Trial Discussion Thread #27 - 14.04.16, Day 24

[Mr Ron]

I also take the phone with me to the toilet. There is no light switch on the corridor outside my room, so I use it for its torch feature. I don't use the screen because it isn't really of much use. I can totally buy that she could have used the phone as a means of navigation.

I can't buy that she was frozen with fear in the toilet in Pistorius' version because we know she had the presence of mind to slam the door and lock it.

 

[Carmelita]

Checking her texts at 3am? Possible but unlikely.
But at 3am and doing it in the bathroom? Come on, seriously...

And then to combine that with the series of unusual and unfortunate events, amazingly coincidental timing of it all happening concurrently and the total lack of responses at any point?
Fantasy island.

Not checking her texts in the bathroom necessarily. One possible scenario, it is hot and sticky night, she can't sleep, she has her little exchange of words with Oscar. Oscar gets up goes out on the balcony Reeva heads to the bathroom or the closet (could be for a myriad of reasons), she is looking at her texts or plans to, when she hears Oscar start screaming about an intruder.

It is not an impossible scenario. I have no idea as to the specifics of what happened in that home.

I do know it is not unusual for people to check their phones throughout the night if they are awake.

 

[DebinGA]

Dr and Mrs Stipp gave contradictory testimony about this. Dr Stipp said it was "several moments" later and Mrs Stipp first said "moments" and then she said it was "immediately." I think some witness confusion under those circumstances is understandable.

Several moments ... not several minutes.

 

[minor4th]

Several moments ... not several minutes.

Right ..several moments. Whatever that means

 

[Feynman]

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.

I don't think too many intruders climbing up a ladder to where his partner in crime has just gone through a window, welcomed by a man screaming and yelling "get the f$$% out" and then four gun shots, will continue climbing. Possibly OP at some level understood this.

 

[wb180]

\

I would wager that 9 out of 10 people wouild react the same way. All of a sudden, in the dead of night, you here someone screaming at you to call the cops. I guarantee you will be extremely frightened almost to the point of paralysis. It's all too easy to discuss this from the comfort of our armchairs, but what I see over and over here is people failing to consider the context.

So on the one hand, 9/10 will react this way but on the other hand, people wouldn't know fail to consider context. Sounds so conflicting.

By the way, put me in the 1/10 group because if my loved one was screaming at me to call the police for I don't know for how long (as he walked slowly remember), and I had the phone in the toilet and the door is locked from my side, you bet I will call the police.

 

[Panda]

Correct that I never turn on any lights when searching my house either. The idea is to search without the intruder knowing you are investigating. You have the element of surprise and you dont want to lose that at all.

I purposely leave small lights on in certain rooms that allow me to explore without needing any flashlights or anything. Like in the kitchen, I have the stove light on at night and I have night lights in certain other rooms. So I can navigate without needing a flashlight.

Also at night, your eyes adjust to the darkness and you can see pretty good so long as there is some small lighting somewhere. Unless it is pitch total darkness which is highly unusual in most places.

Regarding his story, JMO but I am left to think his story is mostly lying. I am of the opinion he had a screaming fight with his girlfriend and she went and hid from him in the bathroom which enraged him even more and he went and got his gun and just blew her away.

Another valid point I think - when you've been living in an abode for any length of time, you instinctively know where everything is. When I get up to go to the toilet (which unfortunately for me is a number of times a night) I don't need to turn on lights or indeed, if I've been working late and am totally knackered, I will keep my eyes closed, make my way to the toilet, do the business, and get back in bed. I don't trip over anything as I have a mind map of where everything is. I also live in the top of a shed, which has no windows, so it's extremely dark at night.

 

[James50]

9 out of 10 people who've been traumatized by a previous home invasion or 9 of 10 people who've not experienced any thing that frightening before?

If the former, then I scratch my head as to how you can make that assertion unless you've read studies on PTSD in home invasion survivors. Reeva not only lived in a country where these invasions happen often but was a victim already of one and that cannot be removed from the context.

But yes, we are all in our comfy armchairs, aren't we? I really hope no one on here, including myself, ever go through what that young woman did in her lifetime with the one invasion and then being shot to death through a bathroom door. RIP Ms. Steenkamp.

Best I can say here is that I have my view and you have yours, which I duly respect.

 

[wb180]

In order to reach the police, she had to insert her passcode. In her panic, the phone might have fallen on the floor as she was fumbling around, she might have dialed but not got a signal, she might have wanted to strain to listen first to ascertain what was actually going on, any number of particular scenarios. You cannot say that only a outcome was possible ("she called the police"). This was one is easy to refute, which is why Nel spent no time on it.

Yes there can be a multitude of scenarios - maybe she fumbled while calling the wrong number (called the killer (OP) rather than police) and accidentally dropped it in the toilet and then accidentally flushed the toilet and hid her head on the rack as she became frighten. Who knows.

So if there is such a multitude of scenarios, the argument that 9/10 would freeze and not call is then an invalid argument.

 

[Mr Ron]

In order to reach the police, she had to insert her passcode. In her panic, the phone might have fallen on the floor as she was fumbling around, she might have dialed but not got a signal, she might have wanted to strain to listen first to ascertain what was actually going on, any number of scenarios. You cannot say that only a outcome was possible ("she called the police").

Most smartphones have a emergency feature which means you don't have to input your code. An earlier poster pointed out that records show she had an unbroken GPRS signal all night long (I think this means she never failed to have a signal).

The phone dropping on the floor is possible and the fumbling is possible, but also audible to some degree. The fact she is straining to listen less so given the content and nature of Pistorius' oft repeated message to the intruders. That she was frozen in fear is unlikely given she slammed and locked the door.

 

[clearskies1]

Is it possible she had her phone with her in the toilet but was afraid to call 911 because OP was right outside the door and could hear? Maybe she thought this would enrage him further and was trying to talk him down from his rage -- hence she was close to the door when 1st shot was fired?

JMO

 

[TipDog]

We will just have to agree that our minds work differently. And I'm ok with that.

I try not to attribute words that I "think" someone would likely use to other people. I think personalities are far too diverse and complex to say one would have, should have or could have, expected "Blade Runner" to say "I moved as quickly as I could" as opposed to rushed or ran about.


JMO

It's my fault, I know, because I'm just so stubborn when it comes to semantics and so forth - but I think I miscommunicated. I'm stuck on those words not because I don't think OP would never not use them. I'm focused and suspicious of how he used them.

When he wanted to embellish his sense of terror, "slowly" was used. When he wanted to give a sense of urgency, "rush" and "run" was used. These particular words stuck out to me (and the Mr. Ron bolded them in his excellent post which reminded me of them). This is my interpretation only - I wholeheartedly admit that!

As for the "Blade Runner" - that's not who was up on the stand getting grilled by Nel. Surely you agree? The man who testified was a whimpering, pathetic mess...on purpose, I believe. Last thing OP wants anyone to do right now is think of him as the "Blade Runner." He's the little vulnerable disabled guy, the guy who has limited mobility on his stumps and yet charged full on into a bathroom with tile floors (that he admitted he had issues with on his stumps) to shoot at the unknown, possibly armed intruder(s). /duplicity

 

[Panda]

I don't usually get up to go to the toilet in the middle of the night, so it's hard to say. I probably wouldn't though.

Edit: Now that I think about it I probably would take my phone to use as a soft light to illuminate a passage for me. It's very dark without any lights on in my house.

To me that's interesting. What it tells me is that everyone reacts differently to a set of given circumstances. If there's no actual proof, i.e. that her phone was accessed at the time she was in the toilet to call someone, SMS, or whatever, it's purely conjecture.

 

[wb180]

Not checking her texts in the bathroom necessarily. One possible scenario, it is hot and sticky night, she can't sleep, she has her little exchange of words with Oscar. Oscar gets up goes out on the balcony Reeva heads to the bathroom or the closet (could be for a myriad of reasons), she is looking at her texts or plans to, when she hears Oscar start screaming about an intruder.

It is not an impossible scenario. I have no idea as to the specifics of what happened in that home.

I do know it is not unusual for people to check their phones throughout the night if they are awake.

If you are still going to be believe in OP's versions of events, you need to remember he specifically said he never went out of the balcony (even though his bail statement said that).

 

[James50]

I also take the phone with me to the toilet. There is no light switch on the corridor outside my room, so I use it for its torch feature. I don't use the screen because it isn't really of much use. I can totally buy that she could have used the phone as a means of navigation.

I can't buy that she was frozen with fear in the toilet in Pistorius' version because we know she had the presence of mind to slam the door and lock it.

Ron, of course when I say frozen with fear, these are figures of speech. I don't mean that literally. I mean that she would have quickly locked the door and then remained more or less immobile in a state of fear, straining to listen or fumbling around with the phone. Don't take it too literally.

 

[supernovaNic]

What size was OP's bed? Double? Queen? King? Thanks.

 

[Panda]

Is it possible she had her phone with her in the toilet but was afraid to call 911 because OP was right outside the door and could hear? Maybe she thought this would enrage him further and was trying to talk him down from his rage -- hence she was close to the door when 1st shot was fired?

JMO

Valid point and certainly possible in my opinion.

 

[TipDog]

So on the one hand, 9/10 will react this way but on the other hand, people wouldn't know fail to consider context. Sounds so conflicting.

By the way, put me in the 1/10 group because if my loved one was screaming at me to call the police for I don't know for how long (as he walked slowly remember), and I had the phone in the toilet and the door is locked from my side, you bet I will call the police.

No, that isn't what I meant at all (and it isn't clear to me what you actually mean, sorry). I'm saying that unless you know how those who've survived home invasions would react in a subsequent invasion, you simply cannot assert that they would react a certain way. Assuming RS just froze and strained to listen is a bit of a stretch. I personally won't make any assumptions about what she did or didn't do in those first few seconds. But I do assume she'd not stay silent like OP says she did in the following moments after he initially yelled at her to call the police. If she had her phone with her, I firmly believe she would have called the police (just like you said you bet you would).

Of course, I don't believe OP's version, anyway - and the witnesses heard a woman screaming. So far, I'm not convinced that was OP even if he does cry like a girl.

 

[TipDog]

Most smartphones have a emergency feature which means you don't have to input your code. An earlier poster pointed out that records show she had an unbroken GPRS signal all night long (I think this means she never failed to have a signal).

The phone dropping on the floor is possible and the fumbling is possible, but also audible to some degree. The fact she is straining to listen less so given the content and nature of Pistorius' oft repeated message to the intruders. That she was frozen in fear is unlikely given she slammed and locked the door.

This is something else in OP's version that I think is hogwash. If we're all to believe that RS stayed completely quiet behind that door in fear of being discovered, she'd not have slammed the door. Another example of the duplicity!

 

[Carmelita]

It's my fault, I know, because I'm just so stubborn when it comes to semantics and so forth - but I think I miscommunicated. I'm stuck on those words not because I don't think OP would never not use them. I'm focused and suspicious of how he used them.

When he wanted to embellish his sense of terror, "slowly" was used. When he wanted to give a sense of urgency, "rush" and "run" was used. These particular words stuck out to me (and the Mr. Ron bolded them in his excellent post which reminded me of them). This is my interpretation only - I wholeheartedly admit that!

As for the "Blade Runner" - that's not who was up on the stand getting grilled by Nel. Surely you agree? The man who testified was a whimpering, pathetic mess...on purpose, I believe. Last thing OP wants anyone to do right now is think of him as the "Blade Runner." He's the little vulnerable disabled guy, the guy who has limited mobility on his stumps and yet charged full on into a bathroom with tile floors (that he admitted he had issues with on his stumps) to shoot at the unknown, possibly armed intruder(s). /duplicity

Different points from which to view, I don't think that psychologically you can separate "Blade Runner" from the whinny, crying, retching Oscar. they are one and the same. It is Oscars strive for perfection that made him Blade Runner it is also his inability to accept his imperfections that has landed him in the box.

I think Oscar's back tattoo says a lot about him and his character and his intolerance of his own humanity.