~Welcome Aavi to the forums, nice to have you around if you are as keen on trials, justice et al, as the rest of us are, you will enjoy it here.

As for Nancy Grace - there we part company, I can't stand the woman, and I loathe being 'shouted' at - what is it with her and a few others presenters they seem to think people can't hear them unless they tirelessly shout at their audience.

Frankly I'm surprised Nancy Grace is still on tv and that she still has a show.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

Hi wroughead

Yes I am looking forward to next week... if for no other reason then so that people will stop with all the "what ifs"... which have now branched off so far that they have entered The Twilight Zone. They will have plenty of new stuff discuss and deny

APPARENTLY... we are supposed to accept what all witnesses say and even what they interpret it to mean. Experts especially only testify to facts and so their testimony is to be regarded as fact. (apart from Vermeulen is mistaken about bat being after shots, because he does not know about all the "what ifs" that forum posters do... they are much better informed that experts isolated in their labs.

I suspect the "All witnesses are to be believed" rule only applies to Prosecution witnesses. Defence witnesses will be lying throughout their entire testimony.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Hi Wroughead.

Oh we don't part company at all !

I think Grace is a repugnant self adulating Yak that doesn't know about or care about anything except what she can force feed into her mental indigents that wouldn't know how to find their way home from the mail box.

I think the same about that other three name loon who is equally repugnant.

Here's some information for any deluded Mensa students who think Grace is anything but TV trash of Academy Award winning despicable magnitude.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-l ... 59451.html

I addressed a hypothetical posed elsewhere:

Hypothetical:What would you do faced with the FACT that there was an armed intruder in your toilet.

Personally I take a dim view of "home invaders"... I would "err" on the side of shooting them BEFORE they had a chance to do me harm. Perhaps overpower me and use my own weapon against me and any others in the house. If somebody invades your home then I do not feel any burden to ascertain the limits of their intent.... assume the worse.... that they are armed and will kill you. I certainly would NOT give them the benefit of any doubt.. wait and see if they do have a gun, let them shoot first before retaliating. etc ( All this is MORE SO... given that it is SA, where home invasion, rape, torture and murder are well known, if not common occurrences)

So... if I genuinely believed (knew for the purpose of the hypothetical) that there was an armed intruder in the toilet I would shoot. I think I might empty the magazine. OP showed restraint in only firing 4 shots.

To clarify:
BEYOND this hypothetical where a person KNEW there was an armed intruder in the toilet. This case involves ascertaining IF OP did genuinely believe that.. and was he in someway reckless in drawing that conclusion ( if he did). The State's case presented has been that OP is lying and that he did not believe that at all. That he shot at the door KNOWING Reeva was behind it. IMO they have failed to prove that. And so far they have barely addressed the issue of was OP reasonable in thinking there was an intruder. Again IMO the State can not address that issue so long as they do not concede that OP thought there was an intruder at all. I think Nel is gambling on being able to prove that OP knew Reeva was in the toilet. I can not see him doing that.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Indeed Rumpole.

What we have .... just with the State's most pivotally important and crucial witnesses:


BERGERS:


Screams ---- then "gunshots" ------ more screams ----- screams FADING away. .... (all female screams)

Their domestic servant who lives in the SAME house:

No screams at all ------adamant she heard CRYING. Was looking all around trying to figure out where it was coming from.

Hears NO "gunshots" at all

Additional "minor" details:

The house they all live is almost THREE BLOCKS away from Oscar's.
Mr. Berger (actually Johnson) says number of shots 5 or 6
Mrs Berger absolutely positive it was 4 ......makes changes to her affidavit to correct her recollection.

STIPPS: ............ Sound sequence JUST THE OPPOSITE.


Gunshots ------ then screams.

Mr. Stipp from his balcony sure he heard SIX shots ...... even worse in two separate vollies of 3 each.

A man very familiar with gun sound acoustics from serving in the military
Voices .... both male and female mixed with female screaming. ... BUT definitely also hears male seeming to be farther away yelling help
help help.

One sees a light on in the toilet cubicle. The other one doesn't.



MRS. van DER MERWE:


Hears loud voices of a female at 2 am
Tells her husband to check what could be going on.
He listens independently ...... says that's not a female, that's OSCAR

Additional "minor" details:

They live RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET
Security has a check point making their rounds every hour at their SAME exact location: They don't report any unusual activity at all during that SAME time and everything is normal. They by far are in in the best position to hear loud voices or arguing because they are in OPEN AIR.

ALL of these individual witnesses are aroused from a sound sleep who don't have the faintest clue what a cricket bat would sound like hitting a wood door. And the timelines of what was shots and what was the bat, makes up the entire defense case.


And I'm supposed to infer from this hodge podge of blatantly conflicting accounts, that the prosecution is well on the way to proving that Oscar Pistorius intentionally assassinated Reeva Steenkamp that night? It's almost laughable.

I'm almost further insulted by the fact that the State insists he was on his stumps when he used the cricket bat. Yet their own witness---Sammantha Taylor---who lived with him for 3 years said he had to often BALANCE AGAINST SOMETHING when he was on his stumps. So now he can also also whack a door hard enough with a bat to break through it while balanced on these two small round points?

Then I have perjury on a sworn affidavit by a high ranking police officer stating what he viewed at the crime scene detailing his observations. The lead detective Van Rensburg was so dumbfounded to hear that, the only comment he could muster when Roux made him aware of it was..."amazing." He knew that police officer wasn't even there and had lied.

The timelines don't fit. The security guard testified falsely that he called Pistorius first when in fact it was just the opposite. The introduction of random photos had no testimony linking their relevance to anything; such as the damaged bedroom door or first floor window, or at least a qualified expert explaining the damage was recent to give some credence to a possible fight in the villa that night. Absolutely nothing.

Everything is just hanging in mid air like a duck hunter who sees flocks of geese going over and just shoots into the sky figuring he's got to hit something.

Boy. And I think the worst is yet to come for Nel. I think old Barry Roux has got surprises in for him that's going to make him want to crawl under his podium. I think he's going to have experts show that it was one of the first shots that hit Reeva's head and that screaming was impossible to be heard from Reeva after that. Let alone, after all four shots as Mrs. Berger insists.

I expect that he's going to convincingly show how the cricket bat scenario can replicate sound similar enough to a gunshot as to be indiscernible by those who are positive it was gunshots. I was shocked when I heard the infamous demonstration on YouTube. I never would have believed it.

And if he can show that Oscar can freak out sounding like a woman with decibel test validation, it will turn be turn out the lights for the prosecution--the party will be over.

But no matter what, in all respects so far, this is just as lacking in proof to bring the case as the low lifes in Florida.

Quite right aavi... after this is over we should sue... These prosecutors are wasting our time with these silly cases.

It's an insult to my intelligence for Nel to present such a Daft case.

My fave point at the moment is the fact that Nel contends that the gunshots were the second set of bangs that the Stipps heard... the time for that commencing is a little after 3:17 as per several snippets of phone logs.
By proposing that preposterous notion he is saying that OP could do all that he had to have done and then be making a series of phone calls starting 3:19..

That is ludicrous and physically impossible.

What is possible (and so true) is that loud bat blows were after 3:17... leaving just time for OP to drag Reeva's body from toilet to bathroom.. and be on the phone within seconds. That is all he COULD do in that time. It is preposterous to suggest that in that short time (a little over a minute) OP could also return to bedroom, put on his prostheses, grab bat, bash door (very very quietly so nobody heard). That is just things that OP had to do, discounting several other things he said he did and State can not prove he didn't do.

EVERYBODY agrees that the gunshots were one or other of the sets of bangs that Stipps heard. It is IMPOSSIBLE that gunshots were second set of bangs... so gunshots MUST have been first set of bangs. IMO this is no longer even an issue. It PROVES that "woman's screams" were NOT Reeva... she was dead(ish)* by the time they were heard.

* Incapacitated and unable to scream, rather than finally dead. Brains blown out but heart still pumping blood.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I know. The prosecution has set the time of the shots. No getting around it--they say 3:17.

Oscar has set the time that he made his first call only about two minutes later. No getting around that either, it's direct from the phone records.

So what is the prosecution saying, that his call was to let Mr. Stander know that he was about to kill Reeva, but hadn't done it yet?

Doing all the things he would have had to do to match with the State's contention for time of the shots would have had him running around like the Keystone Cops kine-scope in one of their hyper speed car chases.

I DO have questions though that I will be needing answers to from him in his testimony. Although embellishing on his statement compared to the one submitted for the bail hearing helps answer these puzzling questions to a degree, I'm not content with saying the enhanced statement explains it fully.



If he had slept on the left side of the bed viewed looking at the bed, there is no way he would not have been able to know Reeva was or was not there. He would have had to go all the way around the bed where she would be to go out on the balcony to get the fans.

But just coincidentally because of the shoulder injury, he was on the side that put him nearest the balcony. And we can corroborate that because Reeva's sandals and bag were on the left---same side as the sofa. So that obvious pitfall is already pr-empted.


What I would want to know though---there were little lamps on both sides of the bed. It wouldn't be excessive lighting that would disturb Oscar if he was sleeping. Why would Reeva decide to fumble her way around in the dark to go to the bathroom and then not turn on the light in the bathroom either. That's weird.

Then if the room was not that dark that she could see her way, then it was also light enough for Oscar to see she wasn't in the bed. And that still wouldn't yet explain why she would go into the bathroom which was nowhere near the bedroom and not turn the light on there EITHER.

It would be almost like she was practicing to know how to get to the toilet in his villa if she ever became blind.

Then one final thing:

If Oscar went out on the balcony to bring the fans in, surely he must have been facing the bed at some point as he was bringing them in unless he wants to say he "BACKED" in.

Furthermore without question, he also has the motions of closing the balcony door itself, the blinds and the drapes. Not until he drew the drape, would it be so instantly pitch black dark in the room to where his eyes couldn't focus. Which makes it strangely unlikely during that entire time that he wasn't facing the bed at least momentarily during that process at some point.

That was a big fan and I don't see any way that he wouldn't have stumbled over it or had some difficulty maneuvering it where he could have done all those things without looking at the bed to see Reeva wasn't lying there. He was on his stumps at this point and handling that fan wouldn't have been a ten second job.

Plus his eyes were not so immediately unable to adjust to the light change that he couldn't find the point under the bed where he had his gun.

That unlikelihood that he would be so unable to see an empty bed has always hung in my mind.

I think I have those piffling details covered

General point about light at night.
Oscar said to be NOT dark adapted vision... coming from balcony with star, moon and street light... enough so that when he re-entered bedroom and closed blinds and curtains, he was unable to see at all. As he went up the little hall to bathroom there would be same low light from outside through bathroom windows... plus the eye adaptation to dark was ongoing.... totally blind for half a minute, but gradually get improvements......so enough to see shapes, where the toilet door was etc.

I think you have the side of the bed thing arse-backwards?
Standing at foot of bed looking towards headboard:
Oscar claims to have been on left side sleeping, rather than his normal right side.
I guess he did not pay attention until he had drawn curtains (at least temporarily total blackout)...nipped over to LH side of bed and got gun from there (where the holster was found on bedside table)... he went past bottom of bed and did not see Reeva ( I mean did not see absence of Reeva)
As the doco shows
OP could feel his way to his side of bed... gun in normal position relative to bed, bedside table etc.

Some answers in this doco... I posted in the reference thread
(Darkness of room from 15:00)

PISTORIUS REFERENCE - Documents, Photos etc (NO DISCUSSION)
viewtopic.php?f=105&t=1211#p71047


Reeva Going to toilet at night:
Personally I never switch any lights on.(unless I forget and do it by mistake) With eyes dark adapted I can see well enough... I don't have bedside light, so if I switch a light on at any stage I end up struggling in TOTAL darkness when I switch last light off. I have the stubbed toes to remind me to NOT do it again!
Reeva had not been out in the moonlight, and moved BEFORE the room was in Total darkness with blinds and curtains closed. Like me... she could see well enough to go to the loo. It also explains WHY she would not switch bathroom or toilet light on. Like me... she did not want to stuff up her night vision before the trip back to bed.



The thing for me is that I dont NEED to be sure that OP is telling the truth about every detail, or even about the overall thinking "there is an intruder" thing. If I am to reject OP's version though I need the State to prove it to me beyond reasonable doubt. If it's a toss-up 50/50 thing as it was for me before the trial, then OP gets the benefit of the doubt. And... I am now 75/25 since the State has confirmed the critical points in OP's version... I am incline to believe it all.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Don't believe that's right.

It's important to distinguish the vantage point of how you are referring to the bed when talking about right or left

He claims he used to sleep on the right side of the bed before the shoulder injury. But he had to be describing the right side as from the perspective of laying in the bed. Sammantha said the same thing that he slept on the right side.


But because of the shoulder injury, on Valentines night--and for some time previous--- he was sleeping on the side of the bed nearest the balcony door. The holster was on the bedside table on the other side where Reeva was sleeping. This is also where her sandals were on the floor that the police moved around at least 3 times while documenting the crime scene.

But his gun was under the side of the bed nearest the balcony which would be the right side if you are standing at the foot of the bed. And the magazine clip and pouch were also on his side in the bedside table.

Everything I have seen shows that Reeva that night was on the side where the sofa was.

That for him helps his version of the events.

Everything I have seen... including the doco linked above has OP on left as you stand at foot.

You are wrong!

I DO NOT want to confuse readers here with wrong information... there is more than enough of that at True Gossip Forums.

The evidence about Reeva's over night bag and sandles on that side was MEANT to discredit OP's version.... but the bag was on the sofa and not beside bed for the occupant's use as such... and the sandles..... what can I say... the cops moved them about so often who can say where they were.

Is your friend

One example from millions:

What were flip-flops doing next to ‘Oscar’s side of the bed’?
http://www.citypress.co.za/news/flip-fl ... -side-bed/

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I do recall discussion, testimony, cross examination during the trial regarding WHICH side of the bed OP normally slept.

To State contend he normally slept on the RIGHT (as you face the wall) ... that is closest to balcony.

They specifically asked ex girlfriend Samantha Taylor about this point:

Oscar Pistorius murder trial: March 7 as it happened
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... pened.html

Nel Questioning Samantha Taylor:

Roux on Cross examination:




The State also introduced photos showing overnight bag and Reeva's "flip-flops" on the left had side of the bed.


ROUX on cross countered (Denied that OP was sleeping on RH side that night... he was sleeping on LEFT (closest to toilet)

Roux put it that OP had an injured shoulder and so was sleeping on a different side than "normal"

Roux clarifies that overnight bag was on the sofa and not necessarily associate with the person sleeping on the left.

Roux clarified and pointed ot that Flip flops may have been original well away from side of bed and NOT as pictured as if they were associated with the person sleeping on the left.

Summary
DEFENCE CLAIM: OP was sleeping closest to bathroom (LEFT)
PROSECUTION CLAIM: OP was sleeping closest to balcony (RIGHT)

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Oscar Pistorius trial: How will the defense fight back?
By Richard Allen Greene, CNN
April 4, 2014 -- Updated 1416 GMT (2216 HKT)

Pretoria, South Africa (CNN) -- Oscar Pistorius killed Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine's Day last year. Of that, there is no doubt.

But was it murder?

One of South Africa's toughest prosecutors, Gerrie Nel, fought for most of the month of March to prove it was.

Starting Monday, one of the country's shrewdest defense lawyers, Barry Roux, will try to convince a judge that it wasn't.

The verdict will hinge on two questions:

Did the Olympic sprinter know his girlfriend was behind the door in the bathroom of his house when he fired four hollow-point bullets through it in the middle of the night?

And if he did not -- if he thought she was a burglar, as he insists -- did he act as a reasonable person would have?

...more at link
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/27/world ... ?hpt=wo_c2

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Oscar Pistorius' lawyer is likely to call a pathologist to testify first for defence case
Lisa Davies, in Pretoria April 02, 2014

Pretoria: Oscar Pistorius' lawyer says a pathologist will likely testify first when the double-amputee athlete's defence team starts calling witnesses at his murder trial next week.

Lawyer Brian Webber said in an email to The Associated Press that the defence plans to start by calling Professor Jan Botha when the trial resumes Monday after a week's adjournment.

Pistorius was expected to open defense testimony but Botha will likely be called first because Webber said the pathologist has some "personal difficulties."

In South Africa, defendants who indicate they will testify are expected to go first.

Pistorius and his lawyers say he will testify and explain in court how he killed girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp by accident on Valentine's Day last year. Prosecutors have charged him with premeditated murder.

Professor Botha will be called to contradict the viewpoint of the state's pathologist, Professor Gert Saayman, who gave graphic testimony about the gunshot wounds sustained by Ms Steenkamp.

...more at link
http://www.smh.com.au/world/oscar-pisto ... zqpj4.html

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

The key however : I do think there is some mystery there too. It's because of the type of key--big clunky skeleton key. He said he found it on the floor.

That would mean that she turned it to the left to lock it, then rotated it back to the right to the neutral position so she could remove it. Then either threw it on the floor or held it in her hand instead of leaving it in the lock.

Why would she rotate it back to the neutral position at all? She was in there to lock herself in. That does not seem logical. She didn't know 4 bullets were going to be coming through the door. Why would she take the key out?

It's impossible to knock out a skeleton key from the opposite side if it's fully rotated to the left, which then throws the bolt into the door jam. That also prevents inserting any key from the other side. The most reasonable action would be to leave the key fully rotated counterclockwise.

It seems to me it would have also been much more plausible for Oscar to say he removed the key from the LOCK after breaking down the panel.

It's not possible that he used the bat to drag the key towards him and then under the door. That door looks to me like there's almost no space under there whatsoever. And certainly not enough that a skeleton key with a FOB would fit under there.

That whole key business scenario seems a little askew to me too.

The key!!!

Such a piddling point...

IF it was important or there was a point to make.... Nel would/ should have done so.

Done tests... got sweaty bat boy to demonstrate in court.

I don’t know details of the lock. It may not be as you assume since it is on a toilet door. Seems nuts to me to have a key at all... and not just a latch. Most locks will lock with key, and leave key removable... that is what you do.... lock the damned door and take the key.

Is the key going to be even mentioned in court?

Whatever could be shown about it.... so what?

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Here's a GREAT picture of the back of the door for reference if something about the key question does get addressed in court.

http://resources0.news.com.au/images/20 ... ed2f71.jpg

I would also point out something that maybe many didn't pick up on relating to the charge of shooting the gun through the sunroof.

Many think the gun charges are cut and dried....but...

Fresco said he was furious with Oscar that he fired the gun and didn't find it the least bit funny. Nor did he ever joke with Oscar about shooting a traffic light after the cop had stopped them and they had started driving again. He said it was all Oscar's idea and he was furious with him. He also said that he had taken a picture of the speedometer while Oscar was driving at a very fast speed.

However Sammantha, who was in the back seat behind Oscar testified they were BOTH laughing about shooting a robot. That Darren Fresco was also irritated that they had been stopped by the cop and they were BOTH talking about how funny it would be to shoot a robot (traffic light) when Oscar fired the gun.

She had no reason to lie and was sitting directly behind Oscar in the car. She would be very aware of who was saying what. Or how angry Fresco really was that Oscar fired the gun.

Fresco also denied that he was driving when the picture was taken of the speedometer. But he was stammering when Roux showed him that it was HIM driving when he took the picture.

So Fresco lied on the stand. I don't trust Fresco at all and totally discount all his testimony as to what may have really happened.

And the gun charges may not be the slam dunk everybody thinks they are either.

She had no reason to lie .....

A woman scorned...

I would not give ANY weight to the testimony of a giggly 17 year old ex fb bffwb who has been dumped.

The incidents are storms in a tea cup. He said/she said and both witnesses against OP have an axe to grind/charges to avoid.

I would imagine the judge will dismiss the gun charges.. or rubber stamp guilty and a small fine. It really was a cheap trick and sign of desperation by the State to try and sneak in character evidence via petty charges way past their use-by date.
I imagine the Judge, however she decides on them, will NOT consider those charges when she is deliberating on the Real charge(s) that this trial is about.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I am going to say just the opposite--they take that gun violation stuff very seriously down there in South Africa. He's facing a sentence of 5-15 years in a bad place just for those charges.

That's why I believe it is so important that a witness for the State was co-opted by another State witness. Pistorius is going to deny he fired the gun at all apparently ... wow.

Sammantha gave him a glowing review at the bail hearing. And although she perceived she was on the way out with him in November 2012, she helped him by contradicting Fresco. She wasn't scorned by Fresco but she impeached him quite thoroughly.

And Fresco is up to his ears in the restaurant incident also. Anything that discredits him should have Pistorius thanking his lucky stars.