Trial Discussion Thread #30

[BritsKate]

You have already made up your mind about him and not in a positive way.

I have yet to see the prosecution offer any evidence that he did what he is accused with doing.

I noticed in another post you say the prosecutor "intimated" that the earlier bangs were the bat. I never saw him intimate or state any such thing. I assume you used the word "intimate" because the prosecutor didn't state it outright. If you could direct me to where the prosecutor places the earlier bangs as bat strikes, I would be interested to see it.

I'm not required to think about the defendant in a positive way? Nor have I called you out for refusing to see the defendant in any negative light. Both our opinions are afforded some leeway assuming we follow TOS and remain respectful.

I already posted a link in the post you're referring to. I have neither the time nor inclination to post 'corroborating' links when I've already provided one in respect to sequence. You can accept the link provided or not - your call entirely. To save you from having to search it out, here it is again: http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2014/03/13/oscar-trial-expert-can-t-fix-sequence-of-shots-bashing

I have close relatives in the military as well.

And, guess what they are fighting for? Our way of life.

Which includes, among other things, innocent until proven guilty.

Awesome! I had no idea you were South African and had close relatives in the South African military.

Unless I'm confusing your post and you believe America's military fights for South Africans constitutional rights? I'm pretty sure they're separate democracies though both ensure the constitutional right to a fair trial which includes the presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence, it could and has been argued, is mainly for the fact finders. We are neither jury nor judge, ergo, the presumption of innocence need not necessarily apply and indulging such presumption - despite any and all evidence to the contrary - becomes a personal moral issue rather than either a legal or constitutional one, in either country. A very good op-ed:

The presumption of innocence is not a mandate that is imposed on all social discourse. It is not logical to assert, as a statement of fact, that a person is innocent until he/she has been proven to be guilty because it is possible for an innocent person to be convicted of a crime and it is possible for a guilty person to be acquitted of a crime.

A person should not be considered guilty in the court of public opinion just because he/she has been accused of, or indicted for, a crime, but it is permissible for people to form opinions based on the information that is available to the public.

I am sure that this article will not make me popular with attorneys, who often request that everyone should indulge a presumption of innocence on behalf of their clients, but the demand for a presumption of innocence is an artifice outside of criminal court.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/FALSE-ASSUMPTIONS-ABOUT-TH-by-Blaine-Kinsey-090112-330.html

Of course, if you'd like to google there are several more academic, less opinionated, references to the debate on the presumption of innocence - specifically how it relates to the public - as well.

 

[Viper]

IIRC it was stated that the shot to the hip alone would/ could have led to her death from eventual exsanguination.

I have never mentioned internal bleeding, just third spacing.

I am not going to go through all that verification process in the interest of psting on the two trials I've posted on. I had to do that for work, fingerprints and all. I usually don't reveal my profession because it leads to too many curbsides...and I stated that this was not my specialty.

BIB. Indeed, that and her (nearly) severed arm and the gunshot wound to her head; any of them. That being the case, why is it then that those reports from Dr. Saymaan of what "could have happened if she had survived" are given more weight than the reports from Dr. Saymaan of what "actually did happen?" Dr. Saymaan said that Reeva died within 2-3 last breaths, that is what happened. She did not survive 6-20 minutes with a heart fed on whatever oxygen was left in her blood and she did not shoot 2-3 arterial spurts. Where in Dr. Saymaan's testimony do you get the basis to assert any of that!? If you refute what the autopsy results are and prefer to go with what the autopsy results could have been, then that is just pure speculation. I prefer to go with the facts.

This is a ridiculous conversation. It reminds me of another rhetorical debate regarding Batman and him saying the the bat was "use to pry off a piece of the door," so the bat came before the gunshots. People mistook that to mean that the gunshots "positively" came before the bat "strikes." And there are numerous hardheaded arguments that followed from those that refused to accept what Batman actually said, they preferred to twist what he said. And IMO that is what is happening in this fanciful interpretation of the autopsy. In fact it is worse because now people are focusing on what could have happened if she had live instead of what did happen. I don't remember anyone arguing about Batman saying "what might have happened" if the door had not been torn apart!

 

[BritsKate]

BIB. Indeed, that and her (nearly) severed arm and the gunshot wound to her head; any of them. That being the case, why is it then that those reports from Dr. Saymaan of what "could have happened if she had survived" are given more weight than the reports from Dr. Saymaan of what "actually did happen?" Dr. Saymaan said that Reeva died within 2-3 last breaths, that is what happened. She did not survive 6-20 minutes with a heart fed on whatever oxygen was left in her blood and she did not shoot 2-3 arterial spurts. Where in Dr. Saymaan's testimony do you get the basis to assert any of that!? If you refute what the autopsy results are and prefer to go with what the autopsy results could have been, then that is just pure speculation. I prefer to go with the facts.

This is a ridiculous conversation. It reminds me of another rhetorical debate regarding Batman and him saying the the bat was "use to pry off a piece of the door," so the bat came before the gunshots. People mistook that to mean that the bat "strikes" came before the gunshots. And there are numerous hardheaded arguments that followed from those that refused to accept what Batman actually said, they preferred to twist what he said. And IMO that is what is happening in this fanciful interpretation of the autopsy. In fact it is worse because now people are focusing on what could have happened if she had live instead of what did happen. I don't remember anyone arguing about Batman saying "what might have happened" if the door had not been torn apart!

You mean the debate still raging on - despite numerous links to articles and even video of testimony? That one?

The forensic testimony of both sides is at odds with the defence assertion as to timeline and the defendant's own testimony, regardless of what caused the arterial spurt pattern anyway. Or if it even is arterial spray. I just can't understand why both the State and defence experts are being refuted based on the testimony of the accused, or the defence's claims, neither of which match the evidence provided by either party.

 

[Carmelita]

By the way a defendant can talk to a witness before a trial. If it was unlawful there would be no need for court orders that specifically disallow some defendants from doing so. Somethings are just common sense.

 

[Cherwell]

By the way a defendant can talk to a witness before a trial. If it was unlawful there would be no need for court orders that specifically disallow some defendants from doing so. Somethings are just common sense.

If one of OP's bail conditions was that he wasn't to talk to witnesses, then somebody must have thought there was a good reason why he shouldn't be allowed to.

 

[nastasya]

Yeah MSM now bringing in race into the matter when it's obviously not relevant. White man, white lady crime.

Race matters in this trial because the very laws OP is trying to circumvent where put in place so white guys with guns can't shoot "dangerous" looking black guys just because they make a claim that they fear they might be harmed.

OP's defense is an affront to everything and everybody who lives in the normal world.

You can't shoot your wife and claim you were scared because you thought you were really killing a black guy who broke into your house to rob you.

 

[nastasya]

I am in the 'always' thought OP the killer was guilty" from the get go.

I only saw quips of him on the news, but, from what I heard he seemed like a whiny dude who is a sore loser........fast forward to the Valentine's Day news broadcast about him shooting his girlfriend. boom. there it is.....guilty.

what are the odds that this murder and mistaken intruder story happened on Valentines Day???? Really?

What are the odds that 5 witnesses heard what they thought were the sounds of a woman being attacked and shot to death, but were wrong about what they heard, and yet 10 minutes earlier a woman was actually attacked and shot to death?

OP's entire defense is this:

"You didn't really hear what you thought you heard. That was ME making the sounds of a woman being attacked and shot to death.

It was just a coincidence that I really DID attack and shoot to death a woman just 10 minutes before"

Seriously, how stupid does OP think people must be to believe that story?

 

[patCee]

Time lines, blood sprays, bat/shots, guns, ammo, door/mag rack, keys, lights on/off, phone records, crime scene, screams/yells, conspiracy theories, prostheses/stumps, food, urine, cards, panic button, dogs, bed, clothes,
windows, fans, witness' etc. etc.

It's all full of 'yeah buts' and I'm beginning to feel I'm in the Truman Show. That there must be 2 trials, one we've watched/followed for the past, however many weeks, that was televised, and another that's being going on behind the scenes with evidence we've not seen. I know I'm lost because I'm beginning to think that RS wasn't killed in the toilet at all.

Phew! glad to get that off my chest. :banghead:

 

[BritsKate]

By the way a defendant can talk to a witness before a trial. If it was unlawful there would be no need for court orders that specifically disallow some defendants from doing so. Somethings are just common sense.

Usually witnesses are interviewed through a defendant's attorneys or investigators rather than being questioned by the defendant himself. No one, I believe, was suggesting or questioning whether a defence team should have access to witnesses, just whether a defendant speaking directly to witnesses may breach grounds of propriety, if not legality.

A defendant, usually through their defense attorney, can ascertain statements and other information from individuals that the prosecutor intends to use as witnesses during trial.

Under no circumstances should a defendant conduct their own informal interviews or attempt to contact victims of a given crime, which may be viewed as intimidation, another crime, by the courts.

http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/c...nse-case/investigate-charges-before-trial.htm

 

[Carmelita]

I guess we don't need to bother with trials then. Just lock up every whiny dude who's a sore loser.

I can't believe John McEnroe's still walking the streets to this day.

And John McEnroe without a doubt can scream like a girl.

 

[nastasya]

And John McEnroe without a doubt can scream like a girl.

Unlike the demonstration that OP gave to the court in which he sounded nothing like a woman screaming.

 

[Hatfield]

Time lines, blood sprays, bat/shots, guns, ammo, door/mag rack, keys, lights on/off, phone records, crime scene, screams/yells, conspiracy theories, prostheses/stumps, food, urine, cards, panic button, dogs, bed, clothes,
windows, fans, witness' etc. etc.

It's all full of 'yeah buts' and I'm beginning to feel I'm in the Truman Show. That there must be 2 trials, one we've watched/followed for the past, however many weeks, that was televised, and another that's being going on behind the scenes with evidence we've not seen. I know I'm lost because I'm beginning to think that RS wasn't killed in the toilet at all.

Phew! glad to get that off my chest. :banghead:

I agree. When watching a trial, it is the cumulative effect of all the testimony and evidence that begins to tell the story. It becomes very obvious the story when all is taken in and not forgotten about.

Its important to also keep in mind that some people on the witness stand may not tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In order to identify such, we have to constantly listen and watch their testimony and if things start to contradict or things make absolutely no sense then we start raising red flags.

A good court observer will pay close attention to all thing like this to help tell the story of what happened. That story has become obvious to me in this trial.

 

[Viper]

BIB. He didn't, he said the heart muscle was pale consitent with significant blood loss. If I was writing the death certificate it would say something like Cause of death : 1) Head trauma. Contributing factors : 2 Blood loss.

For me, and I daresay Crasshopper as well, WS is a fun, down time thing to be doing. NOT a serious work related activity. We both, I'm sure, receive sufficient validation of our professional skills in the real world. And neither have us have said "You're wrong because i'm a doctor and you're not".

BIB1: Please provide a link that confirms that Dr. Saymaan said that Reeva had significant blood loss. Just that: significant blood loss.

I recall that this "significant blood loss" issue originated with you. You picked on a notation that Saymaan made about the color of Reeva's heart being pale and then you made a determination, based solely on that one notation, that Reeva died of exsanguination (she bled to death). But you have not considered what the pathologist that performed the autopsy determined; he did not make a determination of exsanguination. I challenge you to proved links to support your opinion.

BIB2: So wait, now you are whispering softly that you are a doctor of medicine too? Respectfully, I don't believe that.

FYI: Reeva's cause of death is "gunshot wound."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeva_Steenkamp

 

[Carmelita]

Usually witnesses are interviewed through a defendant's attorneys or investigators rather than being questioned by the defendant himself. No one, I believe, was suggesting or questioning whether a defence team should have access to witnesses, just whether a defendant speaking directly to witnesses may breach grounds of propriety, if not legality.




http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/c...nse-case/investigate-charges-before-trial.htm

Hi Britskate,

I wasn't addressing a defendant conducting their own interview, I was addressing the simple question of whether or not it is lawful for a defendant to talk to a witness.

Witness tampering and/or intimidation are obviously illegal.


And just for future reference, you mentioned that the US is a Democracy in one of your posts, The United States is a Republic not a Democracy. Don’t worry though unfortunately many Americans don’t even know this.

 

[aa9511]

I don't know, sorry. It came up with mention of OP asking for more rights with respect to his bail requirements.

Thank you. I find that ridiculous since he should be happy he even got bail and not landed himself in jail this whole time. Silly Oscar.

 

[aa9511]

Can you imagine the pressure for witnesses to say what the police want them to say when the police are pressuring them to tailor their statements to get a conviction and to provide details that are not really factual?

Do you wonder how Mrs Stipp's statement ended up with a declaration that she saw a person walking in OP's bathroom when she really didn't see that?

Yes, she really did see that, IMO. Because Oscar was wearing his prosthetics the whole time, IMO. So she saw Oscar walking past the window.

 

[aa9511]

No it was being discussed as to whether he could talk to his old neighbors.

Thanks. No I don't think he should be able to. His lawyers can do the work of gathering statements and questioning beforehand, which they have already. No need for Oscar to do it and that's not really fair, IMO.

 

[minor4th]

Yes, she really did see that, IMO. Because Oscar was wearing his prosthetics the whole time, IMO. So she saw Oscar walking past the window.

Did you listen to her testimony? She said she did not see that.

 

[aa9511]

Don't be offended.
It's the rules here. Keeps everyone honest.

Otherwise... I'd be running around telling everyone I was a super model



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And I'm CEO of Coca-Cola.

 

[BritsKate]

Hi Britskate,

I wasn't addressing a defendant conducting their own interview, I was addressing the simple question of whether or not it is lawful for a defendant to talk to a witness.

Witness tampering and/or intimidation are obviously illegal.


And just for future reference, you mentioned that the US is a Democracy in one of your posts, The United States is a Republic not a Democracy. Don’t worry though unfortunately many Americans don’t even know this.

And I would be one to confuse the two - I think the following quote sums up why it may be confused by many, though appreciate the correction...I'm a very long way - both in time and geography from high school civics.

In everyday speech, people praise democracy as the most just form of government. What they mean by “democracy” is a regime in which free elections regularly take place and a government that protects the rights of all. Understood this way, America is a democracy, or to be more precise, a democratic republic.

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/11/01/is-america-a-democracy-or-a-republic/

And apologies, mods, for being off topic. :blushing: