Trial Discussion Thread #47 - 14.07.8, Day 38

[04009margaret]

PART 3

OP : It’s taking the facts into account, there were 4 shots fired. I don’t, as I said, remember firing specifically 4 shots, I remember them being fired in quick succession. But I said there was a 5 – 4 shots. I did fire them, when describing the manner; I fired them in quick succession. Do I remember firing 4 shots, no I don’t.
GN : At the door
OP : Correct, at the door My Lady
GN : Do you remember firing at the door?
OP : yes I remember firing at the door
GN : Why did, yesterday when we ended, you said you don’t, you can’t remember
OP : That’s incorrect, yesterday
GN : You did
OP : That’s incorrect My Lady. Yesterday when put to me, if I fired at the door, if I remember firing at the door. I said yes, I do, I remember firing at the door. I wasn’t, at the time that I fired; the pistol was pointed at the door. When I heard the noise I fired the pistol. I remember firing at the door; I’ve never said that I don’t remember firing at the door
GN : OK um, let me just get it, and, wif, flatly have the record & I’ll go through it during lunch. Where you’re sitting now and it’s your evidence, “I remember firing 4 shots at the door”.
OP : That’s correct My Lady
GN : Because you remember aiming at the door
OP : I remember pulling the trigger & the rounds going into the door My Lady
GN : Ok there, uh unfortunately I have to test you on it. I remember pulling the trigger & rounds going into the door.
OP : That’s correct My Lady
GN : Now how do you remember the rounds going into the door?
OP : I don’t understand question My Lady
GN : Did you hear them going thru into the door, did you see them going through the door
OP : That’s where the firearm was pointed My Lady, that’s my remembrance, is that I saw them go into the door, that that’s where I fired
GN : (After being shown something on a laptop)…So, the, now we can go back to where we stopped yesterday. You fired…did you fire deliberately
OP : No My Lady I did not fire deliberately

 

[04009margaret]

Part 4

GN : You still with accidentally
OP : I’m still with the fact that I fired the gun, out of fear, that at the time I interpreted as somebody coming out of the bathroom My Lady. I’m not trying to argue, I’m saying as that I didn’t mean to pull the trigger, so in that sense it was an accident My Lady
GN : I just want us not to again get this confused…..I never meant to pull the trigger
OP : That’s correct My Lady
GN : So, you never wanted to shoot at intruders coming out of the bathroom
OP : I didn’t have time to think about it My Lady, if I did or didn’t want to, I wouldn’t have wanted to take or shoot at someone
GN : No, answer the question, you never deliberately pulled the trigger, so, you never wanted to shoot at robbers, intruders, coming out of the toilet
OP : That’s correct My Lady
GN : So whatever happened in that bathroom, noises, whatever happened that whole night, never caused you to pull the trigger, it went off accidentally
OP : That’s the opposite of what I’m saying My Lady
GN : No it’s not, no it’s not
OP : What I said was that the noise coming from the bathroom made me pull the trigger, from the toilet. So that is not what Mr Nel’s putting to me My Lady
GN : But, you can’t remember pulling the trigger, can you
OP : I can remember pulling the trigger My Lady
GN : But you didn’t aim at anything
OP : The firearm was aimed at the door at that time My Lady
GN : Did you want to shoot the people coming out of the room, out of the door or not
OP : I didn’t have time to think about if I wanted to or didn’t want to My Lady. I heard a noise coming from inside the toilet & I discharged the firearm
GN : Now let so, you never wanted to shoot the rob, the intruders coming out of the door
OP : That’s correct My Lady
GN : But we know they went into, (must be toilet but didn’t sound like it), we know that Reeva went in there. There was no reason for you to shoot, objectively, after the fact, as we stand here today; you had no reason to shoot
OP : That’s correct My Lady

 

[04009margaret]

Part 5

GN : If you waited a second, to see the door would open, you would not have fired
OP : It’s a possibility My Lady
GN : That’s not, she was in there, we know it now, she was in there. If you waited, you would not have fired, (long pause) am I right
OP : I’m not sure about a second My Lady, if Reeva had come out, if she had spoken to me or, then I wouldn’t have fired
GN : But let us go, we know for a fact, that there were no intruders in your house that night
OP : That’s correct My Lady
GN : We know for a fact, there was no ladder against the wall
OP : That’s correct My Lady
GN : We know for a fact it was Reeva in there
Op : that’s correct My Lady
GN : In the toilet, we know for a fact that she wasn’t a (thief?)
OP : That’s correct My Lady
GN : We know for a fact you had no reason to shoot
OP : That’s correct My Lady
GN : Objectively
OP : That’s correct My Lady
GN : Now (long pause) it’s not your version, that you aimed at the door, because you thought the robbers were coming out & you had to protect yourself
OP : That is my version My Lady, that’s what I said in my chief, that I thought the robbers were either in the toilet or, the intruders were in the toilet or that they were on the ladder. My firearm I said was pointed at the toilet, my eyes were going between the window & the toilet door
GN : But….Why did you fire?
OP – Because I heard a noise coming from inside the toilet, that I interpreted at that split moment as somebody coming out to attack me My Lady
GN : But, luckily that’s all on record so. And when you heard that, the, you just started shooting, accidentally, your fingers pulled the trigger
OP : I started shooting at that point My Lady
GN : At the intruders
OP : At the door My Lady
GN : But in your mind at the intruders
OP : That’s what I perceived as an intruder coming out to attack me My Lady
GN : So it wasn’t accidentally
OP : My Lady I’m getting confused with this accidentally & not accidentally, when I try to explain myself, I’m told to say it’s either an accident or not. I told, I’ve said time & time again, what I perceived & what I thought. I don’t understand. If it’s not or not put to me yesterday, that it was by accident & now not by accident, I don’t understand My Lady. I’m saying that I didn’t intend to shoot, I was pointed, my firearm was pointed at the door, because that’s where I believed that somebody was. When I heard a noise, I didn’t have time to think & I fired, I fired my weapon. It was an accident
Nel asks for lunch adjournment

 

[04009margaret]

Thanks, though Rober did state on the video, "As you can hear the fans are quite loud umm and when I was doing the reconstruction at the scene I had both of these exact fans, it's quite loud and quite distracting. So at this particular time either while he was repositioning the fans or while he was closing the sliding glass doors Reeva gets up to go to the toilet."

To me that sounded like he did indeed use the ones from OP's and not these other ones, otherwise how could he know if they were as loud or perhaps louder than the ones in question?

It's amazing that he said he didn't have to bend down to pick up the fan (small fan) & that's why he didn't see Reeva get out of bed. I'm 5ft2" & I'd have to bend to pick that fan up.

 

[44ALLAN]

My guess OP's Appeal will include both, errors in facts and errors in Law… error in facts will be more plentiful than the errors in Law.

Also would not be surprised if DT has some "newly discovered" exculpatory evidence to present.

OP's case being a circumstantial evidence case makes the verdict that much more likely to be considered and approved for an Appeal.

The televising of the Trial will surely be a major point of contention.

All IMO

I can't help but think that their going to try and use the 'inept' witnesses, for the defence, as a means of appealing too ( if their allowed to?).

I mean, c'mon, the majority of them didn't even have a report fgs !.
Would OP be able to appeal on the grounds that his own expert witnesses didn't do their job properly and jeopardized his defence?

I just don't think that they could all be that carp it seemed a bit contrived to me.

 

[G.bng]

You are missing the simple explanation, which is that OP wasn't shouting.

An argument needn't involve both parties raising their voices. Indeed, while one is shouting, the other may deliberately reply quietly, either to try to calm the situation, or as a passive-aggressive response. Or even not reply at all. All very common.

Simple explanation ?!

Sorry, but I must misunderstand your take here as I didn't "forget" I just could never imagine a Reeva of a 3-month relationship as some kind of tongue wagging fisher-woman or finger wagging head master ranting at OP for an hour at 2am in the morning could be a "simple" explanation at all since IMO it comes up against all kinds of problems.

I mean, is it "simple" to believe, and please interpret rant as the "angry and cross with lots of movements" voice EVDM described hearing, and also take into account this scenario would be for at least an hour since EVDM awoke to it at 1:57 and heard it until after 3:00 when she heard the loud bangs:

1) That an abusive, violent, controlling OP didn't raise his voice as Reeva ranted at him until he snapped...
2) That OP listened without "snapping" at Reeva as she ranted on and on for an hour until he snapped...
3) That OP was acting "passive aggressive" while Reeva ranted for an hour until he snapped...
4) That OP talked soft an hour "to try to calm" the situation (a hysterical Reeva?) for an hour until he snapped...
5) That OP didn't reply for an hour while Reeva ranted on at him until he snapped...

... snapped and purposefully shot her dead!

And if it was Reeva ranting/arguing at or with OP, whether in a unidirectional exchange or in a bidirectional one with a passive aggressive OP on the other side, for an hour during which time OP was either not responding, deliberately responding quietly, or acting in a passive aggressive way towards her, I would at very least have to ask the following that for me to find this possibility credible such a scenario begs for:

a) Who do we say was leaving who?
b) Was Reeva a ranting, nagging, henpecking, dog with a bone, not very nice sorta woman?
c) What could be so serious at 2:00am that could spark Reeva to rant at OP for an hour?
d) What self respecting 28 year-old woman stands ranting at a 3 month long boyfriend for an hour?
e) With Reeva ranting and OP silent was OP being abusive of Reeva or Reeva being abusive of OP?

And was Reeva or OP in control during this hour of Reeva ranting at OP apparently as if he were some naughty school kid?

d) If Reeva was in control why did she not just leave since she surely must have had the upper hand?
e) If OP was in control by being passive-aggressive then makes no sense Reeva would stand there ranting unless she was in fact begging and pleading for him to talk, listen, not leave, etc. which is how understand a passive-agressive relationship works, i.e. passive-aggressive domination.

JMHO

 

[RainCheck]

This is my first time commenting on this trial and I haven't followed it as closely as most here, but I have followed as much as I can through the news and I watched the Sunday Night Special.

When I first heard about Reeva's death I felt there was no way OP could have shot her on accident because he thought robbers were in the bathroom. I thought it had to be murder and I related Reeva's experience to my own and felt I could have been her. I was modeling and became involved with an actor, he was handsome and charming and well liked. He lavished me with attention and always wanted to know what I was doing. He would show up at my jobs unannounced with a gift. He called me several times a day. I was so flattered and loved how into me he seemed to be. I missed all the warning signs. I knew very early he had a bad temper. He was mean to service people like waitresses or grocery cashiers. He got into physical fights with people over what I saw as trivial slights. A few months into our relationship I printed off information about anger issues and programs he could attend. I wrote him a letter saying I felt he would be happier if he could learn how to live without such anger. I was such a naive little girl because it never crossed my mind he would ever turn that anger to me. Of course he did and it was horrific! I had knives held to my throat. He beat me until I was black and blue, but only in places that could be covered with clothing. He abused my pets and scared away all my friends. He completely broke me and isolated me from my family and anyone who cared about me. I was a shell of a human. He told my what I could eat and wear, even what temperature of water I could drink. I wasn't allowed to be in the sun so as not to age my skin. He was really scary! When I finally worked up the nerve to leave him he caught me trying to gather my things and went ballistic. He twisted my arm behind my back so hard he dislocated it and tore my rotator cuff. Then he used the scarf I was wearing to strangle me until I lost consciousness. He had warned me if I ever tried to leave he would kill me. Luckily his roommate came home and interrupted and called the police. He was arrested but both myself and his roommate were to scared to testify against him so he ended up only having to complete an anger management program and they put a permanent restraining order in place. I went into hiding and after a few years I heard he stopped looking for me. I only recently stopped having nightmares about him. He's still acting and in movies you would have seen. He's also still abusing women. I got a phone call from the DA where he lives and they said he had been arrested for beaten up the mother of his infant child. They wanted me to testify at his new trial. I really know I could have been killed him.

However, my own experience also makes me feel conflicted about OP guilt. My abuser groomed me for well over a year before he ever really hurt me. He tried so hard to be another person for that year. He was my dream man, other than his temper I saw him use on other people. He was so charming and romantic while subtly breaking me down and making me dependent on him emotionally and financially. He manipulated me into thinking all my friends were bad for me and even my family. He worked long and hard to hide the monster he really was until he was sure he had me exactly where he wanted me. Reeva and OP were only together 3 months, right? It seems like OP would have still been in the honeymoon phase and working on Reeva. I can see him making belittling remarks to her and then being really apologetic, but he wouldn't have gone full force abuser yet. It seems so extreme for so early in their relationship for him to become enraged enough to kill her. It's the only thing that makes me confused! I think from what I've read about her talking badly to her, he fits the profile of an abuser. It was just so early in their relationship for him to unleash such violence. It doesn't mean he didn't, but it doesn't fit the pattern I've since researched and read about following my experience. I didn't ever want to make the mistake of getting involved with another abuser again so have spent a lot of time since trying to recognize them.

The other information I read which gave me pause had nothing to do with OP. I started to read about the rampant crime and violence in South Africa. I can't imagine how that would affect the people living there. In the process of reading about it I found the story of Rudi Visagie, the former rugby player who accidentally shot to death his daughter when he thought she was a car thief http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/may/25/southafrica.rugbyunion How bad is crime in South Africa a man could do that on accident to his own child? Is it bad enough a man could really assume a noise in his bathroom was an armed criminal come to rob and maybe even kill him?

I'm very conflicted with this case. On one hand, I think OP is a controlling man with anger issues who is capable of domestic violence. On the other hand, I think crime is so rampant there he really could have thought Reeva was a robber! I haven't read or heard or seen anything in the evidence that's a "smoking gun" sort of detail for me. I'm very interested to see the outcome of the trial because I think it could easily go either way!

Anyway, sorry if I made no sense or sound ignorant because I don't know enough of the facts! I just wanted to share the thoughts I've had. Thanks!

 

[G.bng]

No, you're correct, the argument was heard between 2-3am. But that makes the bathroom visit less plausible - if Reeva was up for an hour between 2 and 3am why would she slip back into bed at 3am to coo sweetness at Oscar only to jump straight back out again to urinate? If "practice and hygiene recommends emptying the bladder just before sleep" then why visits the bathroom again after she's back in bed?

Re the "one voice", I know personal anecdotes aren't that useful but I go for a run most nights and I frequently run past a hours where a couple is ALWAYS arguing. The distance from the road is less than 50 metres but I have to concentrate quite hard to hear the man's voice, she's usually much louder. (Disclaimer : I've only tried to listen a few times and only since the trial began!) I would be happy in court to state that it was an argument due to the tone of her voice, and , more importantly, the way she is talking in turn. Even though i'm pretty close I don't always hear individual words and as such could not and would not be able to confidently state which language they're speaking in.

She may have been on her way to the loo as she entered the room but realised he was waking up and quickly slipped back in bed, or more on the bed since only her legs were covered by the duvet, so he didn't realise and get annoyed and "snap" at her for waking him up...

You know, I don't really believe anything, to me mine were just possibilities, ones I feel make more sense and are credible albeit none so much so to be beyond a reasonable doubt and IMO that's how Masipa will have to find, i.e. none of the possibles are beyond a reasonable doubt enough for her to find there was an argument. But then what do I know any more than anyone else, so we can argue till the cows come home but Masipa is the one who will have the final say.

PS
Oooops, you got me off track... and whose to say she came back to the room at 3 and went to bed, peed, or whatever... that would be going with OP's version and why do we have to? Aren't many of the opinion the argument started downstairs? As in my idea, if he heard Reeva downstairs and thought she was talking to someone else... many men could easily see the red mist! etc. etc. etc. the possibilities are dependent only on the limits of the imagination. JMHO.

 

[K.T]

Simple explanation ?!

Sorry, but I must misunderstand your take here as I didn't "forget" I just could never imagine a Reeva of a 3-month relationship as some kind of tongue wagging fisher-woman or finger wagging head master ranting at OP for an hour at 2am in the morning could be a "simple" explanation at all since IMO it comes up against all kinds of problems.

I mean, is it "simple" to believe, and please interpret rant as the "angry and cross with lots of movements" voice EVDM described hearing, and also take into account this scenario would be for at least an hour since EVDM awoke to it at 1:57 and heard it until after 3:00 when she heard the loud bangs:

1) That an abusive, violent, controlling OP didn't raise his voice as Reeva ranted at him until he snapped...
2) That OP listened without "snapping" at Reeva as she ranted on and on for an hour until he snapped...
3) That OP was acting "passive aggressive" while Reeva ranted for an hour until he snapped...
4) That OP talked soft an hour "to try to calm" the situation (a hysterical Reeva?) for an hour until he snapped...
5) That OP didn't reply for an hour while Reeva ranted on at him until he snapped...

... snapped and purposefully shot her dead!

And if it was Reeva ranting/arguing at or with OP, whether in a unidirectional exchange or in a bidirectional one with a passive aggressive OP on the other side, for an hour during which time OP was either not responding, deliberately responding quietly, or acting in a passive aggressive way towards her, I would at very least have to ask the following that for me to find this possibility credible such a scenario begs for:

a) Who do we say was leaving who?
b) Was Reeva a ranting, nagging, henpecking, dog with a bone, not very nice sorta woman?
c) What could be so serious at 2:00am that could spark Reeva to rant at OP for an hour?
d) What self respecting 28 year-old woman stands ranting at a 3 month long boyfriend for an hour?
e) With Reeva ranting and OP silent was OP being abusive of Reeva or Reeva being abusive of OP?

And was Reeva or OP in control during this hour of Reeva ranting at OP apparently as if he were some naughty school kid?

d) If Reeva was in control why did she not just leave since she surely must have had the upper hand?
e) If OP was in control by being passive-aggressive then makes no sense Reeva would stand there ranting unless she was in fact begging and pleading for him to talk, listen, not leave, etc. which is how understand a passive-agressive relationship works, i.e. passive-aggressive domination.

JMHO

Ah, that part I bolded in red is much like the implied victim-blame of a Pistorius fan. These types of comments are all over social media. For Pistorius' defenders, Steenkamp may be seen as "hysterical" and whose personality should be questioned as a person who is "henpecking...not very nice sorta women."

Even though one might expect sympathy for the victim of such a horrible, excruciating, amputating shooting death by the accused.

Note in the psychologist report Pistorius results were abnormal in the 'warmth' category...I think that's relevant in the possibility of cold-rage type anger.

Van der Merwe said she heard the angry argument as intermittent, she was worried enough about the tone to check her window and try to find the position of the sounds more than once.

An obvious theory is that Pistorius has been in an argument for an hour, as it escalated and he may have raised his voice as the emotions built and angry between 2.50 -3.10, but the neighbour had fallen asleep, fatigued from being kept up so late until she abruptly heard the shots at 3.15ish.

He may have petulant, manipulative and distraught that night, emotionally imbalanced (as people have noted of his trial behaviour) and he shot her once out of uncontrolled emotion and then in panic knew he had to finish killing her. There's been quite a few gun deaths out of anger or emotional distress where perpetrator was not loud.

 

[K.T]

Daily Maverick sums up their thoughts on the Pistorius defence.

Favourite line pointing out Pistorius' manipulation of the truth -

"Pistorius at one stage said "I can barely stand on my stumps", which was disproved by re-enactment footage shown of on Australian TV."

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2014-07-09-defending-oscar-team-pistorius-case/#.U75p75IaySM

 

[K.T]

There was one thing that I couldn't understand about this trial.

OP had approached Gina Myers and said how can she sleep at night or words to that extent.

What was the context behind this, why would he have said this to her.

Any thoughts?

Hates women disrespecting him. Saying "How do you sleep at night" is a direct dig at her not supporting him or believing his defense, probably at some imaginary thing the Kim Myers had done or not done. Like his comment defending himself over the incident as 'they never even look him in the eye' when he's been so amazing to 'open doors' for them. Basically it's him saying "b**ch, don't kill my vibe".

Pistorius has a fixed view of a woman's role, his insecurity demands their role is to help him in whatever he needs. Needs constant affirmation, irritated without it.

Possibly unresolved anger issues about his mother 'leaving' him as a teen and about father desertion as well. As he can't deal with negative feelings about her, he projects deepseated resentment on other women who are not fufilling their role. His sister seems obviously like the type he needs -unreasoned, neverending support, 'mothering' him, unchallenging, making him the center of the relationship...

See: Steenkamp texts; concert abuse to women; Memmory; Taylor's and his own supposed infidelity, arguments with multiple ex-girlfriends

 

[Nunehi]

Hi there!

I'm fairly new here and I'm very new at posting, so please don't be harsh if I do anything wrong :blushing:

I found this newspaper article posted in our local newspaper "Die Beeld" very interesting and wanted to share it with you. Unfortunately it is an Afrikaans newspaper so I translated it into english as best as I could (English is not my first language...) Please bear with me lease:. It is based on the comments of a local Prof that specializes in Law at a University in Johannesburg. Here goes...

7 Misconceptions regarding the “Oscar Case”

The Defence team has closed their case in the murder trial of Oscar Pistorius and everyone had an opinion regarding the outcome of the case. Marida Fitzpatrick has indicated 7 big misconceptions that people tend to have regarding the case.

Mistake 1: The burden of proof lies only within the state (PT)

In most criminal law cases it is the case but not in this case.
Pistorius acknowledges that he has shot Reeva Steenkamp. Therefore the burden of proof also lies with the defence team as he needs to prove that his version of what happened is possibly true that he acted out of putative self-defence.

Mistake 2: The state has to show motive

The state has to show above reasonable doubt that Pistorius knew there was a person behind the door and shot with the intention to unlawfully kill someone. They do however not have to show why he did it.
The state argues that they had an argument, but cannot say what about. “It is not something that the state needs to prove. It is not a void in their case” said Prof. James Grant Criminal Law specialist from WITS University

Mistake 3: Manslaughter / Culpable manslaughter is second prize

Manslaughter is not the diluted version of murder, it is two different charges. A charge of Manslaughter will only be taken into account if the judge accepts Pistorius’ account and defence of putative self-defence.

If the judge rejects this version, manslaughter will not even be considered.

Mistake 4: The police altered the scene

The defence team claims that this is true, it was however not proven yet. Altered and contaminated is not the same. If you walk through the scene without the necessary foot coverage you may contaminate the scene, if you consciously move pieces of evidence to create a certain impression you are altering the scene.

Pistorius alledges that the police moved certain objects, but he cannot remember where it was originally. He also cannot say why the police would have moved it.

Mistake 5: 1 eyewitness + 1 eyewitness = 2 eyewitnesses

The four eyewitnesses for the state said that they heard a woman scream, this does not only carry the weight of just four witnesses.
Grant said that because they verify each other’s versions, the weight each witness’ testimony carries exponentially more weight. “The whole is bigger than the sum of the parts”

Mistake 6: The defence team’s neighbours contradicts the states’ neighbours

The neighbours that testified for the defence team did not hear a woman’s screams, but they also did not hear the first three shots and that which preceded it.

They woke up from the last shot and only heard Pistorius’ cries afterwards.

They are therefore not contradicting the four state witnesses’ accounts with regards to the screams from a woman that they heard and testified about.

Mistake 7 : The other three charges is not important / small

In comparison with a murder charge, the charges with regards to the firearms act seems small or not important, but it is everything but.
“The judge heard how he said the weapon fired on it’s own while in his hand without him physically pulling the trigger, while we know it is not physically possible,” Grant said. “It can affect his overall credibility adversely”.

- Translated from the Beeld article “7 Mistastings oor die Oscar saak” written by Marida Fitzpatrick and published by Naspers on the 9th of July 2014. (http://www.beeld.com/nuus/2014-07-09-7-mistastings-oor-die-oscar-saak)

I would really love to get your thoughts and opinions on this!

 

[Jake18]

Simple explanation ?!

Sorry, but I must misunderstand your take here as I didn't "forget" I just could never imagine a Reeva of a 3-month relationship as some kind of tongue wagging fisher-woman or finger wagging head master ranting at OP for an hour at 2am in the morning could be a "simple" explanation at all since IMO it comes up against all kinds of problems.

I mean, is it "simple" to believe, and please interpret rant as the "angry and cross with lots of movements" voice EVDM described hearing, and also take into account this scenario would be for at least an hour since EVDM awoke to it at 1:57 and heard it until after 3:00 when she heard the loud bangs:

1) That an abusive, violent, controlling OP didn't raise his voice as Reeva ranted at him until he snapped...
2) That OP listened without "snapping" at Reeva as she ranted on and on for an hour until he snapped...
3) That OP was acting "passive aggressive" while Reeva ranted for an hour until he snapped...
4) That OP talked soft an hour "to try to calm" the situation (a hysterical Reeva?) for an hour until he snapped...
5) That OP didn't reply for an hour while Reeva ranted on at him until he snapped...

... snapped and purposefully shot her dead!

And if it was Reeva ranting/arguing at or with OP, whether in a unidirectional exchange or in a bidirectional one with a passive aggressive OP on the other side, for an hour during which time OP was either not responding, deliberately responding quietly, or acting in a passive aggressive way towards her, I would at very least have to ask the following that for me to find this possibility credible such a scenario begs for:

a) Who do we say was leaving who?
b) Was Reeva a ranting, nagging, henpecking, dog with a bone, not very nice sorta woman?
c) What could be so serious at 2:00am that could spark Reeva to rant at OP for an hour?
d) What self respecting 28 year-old woman stands ranting at a 3 month long boyfriend for an hour?
e) With Reeva ranting and OP silent was OP being abusive of Reeva or Reeva being abusive of OP?

And was Reeva or OP in control during this hour of Reeva ranting at OP apparently as if he were some naughty school kid?

d) If Reeva was in control why did she not just leave since she surely must have had the upper hand?
e) If OP was in control by being passive-aggressive then makes no sense Reeva would stand there ranting unless she was in fact begging and pleading for him to talk, listen, not leave, etc. which is how understand a passive-agressive relationship works, i.e. passive-aggressive domination.

JMHO

Re BIB. Sometimes women get angry. I have daughters and I don't want them to not ever feel they can't express their anger or frustration for fear that they will be accused of being "not nice" or a "fishwife".

I find it much more believable that Reeva, an intelligent, educated woman did "rant" at OP than that she cowered in a toilet, completely mute, even while OP's bullets shattered her hip and nearly severed her arm.

 

[Cherwell]

Simple explanation ?!

Sorry, but I must misunderstand your take here as I didn't "forget" I just could never imagine a Reeva of a 3-month relationship as some kind of tongue wagging fisher-woman or finger wagging head master ranting at OP for an hour at 2am in the morning could be a "simple" explanation at all since IMO it comes up against all kinds of problems.

I mean, is it "simple" to believe, and please interpret rant as the "angry and cross with lots of movements" voice EVDM described hearing, and also take into account this scenario would be for at least an hour since EVDM awoke to it at 1:57 and heard it until after 3:00 when she heard the loud bangs:

1) That an abusive, violent, controlling OP didn't raise his voice as Reeva ranted at him until he snapped...
2) That OP listened without "snapping" at Reeva as she ranted on and on for an hour until he snapped...
3) That OP was acting "passive aggressive" while Reeva ranted for an hour until he snapped...
4) That OP talked soft an hour "to try to calm" the situation (a hysterical Reeva?) for an hour until he snapped...
5) That OP didn't reply for an hour while Reeva ranted on at him until he snapped...

... snapped and purposefully shot her dead!

And if it was Reeva ranting/arguing at or with OP, whether in a unidirectional exchange or in a bidirectional one with a passive aggressive OP on the other side, for an hour during which time OP was either not responding, deliberately responding quietly, or acting in a passive aggressive way towards her, I would at very least have to ask the following that for me to find this possibility credible such a scenario begs for:

a) Who do we say was leaving who?
b) Was Reeva a ranting, nagging, henpecking, dog with a bone, not very nice sorta woman?
c) What could be so serious at 2:00am that could spark Reeva to rant at OP for an hour?
d) What self respecting 28 year-old woman stands ranting at a 3 month long boyfriend for an hour?
e) With Reeva ranting and OP silent was OP being abusive of Reeva or Reeva being abusive of OP?

And was Reeva or OP in control during this hour of Reeva ranting at OP apparently as if he were some naughty school kid?

d) If Reeva was in control why did she not just leave since she surely must have had the upper hand?
e) If OP was in control by being passive-aggressive then makes no sense Reeva would stand there ranting unless she was in fact begging and pleading for him to talk, listen, not leave, etc. which is how understand a passive-agressive relationship works, i.e. passive-aggressive domination.

JMHO

Yes, a simple explanation IMO.

No one has described an hour-long rant of the sort you imply. What was heard was intermittent.

 

[Val1]

Simple explanation ?!

Sorry, but I must misunderstand your take here as I didn't "forget" I just could never imagine a Reeva of a 3-month relationship as some kind of tongue wagging fisher-woman or finger wagging head master ranting at OP for an hour at 2am in the morning could be a "simple" explanation at all since IMO it comes up against all kinds of problems.

I mean, is it "simple" to believe, and please interpret rant as the "angry and cross with lots of movements" voice EVDM described hearing, and also take into account this scenario would be for at least an hour since EVDM awoke to it at 1:57 and heard it until after 3:00 when she heard the loud bangs:

1) That an abusive, violent, controlling OP didn't raise his voice as Reeva ranted at him until he snapped...
2) That OP listened without "snapping" at Reeva as she ranted on and on for an hour until he snapped...
3) That OP was acting "passive aggressive" while Reeva ranted for an hour until he snapped...
4) That OP talked soft an hour "to try to calm" the situation (a hysterical Reeva?) for an hour until he snapped...
5) That OP didn't reply for an hour while Reeva ranted on at him until he snapped...

... snapped and purposefully shot her dead!

And if it was Reeva ranting/arguing at or with OP, whether in a unidirectional exchange or in a bidirectional one with a passive aggressive OP on the other side, for an hour during which time OP was either not responding, deliberately responding quietly, or acting in a passive aggressive way towards her, I would at very least have to ask the following that for me to find this possibility credible such a scenario begs for:

a) Who do we say was leaving who?
b) Was Reeva a ranting, nagging, henpecking, dog with a bone, not very nice sorta woman?
c) What could be so serious at 2:00am that could spark Reeva to rant at OP for an hour?
d) What self respecting 28 year-old woman stands ranting at a 3 month long boyfriend for an hour?
e) With Reeva ranting and OP silent was OP being abusive of Reeva or Reeva being abusive of OP?

And was Reeva or OP in control during this hour of Reeva ranting at OP apparently as if he were some naughty school kid?

d) If Reeva was in control why did she not just leave since she surely must have had the upper hand?
e) If OP was in control by being passive-aggressive then makes no sense Reeva would stand there ranting unless she was in fact begging and pleading for him to talk, listen, not leave, etc. which is how understand a passive-agressive relationship works, i.e. passive-aggressive domination.

JMHO

Would

There were also bruises on the upper part of the right thigh that were not linked to the shooting and behind the left knee and the left shin.

qualify as a good enough reason for RS to be upset and speak/yell loud enough to be heard as an argument? There is the possibility that an argument turned physical if RS decided to pack up her things and leave, just before it got deadly. It may not even have started out that badly, but if OP had the bat handy and started swinging it around in anger, RS may have gotten in the way of it and then all h*ll could have broken loose. We never heard anything from the DT to explain that RS had been injured previously in any other way, even OP never mentioned that she'd fallen or tripped over anything or even that the dogs had perhaps knocked her around, which you would think they would have at least tried to explain so as to point away from any suggestion of an argument.

http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/b7b0618043374ddc87b39f45a23ba143/Steenkamp-sustained-bruising-on-her-back,-buttocks-and-breast

 

[Jake18]

Hi there!

I'm fairly new here and I'm very new at posting, so please don't be harsh if I do anything wrong :blushing:

I found this newspaper article posted in our local newspaper "Die Beeld" very interesting and wanted to share it with you. Unfortunately it is an Afrikaans newspaper so I translated it into english as best as I could (English is not my first language...) Please bear with me lease:. It is based on the comments of a local Prof that specializes in Law at a University in Johannesburg. Here goes...

7 Misconceptions regarding the “Oscar Case”

The Defence team has closed their case in the murder trial of Oscar Pistorius and everyone had an opinion regarding the outcome in the case. Marida Fitzpatrick has indicated 7 big misconceptions that people tend to have regarding the case.

Mistake 1: The burden of proof lies only within the state (PT)

In most criminal law cases it is the case but not in this case.
Pistorius acknowledges that he has shot Reeva Steenkamp. Therefore the burden of proof also lies with the defence team as he needs to prove that his version of what happened is possibly true that he acted out of putative self-defence.

Mistake 2: The state has to show motive

The state has to show above reasonable doubt that Pistorius knew there was a person behind the door and shot with the intention to unlawfully kill someone. They do however not have to show why he did it.
The state argues that they had an argument, but cannot say what about. “It is not something that the state needs to prove. It is not a void in their case” said Prof. James Grant Criminal Law specialist from WITS University

Mistake 3: Manslaughter / Culpable manslaughter is second prize

Manslaughter is not the diluted version of murder, it is two different charges. A charge of Manslaughter will only be taken into account if the judge accepts Pistorius’ account and defence of putative self-defence.

If the judge rejects this version, manslaughter will not even be considered.

Mistake 4: The police altered the scene

The defence team claims that this is true, it was however not proven yet. Altered and contaminated is not the same. If you walk through the scene without the necessary foot coverage you may contaminate the scene, if you consciously move pieces of evidence to create a certain impression you are altering the scene.

Pistorius alledges that the police moved certain objects, but he cannot remember where it was originally. He also cannot say why the police would have moved it.

Mistake 5: 1 eyewitness + 1 eyewitness = 2 eyewitnesses

The four eyewitnesses for the state said that they heard a women scream, this does not only carry the weight of just four witnesses.
Grant said that because they verify each other’s versions, the weight each witness’ testimony carries exponentially more weight. “The whole is bigger than the sum of the parts”

Mistake 6: The defence team’s neighbours contradicts the states’ neighbours

The neighbours that testified for the defence team did not hear a woman’s screams, but they also did not hear the first three shots and that which preceded it.

They woke up from the last shot and only heard Pistorius’ cries afterwards.

They are therefore not contradicting the four state witnesses’ accounts with regards to the screams from a woman that they heard and testified about.

Mistake 7 : The other three charges is not important / small

In comparison with a murder charge, the charges with regards to the firearms act seems small or not important, but it is everything but.
“The judge heard how he said the weapon fired on it’s own while in his hand without him physically pulling the trigger, while we know it is not physically possible,” Grant said. “It can affect his overall credibility adversely”.

- Translated from the Beeld article “7 Mistastings oor die Oscar saak” written by Marida Fitzpatrick and published by Naspers on the 9th of July 2014. (http://www.beeld.com/nuus/2014-07-09-7-mistastings-oor-die-oscar-saak)

I would really love to get your thoughts and opinions on this!

BIB (Bit in bold) 1 - really good point.

BIB 2 - I think most of us are aware the DT's ear witnesses aren't contradictory.

And welcome, great post!

 

[Cherwell]

Thanks, though Rober did state on the video, "As you can hear the fans are quite loud umm and when I was doing the reconstruction at the scene I had both of these exact fans, it's quite loud and quite distracting. So at this particular time either while he was repositioning the fans or while he was closing the sliding glass doors Reeva gets up to go to the toilet."

To me that sounded like he did indeed use the ones from OP's and not these other ones, otherwise how could he know if they were as loud or perhaps louder than the ones in question?

I'm a little confused here. Which "exact fans" is he referring to? The ones pictured?

When he talks about the "scene", does he mean OP's house? If they had access to it, why did they do the "reconstruction" that we saw on TV somewhere else?

 

[04009margaret]

Hi there!

I'm fairly new here and I'm very new at posting, so please don't be harsh if I do anything wrong :blushing:

I found this newspaper article posted in our local newspaper "Die Beeld" very interesting and wanted to share it with you. Unfortunately it is an Afrikaans newspaper so I translated it into english as best as I could (English is not my first language...) Please bear with me lease:. It is based on the comments of a local Prof that specializes in Law at a University in Johannesburg. Here goes...

7 Misconceptions regarding the “Oscar Case”

The Defence team has closed their case in the murder trial of Oscar Pistorius and everyone had an opinion regarding the outcome of the case. Marida Fitzpatrick has indicated 7 big misconceptions that people tend to have regarding the case.

Mistake 1: The burden of proof lies only within the state (PT)

In most criminal law cases it is the case but not in this case.
Pistorius acknowledges that he has shot Reeva Steenkamp. Therefore the burden of proof also lies with the defence team as he needs to prove that his version of what happened is possibly true that he acted out of putative self-defence.

Mistake 2: The state has to show motive

The state has to show above reasonable doubt that Pistorius knew there was a person behind the door and shot with the intention to unlawfully kill someone. They do however not have to show why he did it.
The state argues that they had an argument, but cannot say what about. “It is not something that the state needs to prove. It is not a void in their case” said Prof. James Grant Criminal Law specialist from WITS University

Mistake 3: Manslaughter / Culpable manslaughter is second prize

Manslaughter is not the diluted version of murder, it is two different charges. A charge of Manslaughter will only be taken into account if the judge accepts Pistorius’ account and defence of putative self-defence.

If the judge rejects this version, manslaughter will not even be considered.

Mistake 4: The police altered the scene

The defence team claims that this is true, it was however not proven yet. Altered and contaminated is not the same. If you walk through the scene without the necessary foot coverage you may contaminate the scene, if you consciously move pieces of evidence to create a certain impression you are altering the scene.

Pistorius alledges that the police moved certain objects, but he cannot remember where it was originally. He also cannot say why the police would have moved it.

Mistake 5: 1 eyewitness + 1 eyewitness = 2 eyewitnesses

The four eyewitnesses for the state said that they heard a woman scream, this does not only carry the weight of just four witnesses.
Grant said that because they verify each other’s versions, the weight each witness’ testimony carries exponentially more weight. “The whole is bigger than the sum of the parts”

Mistake 6: The defence team’s neighbours contradicts the states’ neighbours

The neighbours that testified for the defence team did not hear a woman’s screams, but they also did not hear the first three shots and that which preceded it.

They woke up from the last shot and only heard Pistorius’ cries afterwards.

They are therefore not contradicting the four state witnesses’ accounts with regards to the screams from a woman that they heard and testified about.

Mistake 7 : The other three charges is not important / small

In comparison with a murder charge, the charges with regards to the firearms act seems small or not important, but it is everything but.
“The judge heard how he said the weapon fired on it’s own while in his hand without him physically pulling the trigger, while we know it is not physically possible,” Grant said. “It can affect his overall credibility adversely”.

- Translated from the Beeld article “7 Mistastings oor die Oscar saak” written by Marida Fitzpatrick and published by Naspers on the 9th of July 2014. (http://www.beeld.com/nuus/2014-07-09-7-mistastings-oor-die-oscar-saak)

I would really love to get your thoughts and opinions on this!

BIB:wagon:

I personally take everything that OP has said happened in the bedroom or bathroom with a grain of salt. I don't think anything that he described actually happened because of the supposed movement of things by the police. How would they know what his version was to do this. Somewhere between the damaged bedroom door & the bullet riddled toilet door lies the truth & unfortunately I don't think it will ever be disclosed.

 

[Sherbert]

Explanation for EVDM not hearing Oscar's voice

I'm dubious that Reeva was working on her speech until 1am - she was a model, after all, and would have wanted to get her beauty sleep and look her best the next morning. I imagine that she would have wanted a peaceful and early night and that Oscar had persuaded her to stay, against her much better judgement.

I'm also not convinced that she was raising her voice in argument - I think she'd have worked hard to keep the peace that night, given not only her nature, but, also, that she had a big day ahead.

I feel that Estelle heard only one voice because Reeva was locked outside and pleading/arguing with OP through a locked door.

I imagine that the couple had not been getting on that evening and that there is a strong possibility that Reeva had, at some point, opted to avoid further confrontation by sleeping in the spare room. Perhaps, Oscar, sensing that she'd had enough, but hoping to patch things up before morning, had said, 'There's no need to leave - it's late. Sleep in the spare room instead'. Reeva then sent a text to her 'Joburg family' saying that she was staying at Oscar's because it was late. (I think I read somewhere that it was not her usual happy text). However, having agreed to stay, Reeva, upset by the row, and anxious about the next day, found that she couldn't get to sleep and eventually decided to go downstairs and fix herself a post midnight snack, hoping that this would help.

However, when Reeva went to the kitchen, Oscar, who was also unable to sleep, followed her down, confronting her, and causing the row to escalate to the next level, culminating in Oscar locking Reeva out of the house without her belongings. I imagine that he'd initially been hoping that she'd back down and come back to the main bedroom, but that, after her snack, when he'd failed to sweet talk her into appeasing him, he shoved her out of the house by force, effectively saying, 'Ok then, I don't want you here - you can go'.

Estelle heard only one voice because Reeva was locked outside, pleading to be let back in to collect her stuff. In response, Oscar threw Reeva's jeans out of the window, as if to say, 'Here you are - take them and go'.

Somehow or other, after things had quietened down sufficiently for Estelle to get back to sleep, Reeva managed to get back in, perhaps, through an open window. Or maybe she used a key and/or de-activated the alarm. Her intention was to collect her stuff quietly, without alerting Oscar, and then leave and never see him again. She needed her belongings for the next day, so it would have been very important to her not to leave without them. I am referring to belongings like make up, outfit, phone, car keys, etc. Also, of course, she knew OP was 'difficult', but she wasn't expecting him to use his gun on her.

However, Oscar heard a noise and was completely and utterly enraged that she would dare to re-enter his house without his permission: at that point, he genuinely saw her as an intruder; and, so, there ensued a game of cat and mouse. Reeva did her best to stay quiet and hidden, whilst Oscar, baseball bat in hand, was feeling behind curtains, etc, looking for her. (Similar to what he described in his evidence). Eventually, he discovered her and screaming, 'Get the **** out of my house', he chased her to the bathroom, swinging the baseball bat and bashing it around. Meanwhile, Reeva was screaming for help. When she saw the gun, her screaming intensified.

And now I rely on you guys to put me straight on the evidence...:smiliescale:

 

[soozieqtips]

Simple explanation ?!

Sorry, but I must misunderstand your take here as I didn't "forget" I just could never imagine a Reeva of a 3-month relationship as some kind of tongue wagging fisher-woman or finger wagging head master ranting at OP for an hour at 2am in the morning could be a "simple" explanation at all since IMO it comes up against all kinds of problems.

I mean, is it "simple" to believe, and please interpret rant as the "angry and cross with lots of movements" voice EVDM described hearing, and also take into account this scenario would be for at least an hour since EVDM awoke to it at 1:57 and heard it until after 3:00 when she heard the loud bangs:

1) That an abusive, violent, controlling OP didn't raise his voice as Reeva ranted at him until he snapped...
2) That OP listened without "snapping" at Reeva as she ranted on and on for an hour until he snapped...
3) That OP was acting "passive aggressive" while Reeva ranted for an hour until he snapped...
4) That OP talked soft an hour "to try to calm" the situation (a hysterical Reeva?) for an hour until he snapped...
5) That OP didn't reply for an hour while Reeva ranted on at him until he snapped...

... snapped and purposefully shot her dead!

And if it was Reeva ranting/arguing at or with OP, whether in a unidirectional exchange or in a bidirectional one with a passive aggressive OP on the other side, for an hour during which time OP was either not responding, deliberately responding quietly, or acting in a passive aggressive way towards her, I would at very least have to ask the following that for me to find this possibility credible such a scenario begs for:

a) Who do we say was leaving who?
b) Was Reeva a ranting, nagging, henpecking, dog with a bone, not very nice sorta woman?
c) What could be so serious at 2:00am that could spark Reeva to rant at OP for an hour?
d) What self respecting 28 year-old woman stands ranting at a 3 month long boyfriend for an hour?
e) With Reeva ranting and OP silent was OP being abusive of Reeva or Reeva being abusive of OP?

And was Reeva or OP in control during this hour of Reeva ranting at OP apparently as if he were some naughty school kid?

d) If Reeva was in control why did she not just leave since she surely must have had the upper hand?
e) If OP was in control by being passive-aggressive then makes no sense Reeva would stand there ranting unless she was in fact begging and pleading for him to talk, listen, not leave, etc. which is how understand a passive-agressive relationship works, i.e. passive-aggressive domination.

JMHO

Nobody ever stated the argument went on for a whole hour! And to imply that a women who shouts at a man (when the man is being silent or arguing quietly) is some sort of non self-respecting ranting fishwife is an extremely misogynistic viewpoint, in my opinion. Especially when the cause for the argument isn't even known.