Trial Discussion Thread #36 - 14.05.09 Day 29

[fox1lady]

Nope, he definitely said, "I wanted to ask Reeva why she's phoning the police." Perhaps it was the sinus noise from his "sobbing" that has you confused? Also, he keeps saying he was screaming... long after everyone testified that the screaming had stopped and before the witnesses claimed to have heard a man wailing/crying. Obviously he was then "screaming" like a man... in a tone that noone could hear. :facepalm:

I don't understand all this screaming that he claims to have been doing. Shouting yes I get that, but why scream? I reckon, if he did it, he would have done it in order to try to drown out Reeva's screams. It is the only thing that makes any sense to me.

 

[fox1lady]

haha...please don't concern yourself with my loved ones. I guaranty I will get my kid to the ER faster than the ambulance would arrive. Probably by a good ten minutes. Depends on where one lives, I suppose, but I'm not wasting 15 minutes calling 911 and waiting for the EMT's if I have a choice and can manage to drive myself.

Common sense would tell you that if the waiting time for an ambulance is longer than it would take you to get to the ER yourself, don't waste the time. Seems pretty simple to me

Even if by moving them you could potentially be causing much more damage than if you just waited for the emergency (expert) services? You could even cause death rather than save them.

 

[Gryffindor]

I don't see how OP not hearing the screams will get him off if the neighbours who heard screams before the shooting are believed.

PS - we both answered sicknote's question at the same time and gave completely opposite answers! So what do you think now sicknote?

That's what I'm saying though. Oscar tripped himself up. Did you hear screaming - he could have replied NO (he claimed he was deafened). Nel asked, "Was Reeva screaming?" Oscar replied, "No."

His immediate reply SHOULD have been, "I don't know as I was deafened so couldn't tell/hear if Reeva/intruder/whomever was screaming or not."

 

[BritsKate]

From my understanding, no. If M'lady believes the state's ear witnesses, it will be taken that OP knew who he was firing at. I'm putting a lot of faith in Judge Greenland's statement that it's not just a matter of putting forward a believable story - the court itself must then believe that version and the judge pointed out that you have independent witnesses who testified to hearing a woman's screams before the shooting. Hope that helps.

I think if Masipa believes it was her screaming it establishes the intent required to prove murder via dolus directus. Simply, like you said he knew he was shooting at Reeva and intended to kill her. However, it's the argument escalating and Reeva screaming for approximately 15 minutes that shows premeditation, in my opinion.

He can be found guilty of murder without premeditation - but if he is convicted of murder with premeditation, it will very likely lead to a lengthier sentence. Which I believe accounts for much of what the defence has put forth - I think they're simply trying to disprove premeditation and mitigate damage rather than even attempt an acquittal or, it could be argued, well and truly establish a claim to putative self-defence. Like you stated they have to 'prove' such a claim. And Oscar's testimony is flawed - only the panel can decide how much weight, if any, to attribute to his testimony. And without his testimony, as of right now, there is nothing else to establish such a defence.

All JMO

 

[lithgow1]

That's what I'm saying though. Oscar tripped himself up. Did you hear screaming - he could have replied NO (he claimed he was deafened). Nel asked, "Was Reeva screaming?" Oscar replied, "No."

His immediate reply SHOULD have been, "I don't know as I was deafened so couldn't tell/hear if Reeva/intruder/whomever was screaming or not."

I think we might be talking about different screams - you, those during the shooting; me, those the Stipps etc testified to hearing before the shots.

On a side note, someone just made an interesting comment (on another forum) re the debate about how OP was holding his gun at the time of the shooting. As they so sensibly said, if he really did think it was an intruder he would be holding it in a much more determined manner than the wimpy way he describes it now. Good point I thought.

 

[DebinGA]

OP didn't say he had trouble hearing Johan Stander answer the phone iirc. There was no "Johan, Johan, are you there? I can't hear you, but please....". Ditto Stander indicating there was any communication problem with OP.

 

[Hope4More]

Once he began shooting, he stated the ringing in his ears made him unable to hear anything. So, yes.

However, when Nel asked if he heard screaming (Reeva) , he replied, "No." If his prior assertion were true, his reply SHOULD have been, "I don't know as I couldn't hear anything from being deafened by firing gunshots."

OP's reply that he didn't hear screams is entirely logically consistent with his statement that he had been deafened. He was deafened and therefore did not/ could not hear screams .

He DID know he didn't hear screams because he did know he could not hear anything.

BTW, when I first looked at this case I disbelieved his story in part because I didn't think it possible for him to not hear her scream given their proximity in such a small space.

After reading about the decibel level of a gun being shot in that small a place what I find impossible is the idea that he could hear anything at all for at least a few minutes. A single shot in that small a space has caused immediate and permanent hearing loss in some cases. Severe pain and temporary deafness is normal in those circumstances, not at all an exceptional or odd claim.

If there was indeed a pause after the first shot I'd bet it was a result of the immediate physical pain from that shot, and heightened fear because he'd lost his ability to hear the intruder. Surprising that he only fired 4 shots in those circumstances. It actually shows surprising restraint.

 

[Gryffindor]

I think we might be talking about different screams - you, those during the shooting; me, those the Stipps etc testified to hearing before the shots.

On a side note, someone just made an interesting comment (on another forum) re the debate about how OP was holding his gun at the time of the shooting. As they so sensibly said, if he really did think it was an intruder he would be holding it in a much more determined manner than the wimpy way he describes it now. Good point I thought.

Ah right, yes, I was replying to sicknote, interpreting their question as "shooting" screams. Soz ;-)

 

[jay-jay]

From memory, the judge on the TV said they would only have a couple of days to prepare it. M'Lady will give them a time frame, but it will be days rather than weeks.

OK, thanks :thumb:

 

[katydid23]

OP's reply that he didn't hear screams is entirely logically consistent with his statement that he had been deafened. He was deafened and therefore did not/ could not hear screams .

He DID know he didn't hear screams because he did know he could not hear anything.

BTW, when I first looked at this case I disbelieved his story in part because I didn't think it possible for him to not hear her scream given their proximity in such a small space.

After reading about the decibel level of a gun being shot in that small a place what I find impossible is the idea that he could hear anything at all for at least a few minutes. A single shot in that small a space has caused immediate and permanent hearing loss in some cases. Severe pain and temporary deafness is normal in those circumstances, not at all an exceptional or odd claim.

If there was indeed a pause after the first shot I'd bet it was a result of the immediate physical pain from that shot, and heightened fear because he'd lost his ability to hear the intruder. Surprising that he only fired 4 shots in those circumstances. It actually shows surprising restraint.

If he was in such pain, and in a temporary state of deafness, why didn't he have any problems hearing Stander on the phone?

 

[lithgow1]

OP's reply that he didn't hear screams is entirely logically consistent with his statement that he had been deafened. He was deafened and therefore did not/ could not hear screams .

He DID know he didn't hear screams because he did know he could not hear anything.

BTW, when I first looked at this case I disbelieved his story in part because I didn't think it possible for him to not hear her scream given their proximity in such a small space.

After reading about the decibel level of a gun being shot in that small a place what I find impossible is the idea that he could hear anything at all for at least a few minutes. A single shot in that small a space has caused immediate and permanent hearing loss in some cases. Severe pain and temporary deafness is normal in those circumstances, not at all an exceptional or odd claim.

If there was indeed a pause after the first shot I'd bet it was a result of the immediate physical pain from that shot, and heightened fear because he'd lost his ability to hear the intruder. Surprising that he only fired 4 shots in those circumstances. It actually shows surprising restraint.

So what about the screams before the shooting, as in minutes before.

 

[BritsKate]

I think we might be talking about different screams - you, those during the shooting; me, those the Stipps etc testified to hearing before the shots.

On a side note, someone just made an interesting comment (on another forum) re the debate about how OP was holding his gun at the time of the shooting. As they so sensibly said, if he really did think it was an intruder he would be holding it in a much more determined manner than the wimpy way he describes it now. Good point I thought.

My apologies, I made the same mistake so replied to your post. You're quite correct as far as I know. The screams leading up to the 2nd set of bangshots are what show premed. (Only said so I could use the term bangshots. )

 

[Interested Bystander]

I never expected him to get bail and was stunned when he did and especially after I read about another double amputee that was denied bail for fraud for such a long time .

The dongle being removed from the scene troubled me as much as the phone TBH and then recently finding out about Reeva's bag leaves me almost speachless .
I don't think We have never heard what happened to the dongle after it was removed . Maybe this was used for the alleged tax investigation and subsequent fine ,although I must point out inhave only read this in press reports so don't know how true that information is .

Do you think this "hurdle" that distressed him on the day before the murder (the one where Reeva suggests he might like to be with his family) could be something to do with tax evasion and possible risk of prosecution. Only a thought. I think someone alluded to it earlier.

I note he has already paid a large fine, so maybe not.

"South Africa's City Press newspaper said the tax authorities audited and fined the double-amputee runner "less than one million rand" (£69,169), which he duly paid."

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/may/26/oscar-pistorius-fined-unpaid-taxes

 

[Gryffindor]

OP's reply that he didn't hear screams is entirely logically consistent with his statement that he had been deafened. He was deafened and therefore did not/ could not hear screams .

He DID know he didn't hear screams because he did know he could not hear anything.

BTW, when I first looked at this case I disbelieved his story in part because I didn't think it possible for him to not hear her scream given their proximity in such a small space.

After reading about the decibel level of a gun being shot in that small a place what I find impossible is the idea that he could hear anything at all for at least a few minutes. A single shot in that small a space has caused immediate and permanent hearing loss in some cases. Severe pain and temporary deafness is normal in those circumstances, not at all an exceptional or odd claim.

If there was indeed a pause after the first shot I'd bet it was a result of the immediate physical pain from that shot, and heightened fear because he'd lost his ability to hear the intruder. Surprising that he only fired 4 shots in those circumstances. It actually shows surprising restraint.

I totally get that. But Nel asked if REEVA was screaming. Oscar said no, definitively. If he was deafened (highly likely) then he couldn't state yes or no. He wouldn't know- if he was deafened.

So he's either fibbing or genuinely didn't hear Reeva screaming (if she did) and is too over-zealous in wanting to assert this.

 

[jay-jay]

I think one of my favourites was several months ago when OP version 1.0 was the 'real' one.

Some people on another board made the very sensible point that OP dashing off to shoot the intruder without even checking whether Reeva was still in bed was either outrageous or utterly incredible. (On a side note, I am sure the widespread scoffing which this provoked was the reason for OP version 2.0 where all of a sudden he remembers that he spoke to Reeva)

Anyway, Back to OP version 1.0 - someone on the board actually posted something along the lines of:

"Well Oscar obviously cared for Reeva so much that he didn't want to wake her up and worry her".

Hmmm. Absolutely.

:floorlaugh: .. yeah, like as if the gunshots weren't going to alarm her :facepalm: .. that in itself (not waking her up and warning her) would've given her heart failure .. I remember being fast asleep in a hotel once and the fire alarms going off in middle of the night and my god I had one hell of a fright when I woke with a start!

 

[DebinGA]

Do you think this "hurdle" that distressed him on the day before the murder (the one where Reeva suggests he might like to be with his family) could be something to do with tax evasion and possible risk of prosecution. Only a thought. I think someone alluded to it earlier.

I wish we knew what "the hurdle" was. Here's Reeva's encouraging msg to OP that last afternoon:

"You are an amazing person with so many blessings," "and you are more than cared for. Your health and future monetary blessings far out way this hurdle I can promise u that."

 

[Viper]

I don't see how OP not hearing the screams will get him off if the neighbours who heard screams before the shooting are believed.

PS - we both answered sicknote's question at the same time and gave completely opposite answers! So what do you think now sicknote?

I'm not Sicknote (insert multiple username joke here).

But I think that Nel was absolutely delighted when he finally got OP to state that he could not have heard whether or not Reeva (Mr. Intruder) was screaming because he had temporarily lost his hearing from the loud gunshots that he was firing. That was a very significant admission.

What it did was it took OPs ability to say that Reeva "did not ever scream" and threw it in the trash! He can never ever again say that she did not scream. But the ear witnesses all had their full ability to hear and they heard blood curdling screams. OP cannot refute the witnesses' testimony because he is out on this point now. Yes, Nel was very pleased, I remember that very clearly.

 

[soozieqtips]

OP's reply that he didn't hear screams is entirely logically consistent with his statement that he had been deafened. He was deafened and therefore did not/ could not hear screams .

He DID know he didn't hear screams because he did know he could not hear anything.

BTW, when I first looked at this case I disbelieved his story in part because I didn't think it possible for him to not hear her scream given their proximity in such a small space.

After reading about the decibel level of a gun being shot in that small a place what I find impossible is the idea that he could hear anything at all for at least a few minutes. A single shot in that small a space has caused immediate and permanent hearing loss in some cases. Severe pain and temporary deafness is normal in those circumstances, not at all an exceptional or odd claim.

If there was indeed a pause after the first shot I'd bet it was a result of the immediate physical pain from that shot, and heightened fear because he'd lost his ability to hear the intruder. Surprising that he only fired 4 shots in those circumstances. It actually shows surprising restraint.

BBM - why is it surprising? He shot until the screaming stopped according to witnesses. Once the 'intruder' was dead, he didn't need to waste any more bullets.

 

[Hope4More]

So what about the screams before the shooting, as in minutes before.

I know that's asked reasonably, but I can't get on the earwitness scream merry go round discussion again. Check my past posts if you want to know my opinion about earwitness reliability.

 

[MsMarple]

I never expected him to get bail and was stunned when he did and especially after I read about another double amputee that was denied bail for fraud for such a long time .

RSBM

Judge Nair granted him bail because he felt OP wouldn't be a flight risk, but he declined to downgrade the Schedule 6 offense to Schedule 5 because of some of the same issues many of us here have:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/22/oscar-pistorious-bail-judge-reasons

These were the judge's main reasons:
• He did not think Pistorius was a flight risk.
• He did not think the prosecution had shown that Pistorius had a propensity for violence.
• He did not think the prosecution had shown there would be public outrage if he were released on bail.
• He did not think the prosecution's case was so strong that Pistorius's only reasonable reaction were he released would be to flee.

But the judge also pointed out holes in Pistorius's story that may prove important when the case comes to trial:

• Why did he not ascertain Steenkamp's whereabouts?
• Why did he not verify who was in the toilet?
• Why did Steenkamp not scream back from the toilet?
• Why did the deceased and the accused not escape through the bedroom door rather than venture into the toilet?
• Why would the accused venture into danger knowing the intruder was in the toilet, leaving himself open to attack? He returned to the dangerous area. What if the intruder was waiting for him?

And he said he had difficulty with the defence's version of why the accused slept on the other side of the bed from usual that night.