Re: Oscar Pistorius

by Guest 12.04.14 18:50

You don't have to have guardian dogs, for them to bark. Any of mine, not being of the German Sheppard, Rottweiler, Doberman Pincher variety will BARK, when someone they don't know enters the property and surroundings. Mine even bark, when my housekeeper arrives with her husbands car ...

by rainbow-fairy 12.04.14 19:52

Châtelaine wrote:You don't have to have guardian dogs, for them to bark. Any of mine, not being of the German Sheppard, Rottweiler, Doberman Pincher variety will BARK, when someone they don't know enters the property and surroundings. Mine even bark, when my housekeeper arrives with her husbands car ...

Agree Chatelaine.
I have two dogs that live outdoors, a Jack Russell and a Lurcher... The small Jack barks like a mad thing if people get near our gate.
I wouldn't want to tangle with her if I didn't know her either - she can be a right little bagrat Wink

by Liz Eagles 13.04.14 4:14

Oscar's friendly/docile pooches. These dogs are wonderful but I doubt they would be kind to an intruder or wouldn't bark at the very least.

One looks like an English bull terrier to me and the other a breed of mastiff (I'm not a dog expert).

According to the article from the Daily Mail these dogs were on the property the night Reeva was killed.

@Châtelaine and Rainbow Fairy, I agree with your comments re dogs however it appears Oscar did choose guard dog breeds.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by ultimaThule 13.04.14 11:09

russiandoll wrote:
Seek truth wrote:He thought it strange the bathroom door was closed, (what so he is saying the intruder closed the door? After jumping in through the window)
If she was just using the toilet she wouldn't close the door, she must have closed it running away from him! After all the witness says there was arguing before the shooting

And he had to go out and get the fan at that moment!

Oops typed this in the wrong place

The bathroom did not have a door, it was entered via a passageway from the bedroom. The toilet had a door and I can easily imagine a modest female in a new relationship. her partner presumably sleeping in the bedroom, thinking that he might wake to use the toilet, and drowsily enter the bathroom, closing and locking the door to the toilet.

More interesting imo is why RS has her mobile phone with her in the toilet.

I have done jury service and have to say that currently there is reasonable doubt in my mind that OP intended to murder RS. He is presumed innocent until that reasonable doubt has vanished and if I were to be asked for a verdict right now it would be one of reckless/culpable homicide, because I can envisage a scenario where RS was in the toilet terrified and silent, but not because she had been chased there by OP, because she heard him suddenly start shouting for the police. Someone on twitter posted last night that OP hunted down a noise and shot 4 times when his life was not threatened.
It is inarguable that he did so, but to bring a guilty verdict of premeditated murder of RS, I would have to be sure that he was hunting HER, not a noise, and I am not convinced of that.

I might be, once Nel gets to the mobile phone.

Did RS get a text I wonder, and was her visit to the toilet and the locking of the door to read it in private?

There is some tangled tale behind this seeming crime of passion. OP is fragile and immature, if pushed hard enough at a crucial, point he will imo possibly break down and tell all IF he is guilty.

His vomiting and anguish are authentic and understandable, given that he is a very young hot headed individual faced with the cold reality that he is a killer.

A body in a panic situation is full of adrenalin and goes into fight or flight mode. We can all say yes we would have woken our partner, gone downstairs and exited the building, not gone towards danger.

Given that the pros have painted OP as reckless and arrogant, going towards perceived danger with a gun is a plausible explanation for his behaviour, not thinking, going into fight rather than flight mode.

Improbable though some of this version of events seems, irrational and unwise, it is still possible that this is what happened.

I have faith the judge will deliver the correct verdict whatever it is, but I am leaning at present to her bringing a verdict of culpable homicide, unless there are dramatic developments.

I wonder if Roux will re -x his client next week.

IMO the vomiting snd anguish is contrived, but if it should be authentic it has been induced by the fact that this 27 year old man is faced with the cold reality that he is looking at a sentence of 25 years to life if he is unable to convince the judge that his improbable tale is the truth.

From what I have seen and read to date, again IMO, it will be a travesty of justice if Oscar Pistorius, who is sufficiently self-disciplined to excel in the competitive field of athletics, is not prevented from forming any further intimate relationships with young women for a period of at least 25 years.

by aiyoyo 13.04.14 16:02

He remembered every detail about his movement - what he did how he moved- but could not remember what he watched on TV.
That's red flag - they were not watching TV.

I would like the Prosecutor to ask him why he did not switch on the light in the bedroom to look for Reeva; when he could not see her in the room why he did not check downstairs. How did he know immediately at that point it must be Reeva in the toilet? How come he was so sure she could not have gone downstairs?

His shouting and screaming should produce one of these two reactions - her coming to his aid to find out what's going on, since she was awoke and must have seen him retrieving his gun from underneath her side of the bed, or she might be so frightened and gone to downstairs to get help. When he got no response why did he not pause to think she might have gone to the toilet? It's so improbable that Reeva would not respond from the bedroom or toilet to his screaming for her to call the Police, unless she was hiding inside the toilet away from him.

by Guest 13.04.14 16:39

I'm convinced, that the poor girl was hiding.

by Liz Eagles 13.04.14 16:47

Châtelaine wrote:I'm convinced, that the poor girl was hiding.

Me too.

by aiyoyo 13.04.14 16:52

Châtelaine wrote:I'm convinced, that the poor girl was hiding.

Yes, even the Prosecutor knows that, but the Prosecutor must get him to admit something, or pry something out of him.
His story no matter how improbable must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to secure a successful conviction
You know he did it how he did it, figure how why he did it, circumstantial evidence can be powerful but the law is about proving it and the proving process is very laborious and technical. All the technical aspects had to be covered to support the argument.

by Watching 14.04.14 14:47

aiyoyo wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:I'm convinced, that the poor girl was hiding.

Yes, even the Prosecutor knows that, but the Prosecutor must get him to admit something, or pry something out of him.
His story no matter how improbable must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to secure a successful conviction
You know he did it how he did it, figure how why he did it, circumstantial evidence can be powerful but the law is about proving it and the proving process is very laborious and technical. All the technical aspects had to be covered to support the argument.

I'd say the Prosecutor is more than half way there...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **PeterMac** 14.04.14 14:54

Interesting that the prosecutor brought out that all her stuff was already packed in the overnight bag.
She was leaving !
And by implication he could not cope with that.

by Guest 14.04.14 15:05

I've heard that she was fully dressed - not in nightclothes - so, if that was correct, she surely cannot have been in bed and got up to go to the bathroom.

by aiyoyo 14.04.14 16:39

rainbow-fairy wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:You don't have to have guardian dogs, for them to bark. Any of mine, not being of the German Sheppard, Rottweiler, Doberman Pincher variety will BARK, when someone they don't know enters the property and surroundings. Mine even bark, when my housekeeper arrives with her husbands car ...
Agree Chatelaine.
I have two dogs that live outdoors, a Jack Russell and a Lurcher... The small Jack barks like a mad thing if people get near our gate.
I wouldn't want to tangle with her if I didn't know her either - she can be a right little bagrat

Nel has not asked him about the dogs yet? No one has mentioned OP's dogs thus far.
His house is fully security-alarm with inside censor and outside censor and he'd activated the alarm after he got into the house.
There is no way an intruder could have scaled the wall or entered without triggering the alarm, or without the dogs barking.
Nel went into detail to understand OP's alarm systems and OP tripped up when he said he deactivated the alarm for the first responders.

He was caught out -- his excuse of fear of an intruder is pathetic.
When it seems his alarm censor is by zone-area where upstairs is one zone and downstairs is another that no one can't go downstairs without triggering the alarm unless you deactivated it first.

by aiyoyo 14.04.14 16:46

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I've heard that she was fully dressed - not in nightclothes - so, if that was correct, she surely cannot have been in bed and got up to go to the bathroom.

She was dressed in the black vest she arrived in and a pair of shorts when found.

NEL has finally asked OP the very question every joe public been asking : how did he automatically assume it was Reeva a sudden change from his earlier conviction it was an intruder.

by aiyoyo 14.04.14 17:00

PeterMac wrote:Interesting that the prosecutor brought out that all her stuff was already packed in the overnight bag.
She was leaving !
And by implication he could not cope with that.

Everything packed apart from the pair of jeans that ended up on the floor, laying atop of a corner of the duvet.
Nel's attention to detail is brilliant.
OP played the Police contaminating the scene card, arguing that the Police moved objects did not cut it with Nel.
If the Police moved the duvet as insinuated by OP who insisted last week that duvet was on the bed, then Duvet would be on top of jeans and not other way around.
Today again OP knows he was caught out because Prosecutor pointed out blood spark on duvet is in line with blood spark on the carpet.

OP has buried himself completely that his counsel would need a big shovel to dig him out.
I understand he is not allowed contact with his Defence for the entire duration of his cross examination.
No wonder he flounders but he's doing himself a disservice by being over argumentative and talkative.
The more he talks the more inconsistency in his ever changing version and every inconsistency is pounded upon by NEL.

To his he shouted at the intruder "to get the f....off his house" NEL put it to him that shout was aimed at Reeva.
To his he heard wood sound as if door opening, NEL put it to him he heard Reeva falling on the magazine rack and he aimed in that direction, meaning he was gunning at her.

by aiyoyo 14.04.14 17:38

Friday's trial
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Today's trial
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by russiandoll 14.04.14 19:03

a few thoughts :

1 . shorts and a top are often sleepwear in a warm climate

2. maybe the overnight bag was simply at that stage unpacked

  3. Nel mentioned on Friday that RS was speaking to OP from behind the toilet. [ he believes]


4. Nel has one eyewitness to events. OP. He will imo find it impossible to prove murder with intent beyond a reasonable doubt. For that Nel will need to convince the judge/assistants of the impossibility of his entire account. I can't see that happening.

5. The marks made with the cricket bat are interesting. There have been various comments on this. One, that the prosthetics were off given the height of marks on the door. Where is OP's amputation and where is his centre of gravity? Another person commenting made the remark in court he was not steady on his stumps and swinging a cricket bat would have been a problem for him. Could the marks be consistent with a person of normal height aiming the bat low so as to break the lock?
6.. I am writing as one who had a phone call from a friend a few years ago, nice boyfriend of a few months lost it big time when her spider phobia got the better of her while they were watching t.v. She screamed and made such a fuss he lost his temper with her and pushed a chair so hard a cross a wooden floor that it hit a wall.
She ran with mobile to the toilet, locked herself in and called me. She was advised to tell him she would call the police unless he calmed down. He did so and her brother went to collect her and that was the end of the romance.

It is on face value a classic run and hide scenario, the case of RS. I still believe his anguish is real and not contrived, because he has many good reasons to be distraught. The track God is possibly a vulnerable and insecure young man when he is at home and in an intimate situation with his " legs" off.

Proof beyond doubt so that the judge is sure that he tracked down RS and murdered her? I don't think it can be given, even by one as good as Nel.

    eta there are more than a few on twitter who are relishing seeing the golden boy being knocked off his pedestal and are not basing their opinions on evidence, which is a shame because the trial is very interesting. The judge must have thought long and hard about allowing it to be televised.

by lj 14.04.14 23:42

I was watching 48 hours or something similar. The parents showed 2 paintings Reeva made when she was about 15. One was of a man pointing a gun at her. She was wearing a very red cape. The other one was her more or less sitting in a foetal position with the riight side of the painting all painted red. Aparently it was exactly the position she was found in inside the toilet.

Very eery.

by russiandoll 15.04.14 8:40

Nel has asked for a postponement after this week of 2 weeks, because after Easter he and his team have personal obligations. Nel wants to restart May 6th or 7th. Judge will decide tomorrow and Roux objects because the teams of lawyers noted their personal commitments before trial commenced.
He clearly understands the Easter disruption, but does not see why the trial needs to be postponed for so long after the Easter holiday. He does not think that he should have to wait an extra 2 weeks to re -x OP and he told the judge his witnesses are expecting to be recalled within a certain period of time.

Caught Nel saying that he will finalise his x-exam of OP this week. Looks like OP due to be under pressure for a while longer.

eta the BBC ticker said x exam will end this week, Sky and tweets from court say Nel to finalise x exam today.
So Nel is asking for court to adjourn from today until May 5th. Roux not to begin his re -x exam for 3 weeks acc to Nel's request.

by **PeterMac** 15.04.14 9:34

russiandoll wrote:Roux not to begin his re -x exam for 3 weeks acc to Nel's request.

He may need that length of time to learn his new script.

by Watching 15.04.14 13:57

russiandoll wrote:Nel has asked for a postponement after this week of 2 weeks, because after Easter he and his team have personal obligations. Nel wants to restart May 6th or 7th. Judge will decide tomorrow and Roux objects because the teams of lawyers noted their personal commitments before trial commenced.
He clearly understands the Easter disruption, but does not see why the trial needs to be postponed for so long after the Easter holiday. He does not think that he should have to wait an extra 2 weeks to re -x OP and he told the judge his witnesses are expecting to be recalled within a certain period of time.

Caught Nel saying that he will finalise his x-exam of OP this week. Looks like OP due to be under pressure for a while longer.

eta the BBC ticker said x exam will end this week, Sky and tweets from court say Nel to finalise x exam today.
So Nel is asking for court to adjourn from today until May 5th. Roux not to begin his re -x exam for 3 weeks acc to Nel's request.

My understanding of what was said:

Gerrie Nel stated that due to another very important case which a member of his team must be a part of, and as the initial time they had allotted this case has been exceeded now being far far longer, and with Easter Break and persons on both sides Defence and Prosecution having personal arrangements,himself included, that he request postponement until 5th May. Judge said this was 2 weeks. Nel said in terms of court time it was 7 days. Roux did not object, he stated he and Nel had discussed this and apologised to Court for doing so without first addressing Court. Roux reckoned they would finish around 15/16th May excluding closing arguments but half jokingly said depending on how long Nel took in further cross examinations. Judge said she will consider the request and will give her decision tomorrow morning.

Nel also stated to Court he would finish his cross exam of OP today and that Roux would commence his re-exam.

by russiandoll 15.04.14 23:02

Thanks for correcting my post, Watching. I clearly misunderstood some of those exchanges in court and watched the 10 minute re-exam of Pistorius by Roux. Sky did a repeat interview with a legal expert in SA in the middle of Roux asking a witness, a forensic geologist iirc about the light conditions in the bedroom and bathroom. The man had just started to speak about what could be seen in the bathroom from a neighbour's house when the live court proceedings were abandoned with only about 30 minutes until the lunch break...very frustrating as the scientific stuff is very interesting and important.

Still going for a verdict of culpable homicide [ I think that Nel has proved his case here beyond a reasonable doubt]

by aiyoyo 16.04.14 7:53

Before OP took the witness stand culpable homicide was a possibility, but after he took the stand Prosecutor states in his closing that he is confident the Court "will' find him guilty of murder.

Roux must have regretted putting him on the stand as OP has unstuck his Defence strategy of culpable homicide. OP plain refused to concede anything, not even shooting by accident (putative self-defence) saying he acted involuntarily (didn't mean to shoot ) not knowing what he was doing not thinking; meaning "reckless" at the very least pointed out the Prosecutor. He pulled the trigger aimed only at the toilet, did not fire warning shoot ( his excuse afraid that the bullet might ricochet onto him) did not warn person inside he was armed, did not allow the person a chance to exit as he did not see the door or door-lock open before he fired, fired not one but four shots, changing his aim to magazine rack direction after he heard noise of magazine rack ie aim to kill and he's gun enthusiast, trained, and known for his accuracy.

Prosecutor took him through his actions and every step in minute detail, his gun training, and his going into combat mode upon hearing noise all tested out during the cross examination and OP put his foot in it big time. Prosecutor asked why he stopped at four why he did not empty the cartridge - testing his insistence he acted involuntarily - managing to establish his thought/action was voluntary.

SA law does not allow for involuntarily shooting, all shooting is voluntarily. Involuntarily has to be supported by medical certification - not easy to defend according to the country's legal experts.
OP testimonies show him to be in control (over control in fact) of his thoughts and actions on that fatal day and the prosecutor highlighted this numeral times during the process of his cross examination.

by aiyoyo 16.04.14 8:17

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by aiyoyo 16.04.14 15:53

Defence side has produced a Geologist crib sheet reader and Prosecutor has confiscated his crib sheet !

by plebgate 16.04.14 15:57

Hi Aiyoyo. Long thread, not enough time to read all of posts, but I was interested to know why OP moved Reeva's body and whether he was questioned about why he did that.

When I heard that he had picked her up and moved her I could not believe what I was hearing. Very odd I thought - especially given the condition of her body after being shot.

by **PeterMac** 16.04.14 16:02

aiyoyo wrote:Defence side has produced a Geologist crib sheet reader and Prosecutor has confiscated his crib sheet !

And did I understand that the Defence pathologist has performed only 3 (THREE) post mortems, not one on a victim of gunshot. I'll keep watching.

by aiyoyo 16.04.14 16:53

PeterMac wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:Defence side has produced a Geologist crib sheet reader and Prosecutor has confiscated his crib sheet !

And did I understand that the Defence pathologist has performed only 3 (THREE) post mortems, not one on a victim of gunshot. I'll keep watching.

Not performed only watched - 3 vs State pathologist who had performed 10,000-15,000 in his career to update. Roger Dixon isn't a pathologist, listen to this - he is a 'geologist'

What was a geologist doing giving evidence based on his 'layman' view on Ballistics expert evidence and Pathologist evidence?
Defence side must be desperate clutching at straw.
A geologist willing to accept money to do a job he's specialised in, as well as testing decibels/sound travel made by Cricket bat vs Gun not in done in same condition/environment not done with same materials just to prove Defence's case the sound heard by neighbour was bat and not gun. How stupid is Defence's point that sound neighour heard is bat and not gun. If bat can be heard, so why not gun ? It is not just impossible it is improbable.

I don't understand why Nel did not kill this one from start, and that would shut the Defence up surely?
It is not reasonable to expect Court to believe bat can be heard but gun cannot be heard.

by sami 16.04.14 17:07

I am gobsmacked after today's "expert witness". Pistorius should take a case against his legal team for putting that man on the stand ! At one point he was asked what he used to measure light in the room and he said his eyes. Seriously. He said the fibre on the door matched the defendants sock because......he compared a photograph. He talked about a wound on her body missed by the Pathologist until Nel asked him to read the report out loud and there it was. I could go on and on.

I would guess retaining Roux and his team costs a hell of a lot of money. Why would they call a Geologist to testify about gun shot wounds, bat marks on the door and acoustics ? Bizzare in the extreme. Obviously there was no correctly qualified expert they could find willing to disagree with the States findings. I cannot imagine any other reason.

by Guest 16.04.14 17:11

This reminds me of the defense in the Anthony case and I'm happy that SA doesn't have a jury trial ...

by sami 16.04.14 17:12

aiyoyo wrote:

I don't understand why Nel did not kill this one from start, and that would shut the Defence up surely?
It is not reasonable to expect Court to believe bat can be heard but gun cannot be heard.

I think it's more to do with the timing, from the ear witnesses, isn't it ? The defence are claiming they woke to the sound of the bat and not the gun shots. Then they can excuse the screams as those of OP and not the victim.

They have to disprove the testimony that they heard terrifying screams, then shots.

Latest topics