Trial Discussion Thread #31

Remember when OP was really emotional when Nel asked him what did he actually say/screamed to the intruder (i.e he said "get the XXXX of my house")?

Why the heck would you get so emotional over this? It's really weird. And that's why, I have a feeling he wasn't really screaming at the intruder but in his mind he was actually screaming at RS when he said those words (just like what Nel suggested). (Also, just like when there was a long pause when Nel asked him if RS screamed).

I am sure those behavioral psychs guys in the courtroom must have thought this was interesting.

:gthanks:Liesbeth

Good catch on the toilet bowl siphoning effect. Yes, that is what would happen, which can be tested at home!

Carmelita said:

Sorry Liesbeth, I have followed the trail of posts and this is the post that started me thinking Eh? What the heck did I miss? I see that you then were simply talking about rebuttal and closing arguments.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I was not sure if our rebuttal/argument/case are the same things as your rebuttal/argument/case. But if you say it is then I will take your word for it. My only experience of U.S. law is from television shows and movies.

Viper said:

If you visit OPs twitter account he has photos posted there, one has him with the tan / blonde dog in his bed. They were inside dogs, pets. He also said that he had to put on his legs before he opened the bedroom door to let them in with him because otherwise they would knock him down to the floor upon entering.

Who really knows what his dogs did that night? I have a German Shepherd, one brought over from Germany not an American GSD, and I can tell you that she goes ballistic at anything unusual, literally anything! She's a complete maniac!!! But our family loves her for it! But in the past I had a wonderful Bassett Hound, his name was Barney - God bless him; he too was noisy if something unusual happened, but only when I was at home, otherwise he remained completely quiet (he wanted backup just in case! :smile.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I just started catching up again. However, didn't Nel touch on this briefly when he queried whether the alarm had even been put on that night because if it had, nothing could have gone past the sensor without setting it off? or was that here.... :/

Greater Than said:

He had to use a whiny, emotional voice during his testimony to support his "I didn't know it was Reeva, it was an accident" claim. Who would get on the stand and make such a claim without speaking in a higher octave, emotional tone?

Running around, gun in hand, shouting at an intruder, however, I would imagine he used the most assertive, masculine voice possible. There is no way he would scream "get the F out of my house" to an intruder in the wimpy manner he demonstrated on the stand.

Click to expand...

Agreed. By his own testimony 'he went towards danger' in combat mode which we interpret as a 'fight' or aggressive response, then shot the alleged intruder 4 times through the closed door. IMO in this male combat scenario, an aggressive masculine voice would be more likely as he held 'the kill power' in his hands.

wb180 said:

Remember when OP was really emotional when Nel asked him what did he actually say/screamed to the intruder (i.e he said "get the XXXX of my house")?

Why the heck would you get so emotional over this? It's really weird. And that's why, I have a feeling he wasn't really screaming at the intruder but in his mind he was actually screaming at RS when he said those words (just like what Nel suggested). (Also, just like when there was a long pause when Nel asked him if RS screamed).

I am sure those behavioral psychs guys in the courtroom must have thought this was interesting.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Maybe a small glimpse of his inner world again. Nel's question invoked the emotional response for OP as he 'reflected' upon events that morning; he paused in order to find/produce a suitable answer to that question. Interesting.

minor4th said:

Cant be because the camera grip is on the left and Motha was holding the camera

Click to expand...

You know it was Motha how? Also, isn't one of the rules of taking evidence pics is to not show anything except the evidence? Seems like someone took that pic with the hand in it on purpose.

I also find it passing strange that I haven't seen any pics of all the people that were in the crime scene, not the Stander's, not the brother and sister, not the lawyer, not the paramedics, not the coroner, not the detectives, none of the techs, not even the locksmith, in fact other than that hand, noone but the few pics of OP.

With all those "leaked" pics that the DT were complaining about(you know, the ones where evidence has already been processed, partially reconstructed door, the stuff that was available the second day when the DT was there, even pics of the wrong toilet room...), where are the ones that show just who was there in the first few hours? I believe a few of the early videos may have captured some of them leaving, but other than those I can't seem to find anything. Anyone have a link that would help?

Really? said:

Good point about the window in the bathroom. How would....better yet why would a burgler/intruder assume they could just slide the window open........heck with all the open windows that night in the hood.....why pick a closed one????

Click to expand...

BBM. Exactly. It is more likely that post the event this window was opened to construct a scene to support the intruder story IMO.

So ..I pretty much think the prosecution is going to argue that the cricket bat sounds/kicking were the first sounds, heard by the Stipps and maybe Merwe, some time around 3:00 -3:10 (depending on whose clock we're looking at).

I think they will have to argue exactly what some here have been speculating - the bat was used first to scare Reeva or threaten her, Reeva started screaming, Oscar started yelling and then he shot her at 3:17, through the door, to keep her quiet (or something like that). He then pulled the panels out (or pried them out with the bat, as Vermuelen suggested) and he did all of this while on his stumps.

I can't think what else they could argue if they are sticking with their theory that the gunshots at 3:17 killed Reeva.

To make this argument, they are going to have to tiptoe around their own expert testimony about the cricket bat hitting the door after the gunshots - IMO this is asking the judge to make a gigantic inferential leap and accept a speculative theory that is not supported by any evidence (other than Vermuelen speculating about possibilities).

They are also going to have to convince the judge, per this argument, that Oscar had to have been on his stumps throughout the whole incident - and they can only rely on Vermuelen's unscientific opinion that it would be too awkward to make those cricket bat marks from a standing position on OP's legs. The judge will also have to completely reject the evidence that the higher mark is a cricket bat mark, and also ignore the fact that Vermuelen was shown in photos matching the cricket bat to that mark, but testified that he never tested that mark because he couldn't relate it to the cricket bat.

I really can't think of another way they can tie the evidence together and come up with a premeditated murder theory.

The problem I see with this is that so much of the state's case depends on discrediting Oscar and persuading the judge that it's so improbable (as a whole) that it can't possibly be true that Oscar believed there was an intruder. But even if the judge rejects Oscar's version and agrees that it is not reasonably possibly true, then she has to determine whether the state has proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt - and IMO the state cannot lay out a case that proves murder to the exclusion of all other reasonably possibilities.

This case is really starting to aggravate me because it just looks like there are too many gaps that need to be filled and so many unanswered questions that really could have been answered by some of the experts.

Val1 said:

You know it was Motha how? Also, isn't one of the rules of taking evidence pics is to not show anything except the evidence? Seems like someone took that pic with the hand in it on purpose.

I also find it passing strange that I haven't seen any pics of all the people that were in the crime scene, not the Stander's, not the brother and sister, not the lawyer, not the paramedics, not the coroner, not the detectives, none of the techs, not even the locksmith, in fact other than that hand, noone but the few pics of OP.

With all those "leaked" pics that the DT were complaining about(you know, the ones where evidence has already been processed, partially reconstructed door, the stuff that was available the second day when the DT was there, even pics of the wrong toilet room...), where are the ones that show just who was there in the first few hours? I believe a few of the early videos may have captured some of them leaving, but other than those I can't seem to find anything. Anyone have a link that would help?

Click to expand...

It was entered into evidence and identified as being a photograph taken by Motha at 6:04 a.m., give or take a minute - I can't recall exactly.

But in any event my post was wrong when I said it couldn't be Motha's hand pointing in the photo because the camera grip is actually on the right side, and not the left as I said in that post. I need to go change that post or just delete it.

Wow. I just went over and read all the theories on the "speculation" thread. It kind of reminded me of watching one of those mystery movies where they show you the same thing over and over, but each time from some different angle - so that each time you see the event in a different way. There are some talented sleuthers here, that's for sure.

This has been one of the more fascinating cases I have watched in a long time. I can almost see where some are coming from with their case for not premeditated. Almost, but not quite.

I cannot get past several things. The screams. I do NOT believe it was Oscar screaming like a woman. Go back and listen to the testimonies about the screaming. There were described differences in the screams. That the screams eventually went into an extremely frightened, terrified type of screaming. And then they suddenly just stopped.

That is just so much more indicative of it having been Reeva's screams, knowing what her injury pattern was. And so if it was Reeva screaming that just blows Oscar's whole story of not knowing it was her behind the door.

I think the judge is going to want to relisten to every testimony about the screams.

I won't even go into Oscar's lies. He surely did not help himself.

Carmelita said:

I just don't understand why people think someone can replicate their response or behavior, that occurred during an extreme situation, on demand.

Click to expand...

I think an electric shock to the testicles might do it...

AlwaysShocked said:

Wow. I just went over and read all the theories on the "speculation" thread. It kind of reminded me of watching one of those mystery movies where they show you the same thing over and over, but each time from some different angle - so that each time you see the event in a different way. There are some talented sleuthers here, that's for sure.

This has been one of the more fascinating cases I have watched in a long time. I can almost see where some are coming from with their case for not premeditated. Almost, but not quite.

I cannot get past several things. The screams. I do NOT believe it was Oscar screaming like a woman. Go back and listen to the testimonies about the screaming. There were described differences in the screams. That the screams eventually went into an extremely frightened, terrified type of screaming. And then they suddenly just stopped.

That is just so much more indicative of it having been Reeva's screams, knowing what her injury pattern was. And so if it was Reeva screaming that just blows Oscar's whole story of not knowing it was her behind the door.

I think the judge is going to want to relisten to every testimony about the screams.

I won't even go into Oscar's lies. He surely did not help himself.

Click to expand...

I find it extremely interesting that after the shots, the screaming stopped. If it had been OP screaming, it would seem that when he discovered that it was Reeva that he had shot, he'd be screaming the most at the horror of what he had done. But no---no more screaming after the shots. Very odd for Oscar the screamer.

I think what explains all the issues with the bat sound is that Oscar did both. I think he was very mad that Reeva managed to find safe refuge and locked herself in that bathroom. He got real pissed and then got the bat and took the first wicked swing and hit the door jam which hurt poor OP as the vibrations rattled back through his arm. He got real mad then. He took a few more swings and put some cracks in door all while screaming at her as she screamed back. He then got super mad and just lost it and so he went and got his gun and came back and peeked through the crack and blew her away.

At this point he realizes he has to begin to cover the crime scene but he first has to get in. So he takes the bat and finishes smashing the door enough to grab the key. He goes in and sees all the blood and flushes stool. He begins to think of removing her from his house so he picks her up to carry her to car but by now people are calling his house and coming in through the front door. He is basically caught red handed so he comes up with his cockamany story that she was an intruder.

The prosecution needs to not try to outline this in closing because it is too complicated. They should just stick to the common sense that nobody would ever think an intruder went and locked themselves in a toilet area and a homeowner would never not check where their girlfriend was before shooting at someone in the toilet.

An intruder would exit the way they came in if being chased by homeowner. The story is so unbelievable it is laughable. How did intruder know where key was. Its ridiculous. And I think what did OP in is the fake crying and fake puking and I saw the judge get real mad at OP and I think she knew he was faking. His goose is cooked by his own hogwash.

minor4th said:

I have a couple of problems with that sequence that leads me to believe it is implausible:

1. One of the cricket bat hits caused the crack in the door, and the particular pattern of the crack is affected by a bullet hole; to Vermuelen (and Mangena and defense witness whose name I cannot recall) that means that the gunshots were before at least that one cricket bat hit. So if all 4 gunshots were in quick succession and all the bat hits occurred together, then the shots must have been before the bat hits.

2. If OP first hit the door with the bat 3 times (and kicked the door) to scare Reeva or to try to get her to come out of the toilet, he would obviously be very close to the door and right in front of it while using the bat. Then he would have had to back up a few meters and move to a fairly sharp angle to the right of the toilet to shoot the 4 shots through the door (and then hit the door again with the cricket bat since one bat hit was definitely after the gunshots) and then pry the door.

^ #2 just does not make sense at all. If he was in a rage or whatever and beating the door, why then back up several paces and move to the right of the door? Why not just shoot close to the target and directly in front of it?

Does that make sense?

Click to expand...

That has been explained, over and over, it can't be verified one way or the other whether a bat whack came before that one bullet hole on the right panel, just that the bullet came before that specific crack that the bullet hole is in, that was what V had based his whole assumption on, that one bullet hole. That crack could have come from the bullet itself or from breaking through the rest of that panel by wedging the bat into the small hole that OP said he could see RS through, up higher, and twisting out that portion thus making it possible for OP to push and pull out all the panels. That means it is possible that all bat whacks could have come first, then all gun shots, then wedging the bat through the previous hole and cracking/splintering out enough of the right panel to finally break them all out.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10459670#post10459670

Viper said:

Hmm... This is interesting!!!

Quote:
Defence advocate Barry Roux asked the colonel if it was possible if blood on Pistorius's hands could have spattered onto walls and other surfaces while in motion.

Van der Nest said it was.

Thank you Colonel Nest!

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/analyst-explains-reeva-s-blood-trail-1.1663753#.U1fg5b-9LTr

Click to expand...

So if OP was carrying RS down the steps with her head on his left side, leaving the blood trail from her hair on the banister, then the arterial spurt must have come from her arm... I gather it must have then been left hanging behind him instead of tucked into his body.

wb180 said:

Remember when OP was really emotional when Nel asked him what did he actually say/screamed to the intruder (i.e he said "get the XXXX of my house")?

Why the heck would you get so emotional over this? It's really weird. And that's why, I have a feeling he wasn't really screaming at the intruder but in his mind he was actually screaming at RS when he said those words (just like what Nel suggested). (Also, just like when there was a long pause when Nel asked him if RS screamed).

I am sure those behavioral psychs guys in the courtroom must have thought this was interesting.

Click to expand...

Exactly. He paused a really long time because he knows those are the exact words he said to Reeva and he feels her spiritual presence in that courtroom as well as the presence of her parents.

He knows what he did and had a tough time saying that too loud. Even when it is trying to save his own life by screaming as loud as he could he could barely get out a wimper.

minor4th said:

Even so - why stand off at an angle several meters away if his intent was to shoot her dead?

It doesn't seem likely to me at all. If you disagree, I understand.

But what about the other points in my post about the problems I have with that scenario? How do you reconcile those issues?

Click to expand...

Addressing the angle while shooting, that's obvious, he needed the support of the counter/wall for the recoil, especially if he was doing what I suspect, using the peephole he'd created with the bat whacks to help determine where his "target" was. What's that saying? "know your target and what lays beyond it"... maybe he was being a "responsible" gun owner, just not a good bf.

crasshopper said:

I think an electric shock to the testicles might do it...

Click to expand...

OP could auction the electrode holding rights on ebay and make a lot of money to support his defence.