Trial Discussion Thread #13 - 14.03.25, Day 15

[minor4th]

Very good editorial on CNN from SA criminal lawyer analyzing the case so far and what to expect:

Opinion: Winners and losers in the Pistorius trial so far

Though much emphasis has been placed in the media on the implausibility of Pistorius' version of events, this has distracted from the inherent implausibility of the state's own version of events.

If one reviews the evidence they have managed to gather, or perhaps more appropriately the lack thereof, their version of events can essentially be summed up in the following terms: A man, with no previous criminal record or track record of violence, in a new and loving relationship, woke up one morning and decided to murder his girlfriend for no apparent reason. This is a fundamentally implausible claim. And this is where the evidence extracted from various cell phones taken from the scene is potentially crucial.

 

[G.bng]

He excelled on an Olympic running track with purpose designed prostheses. Not remotely relevant to standing on a few inches of bone below his knees in the middle of the night facing what he may have believed was an intruder.

He wasn't facing what he may have believed was an intruder, he went looking for what he believed was an intruder instead of insuring his gf was safe and calling the police.

 

[nastasya]

Yes exactly, and perhaps that was the only thing going through his mind at the time.
Would a person's logic come into play when the balance of the mind is disturbed?

Walking 30 feet from one room to another to put yourself in front of somebody you claim may kill you, then shooting at them four times and killing them, is criminal homicide.

What OP said he did would not even be covered by Florida's Stand Your Ground law.

 

[seattlechiquita]

Hey friends :wave: -----remind me again when trial resumes? I might take the day off to watch OP on the stand!

 

[james83]

I put it to you :smile: ...if he thought Reeva was still in the bed...

Could he have been going towards danger in order to protect Reeva?

Better to tackle an intruder in another room away from Reeva?

You can keep suggesting your definition of imminent danger, but it will still be wrong. All that matters is what SA and Judge Masipa recognise. That isn't going to change.

SA Law (as we currently understand)

If you have the belief that a person would injure you or someone close to you and even possibly kill you as a result of this attack, you may use any and all means to defend yourself.
The nature of the threat only has to be imminent, and you do not need to be able to see your attacker.

Grabbing a gun and charging off without saying a word to her was in no way protective, if he got hurt/killed she was totally exposed.
Calmly telling her to call the police and get downstairs while he confronts the intruder and i'd agree.

 

[Insp.Dots]

Yes I don't buy his version at all.
He states he shouted for Reeva to phone the police and told the imaginary burglars to get out of the house .
Why wouldn't she reply to that ? Defence will allege it was because when she heard him shout out she didn't reply because she misunderstood and now thought that intruders were in the house and she would be in danger . Defence probably think job done for reasonable doubt .......
I think not !!
If she didn't reply under that premise then she would be as quiet as a mouse
Particularly when she could her someone plodding towards her into the bathroom.
This is his mistake IMO ,he states in his statement that when he came into the bathroom and didn't see anyone he heard movement in the toilet so shot the hell out of it .
He can't have it both ways either she would have shouted back in reply to him when he shouted or she would have stayed as quiet as a mouse.
Can't wait to hear the fairytale from the defence on this .

Totally agree, I think this is the one simple but major question for OP and the defence. I really hope we get to see his explanation and subsequent cross examination.

 

[minor4th]

I cannot find anywhere that he says the bedroom door was locked. I am missing vital information and don't know where to start looking for it. Was it something Roux said? I know he piped up at times saying that Oscar will say etc.

Paragraph 16.12 of his bail affidavit:

"I felt trapped as my bedroom door was locked and I have limited mobility on my stumps."

 

[Gavel Rash]

Yes, my understanding is that there was a door on the toilet cubicle (which is within the bathroom) but not on the bathroom itself.

Yes I have looked again at image and I can genuinely see at least one other key on the green tag hanging out of toilet door. Yes I think he locked her in. She definitely was going to expose him and ruin him. This was not allowable in Osacrs world.

 

[Trooper]

You might have missed this, but the doctor explained that he was trying to open her airway and give her rescue breaths.

Stipp testified that OSCAR had his fingers down Reeva's throat.. Oscar's other hand was on her groin..

Stipp checked her eyes... Stipp had to remove Oscars fingers from her throat..

 

[G.bng]

No one is disputing that - it's the level of disability that I believe is arguable. 'Severely disabled' is not the same thing as disabled. He himself has stated he has mobility without his prostheses but there are plenty of people with limited or no mobility that aren't amputees at all. There's also a difference between a developed disablement and a disability that is congenital.


Well, I'm not a scoffer for a start. OP fought for many, many years to be seen as equal to someone who is able-bodied in the sports world. Now, he wants special consideration due to his disability - even though he has greater mobility without his prostheses than the person I'm married to - but he still had other choices. He chose to advance on a room where he believed there was an intruder and shoot four times with an immensely deadly choice of ammunition. Stumps or not, I can't believe he didn't intend to kill whomever was in the toilet. Therefore, his disability is a moot point for me.

MOO

Exactly, very well put.

And I can't forget that OP himself has consistently affirmed that he does not consider/see himself as disabled nor want to be included as a disabled athlete and I have to respect that, not least because that is his persona and his right and he knows his capabilities and limitations better than any of us.

 

[jay-jay]

I put it to you :smile: ...if he thought Reeva was still in the bed...

Could he have been going towards danger in order to protect Reeva?

Better to tackle an intruder in another room away from Reeva?

The only problem with that is that you wouldn't just go walking right into the bathroom .. you would have no idea that the 'burglar' was in the toilet with the door shut and the more likely scenario he would've been presented with, had it actually been a burglar, would be coming up against them in the actual bathroom itself. There's no way you would just go wandering right in there, no matter how well kitted up you were because there would still be the likelihood that you would get shot first.

 

[minor4th]

For crying out loud, here we go again with the .."Oscar is not that disabled"

 

[Interested Bystander]

It's in either his bail affidavit or plea statement.

"The door was locked" was in the Bail Affidavit, thank you.

 

[steveml]

Walking 30 feet from one room to another to put yourself in front of somebody you claim may kill you, then shooting at them four times and killing them, is criminal homicide.

What OP said he did would not even be covered by Florida's Stand Your Ground law.

...and if he was in the UK he probably wouldn't have a gun.

But none of that matters as he is from SA. We can't go to another country and take our homelands laws with us.

 

[Trooper]

Dr Stipp , of course, would have noticed the chunks of her head missing.. ( testified to by the blood spatter man, and the Autopsy man, ),, that's why he , Stipps, checked her eyes for signs of life.


he didn't find any, and estimated her time of death at that point to have been at least some minutes.. her eyes were already traversing into cloudy, meaning... life had been extinguished..

 

[nastasya]

One witness heard arguing. That's what I said.

Proving a bad relationship isn't required? Nel doesn't know his stuff then, as he's had people trawling through thousands of messages, telephone records, iPads, computers and brought an ex-girlfriend into court. No, of course it's not necessary.

If it's that simple why bother with trials? Perhaps we should just tell everyone they're guilty from the off, and only allow the prosecution to speak.

Or alternatively we could take crimes straight to the 'Unfactual Court' of public opinion.

Why bother with the trial?

So the five witnesses who heard a woman then gunshots could testify that's what they heard. So the medical examiner could testify to the cause of death, and so the ballistics expert could testify the first shot hit the victim's hip, and then the killer fired three additional shots.

Truly, it really is that simple.

Now the defense must show why the admitted killer did not violate SA's laws for murder and for possessing illegal ammunition. The killer will have the chance to describe how he heard his house mate go pee, then why he retrieved his 9 mm, walked down two passages in the dark, and fired 4 shots blindly at a noise behind the toilet door and killed his house mate.

The judge will then decide if the 5 ear-witnesses can be dismissed in favor of the killer's far-fetched explanation that he alone, with the aid of a cricket bat, replicated the sounds of killing the woman who he just finished killing.

 

[minor4th]

"The door was locked" was in the Bail Affidavit, thank you.

Specifically, Bedroom door was locked. YW

 

[Insp.Dots]

just heard on sky news that he is expected to spend several day in the witness box.

Possible questions...

Why didn't he wake Reeva?

Why did he fire 4 shots?

Why is there a hole in your bedroom door?

Why are there jeans on the patio outside, below bathroom?

Why did you have black talons bullets in your gun?

And most importantly....
Why don't you take a seat and tell us THE WHOLE TRUTH?

 

[jay-jay]

"The door was locked" was in the Bail Affidavit, thank you.

Can someone please clarify for me where this bedroom door actually is .. (the layout of this house is a bit peculiar :tongue: ) .. is it on the bedroom itself or is it on the entrance to the whole of the bedroom area (i.e. the area comprising the en-suite bathroom/toilet, a small lounge area, the wardrobes along corridor to bathroom, and the bedroom) .. or are there doors to both that area and to the bedroom itself?

 

[Insp.Dots]

Hey friends :wave: -----remind me again when trial resumes? I might take the day off to watch OP on the stand!

Tomorrow