The Oscar Pistorius trial.

Lady MacBeth

Out, damn'd spot! out, I say.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
2,476
Reaction score
289
Location
Canada
Gail, I think you make some really good points. I had read somewhere that the victim had bruises on her body that looked as if she had been assaulted. Do you know if this is true?
 

GailD

Still chasing plot bunnies.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
12,128
Reaction score
4,691
Location
Somerset East, South Africa
Gail, I think you make some really good points. I had read somewhere that the victim had bruises on her body that looked as if she had been assaulted. Do you know if this is true?

I hadn't heard about bruises, but that might have been Reeva's mother's words taken out of context.


"She was lying on a cold slab, looking waxy and lifeless. It was heart-breaking, the most terrible thing," Mrs Steenkamp recalled.
"They had put a cap on her head to hide the worst of the bruising where she had been shot, and they had used a lot of make-up. They told me I shouldn't touch her. But I had to kiss her goodbye, I had to."

No mother should have to go through that. :(
 

Lady MacBeth

Out, damn'd spot! out, I say.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
2,476
Reaction score
289
Location
Canada
That's horrific. :( My heart goes out to the mother.
 

GailD

Still chasing plot bunnies.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
12,128
Reaction score
4,691
Location
Somerset East, South Africa
Mine, too.

Today the medical examiner gave evidence but he requested that it not be broadcast in any way, social media included, as it was pretty graphic and he felt that not only would his evidence be not suitable for sensitive viewers, but to have it broadcast would be impinge on the dignity of the deceased.

The judge agreed and will give her ruling tomorrow, on whether an edited/filtered version can be made available to the public later.

In the absence of facts, rumors of the deceased having been beaten before the shooting are flying around here. One investigative journalist, who is covering the trial, did let slip that, apart from the gunshot wounds, there were no other marks on the deceased. So that should quell at least some of the speculation.

What the news did cover, is that Oscar Pistorius vomited several times during the medical examiner's testimony. At one point it was so bad they had to call a recess.

One has to wonder, was he feeling that bad about what he did, or was that merely a strategy?
 

Perks

delicate #!&@*#! flower
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
18,981
Reaction score
6,933
Location
At some altitude
Website
www.jamie-mason.com
What the news did cover, is that Oscar Pistorius vomited several times during the medical examiner's testimony. At one point it was so bad they had to call a recess.

One has to wonder, was he feeling that bad about what he did, or was that merely a strategy?
Or it could be that he's plain terrified. If he killed her in a fit of rage, everything hinges on this ridiculous story. If the ridiculous story is true, same deal - everything hinges on convincing the court that it's not ridiculous.

Either way, it could be puke inspiring.
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
One has to wonder, was he feeling that bad about what he did, or was that merely a strategy?
It think it is quite possible, especially for someone with anger issues, to shoot their girlfriend in a fit of rage and then be horrified after the fact at what they have done.

Hearing a description of the victim's wounds -- a woman that he had an intimate relationship with -- and knowing he was responsible for inflicting them, could be quite traumatic.

Not that I have any sympathy for the man, but this does not strike me as a cold-blooded killing – quite the opposite. It's quite easy for me to believe both that he killed her and that he is now genuinely appalled at what he has done.
 

Perks

delicate #!&@*#! flower
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
18,981
Reaction score
6,933
Location
At some altitude
Website
www.jamie-mason.com
The thing is, all the moaning and crying and rocking and covering his ears and now blowing chunks is not really very good for his case.

I'm sure, however it went down, that Oscar Pistorius is desperately regretful and would have that few minutes back at any price. We got that, Oscar. And they don't pass out awards (or pardons) for how horrified you can act - or be.

But every accused murderer who's ever sat in court has had to listen to the diagramming of the damage to the victim. I would imagine sitting there stony-faced could be detrimental to the defense's presentation, but Oscar's melodramatic passion play isn't really giving anyone the idea that he's very emotionally stable. And considering that the prosecution's foundation is that Oscar Pistorius is a powder keg on a flaming seesaw during an earthquake, his attorney might want to consider giving his client a damned Xanax before his next performance.
 

Lauram6123

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 16, 2014
Messages
1,532
Reaction score
417
Location
Northern transplant in the southern US.
The thing is, all the moaning and crying and rocking and covering his ears and now blowing chunks is not really very good for his case.

I'm sure, however it went down, that Oscar Pistorius is desperately regretful and would have that few minutes back at any price. We got that, Oscar. And they don't pass out awards (or pardons) for how horrified you can act - or be.

Seems to me, he's a tantruming child, plain and simple. An adolescent who waves a gun around to prove what a big man he is. If his insane story is true, then he erred, finally believing it was his chance to blow the bad guy behind the door away.
If it's not true, then he's just an impulsive murderer/monster. Either way, crying and throwing up in court fits right in to that personality profile, as far as I'm concerned.
 

Lady MacBeth

Out, damn'd spot! out, I say.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
2,476
Reaction score
289
Location
Canada
I had a hard time believing his performance today. Maybe he genuinely feels bad, but her family was sitting there and none of them carried on in such a manner.

The Guardian newspaper did an overview of today's testimony. After reading it, I wouldn't be surprised if OP is just terrified of a guilty verdict.
 

GailD

Still chasing plot bunnies.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
12,128
Reaction score
4,691
Location
Somerset East, South Africa
T And considering that the prosecution's foundation is that Oscar Pistorius is a powder keg on a flaming seesaw during an earthquake, his attorney might want to consider giving his client a damned Xanax before his next performance.

Awesome turn of phrase there! :ROFL:I do agree with you, though.

I had a hard time believing his performance today. Maybe he genuinely feels bad, but her family was sitting there and none of them carried on in such a manner.

The Guardian newspaper did an overview of today's testimony. After reading it, I wouldn't be surprised if OP is just terrified of a guilty verdict.

Exactly. If anyone should be hugely upset, it should be the victim's family.

I would imagine that just hearing about what those bullets (hollow points, for God's sake) did to the victim's body has to make the court view OP in a very bad light, whatever his reason for firing them.
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
You're right. There doesn't appear to be any logic to it. But then again, I don't think we're dealing with a very 'logical' person here.

Consider this: Oscar Pistorius rose from relative obscurity to become an overnight sensation in the sporting world. Due to a congenital deformity, his lower legs were amputated when he was a small child. One has to wonder what the psychological effects of that might have been. Maybe he was bullied at school? Who knows? But documentaries in which close friends were interviewed show a man with a penchant for firearms. He loves guns. He loves firing guns, shooting at things. Then, along comes all this fame, people revere him, women are throwing themselves at him, the world is at his feet blades and he feels invincible. He gets away with pushing people around and dishing out verbal abuse with no consequence. Other people cover up for him. He can do anything and get away with it.

Imho, this man has probably been wanting to fire a gun at somebody for a long time. If he thought there were intruders, his first thought may have been, 'At last, I get to shooting someone'. So, no checking up on girlfriend's whereabouts. No calling out to ascertain if there really was an intruder. No grabbing the phone and calling security. Just get that gun out and shoot.

Logical? To you or I? Hell no. But to Pistorius, yeah.

PS. The X-Files were easier to figure out. :D

That's correct. I listened to her testimony and she said he screamed at her in anger. What I'm wondering though, is does a scream of anger sound exactly the same as a scream of terror or horror? I don't think so.

I agree. It doesn't make sense not to look around and see where your partner is before you go rushing off to shoot someone. But as I said to Cornflake, I don't think this man has been operating on what you and I would consider logic - or what passes for consensus logic, anyway. :D

I didn't mean he wasn't, or perhaps wasn't, acting logically. I meant the story itself is bereft of logic.

The whole entitled athlete thing isn't unique to him, nor is the idea that people don't behave according to basic ideas or others' ideas of logic, of course. Adding it all up - the theory that he wouldn't think it was her in the bathroom, then wouldn't even turn his head to look, or put out a hand to feel for her, or alert her to the theoretical intruders, AND didn't notice her absence when he got up, went around for the fan, went for the gun, etc., AND the basic problems with the consistency of his story (like the legs and the height of the shots [and btw, where he'd have to have been to get his legs], and the likelihood that she'd have said nothing, that etc., etc. strains credulity in the same way OJ's explanations did - to the point of complete absurdity. I believe truth is stranger than fiction. I don't believe this mess.
 

Lady MacBeth

Out, damn'd spot! out, I say.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
2,476
Reaction score
289
Location
Canada
I am not familiar with the way this hearing works. Is there a jury or is the final decision made by the judge?
 

alexaherself

Wordsmith and shoechick
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
5,874
Reaction score
418
No jury. Just a judge, who makes the decisions of both fact and law. I think she can find him guilty of murder, or not guilty of murder but guilty of "culpable homicide", or acquit him altogether.
 

GailD

Still chasing plot bunnies.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
12,128
Reaction score
4,691
Location
Somerset East, South Africa
I didn't mean he wasn't, or perhaps wasn't, acting logically. I meant the story itself is bereft of logic.

The whole entitled athlete thing isn't unique to him, nor is the idea that people don't behave according to basic ideas or others' ideas of logic, of course. Adding it all up - the theory that he wouldn't think it was her in the bathroom, then wouldn't even turn his head to look, or put out a hand to feel for her, or alert her to the theoretical intruders, AND didn't notice her absence when he got up, went around for the fan, went for the gun, etc., AND the basic problems with the consistency of his story (like the legs and the height of the shots [and btw, where he'd have to have been to get his legs], and the likelihood that she'd have said nothing, that etc., etc. strains credulity in the same way OJ's explanations did - to the point of complete absurdity. I believe truth is stranger than fiction. I don't believe this mess.

Okay. I see what you mean about it being illogical.

What's interesting me, is that when his ex-girlfriend testified, she stated that one night he thought there were intruders and he woke her up before grabbing his gun and rushing off to the bathroom. If he woke her up, why didn't he try to do the same thing with Reeva? If he had, he'd have realized that she wasn't in the bed.

And on the subject of illogical - if he'd thought there were intruders before, why the heck didn't he have burglar bars put on the bathroom window? All his other windows had bars on. That doesn't make sense to me.

I am not familiar with the way this hearing works. Is there a jury or is the final decision made by the judge?

We don't have a jury system in South Africa. In the High Court we have a judge who, in certain cases, may appoint two assessors, which has been done in this case. The assessors have the same powers as the judge and all three jointly decide in a verdict. If the assessors disagree with the judge, they can override her ruling.

No jury. Just a judge, who makes the decisions of both fact and law. I think she can find him guilty of murder, or not guilty of murder but guilty of "culpable homicide", or acquit him altogether.

I'm not sure that the judge can find him guilty of culpable homicide as that was not on the charge sheet. I'm not a lawyer, so I may stand corrected, but I think culpable homicide (or a lesser charge than murder) has to be entered as a charge. The other charges are relating to the Firearms Control Act. I think the State is going all-or-nothing on the murder charge.
 

Lady MacBeth

Out, damn'd spot! out, I say.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
2,476
Reaction score
289
Location
Canada
I can't imagine the pressure the judge must be under.
 

GailD

Still chasing plot bunnies.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
12,128
Reaction score
4,691
Location
Somerset East, South Africa
No jury. Just a judge, who makes the decisions of both fact and law. I think she can find him guilty of murder, or not guilty of murder but guilty of "culpable homicide", or acquit him altogether.

Oops. My mistake. In my previous post I said that I didn't think there was an alternate charge of culpable homicide - there is. So you're correct, the judge can find him guilty of C.H. if she finds him not guilty of murder.

:)
 

GailD

Still chasing plot bunnies.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
12,128
Reaction score
4,691
Location
Somerset East, South Africa
While watching the trial on TV this evening and observing the forensic specialist, who is Afrikaans-speaking, giving testimony without the aid of a translator, and later the police commander, also Afrikaans-speaking, giving testimony through a translator, I wondered how easily non-South Africans are following what is being said.

I'm English-speaking (1st language) but I'm fluent in Afrikaans and I got quite irritated at times by the translator's poor choice of words.

If you're watching this trial, how easy is it for you to follow when a translator is used? And without a translator, do you find the accent easy to understand, or not?
 
Last edited:

Lady MacBeth

Out, damn'd spot! out, I say.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
2,476
Reaction score
289
Location
Canada
I haven't watched it live, just followed it through tweets and articles. I did find the forensic information interesting, but I didn't think the police looked very good. What happened to those watches?
 

GailD

Still chasing plot bunnies.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
12,128
Reaction score
4,691
Location
Somerset East, South Africa
I haven't watched it live, just followed it through tweets and articles. I did find the forensic information interesting, but I didn't think the police looked very good. What happened to those watches?

The police don't look good at all. It appears that two watches were stolen from the crime scene. Disgraceful!

But our national police force has been in trouble over one thing or another since 1994. And when the 'top cop' is tried and convicted for corruption, http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/arti...ebi-parole-where-the-truth-lies/#.UyQotc7ruFM it speaks volumes about what is going on in the entire country. This article says a lot about the mindset of a great many people here. :(
 

Lady MacBeth

Out, damn'd spot! out, I say.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
2,476
Reaction score
289
Location
Canada
If the defense can prove the police officers didn't do their jobs, OP may walk even if guilty.
 

Lady MacBeth

Out, damn'd spot! out, I say.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
2,476
Reaction score
289
Location
Canada
Police incompetence?:Shrug: I have no legal background, I'm just guessing. If the crime scene was compromised perhaps.
 

GailD

Still chasing plot bunnies.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
12,128
Reaction score
4,691
Location
Somerset East, South Africa
If the defense can prove the police officers didn't do their jobs, OP may walk even if guilty.


It does seem as if the defense is trying to point out that the crime scene was contaminated. They're alleging that there were prints of police boots on the door, which were wiped off before the door was brought into court.

It that's true, and police did walk on that door, it could mean that the any evidence on the door is now suspect. That door is central to the state's case. If sufficient doubt can be cast on the reliability of it as evidence, the state's case could go up in a puff of smoke.
 

Perks

delicate #!&@*#! flower
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
18,981
Reaction score
6,933
Location
At some altitude
Website
www.jamie-mason.com
I'm a bit confused by the forensic heavy slant of the trial. Since there's no doubt who shot Reeva Steenkamp, it's really Oscar Pistorius' story of why he did it that's on trial. Whether anyone walked on the removed door, or the particular order in which her injuries were dealt, or if there was time between the shots where Reeva could've/would've screamed, I can't see what difference any of that makes, for the prosecution or the defense.

Of course, it's never a good thing if police bollocks up the processing, but in this case, their incompetence or graft can't effect the believability of Oscar's story one way or the other. And that's the only thing really in question here.

Except for things that ding his story (I'm not sure they even need any facts to bolster his story, since if you can't cast doubt on it, you kind of have to take his word for it) it would seem that everything else is irrelevant.

So for the prosecution, the witnesses who claim they heard an argument would be valuable. His history of going off generally and with gun in hand specifically, those would be valuable. The high speed fury ride that Oscar had with Reeva shortly before this incident when he was threatened by her mother on the telephone and warned not to hurt her - that would be valuable.

For the defense, his former girlfriend testifying that he was highly paranoid of intruders, that could support his story. The crime statistics of the area could support his story. There might be other things, but I just can't think of them right now.

In fact, the only two bits of forensic evidence that seem in any way relevant so far are the medical examiner stating that Reeva had eaten something some time around 1am, which would conflict with Oscar's story that they went to bed at 10pm, and that she had essentially no urine in her bladder, which would put into question what she was doing in the toilet if not running away from Oscar.

Beyond that, what of all this microscoping is relevant?

Since it's his story that's on trial, I don't really understand the dissecting of every little bit of the crime scene, since most of it would fall under stipulation that, yes, Oscar Pistorius shot Reeva Steenkamp to death. These particulars don't seem helpful to the prosecution or the defense and we've definitely seen multiple high profile cases drown in technical minutiae.
 
Last edited:

MarkEsq

Clever title pending.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
3,711
Reaction score
1,139
Age
56
Location
In the wilds of Texas. Actually, the liberal oasi
Jamie,

I've not followed the trial very closely, but I get the impression that they are using some of the forensics to establish that he didn't tell the truth when police first spoke to him. Like whether or not he put his legs on (felt weird typing that phrase...) before investigating the noise. If they can show he lied, that's huge because if it was just an accident, of course, he has no reason to lie at all.

GailD's been following closely, maybe she can enlighten. Generally, though, your analysis of what's important evidence and what isn't seems pretty spot on. :)

M.