Is it possible she had hung her jeans on the window to dry during the day? (I think it was mentioned that she was doing some washing) When she went to the loo, she remembered that she'd hung them there and was looking out the window to see if they'd fallen on the ground below?
Surely .. she'd have hung them from the balcony or more probably on the balcony.
An Expert on The Justice Programme, Enca Africa commented yesterday regarding Oscars fears and their likelihood. Not alone are the disabled targeted in their homes but also on the Highway while a clip of one particular incident on the highway was shown, and yes the Police are unable to get on top of the problem. Oscar is very right in his assumptions regarding the Police and his fears, was his conclusion
ALL South Africans have been touched by crime in some way or another- he is not unique. People just get on with it over there. Its a part of life (I know I lived there for over
30 years) He exaggerates these fears of his and tbh his examples of being a victim of crime were laughable- were they even true? One was most certainly a lie.
he has to be shown to be guilty. Lying is in no way proof of guilt. Agreed, wholeheartedly.
How do you figure that ?
OP is entering into evidence a story that explain how RS was shot and killed by him without him knowing it was at RS he was shooting at.
If the Judge believes OP is lying then OP's evidence (i.e. the story) is deemed unreliable and not credible.
Do you think the Judge will think up a new scenario by herself to explain 'how OP could have killed RS without knowing it was her'…I believe that legally she can't
This is not a 'who dunnit' case where the Prosecution says that Joe killed his wife and Joe says it wasn't me because at the time I was at my friends house…In this type of case, if the Judge does not believe Joe's story or thinks Joe is lying, it does not mean that Joe killed his wife…. Joe might be lying for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with the murder… so the Prosecution has to prove behind a reasonable doubt that Joe killed his wife.
But in OP's case nobody is contesting the fact that he killed RS… the only question in play is the circumstances in which that crime happened…that's why it's a circumstantial case.
The ONLY story before the Judge that could possibly explain how OP didn't know he was shooting at RS is the accused version… therefore if that version is not believed because OP is deemed to be lying and fabricating a story, the Judge has nothing left but the Prosecutions theory that OP had to know he was shooting at RS.
Pistorius was born with fibular hemimelia (congenital absence of the fibula) in both legs. When he was 11 months old, his legs were amputated halfway between his knees and ankles (Wikipedia)
Just found a pic showing him without his artificial limbs, he's got quite a lengthy stump below each knee and since being without the bottom half of his legs from the age of 11 months, I'm assuming he's become quite adept at his movement and balance on his stumps. http://www.runnersworld.co.za/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2012/07/Oscar.jpeg
If he had decided to fight instead of flight, if he had decided to try and scare off the intruder(s) and make them leave the house, then yes, it's certainly a plausible course of action.
This where I think Nel's questions are often unfair. So many times he asks for explanations of what could be instinctive, spontaneous, unconscious reactions. No-one can explain them.
Why did you do what you did? is something Nel repeats again and again and yet, if Pistorius's story is true, it's unlikely he'll ever know why he did what he did, so he says he doesn't know and Nel says 'that's not good enough, Mr Pistorius', so Pistorius stumbles around trying to explain it, and of course it comes across as evasive and suspect.
Trials try to bring fact and reason and logic and rationality into the light. Unfortunately incidents such as those suggested by Pistorius's story don't acknowledge logic and rationality. They can't. They are the outcome of instinct and irrationality and can't be completely explained, either at the time or with hindsight.
Nice post.
I do think that the process Nel must go through can often look like he is just scrabbling around on the surface. He is trying to catch him out and this can be on a very simple thing. He has to add a layer of how OP understood the situation as well so he can deal with his state of mind as the gun fired and his immediate actions before and after it.
Did they check for fingerprint`s on the window, to see if Reeva`s prints are on it?.
There was no finger print evidence entered as far as I remember.
Reeva's fingerprints on the window would not prove conclusively that she opened the window that night, as she had been there many times,
In any case we know there were no intruders so I don't see it as being important whether she opened the window or not.
The important part would be if a witness saw the window open all evening.
Even then it doesn't prove much as Reeva still could have touched the window and cause a noise which triggered OP's code red alert.
The important question is 'was the light on in the bathroom?'.........ask porky
I don't have a problem with her opening the window if his version of events is true.
Perhaps she thought 'Bugger me it's sweltering hot and he has just closed the only source of fresh air......I'll open the bathroom window instead'
Trouble is that I'm not convinced that she opened the window, it could have been open all along.
Nor am I convinced that the bedroom curtains were ever closed or that Oscar closed them and the balcony doors.
I am not convinced that there was not a conversation beyond that short exchange when Oscar woke up. He says that she asked him 'can't you sleep Baba'....strange thing to say when he'd slept for 5 hours and he said she was still awake.
I'm not convinced that her phone was ever in the toilet with her...she did not attempt to use it.
There are many other things that lead me to believe that his story is just that...a story.
I do think that the process Nel must go through can often look like he is just scrabbling around on the surface. He is trying to catch him out and this can be on a very simple thing. He has to add a layer of how OP understood the situation as well so he can deal with his state of mind as the gun fired and his immediate actions before and after it.
I think it's important to ask the 'why's' for the reasons you say. It's OP's state of mind that is important when assessing intent. I thought he did well with that for the shooting. OP had to agree he was the aggressor, not a defender, and when he cited the washing machine, the IDEA that he was 'defending' rather than 'going for the intruder' was shot to pieces. That's what he's like.
Op kept trying to say 'vulnerable, fear, fear of my life, defending Reeva' but the whole thing was shown to be about OPs stance as 'aggressor'. And he THOUGHT like an aggressor, not a defender. Whatever he tried to say.
There was no finger print evidence entered as far as I remember.
Reeva's fingerprints on the window would not prove conclusively that she opened the window that night, as she had been there many times,
In any case we know there were no intruders so I don't see it as being important whether she opened the window or not.
The important part would be if a witness saw the window open all evening.
Even then it doesn't prove much as Reeva still could have touched the window and cause a noise which triggered OP's code red alert.
The important question is 'was the light on in the bathroom?'.........ask porky
If reeva did not open the window, how did OP hear it slamming/opening?.
Trouble is that I'm not convinced that she opened the window, it could have been open all along.
Nor am I convinced that the bedroom curtains were ever closed or that Oscar closed them and the balcony doors.
I am not convinced that there was not a conversation beyond that short exchange when Oscar woke up. He says that she asked him 'can't you sleep Baba'....strange thing to say when he'd slept for 5 hours and he said she was still awake.
I'm not convinced that her phone was ever in the toilet with her...she did not attempt to use it.
There are many other things that lead me to believe that his story is just that...a story.
Spot on. I feel the same. Nearly ALL of it is just not convincing in an ordinary way. It not only seems like a STORY, but like one specifically made up to cover something else. Even stories are often more realistic.
Did anyone pick up on the testimony from OP (right at the end) that Reeva had been in a similar situation before? Do we know anything about that incident? Perhaps, knowing the details, that gave him the idea to (re)use the intruder story?
This is a long read, but its the judge's summing up and directions to the jury in the Ian Huntley trial. Whilst there is no jury in this case its fair to say that it contains much if not all of the process by which milady and her assessors will arrive at judgment. Although on the face of it the crime was very different, Huntley's defence was that it was an 'accident' and he didn't intend to take anyone's life, so it contains directions on how to arrive at the 'right' type of homicide verdict, and there will be similarities in that respect.
he needs to be locked away because if his version is true he is a danger to society. Poor girl lost her life in the most brutal of ways.
She must have been petrified in that tiny cubical:(
She wasn't a poor girl she was a fully grown woman (3 years older than you apparently)
Well I don't know about that but I've just been weeding around the trees for a change of pace
Whilst doing this I was wondering, if OP had to come up with a story to cover his crime why didn't he choose Reeva going to the loo instead of going onto the balcony like she said she was going to. It could be far less problematic.
OP is entering into evidence a story that explain how RS was shot and killed by him without him knowing it was at RS he was shooting at.
If the Judge believes OP is lying then OP's evidence (i.e. the story) is deemed unreliable and not credible.
Do you think the Judge will think up a new scenario by herself to explain 'how OP could have killed RS without knowing it was her'…I believe that legally she can't
This is not a 'who dunnit' case where the Prosecution says that Joe killed his wife and Joe says it wasn't me because at the time I was at my friends house…In this type of case, if the Judge does not believe Joe's story or thinks Joe is lying, it does not mean that Joe killed his wife…. Joe might be lying for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with the murder… so the Prosecution has to prove behind a reasonable doubt that Joe killed his wife.
But in OP's case nobody is contesting the fact that he killed RS… the only question in play is the circumstances in which that crime happened…that's why it's a circumstantial case.
The ONLY story before the Judge that could possibly explain how OP didn't know he was shooting at RS is the accused version… therefore if that version is not believed because OP is deemed to be lying and fabricating a story, the Judge has nothing left but the Prosecutions theory that OP had to know he was shooting at RS.
I agree, if the crucial part is all a pack of lies. Other lies reflect his bad character, but are not enough to convict. The defendant is in a different position to other witness testimony with regard to evaluating credibility imo,
not much hope of a first time poster being treated gently by the rabid trial junkies on this thread.
lack of sleep, combined with a seriious caffiene and nicotine addiction has made them irritable and crotchety, especially with annoying newbies who have a life and HAVEN'T FOLLOWED THE F***ING TRIAL FROM DAY ONE !!!!!!!
people are allowed to comment and not be ridiculed for their opinions by the usual high and mighty egomaniacs
is that right kappel ?
A tad irritable and crotchety yourself today by sounds of.
Comments
Dr Stipp saw him after the second bangs when he must have been on his legs. Not much use as evidence really.
ALL South Africans have been touched by crime in some way or another- he is not unique. People just get on with it over there. Its a part of life (I know I lived there for over
30 years) He exaggerates these fears of his and tbh his examples of being a victim of crime were laughable- were they even true? One was most certainly a lie.
How do you figure that ?
OP is entering into evidence a story that explain how RS was shot and killed by him without him knowing it was at RS he was shooting at.
If the Judge believes OP is lying then OP's evidence (i.e. the story) is deemed unreliable and not credible.
Do you think the Judge will think up a new scenario by herself to explain 'how OP could have killed RS without knowing it was her'…I believe that legally she can't
This is not a 'who dunnit' case where the Prosecution says that Joe killed his wife and Joe says it wasn't me because at the time I was at my friends house…In this type of case, if the Judge does not believe Joe's story or thinks Joe is lying, it does not mean that Joe killed his wife…. Joe might be lying for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with the murder… so the Prosecution has to prove behind a reasonable doubt that Joe killed his wife.
But in OP's case nobody is contesting the fact that he killed RS… the only question in play is the circumstances in which that crime happened…that's why it's a circumstantial case.
The ONLY story before the Judge that could possibly explain how OP didn't know he was shooting at RS is the accused version… therefore if that version is not believed because OP is deemed to be lying and fabricating a story, the Judge has nothing left but the Prosecutions theory that OP had to know he was shooting at RS.
Just found a pic showing him without his artificial limbs, he's got quite a lengthy stump below each knee and since being without the bottom half of his legs from the age of 11 months, I'm assuming he's become quite adept at his movement and balance on his stumps.
http://www.runnersworld.co.za/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2012/07/Oscar.jpeg
Nice post.
I do think that the process Nel must go through can often look like he is just scrabbling around on the surface. He is trying to catch him out and this can be on a very simple thing. He has to add a layer of how OP understood the situation as well so he can deal with his state of mind as the gun fired and his immediate actions before and after it.
So, Stipp saw him between the sets of shots? (Can't remember)
There was no finger print evidence entered as far as I remember.
Reeva's fingerprints on the window would not prove conclusively that she opened the window that night, as she had been there many times,
In any case we know there were no intruders so I don't see it as being important whether she opened the window or not.
The important part would be if a witness saw the window open all evening.
Even then it doesn't prove much as Reeva still could have touched the window and cause a noise which triggered OP's code red alert.
The important question is 'was the light on in the bathroom?'.........ask porky
Trouble is that I'm not convinced that she opened the window, it could have been open all along.
Nor am I convinced that the bedroom curtains were ever closed or that Oscar closed them and the balcony doors.
I am not convinced that there was not a conversation beyond that short exchange when Oscar woke up. He says that she asked him 'can't you sleep Baba'....strange thing to say when he'd slept for 5 hours and he said she was still awake.
I'm not convinced that her phone was ever in the toilet with her...she did not attempt to use it.
There are many other things that lead me to believe that his story is just that...a story.
I think it's important to ask the 'why's' for the reasons you say. It's OP's state of mind that is important when assessing intent. I thought he did well with that for the shooting. OP had to agree he was the aggressor, not a defender, and when he cited the washing machine, the IDEA that he was 'defending' rather than 'going for the intruder' was shot to pieces. That's what he's like.
Op kept trying to say 'vulnerable, fear, fear of my life, defending Reeva' but the whole thing was shown to be about OPs stance as 'aggressor'. And he THOUGHT like an aggressor, not a defender. Whatever he tried to say.
You're wasted on DS
If reeva did not open the window, how did OP hear it slamming/opening?.
Spot on. I feel the same. Nearly ALL of it is just not convincing in an ordinary way. It not only seems like a STORY, but like one specifically made up to cover something else. Even stories are often more realistic.
True......but I hope he stays.
I love his humour and even his analysis is top notch.......unless his wife has stocked up the fridge with gingerbeer
Also how would an intruder/unknown person/OP's vivid imagination/ get into (is it a complex) as they are security gated and I assumed highly secured.
Even tho there was NO intruder :kitty:
A very good question ;-)
Bumping this.
http://www.bernardomahoney.com/forthcb/pdt/hajdocuments/111203page01.shtml
(11.12.03. Mr Justice Moses comes in after the long submission by Mr Hubbard).
She wasn't a poor girl she was a fully grown woman (3 years older than you apparently)
Well I don't know about that but I've just been weeding around the trees for a change of pace
Whilst doing this I was wondering, if OP had to come up with a story to cover his crime why didn't he choose Reeva going to the loo instead of going onto the balcony like she said she was going to. It could be far less problematic.
It probably came from the same book of excuses as the 'gunman in a black mercedes' excuse.
I agree, if the crucial part is all a pack of lies. Other lies reflect his bad character, but are not enough to convict. The defendant is in a different position to other witness testimony with regard to evaluating credibility imo,
A tad irritable and crotchety yourself today by sounds of.