would be doing. It doesn't mean I believe him. It means I need to be very sure of his guilt before condemning him a cold blooded killer. I could never on good conscious send a man to prison for the rest of his life on this evidence alone.

Well said. The idea of this forum isn't to flout somebody's guilt or innocence. I actually think those that see fit to conclude when we've not yet had the half the trial are doing justice an injustice. Reeva and her parents deserve the truth. That's what her parents have asked for. I could claim OP was innocent and every time I see an improbability err on the presumption that it will go in the favour of OP. It simply won't happen as trials don't work like that. I really hope that people don't think Roux is going to walk into court without answers for a lot of these theories. He'll have put himself in Nel's shoes to test his theories and vice versa.

 

[Rumpole]

If you take what Lisa posted yesterday, "The screaming stopped after the volley of gunshots stopped" as true, and you believe that screaming and gunshots did occur at 3:17, then what are you arguing about exactly? I read your posts and I cannot follow your logic. Please help me see your side of just the 3:17 issue.

I'll try, but in my experience it is VERY rare that anybody is convinced of anything at a forum like this. It can be fun trying, but also very frustrating and it often gets personal and so not fun at all.

I have stated over and over that I am sure the gunshots were around 3:10 and that the bangs at 3:17 were the sounds of cricket bat on door. I see so much evidence for this just in PROSECUTION witness testimony I don't consider that to be an issue at all any more.
The screams that burgers heard, after they woke up having MISSED hearing the gunshots, were wails of anguish from OP... he stopped around the time he was banging the door. After that he had a VERY full minute or so, dragging Reeva to bathroom and phoning for help.

I see people speculating about all sorts of variations on details of events.. they are all a huge stretch to fit the State contention that the shots were at 3:17

OP's version of events is at least supported by his own testimony. Speculation about a different version of those events is speculation with nothing to support it. It is infinitely variable to suit and so pointless. IF the State want to suggest a version of events at odds with details that OP has testified to, they need to put it before the Judge, with the evidence that supports it.. else she will not be considering it. The Judge will not just think... I have my doubts about OP's version, I think I will go for any old version other than OP's version. She will accept OP's version and give it as much weight as she feels is due to OP's testimony in general.
OP is the only witness to details of events around shooting and the minutes after. His version stands unless there is credible evidence to contradict it. Just speculating anything that fits a preferred hypothesis is not evidence, and besides it wont be considered unless it is put before the Judge.

 

[steveml]

I agree with you completely that you have to consider both sides. I did at one point take Oscar's version of events and interjected the witness testimony & physical evidence (that we had at the time) to see if it worked. For me, it did not. I respect that others see it differently. But I can confirm that I have gone through the mechanics of each piece presented and compared it to the other side. And will continue to do so.

That's great. It's a job and a half but it does force you to question things. Plenty more of the trial to go yet anyhow.

FWIW I'm really impressed at the lengths that many have gone to get fully clued up with the case. It's so time-consuming to keep up with everything. I think Nel manufactured the break purely for the benefit of the forum :wink:

 

[minor4th]

I can only surmise that it could have been that metal plate getting bashed in... or a warning shot, if it comes to light that there is a missing 5th cartridge or it is proven this week that the airgun had been recently fired.

Why can't you surmise that it was the gunshots?