Trial Discussion Thread #2 - 14.03.07, Day 5

[Harmony 2]

The personalizing of posts directing commentary toward the person posting needs to stop now. The bickering also needs to stop.

Comments should be about the court events and the content of posts, not about the person who posted. If you feel you are getting aggravated with a poster’s opinion then scroll past, use the ignore feature or take a little break.

The thread will be closed for 10 minutes while I clean up the thread.

 

[Harmony 2]

Thread is open now but please heed the warning or risk temporarily losing posting privileges...

 

[shane13]

We have a ways to go as far as the prosecution's case. At the moment, Culpable Homicide, for sure, imo. I'm looking forward to learning what she was wearing when she was shot 3x. If she was dressed in white shorts and black tank top as per the Dateline show, it's a given for murder, imo. So far, video shows her entering his complex that nite with a black top (which appears to be a tank top).

Hi Jilly:
That waa actually already revealed a year ago by Det Botha at the BH.
I found a link for you.

http://metro.co.uk/2013/02/20/oscar-pistorius-returns-to-court-as-bail-battle-intensifies-3505005/

 

[JuneBug67]

I believe the state is on record saying that their theory is that the sounds everybody heard around 3:17 were the fatal gunshots. If they also accept that the bat came after that there appears to be no ear witnesses to it, and no explanation for the first sounds that the doctor heard that sounded "the same". Surely there were sound tests conducted to see if this is reasonable. It is not intuitive that a bat on wood could be as loud as a gunshot, though they might share some qualities. It is something the state has to resolve or the whole scenario does favour Oscar's account.

 

[MeeBee]

Unlike some FMs, I thought she was fairly convincing for the most part. However...in the case of this statement how could she say with any certainty that he always woke her up if he heard a suspicious noise? OP could refute that easily by saying that there were other occasions when he thought he heard something or even got up to investigate but didn't tell her as he didn't wish to alarm her. Not saying that's the case but I don't understand how she could be 100% sure about that?

I could be wrong but I got the impression from reading on here that the question was put to her if she really was woken up every time Oscar heard a noise, if maybe there were incidences where she had not been woken up. She said if there were, she didn't know about them. That every incident she knows about she was woken up.

 

[gajonka]

Dearest Friends and Wisdom Carriers:

I think the evidence that shows both mobile phones in the bathroom speaks volumes- and represents a key here- a key we can use to unlock the mystery box containing the truth behind what actually took place that Valentines Day... a day lovers seek to confirm the commitment of their loved one.

Hypothetical​

I think Salinger hit the jackpot when she used the term" DEFIES LOGIC."
OP's story makes no sense, and he has it in his mind that since he has beaten so many people, in his mind , "bad people" who have discriminated against him ... he has challenged so many... and he has won. He knows the taste of battle, the taste of defeat, and the sweet, lovely taste of victory.

Two Phones in the bathroom - this is - "what I am going to put to you," can you reflect upon this?

The Robber who is so unprepared that he knows "it can't wait," and "when ya gotta go, ya gotta go,"

"When I rob a house, sure, there may be times when I need to use the can, yes. But I put the light on, and the fan, just out of courtesy. There's a code, ya know?" Rick Rickerson said, describing his days as a thief on the Cape.


Clearly, OP was in a rage -

Clearly, Reeva had locked herself in the loo... with both phones.

But why?

RESULTS:​

#1> your thoughts

#2. If she took his, it had been to look at the activity. She takes hers to keep OP from doing the stumps, uhhh, I mean, same.

I don't see him flipping out because she is contacting someone in his phone... I think he was the lucky one, but I may be wrong, as the GF today cried when she referenced the "cheat" that terminated their relationship.

Maybe you can help me... why the two phones?


Love ya.

The Gajonka

 

[Linda7NJ]

Quick question... I am not following this case.... But I did watch some trial coverage today on HLN.
Why does the witness ( his ex girlfriend) respond with "my lady" when she's being asked the questions by a male lawyer???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JuneBug67]

I could be wrong but I got the impression from reading on here that the question was put to her if she really was woken up every time Oscar heard a noise, if maybe there were incidences she didn't know about. She said if there were, she didn't know about them. That every incident she knows about she was woken up.

I'm wondering if this is a typical fear in Pretoria. I can't remember the last time I woke up in the night worried about a noise. That there were incidents plural over their short relationship may reflect the reality of life for the wealthy in parts of South Africa, or it may indicate that Oscar was perhaps somewhat pathologically vigilant. If the latter, that could be spun to work for him in arguing against premeditated murder.

 

[MeeBee]

So far I think the testimony about Oscar's anger and recklessness with guns both helps and hurts either side. Either way, I think OP is a man with serious anger/rage/paranoia issues that need to be addressed.

It could point to the fact that he was an overly paranoid man who pulls his gun at every creak and minor spook ready to aim. I do believe he almost killed his washing machine once. Which gives credence to his claim that he thought there was an intruder, was on high alert, and when he actually did hear rustling in the toilet room, because Reeva was in there, panicked and began shooting, as he'd been ready to do in the past when he thought he'd heard and intruder.

OR it could point to an angry man with rage bubbling close to the surface who has a penitent for pulling a gun and being reckless with it. And a man capable of firing into a closed door in a fury during an argument with his terrified girlfriend without much thought as to the consequences until it was too late. So far, either one sounds plausible to me.

 

[sorrell skye]

Quick question... I am not following this case.... But I did watch some trial coverage today on HLN.
Why does the witness ( his ex girlfriend) respond with "my lady" when she's being asked the questions by a male lawyer???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi Linda! :seeya:

When being questioned, all the witnesses direct their answers to the Judge (who is a female). The Judge is addressed as My Lady.

I hope you continue to follow this trial with us!

 

[Linda7NJ]

Hi Linda! :seeya:



When being questioned, all the witnesses direct their answers to the Judge (who is a female). The Judge is addressed as My Lady.



I hope you continue to follow this trial with us!

Oh thank you!

I thought the male lawyer was perhaps the most masculine female I had ever laid eyes on!!! I was so confused!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MeeBee]

I'm wondering if this is a typical fear in Pretoria. I can't remember the last time I woke up in the night worried about a noise. That there were incidents plural over their short relationship may reflect the reality of life for the wealthy in parts of South Africa, or it may indicate that Oscar was perhaps somewhat pathologically vigilant. If the latter, that could be spun to work for him in arguing against premeditated murder.

I have already had the feeling that Oscar was a deeply paranoid and fearful man. I don't find it implausible that he thought there was an intruder in his home, however ridiculous the notion, and got scared, especially at realizing there really was a person in the bathroom. In his mind it was an intruder.

What I don't find plausible is that Reeva never screamed, alerting Oscar to stop, as she was being shot at. It's possible the head shot was first and she died instantly. However, my rather non-expert opinion tells me she must have been up at the time the other bullets hit her because they are all down her right side, her hip, her elbow and due to the trajectory of the bullets in the door. But I'm still waiting for the ballistics and medical experts to testify. A lot of trial to go. I could very well be wrong.

 

[JuneBug67]

I have already the feeling that Oscar was a deeply paranoid and fearful man. I don't find it implausible that he thought there was an intruder in his home, however ridiculous the notion, and got scared, especially at realizing there really was a person in the bathroom. In his mind it was an intruder.

What I don't find plausible is that Reeva never screamed, alerting Oscar to stop, as she was being shot at. It's possible the head shot was first and she died instantly. However, my rather non-expert opinion tells me she must have been up at the time the other bullets hit her because they are all down her right side, her hip, her elbow and due to the trajectory of the bullets in the door. But I'm still waiting for the ballistics and medical experts to terrify. A lot of trial to go. I could very well be wrong.

It's a good question. I wonder if the combination though of psychological and physiological shock might silence a person in those moments that it takes to fire a few bullets. If Oscar's account is true she already may have been locked in and hiding from whatever danger she heard Oscar addressing with his shouts outside the bathroom. It would likely all have been very fast, with Reeva trying to process what was happening outside the door, and between who.

 

[zqtpie]

Like I've said, I would not be at all surprised if he is convicted for reckless or negligent homicide. I do not believe the evidence supports premeditated murder though.

Which category would killing someone in an angry rage fall into?

 

[JuneBug67]

Dearest Friends and Wisdom Carriers:

I think the evidence that shows both mobile phones in the bathroom speaks volumes- and represents a key here- a key we can use to unlock the mystery box containing the truth behind what actually took place that Valentines Day... a day lovers seek to confirm the commitment of their loved one.

Hypothetical​

I think Salinger hit the jackpot when she used the term" DEFIES LOGIC."
OP's story makes no sense, and he has it in his mind that since he has beaten so many people, in his mind , "bad people" who have discriminated against him ... he has challenged so many... and he has won. He knows the taste of battle, the taste of defeat, and the sweet, lovely taste of victory.

Two Phones in the bathroom - this is - "what I am going to put to you," can you reflect upon this?

The Robber who is so unprepared that he knows "it can't wait," and "when ya gotta go, ya gotta go,"

"When I rob a house, sure, there may be times when I need to use the can, yes. But I put the light on, and the fan, just out of courtesy. There's a code, ya know?" Rick Rickerson said, describing his days as a thief on the Cape.


Clearly, OP was in a rage -

Clearly, Reeva had locked herself in the loo... with both phones.

But why?

RESULTS:​

#1> your thoughts

#2. If she took his, it had been to look at the activity. She takes hers to keep OP from doing the stumps, uhhh, I mean, same.

I don't see him flipping out because she is contacting someone in his phone... I think he was the lucky one, but I may be wrong, as the GF today cried when she referenced the "cheat" that terminated their relationship.

Maybe you can help me... why the two phones?


Love ya.

The Gajonka

I'm not sure we have near enough information about how the phones got there to speculate very reliably. Since they were found in the bathroom and not the toilet room there isn't even any evidence I am aware of right now that guarantees Reeva was the person who carried her phone to the area. It seems likely, but not yet certain.

 

[shane13]

Dearest Friends and Wisdom Carriers:

I think the evidence that shows both mobile phones in the bathroom speaks volumes- and represents a key here- a key we can use to unlock the mystery box containing the truth behind what actually took place that Valentines Day... a day lovers seek to confirm the commitment of their loved one.

Hypothetical​

I think Salinger hit the jackpot when she used the term" DEFIES LOGIC."
OP's story makes no sense, and he has it in his mind that since he has beaten so many people, in his mind , "bad people" who have discriminated against him ... he has challenged so many... and he has won. He knows the taste of battle, the taste of defeat, and the sweet, lovely taste of victory.

Two Phones in the bathroom - this is - "what I am going to put to you," can you reflect upon this?

The Robber who is so unprepared that he knows "it can't wait," and "when ya gotta go, ya gotta go,"

"When I rob a house, sure, there may be times when I need to use the can, yes. But I put the light on, and the fan, just out of courtesy. There's a code, ya know?" Rick Rickerson said, describing his days as a thief on the Cape.


Clearly, OP was in a rage -

Clearly, Reeva had locked herself in the loo... with both phones.

But why?

RESULTS:​

#1> your thoughts

#2. If she took his, it had been to look at the activity. She takes hers to keep OP from doing the stumps, uhhh, I mean, same.

I don't see him flipping out because she is contacting someone in his phone... I think he was the lucky one, but I may be wrong, as the GF today cried when she referenced the "cheat" that terminated their relationship.

Maybe you can help me... why the two phones?


Love ya.

The Gajonka

Well you are right about the 2 phones found just out of the loo.
If the pros can establish say that Reeva desperately ran from the bedroom to the bathroom to try to call the police, but was forced to drop the phones, premeditation could perhaps be proven.

A year ago at BH, Nel stated that all that was needed for successful PM charge under SA law was that an arguement (and maybe more) occurred in the bedroom, and after Reeva ran into the bathroom [in the State's version], OP went after her with intent to harm or kill. (Unfortunately the aspect of putting on prosthetics was interjected and I think that has no significant value in this mattter due to his mobility on his stumps or the ability to rase his arm before shooting if need be.)

 

[JuneBug67]

Reeva's phone could have been pulled out of the toilet room as a Oscar was pulling her out as well.

 

[sorrell skye]

Yes, and that is your perception and interpretation of her evidence...and her evidence is her perception and interpretation of other events and behaviour. I also thought she came across as being quite credible over all, although I have queried a couple of points. My issue is that we have only heard her description of these events; other people present might corroborate her version of events, otoh they might have a very different perception of the same events. We don't know because they haven't testified. For what it's worth, the image I am getting of him so far is an immature, reckless, fairly unpleasant individual with a nasty temper and a penchant for young girls that he can keep in their place. But that is only my perception and interpretation of the information that I have, combined with my own experience of once being married to a man that OP reminds me of. I experienced DV at his hands, and this has coloured my judgement of OP from the get-go. So that forms my bias and at the start of the trial I was convinced he was guilty; after listening to the evidence so far I'm not so sure. But there's still a long way to go yet

I agree with you about perceptions. For those of us on the outside looking in on this case, we form our opinions based on our life experience as well as the available information.

Regarding ST: she reported what she personally experienced during the time she dated OP.

At this point, I have been provided with no information that would cause me to doubt her testimony, therefore, at this point I trust the veracity of her statements.

On the other hand, witnesses have provided testimony that has cast shadows on OP's trustworthiness.

Kevin Lerena (pro boxer & friend of OP) testified that after the accidental firing of the gun in the restaurant, OP asked his friend to take the blame.

This demonstrates to me that OP is prone to lying to avoid facing the consequences for his actions.

Furthermore, when Pieter Baba (security guard @ the estate) phoned OP shortly after OP had shot and killed Reeva, OP told Baba that "Everything is fine". Not only was everything NOT fine, everything was, in fact, disastrous.

If anyone's credibility is in question, it is the credibility of Oscar Pistorius.

 

[JuneBug67]

It is very difficult to square Oscar's alleged cries for help with "Everything is fine" when he had a chance to directly get it. Roux will have to explain that, to say the least.

 

[Carol70]

Very interesting observations from a first hand cultural standpoint. Appreciated! How do you think his celebrity might have altered the interaction?

In my opinion, his celebrity would have meant nothing. We have well known individuals getting detained all the time for minor, and I mean DUI and speeding etc, all the time. Our police force is corrupt and brutal, it's really unheard of that you can treat an officer with contempt ie: shout at him, and simply walk away from it. I actually find that incredible. A very well known rugby player was not so long ago held for murder after he beat a policeman to death, allegedly after being pulled over for DUI and then while being escorted to the nearest ATM. He was given a suspended sentence.