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

@Ahnungslose
na wenn Du das sagst.....


hier was zu Nel, da bin ich ja gespannt, ob dann hier auch darüber gemeckert wird, wie er vielleicht mit Zeugen umgeht

On the other team, Gerrie Nel - considered South Africa's top state prosecutor - is also known as a tough courtroom fighter. He is nicknamed "the bulldog" for his tenacity.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-26430238

Tussinelda schrieb:For example, forensic evidence on where the shots were fired from could tell us a lot about Mr Pistorius's motivation, said Mr Randolph-Quinney.

Tell but not prove!
Wir können auch hier sehr überzeugend "tellen", dass OP eigentlich das Fehlen von RS im Bett nicht unmerken konnte ... aber Roux wird ja darauf nicht Hände hoch heben.

Posting #662

Originally Posted by Stromm View Post

Apologies for repeating some material discussed earlier. Just trying to get my thoughts in order, to see if anyone sees things differently.


Intrigued by those subtle changes between OP's bail-application affidavit and his plea-explanation on Day 1 of the trial. Since the changes will look suspicious, and will be picked-up on, the defence must really think it's important to get these details into evidence even at the cost of consistency. What are they worried about? Presumably they're anticipating OP's original story being dismantled in specific ways, and are trying to head it off. The plea-explanation is an odd document (to the layman, at least). It's by no means a complete account. OP merely wishes to "emphasise" the seemingly arbitrary points it contains. Would it perhaps have been more accurate if he'd said "I wish to change my story in the following respects pre-emptively, before it looks as though I've been cornered into doing so"?

Bail: "After Reeva finished her yoga exercises she got into bed and we both fell asleep ... During the early morning hours of 14 February 2013, I woke up"

Trial: "I had shortly before spoken to Reeva, who was in bed beside me"

The bail version distinctly implies that only OP woke in the middle of the night. At the time the defence must have thought this reinforced his claimed assumption that RS was still in bed when he heard the noise from the bathroom. The story had to be that it would have seemed impossible to him that she could have gone from fast asleep to wide awake, realised she needed a pee and nipped off to the loo without him being aware of it, all while he was getting the fan in from the balcony right next to the bed. Defence must now have concluded that it'll seem impossible to everyone else as well. As he wasn't quite explicit at the bail hearing about it being only him who'd woken, perhaps they're hoping they can now get away with calmly mentioning that both OP and RS had been awake.

But I think it creates more problems for the defence than it solves. RS - according to OP's version - is on the balcony side of the bed. She's more mobile. Why doesn't she skip out of bed to get the fan in rather than leave it to OP (who makes so much of his limited mobility on his stumps when talking up his feeling of vulnerability)? And when he comes back in and hears the noise from the loo, why doesn't he whisper to her "What was that? ... Did you hear that?"? He doesn't say a word to her; just walks round to his side of the bed, gets his gun, and heads for the loo shouting to the intruder to get out of his house and to Reeva to call the police. Why leave it that long to get her to summon help? And if he thinks he needs his gun to deal with these people, wouldn't he tell her quietly to take cover rather than just leave her lying in bed, wide-awake but oblivious to what's about to go down?


Bail: "I woke, went onto the balcony to bring the fan in."

Trial: "During the early hours of the morning I brought two fans in from the balcony"

Well I suppose there must have been two fans inside the flat when the police arrived, for the new version to have any chance of plausibility. I expect he'll say the fans were rammed tight up against opposite ends of the balcony when he went to get them. He needs every second out there he can get. I still think that if RS was awake enough to chat in bed, and was planning a trip to the loo, she could have said "I'll get the fans in while I'm up". It just seems pointedly unhelpful (and oddly furtive) of her to watch him struggling the long way around the bed and then waiting until he's safely out on the balcony before she sneaks off to the loo.


Bail: "I noticed that the bathroom window was open."

Trial: "I heard the bathroom window sliding open"

The original version was always going to have to go. I think his lawyers liked him only noticing that the window was open once he got to the bathroom because it allowed him a sudden intensifying of fear right at the moment that he was in front of the loo door behind which the intruders would have been hiding. Thereby portraying a split-second panic-induced decision to open fire.

But his security paranoia was already well-established, by himself on Twitter for one thing. He'd also acknowledged that trait by stating that he'd locked his bedroom door, though the real point of that detail might have been to accentuate his feeling of being trapped and hence trigger-happy. The defence must now have realised that it's utterly implausible for such a person to go to bed knowing that the bathroom window was open with a ladder outside. So the original "I heard a noise in the bathroom" now becomes "I heard the bathroom window sliding open". At the bail hearing he couldn't put his finger on what that noise was: it seemed to have been just a troubling, indistinct noise. In the intervening year he's crystallised it in his mind. Not sure I buy that. I think you tend to recognise instantly the characteristic sounds made by your domicile - especially those made more familiar by repetition. And if you don't recognise such a sound on the moment, it's unlikely that it'll come to you months later.

As for what the fans were doing out on the balcony in the first place, I suspect they might have been inside all the time. My preferred scenario is that at no point thus far that evening had they intended to go to sleep, so the balcony doors and the bathroom window had been left open to create a through-draught as it was a hot night. Possibly the defence team took a mental inventory of the configuration and contents of the bedroom so as to come up with something to get OP out of the room and keep him occupied while RS could disappear to the loo. They needed the balcony doors to be closed after retrieving the fans, so that OP could spend time on doors, blinds and curtains while RS was heading for the loo. But they needed a story to get the doors open again, since that was presumably how they were when the police arrived. Hence OP's incongruous and futile actions in running to the balcony to shout for help - across empty streets in the middle of the night - when you'd expect him to be torn between ringing for an ambulance and getting access to RS to administer first-aid.

Of course this is all speculation presented as 'facts' solely in the interests of (relative!) concision. Nothing no one else has thought of, I don't suppose. (Except the bits that are rubbish).


http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=236783&page=27

.

Tussinelda schrieb: For example, forensic evidence on where the shots were fired from could tell us a lot about Mr Pistorius's motivation, said Mr Randolph-Quinney.

Ich warte mit Spannung drauf.

@Ahnungslose
Genau- und zu diesen Anrufen- existieren mit Sicherheit auch exakte Zeitangaben! Wenn OP auch nur eine viertel Stunde vor den Schüssen mit seiner weiblichen panik-Stimme .. um Hilfe rief... wird's eng! Vielleicht hat er danach ja auch erstmal die Ventilatoren ins Haus katapultiert um sich dann den vermeidlichen Einbrecher auf dem Klo zu widmen!? Die Verteidigung wird schon ne spannende Geschichte draus basteln... nach der heutigen "Stimm-Imitator" Nummer ... läßt sich mit allem rechnen! 😜 Ne räudige Katze klänge für mich plausibler...

Posting #676 von Stromm

The Curious Incident of the Loo in the Night-Time. (It didn't flush!)

As inconceivable as it is that OP would have left the bathroom window open before going to sleep (hence the abandonment of that story), it's also an odd thing for RS to do (to open it) when she went to the loo. But I suppose they prefer that story because it is merely odd rather than inconceivable, and RS isn't around to be required to justify it. OP can say "I really don't know why she opened it. There's nothing I can tell you."

Perhaps he can speculate idly along the lines of "Reeva knew I was getting the fans in to cool the place down, so I suppose she thought opening the bathroom window would help." But for that to be a good idea (from the security point of view) they'd have to have been in agreement that they wouldn't be going to sleep for quite a while - even though it was already 3 a.m.

Also it compresses her available peeing time-slot beyond reason. In the defence version, RS absolutely has to have actually urinated. At the bail hearing, Roux made a big deal of the empty bladder found in the post-mortem, and even got an expert in to say that you'd expect a bladder to contain some urine even after just a couple of hours in bed (since last pee).

Obviously there was no urine left in the loo-bowl, or this wouldn't have needed discussing at the bail hearing. Since she had to have urinated for the defence story to work then she had to have flushed - which would be really audible in a silent flat at 3 a.m. from not very far away.

Now 'the noise' has been identified (by OP) as RS sliding open the bathroom window. At this point OP is back inside with the fans, and has got the doors, blinds and curtains shut. So RS has to enter the loo, close and lock the door, sit down, urinate, stand up and pull up her shorts, and flush the loo. And get all that done before OP is close enough to hear the flush. Well he'd have heard it even if he was still out on the balcony, of course, but in the manoeuvrings the defence are getting stuck with, RS would have done well to have even finished peeing by the time OP reached the loo door with his gun. For the defence version to make sense - i.e., that it was a routine loo-trip, and she wasn't fleeing a raging OP - she has to have finished and and flushed, which would have alerted OP not to empty a magazine into the door. But OP will presumably maintain that there was no flushing. It's quite a vexing conundrum, even for the casual observer. Glad I haven't got to explain the solution to the judge.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=236783&page=28

Sie müssen es nachstellen vor Ort, ich finde, da geht kein Weg dran vorbei. Anders wird man nicht rausfinden können, ob es so sein kann, wie von ihm beschrieben. Incl. Schüssen und Schlägen und den Zeugen in ihren jeweiligen Häusern.

@diegraefin
ich finde, die müssen erst einmal alle Zeugen anhören, dann kann man so etwas in Erwägung ziehen, sollte es dann noch Unklarheiten geben

ich bin ja in gespannter Erwartung, was Botha betrifft......von den Spezialisten abgesehen

Es wird wohl schwierig sein, dies nachzustellen - akustische Gutachten werden wohl erstellt worden sein, aber den tatsächlichen Ablauf wird man wohl nicht nachvollziehen können, da dieser nur aufgrund Aussagen von O.P. basieren dürfte.

Wenn inzwischen dort viel hingebaut worden ist, bekommt man auch nicht die richtigen Antworten darauf.

Wie kommt Roux überhaupt darauf zu behaupten, das Fenster in der Toilette wäre geschlossen gewesen?

@KlaraFall
weil es nicht offen war, das im Bad war ja offen

@Tussinelda

Woher weisst du das genau?
Ich habe das nicht so in Erinnerung.

@KlaraFall
was hast Du denn in Erinnerung, bezüglich des Toilettenfensters?

@Tussinelda

Da kannn ich mich eben nicht festlegen.
Deshalb muss ich es ganz genau wissen.

@KlaraFall
es wurde nur in 2 Zusammenhängen erwähnt: die Aussicht aus diesem Fenster und das es zu klein sei, um daraus zu flüchten und man dann tief fallen würde, sollte man es wieder Erwarten durch das Fenster schaffen......es wurde NIE erwähnt, dass es offen gewesen sei......

Erklärt mir mal lieber was anderes:

Seine Angst vor Einbrechern stützte sich in der EV darauf, dass das Fenster im Bad auf war und ihm einfiel, dass ja im Garten eine Leiter ist. Wenn er nun sagt, er hörte das Geräusch des sich öffnenden Fensters (wohlbemerkt kein Einbruchgeräusch, kein Krachen, kein Brechen, kein Klirren, sondern "slide open"), wie will er darauf seine Einbrechertheorie stützen? Wenn ich das normale Geräusch höre, wie jemand im Bad ein Fenster entriegelt und öffnet, und ich kurz vorher noch mit meinem Partner im Bett gesprochen habe, wie kann man denn dann darauf kommen, dass das ein Einbrecher ist, der das Fenster öffnet? Es dürfte sich wohl unterschiedlich anhören, ob jemand ein Fenster von innen öffnet oder von außen aufbricht! Das macht doch alles hinten und vorn keinen Sinn.

@diegraefin
na er hat eben nur noch das Aufgleiten gehört, vorher war er ja noch auf dem Balkon

Zumindest ist eins klar: Wenn er vor dem Aufstehen kurz mit ihr gesprochen hat, dann kann er a) weder vergessen haben, dass sie da ist noch b) gedacht haben, dass sie schlafend im Bett liegt. Geräusche aus dem Bad zu hören, wäre unter den Umständen auch dann nicht verwunderlich, wenn man nicht mitbekommen hat, dass der Partner ins Bad gegangen ist. Bei Verwirrung würde man dann wohl den Namen des Partners in Richtung der Geräusche rufen ("Reeva? Is it you?" - "Yes, my little stupid, who else could it be?"). Die Geschichte wird immer hanebüchener.

@diegraefin
mal abwarten, die werden ihre Gründe haben, warum sie das noch nachgetragen haben

@Tussinelda

Tussinelda schrieb:.....es wurde NIE erwähnt, dass es offen gewesen sei......

Meines Wissens auch nicht, dass es zu war.

Roux hat das einfach erstmal behauptet.
Dass es ein kleines Fenster war, durch das niemand eindringen konnte, weiss ich auch noch.