Trial Discussion Thread #17

[jay-jay]

BBM - And missed other noises the 'intruder' would have made climbing through the window and landing on the floor. I'd like that scene to be replicated with fans on to know if he could really only hear ONE sound (conveniently).

I would also like to know whether they tested, from just inside the balcony with the fan on, to see if it was actually possible to hear the window slide open.

 

[steveml]

That makes zero sense.

If he was cold all he had to do was shut the door. He wouldn't have needed to bring the fans inside.

On the other hand, if he needed a story about why he didn't notice Reeva going to the bathroom then saying he had to bring in not one, but two fans makes sense.

If it is a made-up story, it's not even a good one for me Nastasya.

If I was going to concoct a story for murder it would be far more straight-forward. You don't have to say you spoke to Reeva, you don't have to include the fans or the balcony.
You can simply say you were sleeping on the side of the bed with the gun, thought you heard an intruder, went to the bathroom and shot.
Then you realized Reeva must have got up to go to the loo whilst you were asleep.

All you need to do is put Reeva's slippers on the other side of the bed, and you've got your story for the events leading up to the shooting.

 

[Val1]

It's not a coincidence. He's planting an idea in people's heads without actually knowing if it's true. And it worked.

Reeva's mother said it was untrue that she had ever been in an abusive relationship and is unsure of how that rumor started.

bbm - Apparently from her best friend...

“She called to say she wasn’t finished yet. She had been in an abusive relationship” in the past “and she wanted passionately to speak out about it,” Ms. Myers said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/world/africa/south-africans-debate-meaning-of-reeva-steenkamps-death.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[Gryffindor]

Again, it's possible the door shutting could sound like a window opening with the fans blaring in his ears. If he thought it was a window opening, then that's what he's going to say.

Although in one of Oscar's statements, he simply says,"I heard a noise in the bathroom." (Grabs gun and heads towards bathroom.) Nearer the end of the passage he then states,"I saw a window open."

So nothing about the noise of a window sliding open.

This time the noise couldn't be determined until he saw a bathroom window open . . . .

 

[Interested Bystander]

BBM - And missed other noises the 'intruder' would have made climbing through the window and landing on the floor. I'd like that scene to be replicated with fans on to know if he could really only hear ONE sound (conveniently). Also, what made him wake up in the first place? He doesn't say what woke him up at 3am. He just says: "I woke up at 3am and went to bring in the fans..." - if I wake up at an odd time like that, it's normally to go to the loo, or because I'm thirsty, or because I'm too hot or too cold. I don't wake up for no reason like OP apparently did.

Also assembling the ladders and placing them against the outer wall of the bathroom and climbing them (which tends to produce some noise as they flex against the wall).

 

[MeeBee]

Reeva in her tweets speaks of OPs constant "tantrums" directed at Reeva's actions, jealousy, her accent, gum chewing, (wanting Reeva to change to suit what OP believed she should be) etc... Having an argument, like you and I are now or like we might have with a family member, is not abusive until it turns personal and is done constantly, like OP did to Reeva.

And I'd be reluctant to call every douchey or moody thing a guy does abusive without the proper context. I'm not saying it's acceptable to criticize your gf's accent or gum chewing, but sometimes people can get irritable and every little thing your SO does annoys you. I tell my husband all the time to stop smacking his food, especially when I'm irritated, stop touching me, and every little thing. And the text where he apologizes for snapping at her while she was thumping his neck because he was tired could have been written by my husband. Not because he's abusive, but because sometimes I do cutesy little things like that, like tap him or tickle him, admittedly annoying stuff, and sometimes he's just not in the mood and tells me to stop. He always tells me later he's sorry, he was just tired or whatever, and hopes I'll keep doing stuff like, that.

I got the impression that the accent thing was more about a put on accent than her real accent, like how valley girls or the Kardashians speak. Again, I know it's unacceptable to tell her to stop talking that way, especially in public, but, again, I'm still reluctant to shout "ABUSE!" Again, I got that it was more out of irritation rather than the need to control. We're lacking context here.

 

[steveml]

I think in one of the texts OP does actually say that Reeva didn't like him to drive so fast so it was an issue between them but not sure to what extent .

Yep, something rings a bell with me that Reeva's mother spoke to him on the phone about him driving too fast.

It could be a dream I've had, but I seem to remember hearing/reading it somewhere.

 

[soozieqtips]

I think in one of the texts OP does actually say that Reeva didn't like him to drive so fast so it was an issue between them but not sure to what extent .

BBM - and in one of his messages to her, he says something like "I know you don't like it when I drive fast, but I had to drive to pick up your friend, and I was hungry" (or something very similar to that). I guessed that he was not happy about having to do Reeva a favour, and uses that as his excuse for driving too fast, when he admits he knows she doesn't like it. Being hungry is a lame excuse for speeding. I think he was annoyed at having to do something for Reeva and made sure she knew it.

 

[MeeBee]

If it is a made-up story, it's not even a good one for me Nastasya.

If I was going to concoct a story for murder it would be far more straight-forward. You don't have to say you spoke to Reeva, you don't have to include the fans or the balcony.
You can simply say you were sleeping on the side of the bed with the gun, thought you heard an intruder, went to the bathroom and shot.
Then you realized Reeva must have got up to go to the loo whilst you were asleep.

All you need to do is put Reeva's slippers on the other side of the bed, and you've got your story for the events leading up to the shooting.

Exactly. The idea of him popping upstairs to stage the scene around fans and lights and such is a little hard for me to fathom. It's needlessly convoluted.

 

[MeeBee]

Yep, something rings a bell with me that Reeva's mother spoke to him on the phone about him driving too fast.

It could be a dream I've had, but I seem to remember hearing/reading it somewhere.

It's true.

 

[Gryffindor]

Exactly. The idea of him popping upstairs to stage the scene around fans and lights and such is a little hard for me to fathom. It's needlessly convoluted.

I think he'd be tending to something more "incriminating" rather than fans . . . IMO

 

[Noisy Fan]

Toilet door being locked is THE critical piece that holds the killer's entire alibi together.

For killer to explain multiple bangs, and screams, the door MUST be locked.

Would Reeva really go to the trouble of locking the toilet door at 3:00 am for 30 seconds to pee in the dark?

With respect to the key being on the floor in the toilet room ...

Defence version ...

Reeva

Remember in this version Reeva has no idea what is going on and is in the toilet. All is quiet in the toilet when all of a sudden she hears Oscar screaming about intruders and for her to call to police. She is aware that Oscar was on the deck bringing in the fans. How would you process what she is hearing? She has no idea if there may be intruders or not. Does she even consider that Oscar is stupid enough to mistake herself as an intruder?

If it was me, I don't think I would make that connection. What would I do? I would quietly try to protect myself by quietly locking the toilet door and then I would phone if I had the phone and wait for more information. I would not yell out, as the whole package seems to be moving in my direction. I would be relying on Oscar to handle it as he has more information than I do. I might wonder if he saw them come in over the deck when he was outside, or whatever a mind would process not knowing what was going on ... Even after being shot how would she know who was targeting her? Oscar? Intruders? Would she break silence not knowing who was shooting?

Oscar

Oscar proceeds down hall with weapon and screams to Reeva to call police and admonishes intruders to get out of his house. Just as Oscar reaches corner going into the bathroom, he hears the sound of a click. He fires at the sound. Reeva still has grip on key as first shot is fired hitting her in the hip and driving her backwards into the magazine rack. Key is pulled out of keyhole and drops on the floor. There is a time lag between the first and second shot as Oscar processes the crashing of Reeva into the magazine rack. Having no clue as to what his weapon is capable of, all he hears is someone crashing around in the toilet breaking things. He targets the sound and fires three more times and stops. No more sounds. No more shots.

Again ... just working from defence model ...
:twocents:

 

[steveml]

We believe you lol

Back to iPads ,I have been trying to get to the bottom of this myself .
I understood ( but could be wrong ) that there were only 2 iPads on the scene 1 Reeva's 1 op's .
This is where I am thinking there may be some evidence that has been put before the judge that we can't relate fully to yet .
If OP and Reeva's iPads had been synced intentionally then that could indicate many things that could cause an argument if indeed one had taken place .
I was think when i checked the iPad was used for after the history had been deleted ..... again could be wrong as I am not a very experienced web sleuth
Another thing I have been reading up on is Nel and his reputation and am still fairly confident that he wouldn't have brought these charges if he wasn't reasonably confident of his case ?
Surely he would have just charged him with murder or culpable homicide ?

Could it be the suggestion that Reeva liked cars, and the browsing history referred to cars, that is making you think an iPad could be Reeva's?

If it is, that's something that crossed my mind - it seemed that this point was being stressed quite strongly in court.

 

[MeeBee]

I think he'd be tending to something more "incriminating" rather than fans . . . IMO

Such as?

 

[MeeBee]

Could it be the suggestion that Reeva liked cars, and the browsing history referred to cars, that is making you think an iPad could be Reeva's?

If it is, that's something that crossed my mind - it seemed that this point was being stressed quite strongly in court.

I think Roux was making the point that, since Reeva also liked looking at cars, that the car and history on the iPad could have been her. Not saying I believe that, just that was his point.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

I don't! I was watching his testimony but finding the testimony from video archives has proven difficult for me. Here is the video archive for the trial if you'd like to try and see if you can find it. I don't know if it's the full archive though.

http://www.wildabouttrial.com/one_off/oscar-pistorius-trial-archive/

I have just tried to find out more . Quite a few Early press reports states that one of the iPads was Reeva's ( but we all know how unreliable they can be )
From transcript 's of the testimony mentions the IPad 3 was OP's but doesn't seem to clarify who the iPad 2 did actually belong too .( unless I have missed it )
If we assume that they were both OP's I would have expected to hear evidence of some sort of computer/iPad belonging to Reeva so am surprised by that
if she didn't own and use anything except an iPhone .
Don't know what to think about this other than maybe she had one at home and there was nothing untowards on it or it was whisked away from the site if indeed there as one .
It would be easier if we had known she had one or not even if it added nothing to the case.
The defence and OP seemed perturbed by the iPad's and am surprised if it turns out it was just because of the because whilst it is not my cup of tea it can be normal to some ........going dizzy again .

 

[jay-jay]

Although in one of Oscar's statements, he simply says,"I heard a noise in the bathroom." (Grabs gun and heads towards bathroom.) Nearer the end of the passage he then states,"I saw a window open."

So nothing about the noise of a window sliding open.

This time the noise couldn't be determined until he saw a bathroom window open . . . .

Thanks for that .. you are right .. I've just read his bail statement and all it says is :

During the early morning hours of 14 February 2013, I woke up, went onto the balcony to bring the fan in and closed the sliding doors, the blinds and the curtains. I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised that someone was in the bathroom. Odd that (not!).

I felt a sense of terror rushing over me. There are no burglar bars across the bathroom window and I knew that contractors who worked at my house had left the ladders outside. Although I did not have my prosthetic legs on I have mobility on my stumps.

I believed that someone had entered my house. I was too scared to switch a light on.

I grabbed my 9mm pistol from underneath my bed. On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police. It was pitch dark in the bedroom and I thought Reeva was in bed.

I noticed that the bathroom window was open.

It's not until his Plea Explanation for the trial that he then changes it to:

4.1 During the early hours of the morning, I brought two fans from the balcony. I had shortly before spoken to Reeva, who was in bed beside me.

4.2 Unbenown to me, Reeva must've gone to the toilet in the bathroom at the time when I brought in the fans, closed the sliding doors, and drew the blinds and the curtains.

4.3 I heard the bathroom window sliding open. I believed an intruder or intruders had entered the bathroom through the bathroom window, which was not fitted with burglar bars

.. so you are right that he didn't mention it in his bail statement, but then he did actually put it in his Plea Explanation for the trial.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Could it be the suggestion that Reeva liked cars, and the browsing history referred to cars, that is making you think an iPad could be Reeva's?

If it is, that's something that crossed my mind - it seemed that this point was being stressed quite strongly in court.

Yes I thought op and defence team looked perturbed and Nel looked rather pleased .
It must have been the early press reports from last year that led me to believe it was Reeva's but I do think it was odd that Mike sales didn't state exactly who it belonged to .
The other seriously odd thing here was Roux couldn't get him off the stand quick enough . Only 1 question if I remember rightly .

 

[MeeBee]

I have just tried to find out more . Quite a few Early press reports states that one of the iPads was Reeva's ( but we all know how unreliable they can be )
From transcript 's of the testimony mentions the IPad 3 was OP's but doesn't seem to clarify who the iPad 2 did actually belong too .( unless I have missed it )
If we assume that they were both OP's I would have expected to hear evidence of some sort of computer/iPad belonging to Reeva so am surprised by that
if she didn't own and use anything except an iPhone .
Don't know what to think about this other than maybe she had one at home and there was nothing untowards on it or it was whisked away from the site if indeed there as one .
It would be easier if we had known she had one or not even if it added nothing to the case.
The defence and OP seemed perturbed by the iPad's and am surprised if it turns out it was just because of the because whilst it is not my cup of tea it can be normal to some ........going dizzy again .

I was watching the testimony at the time and very clearly remember that it was stated the iPads were his. One was a 2 and one was a 3. Reeva probably didn't carry her iPad around, if she had one. I will see if I can find the testimony when I get to a proper lap top, but really remember this as do others, so it must have merit.

As part of the state's case, they are arguing that it wasn't really a loving relationship because OP had been looking at earlier. I believe this was said in opening statements. I really do think that all they wanted out of the iPad history stuff was the . If not, I feel it would have been clearer what they actually were trying to say.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

I was watching the testimony at the time and very clearly remember that it was stated the iPads were his. One was a 2 and one was a 3. Reeva probably didn't carry her iPad around. I will see if I can find the testimony when I get to a proper lap top, but really remember this as do others, so it must have merit.

As part of the state's case, they are arguing that it wasn't really a loving relationship because OP had been looking at earlier. I believe this was said in opening statements. I really do think that all they wanted out of the iPad history stuff was the . If not, I feel it would have been clearer what they actually were trying to say.

Thanks
Going to listen to your links which are very useful