Trial Discussion Thread #14 - 14.03.28, Day 16

[MeeBee]

I wonder if this is the main reason for the defence having Reeva at the right side of the bed . When the scene looks more like she would have been on the left both iPads were found at the right hand side of the bed and DT were keen to have on record there is no proof who was using them at the time .
I can't help but there is more that Mel was hoping to bring out in cross exam of OP failing that closing arguments ?
Bearing in mind Reeva had stayed the night before she would have likely known where to place her slippers the second night .
Obviously that is assuming that Reeva ever got into bed that night . I can't buy into her wearing those clothes all day ,then doing a yoga session and leaving them on to go to bed to sleep or otherwise .
If it is all about the iPad use or content then my guess is it should be something more than a bit of . I am not into that but lots are so what could it be ?
Hopefully it won't be an anti climax .

Honestly, I think that's all it is. The state wants to say that Oscar was looking at which a. Means Oscar is a bad guy who watches with his girlfriend in the house and b. could have led to a fatal argument. So Roux, naturally, has to argue this point. I think people are wanting and hoping it to be more because of how thin the overall case against Oscar was and hoping Nel has something up his sleeve. But I just can't imagine he'd have something incriminating against Oscar and then leave it up in the air and in the lap of the judge. I mean, he has to give Roux a chance to dispute it, right? It's the history, I'm sure of it now.

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

Just wondering, how long did your blindness last?

OP claims after coming in with two fans which he apparently was able to place without incident, close the sliding doors, blinds and curtains, then was able to make his way to the other side of the bed to get his gun from under the bed that RS was supposedly sleeping in though he later says he'd just spoken to her moments before(apparently all done as quietly and invisibly as a ninja as it didn't even make RS question what he was doing which should have made him question why she didn't), then proceeded down the passageway to the bathroom when he saw the window was indeed open and somehow equated that to mean he had someone hellbent on killing him and RS hidden in the toilet room ... and then decided that he would loudly warn this someone to get out of his house and for RS to call the police ... seconds before he opened fire on the closed door until he could no longer hear anything but still felt the need to yell once more at RS to call the police before he went to check on her....

I'd laugh if it hadn't killed someone.

And after the shots when he returned to the bathroom , it dawned on him that it could have been Reeva in the loo.. I would ask why ? Wasn't it still pitch dark in the bedroom ? :facepalm:

 

[Really?]

If I shoot an intruder in my home, the 1st call I should make would be to?

A: My property Association
B: My Friends
C: My Mortgage Lenders
D: My neighbors
E: My lawyer
F: Police

Please help me pick the correct answer!

............um.....E ?............:floorlaugh:

 

[minor4th]

I wonder if this is the main reason for the defence having Reeva at the right side of the bed . When the scene looks more like she would have been on the left both iPads were found at the right hand side of the bed and DT were keen to have on record there is no proof who was using them at the time .
I can't help but there is more that Mel was hoping to bring out in cross exam of OP failing that closing arguments ?
Bearing in mind Reeva had stayed the night before she would have likely known where to place her slippers the second night .
Obviously that is assuming that Reeva ever got into bed that night . I can't buy into her wearing those clothes all day ,then doing a yoga session and leaving them on to go to bed to sleep or otherwise .
If it is all about the iPad use or content then my guess is it should be something more than a bit of . I am not into that but lots are so what could it be ?
Hopefully it won't be an anti climax .

Maybe she was actually on the right side of the bed.

She placed her overnight bag on the little sofa thing and her sandals next to it - that seems totally logical irrespective of which side of the bed she slept on.

It's not going to make a lot of sense if you start with the belief that everything in OPs statement is a lie and then try to figure out the exact purpose of the lie. To consider all of the evidence together, you can't exclude the possibility that Oscar's statements are true.

 

[Cherwell]

Bearing in mind Reeva had stayed the night before she would have likely known where to place her slippers the second night .
Obviously that is assuming that Reeva ever got into bed that night . I can't buy into her wearing those clothes all day ,then doing a yoga session and leaving them on to go to bed to sleep or otherwise .

Definitely not. If she did yoga or exercises, she would surely have wanted to have a shower afterwards. And there's no way she would have put the same sweaty clothes back on after showering - not if she was only going to bed.

If it is all about the iPad use or content then my guess is it should be something more than a bit of . I am not into that but lots are so what could it be ?
Hopefully it won't be an anti climax .

I know it's wrong of me, but that made me laugh :giggle:

 

[minor4th]

Honestly, I think that's all it is. The state wants to say that Oscar was looking at which a. Means Oscar is a bad guy who watches with his girlfriend in the house and b. could have led to a fatal argument. So Roux, naturally, has to argue this point. I think people are wanting and hoping it to be more because of how thin the overall case against Oscar was and hoping Nel has something up his sleeve. But I just can't imagine he'd have something incriminating against Oscar and then leave it up in the air and in the lap of the judge. I mean, he has to give Roux a chance to dispute it, right? It's the history, I'm sure of it now.

I'm sure of it too because that was specifically one of their reasons for an inference of premeditation.

 

[MeeBee]

I'm sure of it too because that was specifically one of their reasons for an inference of premeditation.

Thank you for that. Because when people were talking about it earlier that's where my was going but didn't mention it because I thought I could be wrong (well, I did briefly mention it a couple threads back) If the is part of their case of premeditation, then I'm gonna have to reject that. Even when I thought Oscar was for sure guilty I still didn't think the was that big of a deal.

 

[Really?]

Hey, I'm just reporting what the State has said its case it, and no its not fluid like that where the state can change its case and theory mid-trial. They don't have a case for pre-meditation or intentional killing.

As far as dolus eventualis - For one thing, that basis of intent is very rarely used. I don't think even comes into play in this case because Oscar is not claiming that he didn't intend to kill someone. He's claiming he didn't intend to kill Reeva and that he believed he was acting lawfully by defending his life against the bad guy in the bathroom. The question is not whether he foresaw the possibility of killing someone behind the door, it's whether he foresaw the possibility of killing Reeva by shooting at what he thought was an intruder in the bathroom.

Since Oscar will presumably testify, he can explain that he did not foresee any possibility of shooting and killing Reeva when he was shooting through the door at what he thought was a burglar while he believed Reeva was in bed. There goes dolus eventualis

Yeah,.....but he shot through a closed door not knowing WHAT was on the other side.......moo

 

[K.T]

What a trashy, opportunistic publication - they don't make a comment public because it's not cool to criticize Oscar and now three years later they publish it because it's suddenly cool to criticize Oscar. What a bunch of crap!

Yes, Oscar is sensitive about his disability and sensitive about suggestions that he has an advantage and was rightfully sickened when the BBC broadcaster called him an inconvenient embarrassment.

I do not at all find his response in the linked article to be unusual or aggressive. It is a natural and expected response that Oscar would not want to give the publication further interviews if the result is a negative piece that suggests he's looking for an unfair advantage.

Respectfully disagree. Pistorius blades perhaps having a scientific edge over the competition in the Paralympics and the Olmpics have always been part of the discussion. Pistorius himself revealed the same point that the scientists and officials debate in his angry outburst over how ‘unfair an advantage’ his competitor’s longer blades were.

The article lays out the how the machine of publicity, sport’s journalism’s need to create idols and fear of losing access to a celebrity athlete, makes it difficult to legitimately question an athlete success and character.

Sports on Earth is also a good read, it looks in-depth into the culture and broader perspectives around sport.

 

[steveml]

I know it's wrong of me, but that made me laugh :giggle:

It did me as well, but I thought I'd wait for someone else...

:fence:

 

[minor4th]

Yeah,.....but he shot through a closed door not knowing WHAT was on the other side.......moo

Yet genuinely believing it to be an intruder who had come to harm him and his property

 

[lisasalinger]

So let's look at the States initial reasoning for filing intentional murder charges as opposed to the lesser offense of culpable homicide:

1. Oscar was on his prosthetics when he fired the shots through the bathroom door

2. Three phones were in the bathroom and they're going to show that Reeva was in some kind of distress and evidence if a big fight leading up to the shooting

This is still possible - we haven't heard the full content of those messages

3. Oscar was watching when he should have been watching his girlfriend do yoga

someone was watching via evidence presented on iPad but not sure if that means anything

4. A bunch of neighbors heard Reeva and Oscar in a loud fight for an hour or so immediately preceding the shooting

A bunch of neighbors heard a woman screaming blood curdling screams and a man's voice intermixed. I know this is a hot point of contention, but I believe these witnesses

5. Oscar never called security or an ambulance (indicating he was trying to cover it up)

We can't say never, but his phone call activity & communications immediately after do raise serious question especially since someone on his team hijacked his phone from the scene and conveniently didn't tell anybody about it until the investigators came looking for it

Now that we've seen what we've seen which of those justifications still exist?

None. Not a single one. Disagree with statement per above

Just my personal opinion as I've stated in other posts, I strongly believe that they have laid out many elements that have the potential to be very strong if they are all tied together correctly. I also believe that we have a lot more to hear in the weeks ahead.

 

[minor4th]

Respectfully disagree. Pistorius blades perhaps having a scientific edge over the competition in the Paralympics and the Olmpics have always been part of the discussion. Pistorius himself revealed the same point that the scientists and officials debate in his angry outburst over how ‘unfair an advantage’ his competitor’s longer blades were.

The article lays out the how the machine of publicity, sport’s journalism’s need to create idols and fear of losing access to a celebrity athlete, makes it difficult to legitimately question an athlete success and character.

Sports on Earth is also a good read, it looks in-depth into the culture and broader perspectives around sport.

My comment had nothing to do with the content of the article, and I actually believe that Oscar should probably not be allowed to compete on blades with able-bodied athletes.

My comment was about the sleazy publication that just takes this opportunity, three years later, to publish a comment from Oscar because they think it makes him look bad.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Maybe she was actually on the right side of the bed.

She placed her overnight bag on the little sofa thing and her sandals next to it - that seems totally logical irrespective of which side of the bed she slept on.

It's not going to make a lot of sense if you start with the belief that everything in OPs statement is a lie and then try to figure out the exact purpose of the lie. To consider all of the evidence together, you can't exclude the possibility that Oscar's statements are true.

I understand your points ,thanks
I just toy with things that don't make sense to me .
I don't know what to believe and what not to believe but just feel there are a lot of unbelievable elements.
I am obviously not legally qualified and have only followed this one case that I feel sad about . That said I am learning quite a lot here

 

[minor4th]

Just my personal opinion as I've stated in other posts, I strongly believe that they have laid out many elements that have the potential to be very strong if they are all tied together correctly. I also believe that we have a lot more to hear in the weeks ahead.

I can't quote your red comments, but to address a couple - yes, we can say for sure that Oscar did call security and an ambulance almost immediately after he got the door open.

It's really not possible that the messages are going to show that Reeva was distressed that night or that they were having a big fight. We have indeed seen all of the data for when Reeva's and Oscar's phones were used that night - when messages were sent, when voice calls were made and received and when internet was accessed. There was no activity from the phones during the time period of the shooting.

We're left with whether or not a woman was screaming before 3:17, which presupposes that it was the gunshots heard at 3:17 with no explanation for the earlier gunshots heard by Dr and Mrs Stipp. In my mind, it has been well enough shown that the gunshots happened at 3-3:10, then the neighbors heard Oscar screaming, yelling, crying, and at 3:17 the sounds heard was the cricket bat breaking the door.

I know everyone keeps coming up with speculative ideas about how the earlier sounds were not the gunshots - but that's completely ignoring the evidence that the Stipps heard the gunshots before the screaming. I do not think it is reasonable to believe that the gunshots heard at 3:10 were anything other than gunshots.

 

[lisasalinger]

Please provide a link for what you are claiming here. Because--going back to the bail hearing--what you are claiming appears to be the complete opposite to the truth as far as what was revealed during the bail hearing.

Botha and Nel both said that when Roux brought up the 5th phone the day before at the BH, it was the first they found out about its very existence.

[video=youtube;FbYB_uFKE9I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbYB_uFKE9I[/video]

Start listening at 14:00

You'll need to listen for several minutes because it's a very long explanation of how he established phone numbers for each device, etc.

In summation, according to this testimony, Moller was the one who uncovered that there was a missing phone. Not sure on what day this occurred. He started processing the phones recovered from the scene on Feb 15 but I'm sure it took him some time to get records, etc

I suppose it's feasible that Nel and Botha found out at the bail hearing, while Moller was working away behind the scenes. There were numerous investigators working on the case.. if this all happened within a few days of each other, they each could have had pieces that weren't communicated to each other yet. I don't know, that's just a guess.

I definitely want to hear more about this as the trial continues.

 

[minor4th]

I understand your points ,thanks
I just toy with things that don't make sense to me .
I don't know what to believe and what not to believe but just feel there are a lot of unbelievable elements.
I am obviously not legally qualified and have only followed this one case that I feel sad about . That said I am learning quite a lot here

I appreciate your comments and enjoy your questions. I like playing "what if" also and looking at all kinds of angles.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

There appears to be a wide scope of differing medical opinions when determining time of death through stomach contents.

I think that one of the less common factors in this case is that normally the contents of the stomach would be used in evidence to establish a time of death, i.e. in instances where a body is found with no witnesses. The stomach contents, putrefaction and many other factors would be used together to try and obtain a reasonable estimated time of death.

In this particular case we know the time of death, and are trying to work backwards to establish the time of the last meal, to then ascertain the time she may have gone to bed. I personally think that the accuracy involved here is far too broad to be tied down within a couple of hours.

http://www.relentlessdefense.com/forensics/autopsy/

Stomach Contents: Estimating the time of death by examining the stomach contents is not, because of the variability in the digestion process, regarded as a very reliable method for estimating the time of death by knowledgeable forensic experts. Criminal defense attorneys should be prepared to vigorously challenge 'time of death' estimates based on the digested remains of the deceased’s last meal.

Funnily enough I have been reading similar things myself and yes it can vary quite alot more than I thought TBH . Looks like the state might well have this shot down quite easily by DT 's private pathologist .

 

[MeeBee]

So after the last set of bangs the screaming apparently did stop. But all noises did not stop. After that crying was heard that VDM thought was a woman because she thought it was a woman screaming, after which her husband informed her that it was Oscar Pistorius. Now, this is not speculation or misrepresentation. The husband had to have been correct because either way, Reeva was already dead. It had to have, indeed, been Oscar.

 

[K.T]

My comment had nothing to do with the content of the article, and I actually believe that Oscar should probably not be allowed to compete on blades with able-bodied athletes.

My comment was about the sleazy publication that just takes this opportunity, three years later, to publish a comment from Oscar because they think it makes him look bad.

No its's not "sleazy", "trashy" a site, just because they published a writer who wishes to put on the record that Oscar Pistorius, or his representatives, actively tried to suppress a more critical science perspective.

It's highly likely that most stories for the many years of Pistorius less attractive actions have been been self-censored or opportunistically ignored by publishers because of backlash from Pistorius legal or press team.

I think it's going to be interesting what comes out now.