Trial Discussion weekend Thread #24

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

Even as we discuss here, my term Oscar-Speak and the associated new language, is about to be introduced into the curriculum of better Universities around the world.

Most better universities will have the courses on Oscar-Speak as Joint Dept [pun intended in Oscar-Speak] offerings. I.e. physics and linguistics Depts are getting together at better Unis right now to offer this new language.

Oscar-speak is part of the macroscopic aspect of the Heisnberg Uncertainty Principle. Nothing definitively happens. Everything is accidental or merely in people's thought processes. And no one in Oscar-world can be convicted of a crime.

Indeed the advanced level courses on Oscar-Speak will include how to converse with people who are not {yet} in Oscar-world. E.g. should you shoot someone in Oscar-world, and be in discussion with someone not (yet) in Oscar-world, you will need to learn how to say at that time, "Security-world, Everything is fine."

Yes the advanced courses will teach you how everything is someone else's fault, and you need to learn how to convey this with this crucial new language, Oscar-Speak.

Yes Oscar-speak is the language of Oscar-world, which is part of the 11-Dimensional Superstring/Supercricketbat Multiverse.

Clearly Oscar-Speak is also the language of the future. But that is graduate level course work.

Please contact me, if you wish to enroll or want the texts.
©Shane13 [j/k]

Mr Shane ,
I Would like to get some courses on Oscar-Speak the language of the future and be a part of Oscar-world .I have been practicing on some texts below:

“When I got out of bed, I wasn’t holding my face until after I got out of bed, I rubbed my face and then I turned to get out of the bed. When I moved the duvet I saw that the duvet went up and from that I can deduct that Reeva at least her legs were under the duvet.”

Thanks in advance
M_S

http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/04/13/oscar-trial-day-19-part-2-oscar/

 

[Cherwell]

The sound of the wood sections being broken would be loud and possibly are the source of the third set of sounds. Wood makes a very loud "CRACK" sound when it is broken. And the entire upper section of that door was torn out in pieces.

I agree with your conclusions, but I thought that it was just one panel that was broken out of the door. I have seen a photo with the whole upper section of the door removed, but I think that once you have broken out a single panel, it would be possible to pull the other panels out without damaging them.

 

[Suthrnqt]

It was testified by an expert witness. As far as I know, both sides agree that the shots were fired before the door was broken down.

Yes, the shots were fired before the door panels were pried off. But that doesn't mean the shots were fired before the cricket bat noises. KWIM?

 

[BritsKate]

Well, I am not an expert in law or legal proceedings, but the Prosecution declined to call Detective Hilton Botha, because they thought it could be damning to their case. Is it possible for the Defence to call him as a witness?

The further searching could be standard proceedure... It's just a thought!

That's the assumption by some and possibly an accurate one. However, there are many witnesses we know could likely have helped the State's case also not called. And we don't know why - not really - because very few of us are experts in law or legal proceedings. (Like the State being precluded from leading with certain evidence until and unless the defence opens the door to introduce it.)

JMO

 

[shane13]

The sound of the wood sections being broken would be loud and possibly are the source of the third set of sounds. Wood makes a very loud "CRACK" sound when it is broken. And the entire upper section of that door was torn out in pieces.

Regarding <modsnip> and testimony that the bullets hit the door before the bat hit the door. He was testifying to "when the bat was used to pry loose the first thin panel." That is one of two separate events related to the bat. And he was correct that the bat came after the one bullet hole because the tear went through that one bullet hole. However, he said it was not scientifically possible to conclude which came first, the two minor bat strikes or the 4 bullets. So two events are distinguished with the bat, first the two strikes to scare Reeva and second the bat being used to pry the thin panel section loose.

I believe that the following is correct:
1) The bat was struck on the door twice to scare Reeva and it was used to strike the bathtub plate very hard - first set of noises
2) The gun fired 4 bullets in to the door - second set of noises
3) The bat was used to pry to slender panel piece loose and then OP took to breaking all of the upper panels of the door - creating loud cracking sounds as he broke them off of the door.

Not sure if you are saying that the breaking off of wood panels with the CRACK sound would be heard at a distance as equivalent to gunshots?

Numerous problems with that.
Gunshot sound pulse (which incorporates sonic booms), is much louder (OP's parabellum was found to have 160 db when fired), and of shorter duration, and would have other differences, when compared to the wood breaking off CRACK..

 

[Gryffindor]

Air rifles are usually very quiet.

Air rifle was fitted with a silencer.

 

[fox1lady]

Good point, zwiebel .. yes, normally with those types of windows, unless they are already open a fraction anyway, you would not be able to open them at all from the outside .. so, if he (being so paranoid about intruders) had ensure the window was fully shut before going to bed, why would he even think an intruder could've opened it without having smashed the glass first?

It's a shame there is no photographic evidence of that window during, or just before he killed Reeva, to confirm whether it was open or not, because I swear that is why he trotted upstairs while Dr Stipp was there (not the one when the paramedics arrived and asked for ID, but the little trip upstairs before that) was to open the bathroom window. That was the only thing he needed to do in order to set the crime scene to fit his 'intruder' version .. that all .. nothing else. I personally don't think the bathroom window was open prior to that (and all of the sounds the neighbour's heard were conveyed either through the balcony doors or via the toilet window).

Totally agree, I think he opened the bathroom window whilst the doc was with Reeva. Oh why oh why did none of the neighbours have binoculars

 

[BritsKate]

If the earlier bangs were made by OP, there is still the outstanding issue of (what must have been) a third set of bangs, because we know he hit the door with a cricket bat after firing the shots. Nobody has testified to this and the Prosecution has finished presenting their case now.

The Prosecution have also stipulated that only 4 shots were fired on the night in question. I thought the same as you, that he might have fired out of the window earlier, but again, this is not the Prosecution's case.

No we don't though. We know the wood was removed from the door after the shots and Oscar asserts he hit the door with the bat to remove it. Nel specifically asked if the door could have been hit or kicked prior in redirect. It was his method of rehabilitating the witness.

 

[shane13]

Mr Shane ,
I Would like to get some courses on Oscar-Speak the language of the future and be a part of Oscar-world .I have been practicing on some texts below:

&#8220;When I got out of bed, I wasn&#8217;t holding my face until after I got out of bed, I rubbed my face and then I turned to get out of the bed. When I moved the duvet I saw that the duvet went up and from that I can deduct that Reeva at least her legs were under the duvet.&#8221;

Thanks in advance
M_S

http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/04/13/oscar-trial-day-19-part-2-oscar/

M_S:
Yes, that is fairly good Oscar-Speak.
I would say that you have a leg up on it.

 

[soozieqtips]

Mr Shane ,
I Would like to get some courses on Oscar-Speak the language of the future and be a part of Oscar-world .I have been practicing on some texts below:

&#8220;When I got out of bed, I wasn&#8217;t holding my face until after I got out of bed, I rubbed my face and then I turned to get out of the bed. When I moved the duvet I saw that the duvet went up and from that I can deduct that Reeva at least her legs were under the duvet.&#8221;

Thanks in advance
M_S

http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/04/13/oscar-trial-day-19-part-2-oscar/

BBM - If I hadn't known for a fact that OP had spoken those words out loud, I would have assumed they'd been badly translated from another language!

 

[fox1lady]

Oh dear I've just spotted Aimee chewing gum on camera (3.50)she'd better make sure her bro doesn't see her!

http://oscartrial.dstv.com/video/509534/category/0

 

[K.T]

Anything that Pistorius references as hindering him is significant and relevant to find out what really occurred that night. He says he kicked the bedroom door open as he carried Steenkamp&#8217;s bloody body downstairs - damaging the half opened double-doors as they were not wide to fit them both. This doesn&#8217;t make sense.

I think the damage to the bedroom door is a key element of the night.

Damage includes: a hole through the door, damage (?) to the internal lock at the base, abrasions at the edge of the door around the handle and a bigger cracked piece at the bottom of the door.

Either one of them could have been locked inside the bedroom as the argument went into physical aggression. It's likely Pistorius shot the pellet gun once through the door (and perhaps more times through the house where we can&#8217;t see the small holes). Steenkamp screams in fear as Pistorius continues and tries to kick or &#8220;bash&#8221; the door. This could be likely culprit for some, or all, of the first set of &#8216;bang&#8217; sounds as the evening has exploded into chaos.

To date everything photographed into evidence Nel has used to reveal, or push Pistorius into articulating, how his version is less than probable. The downstairs window, broken for &#8220;quite some time&#8221;, illustrated Pistorius lack of paranoia about security. It also led to another inauthentic Pistorius-answer/Oscar-Speak. And Pistorius has a problem with doors and hair trigger anger.

The small pellet hole looks like it went straight through the door (from hallway to bedroom?) approximately 4mm in diameter. That damage and cracking to the door must have been some part of the altercation.

Relevant to note: the high-speed rifle and baseball bat were also located close to the bedroom door.

Just wanted to get a bedroom door theory on the table before the trial continues tomorrow&#8230;

Hedging - I also think some of that first sound could be bath panel, first strike to toilet door with bat or other item. And, yes, expert never fully discounted that there could have been initial strikes to bathroom door. :facepalm:

 

[shane13]

BBM - If I hadn't known for a fact that OP had spoken those words out loud, I would have assumed they'd been badly translated from another language!

They are perfect in every way in Oscar-Speak and in Oscar-World.

Duvet motion linguistics and physical leg interpretation are in Oscar-Speak 301.

 

[Viper]

I agree with your conclusions, but I thought that it was just one panel that was broken out of the door. I have seen a photo with the whole upper section of the door removed, but I think that once you have broken out a single panel, it would be possible to pull the other panels out without damaging them.

We can see the photos at Lisa's blog, and hopefully she will stop in shortly and comment. But no, the panels would not simply "fall" off of the door. Wood doors are not just clipped together; manufacturers use glue, nails, and various tongue and groove types of connections to make the doors solid and able to last a very long time. And there are IIRC at least 3 pieces of the panels that were broken in the photos; one in the WC, one on the bathroom floor, and one in the bathtub and all three would have to be broken or "snapped" on at least two edges to get them off of the door.

With the entire upper section of the door ripped out I have often wondered why OP would do all of that damage. I don't believe that it was necessary in order to just gain access to the key. And I believe that the key was still in the lock so OP could have turned it with just removing the first slender panel, which it appears he punched through in to the WC. IDK. But maybe he was afraid to actually open the door, but he wanted to see everything in the WC so he just kept ripping all of the panels out until they were all gone from view. Hmm...

 

[BritsKate]

"Roux was rude and obnoxious with the state witnesses, so it's a case of getting your own back," said Laurie Pieters-James, an independent criminologist who has attended the trial. "Roux was sarcastic and belittling: 'You are in some way inferior to me.' Gerrie Nel's approach is different. He's directly attacking: 'You are lying.' He's much more direct in going for the jugular."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/12/barry-roux-gerrie-nel-oscar-pistorius-trial

Of course, OP supporters refuse to admit Nel is doing exactly the same thing as Roux... his job! It seems that Roux is supposed to be nasty to (perfectly innocent) State witnesses, because that's his job - but when Nel is 'nasty' to the accused, a man on trial for murdering his girlfriend... that's mean! He's supposed to be nice and friendly, not ask him awkward questions, treat him kindly and blah blah blah. Nel is doing a great job, and that's been backed up by other attorneys who have been following the trial.

Ya know, I don't much like Roux personally. There's something very smarmy about him...but I have immense respect for him and the job he does and have maintained that throughout. Mostly. Our member katydid is the daughter of a defence attorney and has posted some amazing insights into just how difficult their work can be over the years.

I think both men deserve respect for fighting their damndest for their cause. They've certainly earned their reputations over decades. I may not always like it because I want 'my side to win' - but I respect the why behind it. And Roux, I believe most would agree, had a difficult case from the get go with a possibly much more difficult client. Of course, he is being handsomely compensated which should help.

JMO and FWIW

 

[luvmygarden]

I am not much good at keeping track of all the evidence, but I was under the impression that the prosecution having already made it's case, they could not now bring in new evidence. The jeans lying outside has never been mentioned, by either side, so it can't be brought into play now, which means it had nothing to do with the incident, or if it did, that one or both lawyers are totally incompetent. The same applies to the bedroom door. As far as I can remember the phones and internet records have already been explored and nothing else can come to light now. As for the trip to the Mamelodi medical centre I admit I have no clue what you are talking about.

Maybe those jeans were another guest's jean that had spent time with OP. Maybe he had to throw them out the window in haste if he found them laying about before He and Reeva went up to his bedroom. He did go up to take a shower when he got home before dinner. If he always locked his bedroom door going out as well as going in Reeva may not have ventured up to his room during her time there during the day.

 

[molly333]

"She told me he pushed her a bit into a corner. She felt caged in. I told her I would talk to him. I told him not to force himself on her. Back off.
"He agreed, but his face showed me what he was thinking: 'Oh, this guy is talking nonsense'."

Mr Myers described his anger when he heard about Reeva's death, and that it was Pistorius who had killed her.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...as-told-to-back-off-from-Reeva-Steenkamp.html

Ok, here we go. From your link. The family she was living with told the paper Reeva was planning to come home that night.


Miss Steenkamp did not originally plan to stay with Oscar Pistorius the night she died but changed her mind because it became too late for her to drive home safely, her best friend's father has said.

"I've got this thing with all three children (Reeva, and his daughters, Kim and Gina), if they don't come home at night, they must text me," Mr Myers told South Africa's City Press newspaper.

"Then Reeva sent the (SMS) message: 'Hi guys, I'm too tired. It's too far to drive. I'm sleeping at Oscar's tonight. See you tomorrow'.



So, again, this indicates she was not going to spend the night with Oscar and she was not going to be with Oscar for V-day. She brings his gift the day before V-day, tells him to wait until the next day to open it, and texts her family that she will 'see them tomorrow,' indicating she will be with them, not Oscar.

So what kept her later than expected that night, until it was too late to drive home? If we knew that, we would know what the fight was about. It's not like they got held up at a function or something. But the fact that she does not seem to be spending V-day with Oscar suggests to me that she was telling him to back off, or breaking up with him.

Oscar himself told people after the fact that he was planning to take Reeva to a jewelry store to get a bracelet he picked out for her. Who does that on V-day? Just give her the bracelet over dinner. She can always return it later if she doesn't like it.

 

[K.T]

Totally agree, I think he opened the bathroom window whilst the doc was with Reeva. Oh why oh why did none of the neighbours have binoculars

Yes. Many times throughout the trial (I'm never without my iphone) I'm just saying take a picture, just take a picture Stipps/Baba!

About the bathroom window: I'm also unsure that Dr Stipp seeing a man moving from right to left past the window would conclusively mean that Pistorius had to have his prosthetics on.

Perhaps someone has already mentioned this, but the window is set at a relatively low window-to-floor height. Pistorius is 5'1" on his stumps. A figure, moving quickly across a window, could still be seen at that window height.

From the outside, without knowing the height of the window to floor ratio, you might see a figure as a taller person if Dr Stipp imagined the window was higher.

 

[vansleuths]

What kind of additional jail time (if any) does OP face if he is convicted of:

1. discharging a weapon in the restaurant?
2. discharging a weapon through the sun roof of a car?
3. having illegal ammunition

 

[TorisMom003]

No offence Toris, but is that not splitting hairs? To say in one sentence that he whispered and in another sentence that he spoke softly, in my mind is not lying.
If he said he had spoke in a normal voice or a raised voice then said he had whispered, that to me would be a lie.
As for the gun charges I believe he is guilty and has make a complete fool of himself by denying it.

I don't think I missed the point, not really. It reminds me of an old song.
"Little did she know that I know that she knows that I know she's two timing me"

That would get anyone confused.

No, not splitting hairs at all. For two days OP claimed that he whispered to Reeva to get down and phone police. OP then on the second day said that he whispered, spoke softly to Reeva to get down and phone police. After being called out about that by Nel, OP claimed that he never said he whispered to Reeva, he simply spoke softly to her.

See where the lie is now? OP did in fact claim during his cross examination by Nel that he whispered to Reeva to phone police and get down. He then changes his version (yet again) to spoke softly and never whispered it to her, never said he whispered it to her.

Now, if one looks at his BAS and plea statement, he did not whisper nor speak softly to Reeva, he yelled/screamed. He also never told her to "get down".

Splitting hairs is when something could be correct but just picking it apart to make it a lie. OP lied on the stand to Nel concerning the whisper/spoke softly nonsense.

MOO