Oscar Pistorius, das Model, der Valentinstag und das war dann Notwehr

.lucy. schrieb:Kein Verständnis habe ich für Menschen, die OPs Verhalten entschuldigen.

Da gibt es auch nichts zu entschuldigen. Er hat einen Menschen ermordet. Ich verstehe auch nicht, warum es immer noch Menschen gibt, die das schönzureden versuchen?!

Und scheinbar ist den Schönrednern ein Menschenleben nichts wert, denn auch der nichtvorhandene intruder, wäre tot und es wäre immer noch Mord ;)

Man sehe sich einfach den Tatort an, unter der Prämisse, dass nur zwei Menschen anwesend waren. Man sehe sich das Bild der Verwüstung an, die NACH der Intruder story stattgefunden hat. Wer kann da auch nur noch ansatzweise an den vermeintlichen intruder glauben?

Die Blutspuren im Schlafzimmer, im Bad, im Flur unten - die zerstörten Türen, das Badewannenblech, der Cricketbat und die geliebte Waffe im Bad^^

Hier fand ein klassisches Beziehungsdrama statt und nichts weiter - wer das nicht sehen will, für den gibt es keine Opfer häuslicher Gewalt - denn all die Täter leiden sicherlich unter irgendwelchen psycho-sozialen Störungen - der Freibrief für jede Tat.

Allein wenn ich an die EV denke :D

Yoga, um 22 Uhr geschlafen, der Ventilator auf dem Balkon......

Es gibt ja Leute, die haben sogar das geglaubt und sind jeden angegangen, der daran gezweifelt hat



Ich wäre danach vorsichtiger was ich einem glaube

Ein 2. mal auf Lügen reinfallen........

Ros Godlovitch Chappell, Prozessbeobachterin und eine moderne Agatha Christie, der auch nicht das winzigste Detail entgeht.

I ended my 7th May article on BizNews (Oscar Pistorius: killer lies. Will this little detail nail him for murder?) with a cliff hanger. Pistorius testified that he shot Reeva Steenkamp, mistaking her for an intruder, and that she was alive when he eventually knocked down the door with a cricket bat and retrieved her. But that could not be true; she could not have been alive on HIS version. It is inconsistent with a scientific fact which the defence accepts.
Can there be an innocent explanation for his inconsistency? For example, can he now say that he was mistaken? He believed that she was alive because he so wanted it to be true. It would involve changing his story again, which is embarrassing, but better than being proved a liar.
But this altered version would not help him either. The more Pistorius changes his version, ‘tailors his evidence’ as Gerrie Nel put it, the more he digs himself into a hole.
This is because there is one part of his testimony which he must hang onto, if it is even remotely believable: that he mistook Reeva for an intruder and shot her in a terrible mistake.
On his version, it is absolutely critical that Judge Masipa accepts that he fired the shots first, and THEN knocked the door down with the cricket bat.
Cricket bat, gun shots: Why order of actions is important
The State’s forensic witness, Lt Colonel Vermeulen provided some support for this version. Defence counsel Barry Roux asks him: “when was the door hit with the cricket bat, before or after the gunshots?” The answer that Roux wants to hear is “after”, and he gets it; sort of. The state seems a little shaky on this point, but hasn’t made it critical.
As long as the sequence “shots then cricket bat” is generally accepted in the trial, the Defence can have some hope that the intruder version is plausible.
SAPS photograph.
SAPS photograph from the scene of the killing (see cricket bat, right).
On first thought, this does not help Pistorius. It confirms the apartheid stereotype that South Africa is desperate to put behind it, namely that it’s not so bad if you shoot a (presumably black) intruder in this violent society. But he shot and killed through a locked door, no warning, no reasonable steps, even without knowing the intruder’s intentions – it could have been a child intent only on petty theft. It makes little difference if Pistorius knew it was Reeva or not.
But for him there was a vital difference. The court might understand if he ‘made a mistake’ in a blind panic.
And then an expert witness supported this very point. On Tuesday 13th May, the defence called forensic psychiatrist Dr Meryll Vorster.
Dr Vorster testified that Pistorius suffers from generalised anxiety disorder, or GAD, which surely must have leapt to the “top 10 acronyms” on the Google search engine.
His extreme anxiety, coupled with his vulnerability as a double amputee, meant that not only was he hyper-vigilant, but also it triggered a “fight” reaction when he thought he heard an intruder in the toilet. He fired shots through the locked door in blind terror, and the unfortunate consequence was the death of Reeva Steenkamp.
Gerrie Nel’s ears pricked up. Dr Vorster had testified that Pistorius had a mental condition which might be a relevant factor in the Court’s sentencing. Nel argued that the Court had no choice under Section 78 of the Mental Health Act but to refer him immediately for independent psychiatric assessment.
The dark room, the intruder and the high-pitched screams
Was Dr Vorster in effect a “Witness for the Prosecution”? Did Roux fail to appreciate the consequence of putting this witness on the stand?
Or was it a clever tactic by Roux? This was his client’s best chance.
If the psychiatric assessment agreed with Dr Vorster’s diagnosis of GAD, and Pistorius felt a direct and terrifying threat from an intruder, Roux could later argue for a reduced sentence. Meanwhile he created, he hoped, sympathy for his client.
If Roux risked waiting until sentencing, it could be too late. Judge Masipa might agree with the State’s summing up, that the accused knew that Reeva was behind the door. Then the diagnosis of GAD was irrelevant, and the sympathy card could not be played.
And if, by any chance, the psychiatric evaluation could find that Pistorius was temporarily insane on the night of the murder, then, as I understand it, the trial would stop there and then, he would be acquitted by reason of insanity, and committed to a mental institution. The world would never get to hear Gerrie Nel’s final summing up. And Barry Roux, we presume, would be relieved to avoid summing up himself.
To persuade the Court that he was at the time in mortal fear of an intruder, Pistorius had to get a core narrative right. It had to be pitch black, so he could not see that Reeva was not in bed. He had to describe the type of noise which made him think it was an intruder.
And most vitally, he had to testify that the shots preceded the bangs of the cricket bat, with an adequate interval between.
It made no sense if the cricket bat bangs came first. If he thought that a dangerous intruder locked himself behind the door, why on earth would he put his gun down to smash down the door with a cricket bat?
But if the shots came first, it left him with no end of other problems.
For one thing, credible ear witnesses heard two sets of “bangs”, and they could estimate the time quite accurately. The bedside clock was checked twice. The first set of bangs would have been just after 3 a.m. On Pistorius’s sequence that must have been the shots. The second set was at about 3:14 – 3:15. That must have been the bangs.
Reeva Steenkamp: died after being shot in a locked toilet cubicle at the home of athlete Oscar Pistorius.
Reeva Steenkamp: died after being shot in a locked toilet cubicle. Were Reeva and Oscar arguing, or was her killing a terrible mistake?
But the ear witness heard a woman screaming after the first set of bangs, after Reeva was shot on his version. Pistorius could retort, though not demonstrate, that he screams like a woman. But then another problem emerges. The witness also heard a man.
And worse still, a different witness also heard the “bangs” or shots at approximately 3:14 – 3:15. This witness, Ms Burger, is a talented musician, a point that was only made en passant in her husband’s testimony. She would have a much more accurate ear for tempo than an average witness, so her ear evidence is very persuasive. She recalled four shots: bang, pause, then in quick succession, bang bang bang. And she too heard a female screaming before and during the bangs. And the quick succession did not fit smashing a door down with a cricket bat. There would have been longer pauses between the bangs.
Reeva Steenkamp’s time of death: Why Oscar must be wrong
These issues damaged Pistorius’s credibility in Court. But an issue that did not feature was the IMPOSSIBILITY on this timeline that Reeva was alive when he found her if, as Pistorius claims, the first set of bangs was the gunshots.
There was a 12 to 14 minute interval between the sets of “shots”. But according to the state pathologist, Reeva died very quickly after the shot to the head. She only breathed a few times, and the defence agreed.
If Pistorius shot her just after 3:00, she COULD NOT have been alive when he pulled her out of the toilet at about 3:15, let alone a bit later when she was struggling to breathe and he put her head down softly on the carpet.
When Roux examined his client on the witness stand, he may have had an inkling of this problem; Pistorius stated that the interval between the two sets of bangs was about five minutes.
But this doesn’t help. Reeva could not have been alive even on this timeline. And it creates another anomaly: Four witnesses heard the second noises, argued to be the cricket bat, but NO ONE heard gunshots 5 minutes before the cricket bat bangs. And Mrs Stipp must have been psychic: she imagined the first set of bangs which then occurred (unheard) about 8 minutes later.
In their defence, Roux argued that Reeva was in the toilet because she had gone to pee, not because she was frightened. As evidence, her bladder was nearly empty. But there could be another (and distressing) explanation: she could have “peed her pants” in terror. Her pants were so bloody that I wonder whether they were checked for urine. Ironically, “fight or flight” was raised by Dr Vorster in evidence for Pistorius. But peeing in your pants is also a “fight or flight” response controlled by the limbic system. It was not Pistorius’s “fight” that was evidence; it may have been Reeva’s “flight”.
According to Pistorius’ timeline, Reeva MUST have been dead when he found her.
But he insisted that she was alive, struggled to breathe, and died in his arms. Could this be true in an alternative version?
Yes, but only if the door was banged with the cricket bat BEFORE shots were fired through it. And only if Pistorius could access Reeva immediately after he shot her.
This account is devastating for Pistorius’s version, but this must be what happened. Suddenly it all fits together. And the forensic evidence ties in with the State’s ear witnesses.
Saayman gave about 3:15- 3:20 as time of death; his reasons I do not know. His evidence was deemed too lurid to be broadcast. He also testified that she could only have taken a few breaths, she died almost immediately. His time of death coincides with the second set of shots heard by Dr and Mrs Stipp, and the shots heard by Ms Burger with great accuracy, and by her husband.
Col. Van der Nest testified that the victim was shot while in the toilet. There was also blood spatter in the bathroom and in the downstairs lounge caused by an arterial spurt.There was a pool of blood next to the shower.
Police photograph of Oscar Pistorius's home, after Reeva Steenkamp was shot dead.
Police photograph of Oscar Pistorius’s home, after Reeva Steenkamp was shot dead.
His evidence was very brief. I hoped to hear more and understand better. But we can conclude from it that Reeva was taken out of the toilet ALIVE, if just.
Cracks in the door; what the neighbours heard
But what about Lt Colonel Vermeuen’s evidence that the shots came first?
If you look at his testimony more carefully, what Vermeuen said was “at least some part of [the door] broke after the shots”. This is because one of the broken pieces of the door panel had a crack which ran straight through the bullet hole. Other damage to the toilet door and the bedroom door could have happened earlier.
If the gunshots are proved to have occurred at about 3:15, then the earlier bangs heard just after 3:00 must have been the cricket bat. Ironically, the defence’s tests to prove that the cricket bat bangs sounded like gunshot turned out to be helpful to the State.
Pistorius must have damaged the door, but not broken it down, at just after 3:00. And the shouting and screaming heard by ear witnesses would in fact have been he and Reeva arguing. Then he shot her through the locked or closed door. The door could have been so weakened that it would then be easy to access inside after he shot her.
Mysteries remain. If Reeva was in fact locked in the toilet with her phone, why didn’t she call the police? But who says she had her phone in the toilet at that time? Perhaps she didn’t. Or perhaps Pistorius persuaded her to come out of the toilet, but the arguing intensified and she ran back in.
If Pistorius pulled Reeva out from the toilet almost immediately after he shot her, she could have been alive, and he laid her down on the bathroom floor when she was alive. And could the spatter in the “downstairs lounge” be caused by an arterial spurt while he carried her from the upstairs bedroom?
All this evidence fits together to form a coherent timeline. The state may never be able to reconstruct it exactly.
After the killing: vital clues
If this analysis is anywhere near accurate, just seconds after he shot Reeva, Pistorius must have conceived and acted on an elaborate version to disguise what he had done. What he did to the crime scene we may never know.
He did not call 911 immediately, and when he did, they had a 66 second conversation. Whatever else may have been said, it did not include Pistorius’s instruction to send an ambulance immediately.
He had the presence of mind to implant his “intruder” version in Johan Standers mind, when he phoned him at 3:19, about 4 minutes after he shot Reeva, and later. On the witness stand, Stander did not confirm Pistorius’s testimony that he asked him to call an ambulance.
Nor did Stander call an ambulance as soon as he put down the phone. Rather he arrived at Pistorius’s house within minutes, and even then there was a delay before an ambulance was called.
Stander testified that he saw Pistorius’s genuine pain, he was “desperate to save Reeva’s life”, he prayed to God to let her live, he was a broken man.
Pistorius held a memorial service for Reeva. A family statement read: “Oscar has asked for a private service with people who share his loss, including his family members who knew and loved Reeva.”
He convinced forensic psychiatrist Dr Vorster that he wanted to shoot an intruder and felt guilty and remorseful that it was Reeva and not an intruder.
When cross examined by Nel, and asked to look at a picture of Reeva’s head, Pistorius howled, ’I will not look at a picture where I’m tormented by what I saw and felt that night. …. As I picked Reeva up my fingers touched her head. I remember, I don’t have to look at a picture. I was there.’
What sort of man can do that?

* Copyright Ros Godlovitch Chappell.

https://www.facebook.com/Justice4ReevaSteenkamp/posts/624377450974161

Das ist ein großartiger Artikel...
Hat sie das von uns, oder ist sie von selbst drauf gekommen ;)

KlaraFall schrieb:It made no sense if the cricket bat bangs came first. If he thought that a dangerous intruder locked himself behind the door, why on earth would he put his gun down to smash down the door with a cricket bat? But if the shots came first, it left him with no end of other problems.

Es macht keinen Sinn wenn die Cricketschläge zuerst kamen Wenn er dachte es wär ein gefährlicher Einbrecher der sich selbst hinter der Tür eingeschlossen hatte, warum zum Himmel legt er seine Pistole ab um die Tür mit dem Cricketschläger einzuschlagen?
Aber falls die Schüsse zuerst kamen, läßt es ihn mit nicht enden wollenden anderen Problemen zurück.

And worse still, a different witness also heard the “bangs” or shots at approximately 3:14 – 3:15. This witness, Ms Burger, is a talented musician, a point that was only made en passant in her husband’s testimony. She would have a much more accurate ear for tempo than an average witness, so her ear evidence is very persuasive. She recalled four shots: bang, pause, then in quick succession, bang bang bang. And she too heard a female screaming before and during the bangs. And the quick succession did not fit smashing a door down with a cricket bat. There would have been longer pauses between the bangs.Text

Frau Burger war Musikerin, das wusste ich nicht oder hatte es vergessen, klar dass sie den Takt gut beurteilen kann und die Pausen..

KlaraFall schrieb:When cross examined by Nel, and asked to look at a picture of Reeva’s head, Pistorius howled, ’I will not look at a picture where I’m tormented by what I saw and felt that night. …. As I picked Reeva up my fingers touched her head. I remember, I don’t have to look at a picture. I was there.’
What sort of man can do that?

Welche Art Mann kann so etwas tun?

@KlaraFall

Toller Bericht!

KlaraFall schrieb:she could have “peed her pants” in terror. Her pants were so bloody that I wonder whether they were checked for urine

Sind Ihre shorts denn nun untersucht worden? Ich dachte.

KlaraFall schrieb:And if, by any chance, the psychiatric evaluation could find that Pistorius was temporarily insane on the night of the murder, then, as I understand it, the trial would stop there and then, he would be acquitted by reason of insanity, and committed to a mental institution. The world would never get to hear Gerrie Nel’s final summing up.

Wenn bei der Begutachtung tatsächlich etwas zu Tage tritt, dann endet der Prozess? Wir hören dann nicht mehr die Plädoyers?

Was ich nicht ganz verstehe
Ist OP denn nach der Tat nicht verhört worden, mußte er denn nicht bis ins kleinste Detail eine Aussage bei der Polizei machen ?

Über jede Minute, alles schriftlich festgehalten.

Dann hätte er im Zeugenstand nicht dauernd behaupten können er erinnere sich nicht.
Einfach seine Aussage von damals durchlesen müssen

@KlaraFall
..du bist hier mal ein "Trüffelschwein" genannt worden

....das kann ich nur ganz nett hervorheben und mehrfach unterstreichen - ganz toller Beitrag, ne Menge Details, die ich so garnicht mitbekommen habe und mein Bild dieses Prozesses aber gut abrunden....

Danke für deine Akribie und deinen Fleiß :-)

.lucy. schrieb:Ist OP denn nach der Tat nicht verhört worden, mußte er denn nicht bis ins kleinste Detail eine Aussage bei der Polizei machen ?

...es muss unsäglich geschlampt worden sein bei der ersten Beweisaufnahme, Tatortsicherung und all den Sachen, die bei uns jeder "Dorfsheriff" aus´m "FF" beherrscht....

...Das war ja auch der Hauptgrund für seine Kaution: Der Richter konnte nur im Zweifelsfall entscheiden.....

Die beste Zusammenfassung von Ros Godlovitch Chappell. Vielen Dank, @KlaraFall!

Rabenfeder schrieb:Das ist ein großartiger Artikel...
Hat sie das von uns, oder ist sie von selbst drauf gekommen ;)

Das war auch meine Reaktion - alle Einzelheiten sind auch hier bei uns zu finden:-)
Ich hebe Hut vor Allmy Gesellschaft!

Und hier die Endlösung - alle Wölfe satt und Schafe leben weiter:

And if, by any chance, the psychiatric evaluation could find that Pistorius was temporarily insane on the night of the murder, then, as I understand it, the trial would stop there and then, he would be acquitted by reason of insanity, and committed to a mental institution. The world would never get to hear Gerrie Nel’s final summing up. And Barry Roux, we presume, would be relieved to avoid summing up himself.

:-(

.lucy. schrieb:Was ich nicht ganz verstehe
Ist OP denn nach der Tat nicht verhört worden, mußte er denn nicht bis ins kleinste Detail eine Aussage bei der Polizei machen ?

Das ist ein fettiges Fragezeichen auch für mich!
OP hat ja mehrmals hervorgehoben, dass er auch kein Affi abgeben müsste, nur aus seinem guten Willen tue er dass!

Ahnungslose schrieb:OP hat ja mehrmals hervorgehoben, dass er auch kein Affi abgeben müsste, nur aus seinem guten Willen tue er dass!

und das hat er ja noch nicht mal selbst geschrieben.

Eigentlich müßte er sofort in den Knast.
Er hat zugegeben, dass es so nicht stimmt, er es nicht geschrieben hat, aber auf Grund des Affis kam er doch auf Kaution frei.
Jedenfalls hat das Affi eine Rolle dabei gespielt

Unfassbar, dass OP das so durch geht

@Ahnungslose

Ahnungslose schrieb:OP hat ja mehrmals hervorgehoben, dass er auch kein Affi abgeben müsste, nur aus seinem guten Willen tue er dass!

Aus gutem Willen, das ist ja der reinste Hohn!!!! NUR wegen seiner Affi ist er überhaupt auf Kaution frei gekommen.
Welches Risiko diese jedoch war OHNE vorher die Zeugenaussagen, Ballistiker und Forensik zu würdigen, haben wir ja im Prozess gesehen.
Für den Prozess musste diese ja dann mehrfach geändert/ergänzt werden, NACHDEM die Zeugen der Staatsanwaltschaft ausgesagt hatten.
Nächstes Risiko, dass er eingehen musste, war sein miserables Zeugnis in der Witness Box.
Und nun in der Klinik wird es für ihn brandgefährlich, denn man muss kein Experte sein um hinter seine verlogene Fassade zu schauen.

Der Prozess wird weitergehen.
Es wird ein brilliantes Plädoyer von Nel geben und das Urteil der Richterin wird nicht mehr anfechtbar sein.
Hervorragender Schachzug von Gerrie Nel!

@Rabenfeder
@infinitas
@elweko

Von Ros Godlovitch Chappell stammt auch folgender Beitrag, den ich schon einmal in den Strang gestellt hatte:

http://www.biznews.com/oscar-pistorius-trial/2014/05/oscar-pistorius-killer-lies-will-little-detail-nail-murder/

Interessant auch die Kommentare darunter.

OP hat den Tatort manipuliert, indem er Reeva nach unten trug.
Mein Verdacht ist immer noch, dass vorher schon Blut im Flur, auf der Treppe war.

Das im Schlafzimmer auf decke und Teppich konnte er damit erklären, es wäre von seinen Händen getropft
Aber das Blut an der Wand ?

Wie hätte OP Blut auf der Treppe erklärt, hätte er Reeva nicht runter getragen ?

Auf der Suche nach einem Motiv.

Justice Seekers - Reeva Steenkamp shot by Oscar Pistorius Blade Runner:
We know that Reeva said she was going to call the police. OP slipped up when he said under cross "I wanted to know why she wants to phone the police". So, she must have had her phone on her person when she said that. OP must have taken the phone off of her. She must have fought with him, but eventually he got the phone. Her only option was then to lock herself away in the toilet. If she still had her phone, he WOULD NOT HAVE SHOT her.

https://www.facebook.com/Justice4ReevaSteenkamp/posts/621814884563751?comment_id=621926814552558&offset=0&total_comments=89

War es möglicherweise ein Versprecher im Kreuzverhör als OP sagte: "I wanted to know why she wants to phone the police".
War das möglicherweise der Auslöser für die Tat?

Gegen Minute 17:00 sind diese Worte von ihm noch einmal zu hören.

Oscar Pistorius Trial: Monday 14 April 2014, Session 3

Externer Inhalt
Durch das Abspielen werden Daten an Youtube übermittelt und ggf. Cookies gesetzt.

@KlaraFall
Das hatte ich mich damals auch gefragt, ob es ein Versprecher war....
die Frage ist welche Beweiskraft das hat

@Rabenfeder

Beweiskraft ist immer schwierig bei einem Indizienprozess, doch INSGESAMT muss es ein schlüssiges Bild geben.
Aus meiner subjektiven Sichtweise könnte das die Streitversion untermauern.
Wenn die Worte so gemeint, wie (vielleicht unbewusst ) entglitten, dann läge hier das Motiv für die Eskalation.

Ob @sterntaucher noch auf einen "Absacker" reinschaut und uns sagt, was er dazu denkt? ;-)

@KlaraFall
.. klar.. schon aus Solidarität für OP ;)

die Erklärung ist natürlich schlüssig, sicher erklärt das ein eventuelles Motiv
vielleicht findet er sogar, er steht so wie es jetzt ist, besser da, als wenn sie die
Polizei tatsächlich geholt hätte...das ist dann aber schon eiskalte Berechnung..

KlaraFall schrieb:We know that Reeva said she was going to call the police. OP slipped up when he said under cross "I wanted to know why she wants to phone the police".

Helft ihr mir mal bitte schnell. Ich glaube ich hab was verpasst.
OP hat das im Kreuzverhör gesagt?
Kann das Video erst morgen schauen, wenn ich WLAN habe.

@infinitas

Ja, das hat er gesagt.
Das Video habe ich extra reingestellt, dass man sich selbst davon überzeugen kann.
Welches Gewicht es tatsächlich hat, kann ich nicht wirklich beurteilen.
Für mich war es überhaupt seltsam, dass er ihr zugerufen haben wollte die Polizei zu rufen, zu der er selbst aber kein Vertrauen hat.
Dann hätte er doch bloß die Alarmanlage, die er angeblich ausgestellt haben will, nicht deaktivieren müssen und dann wären jede Menge Menschen & Hilfe vor Ort gewesen.
Aber zu Baba sagte er: "Everything is fine"
Das passt alles nicht.