Oscar Pistorius trial part 4

[Pennies]

Here you go.

i am trying to find the bit about why he stopped at 4 shots.

FROM YESTERDAY'S TESTIMONY.

Nel: Now what happened immediately after the shooting?

OP: I wasn't sure if they were still coming up the ladder.

Nel: So you weren't sure where they were?

OP: I stayed were I was, I shouted for Reeva.

Nel: Do you have it OP?

OP: That is correct, I then made my way back to the bed to Reeva.

OP: I was screaming. I was scared that there was someone coming out of the bathroom.

Nel: Why?

Nel: And then?

OP: I started panicking, she wasn't there. I went back to the bathroom. I was scared entering the bathroom, I out my shoulder against the door.

OP: I ran my hand along half of the curtains, my lady.

(SOME QUESTIONS TAKEN OUT)

Nel: and then you rushed up to the bathroom?

OP: That is correct, my lady.

THEN THERE WAS SOME QUESTIONING ABOUT WHY HE DIDN'T CHECK OTHER PLACES OR THE BEDROOM DOOR BEFORE RACING BACK TO THE BATHROOM.

Thanks, Stack. That I had to miss that bit and got confused.

stack. What struck me bout Baba was he was so sure about that Sequence. He called OP who answered that everything was fine. To me the inference was that OP was caught unawares. Yet phone records show that OP contacted security first. That put a different slant on that, fore

I'm interested in why it matters where the rack was. Why would OP gain by saying it was somewhere it wasn't. He says it was on the rhs, forensic just said it was behind her.

I'm going to have to hide the phone and catch up later as at work

OP didn't say everything was fine. He said "I'm fine". From v early days in trial.

I wondered that too, Nerf.

I wonder, given that the dispute about the magazine rack was just this morning, whether the defence had no idea that he was going to dispute that.

From what I can tell, the argument now is that their expert is disputing the order of the bullets from the prosecution, and that relies on the magazine rack being directly behind her. They're continuing this line because it's the one they had prepared.

I wonder if Nel will follow this up to show that their argument is now relying on Pistorius being wrong about moving the rack.

If Pistorius is claiming the lights were off this whole time, how did he see the key on the floor?
Looking this is a vital point.
Hasn't it there been testimony today that the toilet light wasn't working? And OP has said light wasn't on the the bathroom.

SO HOW DID HE SEE THE KEY?

The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) has rejected a complaint filed against Gerrie Nel, when he called Pistorius a liar while the athlete was on the stand last week.

That makes sense. Prosecuting counsel should be allowed to say stuff like "and I put it to you Mr/Ms X, that where you say Y, the facts show that Y simply is not true and furthermore you know it not to be true".

Also, if calling people liars is an infringement of their Human Rights, does it then become impossible for courts to be able to try people for offences such as perjury?

As an aside, I can totally see myself saying 'Everything's fine!' while simultaneously panicking that things might not be.

It's almost second nature. If someone asks me 'how are you?' I instantly say 'fine, thanks. Only...'

Similarly, I recall once walking into the room where DS was wailing, and my MIL instantly shouting at me 'Everything's fine! He's fine! He's OK!' while blood was pouring from his face and I hadn't even asked yet.

Again, I'm not saying that's normal and therefore what Pistorius did. But over two phone calls during which the only other sound he could get out was to sob, I can see that reflex being the only thing he'd be able to say.

Come to that, I wonder what magnitude of effort it would take to say the words; 'I shot my girlfriend.'

I'd be interested to see what he said to his cousin.

from the Guardian:

"Nel changes tack and asks Pistorius who should be blamed for Reeva's death. Pistorius answers:

I don't know, my lady. I was scared. My lady, I believed there was a threat that was on my life.

The athlete is asked who should be blamed for the black talon bullets which ripped into her body.

"I don't understand the question," he says.

He can't take responsibility at all.

Clearly he is responsible for Reeva's death - whatever way it happened he is clearly responsible. To say I don't know and I don't understand is such an echo back to the gun firing in his hand but OP didn't touch the trigger. It also makes a mockery of his apology to Reeva's family.

These are the things that have removed me from the fence, into the "he shot her knowingly" camp.

BeCool, I'm wondering even more about the key on the floor given today's testimony. I had assumed, completely erroneously, that he'd beaten he bottom panels out the door.

If they were the top ones, he would have needed to lean over and see right down on the floor. I don't believe that that could have been possible without the lights on.

Are we sure he has testified that he beat the door down with the lights off?

Kick the door, yes, but he then went back for the bat - does he say that he turned the lights on when he came back with the bat?

If so, this would tie in with the idea that Stipp only saw him move across the bathroom window when he was approaching the bathroom door with the bat, which would support the theory that he heard that bat, and support the theory that the voice he heard was Pistorius and not Reeva.

Looking I think I got a bit excited there.

OP also says he saw Reeva through the door - so the light in the bathroom must have been on by this stage.

I think the lights going on situation from OP version is the lights are off when I need them to be and on when I need them to be but I don't know when I turned the lights on - when would be best for me?

I have been moved slightly into the 'maybe it was an accident' side, BeCool.

I was surprised how much the cricket bat sounded like a gun. HOWEVER, please note that I have never heard an actual gun. And the Stipp's house was quite a long way away - it may be that a shot (explosive) carries differently to the impact of a bat. I don't know.

So I'm in the I Don't Know camp really.

The thing is, BeCool, it's one thing that you would think you'd be able to substantiate. Even if he didn't consciously remember flicking the switches, what he was able to see must be able to tell him. When he kicked the door, was he kicking in darkness? Could he see the bullet holes? When he got the bat, was it by feel or by sight. When he used the bat, was he now in the light?

How would Reeva be able to see in the toilet? If there was no light at all? It has been said maybe she used her phone. If that was true and what OP said that her phone was locked and he could not use it, the light would still have been on when OP looked at phone and when police etc. got there.

exactly!! You might not remember switching on the light but surely you can remember what you did in darkness and when you started seeing shots, bullet holes, blood, keys and your dying girlfriend.

Did he find his legs by feeling or seeing? Did he put them on in the darkness? If he put his gun down to put legs on did he see it when he picked it up again, or feel for it?

I will admit I have been fixated on the darkness thing since the very beginning. I find it unbelievable that so much happened in total darkness.

BeCool - my understanding is that the bathroom light worked but not the toilet light.

This explains why she had her phone on her - she didn't want to turn the bathroom light on and then have to do a week with the toilet door open. If she had the phone she could use the light to see and go to the loo without OP hearing (early days of relationships etc etc) by having the loo door shut.

He saw the key because by that time he'd turned the bathroom light on.

I use my phone as a light without entering the unlock code - you get a few seconds - enough.

But yes, another good question. Possibly this is the reason she took her phone to the loo as the light wasn't working and she wasn't prepared to pee with the toilet door open in case OP appeared?

X post

I guess if the screen is bright enough to see what you are doing without using the actual light, you wouldn't need the code. I know my phone wouldn't give enough light without taking the lock off.

She would have had to keep pressing on as she walked to the toilet and whilst in the toilet.

I guess that would add up as to how OP missed her walking past but then also gives to the fact that if OP failed to see her there can't have been enough light?

Nerf I'm interested in why it matters where the rack was.

I think (think) it's because OP says that he thought it was the sound of the magazine rack moving or wood moving that caused him to discharge accidentally his gun. I don't know actually - I'm confusing myself! Anyone else know?

Looking And the Stipp's house was quite a long way away - it may be that a shot (explosive) carries differently to the impact of a bat. I don't know.

This must be crucial to them presenting this as evidence, surely? I'm sure that a cricket bat and gunshot do sound similar if the cricket bat is being hit at close range. But I imagine it's not as many decibels. You don't tend to see cricketers wearing ear defenders...!

I am new to the thread today. I have been reading for a week and have finally decided to join the great debate. To say I am obsessed with the trial is an understatement. I don't watch the trial live because of the time change but follow via twitter and all the online articles. I have to admit I am with armchair detective and believe OP. If I am to believe Nel, I have to believe OP is basically lying about every single thing that happened that night. I am beginning to feel Nel is tailoring the facts to explain Nel's story. He is trying to paint a story that I am having a hard time believing. it is far too big a leap for me to believe OP went from being a loving and supportive boyfriend to RS as indicated in the 1696 text messages between the two to this monster that is capable of purposely shooting her 4 times through a locked door due to a couple arguments. I just can't find the logic in discrediting all the other text messages. Reeva indicated she was being bombarded with hateful text from outside sources that were trying to mess with her head. That would surly put her on the defensive towards him about lots of things. I found these text messages from mid January that didn't seem to get much media attention that explain a lot to me. Here they are:

Dating you comes with sick people trying to fill my head with doubt and I’m learning to trust what is real and safe,” says Steenkamp.

“K baba … xx,” answers Pistorius. “I know you are. I know I’m not the easiest person to understand and I feel like you get me better than I sometimes know myself. You making me so happy and I know we argue from time to time but I think we actually so similar.”

Steenkamp responds that they do have disputes, but that it’s not a serious problem. “Arguments with us are a struggle to find balance inside of new territory for us and trying to do so with a similar language,” she says. “It’s ok to argue about the things we argue about. At least it’s not fundamental values.

“Xx you right my angel.. xx,” answers Pistorius. “You right.. xx

I also find it hard to believe that RS eat at 1am. Why would OP lie about the time they ate dinner? He seems to be quite adamant about the time they ate. Everything must have been okay when RS sent Gina Myers dad a text indicating she was spending the night with Oscar. He spoke to his cousin after they went upstairs for the evening.at aroud 8p. Obviously everything was okay at that time. I am to believe they had not eaten by that time but rather 1a? She was a model and very concerned about her body. I just can't believe she would eat that late at night. Also, if they were having this rip roaring arugment I am to believe she would tell him to "hold that thought" and fix herself some vegetables? That makes no sense to me. Why would he purposely admit that RS took her phone to the bathroom with her. He indicated she dropped it in the toilet and he fished it out to try and call for help but it was password locked. Why would he say that? Why not say that he fumbled with the phone and ended up dropping it in the toilet while trying to phone for help? Why would RS be so concerned about her jeans if she was running for her life? Am I to believe OP was so angry that she needed to get away from him right now but she would take the time to go to the bathroom and worry about putting her jeans on? Why would he bring up the fan story in the first place if it wasn't true? I don't buy the story about the cords not reaching and what not. I find it hard to believe that OP has never used those fans in the bedroom in that position. before that night Why did OP get so emotional when asked about screaming "get the fuck out of my house". Could it be because after figuring out it was Reeva in the bathroom and after having a year to think about it he realized that was the last thing she heard him say. If there was this huge argument and he was angry enough to kill her why was there nothing else in the room or house disturbed? If he was so pissed and she needed to get away from him by putting a door between them why stand so close to the door? Why is it so difficult to believe that she was standing by the door so she could hear what was going on in the other room after hearig an intruder was in the house? I have not heard any solid proof an argument ever took place in the first place. People are putting a lot of faith in the people that have testified about what they heard that night. I I would like to share some snippits from the stenographer feed regarding a hint of what neighbors on either side of OP had to say about what they heard. I have to believe Roux will put them on the stand.

Roux: I then want to take you to photo 120. OP, we are going to deal with the state witnesses not dealt with by the state.

Roux: Then the house next to your house is the neighbour.

OP: That is correct, my lady. I know him as Kenny.

Roux: He also makes note to his statement that he heard crying and not screaming. Please can you explain to the court your relationship with this person.

OP: I know them as Mike, my neighbour.

Roux: Okay, now if we look at the neighbour on the other side of your house.

Roux: Could you demonstrate on the photo where your bathroom window is to his bedroom windo

OP: They are on the same side.
Roux: Do you know his wife?
OP: I have met his wife, they got married a couple of years ago. I met her on a brief interaction between myself and him.

OP: I know them as Mike, my neighbour.

Roux: We know from there statements, that she woke up for a noise. She heard loud crying and not a woman screaming.

Roux: Do you know the lady that works for Dr and Mrs. Stipp?
OP: No, my lady.
Roux: She, is her statement is to be believed heard loud crying and not a woman screaming.
I am not convinced that things in the bedroom weren't moved around. I am not saying intentionally but with the police being under trained and sloppy I could certainly see it happen. We saw pictures of the flip flops and gym bag in multiple different positions. The one cop said he looked inside of the bag or some such thing. There is a cop picking up the gun without a glove, Detective Botha who himself has been charged with the attempted murder of 7 people and a police officer with a moral compass so screwed up they would steal a watch from a crime scene. That does not make for a rock solid case for the crime scene not being tampered with.

Just one last thing that seems very important to this case is that the man is a double amputee from below the knee. I put myself in his position and things seem a lot more terrifying when something goes bump in the night.

I am very sorry about the length. I could go on but I am sure you are all tired of my ramblings by now. Just food for thought.

Aside from how did he SEE the key on the toilet floor, how did he REACH IN to retrieve it from the floor in order to open the door?