Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 8

[Roussette]

here is Number 7.

I found it interesting that Roux was arguing the scene had been tampered with but he couldn't explain how the blood splatter on the duvet and carpet matched if that was the case. He just ignored it.

But he's only going to say stuff that helps Oscar isn't he? He's there for the defence not to present an impartial assessment of the situation. Nel presents the state case, the judge makes the impartial assessment.

Oh, yes....didn't mean to imply otherwise. He's done a brilliant job, no question. I only meant it's frustrating as an onlooker who can see the sleights of hand.

Really, Nel should have clarified all of this in his heads, but I suppose there's an element of speculation about missing phone calls that he can't really introduce since he has to rely on actual evidence.

Nerf yy of course he's only going to present the evidence that supports his defence of OP. I was just thinking perhaps I had missed the explanation of it in court but then it wasn't in the heads of argument either.
It was the same with Nel providing no explanation of the first sounds that the Stipps heard.
Both sides have these gaps. I just had an unrealistic expectation that their heads of argument would tie up all the loose ends but they don't.

would he have carried on shooting? Wouldn't he have stopped in horror and tried to save her?

Sorry, I forgot to check the thread yesterday. Like I say, this is just a half-formed theory. My half-formed theory is: He didn't think of Reeva at all right up until the point he shot the first bullet. She then screamed. In the time it took to register 'that's not an intruder screaming, it's Reeva...' he shot three more times. Then his thinking brain caught up with his reacting brain and he stopped.

At that point he realised he had a big problem - the intruder story was fresh in his mind, but he knew that it was Reeva in the toilet. He knew he should have checked, he knew he should have stopped more quickly. All the scenario of 'I went to look for Reeva' is the part that's the lie. All the rest of the tenuous 'I had my back to the room' parts were because he knew he'd screwed up and had to come up with the only scenario which would get him out of the hot water he was suddenly in.

Like I say, it's just a theory and entirely speculation. I think it's entirely possible that they had an actual row, but there's enough doubt in my mind about that. I don't know.

What I don't think happened was that he darkened the room, checked for her in the bedroom like a good fire-arm holder, had every reason to believe she was still in there while he went towards the toilet like the hero he was, and that he had no clue that it was her in there for several minutes while he checked the room.

That to me just does not ring true at all. There are too many problems and imagination-stretching parts.

I wonder if he has spun any half- or un- truths and is wishing he'd just told the truth......

Do we know "for sure" if Frank was at the house at the time of the shooting? Nothing (as far as I can remember) has been said about him at the trial or bail hearing, and to be honest the only times I've heard him mentioned is on here and in a newspaper article (which many have been shown to have gossip rather than fact about the case). I agree with the posters it seems odd he wasn't called up to testify which makes me wonder if he was really there. A lot if these new gated complexes in SA no longer have staff accommodation so it's very plausible that he didn't live on site.

Sorry if this has been discussed to death

abcnews.go.com/International/pistorius-housekeeper-inside-home-shooting/story?id=23602899

This is all I can find

Frank 'heard nothing'. Something I imagine he's been heavily rewarded for.

Here are two links which show Frank was mentioned in court:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/oscar-pistorius/10809123/Oscar-Pistorius-trial-Malawian-housekeeper-was-at-Pistorius-home-on-night-of-shooting.html

www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/06/oscar-pistorius-trial-murder-reeva-steenkamp-6-may

I cannot help think that he did know it was Reeva. At the same time I do not believe he meant to kill her or maybe even shoot her. I know there is no evidence at all to back up my thoughts and it may be that it's just what I want to believe but I think they were arguing, he shouted to get the fuck out of his house; she wouldn't open the door so he tried to shoot the lock off. I think he hit her, she was screaming and he kept shooting because he didn't know what to do.

When I first found out OP had shot his girlfriend, it was said it was an accident and he thought she was an intruder. I could not understand how it could possibly happen, however without knowing any details I believed that is what happened. (I think that maybe if no other version was put across - would most people have just accepted that it was an accident?) It was then announced it was not an accident. That made more sense to me although I did not want to believe it. I have struggled with OP account of what happened that night but I do not think he meant to kill her.

I think the difficulty with frank is this:
If roux calls him, he says I heard nothing.
Nel cross examines and he cracks and incriminate OP

If Nel calls him, he says I heard nothing
ROUX CROSS examines and he cracks and supports OP

So each side is unsure of what might come out

Surely though frank would be able to agree what time they ate? If Reeves came down again? Where there any dishes left out: if not who washed them?

If ops version is true what to lose by putting frank on the stand?

I have always found the absence of Frank unbelievable. He was asleep next to the kitchen. He will know everything. I hope he was just paid off and not threatened. I think this sums it up...

Asked why the defence would not call Mr Chiziweni either, the source responded: “He is an employee of Mr Pistorius's. What you don’t hear can be as damaging as what you do.”

I wonder where Frank is now. He would hold the key to everything wouldn't he...
He was out in the drive when the Police arrived.

Anneliese Burgess, a spokesman for the Pistoriuses, said Mr Chiziweni still worked for the family

Think I feel sorry for Frank. He MUST have heard something, to suggest he didn't is just ludicrous. Especially in an area supposedly on alert towards crime & break ins etc.

I think the problem with putting Franck on the stand isn't whether or not he can stick to saying 'I didn't hear or see anything that night' but that Nel would definitely have made the questioning wider than that. I think he would have grilled Franck like a character witness to try to establish if OP was hot-headed, argumentative, reckless with firearms, etc.

I don't even see Franck's silence as proof of OP's guilt. I just think putting Franck on the stand would have left him unemployable and considering others with nothing to lose were not forced to take the stand, and since Franck was saying he heard nothing then there was no point calling him.

Although if I was a member of Reeva's family I would be extremely frustrated that Franck did not testify.

Questions I can't resolve If OP did shoot RS on purpose and made up the intruder story to cover it up:

Why didn't Reeva call or text anyone if she was afraid of him and ran to the bathroom for safety?

If they had been arguing all evening would she or they stop and eat in the middle of a heated argument?

There was no mention of dishes in the sink, so did one of them wash the dishes during the argument?

If they had been arguing all evening why would Reeva stay?

If they had been arguing why did Security Guard Mr Baba not see the lights on or hear anything when he was doing his patrol around OP's house around 2am?

Why purposely make room dark then give Reeva a light source with the phone to get to the bathroom so he could see her?

Why would OP mention anything about the Jeans? if he had ripped jeans off her or out of her hands while RS was trying to put on why not fold up and put with other clothes. No one would be any the wiser?

If they had been arguing for hours during the evening, early morning why were there not multiple lights on?

If OP was standing outside the door screaming at her and possibly banging the door with the cricket bat a couple times before shooting why was Reeva standing so close to the door?

If they were arguing through the door as Nel states she would have had time to call or text someone. Why didn't she?

Why was there no blood or brain matter on the inside of Reeva's hand if her hand was up by her head in a defensive way?

Why purposely put Reeva on the far side of the bed? It only makes it harder to explain how she got out of bed and past him without him seeing her.

Why is the blue LED light a problem? When he went to sleep the lights were still on as Reeva was still up so it would not have been a bother until he woke up and was getting ready to go back to bed after messing with the fans that it would have bothered him.

The bathroom window had to be open otherwise how could anyone have heard anything?

If they were arguing in the bathroom why argue right next to an open window for neighbors to possibly hear?

If neighbour Estelle VanDer Merwe woke at 1:56a and heard a woman's voice that lasted about an hour why didn't Security Guard Baba hear anything or see any lights on shortly after 2am while patrolling past OP's house?

How could Reeva balance on magazine rack without the use of her hip for stability?

Why was there no blood in the magazine rack if she has spent time on top of it with a bleeding hip wound?

If they had been arguing all night moving around the house why would OP not have his prosthetics on? According to State he was on his stumps when broke door down and when shot through the door.

If they had been up all night arguing, why was the duvet on the floor? Why were the bed covers disturbed if they had never gone to bed?

Why would the duvet be laid out on the floor like a picnic blanket at the end of the bed?

If she was running away from him and he was so mad wanted to shoot her why wait until she got to the bathroom? Or at least start shooting before she got to the bathroom?

So many things that make no sense to me regarding the argument theory.

Sorry, but I'm not sure how most of these questions are supposed to be answered!

Why did he wait till she got to the bathroom to shoot her????

No one, except OP, has the faintest idea what went in that house that night. No one knows the details of the row...did it start of as a niggle and get more serious? Did it stop and start as rows do? Did it begin downstairs, upstairs? Did he prevent her from leaving? I really can't see how not having the answers to these specific things would point to his guilt or innocence, in fairness.

You ask why she didn't leave? Maybe he refused to let her.

Why didn't she text or call a friend from the toilet? Well, why didn't she call the police about the "intruders"? He screamed twice at her to, but she didn't?

Why was she standing close to the door? Well, why was she if she thought armed intruders were coming towards the bathroom? It seems more likely that, actually, she was talking to whoever was the other side....and that can only have been Pistorius. Trying to reason with him, maybe? I doubt she was expecting to be shot.

He put her that side of the bed because of the gun holster. It was found on the left side. If he said she'd been sleeping on that side, it would be absolutely impossible to claim he hadn't seen her when he bent down to get it.

Mrs Van Der Merwe said the argument was on and off, not continuous. Presumably it was during a quiet period when Mr Baba went past. But, unless you think the witness was lying, then someone in that estate was arguing....so why didn't Mr Baba hear them?

There was blood on the magazine rack. She wasn't "balanced" on it, she'd fallen backwards on to it.

Have no idea how blood and brain tissue on Reeva's hand points to either guilt or innocence. He did shoot her, and she did end up with her head on the toilet seat.....that is not in dispute.

No one says they never went to bed. No one knows where the argument occurred. Could have been in the bedroom, and the duvet could easily have been pulled off in a kerfuffle. And it was not laid out like a picnic rug. That was a photo taken during the investigation while they were looking for blood spots on it. In reality, it was crumpled on the floor.

Pistorius did not mention the jeans.....he was asked about them because they were found inside out on the floor, when all of her other clothes were lacked neatly away in her bag. When do you think he should have put them away? After he'd shot her?

No one is suggesting the bathroom window wasn't open.

Most of your questions can only really be answered by Pistorius - the court won't expect the State to answer them all. They weren't there!

The only question I would pick up on of UpNorth's is "why didn't she text or ring someone if she was scared when in the bathroom".

I don't find that odd at all. I've been in a situation where I was scared and my hand was literally shaking so much I could barely hold the phone, let alone ring someone, and as for texting.. just impossible. Also it is a big step to involve others, maybe she thought she could 'talk him down'. I think she was probably a calm measured type of person who thought she could do that and phoning someone is involving the rest of the world isn't it.. either that or she was absolutely frozen in fear and unable to text or ring someone.

On either version, it's very odd that she didn't even attempt to call the police. She could have been frozen in fear, or she could equally not have had her phone in there with her at all. We only have his say so that she did.

In my opinion there may have been no reason for her to phone the police if in an argument with OP. How many have had an argument with their partners or husbands and phoned the police? There is nothing to say that he had ever been violent before? I highly doubt he would have told her he would shoot her.

My step father was violent to my mother on many occasions. She never phoned the police. The only time they were called was when myself as a 9 year old and my 11 year old brother witnessed him throw a tv (those big backed ones) at her head and I phoned my Nan. She could not understand what I was saying, so she phoned the police and drove to our home as she knew something wasn't right.

She also never left the house, it was his house but she still never left. If someone shouted at her however to phone the police due to an intruder, I know she would. Obviously you can't go by what others do as to what Reeva did or didn't do but I cannot see why she would not have phoned the police if there was an intruder. Even if she stayed silent. The police could surely trace where the call was coming from? Also just putting it out there, as someone said we only have OP version of Reeva's phone. There is nothing to say she did have a message written out, that she didn't get a chance to press send. We only have his word that he could not unlock her phone. Nothing to say he didn't cancel the unsent message.

And wasn't the phone in question in the toilet when the Police arrived? I agree she could have been in the process of ringing or texting but events overtook that. I just know when I had my scared moment, I was shaking head to toe and was trying to press numbers on a mobile but my shaking hands wouldn't let me.

Thanks for the answers. I have somehow missed that the duvet was anything but laid out like it was in the crime scene pictures. Thanks for the answers on the phone. I realize that anything he says may or may not be true. I have just tried to make both sides work to see if I could possibly get a glimmer of truth. I guess I am making more of the argument than most. I am looking at it from the opinion that it had to be the mother of all arguments for him to be mad enough to kill her.

I am looking at it from the opinion that it had to be the mother of all arguments for him to be mad enough to kill her.

I don't think this is necessarily true. I don't think it's about what the argument was about, but the state of mind of the people having the argument.

I just swore and ranted a lot at nobody (well, at a random, unknown person who's caused me an inconvenience, and who wasn't even there). I was shaking and upset and pacing - the works. The reason I was doing all these things wasn't because of the person's error, but because I was in a really bad place. My brain just tripped.

Tomorrow, the same events might have resulted in me shrugging and after a short wave of controlled anger, I'd get on with resolving the issue.

But today, I tripped out.

So if we assume that the content of the argument isn't so much relevant, then the question becomes 'how trigger-happy is OP? How regularly does he reach for his gun?'

I think that's why the other cases were brought in. If those cases are true he discharged his weapon while pissed off with a police officer. He discharged a weapon in a restaurant when he wasn't even unhappy. We know from twitter he drew his gun on a washing machine. To my mind, that strikes me as suggesting he reached for his weapon a lot. It came to his hand quickly.

Helena, just to say thanks for your comment on the phone - I've never thought of it that way before; it wasn't that she didn't call for help - she didn't call anyone at all. Not even the police when her partner was screaming that there were intruders in the house and she had the means to do so right there.

The phone was found in the bathroom slightly under the bath mat - so it's at least possible that it was never in the loo at all. And that would answer the conundrum of why she didn't try and get help. There was a lot of screaming going on for quite some minutes so she certainly had time to at least try.

Personally, I don't think he intended to shoot her right up until the moment that he actually did. Probably he was threatening her and telling her to "get the fuck out of my house", she didn't, or kept screaming, he lost it and shot.

But the intention must have been there when he did....you can't shoot, pause, and shoot three more times unintentionally.

Helena, isn't that his phone and hers was in the loo itself?
I have no idea at all. Maybe if he'd had a reputation for being not very nice or violent or something, maybe because in the uk guns just aren't to hand in the same way, I just find it so unbelievable that he would shoot her deliberately.
But then if I think well maybe a gun to them is like a knife or hammer to us - household item albeit dangerous? I still don't know. I can't imagine choosing to go and get a lethal weapon during an argument with your girlfriend, unless maybe it was never tucked away.