Trial Discussion Thread #14 - 14.03.28, Day 16

[Rumpole]

I've been trying to keep up with all the recent posts... as a longtime lurker I realized thats harder work than keeping up with the trial. So many points I would love to question/disagree but y'all move along fast

I would love to hear Pistorius' response on why he made that hole, or who made that hole and why it was there because it's very strange. It's definitely not appropriate to the implication that early evening in Feb 13th was a calm, normal night his statement clearly attests.

If the hole was done on an earlier occasion, that is also interesting (even for the defense) because why does anyone shoot doors in a high security, wealthy Silver Lakes estate. Or leave holes in doors that look like pellet or airgun holes. Could it be a party occasion hole or another accident? Hope the prosecution questions Pistorius on the bedroom door. Its is definitely not something you would see from a 'reasonable' man/home.

Unless the State make a case for why they think it is significant.. why should OP have to explain it at all? You say "why do people shoot"... yet still no proof it is a bullet hole. Even conceding it is airgun pellet hole for sake of argument.....

I would have no trouble explaining it myself... but if OP did... most posters here would not accept such an explanation.

eg.... stupid guy thing.. messing with airgun and shoots off a pellet indoors.... could easily be me

The State has to do a lot more than just say... ah ha... a pellet hole....

So what?

 

[Cherwell]

I think Mrs. Stipp was outright lying. It wasn't a matter of her trying to fill in blanks that she couldn't quite remember - she lied, and she got caught.

It's a shame for Mrs Stipp that she was honest and went back to correct the inaccuracy in her statement. If she hadn't done so, no one here could brand her a liar over it, because they wouldn't know. Not sure what you mean by "she got caught"? I understood that she went back voluntarily within a day.

Staden I believe called them blood spots or what appeared to be blood spots but then we had no evidence or testimony from the guy who actually did the forensics on the blood. So my conclusion is it's either blood and it's consistent with Oscar's version or it's not blood.

"We" don't have to be given all the evidence. As long as the judge has it, and the defence is made aware of it, that's all that matters here. It's a different system from what most of us are familiar with, and it's important to remember this.

 

[Rumpole]

My guess...

We will not hear another word about "blood spots" on wall by bed and on duvet. We will not hear another word about hole and damage to bedroom door.

 

[Duchy]

And what evidence has the state admitted that suggests this?

Bangs before and after screaming?

 

[Viper]

What?? Mr Nel has not been careful not to give too much away about the State's case. He has finished his case in chief! There's nothing more to the state's case to be revealed. Mr. Nel is not keeping something secret that is critical to his case that he is going to spring at just the right moment during the defense case. .... It does not work that way.

Please people, at least accept the possibility that we have seen the State's case and if you find it lacking - it's because it is lacking and not because Nel has some secret wonderful evidence that he didn't present.

BIB1 Well it looks though that he has many here fooled, because they still cannot see what the State's case is! :wink:

BIB2 Mr. Nel did not read off every email, every text, discuss every photo in their photo book, etc... so there is much more to be revealed!

BIB3 Mr. Nel is keeping many things from us all, but not from the DT, to present at the appropriate time during cross examination of at least OP, maybe others.

BIB4 Yes it does!

BIB5 I do not find it lacking in any way. I find it convincing!

 

[G.bng]

Hears the bathroom window sliding open(because people who go for a pee at 3am open windows in the bathroom????), but doesn't hear the sound of the toilet door shutting or the sound of the key turning in the lock:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

A good point, how did OP hear the soft slide of a window but not the shutting and locking of the door more so when presumably as after hearing the window slide he would have been fully alert and all ears.

And if he did hear these noises then who in even their wildest dreams would immediately conclude that a burglar/s had come through the window and gone to the loo shutting and locking the toilet door.

 

[Viper]

And what evidence has the state admitted that suggests this?

You are referring to the bedroom doors that are heavily damaged:

They entered the photo evidence of the bashed through bedroom doors and questioned a forensics officer about them; as well as the pellet shot (hole) through one of the two bedroom doors. They also entered the photo evidence of OPs badly damaged prosthetics and questioned a forensic officer about those too.

 

[Viper]

IMHO Nel has a crap case and he knows it, so there's not much he can do about it :moo:

That's strange. If you are right, then I wonder why Mr. Nel would bring a cr*p case before the nation of South Africa? This is the first televised court proceeding in the nation's history after all, and it involves a (former) national hero. I would think if he knew he had a cr*p case he would not proceed, but that is just my opinion.

 

[nastasya]

After reading a fair amount (certainly not everything) about this trial, there are really only two important issues for me:

1. Who screamed and when? (There's no doubt there were screams coming from Oscar's home.)

2. How many gun shots were there and when did they occur?

All other evidence is supportive, and can cause me to lean one way or another, but not essential in my mind.

Most of the other evidence supports the State's case IMO.

The only point that supports OP's case IMO is his paranoic fear of burglars.
However this is not enough to sway my opinion of his guilt. Perhaps the Defense will present a stronger case soon. We shall see.

Maybe this will help:

It's stipulated there were screams and four gunshots.

Scenario 1:

• Woman was being attacked, screamed, was shot dead.
• 5 witnesses heard various parts of the attack, all heard the killing.

Scenario 2:

• Woman is shot dead.
• Killer immediately makes sounds of a woman being attacked.
• Killer then makes sounds replicating sounds of four gun shots he used to kill woman.
• All witnesses hear killer's replicated sounds.
• No witnesses heard actual sounds of the killing.

Which scenario is the reasonable explanation? Which is a concocted lie?

 

[G.bng]

Well of he's outside on the balcony when she goes on the room and closes the door but inside when she opens a window then it is possible.

I don't understand. Are you saying OP was out on the balcony at the time Reeva went to the bathroom and closed and locked the toilet door, but he was back inside when he heard the window slide? Because in that case either Reeva must have had psychokinetic abilities for moving objects or she came back out of the loo and opened the window and returned to the loo and locked it again. What is more, I reckon after hearing the window slide and believing it to be a burglar/s OP, filled with terror, would, from the adrenalin rush, be all ears for the slightest of noises considering he must have thought his life depended on knowing what the burglar's did/were doing.

 

[Harmony 2]

A new thread has been created and is now open for posting. This thread will close in 10 minutes.

Trial Discussion Thread #15 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[G.bng]

There was a door to the toilet room, right?

Why is it bizarre for Reeva to get up and open a window???

So, ok, the window is in the bathroom and there is no window in toilet room. Ok. I got it now.

So she opens a window, Oscar hears and as Oscar is getting his bearings and grabbing his gun she goes into the toilet to pee, as she's finishing he starts kicking up a fuss, she gets scared and locks the door.

IMO if she was in there cowering and OP terrorizing her or beating on the door, she would not be standing up in front of the door as she was. Reasonably, she'd be cowering between the toilet and the wall. Even when I was arguing against OP this was still something that stood out to me. So now that I'm on the fence I'm actually considering it. That doesn't seem like something one would do if they were hiding. Standing, perhaps listening through the door, then yes.

"Get ones bearings" = Take stock of one's position or situation relative to one's surroundings.

Well OP sure failed resoundingly, because, according to his version, he didn't "take stock" that Reeva wasn't in the bed, not even in the bedroom !

 

[minor4th]

Unless the State make a case for why they think it is significant.. why should OP have to explain it at all? You say "why do people shoot"... yet still no proof it is a bullet hole. Even conceding it is airgun pellet hole for sake of argument.....

I would have no trouble explaining it myself... but if OP did... most posters here would not accept such an explanation.

eg.... stupid guy thing.. messing with airgun and shoots off a pellet indoors.... could easily be me

The State has to do a lot more than just say... ah ha... a pellet hole....

So what?

I don't think the state has even said "a pellet hole"

 

[Gavel Rash]

I'm having trouble with the breaking down bedroom door scene as I cant imagine that action alone instilling ear piercing screams by Reeva immediately after the bangs if they be associated with this event unless he was chasing though the home, with bat in hand, and up the stairs.
So Reeva goes downstairs for snack...eats does yoga and then they start arguing...then Oscar gets angry (why?) grabs cricket bat from where? Downstairs? garage? Threatens her and so Reeva, scared, runs upstairs locks door, Oscar starts smashing at door 3 times and hes in? or is thie time delay where he gets something else to wedge in door and open it? Marks on inner edge of door? They were not caused by bat! Reeva has run to loo locks door again? By this timing Oscar will now be through the door and soooo angry he grabs gun and says you better come out or else and opens up?

Was the actual lock broken or door just forced open? Is it two door opening or just single door?

 

[minor4th]

That's strange. If you are right, then I wonder why Mr. Nel would bring a cr*p case before the nation of South Africa? This is the first televised court proceeding in the nation's history after all, and it involves a (former) national hero. I would think if he knew he had a cr*p case he would not proceed, but that is just my opinion.

Because he proceeded on some big assumptions and a load of speculation handed to him by his police force. And there's no way he could just forego any kind of prosecution because there would be total outrage that a celebrity was getting special treatment and the government was protecting him.

He has to go through the motions to satisfy the public.

 

[G.bng]

Remember aswell that the bathroom window is another change in his story

2013 "I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised there was someone in the bathroom"

2014 "I heard the bathroom window sliding open"

2013 his words suggested someone was already in he bathroom

2014 the "intruder" has only just slid the window open.

Burger got hung drawn and quartered for a change in wording like that. And if he heard the sliding window then what about hearing the intruder scrambling in and jumping to the floor, or did they turn round and gently lower themselves to the floor exposing their back?

 

[kittychi]

A couple witnesses heard a man yelling help. Mrs. Burger speculated that it was the man mocking the woman.

Right..."Yelling help" not "screaming help" in a blood curdling or terrified manner.

 

[Harmony 2]

A new thread has been created and is now open for posting. This thread is closed.

Trial Discussion Thread #15 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

:drumroll: