Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 6

[Roussette]

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

"Now Dr Burger heard arguing at 1.58am. pmsl."

I think it was Mrs van der Merwe but you can still laugh Springy

I also don't know why OP would lie about the light being off

OK, this is where I get into conjecture. So apologies in advance.

This is, in my mind, similar to his issue of where the gun is. If he kept the lights off and had the gun in his hand, then this supports his assertion that he thought there was an intruder in the house. This work in his favour.

If he left the gun in the bathroom and turned the lights on immediately, this perhaps suggests that at this point, he knew or strongly suspected it was actually Reeva.

As to challenging the witnesses, I don't know, I can't say. Other than to suggest that he's implying they didn't see or hear quite what they thought.

I can't remember when he says the lights went on. Did he break the door down in the dark? If so, then yes, it's utterly strange that he'd make that up. If he broke the door down with the lights on, then I think that's what he says they saw.

Looking your line about turning the light on means the intruder can see you is exactly the argument my DH uses, my riposte is that the light suddenly coming on will disorientate him, now what I would do whilst he is disorientated I've no idea.

I completely agree with the rest of your post being a light turner on myself.

I'm wary of putting too much detail on here, but I listened to an audo tape of a 999 call where someone was breaking into a house, the MO of that particular intruder was to cut the electric to the property and when the lights went out the sheer terror in that woman's voice was horrendous.

I was laughing Louise only because of who had posted that comment,

"I was thinking about people's differing views on this case and wonder how much of it comes down to how feasible people find the 'story' compared to their own experience."

Bonnie this is so true. People with experience of DV are very much inclined to see it in this case. I, having experienced something similar to OP's story (minus a gun!) know how utterly terrifying it is and that it is quite possible you would do things in that situation that most people would find strange.

Even if we try not to do this, it's is hard not to.

And Mrs Van der Merwe didn't hear "arguing", I thought.

Rather she heard a woman's voice talking, like arguing.

Not quite the same thing.

But I am enjoying this poster's total randomness

I was chatting to someone earlier in real life (!) who works in mental health and thinks OP is guilty, knew it was Reeva and is a psychopath. Obviously not any kind of professional diagnosis, and the conversation was just chit chat, it was just interesting to hear how OP had come across to someone with a different career to mine.

Totally not what the thread's talking about, sorry! And I hate mumsnet diagnoses.

I think the thing is, Emotions, that I can see the sense of both scenarios (though favour dark-creeping myself). So it all really depends on what Oscar and Reeva usually did.

Although... this is somewhere else where I struggle with Pistorius' testimony. Just minutes before, he claimed the room was black as pitch - so dark he couldn't reliable see Reeva in the bed a few feet away.

He then got his gun, and proceeded to where he thought the sound came from. In pitch dark. Now, I can see why he didn't want the intruder to see him, but at that point, he's got a wall between him and them, they've got a clear get out route (the window) and by leaving it pitch black, he runs the risk of them stumbling over each other in the dark. That strikes me as being particularly dangerous.

My 'leave the lights off' scenario works in my house because there's a fair amount of ambient light. I can see a shape in a room, and I'd put the light levels at 'murky'. And I still occasionally walk into the doorframe. His was utterly pitch black, because he couldn't see Reeva.

The other thing I wonder about, in a pure conjecture way, because I don't know, is whether the bullet pattern suggests that there was more light than he's letting on. I've never shot a gun in my life, but I can imagine in a situation where you knew there was someone somewhere, but couldn't see enough to be sure, wouldn't you shoot over a wider area? His four bullet holes are quite tightly together.

So then were at a point where it was so desperately pitch black that he couldn't see Reeva from a few feet away, but there was enough light in the bathroom for him to know for sure where the toilet door was, without any guessing or honing in or needing to adjust his angle at all.

I'm not saying that's impossible - he might have been way better at room layouts than me, and might have better sound location and all that. I'm just saying, in my head, when I imagine it, I always imagine a murky light at that point - not pitch darkness.

page13 Pistorius heard a wood moving sound
page 9 wooden door frame wooden sound

I don't think Pistorius said that he heard the door lock or unlock

Louise I think it is nigh on impossible for people not to apply their own experiences onto the evidence they hear in this case and most people who have done that expressed it in a measured fashion, when it veers off into wild speculation that bears no resemblance to the actual evidence or cannot be supported by the evidence presented is when it becomes difficult.

Looking, did he not say, and did Dixon not also say, that the light in the actual bathroom was less dark than in the bedroom - no curtains and blinds up?

That would make a lot of sense, Springy. Like I say, my recollection of what the light was like (other than the pitch black bedroom) is hazy.

For the record, I have been on the receiving end of DV and didn't see it in this case.

If I hear a noise, I pull the duvet over my head and try not to breathe. I wouldn't put the light on

Again we keep focussing on the story that OP tells as fact and trying to pick holes in that
I agree that there are inconsistencies in OP's evidence but I guess my point is that maybe none of what he has said on that evening is true except for that which can be genuinely verified
Shots fired
Food eaten
Ear witnesses
Phone records

We have no idea if the lights were off or if Ms Steenkamp ever had her phone in the toilet with her
That is all part of his version of a story to show that OP might have mistaken her for an intruder

all very mindswirling for someone of my limited intelligence

Looking yes I find the whole pitch black scenario difficult to believe as well.

I actually have pretty good night vision and can navigate myself round pretty well in the dark, but I still turn lights on.

“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? “

Voice the phone records prove that he did ring 911/Netcare. I think he was on the line for 66 seconds.

Looking, in the past on several occasions (following a burglary) I thought I heard someone in the flat in the middle of the night and got up and had a look. However on the one occasion I really was convinced there was someone there, I hid under the bed.

Oh and I see to remember OP said during testimony that he didn’t remember when he actually put the bathroom light on, but that it was on by the time he used the cricket bat.

Ronald- maybe he said door opening and I've remembered lock opening. I can't remember why this was important - is it because it was the prompt for him to fire.

Nerf

it is important because a noise of wood in the toilet was apparently why at that point he fired 4 bullets into the toilet

in the toilet there was a magazine rack, a wooden toilet seat, a shonky door frame and a door itself
he fired four bullets although he admitted that the door handle would have to move before anyone could exit the toilet
he admitted that the toilet door handle never moved

therefore he shouted to the intruder or intruders to get out
then fired 4 bullets at a wood noise from in the toilet

what chance would the intruder have had to leave?
leap from the window without making a wood noise on the toilet seat or in opening the toilet window
leap from the window without moving the magazine rack
sitting down on the toilet lid
standing on the toilet lid
leaning against the door

the point is there was no chance for the intruder to leave
a wood noise had him fire 4 bullets into that tiny toilet

Springy I know

all very mindswirling for someone of my limited intelligence

I'm with you there Ronald

I think the motivation for picking holes in OP's version is that he should be innocent until proven guilty. So it follows I suppose, that we should be trying to ascertain whether what he claims happened is possible, since he is the only eye witness.

Looking - I think you raise a good point in that in your mind's eye it is murky lighting in that eventuality, not pitch black. When I have thought there is an intruder, I have lay awake utterly silent until I convince myself that I know what the noise was that I heard (luckily for me touch wood it has always been a false alarm).

Louise - well there you go re. the 911 call. How are we supposed to trust these links put forward when they open with paragraphs like these:

"To begin with, when he finally was convinced to do so, the former track star called 911. We haven’t heard a recording of the 911 telephone call, but let’s take Oscar’s word for it that the 911 dispatcher told HIM to take Reeva to the hospital, OK? How likely is that? Ask any 911 operator. So that, atop all other lies, is the first one. In point of fact, there was no 911 call made by the correctly accused."

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

but that it was on by the time he used the cricket bat.

This also makes sense - thank you. And it ties in with him suggesting that the witnesses who saw the lights on saw him enter the bathroom with the bat.

I understand that he might not remember precisely when he turned the light on - the action of flicking a switch is pretty instinctive - but he must surely have known whether he put his legs/socks on or picked up the bat in the dark?

Even if he was able to work backwards and say 'it was on when I looked for the bat, so I must have turned it on before then...'

Ronald, I don't think I disagree with you at all. I'm confused as to how we appear to be conflicted - I think my inept original posts were trying to say that!

Even if he was able to work backwards...

Isn't that one thing that somebody who is lying finds it very difficult to do..?

Voice I am pretty sure it was the prosecution that gave the timeline for phone calls.

Despite assertions to the contrary, OP called Netcare (911) right after he called Johan Stander.

This was presented in court as part of the phone records (unless anyone cares to tell me I am wrong about that)

So comments about him either not phoning, or being reluctant to phone emergency services are unhelpful.

As are "amazing" links that start off with that premise