Der Prozess Oscar Pistorius und der Tod von Reeva Steenkamp07.08.2014 um 21:26
Das weiß nur Ozzy! Ich vermute, er hat mit dem bat im Bad gewütet...
Ahnungslose schrieb:Es geht nicht nur um mein Pessimismus. Ich setze mich einfach öfters in die Lage der Verteidigung und versuche zu denken, was könnte man gegen mich ausnutzen. Dabei den Gericht ... anders als uns, Vernünftigen, betrachtend:-)Find ich gut - know your enemies :)
Ahnungslose schrieb: ...wäre Schedule 6 sicher!!!Schedule 6 ist immer noch sicher, weil wir Vergleichsfälle haben und keiner von denen mit 4 Schüssen
Tailoring of Evidence
“His tailoring of evidence was so significant that we have numbered the incongruencies and have come up with a baker’s dozen,” Nel said.
ONE: Pistorius had confidently stated that he had no idea what a “zombie stopper” was. He then said he could not recall having heard the word. Confronted with video evidence, he conceded having used the term himself.
TWO: After realising that he needed to be in the bedroom for his version to hold true, Pistorius changed his original statement that he was on the balcony when he first heard the alleged intruder and then later blamed his lawyer Barry Roux for the mistake.
Unless he is saying that the police moved the curtains, fans and other evidence with astounding foresight without knowing what the accused’s version would be. It is an incomprehensible, inexplicable conspiracy theory. Only reasonable inference is that accused tailored a version as he continued with his evidence. If it was his version from the start, his counsel would have dealt with this.
THREE: Confronted by the need to create time for Steenkamp to have got out of bed and gone to the toilet without him noticing her, Pistorius “created another fan”. But he had then been unable to show where this fan would have been plugged in when confronted with the fact that there were no available sockets that could have been used.
“This is so impossible that it’s a clear indication of mendacity and deceitfulness,” Nel said.
FOUR: Pistorius claimed that he moved the fans to the bottom of the bed. But this could not be true because the duvet was lying on the floor at the foot of the bed. If this was what the defence version was, then Pistorius’s counsel should have challenged the evidence of police witnesses who testified that the scene had been photographed undisturbed.
“No reason for this was advanced,” Nel stated, adding that the only inference to be drawn was evidence tailoring.
FIVE: Pistorius’s contention that the fans were at the base of the bed meant that he now had to say where the duvet would have been – and he claimed that it had been on the bed, but he could not remember where on the bed.
“Saying the duvet was not on the floor is not a version. It’s a knee jerk reaction to a version that was already improbable,” Nel said
SIX: Blood spatter on the carpet and duvet show that police could not have tampered with the scene.
“Unless he is saying that the police moved the curtains, fans and other evidence with astounding foresight without knowing what the accused’s version would be. It is an incomprehensible, inexplicable conspiracy theory. Only reasonable inference is that accused tailored a version as he continued with his evidence. If it was his version from the start, his counsel would have dealt with this.”
SEVEN: Failure to deal with the duvet then led to Pistorius contradicting himself on when he last saw Steenkamp as she claimed that the duvet had been under her leg.
EIGHT: Pistorius said he never saw Steenkamp going to the toilet.
“But the court will have no option but to accept that the accused knew the deceased was in the toilet and he fired to kill her.”
NINE: Pistorius’s claims that he picked up Steenkamp’s jeans in order to cover the blue light on his amplifier was concocted to explain why he had his back to the bed at all time.
TEN: A further “domino effect” of Pistorius’s attempts to buy time meant that the jeans that were in his hand then landed on top of the duvet which he had claimed had never been on the floor.
“We say this is an aspect that the accused cannot explain. When confronted, his real attitude came forward when he chose not to answer and referred to police picking up his gun and moving the cricket bat a tiny bit. Why did the defence not deal with this if they felt a major manipulation had occurred?”
ELEVEN: During the trial, Pistorius introduced a middle-of-the-night conversation with Steenkamp which he had never mentioned in earlier statements. He then failed to speak to Steenkamp after allegedly hearing a noise. This was improbable behavior in light of the fact that every witness testified to having engaged with their partners after hearing noises in the night.
TWELVE: Pistorius originally claimed to having whispered to Steenkamp. But after realising this implied closeness, he changed his version to say he spoke in a soft manner.
THIRTEEN: While Pistorius had remembered many details and sequences, he had no recollection at all of having switched off his alarm – making it likely that the alarm had never been switched on as he had claimed. He had also kept his cellphone with him at all times and even plugged it into the charger in the kitchen sometime before he carried Steenkamp’s body down the stairs.
Crime scene evidence (in the main) will be accepted: Only question is 'did he forget'
There are off hand 5 significant problems with your hope that the important aspects of crime scene evidence be rejected:
 The blood trail across duvet and carpet was NOT challenged by the defence, who have the clear original photos enlarged on their monitors. Therefore THIS evidence will be accepted. Such a trail is incredibly unlikely to form by chance of two things lining up. Therefore: The duvet was spread over the carpet as shown in the photograph BEFORE OP left that bedroom for last time (before any police arrived). Any blood trail can only have come either from his hands, or from carrying Reeva. No one else has blood on their hands - quite literally - there is not even a hint of a suggestion of that possibility.
The consequence is obviously that the large fan and small fan were NOT in the same place as that duvet when OP left the bedroom for last time. Where were they if not where OP said? This question has NOT been answered by the defence, who are sticking their heads into the sand like ostriches to blame the fan movements on the police. We already KNOW that they were not where OP said because the duvet is proven on the carpet before he left.
Rensberg's description of the scene (duvet, fans) plus Staden's photos are corroborated by the forensics of the blood trail. How do overcome THAT?
 The defence worked with OP to go through all the photographs and made "hundreds of notes". Despite these "hundreds of notes" they did not ask either Rensberg or Staden a SINGLE question about the duvet, or the fans, being out of place. This is simply incredibly, if it was ever part of the defence case prior to OP testifying that these objects were ever where he says he left them. It cannot be that he knew the things he said under oath all that time in preparing the case ... and not once mentioned them to his legal team .. or, that his legal team ... not once mentioned them to the police who they were trying to prove had disturbed things. The judge will not accept such a massive oversight on the part of the defence, compared to the alternative, which is OP never said these things until he started testifying. So the question then is why?
 Nel has provided a clear and detailed reconstruction of the entire sequence of OP's "snowball of lies" first on the fans, then on the duvet, and shown precisely how and why his testimony changed at each point and the details he was forced to add, or change, as he became more desperate to keep everything consistent. But, unfortunately for the defence, the blood trail proves that everything he said was false.
 While the defence has argued a lot about police disturbance, and certainly there was some, they have been totally unable to provide positive evidence of MAJOR disturbance of the scene such as the police moving the LARGEST loose items in the room around. They showed a man at a plug socket - they showed a cricket bat moved by a centimetre - the state admitted the gun was picked up (an obvious problem for fingerprint evidence but not needed in this case) - the rest is purely allegations but appears to be quibbling with very small details.
 OP demonstrated his narrative fluency to create changes to the crime scene "off the cuff" in respect of the magazine rack, which she certainly fell onto: It is forensically proven. However, he wished to avoid the accusation of hearing the sound it made when she fell, perhaps, or for whatever other reason, he claimed it was on the right of the cubicle - not in its usual place at all - and that he must have "kicked it" into place while turning Reeva's body. This is also just imaginative and false chatter. It proves he can do it. And also that his independent "recollections", or statements in any event, are frequently false.
To be sure there is a possibility the police moved things, there are always such question marks about police, and they made some mistakes, it was certainly less than perfect. But to overcome      seems wishful - to say the least.
  and  will tend to indicate that he 'did not simply forget'. If the judge has exactly that impression too - and finds his version unreasonable - she will convict him no doubt.
OP's testimony changed every time Nel challenged him on any uncomfortable reality. He was clearly trying to taylor his evidence as Nel unfolded his case, but unfortunately OP was not sharp enough to keep up. He just continued to offer information he had rehearsed that had nothing to do with Nel's specific questions which actually gave Nel more opportunities to drill holes into his ever-changing version. Then when he was unable to produce a reasonable answer - out came the emotional card. It happened far too many times to be coincidental.
There are two or three defenses he put to the court yet he was unable to articulate any of them in isolation, and blended the three when necessary.
If someone says two mutually exclusive things at different times, then obviously on one of those occasions he was lying. "I went out onto the balcony." "I did not go out on the balcony." Clearly one of those statements is a lie. Lies make for an unreliable witness, therefore less weight will be given to that testimony.
And you've gotta ask yourself, "Why would this person lie?"
Answer: "I'm fighting for my life!" - Oscar Pistorius