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

@Tussinelda
Längere Verweildauer bezogen auf verschiedene Speisen... diese gehen aber auf keinen Fall auf 7h hinaus...das wollte und konnte Botha gar nicht vermitteln. Letztendlich hat Botha im großen und ganzen die ca. 2h bestätigt und Ausnahmen davon benannt, widrsprochen hat er dem zumindest nicht.

@Robert80
na widerlegt worden ist es nicht, es wurden entsprechende Schlüsse gezogen, mal abwarten, wer noch so aussagt........

Hier finde ich wurde eine schöne Übersicht geschaffen:
"Oscar Pistorius trial: The cricket bat, the door, the jeans and the blood - and how the prosecution claims his story doesn't add up

By Tom Peck – 17 April 2014
As the Oscar Pistorius murder trial begins an adjournment until May 5, we look at the key evidence presented by Pistorius and the prosecution so far – and how the different versions of events don't add up.

When did they last eat?
Pistorius says: Reeva cooked chicken strips and a vegetable stir-fry, and they ate at 7pm
The prosecution says: Vegetable matter found in Reeva’s stomach very strongly indicates she ate within two hours of death. And she is unlikely to have gone downstairs and eaten in the middle of the night, as it would have required unlocking the bedroom door, and deactivating the downstairs alarm.

When did the pair go to bed?
Pistorius says: The pair went to bed at between 9 and 10pm.
The prosecution says: The contents of Reeva's stomach suggest she ate around 1am, which was when a neighbour Estelle Van der Merwe says she heard arguments.

Who was awake – and when?
Pistorius says: He spoke to Reeva at around 3am, that she said to him: "What’s wrong, baba? Can’t you sleep?" And he replied, "not tonight".
The prosecution says: Why was this detail not made clear at the bail application, when he seemed to suggest he didn’t know if Reeva was asleep or awake.

What about the fans on the balcony?
Pistorius says: He went to the balcony to ‘bring in two fans’
The prosecution says: Why was there only one fan mentioned at the bail application a year ago, and why is he no longer claiming he went fully on to the balcony, and is now saying only part of one the fans was outside the balcony doors.

And the blue LED light on the stereo?
Pistorius says: He picked up Reeva’s discarded jeans, wishing to place them over a blue light coming from his amplifier, that was disturbing him.
The prosecution says: There were many lights on the amplifier, not just the blue one, and a red light on the television. Why was that one bothering him so much?

Why were Reeva's jeans on the floor and inside out?
Pistorius says: He picked up Reeva’s jeans from the floor.
The prosecution says: Why were Reeva’s jeans discarded on the floor, inside out, when all her other possessions were folded away neatly in her overnight bag? The prosecution says they were there because she was intending to put them on. That they had had an argument and she wanted to leave.

Was there a noise from the bathroom? And who could have made it?
Pistorius says: While attending to the fan, Pistorius says he heard the sound of his bathroom window opening. He immediately became sure an intruder had entered. He whispered to Reeva to get down, and shouted to the intruders to “Get the f**k out of my house.”
The prosecution says: How can he not have known Reeva had passed behind him and into the bathroom? It was pitch dark. She had her cellphone with her, which even Pistorius says she would probably have used to guide her. Yet he didn’t see this light as it passed down the passageway to his left. Even though, the tiny blue LED was bothering him.
...
Geht noch weiter. Moment.

...Did the toilet door slam shut?

Pistorius says: He heard the toilet cubicle door slam shut, and became certain an intruder or intruders had shut themselves in there. The prosecution says: There is no mention of this crucial noise in the bail application, or in his plea explanation. Pistorius says he told his defence counsel, but they left it out. “Why would they do that?” Nel asked him, many times. “I’m not sure,” was the athlete’s reply. The state also pointed out that the door was locked. Pistorius has never mentioned hearing the door locked. The sound of the door being locked was demonstrated. It is distinctive.

Why didn't he check on Reeva?
Pistorius says: He picked up his firearm and moved, slowly, on his stumps, down the passageway from bedroom to toilet, shouting for Reeva to phone the police. But at no time did she make any noise, or establish communication with him whatsoever. He maintains she would have hidden silently in the toilet, fearful of the intruders she imagined him to be shouting at.
The prosecution says: Why didn’t he first check if Reeva was OK, as he left the bedroom? How did he not establish that she wasn’t there. Both sets of neighbours who have testified in the case have said how, when they heard a noise in the middle of the night that night, they turned to each other and said ‘Did you hear that?’ But Oscar didn’t.

Why did Pistorius approach 'the intruder'?
Pistorius says: That he moved down the passage into the bathroom, his gun pointed in front of him, but held with a bent arm, loosely by his side and into the bathroom. There, he stopped shouting, as he didn’t want to ‘reveal his position'.
The prosecution says: Why would he move towards the danger? There were many options open to him. To go out on to the balcony, or to go out of the bedroom door and downstairs to safety.
Pistorius says: He is not one to "cower away. That’s not who I am". And that he moved toward the passage imagining Reeva to still be behind him in the bedroom, because he wanted to put himself between Reeva and the danger.

Did he mean to fire the gun?
Pistorius says: He had his gun pointed towards the toilet door. Not aimed, specifically, but pointed, as that’s where the danger was. He heard a sound of ‘wood moving’ inside the cubicle, that he perceived as "someone coming out to attack me" and "before I knew it, I had fired four shots at the door". He didn’t, he says "intend to kill anyone".
The prosecution says: He was "in control of his actions" at all times. That he could see the door. The handle didn’t move. The door didn’t move. Yet he still fired four shots into it. Why four, he was asked. Why didn’t he empty the whole magazine?

Did he know Reeva was in the toilet?
The prosecution says: Pistorius knew Reeva was behind the door. She was talking to him when he shot her. The bullet trajectory shows the first shot aimed towards the toilet. That he then changed position, and fired the next two in the direction of a magazine rack on the floor. The first bullet struck Reeva in the hip. Pistorius heard her fall, and then changed position.
Pistorius says: Simply that it isn’t true. And that there’s no way he could have heard Reeva fall. His ears were ringing from the gunshot in the enclosed space.

Did Reeva cry out?
Pistorius says: Reeva didn’t scream, not even at the first bullet that hit her thigh. There is no way his neighbours could have heard the sound of a woman’s screams during the gunshots that killed her. In his version of events, Reeva never screams. He also said he couldn’t hear himself scream after firing the shots, the ringing in his ears was so loud.
The prosecution says: Several of Pistorius’s neighbours claim to have heard the sound of a woman screaming. If he couldn’t hear himself scream, how could he be so certain Reeva didn’t scream? “You forgot about the ringing in your ears,” Prosecutor Nel put to him, as evidence that Pistorius was “tailoring” his story as he went along.

Did Pistorius scream?
Pistorius says: He ran back to the bedroom, calling out for Reeva. She wasn’t there. He checked by the side of the bed, where he told her to hide. He ran his hands along the curtains to see if she was behind them. She wasn’t. He began to think it could have been Reeva behind the door. He went out on the balcony and "cried for help".
The prosecution says: When the police arrived in the morning, the fan he had brought in from the balcony was directly in the way of the balcony doors. He couldn’t have gone out on the balcony to call for help, and that fan still be where it was.

Why didn't he look for Reeva anywhere else in the house?
The prosecution says: Why didn’t Oscar search the rest of the house? Check if Reeva had gone downstairs.
Pistorius says: He had already become fearful she was in the toilet cubicle. Why would he "waste time" searching the rest of the house?

What about the cricket bat?
Pistorius says: He put on his prosthetic legs, crying out for Reeva all the while, and went back to the bathroom and struck the door with a cricket bat. Eventually a piece at the top came away, and he saw Reeva slumped on the toilet. He found the key on the floor, opened the door, went into the bathroom and held her.
The prosecution says: Why, at that moment of intense panic and dread, discovering the body, did the screaming stop? That Pistorius didn’t scream at this time matches the version of events heard by the athlete’s neighbours. It is yet more 'tailoring of evidence'. The marks on the door are at a height that suggests Pistorius was on his stumps, not his prostheses.

And the blood and the duvet?
Pistorius says: He carried Reeva down the stairs and outside. A doctor neighbour arrived shortly after.
The prosecution says: There is blood spatter on the duvet on the floor in Pistorius’s bedroom, likely to have found its way there when the athlete carried Reeva’s body past. The spatter indicates the duvet was on the floor at the time, and Reeva’s jeans are on top of it.
Pistorius says: The duvet was on the bed when the incident happened. That it was placed on the floor by the police, who tampered with evidence at the crime scene.

Source: Independent
"

In meinen Augen wurde Dixon "benutzt für die Verteidigung: Er wurde mit Teilinformationen gefüttert (nicht alle Bilder, nicht komplette Berichte, nicht alle Hintergrundinformationen). So kam er aufgrund seines Teilwissens zu seinen Schlüssen. Nachdem ihn Nel mit den fehlenden Informationen upgedatet hat, konnte Dixon dann doch plausible Erklärungen finden. Diese Erklärungen stützten dann die version der Anklage. Aufgrund von neutralem Hintergrundwissen machte er auch deutlich, dass der Zeitungsständer, entgegen der Aussage von OP, nicht verrückt wurde!

Die beiden Ballistiker, Wolmarans und Westhuizen, werden aufgrund ihrer objektiven Vorgehensweise ebenso die Version der Anklage bestätigen können. Nel hat die nötigen Fragen heute schon vorbereitet, während er Dixon befragt hat. Meine Meinung

kuddelchen schrieb:contents of Reeva's stomach suggest she ate around 1am, which was when a neighbour Estelle Van der Merwe says she heard arguments.

Das ist aber sehr interessant !

Ich weiss nicht mehr, bei welcher Zeugenaussage es war - aber ich kann mich noch erinnern, als es um die Schüsse ging - O.P. hat sich entweder zum DT vorgelehnt und /oder einen Zettel überreicht - kurz darauf brachte Roux plötzlich die double-taps ins Spiel.


@Tussinelda

Bzgl. Licht im Hause nach 22.00 Uhr (Schlafzimmer / untere Wohnräume ) - von der Strassenseite für die Securitiy eigentlich nicht einsehbar - evtl. nur der Nachbar auf der rechten Seite - und nach hinten Badezimmer / WC in Richtung Stipp

Es kommt grundsätzlich sowieso nicht gut ,wenn die Story ständig verbessert und angepasst wird.

Sowas zum Beispiel ist auch so ein Ding :

kuddelchen schrieb:The prosecution says: Several of Pistorius’s neighbours claim to have heard the sound of a woman screaming. If he couldn’t hear himself scream, how could he be so certain Reeva didn’t scream? “You forgot about the ringing in your ears,” Prosecutor Nel put to him, as evidence that Pistorius was “tailoring” his story as he went along.

Das ist alles nur gequirlte Sch... was dieser Pistorius da von sich gibt.

@kuddelchen
Vielen Dank für die Zusammenfassung... so hat man mal wieder alles auf einen Blick.

@tayo

tayo schrieb:Bzgl. Licht im Hause nach 22.00 Uhr (Schlafzimmer / untere Wohnräume ) - von der Strassenseite für die Securitiy eigentlich nicht einsehbar - evtl. nur der Nachbar auf der rechten Seite - und nach hinten Badezimmer / WC in Richtung Stipp

Sehr gute Beobachtung! Hab mir auch gedacht, die hätten doch Licht sehen können. Doch nicht bei der Lage der Zimmer, ein Zweifel weniger.

Zudem hat OP als einer von wenigen sehr viel Büsche und Bäume rund ums Haus!

Wobei ich bezweifle, dass man Licht gegen 22 Uhr überhaupt wahr nimmt, um die Zeit ist es nicht ungwöhnlich Licht zu sehen in den Häusern. Da gab es auch noch keine Anzeichen von einer Schießerei.

Prof. James Grant, an Associate Professor of Law at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg is another person who cannot understand Pistorius’ behavior in court – but for other reasons. He maintains in an article on a criminal law website that the way Pistorius has answered questions in his defense seems to indicate that he is not sure what his defense is.


http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/sunday-newspaper-reports-oscar-pistorius-is-a-liar/

Since he took the stand last week, however, Pistorius has claimed that he fired at the toilet door accidentally, saying it was “a mistake.” This, says Grant is a completely different story in law, and that it amounts to an involuntary action. Pistorius also claimed in court last week that he did not pull the trigger of the gun that went off in Tasha’s restaurant. This would amount to another involuntary action, he said.

If the defense is that the accused lawfully intended to kill an intruder in self-defense, “it makes no sense to deny having intended to kill anyone.” Grant’s “crucial question” is why is he “so unclear about his defense that it seems to change as he testifies on the stand?” Nel clearly believes it is because he is lying. The Sunday Times newspaper echoes Nel in its reports that Oscar Pistorius is a liar.

@kuddelchen

Wenn man sich deinen Beitrag anschaut: Es ist eine so große Anzahl von Unwahrscheinlichkeiten, ein paar könnte man noch verstehen, aber diese Summe?

Lügen begleitet sein Leben ?

hat you can only tell lies for so long. At the London games, able bodied athletes claimed Pistorius had an unfair advantage because of his blades. He had to fight this accusation in order to compete. After losing his Paralympics title Pistorius accused the winner of that race of having longer blades, thereby enjoying an advantage? He lied about the blades having some sort of advantage or non, lied about having alcohol in the boat, lied about the shooting in the restaurant, lied about threatening to break some one’s legs and more importantly he is lying about what happened on the morning of

http://m.news24.com/news24/MyNews24/Oscar-Pistorius-A-barefaced-liar-20130222

sterntaucher schrieb:Unwahrscheinlichkeiten

Das war doch von Angang an so . Diese ganze Story war schon immer an den Haaren herbeigezogen und länger verhandelt wird ,desto unwahrscheinlicher wird alles. Eine Story ,die stimmt ,muss ich auch nicht immer anpassen.

@Luminarah

Ich seh es auch so, OP änderte ständig seine Versionen, weil er klar lügt und auch, weil er nicht begriffen hat, worum es dabei geht ;)

Seine Verteidiger haben es darauf aufgebaut, wie er direkt nach dem Ereignis angab, sie für einen Einbrecher gehalten zu haben, Nel konfrontiert ihn mit Absicht - da redet er von mistake, weil er dachte, damit würde er den Irrtum auf Reeva zu schießen bekräftigen, sagt aber was völlig anderes und dann plötzlich, er habe nicht abgedrückt, dann wieder er wollte den Einbrecher erschießen...also 3 Versionen von OP und das ist doch eindeutig, dass er rudert und rudert und lügt, was das Zeug hält. Das wird kaum jemandem entgangen sein, der nur mal diese Aussagen objektiv betrachtet - ungeachtet Sympathie und Antipathie...das hat hier eigentlich eh nicht wirklich was zu suchen, man ist halt nur angewidert von all den Lügen um diese Tat.

OP hat sich auch als Loser erwiesen, indem er die SMS von Reeva als Lüge bezeichnet hat, so nochmal nachgetreten, nach den tödlichen Schüssen, dabei hat er genau auf diese SMS geantwortet ...und nicht mit den Worten: Warum lügst Du Reeva und verdrehst die Tatsachen!?

@Interested
Hier wird er doch auch schon wieder beim Lügen erwischt ,von seinem eigenen Gutachter :

This is a direct contradiction to Pistorius' version of events, where he clearly described the magazine rack being against the wall in the toilet, declaring that he found Steenkamp in the middle of the blood pool – where the magazine rack was pictured in police photographs.

"I do not know what happened to [the magazine rack] afterwards," Dixon testified. "It wasn't there when Mr. Pistorius went in. That is his version of the events."

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/oscar-pistorius-trial-day-25--defense-witness-contradicts-blade-runner-s-account-160745796.html


Ich bleibe dabei ,der Kerl lügt schon ,wenn er den Mund aufmacht und Guten Tag sagt.

Wie kommen Roux und Oldwage eigentlich auf die Idee, die wissenschaftlichen Tests in dieser Art und Weise durchführen zu lassen? Dann hätte man es besser gleich gelassen. Das einzige, was nicht von Nel entkräftet werden konnte waren meines Erachtnes nach die Schusswinkel und der Zustand der Tür.

@Luminarah

Daher muss man Dixon auch zugute halten, dass er völlig ohne Argwohn seine Aussage getätigt hat und für sich selbst, nach bestem Wissen und Gewissen geantwortet hat und sich einfach überschätzt hat und es weit entfernt von einer wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung war, wie sie vor Gericht, in einem Mordverfahren Bestand hat.

Ich nenne es The Dixon Adventure Tour to Court...full of suprises, lot's of headshakes and facepalms...Join in. Our pleasure to entertain you :D

@Interested
Ja, aber wie können die OP-Anwälte das zulassen? Bis auf die beiden von mir genannten Punkte war das ein absolutes Eigentor.