Trial Discussion Thread #34 - 14.05.06 Day 27

Trooper said:

BBM for emphasis..

hell yes.. Gerrie is almost coy and flirtatious, considering his normal mode of x-exam... he is also in great haste..

Click to expand...

You have followed Nel in previous trials. You will also be well aware Gerrie works in 'lists'. In Selebi's case it was the 'Five great lies' - and in fact Meyer Joffe during judgement stated that it was in fact SIX great lies that buried Selebi. (The judge added a further lie to Gerrie's initial list of 5)

I feel he has done something very similar in this prosecution. He is working from a list of things he can prove definitively. His conviction hit list is far separated from the list of things 'we all want him to prove and present to the court'.

He ticks his boxes and the items on his list, and he gets his convictions. The rest is all 'out there' for the judge and her assessors to see, read, listen to and recall and re-question where necessary (i.e. Reeva's handbag being removed, the damage to the bedroom door, the missing Netcare call, the jeans outside the window etc). They HAVE all the photos, statements etc.

We just want Gerrie to focus on all the aspects that fascinate and 'bug' us. We want all the mysteries solved and explained, yet he is working for a conviction. He is doing what he feels (and rightly so IMHO) is enough to convict.

All the additional 'mysteries' are there, in the judge's files and therefor evidence (photos etc) and I'm almost sure she will 'read' these mysteries and solve them, in the same way we are. Using common sense.........

Indeed Gerrie is on a roll, and I believe he is interested in convictions on his terms. I do feel that Barry Roux, being an old hand and solid chap, would not be acting in his client's best interests if he didn't make some sort of approach in terms of where things currently stand. Just MHO.

It's too late to change pleas, but I do feel he might have had a feel around in terms of Culpable Homicide and sentencing etc.

OP would fight this in any event as we know he is innocent of all charges :facepalm:

Keen to see Gerrie's attitude when the next 'expert' pitches up to testify.:scared:

BritsKate said:

I think it gets forgotten easily here that this case will only be decided on its totality, like any other case, circumstantial or not.

I also think it gets misinterpreted that the reasonable person test does not literally translate to: Did Oscar Pistorius reasonably believe there was an intruder? There are many factors weighed to determine it, some subjective and others objective. Ultimately, the more objective factors, the more the defendant should have foreseen the consequences of his actions. So Oscar's vulnerability, or lack of, will be weighed but so too will him shooting 4 hollow point bullets into a closed door.

JMO

Click to expand...

What you're forgetting is OP has testified that he did NOT shoot in self-defense.

He ended his cross-examination by declaring that the did not intend to shoot the gun. That's why Nel ended the cross. He now has direct testimony from the accused that shooting in self-defense theory is false.

No matter how much people want to speculate, how many pundits talk about the details like a murder mystery, no matter how much the defenders of OP want to claim he feared for his life, that's not his defense anymore.

He is now the star witness in the PT's case that he did NOT shoot in self-defense.

Viper said:

Respectfully, nonsense. He was an amputee before he murdered. There are literally thousands of criminals that are amputees that are serving their sentences in prison right now. Just being an amputee is not a "get out of jail free card."

But he was as you say "vulnerable" or he felt that way and that is truly something unique, special if you will. Yup, he's going to get away with murder because he felt "vulnerable." I follow you there. LOL!

Click to expand...

Hmmmm... wonder who feels more vulnerable, an amputee with a fully loaded 9 mm Parabellum and hundreds of hours of shooting experience or a 120 pound, unarmed woman?

The amputee defense makes zero f-ing sense. If it did, every woman in the world would be able to grab a gun and begin firing away whenever she heard a noise in the house.

DebinGA said:

Aislinn Liang tweet about that:

Pistorius added: "I walk past them in corridors and hold doors open for them but they don't look me in the eye."

Click to expand...

Sounds like OP purposely places himself in close proximity to people he knows believe he murdered Reeva and want no part of him. He's despicable.

Click to expand...

Noticed another dastardly thing in OP's complaint that Reeva's loved ones "don't look me in the eye". He wouldn't know that unless he was looking directly at their eyes, probably with hatred in his.

So what does bug us?

I have a problem with the missing telephone and who took it.

nastasya said:

What you're forgetting is OP has testified that he did NOT shoot in self-defense.

He ended his cross-examination by declaring that the did not intend to shoot the gun. That's why Nel ended the cross. He now has direct testimony from the accused that shooting in self-defense theory is false.

No matter how much people want to speculate, how many pundits talk about the details like a murder mystery, no matter how much the defenders of OP want to claim he feared for his life, that's not his defense anymore.

He is now the star witness in the PT's case that he did NOT shoot in self-defense.

Click to expand...

RBBM

No, I'm not. I've said over and over it's my belief he may well have nullified any claim to putative self-defence because of his testimony. It's very likely though that Roux will argue putative (he probably cannot meet the legal burden required for involuntary) and Masipa may end up having to weigh it if she believes Oscar did not intend to shoot Reeva. I don't know enough about SA law to conclude, with absolute certainty, that there isn't even a chance putative will no longer be entertained by Masipa.

Further, as I've also stated many times over, Masipa may find, depending on her interpretation of SA statutes, that a putative claim isn't sufficient to absolve Oscar of intent regardless as he fired into a door without verbal or visual assessment, when an 'intruder' may have been in the midst of fleeing.

DebinGA said:

If anyone knows the criteria in SA for convicted felons being allowed to remain free during their appeals, I'd appreciate seeing it. I'd imagine one requirement would be their not representing a danger to the community, which imo OP clearly does. Ditto not fleeing the country, which imo OP certainly will.

Click to expand...

I'm going to find you the relevant case and procedural law as soon as I have the time. Sorry it might only be later in the week.

But I can almost guarantee you that his bail will be extended if required.

A police officer who murdered his wife, and was a suspect in another serious offense is currently out on bail whilst awaiting appeal. No problems in getting it either.

It's a travesty. An absolute joke. This because we; (SA); have the most liberal constitution in the world.

patCee said:

Just to think that when he appealed his bail, he was allowed to go back to the estate and speak to people where he could intimidate witnesses in the same, sly, nasty way.

Click to expand...

i wonder if frank got the 'how do you sleep at night' under-breath-mutter

Is it just me or does OP look like he is aging rather rapidly. LOL!

Interested Bystander said:

So what does bug us?

I have a problem with the missing telephone and who took it.

Click to expand...

As do I.........but I do feel after the female part of the Stander 'cleaning' duo was questioned on it yesterday, we might yet hear quite a bit more about this.

I am terribly curious. Gerrie is keeping it 'alive' - which means he plans to use it in closing with a few 'suggestions'.

If it was going to play no further part - he wouldn't have questioned old Carise about it I reckon.

Gerrie closing argument/s will be rather interesting.

BritsKate said:

I think it's important to remember he's also got a not-so-subtle PR campaign piggy-backing this trial too. I'm convinced that's the sole reason for some of the defence's comments, witnesses, and strategy so far...that's the only thing that makes sense because they've put some things forward that do nothing to help the case but may swing a bit of public sympathy. More than once, I've been so grateful this is a bench trial.
All JMO

Click to expand...

Re the 2nd BIB -I am with you there. Thankfully the public won't get a say in this. If there had been a trial by jury as in the UK, there would have been the chance that the Standers may have scored a few points.

Cape Town Crim. said:

"Pistorius was challenged by a Blooomberg journalist that he saw him speak to Myers. He shook his head and said: "I've heard that one."

If there is any confirmation of an approach from independent "witnesses" (Journos for sure, even if the police are considered less than truthful), the 'runner' might have a case to answer.

Let us see where this leads. I'm guessing Oscar will be using the "I'm on pills and doped up" excuse for this one.

Click to expand...

sounds to me like the actions of the narcissist. his main part in the trial is now over, and he is incapable of just sitting politely and being sidelined.

i would also imagine he is seething, watching his star witnesses take the stand [or not] one-by-one and doing nothing to help him.

it wouldn't surprise me if there were further, more petulant outbursts as he gets more frustrated.

Cape Town Crim. said:

As do I.........but I do feel after the female part of the Stander 'cleaning' duo was questioned on it yesterday, we might yet hear quite a bit more about this.

I am terribly curious. Gerrie is keeping it 'alive' - which means he plans to use it in closing with a few 'suggestions'.

If it was going to play no further part - he wouldn't have questioned old Carise about it I reckon.

Gerrie closing argument/s will be rather interesting.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think Gerrie's closing will be interesting too. He will have a theory on the missing phone and I am sure he will bring in other (seemingly overlooked) pieces of evidence, such as the dent in the metal plate on the bath and the jeans outside below the bathroom window.

Since OP testified there's more evidence imo that he wasn't on stumps when he fired the gun. He slipped and described his stance as a "crouch" ... like http://a.abcnews.com/images/International/ABC_skynews_oscar_pistorius_gun_jt_140301_16x9_992.jpg .. upper body leaning forward, knee/s bent, but gun pointing slightly downward when he fired at Reeva. Hope Nel brings back Mangena to give an opinion about that scenario.

MeeBee said:

Well, I'm the case she may consider that he was on his stumps, was vulnerable, had a sort of PTSD from previous incidents, etc. that's why I say it will be a bit subjective. She can reject that stuff or consider it.

Click to expand...

Does this help clarify:

"Our law has steadfastly refused to take account of any subjective factors peculiar to an accused, including any disability that the accused suffers with. This has been controversial, but it has been a line from which our courts have not wavered. If the reasonable person would not have made the mistake Pistorius claims to have made, even if the court accepts that Pistorius made this mistake, he may be convicted of culpable homicide."

http://criminallawza.net/

soozieqtips said:

BBM - see, that's where I start to lose the plot. If he's convicted of murder, he should stay the hell behind bars and not be released unless his appeal is successful. He's already had over a year's freedom, so why should he be allowed a single extra day if he's convicted? Appeals can go on forever. How the hell are Reeva's family supposed to move on with their tattered lives knowing he's living his life out there in the open as a convicted murderer! And don't other women have the right to be kept safe from him? The law is ridiculous sometimes.

Click to expand...

i thought the appeal to a guilty verdict would be organised from 'inside'. things must be different in sa, in this respect.

sicknote said:

Oscar and Roux were shouting about the police messing with the crime scene. They were going to show the discrepancies in the pictures. Wonder how that's coming along......

Click to expand...

BINGO. Going to add it to the list: .

Roux said that the defense would present evidence PROVING that :

1. RS never screamed because the headshot was the first shot

2. OP sounds just like a woman when he screams, and the screams the 5 witnesses heard were actually OP screaming

3. The sounds of the cricket bat are indistinguishable from the sounds of gunshots

4. Something about double taps...[he gave up on that already]

5. The police tampered with the photos and the crime scene

Any other promises he has left to prove before Tuesday?

Cape Town Crim. said:

As do I.........but I do feel after the female part of the Stander 'cleaning' duo was questioned on it yesterday, we might yet hear quite a bit more about this.

I am terribly curious. Gerrie is keeping it 'alive' - which means he plans to use it in closing with a few 'suggestions'.

If it was going to play no further part - he wouldn't have questioned old Carise about it I reckon.

Gerrie closing argument/s will be rather interesting.

Click to expand...

I agree. Any thoughts as to who did it? To me it seems as though it may have been the phone in the kitchen OR the phone in the garage (unless they were one in the same).

The likely list is Oscar's Brother, Oscar's Sister, Carise herself (though it was she who let slip the existence of both phones - so probably not), I don't think the Attorney "Oldbu**er" would risk doing it but might he suggest it would be a good idea for it to go missing? Nooo! It would too big a risk if it ever became public. (Just thinking aloud). Divaris? Did Frankie get a look in at any time? Now there is a trusty if ever there was one - his livelihood depended on OP but he doesn't seem to have figured in the house, just at the front door. Oh no! I have got it! It was one of OP's 'currupt policemen' :floorlaugh: but this time working for rather than against him. Who have I missed off?

Couldn't resist a bit of levity here. Hope nobody is offended.

DebinGA said:

Noticed another dastardly thing in OP's complaint that Reeva's loved ones "don't look me in the eye". He wouldn't know that unless he was looking directly at their eyes, probably with hatred in his.

Click to expand...

My goodness , what an absolute arrogant arse. It would well serve his purpose and his PR if they happened by any slim remote chance to actually give him the time of day by acknowledging him in his door opening gestures etc. The guy has a method to his madness and forcing himself upon them has not worked.

As a consequence his true character briefly raised it's ugly head and he couldn't help himself but seize the opportunity to throw a nasty comment their way.

MeeBee said:

The reasonable person test is did OP behave as a reasonable person that night? [...]

Click to expand...

And did he?