Trial Discussion Thread #28 - 14.04.17, Day 25

[jay-jay]

I wonder if OP feels at all ashamed by his antics in the court over the past few weeks? He ought to .. I have no idea how he manages to come to court every day with his head held fairly high still.

 

[sleuth-d-]

Pic of the undamaged/repaired bathroom. Unfortunately, the sink obscured the view of any mag rack.

That sink wasn't visible in any forensic photos, was it?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-first-pictures-bathroom-1719498

think that is another bathroom.

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-02-20/court-shown-floor-plan-of-oscar-pistorius-house/

 

[soozieqtips]

A very good evening to all of you.
I have been reading for a few days after stumbling on this by 'accident' (Yes, I'm fluent in 'Osky' - my name for OP) whilst researching a totally unrelated criminal matter.
I find your opinions to be top draw and the debates far more mature than anywhere else I have seen - yet with the necessary 'entertaining and subtle put downs when required :fence:

I have enjoyed reading all posts, including those representing the 'Osky is innocent fringe'. Every killer needs (and deserves) a supporters bench. It's standard.

Living in South Africa I can confirm that 90% plus are firm in their belief that Osky is guilty of not only murdering, but of EXECUTING Reeva Steenkamp.

Initially there was quite a bit of support for Osky, this due to people's own fears and experience with crime. Once it became clear there was very little 'intruder' and a helluva lot of 'deluder'; the average man in the street reckoned Osky was :jail: You just have to go and read any SA news website or blog. In their hundreds they, the people of SA will tell you what they think of Osky. (Yes, there are loons who worship at the altar of Osky but they're quite simply :moo:

Sadly in our nation (SA) and many others, people tend to ignore the warning signs and the 'darkness' that exhibits amongst 'certain' national heroes until something like this happens.

Personally, I have always found Osky to be the poster child of Narcissists. I have admired an athletic achievement or 2, the MAN - never. (Even some of his athletic achievements have been at the expense of others at times) Osky did not qualify for the able bodied Olympics in terms of SA rankings. The chap who was faster than him had to stay home, while the 'FACE' of SA athletics traveled to London to grace the world with his showboating.

Bah humbug for him.

A quick note for those who were a little let down by Gerrie letting Osky and Dixon off the hook 'quietly' and without too much 'fuss' in the end. This is the way the man rolls. He kicks witnesses around a little, has some fun, then he becomes bored playing and wants the next one. He will show the court he is 'bored' and with 'said' witnesses lies/incompetence/integrity etc and then he discards them - like old handkerchiefs he no longer wants because they are no longer useful and he's gained enough use out of them. His win rate is exceptionally high for a prosecutor, so whilst not everyone will enjoy his manner or methods - whatever he does, WORKS and it works well.

Thank you for allowing me to post here and contribute. There are some really good theories here - many of you sit in the same boat as I do in terms of what went down that night.

:seeya:

Hi there. Great post and :welcome:

Loved the bit about Nel getting bored playing with the witnesses before discarding them like a used handkerchief :floorlaugh:

So you're familiar with his techniques then? I like his style, to be honest, especially the "am I right?" he tags on at the end of blistering attacks on one/any of the witnesses. Like with Dixon:

"You see how irresponsible it is to make inferences in areas where you're not an expert.
It's irresponsible, am I right"?

Classic!

 

[Really?]

Pic of the undamaged/repaired bathroom. Unfortunately, the sink obscured the view of any mag rack.

That sink wasn't visible in any forensic photos, was it?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-first-pictures-bathroom-1719498

i've seen that pic before.....I don't think its the same toilet room....perhaps it is the guest bath?

 

[dianebowen]

minor4th, look at the video again. The crack that runs through bullet hole D was caused by the door breaking open, not from the bat hitting the door? So in no way does there have to be a bat hit after the gunshots.

I was just about to post the same observation. Door cracks and bat marks are two different things. Plausible that one bat crack created the small opening that made it possible to pull and crack door panels later.

 

[TipDog]

BBM:

hehe.....that was a sad attempt to impress any Hollywood talent scouts. moo

I see it quite the opposite.

It was one of the only two times he slipped completely out of character and away from his version, into reality. He said those words to Reeva just prior to murdering her.

The other time was when he paused for close to 30 seconds after being asked if Reeva screamed after the first shot. He knows she did - he heard her and only stopped shooting once she stopped screaming.

 

[zwiebel]

Very clear photo of the bathroom here.

Personally, I can't see how Reeva could have had room to sit on the floor beside it, but still not leave any smears in that pool of blood - especially when she was moved. She must have been partially off the floor, it seems to me. On top of the rack or maybe with her leg doubled up, keeping most of her body off the floor?

I always thought that straight, clean line, free of blood, at the edge of the toilet bowl rim was noticeable. I think that must have been where her arm was resting.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news...scar-pistorius-trial-reeva-had-no-time-scream

 

[molly333]

talking about the angle. a couple of things highlighted by the recent courtroom camera shot.

op shot from off to the right of the door. not in front of the door.
shot direction angled towards the back left.
3 hits from four shots.
a person standing in the right corner would not have been hit.


hardly random positioning in the bathroom by op.
hardly random aiming of gun by op.

Ok. Someone had to testify to the angle of shots, even if it was Roger Dixon.

This is a factor which points to OP's innocence.

He is standing off to the side, near the opening to the bathroom, shooting sideways into the water closet. Shows fear and a belief that danger is inside.

If he knew Reeva was there he would have just stood in front and shot.

 

[zwiebel]

i've seen that pic before.....I don't think its the same toilet room....perhaps it is the guest bath?

I think you're right. The toilet room Reeva was in didn't seem to have a sink. Oddly.

 

[soozieqtips]

I see it quite the opposite.

It was one of the only two times he slipped completely out of character and away from his version, into reality. He said those words to Reeva just prior to murdering her.

The other time was when he paused for close to 30 seconds after being asked if Reeva screamed after the first shot. He knows she did - he heard her and only stopped shooting once she stopped screaming.

Yes. The pause was so long I thought I'd lost the feed, and when I realised I hadn't, I felt sure he was about to confess. I couldn't figure out why he was taking so long to answer. A "no" she didn't scream takes a second to say. He didn't even need to think about it. It was an easy question, and yet he took over 30 seconds to answer. Very odd.

 

[james83]

oscar pistorius

Can't disagree with that to be fair.

 

[nastasya]

I was just about to post the same observation. Door cracks and bat marks are two different things. Plausible that one bat crack created the small opening that made it possible to pull and crack door panels later.

exactly.

Here's the photo that shows it.

 

[sleuth-d-]

A very good evening to all of you.
I have been reading for a few days after stumbling on this by 'accident' (Yes, I'm fluent in ' <modsnip> - my name for OP) whilst researching a totally unrelated criminal matter.
I find your opinions to be top draw and the debates far more mature than anywhere else I have seen - yet with the necessary 'entertaining and subtle put downs when required :fence:

I have enjoyed reading all posts, including those representing the ' <modsnip> is innocent fringe'. Every killer needs (and deserves) a supporters bench. It's standard.

Living in South Africa I can confirm that 90% plus are firm in their belief that <modsnip>is guilty of not only murdering, but of EXECUTING Reeva Steenkamp.

Initially there was quite a bit of support for<modsnip> , this due to people's own fears and experience with crime. Once it became clear there was very little 'intruder' and a helluva lot of 'deluder'; the average man in the street reckoned Osky was :jail: You just have to go and read any SA news website or blog. In their hundreds they, the people of SA will tell you what they think of Osky. (Yes, there are loons who worship at the altar of<modsnip> but they're quite simply :moo:

Sadly in our nation (SA) and many others, people tend to ignore the warning signs and the 'darkness' that exhibits amongst 'certain' national heroes until something like this happens.

Personally, I have always found <modsnip> to be the poster child of Narcissists. I have admired an athletic achievement or 2, the MAN - never. (Even some of his athletic achievements have been at the expense of others at times) <modsnip> did not qualify for the able bodied Olympics in terms of SA rankings. The chap who was faster than him had to stay home, while the 'FACE' of SA athletics traveled to London to grace the world with his showboating.

Bah humbug for him.

A quick note for those who were a little let down by Gerrie letting O and Dixon off the hook 'quietly' and without too much 'fuss' in the end. This is the way the man rolls. He kicks witnesses around a little, has some fun, then he becomes bored playing and wants the next one. He will show the court he is 'bored' and with 'said' witnesses lies/incompetence/integrity etc and then he discards them - like old handkerchiefs he no longer wants because they are no longer useful and he's gained enough use out of them. His win rate is exceptionally high for a prosecutor, so whilst not everyone will enjoy his manner or methods - whatever he does, WORKS and it works well.

Thank you for allowing me to post here and contribute. There are some really good theories here - many of you sit in the same boat as I do in terms of what went down that night.

:seeya:

re: nel finishing up with op quickly.
he concentrated on the parts where op was alone [with rs]. exposing multiple 'versions'.
inference being that op couldn't 'version' after carrying her down the stairs as other people were there to corroborate. the truthful bits were of no interest to nel.

re: dixon. i am not sure how nel kept up the questions for so long. it was farce. the part with the prosthetic leg and the sock, and nel's interruption half way through the sock removal was classic 'cruel nel satire'.

 

[Cape Town Crim.]

Hi there. Great post and :welcome:

Loved the bit about Nel getting bored playing with the witnesses before discarding them like a used handkerchief :floorlaugh:

So you're familiar with his techniques then? I like his style to be honest, especially the "am I right?" he tags on at the end of blistering attacks on one/any of the witnesses. Like with Dixon:

"You see how irresponsible it is to make inferences in areas where you're not an expert.
It's irresponsible, am I right"?

Classic!

Thank you for the welcome.

Yes, I have been incredibly fortunate enough to witness 'the 'brutal then bored' Gerrie Nel 'live' in court on more than one occasion. He is a very astute cross examiner and whilst many will question his strategy/methods etc, his closing argument is always a thing of beauty. That moment when all he has done, all he has alluded to, all he has inferred, deducted, insinuated is patched together for the 1st time like a completed patchwork quilt.

He doesn't go for the 'complicated theories' etc. He likes to work in 'lists' and will target 5/6/7/ things that he will focus on. The simplicity is actually the 'thing of beauty'.

I've always been a huge admirer. The cross examiner supreme (or the cross examiner from Dante's version of hell if you're the accused)

 

[aa9511]

Witness replies to Nel that with curtains open, 'I could see the bed and a lot of things'.

Nel hones in on that: 'Why would you say that? Why would you say, 'I can see the bed and a lot of things', as an expert witness, a professional?

LOL!

I still have more respect for Dixon than for most other expert witnesses b/c he is seemingly not trying too hard to tailor all his facts in favor or against the defendant.

Poor guy, he is just trying to do what he can do.

JMO.

 

[liesbeth]

Thank you very much. Very happy to be here. :tyou:

Welcome! That you, Jeanie?

 

[nastasya]

Ok. Someone had to testify to the angle of shots, even if it was Roger Dixon.

This is a factor which points to OP's innocence.

He is standing off to the side, near the opening to the bathroom, shooting sideways into the water closet. Shows fear and a belief that danger is inside.

If he knew Reeva was there he would have just stood in front and shot.

Shooting at somebody behind a locked toilet door is not innocence of anything.

 

[katydid23]

But both Stipps agree to hearing the first bangs around 3:00, whereupon both looked toward the sound of bangs/screams, either immediately [AS] or within moments [DrS], right into the lighted bathroom of OP. This was when OP claims he was backing slowly out of the pitch black bathroom, then slowly down the pitch black passage, then into the pitch black bedroom where he did a number of different things before returning to the bathroom, now wearing his legs, and finally unafraid enough to turn on the bathroom light.

BBM

EXACTLY. And this is the reason the DT paid Dixon to shoot that misleading picture, of the man on his knees, going down the hallway. They need to discredit the Stipps, any way they can.

 

[Cape Town Crim.]

Yes. The pause was so long I thought I'd lost the feed, and when I realised I hadn't, I felt sure he was about to confess. I couldn't figure out why he was taking so long to answer. A "no" she didn't scream takes a second to say. He didn't even need to think about it. It was an easy question, and yet he took over 30 seconds to answer. Very odd.

He just can't do it.

The chap honestly does not know how to take responsibility. He should almost be put before a juvenile court, where he can appear in court as a minor. Because narcissist with anti-social PD tendencies or not - he has the emotional intelligence of my nephew - 13.

 

[jay-jay]

Yes. The pause was so long I thought I'd lost the feed, and when I realised I hadn't, I felt sure he was about to confess. I couldn't figure out why he was taking so long to answer. A "no" she didn't scream takes a second to say. He didn't even need to think about it. It was an easy question, and yet he took over 30 seconds to answer. Very odd.

Yes, that was the bit where I thought he was going to confess too .. I couldn't believe the deathly silence that went of forever .. and as you say, why would it take so long just to say 'no' .. I think he was really struggling with his lies at that point and was on the verge of saying 'yes' and then suddenly thought about an eternity in jail and realised he had to keep on with the lies. The 'sad' fact being that he may as well have just admitted it there and then, because he isn't going to get away with this.