Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 5

[Roussette]

Time for a new thread - Part 4 nearly full

I am sure june steenkamp wishes her daughter was anywhere however awful rather than dead. so I agreed both Arnold and Oscar have been crass saying this.

I think this article is a good outline of South African law as it relates to murder.

Talking of SA prisons, I didn't actively search for this, but I found this today, via a link from something else.

playboy.co.za/take-a-number

In effect I'd say they are fighting for his life.

RE the not presenting more evidence...

Does this mean that if someone new came forward with definite evidence that lights were on when OP said they weren't, they still wouldn't be able to present it?

Maybe if it was a witness they didn't know about, but while that kind of thing happens on the tv, I'm not sure if they could do it even then.

I expect they could use it for an appeal though.

I was thinking about the Soham murders and how at the end of the trial when Ian Huntley was found guilty we were told the circumstances of the murders and exactly what had been found to have taken place, even though IH was the only one present who was still alive. It seems hard to imagine at the moment that at the end of the OP trial we will hear a definitive account of exactly what took place that night in the same way. So I'm thinking he'll be more likely to be found guilty of culpable homicide than murder.

Underthepalms I don't think we will either and we will never know why they argued (if indeed they did). That's why I get a bit annoyed at some of the more lurid speculation here, because I see it as pointless and never ending. Even if he's convicted of murder we won't be any the wiser as to what really happened.

Personally I too think he'll be find guilty of ch and they will have to give him a custodial sentence, even though people sometimes don't get them for that offence. I think they will bend over backwards to prove he isn't getting special treatment because of who he is and I've thought that from day one.

So glad then phone thing has been cleared up!

Am shocked that anyone would say he 'wanted to avoid publicity'. How the hell did anyone (including OP) think he would avoid publicity over something like this?

' I think they will bend over backwards to prove he isn't getting special treatment because of who he is and I've thought that from day one.'

Really?

'Personally I too think he'll be find guilty of ch and they will have to give him a custodial sentence, even though people sometimes don't get them for that offence. I think they will bend over backwards to prove he isn't getting special treatment because of who he is and I've thought that from day one.,

Sorry, I didn't quote the whole thing.

Really?!

Do you think, from the evidence presented, that he is guilty of CH?

In which case, doesn't that mean he should get a custodial sentence, regardless of how other people may have been sentenced?

Or perhaps you think the circumstances of the CH mean he was somehow justified?

Louise

regarding the door we have no idea what Nel will say in summing up
I think that he left the evidence deliberately open
He agreed that some of the evidence pointed to there having been a shot fired through the door and the bat being used after that

I know that you feel that this matter is closed but I don't
I am disinterested if you are tetchy or not, we all have our stuff going on

StackALee I think he is guilty of what we would call "manslaughter" in England. (they call it ch in Scotland.) I've said all along that I don't think he knew it was Reeva in the loo.

I'm not saying he shouldn't get a custodial sentence but that sometimes people don't get one if they are convicted of ch. There sees to be a certain inconsistency in sentencing and also in charging.

And no of course I don't think he was "justified" but I can understand that someone might behave like that in a panic. Presumably any mitigating circumstances - fear, disability, etc, will be taken into account by the judge when sentencing (if he is convicted of ch).

I thin he will be found guilty of premeditated murder, and that he knew it was Reeva.

All the blaming of everyone but himself will not have gone in his favour.

Why would the police have reconstructed the murder scene prior to photographing it?? What would they have hoped to achieve by moving the duvet and the jeans and why would they have added blood to make the scene convincing? Just WHY?

Why say things were fine to security after aborting a call to them.
Why say he was advised to take her to hospital himself?
Why call his friend Stander (he was only the site amin)?
Why the plastic bags and rope?
Why try to discredit Dr Stipps attempt to help?
Why didn't either OP or Stander call an ambulance until Dr Stipp told them to?
Why did Stander use OP's phone to call an ambulance?
Why did Standers wife say to avoid this getting into the papers?

Add this to all the other discrepancies and I don't think his claims about imagining a burglar/intruder stand up at all.

I was thinking that because we may never know for sure what happened and who he thought was behind the door that they might not convict him of murder, but maybe they will regardless of who he thought it was.

Those things look suspicoous YNK, but he could have done them in horror after realising it was Reeva and not a burglar

YNK, all of those things can be explained with the panic etc.

Why would the police have reconstructed the murder scene prior to photographing it??

The crime scene photos show that at least the jeans were moved (and turned the other way around). This is a fact.

Why say things were fine to security after aborting a call to them.
OP says he said “I’m okay”. Don’t forget that Pieter Baba who said that, couldn’t even remember who rang whom first and he said that OP was crying really badly. Maybe – just maybe – he couldn’t speak which is why he hung up? He must have known they'd call back

Why say he was advised to take her to hospital himself?
Perhaps Netcare didn’t realise how badly she was injured?

Why call his friend Stander (he was only the site amin)?
Because he was the closest person OP knew and he wanted help?

Why the plastic bags and rope?
Ask Miss Stander - allegedly it was her idea

Why try to discredit Dr Stipps attempt to help?
I think OP expected/hoped the doctor would do more – Dr Stipp said OP had already done a lot.

Why didn't either OP or Stander call an ambulance until Dr Stipp told them to?
OP had already rung Netcare and obviously everyone was in a panic. Can you imagine turning up at someone's house and finding that horrific scene

Why did Stander use OP's phone to call an ambulance?
Maybe he left his at home in the rush? Perhaps his testimony will explain it Why does this matter?

Why did Standers wife say to avoid this getting into the papers?
No idea. It does seem a stupid thing to say but she said it, not OP

Was there ever any reasons given for the damage to OP's prosthetics?

Ok Louise explain what the police would have to gain by moving the large fan from where OP said he placed it, then moving the duvet onto the floor where the fan should have been and finally spattering Reevas blood onto the floor and carpet to match the fact they had been there all along?
Just why and who could have possibly gained from that?

YNK, It's not a question of having anything to gain, it may well be incompetence and I'm not sure exactly where the blood stains were other than on the duvet and the wall. Since we know for a fact that they did at least move the jeans then it's possible that they could have moved other things.

I have seen it said on this forum that the photographer said he moved the duvet in order to photograph it (not necessarily onto the floor, I accept). Why, for example, do they appear to have trodden on the loo door? Why didn't Botha wear protective covers on his shoes? They don't seem to be very good at preserving the crime scene.

Also don't you think that if OP was calculating enough - as has been suggested upthread and I suspect you think he was - to register calls to Netcare and security to bolster his story, that he would have been bright enough to shift the duvet and fan to somewhere that would help his story, not hinder it? We know he went upstairs at one point - he certainly had the opportunity.

Ronald what damage, specifically? Every article I've read about OP (from the past I mean, not about the case) refers to his battered (and at one point, burnt) prosthetics.

Nerf, of course his family are going to try to save him from prison but for Uncle Arnold to use the term 'saving a life' to June Steenkamp, whose child no longer has a life, was insensitive in the extreme. I think OP and hid family see him as the victim.

No Louise the blood droplets on the carpet and duvet matched, showing the duvet was in that position when the blood was shed onto them.
As for the jeans I am unconvinced as they were inside out not in keeping with Reevas tidy nature, but nevertheless the position of both them and the duvet (also the large fan) would have been in the way of OP's journey to shout from the balcony as he claims. It would also scupper his story of the duvet being on the bed which caused him to think she might still be there! Although why she would still be there after all the commotion is anyones guess!

I have checked on the evidence about the toilet door and it seems that only one bullet hole shows the deviation in the splintering by the bat strikes. Therefore the bat could have been the source of the first bangs heard by the Stipps and could have also broken the top of the door panel sufficiently to allow the light in the toilet as seen by them. (why do I allow myself to be persuaded to discount my original opinion, doh!).

Both the Stipps and the Bergers said they heard a woman screaming in terror after the first round of bangs. The screams only stopped after the final sequence of bangs.
Incidentally this would also explain why Reeva was still spurting arterial blood as she was being carried downstairs (more credible still if OP already had on his prosthetic legs). The pathologist said she would only have been able to take a couple of breaths following the head wound. OP confirmed himself that she didn't appear to be breathing! Arterial blood spurt would have stopped only once the blood circulation to the head ceased due to her no longer having enough oxygen to her brain to maintain a heartbeat.

I am still looking at other aspects of the case and there are many unanswered but baffling pieces of evidence, such as the jeans with the thin white belt which were on the ground outside the bathroom window. Also the missing watch with Reevas blood on the remaining box. We may never get the answers to some of these.
ATM I am looking at OP's claims about his terror of intrusion given what we know about his relaxed attitude to security that night.
Why would he say he didn't know if Reeva could disable the alarm, when she would have had to do so when she arrived before him earlier that evening, and indeed on other occasions when she was there without him. He claims to have switched off the alarm before going to open the front door for security and the Standers.... why when it would have supported his earlier cries for help?

Was there ever information given about what the bad thing that had happened to Pistorius during his meeting that day?

I was surprised his prosthetics were so beaten up

All the duvet evidence goes to show how much more unlikely Pistorius's version of events is.
It builds to indicate that maybe the intruder whose life he intended to end was already known to him

Pistorius clearly agrees that the intruder had no way to leave the toilet
A noise made Pistorius shoot four times at waist height into the tiny toilet.
He intended to kill when he took off the safety and pulled the trigger a number of times
He didn't fire a warning shot
He didn't wait for the police/armed security minutes away
The intruder couldn't exit.
Pistorius made the choice to end a life when he had many choices open to him

He then never checked for the ladder.
Never.

"No Louise the blood droplets on the carpet and duvet matched"

You are presumably saying that the carpet has blood spatter except where the duvet is lying? I don't remember Nel making that point even though I watched his cross examination although he did spend a lot of time on the duvet. So you are saying the photographer was wrong when he said he moved it?

"( more credible still if OP already had on his prosthetic legs)"

So you think he had his legs on when he shot her? Again you disagree with the forensics? But you agree with the forensics regarding the blood?

Sorry you are unconvinced re the jeans but the police's own photos show them inside out in one photo then the right way around in another. This was pointed out in court. Perhaps you could explain how that could happen, other than police intervention?

I'm not sure of your point about the watch, everyone else seems pretty certain that it was taken by someone on the police team.

My understanding is that Michelle Burger said she heard screaming followed by 4 shots. Her husband said he was woken by screaming, then heard 5 or 6 shots. He also said he got out of bed when he heard the screaming, at which point his wife woke up. In the transcripts I've read they don't seem refer to two separate sets of shots but I haven't listen to their actual testimony for a few weeks . I am aware that the Stipps do mention two sets of bangs.

"He claims to have switched off the alarm before going to open the front door for security and the Standers.... why when it would have supported his earlier cries for help?"

I don't really understand your last point - why would it have supported his cries for help?

I know Reeva arrived about ten minutes before OP but do we know for a fact that she actually went into the house ahead of him or did she wait outside in her car? Did she have a key to the house after only three months?

"Therefore the bat could have been the source of the first bangs heard by the Stipps and could have also broken the top of the door panel sufficiently to allow the light in the toilet as seen by them"

I'm afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I think it highly unlikely and would have expected the prosecution to pursue such a point if it was remotely feasible.