Trial Discussion Thread #15

[screecher]

You simply cannot say OP will be convicted of murder - fact.

Fact>Where there's true justice, justice WILL be served.

 

[Trooper]

when Oscar raised his head from struggling to pull or put his fingers down Reeva's throat in the hallway that night.. ( his other hand on her groin).. and saw Dr Stipp , he said.. 'I shot her, I killed her, I thought she was an intruder'..

he should have added..'but I was not of sound mind!'...

 

[Gbtaketwo]

perhaps you are forgetting his 'deep terror' stuff??


since his entire justification relies on this very point, it would be difficult to ignore it.

Yes and I think that is why Nel has entered into evidence the fact that he has an alarm with with external sensors and has a panic button ,which incidentally would have brought help immediately .

 

[Trooper]

it would still be murder though!.. murder while not of sound mind, perhaps. still. held at the pleasure of the Republic of South Africa in a secure mental ward for decades..

 

[jay-jay]

I still maintain that it doesn't add up that someone who is so paranoid about being broken into, would have a large sliding bathroom window that they didn't lock at night, or indeed be able to sleep with such ease with the balcony doors wide open .. it just doesn't ring true to me. If he wasn't so fearful, as he claims he was, then there would be no problem with leaving the bathroom window and the balcony doors open, but not if you are as fearful as he is making out he is/was. OK, he would normally have the aircon on, and have the windows shut at night, right? .. and the aircon wasn't working at that time, so he had to open windows and put fans on instead? Only that doesn't work either, because if you were used to sleeping with all the doors and windows shut (because it was cool enough with the aircon on), then if when the aircon breaks down and you have to sleep with all the windows open, then I am pretty sure that on those particular occasions, you would have a great deal of trouble getting off to sleep because you would automatically feel vulnerable .. and you would make sure you got your aircon sorted out pretty damned quick. So how long, exactly, had that aircon system not been working? It would be pretty damned convenient if it happened to break down that very day .. and someone like him would get something like that sorted out pretty quickly, I'm sure .. my understanding of people I know who live in the states can't be without their aircon.

 

[screecher]

The State did use ST though, which raises a question from me as to whether it was disclosed to the prosecution and from them to the defense and on into evidence just what is referred to in this article and how much it cost OP to keep that suppressed. - bbm:

http://mg.co.za/article/2013-02-15-00-reports-of-aggression-haunt-oscar-pistorius-social-relationships

Yeah. I'd like to know how expensive that retraction was.

Or more likely, how widespread the threat.

 

[screecher]

what Roux has to get Oscar to do. or do it in Oscars place should he not take the stand. ( a very bad move in my opinion) ..

is translate and transfer the exact level of terror that Oscar says overwhelmed him at that particular point in time, and maintain it for the time estimated to grab the gun , run shouting thru the passage.. . aim, and fire four times..

to the judge. Oscar has to make the subjective, objective.. he has to share the 'feeling'. And make it believable.

Are you suggesting trigger-obsessed learn how to vocalize a female blood-curdling scream?

 

[Interested Bystander]

I would be interested to see that statement too, because in the affidavat I found, he stated it was locked ..

.. OK, I've done a bit of searching and the affidavat's which have been quoted on here are for his bail application. This is the one which was presented in court at the start of the trial itself .. it is his 'Plea Explanation' .. and it mentions nothing whatever about a bedroom door being locked, he has missed that bit out completely (either intentionally or unintentionally, we don't know yet). http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/03/world/document-pistorius-plea-statement/ .. so, it doesn't show that he changed it from the bedroom door being locked to it being unlocked, it just shows that he missed it off completely, for some reason (which sounds a bit suspicious to me).


Edit: apologies .. I've just seen that Gavel Rash posted a link to the Plea Explanation upthread .. I'm just trying to do a catchup here, and haven't yet caught up with later posts!

You are right the door being locked has been left out of he plea statement but I think I am right in saying there is evidence that the bedroom door was broken and therefore was unable to be locked properly. Hence the redaction.

 

[minor4th]

I read that study.



The risk factors listed above are possible predictors for potential future repeat assaults or homicide between intimate partners, so that victim advocates, healthcare professionals, law enforcement, and victims can take proactive measures to ensure their safety in the future, as well as to assist shelters in assessing who may be in greatest need of emergency shelter (since domestic violence shelter space is extremely limited).



The Danger Assessment was and is not intended as a retroactive litmus test to attempt to absolve defendants of murder charges.



Nor is the Danger Assessment intended to be a crystal ball that can accurately predict who or who will not commit IPH (intimate partner homicide).



It is meant as a guide so that when particular potential risk factors are present, action can be taken to prevent possible future violence and/or death.



In no way, shape, or form does it seek to establish that if the potential risk factors listed in the Danger Assessment are absent, that a defendant charged with murder is not guilty of those charges.

But wait ...I thought we were extrapolating from 4 texts that Oscar was emotionally abusive, therefore he was physically abusive, therefore he intentionally killed Reeva...

No?

 

[Trooper]

Are you suggesting trigger-obsessed learn how to vocalize a female blood-curdling scream?

I simply don't know, mitty.. !


but its gotta be good.

 

[Cherwell]

FWIW and imo, I saw Mrs Stipp as annoyed rather than coy. She was exasperated with OW, and wanted to go. OW had by then bullied her for some time in an attempt to get her to "agree", by way of a photo taken much higher up, that from her much lower position on the bed she couldn't have a clear view of OP's bathroom window through the curtain ties, when she most definitely could. He was literally trying to batter her to agree using a false argument. And it was not the first time I have seen the defence being devious and dishonest in this way. Roux did exactly the same when claiming two different photos showed the bat had moved because the tiles didn't line up the same, and he even got the poor simple photographer to agree obviously knowing little about perspective, foreshortening, etc.! I mean, how are tiles going to line up at the same point in photos taken at two different angles, one from behind and one from the front, two different distances etc.!

Plus iirc Mrs Stipp was referring to a different shoot to OW in respect of her hand although I was so annoyed at the use of such a devious trick that I lost interest to save getting further annoyed.

Absolutely. The defence team has deliberately set out to deceive witnesses on several occasions. I respect a barrister who can elicit the response he desires from witnesses through clever questioning and persuasion, but Roux & co. have been outright dishonest.

 

[Cherwell]

Good grief.

A woman, in the course of a very traumatic event, is told by her husband that he can see a person moving. This forms part of her narrative and she relates it in her statement. Being an HONEST person, determined to give the best possible evidence she can she thinks, thinks, thinks long and hard and then VOLUNTARILY goes back to the police to explain that she has made a MISTAKE.

This shows immense integrity and reliability. A person who didn't care and who was intent on deceit would simply not bother, because who is to know to she didn't see a person moving?

Under no rational definition of the word can Mrs Stipp be called a liar, and I'm aghast at this flagrant misuse of the word.

To suggest that the judge will call her a liar and dismiss her testimony is stunningly naive. Whether certain people on this thread like it or not, Mrs Stipp's testimony is corroborated by three others.

And she forgot that she'd held a curtain back? So what? Human minds and memory are not concrete structures - anyone with any experience of the law and witness testimonies knows this.

This is real life, not an Agatha Christie novel to scratch through looking for clues. Four people heard a woman screaming for her life for the best part of 15 minutes. Know what's most likely? A woman screamed for her life for 15 minutes.

For those who have confused their need to be "right" with whether this man is guilty or not, try answering the following instead of wrapping yourselves up in fictions about lying witnesses:

If OP's affidavit is honest, where does it tell us that he did nothing but scream for 15 minutes before doing anything else? Before shouting from the balcony, calling anyone or breaking the door down? 15 minutes is a lot of screaming. Did he forget that? Oh wait - forgetting = lying, right? So OP lied about his screaming?

If OP shot Reeva around 3am, how come her heart was still beating 20 minutes later when he brought her down the stairs - which it must have been to account for the arterial spray? Saayman said she'd only have taken a few breaths. Hearts do keep beating for a little while after brain stem death, but 20 minutes? Unless, of course, Saayman is a liar and an incompetent fool, just like everyone else involved in this trial except the man who shot his girlfriend to death.

Perhaps you'd also like to explain the weird time warp that Dr Stipp found himself in. OP says he shouted "Help, help, help" from his balcony very shortly after he shot Reeva - it was the first thing he did, even before he broke down the door.

Dr Stipp heard a man shouting EXACTLY these words from EXACTLY the right place (the balcony is to the left of the bathroom, as Dr Stipp specified) but 15 minutes later than he should have done.

Any answers to these anomalies? Of course not - a woman forgetting she held back a curtain is of much more consequence, right?

It's also been pointed out several times that pre-meditation in this case simply means that OP knew who he was shooting behind the door. It does not suggest that OP "planned" a murder in the way it might mean in the UK or US. A red mist moment would still meet the pre-meditation criteria.

And, excuse me, but a man getting angry with a woman mentioning an ex or touching another man's arm all in the first few weeks of a relationship are very big red flags for emotional instability. I'd also point out that past behaviour only goes so far when predicting violence in a relationship - at some point every single abuser hit someone without ever having done so before. According to the "logic" on this thread, this is an impossibility. If you haven't done anything like that before, it's impossible to ever do it?

Superb post.

 

[minor4th]

Has anyone seen a complete timeline of events posted online for what the defence and prosecution is proposing for the night of the shooting? I was looking for something that includes all of the witness testimony, the two sets of bangs, etc etc.

Thank you

There's no clear theory by the state so you won't find a timeline.

 

[Interested Bystander]

But wait ...I thought we were extrapolating from 4 texts that Oscar was emotionally abusive, therefore he was physically abusive, therefore he intentionally killed Reeva...

No?

No, not four texts/messages per se. Four conversations, each of which included many texts.This is where I see Roux, yet again, being less than truthful. The IT guy did point out that these were conversations not just texts but Roux carried on, as his habit, completely disregarding the fact that this clarification had been given.

 

[jay-jay]

And, excuse me, but a man getting angry with a woman mentioning an ex or touching another man's arm all in the first few weeks of a relationship are very big red flags for emotional instability. I'd also point out that past behaviour only goes so far when predicting violence in a relationship - at some point every single abuser hit someone without ever having done so before. According to the "logic" on this thread, this is an impossibility. If you haven't done anything like that before, it's impossible to ever do it?

Absolutely spot on.

 

[Cherwell]

You are right the door being locked has been left out of he plea statement but I think I am right in saying there is evidence that the bedroom door was broken and therefore was unable to be locked properly. Hence the redaction.

So either Pistorius lied in his bail affidavit, or the door got broken that night?

 

[minor4th]

I didn't answer the question because I wasn't really sure what you were getting at when you asked it .. it had already been established that it was the bathroom window that slides, and that it was the bathroom window that OP stated he heard sliding, and I just assumed that you and everyone else already knew that?

Thanks for answering but to clarify - are we talking about the big bathroom or the little toilet cubicle?

Genuinely unsure. It's not a trick question

 

[jay-jay]

Actually, I wonder if there were any other messages which were missed due to them appearing to be lovely dovey. There are a number of classic type of things which abusers say to their 'loved one' .. things like "I would never hurt you" .. now to some, that might sound like a fairly benign thing, but it is a classic thing which abuser say to their victim and which, in a normal loving relationship, would never even need to be said anyway .. so if I had read through all the messages myself and saw that (or one of the other classic lines) being said, that would've set all the alarm bells ringing whereas someone who doesn't know a great deal about DA probably wouldn't really think that much of it.

 

[steveml]

Fact>Where there's true justice, justice WILL be served.

That sentiment I wholeheartedly agree with.

:goodpost:

 

[Cherwell]

No, not four texts/messages per se. Four conversations, each of which included many texts.This is where I see Roux, yet again, being less than truthful. The IT guy did point out that these were conversations not just texts but Roux carried on, as his habit, completely disregarding the fact that this clarification had been given.

Roux's not the only culprit either. :tsktsk: