Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 5

[Roussette]

Time for a new thread - Part 4 nearly full

I'm wondering if Reeva did actually die in OP's arms, or if she had actually died in the toilet, but as he was moving her, gas was escaping and sounding like breaths. When moving a dead body they often make noises and sounds like breathing.

Going by the photo shown on sky by mistake the first day of OP's cross examination by the prosecution, I'd be very much surprised if she was alive for more than a few seconds after the shooting

She was alive after leaving the toilet.....just!

Evidence of Nest (blood spatter expert) - 2 spurts of arterial blood in the hallway.

Evidence of Dr Stipp - he arrived to see OP had his fingers in RS's mouth and RS had clamped down on his fingers. (it is a phenomenon seen at the point of death).

Good morning all.
I have a clip which has been discussed favourably on DS. I think this is well worth a look before the case resumes.

The last part of the defense will relate to OP's vulnerability, in order to explain OP's performance in court and this is discussed here in terms of a possible brain injury caused during the boating accident.
I have my own views atm, but maybe the neurologist will convince me that OP suffers from 'diexecutive syndrome' (sp?) which is a type of brain damage.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysexecutive_syndrome

Wow good call from defense (if used!)

but he only suffered facial injury didn't he? To his nose, eye etc.

Not a brain injury?

Did I read someone say he was in a coma? is this true?

oh hang on - an induced coma.

in all the interviews I can find with him where he talks about the injuries, PRE-shooting, he definitely only talks about the impact it had on his face not his brain. Also about how quickly he was able to come back from the injury to compete in major competitions.

he won two golds in manchester.

He'd have to prove that his behaviour has changed since the accident.

I think he would have to do more than that, he would have to prove that he had a brain injury.

Presumably his doctors would be able to provide that evidence but if it were the case would they have seriously allowed him to enter competitions so soon after?

It's not official though, I have only heard it discussed by the judge in the clip I gave.

I still think it's a long shot even if they do go down this route but worth a try. I don't think he stands a chance without it tbh.

^ suggestion of something akin to "diminished responsibility" sits uncomfortably with me, unless there is reason to / has been reason to suspect this condition and he has been investigated / tested / monitored and it is legitimate to suggest it, and not just a chance to "try it on". Of course, this is the defence, so it's all worth trying....?

I would suggest that executive dysfunction will be hard to prove but I haven't seen him pre and post this incident
Unless it has been an ongoing diagnosis it will be harder to assess but I would suggest that ED would have been the beginning of the Defence case

They cannot introduce it ow anyway, given that his defence is mistaken identity?

Isn't his defence more that he was scared, that he thought it was an intruder but even so he don't know how it happened that he fired four times, that it happened almost without him being aware but was triggered by him being in a state of extreme fear and panic..?

His defence is Putative Self Defence - that he was mistaken about his need for self defence.

Here is a high profile case in SA where a similar defence was put forward but rejected, although notably, the defendant didn't testify:en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_v_De_Oliveira

However, in the De Oliveira case, the defendant was convicted of culpable homicide, not murder.

Regarding the arterial blood spray, and please don't bite my head off I am not a simpleton regarding biology/medicine, but which artery would the blood be spraying from?

As I understand it the first shot was to the right hip, this could well have punctured the femoral artery, but if this is the case surely Reeva would have bled to death before OP broke down the door?

The second shot that hit Reeva was deemed to be in her right arm, so again the radial artery in her arm could have been severed, but again surely she would have bled to death very quickly?

The final shot to her head went in above her right eye(?) and then out of the back of her head, I am guessing that this would have severed her temporal artery, is this where the spray came from?

If the last one is where the spray came from, the timeline does seem a bit off because as I remember after OP fired the four shots he returned to the bedroom, looked for Reeva, opened the balcony doors, shouted for help, put his prosthetics on, then went back to the bathroom and attempted to kick open the door, returned to the bedroom to get the cricket bat, bashed the door in, opened the door and then dragged Reeva out, attempted to use her phone, returned to the bedroom and got his phone, ran downstairs and opened the front door, and then carried Reeva downstairs, that is an awful lot to do within a short timeframe. Did OP at any point during this searching etc., say he put lights on?

I think part of OP's version is the truth, but he is definitely hiding something, I think he has invented part of what happened that night and has embellished it to countermand the testimony of some of the Prosecution witnesses.

I still cannot believe that Reeva got out of bed and went to the bathroom with her phone to light the way and he didn't see her, they were both awake and he was up faffing with fans and jeans, if Reeva got up to go to the loo she would have just put a light on, why would she wander about using her phone as a torch, he was up she didn't need to worry about disturbing him?

Prosecution witnesses are sure lights were on.

I like your summary of OP's timeline, emotions.

Where I get stuck is the 9min from the last breath to the point of death. I just cannot see him managing all he claims in that time.

The only reasonable conclusion that would fit the 9mins is that the second group of bangs is the gunshots and not the first bangs as OP claims, therefore all that faffing about must be a fabrication.

I think the brain damage suggestion would come into play as mitigation if OP is found guilty of either murder or CH.

I'd be very interested to see whether mitigation due to brain damage would be given any weight since there has been no suggestion of any brain injury sustained during the accident. YNK I watched that clip you linked to yesterday with the legal discussion, it was good so thanks for that. I as is the way with Youtube then went on to watch another clip from that series and they had a good little section on why certain questions weren't asked by Nel, with the experts saying that he would have determined that issues such as the flushing of the toilet would have been seen not to present anything that would help the State's case.

emotions - interesting summary. What would be your version of events then, given that you think Reeva would have bled to death sooner if OP had done all he claimed? Has any testimony been given by witnesses so far regarding the likeliness or otherwise of Reeva having bled to death before OP would have been able to carry her around in his version?

Also I remember OP testifying that he sat with her body for some time - after breaking down the door. He didn't know how long but he didn't drag her out immediately and he testified at this point she wasn't breathing, though he said later she was still alive at a later point.

It's interesting because I feel that it sort of shows up weaknesses in an adversarial system of trial, because there are a lot of "neutral" questions that don't get asked that might actually be useful to know the answers to. There might quite a number of things that Nel is not asking because he is not sure what the answer from OP would be and whether it could be potentially damaging, likewise with Roux. But if the judge or someone asked those questions they may actually throw some further light on the case.

The blood expert reported the arterial spray on the stair so she was alive (just) on the stairs. Call to netcare at bottom of stairs by witnesses at 3.28.

The fatal shot struck less than 9 minutes before that. Last bang heard by 5 witnesses at 3.17.

Sorry to keep repeating this, but it is absolutely solid evidence.

Sorry, voice, I've just seen your question.

No there is no evidence from anyone that she died earlier.

She could not have produced enough arterial pressure on the stair if she had died earlier. Also the cadaver clench (identified by Dr Stipp) was witnessed by several people. This happens at the point of death.

Yes, I wasn't meaning to dispute when she died, more that there was another thing to fit into the timeline according to OP - that he sat over her in the toilet for an undetermined length of time, before trying to move her.

Forgive my idiocy, are you suggesting then that the first set of bangs weren't the gun shots? I thought testimony seemed quite conclusive that the shits to the door preceded the bat marks, and that the first noises heard were louder than the second set of bangs?

*shots