Trial Discussion Thread #47 - 14.07.8, Day 38

[geevee]

That's a good article. I wonder why "Uncle Mike" never testified?

More questions from me:

The lightbulb in the toilet the defence claimed wasn't working. If his balance was so bad at night why wasn't it a priority to fix and didn't the defence say they'd prove it wasn't working?

If the LED lights from the stereo were a constant irritation to his sleep, then why not move it permanently?

If Mr Roux said he was going to prove that OP screamed like a girl and never provided that proof, does Judge Masipa then have to assume the ear witnesses were all correct that they heard a woman screaming?

Is anybody else planning on going back to the start to weigh up what we now know compared to what was known at the start of the trial?

BBM

I'm rewatching the whole trial, just got to Day 2 of Oscar's testimony, and so far all I've found is I'm craving a bit of cheese to go with all of his whine. :shame:

 

[Val1]

BBM

I'm rewatching the whole trial, just got to Day 2 of Oscar's testimony, and so far all I've found is I'm craving a bit of cheese to go with all of his whine. :shame:

Then you haven't been following all the "family" excuses flowing re this latest nightclub incident as per reported on https://twitter.com/karynmaughan, seems they've decided a full case is needed as the occasional glass wasn't cutting it... :/

 

[geevee]

Well I think most of us agree there was no 'noise' from intruder, nor even sure that Reeva opened the window in the first place! However, yes, I agree, he shouldn't have written or submitted anything about ladders or for that matter, anything at all about him processing why an intruder would be in there in the first place. It would actually be more credible to leave out your processing of the noise/reasoning behind an intruder coming as I don't think that's far-fetched at all - to be scared of a noise in another room without processing its plausibility. His reaction to said 'noise' of course, is beyond far-fetched and would surely end in culpable homicide at the very least.

I believe that window was already open since he says he had just closed the balcony doors when he heard the bathroom window bang open - would Reeva be opening one window while he is busily closing others? All in all his version makes no sense.

 

[east2west]

The Silverwoods intruder, a fictional story by Oscar Pistorius

1. The daring and proficient intruder manages to gain entry to the highly protected estate.

2. The intruder roams aimlessly in the estate to find the ideal house whilst, not only avoiding all security patrols but also without alerting any dogs.

3. By pure chance, the intruder stumbles on a stack of ladders and decides to abandon his original entry plans for a much better one : enter a house from a second story window.

4. Although it is 3AM and the estate is dead quiet, the intruder fumbles with noisy aluminum ladders and takes one of them around the corner of OP's house to a random window.

5. Although OP owns 2 dogs, a large menacing one and a small nervous one, they remain completely oblivious and silent to the intruder's noisy presence.

6. Although the window is closed and could very possibly be locked, the intruder inexplicably selects it as his entry point.

7. The intruder is lucky : the window is not locked…. had it been locked, one can imagine the intruder going back down the ladder and moving it to another window… repeating this process until an unlocked window was found.

8. Instead of carefully opening the window to preserve the element of surprise, the intruder decides to slam it open.

9. The intruder stealthily shimmies into the pitch dark bathroom without making any noise... avoiding any contact with the wooden blinds which are halfway down and the bathroom scale which is immediately below the window.

10. Instead of exiting the bathroom to pursue his intended goal, the intruder lingers in the bathroom for no apparent reason.

11. Instead of fleeing back out the window and down the ladder when the element of surprise was lost and his presence was revealed by OP's screams, the intruder decides to hide in the toilet cubicle thus rendering any attempt at escape impossible.

12. Although his intention is to hide his presence, the intruder slams the toilet door shut thus, not only confirming his presence but also advertising his location.

13. For some inexplicable reason, the intruder decides to lock the toilet door thus trapping himself.

14. Trapped in toilet and confronted by OP who is 3 meters away screaming at him, the intruder does not attempt to plead with OP but remains completely silent.

"And so my children, this concludes today's Fairytale. Enjoy your summer, we will see you on September 2nd, when you begin your 4th year at Elementary School. Play nice and be safe".

 

[4MrsB]

I don't think the implausibility of an intruder coming in through the window and locking themselves into bathroom will be looked at in any serious way by Masipa in terms of handing out her judgement. When you get a fright or hear something that you shouldn't in your house, the last thing you do is think about the possibilities or impossibilities of the sound being there. Of course in retrospect, closed windows, noisy ladders, dogs and so on make it nonsensical but if I heard a noise in one of my rooms, I wouldn't process all of that.

However, I certainly wouldn't go and blow the 'noise' away with a 9mm pistol.

OP's guilt will I think be elicited from his version contradictions, credibility (or lack of), witness statements, impossible timeline and improbable events. The concrete stuff.

I agree...Masipa will not likely give any weight to whether or not OP "should have" thought of all these implausible reasons why an intruder would never do this (unless intruder's objective was to end up on one of those funniest video clips - World's Dumbest Burglars). Even though, yes - most people wouldn't jump to these conclusions, being on the 2nd floor and another person sharing the room with you who is also awake because you spoke to them only moments ago.

I wonder, however, if Masipa will give consideration to the fact that OP DID NOT (as scared as he claimed to be and certain as he claimed to be - that the window noise was due to an intruder entering the house through bathroom window), . . . ever peek out the window.

OP is in the bathroom, loaded gun drawn and says he believes intruder entered toilet area. Why wouldn't he take 1 second to peak out the window? What if there were 2 burglars working together, very common. Maybe one was still on ladder and ready to pop up with a gun? What if intruder slammed the toilet door to confuse person (OP) now yelling to get out, and intruder never entered toilet just slammed it & was hiding on ladder a few steps below opening?

I can't imagine someone being so certain that an intruder came in their upstairs window & on finding an empty bathroom area (even with the toilet door closing) would not look out the window...is there a ladder there? Is someone on it? Climbing up or climbing down? It's a matter of a few steps and he is armed with a gun.

Anyway...just wondering if Masipa will give the fact he DIDN'T look out that window, any weight to the believability of his story. I personally find that fact one of the weakest links in his story. I just can't imagine someone being that certain about intruder entering through 2nd story window and never looking out it (at some point). Not even necessarily to verify a ladder was there, but just to make sure another person (or original intruder) was not perched on it, ready to pop up.

 

[geevee]

Then you haven't been following all the "family" excuses flowing re this latest nightclub incident as per reported on https://twitter.com/karynmaughan, seems they've decided a full case is needed as the occasional glass wasn't cutting it... :/

I've seen some of it, and quite pitiful it is.

--
Karyn Maughan @karynmaughan · 59m

#Pistorius family also deny that "Oscar...boasted about our family's so-called influence" @eNCAnews
--

I guess money and influence can't buy self respect. Or self control.

 

[kittychi]

I found this link on Twitter among all of the other Oscar tweets:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...before-nightclub-fight-partygoers-allege.html

"Oscar Pistorius, the paralympian on trial for murdering girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, drank tequila shots, socialised with a known violent offender and had scantily-clad women sitting on his knee before the fight that led to him leaving a nightclub on Saturday night, it has been claimed.
The athlete confirmed he was at the VIP Room in the exclusive Johannesburg suburb of Sandton on Saturday night but denied being the cause of an altercation with a racing driver and clothes store owner named Jared Mortimer, saying Mr Mortimer had "aggressively engaged" him about his trial."
(snip)
"Another unnamed partygoer quoted by the Johannesburg Star newspaper said he witnessed the scuffle between Mr Mortimer and another "flat-out drunk" man he later identified as Pistorius as he passed him with a group of friends and allegedly flashed his middle finger. Meanwhile on Twitter, @aleshavr tweeted that Pistorius had "underdressed" women sitting on his lap at the VIP Room "on Sunday morning".
(snip)
"The Johannesburg Star newspaper said it had spoken to three other people who corroborated his allegations but asked to remain anonymous.
The racing driver claimed Pistorius tried to call him on Sunday morning but he ignored his calls. The athlete then tweeted a series of biblical quotations and pictures of himself with disabled children."
----------------------------------


Poor Oscar, all of these people collaborating and conspiring against him. Again.

:boohoo: :whine:

.

 

[Val1]

I agree...Masipa will not likely give any weight to whether or not OP "should have" thought of all these implausible reasons why an intruder would never do this (unless intruder's objective was to end up on one of those funniest video clips - World's Dumbest Burglars). Even though, yes - most people wouldn't jump to these conclusions, being on the 2nd floor and another person sharing the room with you who is also awake because you spoke to them only moments ago.

I wonder, however, if Masipa will give consideration to the fact that OP DID NOT (as scared as he claimed to be and certain as he claimed to be - that the window noise was due to an intruder entering the house through bathroom window), . . . ever peek out the window.

OP is in the bathroom, loaded gun drawn and says he believes intruder entered toilet area. Why wouldn't he take 1 second to peak out the window? What if there were 2 burglars working together, very common. Maybe one was still on ladder and ready to pop up with a gun? What if intruder slammed the toilet door to confuse person (OP) now yelling to get out, and intruder never entered toilet just slammed it & was hiding on ladder a few steps below opening?

I can't imagine someone being so certain that an intruder came in their upstairs window & on finding an empty bathroom area (even with the toilet door closing) would not look out the window...is there a ladder there? Is someone on it? Climbing up or climbing down? It's a matter of a few steps and he is armed with a gun.

Anyway...just wondering if Masipa will give the fact he DIDN'T look out that window, any weight to the believability of his story. I personally find that fact one of the weakest links in his story. I just can't imagine someone being that certain about intruder entering through 2nd story window and never looking out it (at some point). Not even necessarily to verify a ladder was there, but just to make sure another person (or original intruder) was not perched on it, ready to pop up.

Or, after having made sure there was no one there, to quickly close and lock it... while keeping his "firearm" trained on the toilet door and shouting something to the effect that, I've got a gun and have called the police. Then if someone did try to burst out to escape his "accidental" firing of four separate finger pulls might have been a little more understandable.

 

[4MrsB]

The fact OP states he was very much in love with Reeva in his criminal Trial where he stands accused of murdering her, is no surprise to me… it's to be expected and not necessarily believed… one can't even assume OP's definition of being in love is objectively universal.

The fact OP introduced Reeva as his fiancé to his neighbor is also not very surprising to me… since they were most definitely not engaged to be married, that statement made to an inconsequential acquaintance was a bit of flirtatious banter for Reeva's benefit… I have done the same in the past… even introduced a girlfriend as the future mother of my children… she did not take it literally but was delightfully embarrassed and flattered by it.

Re: introducing Reeva as fiancée . . . I always just assumed the neighbor Mike was mistaken. Not sure which language they were conversing in, perhaps misunderstood, mistranslated or just mistaken.

Mike seemed more like the kind of neighbor that OP just waved to, maybe a little small talk if Mike was out front washing car or doing yard work , getting mail or whatever.

My impression - Mike would have loved to be closer friends with this important S.A. celebrity living next door, and held OP in the highest regards. So to be introduced to OP's girlfriend and get a hug from this girlfriend was a big deal. I just have a hard time imagining OP telling a neighbor such as Mike (with RS close by) that it's his fiancée . . . after only starting to date "seriously" starting approx. Jan 1st, little over a month ago.

I can see a funny remark like "future mother of my children" being said in jest (as you mentioned), but I didnt get that impression it was said like that in Mike's testimony. Maybe it was, with a wink to Reeva (then Op & Reeva had a good chuckle in his house about it later).

I guess there is no reason not to believe it was said, I just assumed Mike misheard or mistook what was said by OP. He hadn't even told her he loved her, nor she him...all of a sudden he tells a neighbor RS is his fiancée. I was always puzzled by that testimony. Weird.

 

[4MrsB]

I found this link on Twitter among all of the other Oscar tweets:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...before-nightclub-fight-partygoers-allege.html

"Oscar Pistorius, the paralympian on trial for murdering girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, drank tequila shots, socialised with a known violent offender and had scantily-clad women sitting on his knee before the fight that led to him leaving a nightclub on Saturday night, it has been claimed.
The athlete confirmed he was at the VIP Room in the exclusive Johannesburg suburb of Sandton on Saturday night but denied being the cause of an altercation with a racing driver and clothes store owner named Jared Mortimer, saying Mr Mortimer had "aggressively engaged" him about his trial."
(snip)
"Another unnamed partygoer quoted by the Johannesburg Star newspaper said he witnessed the scuffle between Mr Mortimer and another "flat-out drunk" man he later identified as Pistorius as he passed him with a group of friends and allegedly flashed his middle finger. Meanwhile on Twitter, @aleshavr tweeted that Pistorius had "underdressed" women sitting on his lap at the VIP Room "on Sunday morning".
(snip)
"The Johannesburg Star newspaper said it had spoken to three other people who corroborated his allegations but asked to remain anonymous.
The racing driver claimed Pistorius tried to call him on Sunday morning but he ignored his calls. The athlete then tweeted a series of biblical quotations and pictures of himself with disabled children."
----------------------------------


Poor Oscar, all of these people collaborating and conspiring against him. Again.

:boohoo: :whine:

.

I'm guessing Uncle Arnold has already "purchased" any video tape footage from inside the nightclub (for a hefty price) before the media can get their hands on it.

Perhaps OP will be placed on a "time out" by Uncle, until at least closing arguments are completed.

QUESTION: is the article implying OP "flashed the finger" or the unnamed partygoer flashed his finger at OP?

 

[4MrsB]

I was finally able to find & read article (wasn't able to open it before)

I now understand, the "unnamed party goer" walking by with friends, claims OP "gave them the zap sign" in their faces (something to that effect).

"Zap sign" - term used in S.A. for middle finger.:trainwreck:

 

[AJ_DS]

I found this link on Twitter among all of the other Oscar tweets:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...before-nightclub-fight-partygoers-allege.html

"Oscar Pistorius, the paralympian on trial for murdering girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, drank tequila shots, socialised with a known violent offender and had scantily-clad women sitting on his knee before the fight that led to him leaving a nightclub on Saturday night, it has been claimed.
The athlete confirmed he was at the VIP Room in the exclusive Johannesburg suburb of Sandton on Saturday night but denied being the cause of an altercation with a racing driver and clothes store owner named Jared Mortimer, saying Mr Mortimer had "aggressively engaged" him about his trial."
(snip)
"Another unnamed partygoer quoted by the Johannesburg Star newspaper said he witnessed the scuffle between Mr Mortimer and another "flat-out drunk" man he later identified as Pistorius as he passed him with a group of friends and allegedly flashed his middle finger. Meanwhile on Twitter, @aleshavr tweeted that Pistorius had "underdressed" women sitting on his lap at the VIP Room "on Sunday morning".
(snip)
"The Johannesburg Star newspaper said it had spoken to three other people who corroborated his allegations but asked to remain anonymous.
The racing driver claimed Pistorius tried to call him on Sunday morning but he ignored his calls. The athlete then tweeted a series of biblical quotations and pictures of himself with disabled children."
----------------------------------

Poor Oscar, all of these people collaborating and conspiring against him. Again.

:boohoo: :whine:

.

One of these days Oscar Pistorius will be put in his place in a bad way by someone who isn't afraid of legal retaliations…

Fear not, that day is fast approaching Mr Pistorius…

Hardened career criminals await your arrival with much anticipation and great expectations…

Mr Pistorius, you will be tamed, beaten, broken, bought, sold, fought over and raped repeatedly by fellow inmates...

Be sure to fully enjoy your last moments of freedom because many others will fully enjoy your incarceration.

 

[eimajjjj]

I absolutely think Masipa will consider the implausibility of an intruder entering through a second story window. That's the crux of this case - that OP assumed the person in the toilet was an intruder rather than his awake girlfriend. His defense relies on this assumption being reasonably possible (he knew ladders were left outside, wasn't sure if the motion detector beams were working, bathroom window open). The prosecution pointing out the reasons that assumption was based on implausible factors points to him knowing who was behind that door.

Even if she ignores the implausibility of an intruder entering the way OP suspected they did, he would still be put to the reasonable man test for CH (which does not take disability into account, but does take specialized knowledge into account, i.e. gun owner). So the question would be, would the reasonable gun owner in the same circumstances have assumed it was an intruder and responded to the perceived threat of said assumed intruder the same way OP did - by unloading four rounds of hollow point bullets through a closed door.

The implausibility or plausibility of there being an intruder isn't the crux of the case at all IMO. Many people have heard a noise, myself included, and thought someone was in another room even though in retrospect it was highly implausible them getting there. I've even snuck round corners with my partner to peek into a kitchen which doesn't even have a window or other entrance into it! You don't think logically when you're genuinely scared. That doesn't mean you'd go rushing off with a gun and shoot, but the consideration of an intruder without consideration of plausibilty is easily possible.

OP's version of the above, however - hearing a noise, investigating and blowing them away is not only unreasonable behaviour which would end up with culpable homicide if true but is riddled with inconsistencies, female screams, contradicting witness statements and conflicting evidence.

The crux of the case is whether he's making the whole damn thing up or not! And from the circumstantial evidence, that seems to be the case.

 

[Lyra500]

I found this link on Twitter among all of the other Oscar tweets:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...before-nightclub-fight-partygoers-allege.html

"Oscar Pistorius, the paralympian on trial for murdering girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, drank tequila shots, socialised with a known violent offender and had scantily-clad women sitting on his knee before the fight that led to him leaving a nightclub on Saturday night, it has been claimed.
The athlete confirmed he was at the VIP Room in the exclusive Johannesburg suburb of Sandton on Saturday night but denied being the cause of an altercation with a racing driver and clothes store owner named Jared Mortimer, saying Mr Mortimer had "aggressively engaged" him about his trial."
(snip)
"Another unnamed partygoer quoted by the Johannesburg Star newspaper said he witnessed the scuffle between Mr Mortimer and another "flat-out drunk" man he later identified as Pistorius as he passed him with a group of friends and allegedly flashed his middle finger. Meanwhile on Twitter, @aleshavr tweeted that Pistorius had "underdressed" women sitting on his lap at the VIP Room "on Sunday morning".
(snip)
"The Johannesburg Star newspaper said it had spoken to three other people who corroborated his allegations but asked to remain anonymous.
The racing driver claimed Pistorius tried to call him on Sunday morning but he ignored his calls. The athlete then tweeted a series of biblical quotations and pictures of himself with disabled children."
----------------------------------


Poor Oscar, all of these people collaborating and conspiring against him. Again.

:boohoo: :whine:

.

He really is an odious man isn't he?

Given the other very similar reports from the past, the one common denominator is OP and his behaviour patterns seem pretty ingrained. Basically, wait long enough and give him enough alcohol and he will behave like a complete t*sser. Funny how even though he is the one in numerous arguments and repeatedly reported to be rude, aggressive and combative (to both men and women) - somehow it is never his fault. Poor little Oscar, so misunderstood.

This is an article about his drunken behaviour at a rock concert in 20011. There was a link to the original blog on a thread somewhere, but I am afraid I cannot find it. Note the common factors:

1. OP
2. Alcohol
3. Aggressive boorish behaviour

http://www.dnaindia.com/sport/repor...ulting-two-women-in-2011-rock-concert-1800851

As for the tweets - are all those photos a misguided bid for sainthood?

It was interesting to see the majority of comments under the article in The Juice - it appears that people are tiring of Mr P and his stories, self-importance and general vileness.

http://thejuice.co.za/top-stories/e...team-and-the-person-involved-in-the-argument/

 

[mister happy]

Did OP violate his bail restrictions by going out and consuming alcohol?

 

[Val1]

Did OP violate his bail restrictions by going out and consuming alcohol?

No, that is one of the restrictions he managed to get overturned... along with being able to return to the scene of the crime and leave the country...

 

[Lyra500]

Did OP violate his bail restrictions by going out and consuming alcohol?

No. Those bail conditions didn't even last a couple of months - they were all overturned by a judge in April 2013 as I recall. Another example of preferential treatment IMHO.

 

[luvmygarden]

If OP walks he will give the proverbial finger to his handlers AND family who are trying their best to keep him under control at this time. Then and only then will we see a man in real trouble with a price to pay for his antics. I bet his friends if any are left will be very cautious because they know OP owns up to nothing. He will be the cause of his own demise. He should be, should have been in counseling a long time ago. In my opinion he has committed the worst crime already. Murder. If he gets away with it all hell will break loose with this loose cannon.

 

[Val1]

No. Those bail conditions didn't even last a couple of months - they were all overturned by a judge in April 2013 as I recall. Another example of preferential treatment IMHO.

Actually it was the end of March 2013. The most annoying thing is imo I believe he already broke his new conditions when he left the country to go on "holiday" to Mozambique(it is a different country, correct?) in December 2013(where he met the reported new gf who not only supports him but whose family also doesn't see a problem with an alleged murderer consorting with their young daughter), I don't recall him having been invited to compete abroad for that.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-wins-appeal-over-1789654

Judge Bert Bam granted the appeal, saying there was no reason Pistorius should not be allowed to leave the country if he was invited to compete abroad.

But the star must provide a copy of his itinerary to officials before he plans to travel.

He must also hand his travel documents back to the court within 24 hours of returning home.

He no longer has to be regularly supervised by a probation official, a ban against him drinking alcohol was lifted and he will be allowed to return to his home.

http://heavy.com/news/2014/02/who-is-oscar-pistorius-girlfriend-leah-skye-malan/

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Welcome to Websleuths, Lux et Veritas!!!!!

Thank you very much! I'm really enjoying the site and reading everyone's comments!