Trial Discussion Thread #27 - 14.04.16, Day 24

[TipDog]

Her silence is telling us something but I can't hear it yet.

If she didn't have her cell phone, why would he lie about that?

If she did have her cell phone, why didn't she call or text?

I don't think he did lie about that, but remember, this is in his version. In all the other versions, she may not have called or texted in hopes he would cool it, she could get out there and no one would have to know about it. Reeva was becoming famous in her own right and likely didn't want anything to go public herself - at least not until she could calmly think it through. I don't think she was anything like OP with respect to impulsive actions or lashing out. I think she was the brighter of the two (by far) and much more level headed.

Also as a woman, I can understand her reticence to involve authorities if the level of his rage took her by surprise. We women do try to calm men down. Given the screams the neighbors heard right before the gun shots, it appears that by the time she realized his rage was escalating not deflating, it was too late to do much else but scream. So many people are focused on his panic that night but seem to forget about poor Reeva. In her panicked state, her fingers may have fumbled or she couldn't remember her own pass code to her phone. True, blinding terror can do that to someone. It's not far-fetched to think it may have been the case with her that morning, as heartbreaking as that may be.

m2¢

 

[Hatfield]

BIB because it was found in the bathroom - in my version... because he took it from her before she was able to use it. So he had to say that she must have had it with her. It doesn't make sense in his version because really.. Why the flip would she take her phone at 3am to the loo for a pee.

You got it but the reason IMO is slightly different. I think after he shot her he was going to call police and he grabbed her cell phone and then realized it was stupid to use her phone and since he already got blood on the phone he had to put the phone in with her. So he makes up stuff about why she needed the phone in the bathroom.

 

[minor4th]

Thanks! I didn't watch that part, only read about it here and misremembered!

Apparently OP is rubbing off on me. :blushing:

I just watched it a little while ago and it came out of the blue kind of - and surprised me that a piece of crucial evidence was handled that way. Nel said it was "released to the public" or something to that effect, but how can that be?

 

[molly333]

BIB because it was found in the bathroom - in my version... because he took it from her before she was able to use it. So he had to say that she must have had it with her. It doesn't make sense in his version because really.. Why the flip would she take her phone at 3am to the loo for a pee.

yeah, it seems she either didn't have it or it didn't work.

Could she have been afraid to call police because of some other factor? Oscar's image or fear of police or something?

She had time.

 

[Panda]

Why on earth would she have her phone in the toilet?!
Oh yeah, because OSCAR said she must have taken it with her.. You know, as a torch!

Just this part is SO improbable that I put it to you that it cannot be true.
That its a LIE...

Did someone in the defence say the toilet light wasn't working? If this was the case, it maybe probable that she took her phone to use as a light source. However, one would have thought if this was the case, the light app would have still been on, on her phone. (Although of course, she may have just pressed button on phone to make the phone light up).

 

[minor4th]

Did someone in the defence say the toilet light wasn't working? If this was the case, it maybe probable that she took her phone to use as a light source. However, one would have thought if this was the case, the light app would have still been on, on her phone. (Although of course, she may have just pressed button on phone to make the phone light up).

Yes, Oscar said the toilet light wasn't working that night, and Dixon also said that it was not working.

 

[TorisMom003]

I just watched it a little while ago and it came out of the blue kind of - and surprised me that a piece of crucial evidence was handled that way. Nel said it was "released to the public" or something to that effect, but how can that be?

Not sure. Maybe because it isn't being tested anymore or something along those lines? The magazine rack didn't have an ID tag, wasn't in a property bag or anything like that that we have in the US so maybe they don't do things that way in SA? The cricket bat also wasn't in an evidence bag, have a tag on it or anything.

 

[James50]

But why not call for help?

Why scream and not call on the phone?

Why say nothing and not call on the phone?

Has anyone brought this up in the case?

\


Because calling for help would have alerted any would be intruder to her location. Assuming he was in the bathroom armed with gun, that would have spelled certain death.

The phone was on. It would have taken her a few moments to grab it and switch it on, and keep in mind that all of this was happeneing very fast. Perhaps she did dial a number but couldn't get a signal from inside the toilet. Perhaps she wasnted to try and assess what was going on first by straining to listen before she called, Any number of reasons. It's easy to talk about this in the light of day, but all of this was happening in the dead of night and she would have been ****ting herself with fear.

He was asked if she had answered him, and he said "I wish she had."

 

[Carmelita]

BIB because it was found in the bathroom - in my version... because he took it from her before she was able to use it. So he had to say that she must have had it with her. It doesn't make sense in his version because really.. Why the flip would she take her phone at 3am to the loo for a pee.

To check her texts? Have you noticed how connected people are to their phones? Some of them have even developed sleep disorders because they are so attached to their devices. Weren't there two iPad's charging right next to Oscars bed?

 

[DebinGA]

The other things that struck me - after the shots were fired, I don't think he did anything or said anything to establish if indeed anyone was in the bathroom. He didn't call out, listen at the door, try to open the door straight away. For all he knew, the intruder was in the bathroom but not hit and could have come out and attacked him (or whatever).

OP claimed his eyes were constantly moving between the WC and the window, expecting intruders might burst forth from either. But immediately after firing at the door, he says he backed out slowly into the passage and down to the bedroom. Didn't give the window a second thought.

 

[TorisMom003]

Yes, Oscar said the toilet light wasn't working that night, and Dixon also said that it was not working.

But we don't know why it wasn't working that night, if it was even tested to see if it was working, if Dixon checked to see if it was working, and honestly OP lies soooo.

 

[minor4th]

Not sure. Maybe because it isn't being tested anymore or something along those lines? The magazine rack didn't have an ID tag, wasn't in a property bag or anything like that that we have in the US so maybe they don't do things that way in SA? The cricket bat also wasn't in an evidence bag, have a tag on it or anything.

They obviously do things much differently. It just didn't really make sense to me that the door would be released back to the public when it's obviously an item of evidence the prosecution used in their case. That all makes me really uncomfortable because I'm so used to evidence bags and lots of testimony about chain of custody and so forth lol

 

[Fuskier]

Please note I am not saying that this is what happened I am offering an opinion as to what the defense’s psychologist will testify to.

I will guess that the psychologist will testify that it is no surprise that Oscar does not remember the dramatic moment of pulling the trigger. We will hear all about Oscar’s inner child and how the man Oscar, lived in a heightened state of paranoia. The psychologist will likely testify that in Oscar’s mind an intruder was in his home and that the intruder put Oscar and Reeva in grave danger, (exasperated by Oscar not having his prosthetics on.) The psychologist will likely maintain that at the moment of pulling the trigger Oscar was in a dissociative state but was immediately brought back to “conscious action” by the sound of the gun shots, the kick back from the gun or some other reason that I have not thought of.

The defense position has not legally changed to “involuntary action,” the dissociative state (involuntary action) is simply part of the proof that Oscar was in sheer terror and reached his tipping point when he turned the corner and heard a sound in the loo. Oscar was still acting in self-defense and with deliberate action since he somewhat remembers (and has testified to) making cognizant decisions up until the point and after the point of firing the gun.

That IMO is the defense in a nut shell.


And there is a difference between exhibiting histrionic behavior and having a histrionic disorder. Oscar displays histrionic behavior but does not present with histrionic disorder.

Thank you for your post. IMO psychology is being relied upon too much in defense of defendants in legal cases. It's almost like we have replaced the high position attributed to 'priests' with 'psychologists'. But this may be flawed in my opinion.

Many psychologists have 'academic' training, then coupled with a couple of years of supervised practice during which they learn to apply their academic training. Many are generalists. Most require ongoing CPE to remain accredited with their psychological auspice. Some develop expertise in a specific area of practice, e.g. clinical or forensic, etc and develop excellent assessment skills. However, few have psychotherapy for their own issues or psychotherapy training with an accredited training program.These skills take much longer to acquire, integrate, then apply in practice.

I hope that Nel will examine the qualifications and training of the Defense Psychologist to establish credibility - if they are providing an assessment of the defendant before the Court. [The Clinical Psychologist in the Arias case provided an excellent assessment of the defendant with a high degree of credibility demonstrated through detailed discussion of tests conducted, normal ranges, then results specific to that case indicating a diagnostic position].

It is my opinion that only an accredited Clinical or Forensic Psychologist will be qualified to provide assessment of the defendant. Then the same standard should be applied to a Clinical or Forensic Psychologist for the Prosecution.

 

[minor4th]

But we don't know why it wasn't working that night, if it was even tested to see if it was working, if Dixon checked to see if it was working, and honestly OP lies soooo.

Well, the way I look at it is the state's investigators/police had exclusive control over the crime scene for some time, and they would have had an opportunity to test it and see if it was working. So either they checked it and found that it wasn't working and that issue is not in dispute - OR they didn't check it and have no basis to contest that information.

 

[minor4th]

To check her texts? Have you noticed how connected people are to their phones? Some of them have even developed sleep disorders because they are so attached to their devices. Weren't there two iPad's charging right next to Oscars bed?

I am embarrassed to admit this, but I take my phone in the toilet with me almost 100% of the time

 

[TorisMom003]

They obviously do things much differently. It just didn't really make sense to me that the door would be released back to the public when it's obviously an item of evidence the prosecution used in their case. That all makes me really uncomfortable because I'm so used to evidence bags and lots of testimony about chain of custody and so forth lol

Who was it that brought in the duvet to court this morning? Was it the Defense? Or was it police or someone from the State's side? If it was the Defense then it seems that most if not all of the evidence (objects belonging to OP) were handed over to the Defense before the trial started or right after it started.

Can one of members from SA post if they know why Nel said the door was released back to the public? Please and Thank You!

 

[Carmelita]

It's really creepy. It's like Reeva just went silent. You're right.

Or why would she scream and not call police?

Because she didn't know that the intruder who Oscar was screaming about was actually her in the bathroom, so she thought there really was an intruder in the house and she was being silent/hiding?

 

[TorisMom003]

I am embarrassed to admit this, but I take my phone in the toilet with me almost 100% of the time

Hopefully you have plenty of uncooked rice on hand in your kitchen. My daughters friend took her phone into our bathroom one night, dropped it right in the water.

 

[TipDog]

I'll take a look if I have time, but I don't think the time factor makes that much of a difference. Everything did happen very quickly. If you hear shouts to call the police and you have no idea what's going on out there, you don't just simply shout out from inside the toilet. Given that she must have figured there was an intruder in the house, her first instinct would have been to strain to listen. She couldn't see him pointing the gun at her.


People keep forgetting that this is the dead of night. Reeva would have been petrified.

I don't know, James. This is an interesting aspect of his version to me. RS and her mom were victims of a previous home invasion. Without having known her, I can't possible guess whether her reaction would be to freeze out of fear in the moment with past PTSD attached to it or to come out of that toilet in a more aggressive move in order not to be trapped there (and this could be motivated by her past experience, as well).

When OP yelled "Reeva, call the police!", he told the intruder(s) that a woman was in the house. What a stupid thing to do, really. If the intruders existed and killed him, they might tear that place apart looking for a woman (women are often raped in home invasions in SA from what I've read). So, for her to stay in the toilet completely silent doesn't fly in the face of logic to me either.

 

[James50]

I'm not sure what phone she was using, but on mine (iphone) it has to be switched on in order to use the torch feature (as far as I am aware).

Incidentally, turning on my phone torch in a pitch dark room lightens the entire area to a surprising degree (I suggest you try it), not just the area in which you point it. You would definitely notice the change even if you were facing the opposite direction. This is probably why Pistorius said in cross examination that she might just have used the lit screen of a turned on phone to light her way to the bathroom. Such a light is pretty dim and vaguely lights a much smaller area.

Either way it is my opinion that her phone was probably already turned on when she entered the toilet.

According to OP, it was indeed switched on, because that's how he found it.