Trial Discussion weekend Thread #24

[james83]

I have to disagree, apologies. Reeva was already dead when OP made that call to Netcare that lasted 60 seconds. He didnt take her down because he was busy thinking really really hard about what he was going to say and do when people started to arrive. Imagine the pressure in his mind trying to settle on one of the thousands of options!
:fireworks:

But in the end he picked the easiest one, the old armed intruder story, and he made a dramatic exhibition by waiting for people to enter the door before he paraded Reeva's dead body down the stairs to present it to them. And to add a sense of urgency and concern he put his fingers in the corpse's mouth pretending to try to help it come back to life.

That is all. Rant over now.

No need to apologise, i can well believe that version.

 

[soozieqtips]

Even if Netcare produced a recording with OP saying his girlfriend had sprained her ankle, he'd deny it was his voice.

And there is NO way he 'forgot' what he said to them.

 

[jay-jay]

BTW, it was pitch dark. How did he see the jeans?

.. he said he managed to see them via the light from the LED itself

 

[Emz73]

I'm wondering now if they really had plans to be together on Valentine's day.

If they did, why did Reeva bring his gift to him the day before?

I thought she was actually meant to be going home that night, she txd them late to say she wasn't. This was said by the family she was staying with when it happened.

 

[molly333]

Agree. I've been searching online for anything to do with this call. And all I can find is somebody saying they did media work for Netcare so she was going to find what the protocol was in this situation. She did say the same though, he probably minimised her injuries as they wouldn't usually advise to move the body.

Here they stay on the phone with you and tell you how to render first aid until they show up.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I wish they had done a blood analysis....I wonder if we still haven't figured out the sequence of events. It was odd there was so much blood downstairs and spatter on couch.....and on duvet....

Too many bangs, too many voices (female and male), too many blood spatters, too much time between - is there anyone missing and we still don't know a second murder?

 

[weeeva]

Yeah, the comment was so outrageous I've got to think it had a strong impact on the judge.

MOO.

Yes, OP is digging his own grave, and worse, he doesn't realize it. Why would he categorically deny letting the gun off in the restaurant? Even if he had said that his finger must have accidently touched the trigger, but to deny it altogether is beyond belief.
Surely his lawyers would have advised him not to deny this.
Also, you would think his lawyers would have advised him that saying he could not remember who picked him up on the night he claimed he had been shot at, would only go against him. Perhaps they did advise him, but he refused to comply.

 

[nastasya]

My wish for the day...

Somebody edits a video together of Jodi Arias and Oscar Pistorius testimony talking with each other and puts Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon in the background.

 

[james83]

And I don't get why people won't keep an open mind and think that maybe, just maybe he is telling the truth. If a person is called to do jury duty, that is the position they are expected to take. We have still to hear lots more evidence, but so far I think his story is plausible. That does not mean I won't have a change of heart.
I don't even like the man, but that is neither here nor there, he deserves a fair trial.

Well to keep a open mind means you have to to believe there is a possibility he is making the whole thing up.
He is getting a fair trial regardless of what is written on here.

 

[lisasalinger]

And I don't get why people won't keep an open mind and think that maybe, just maybe he is telling the truth. If a person is called to do jury duty, that is the position they are expected to take. We have still to hear lots more evidence, but so far I think his story is plausible. That does not mean I won't have a change of heart.
I don't even like the man, but that is neither here nor there, he deserves a fair trial.

Keep an open mind?

Have you watched the last 4 days of testimony? I mean really truly watched all of it? He has done nothing but lie. That's not my opinion, it has been proven that he has evaded and lied about many things. I have no reason to believe that will change as the trial continues.

 

[soozieqtips]

Even if Netcare doesn't have a recording of the call, it would be useful if one of their representatives could confirm or deny if it's remotely feasible that anyone would have told OP to bring Reeva in if they'd known the extent of her injuries.

 

[Val1]

Funny he should need that support at this part of the story but then whilst still on his stumps he manages all this

"I retreated back to the point where I got to the corner of the bed. I tried to lift myself up while talking to Reeva. No one responded to me. At that point lifted myself up into the bed and I thought Reeva was there and I couldn't feel anything.

"At that point the first thing I thought was maybe she got down onto the floor like I told her to, maybe she was just scared ... I can't remember what I said but I was trying to talk out to her.

"It was upon that time, my Lady, that it first dawned upon me that it could be Reeva that was in the bathroom or in the toilet. I jumped out of the other side of the bed and I ran my hands along the curtains to see that she wasn't hiding.

"I didn't want to believe it was Reeva in the toilet, I was so scared that someone was coming in to attack us. I made my way inside the bathroom ... I tried to grab the handle, rip open the door. I pushed the door to open and it was locked.

"I ran back to the room, I opened the curtains, opened the doors and shouted from the balcony for help. I screamed 'help, help, help'. I screamed for somebody to help me.

All this done before he puts his prosthesis on, jumping off the bed, running his hand along the curtains in the pitch dark, trying to rip open the toilet door, running back to the bedroom still on stumps, opening the curtains, opening the doors.

bbm1-just what he'd done to himself, or is this when he decided to kill her?

bbm2-pushed a door that opens towards him and one he had to have used hundreds of times, or is he talking about breaking in the bedroom door?

 

[molly333]

Too many bangs, too many voices (female and male), too many blood spatters, too much time between - is there anyone missing and we still don't know a second murder?

LOL I was thinking the same thing myself. I mean, that there was someone else there.

Maybe he was fighting with a third party [a second woman] for those 17 minutes?

Naaa...

 

[TorisMom003]

And I don't get why people won't keep an open mind and think that maybe, just maybe he is telling the truth. If a person is called to do jury duty, that is the position they are expected to take. We have still to hear lots more evidence, but so far I think his story is plausible. That does not mean I won't have a change of heart.
I don't even like the man, but that is neither here nor there, he deserves a fair trial.

It is very difficult to "keep an open mind" when the accused is on the stand and lying about important details, not to mention lying about even minor details.

If OP were simply telling the truth then perhaps it would be easier to "keep an open mind".

MOO

 

[truantotter]

Hello everyone, I'm new here and this is my first post.
I'd like to share with you a possibility of what actually happened and I'm afraid were it indeed the case, Prosecutor Nel might not be pushing Oscar in the right direction to get the confession he deserves.

Here's my "theory" of what actually happened. It's neither Oscar's version nor Prosecutor Nel's.
1. Oscar had a row with Reeva on the Valentine's night and they went to bed late (or maybe early next day since forensic studies suggested Reeva might have taken food around 1am). The couple did not reconcile at the time of the sleep and they acted indifferently.
2. Reeva woke up early next morning and went to use the toilet (forensics indicated an empty bladder). She locked herself inside and stayed for a while, thinking/sobbing, during which time Oscar was still asleep.
3. After a while, Reeva accidentally knocked something and the noise woke up Oscar. Out of fear and guilt, Reeva stayed still and silent. Oscar, on the other hand, took it for an intruder and out of fear and self-protection, grabbed the gun and hurried to the door of the toilet. (I guess he never thought about Reeva at that moment. He did not check whether Reeva was in bed or awake. All his actions were for the sole purpose of SELF-protection.)
4. Pointing his gun at the door, Oscar was struggling about what on earth was happening inside. He did not ask "Reeva is that you inside?" lest he should disturb and expose himself to the intruder. He might have thought "what if it's Reeva inside" but he dared not go back to check lest the intruder might come out in any minute.
5. Finally out of sheer fear and the strongest motivation to protect himself out of any possible hurt, Oscar made the irresponsible decision "All right I'll shoot anyway (whether it's Reeva inside, I don't give a damn)"
6. He didn't meant to kill but the aftermath of the first shoot (screaming and noise) prompted his subsequent shoots. I think he was paranoid at the time.

In any case, I think Prosecutor Nel was not asking the right questions during the cross-examination. His version of Oscar's intentional murder of Reeva is not sufficiently backed up by the evidences anyway (it's a pity that the investigators messed up the scene).

That said, I suggested him take a step back and focus on the following question instead:
"Did you ever do anything to MAKE SURE it was NOT Reeva inside before you pulled the trigger?"
Or
"Were you 100 percent sure it was not Reeva inside when you pulled the trigger? And if indeed so, how did you know that?"

 

[TorisMom003]

Ok, I'm going to go there and go ahead and call BS on OP's claim that he was sleeping on the side of the bed closest to the bathroom instead of the sliding doors. Here's why:

1. His legs were on the side next to the sliding doors.
2. The Ipad was on the side next to the sliding doors.
3. His vest was on the side next to the sliding doors.
4. The Ipad cover was on the side next to the sliding doors.
5. He normally sleeps on the side next to the sliding doors.

The question is why would he lie about what side he was sleeping on? What purpose does this serve to the defense?

 

[AlexUK]

Didn't the housekeeper and the gardener live either in the house or the grounds? Are they going to be called to give evidence? Haven't heard any mention of them.....surely they must have heard something or been aware of some of what went on?

 

[Britlaws]

Hello everyone, I'm new here and this is my first post.
I'd like to share with you a possibility of what actually happened and I'm afraid were it indeed the case, Prosecutor Nel might not be pushing Oscar in the right direction to get the confession he deserves.

Here's my "theory" of what actually happened. It's neither Oscar's version nor Prosecutor Nel's.
1. Oscar had a row with Reeva on the Valentine's night and they went to bed late (or maybe early next day since forensic studies suggested Reeva might have taken food around 1am). The couple did not reconcile at the time of the sleep and they acted indifferently.
2. Reeva woke up early next morning and went to use the toilet (forensics indicated an empty bladder). She locked herself inside and stayed for a while, thinking/sobbing, during which time Oscar was still asleep.
3. After a while, Reeva accidentally knocked something and the noise woke up Oscar. Out of fear and guilt, Reeva stayed still and silent. Oscar, on the other hand, took it for an intruder and out of fear and self-protection, grabbed the gun and hurried to the door of the toilet. (I guess he never thought about Reeva at that moment. He did not check whether Reeva was in bed or awake. All his actions were for the sole purpose of SELF-protection.)
4. Pointing his gun at the door, Oscar was struggling about what on earth was happening inside. He did not ask "Reeva is that you inside?" lest he should disturb and expose himself to the intruder. He might have thought "what if it's Reeva inside" but he dared not go back to check lest the intruder might come out in any minute.
5. Finally out of sheer fear and the strongest motivation to protect himself out of any possible hurt, Oscar made the irresponsible decision "All right I'll shoot anyway (whether it's Reeva inside, I don't give a damn)"
6. He didn't meant to kill but the aftermath of the first shoot (screaming and noise) prompted his subsequent shoots. I think he was paranoid at the time.

In any case, I think Prosecutor Nel was not asking the right questions during the cross-examination. His version of Oscar's intentional murder of Reeva is not sufficiently backed up by the evidences anyway (it's a pity that the investigators messed up the scene).

That said, I suggested him take a step back and focus on the following question instead:
"Did you ever do anything to MAKE SURE it was NOT Reeva inside before you pulled the trigger?"
Or
"Were you 100 percent sure it was not Reeva inside when you pulled the trigger? And if indeed so, how did you know that?"

If that was the case then he wouldn't have had to make up all the utter b*****s that he has!

 

[jay-jay]

K.T - this... from your link...



... is so true. So many posters keep insisting that there was nothing in OP's past to suggest he could have suddenly become a murderer, referring to him as just 'moody' or 'pouty' etc, when he did indeed have a history of aggression, and a history of never being held to account.

He didn't take kindly to being disrespected either (police touching his gun sent him nuts). Reeva not following his instructions about bringing in the fans wouldn't have gone down well, I bet.

Agree with all of that apart from the BIB, because I doubt it actually ever happened that he asked her to bring the fans in in the first place.

 

[soozieqtips]

Hello everyone, I'm new here and this is my first post.
I'd like to share with you a possibility of what actually happened and I'm afraid were it indeed the case, Prosecutor Nel might not be pushing Oscar in the right direction to get the confession he deserves.

Here's my "theory" of what actually happened. It's neither Oscar's version nor Prosecutor Nel's.
1. Oscar had a row with Reeva on the Valentine's night and they went to bed late (or maybe early next day since forensic studies suggested Reeva might have taken food around 1am). The couple did not reconcile at the time of the sleep and they acted indifferently.
2. Reeva woke up early next morning and went to use the toilet (forensics indicated an empty bladder).
She locked herself inside and stayed for a while, thinking/sobbing, during which time Oscar was still asleep.
3. After a while, Reeva accidentally knocked something and the noise woke up Oscar. Out of fear and guilt, Reeva stayed still and silent. Oscar, on the other hand, took it for an intruder and out of fear and self-protection, grabbed the gun and hurried to the door of the toilet. (I guess he never thought about Reeva at that moment. He did not check whether Reeva was in bed or awake. All his actions were for the sole purpose of SELF-protection.)
4. Pointing his gun at the door, Oscar was struggling about what on earth was happening inside. He did not ask "Reeva is that you inside?" lest he should disturb and expose himself to the intruder. He might have thought "what if it's Reeva inside" but he dared not go back to check lest the intruder might come out in any minute.
5. Finally out of sheer fear and the strongest motivation to protect himself out of any possible hurt, Oscar made the irresponsible decision "All right I'll shoot anyway (whether it's Reeva inside, I don't give a damn)"
6. He didn't meant to kill but the aftermath of the first shoot (screaming and noise) prompted his subsequent shoots. I think he was paranoid at the time.

In any case, I think Prosecutor Nel was not asking the right questions during the cross-examination. His version of Oscar's intentional murder of Reeva is not sufficiently backed up by the evidences anyway (it's a pity that the investigators messed up the scene).

That said, I suggested him take a step back and focus on the following question instead:
"Did you ever do anything to MAKE SURE it was NOT Reeva inside before you pulled the trigger?"
Or
"Were you 100 percent sure it was not Reeva inside when you pulled the trigger? And if indeed so, how did you know that?"

Hi, and welcome to WS.

BBM - The problem with your theory is that OP is still in bed while Reeva is locked in the toilet. If OP is still in bed when he hears a noise, then he would have seen Reeva wasn't in bed because the balcony doors would have still been open and there would have been light. I think Nel knows exactly what he's doing and he's already tripped OP up several times so far, and there's still a long way to go.