Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 6

[Roussette]

here is Part 5 but we are ready (nearly) for a new one.

Oh heck, I will try and reply to all the questions.

Firstly, (as I have already said) No link Springy because......
OP did NOT say a time for the first bangs that he claims were the gunshots, BUT it does tally with Mrs Stipps assertion of just after 3am (she DID look at the clock) otherwise he would not have had time for all the actions he claims to have undertaken before the second set of bangs heard by 5 neighbours (or was it 6, not sure about Dr Johnstone) at 3.17.

Secondly, (as I have already said)
He NEEDS to be thinking as this is what he has instructed Roux is his defense. He nearly blew it by claiming he was not, ie not aware of his actions, which would make his defense something else entirely. Roux confirmed this with him afterwards ie he was THINKING.
He told Nel he was thinking, changed his mind and then it was confirmed by Roux that he WAS thinking. He cannot have it both ways.
It would be suicidal for him to change or muddy the waters regarding his defense at this point and he realised it when challenged by both Nel and Roux.

Voice, Michelle Berger did not hear the first bangs. She heard arguing at 1.58 and tried to get back to sleep, but was woken again by screams then heard the second set of bangs.

Springy the blood was not analysed. There was no need to. RS was the only one bleeding.

Ok sorry I have not got around to the timeline of calls. I have one last dog to take out so maybe someone could look back and check if I have already done it. If not I promise I will do it once I am in again.

Yes, Bonnie, I would imagine if a defence advocate realises that their client is a liar, that they have a professional duty to withdraw.

As an avid Law & Order SVU viewer

Vaguely off topic, but I was thinking about how difficult it must be with so many languages in play. I vaguely recall (but I think via a newspaper) that there had been some issues with interpreters not being as precise as they'd like.

I had to translate a contract once, and my UK solicitor had a real go that two particular UK terms were translated into the same term. We had a nuance that didn't exist in Spain, and she got really upset when they couldn't differentiate (my solicitor is a bit of an interesting character, it's true).

I thought it again with the 'flung open the curtains' from Nel which Pistorius corrected to 'parted the curtains' and Nel conceded the point. They are two different things, but you'd have to know clearly.

It brings a whole extra level of trickiness to the proceedings (in my opinion, as a monoglot.)

Thanks Roussette.

Wow, I wish I was as knowledgable to know what had taken place in OP's room over the previous week to the shooting.

Actually, yes I am rising. YNK, please don't put yourself out finding stuff for me. I can quite easily go on DS myself and read people's opinions,

Please ignore my posts, because really I place no importance or relevance on your's. Just so we're clear, and all

And Animation, if you feel you need to step in at this point, please don't bother. You are equally irrelevant

Oh and btw, Nel is very shrewd, don't fall for his bumbling Inspector Clussoue act (sp? Peter Sellers, Pink Panther... you know who I mean!).

Fuck me. Now Dr Burger heard arguing at 1.58am. pmsl.

Interesting YNK and yes OP did at one point go down the route of saying it was an involuntary action and he wasn't thinking. Thing is... you can't have it both ways can you.

1. It just happened, it might have been my finger on the trigger but it was an involuntary reaction because I was scared

or

1. I was scared and I was thinking I have to stop this burglar and protect Reeva.

Do you know, I think Mumsnet has a high proportion of educated and intelligent women who post on various threads.

It is ever so patronising to tell posters what they should be thinking, what they shouldn't forget, what they should remember.

YNK - did they clear that up though? (re. his defense) I remember that he got into difficulty when he started to say that he fired without thinking and Nel was tripping him up by reminding him that his defence is that he fired because he thought he was under attack himself.

My own opinion is that when really pushed on this precise issue, he is starting to think about the potential charge of culpable homicide and trying to dig himself out of THAT hole as well. That's where I think so many people lose whatever shreds of respect they may have had for him - he's so busy trying to deny all charges laid at his door that he may well scupper himself completely.

Voice yes absolutely. He wants to be innocent of all charges and way back on a previous thread I read a link on something about OP and 'involuntary' reaction. don't ask me to find it, haven't a clue where!

AmI, don't rise to it

Someone upthread said we are looking at this through the point of view as to what we would/would not do and I totally agree. Whereas some posters would take their phone to the toilet in the night, I wouldn't I just put the light on, DH doesn't take a phone or put the light on which explains the noise he makes trying to be quiet!

DH is away at the moment and the other night one of the cats was making weird, creepy noises that sounded like someone rattling the door and the first thing I did before investigating was turn the light on, I like to know what I'm facing even if it's just a ball of fluff with a smug look on it's face.

springy you can bet Animation will be along shortly!

That was me saying that emotion, it's funny isn't it, as I find it as barmy you turning the light on as you would find me using my phone as the light. I'm sure those kind of things have got to influence our overall view.

Your second point is interesting as I think when I've thought in the past that there was a burglar I've gone round turning all the lights on. Although I'm not sure I've ever really thought that if you see what I mean. And I don't have a gun....

emotion

On that front, I do find it bloody hard to believe that his version took place almost entirely in the dark. I cannot fathom - if it was so unbelievably dark - why he would continue to stumble around in such difficult conditions - especially since he supposedly thought there was an intruder to deal with. Putting the light on is the first thing I would think of doing.

Marking place....

This link is amazing...someone has created an excel spreadsheet. of his testimony!

warrenlevine.wordpress.com/2014/05/03/op9/

If I hear a noise in the night, I wake DH and make him go and check. On account of being a massive wuss. He usually leaves the light off to do so, but our house is on a main road and well lit by streetlights. We have the bathroom light on all night too, because the children like some light in the house at night, and it's the least obtrusive one.

Thinking about it, none of the 6 lightbulbs in the hallway work at the moment anyhow. This is because they're stupidly hard to reach and stupidly expensive spotlight bulbs and the house just isn't dark enough to need them.

They haven't worked for years now.

Looking at that link though, the first thing that he asserts is that OP was lying when he said he phoned 911. Now SURELY that would be able to be proved to be demonstrably true? I do agree with a lot of his subsequent points - one in particular I remember thinking at the time was really dodgy for OP was him changing his version from 'went out onto the balcony' to 'reached out to the balcony'. Clearly the first is much better for him, but I think in hindsight he may have realised that the cords wouldn't stretch that far and so he needed to change his story...

Interesting Looking. Although given that OP's story is that he WAS terrified, do you think that would make him more likely to turn them on than your clearly hard as nails DH?

Gun free here too Bonnie!

I too wonder about all the things OP said he did in the dark, surely when he thought it might be Reeva he would have put the bedroom light on and not scrabble about in the dark trying to find her, or his socks.

Looking it's normally DH who hears stuff and I push him out to investigate, he's creeping about in the dark, in his mind trying to surprise imaginary intruder, and I'm saying "just put the bloody light on!!" which kind of gives the game away.

given that OP's story is that he WAS terrified, do you think that would make him more likely to turn them on than your clearly hard as nails grin DH?

The thing about turning a light on early on, is that it means any intruder can see you too.

These are just random thoughts, but you know the layout of your house, and are substantially better at navigating that than an intruder (assuming they haven't been there a number of times). If you turn on a light, you lose all that advantage.

But that's not necessarily relevant to the case here. I'm just saying, I can see why people instinctively keep the light off.

Actually, I remember a brilliant episode of 911 or somesuch US reality cop show. The 911 call was a terrified woman, cowering in her cloakroom, because she'd come home and found an intruder in the hallway. She was whispering in the phone replay, and deliberately kept the light off so she could hide. The police came in, called out, flashed a torch around, and discovered the dressmaker's mannequin that her mother had dropped around. They said she did exactly the right thing, and these things happen, so it's perhaps not that unusual, and perhaps there is an instinct to hide in the dark.

What I will say is that I find it utterly bizarre that the lights were still off at the point he's looking for his socks. I can't work out why he'd do that at all.

And, coming back to the intruder/layout of the house thing, given that Reeva hadn't stayed there all that often, I find it utterly bizarre that she didn't turn the bathroom light on, given that she didn't know the layout as well, and she had seen that Pistorius was already awake.

Stupid a point as this might seem, but I'd really like to know where the bathroom lightswitch was. How many times would one or the other of them have to walk past without turning it on? If it's on the passage wall, then the amount of time OP says it was dark is just strange. I can see it if the bathroom light is out by the bedroom door.

The only reason I can think of that she wouldn't turn the light on is if she was used to the dark and didn't want to face the glare of a light. If I wake up in the night to go to the loo I rarely turn any light on despite not affecting anybody else because I don't want to be woken up any more than I have to!

Looking - I also don't know why OP would lie about the light being off (according to eye witness testimonies) because it's a very distinct thing for witnesses to notice.

I think when I've thought in the past that there was a burglar I've gone round turning all the lights on.

If you think the person is outside, trying to gain entry, then putting the lights on is by far the most sensible thing to do. It quite clearly points out that there are people awake inside, so bugger off, Buster.

It's a deterrent. If you genuinely think someone's already inside, then that perhaps changes things. By turning lights on, if they haven't got a clear escape route, then you're almost forcing a confrontation.

I think, on balance, if I think someone's inside, then I don't desperately want them to know that I've seen them.

Dr Burger woke up by either a) hearing bloodcurdling screams or b) her husband getting out of bed - depending on whether you believe her testimony, or her husband's

If she was genuinely woken over an hour earlier to the sounds of argument, I would love it if some kind MNer could provide a link. thank you