Trial Discussion Thread #15

Status
Not open for further replies.
BIB. Its time to add Mr. Pistorius to the list of liars. :D Courtesy of K.T.:

Comparison of the 2104 Plea Explanation and the relevant parts of the 2013 Bail Affidavit noting the differences.

1.
PE: During the early morning hours of the morning I brought two fans in.
BA: During the early morning hours of 14 February 2013, I woke up, went onto the balcony to bring the fan in and closed the sliding doors, the blinds and the curtains.

Changed to two fans now, instead of one.

2.
PE: I had shortly before spoken to Reeva who was in bed beside me.
BA: ----

No mention on speaking to Reeva in bail affidavit, this is an addition and definitely changes circumstances.

3.
PE: Unbeknownst to me, Reeva had gone to the toilet in the bathroom at the time of the when I had brought in the fans, closed the sliding doors and drew the blinds and the curtains.
BA: ---

No mention in bail statement that the exact time period Pistorius is bringing the one or two fans and drawing the blinds, was when Reeva got up from the bed to go to the toilet. Important to note: Pistorius is now saying she’s awake when he is because he’s just added into his statement that he had just talked to her in bed. She is also, at his ‘fan delivery time, making the room pitch dark time,’ going to use the toilet/going to the bathroom.

4.
PE: I heard the bathroom window sliding open.
BA: I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised that someone was in the bathroom.

Pistorius has now added in that there was a bathroom window sliding-open noise, made by Reeva.
This is odd. He has just said in the newer plea explanation that she was in the toilet and yet she’s now not yet at the toilet but sliding open the window after he’s finished his activities. He has now changed his story to Reeva been spoken to, Reeva sliding the bathroom window open, Reeva going to the toilet to presumably urinate etc. at the time when he was on the balcony/blind excursion.
(Note: I’ll talk further about how the timing of that whole sequence doesn’t seem plausible. Reeva’s on the way to the toilet but she’s not seen by Pistorius, even though he’s moving around with doing many things and he knows think she’s awake because he’s just talked with her. Yet Reeva is not yet even in the toilet but in the pitch dark, perfectly opening a window at the exactly the right time to make him extraordinarily scared and get his gun.)

5.
PE: I believed intruder or intruders had entered the bathroom through the bathroom window, which were not fitted with burglar bars.
I approached the bathroom, armed with my firearm, so as to defend Reeva and I. At the time I believed Reeva was still in bed.

BA: I felt a sense of terror rushing over me. There are no burglar bars across the bathroom window and I knew that contractors who worked at my house had left the ladders outside. Although I did not have my prosthetic legs on I have mobility on my stumps.
I believed that someone had entered my house. I was too scared to switch a light on.
I grabbed my 9mm pistol from underneath my bed. On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police. It was pitch dark in the bedroom and I thought Reeva was in bed.

In the bail affidavit he talks about “screaming words” at the intruder/s “to get out of my house” and for Reeva to phone the police. No mention of this in the shorter plea explanation.

6.
PE: I believed that an intruder or intruders had entered the bathroom through the bathroom window, which was not fitted with burglar bars.
I approached the bathroom, armed with my firearm, so as to defend Reeva and I. At that time I believed Reeva was still in the bed.

BA: I noticed that the bathroom window was open. I realised that the intruder/s was/were in the toilet because the toilet door was closed and I did not see anyone in the bathroom.

In bail affidavit he came to investigate a noise and ‘noticed’ that bathroom window was open. In the later plea explanation it’s quite a different mindset shift in that the very reason he went to the bathroom is now to investigate the sliding window noise made by Reeva. It mean’s saying ‘noticed’ is an incorrect term, he is now ‘confirming’ the window is open.

(According to Pistorius, this is the time Reeva knew there was someone else in the house as in the bail affidavit he said had screamed at them and at her to phone the police. Obviously at no time did she say to him I’m in the toilet/I have no phone/I’m not calling the police/press the panic button)

7.
PE: The discharging of my firearm was precipitated by a noise in the toilet, which I, in my fearful state, knowing that I was on my stumps, unable to run away or properly defend myself physically, believed to be the intruder/s coming out of the toilet to attack Reeva and me.

BA: I heard movement inside the toilet. The toilet is inside the bathroom and has a separate door.
It filled me with horror and fear of an intruder or intruders being inside the toilet. I thought he or they must have entered through the unprotected window. As I did not have my prosthetic legs on and felt extremely vulnerable, I knew I had to protect Reeva and myself. I believed that when the intruder/s came out of the toilet we would be in grave danger. I felt trapped as my bedroom door was locked and I have limited mobility on my stumps.
I fired shots at the toilet door and shouted to Reeva to phone the police.

No mention in the plea about the bedroom door being locked and that as the reason why he more fearful and in greater danger.

Pistorius affidavit said he was fearful that when the "intruder/s" "came out" from the toilet he would be attacked, but in the PE he says he panics when he thinks the intruders are "coming" out of the toilet. This could be significant because he has changed a fear for the future into a present one. If he thinks he/they are already emerging from the toilet instead of that they will do so soon, the ruse of language shift adds immediacy to his actions and makes it seem as if the "noise" of an imaginary intruder is more urgent.

8.
BA: She did not respond and I moved backwards out of the bathroom, keeping my eyes on the bathroom entrance. Everything was pitch dark in the bedroom and I was still too scared to switch on a light. Reeva was not responding...(the bail affidavit continues about other actions on the night, the plea explanation does not.)

That's a very long post, but misses the crucial point that OP has not testified yet.
 
I believe she was living with friends around half an hour away .

Thank you. I asked because from the text messages and various media articles and such, it seems like they did not actually spend a ton of time together in the 3-4 months they were dating. And I think they had both traveled abroad during that time too.

Anyone have any more information about this?
 
Thank you. I asked because from the text messages and various media articles and such, it seems like they did not actually spend a ton of time together in the 3-4 months they were dating. And I think they had both traveled abroad during that time too.

Anyone have any more information about this?

I am pretty sure he spent Christmas away with his friends ,Cape Town if I remember rightly .
There first date was the night of an awards ceremony . He asked her at the last minute think it was at the end of November .
Just checked it was the 4th November when they went on the first date according to ex girlfriend .
 
Thank you. I asked because from the text messages and various media articles and such, it seems like they did not actually spend a ton of time together in the 3-4 months they were dating. And I think they had both traveled abroad during that time too.

Anyone have any more information about this?

That's very valid.

I touched on this a while ago when explanations were given as to how a relationship could become very controlling.

Reeva and OP were both career people, and living apart. On top of that they were celebrities involved with PR and media work.
They wouldn't have a traditional relationship of seeing each other every day or perhaps even a couple of times a week. I think the size of the message printout speaks for itself.
 
I am pretty sure he spent Christmas away with his friends ,Cape Town if I remember rightly .
There first date was the night of an awards ceremony . He asked her at the last minute think it was at the end of November .

I think you're right. Do you know when the reality show taping thing was?
 
I think you're right. Do you know when the reality show taping thing was?

I'm reading Jamaica Observer online (I may need to start reading this more often) :)...

It says that it was filmed July thru Aug 2012 at various locations in Jamaica.

So she filmed this before they were even dating? Hmm Why would he care what she did there?
 
Roux doesn't give a damn about Reeva. She's just an irritating obstacle in his 'innocent' client's way.

I would really like to think that he does care deepdown and is just doing his job which he will be earning a fortune for but who knows ....
Someone has to do it . I think defence lawyers can switch off emotionally
 
I'll split the baby... he hasn't committed perjury yet! but he will have to since his pre-trial statements are er.. different. Which one will he go with!?

I would go along the lines of "his pre-trial statements are er... bullsh" :floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:
 
I'm reading Jamaica Observer online (I may need to start reading this more often) :)...

It says that it was filmed July thru Aug 2012 at various locations in Jamaica.

So she filmed this before they were even dating? Hmm Why would he care what she did there?

He probably wouldn't. I guess all this rumor mongering about Reeva kissing some guy while she was taping is what made me think it was during the time she was dating OP. :waitasec:

ETA - had no idea it was filmed in Jamaica either.
 
:modstop:


Cease with the mocking posts...Those type of posts do not contribute anything of value to the discussion.
 
Um ... Mr Pistorius has not yet been a witness so it's a bit premature to say that he is a witness who has lied.

The killer told Baba "Everything's fine" just after killing a woman in his bathroom.

I think it's safe to say Pistorius has lied.
 
I'm looking forward to hearing (and hopefully seeing) Oscar on the stand as much as everybody else is. But not because I want to watch a game of who can out-fool who. Because I want to hear his story directly from his mouth. And I would hopefully like to get some explanations for lingering questions.

I have no idea what to expect. I may believe him. I may not. As of right now, with the evidence that I have to work with, I do not believe him.

But I'm not going to hope for him to puke or pass out or faint, etc, etc. Yes, I've made my jokes too (I think I may have suggested that he testify from the reconstructed toilet room) but all the funny stuff aside... When he gets up on that stand, I will be all ears. I won't be focusing on what lawyer is doing what... I'll be focusing 100% on what is coming out of his mouth.
 
That's a very long post, but misses the crucial point that OP has not testified yet.

It pertains to language changes and additional information between affidavit and bail explanation. This is what the prosecution looks for and can lead to many questions about why he's altering or adding to the two statements. Similiar to the questioning of Anette Stipp, but as he is charged with murder its necessary. ;)

Also, I laid it out clearly in a long post, after people appear to have been trivialising the shifts from bail to plea statements Pistorius. I also found it useful to go over trying to see how timing works in plausibility.

Again, will probably another long post. Feel free to not read :)
 
I'm looking forward to hearing (and hopefully seeing) Oscar on the stand as much as everybody else is. But not because I want to watch a game of who can out-fool who. Because I want to hear his story directly from his mouth. And I would hopefully like to get some explanations for lingering questions.

I have no idea what to expect. I may believe him. I may not. As of right now, with the evidence that I have to work with, I do not believe him.

But I'm not going to hope for him to puke or pass out or faint, etc, etc. Yes, I've made my jokes too (I think I may have suggested that he testify from the reconstructed toilet room) but all the funny stuff aside... When he gets up on that stand, I will be all ears. I won't be focusing on what lawyer is doing what... I'll be focusing 100% on what is coming out of his mouth.

I want to get to the truth. I want to know what happened if that can possibly be known, and I think hearing from OP himself is about the only way that might happen ...he'll either tell a believable story or he'll fall apart.
 
I'm looking forward to hearing (and hopefully seeing) Oscar on the stand as much as everybody else is. But not because I want to watch a game of who can out-fool who. Because I want to hear his story directly from his mouth. And I would hopefully like to get some explanations for lingering questions.

I have no idea what to expect. I may believe him. I may not. As of right now, with the evidence that I have to work with, I do not believe him.

But I'm not going to hope for him to puke or pass out or faint, etc, etc. Yes, I've made my jokes too (I think I may have suggested that he testify from the reconstructed toilet room) but all the funny stuff aside... When he gets up on that stand, I will be all ears. I won't be focusing on what lawyer is doing what... I'll be focusing 100% on what is coming out of his mouth.

Well put. Pretty much how I feel too. Looking at his statements and the evidence presented so far i do not believe his version of events, but i am very interested to hear him explain all those things that currently seem inexplicable to me.

I very much doubt we will see any of it though as i thought that was ruled out. Will the audio of his testimony be played lived or just edited highlights?
 
I'm looking forward to hearing (and hopefully seeing) Oscar on the stand as much as everybody else is. But not because I want to watch a game of who can out-fool who. Because I want to hear his story directly from his mouth. And I would hopefully like to get some explanations for lingering questions.

I have no idea what to expect. I may believe him. I may not. As of right now, with the evidence that I have to work with, I do not believe him.

But I'm not going to hope for him to puke or pass out or faint, etc, etc. Yes, I've made my jokes too (I think I may have suggested that he testify from the reconstructed toilet room) but all the funny stuff aside... When he gets up on that stand, I will be all ears. I won't be focusing on what lawyer is doing what... I'll be focusing 100% on what is coming out of his mouth.

I look forward to reading your blog about his testimony. I think it's the most unbiased account out there. I tried to get a feel for the trial from here, but all I get is @%S%. I haven't been able to watch much due to the timing and my work. thanks for laying it out for those of us that can't watch it all ourselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
90
Guests online
2,937
Total visitors
3,027

Forum statistics

Threads
595,612
Messages
18,028,052
Members
229,704
Latest member
MarthaPrirl
Back
Top