Trial Discussion Thread #45 - 14.07.3, Day 36

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
44ALLAN said:
Does it matter though?

We know the door didn't open and we know the magazine rack never moved so in actual FACT............there was NO sound at all.
He made it all up to suit his version and the Judge will know that IMO :)
Click to expand...

We do not know that the magazine rack didn't move before Oscar fired at the sound
 
44ALLAN said:
Does it matter though?

We know the door didn't open and we know the magazine rack never moved so in actual FACT............there was NO sound at all.
He made it all up to suit his version and the Judge will know that IMO :)
Click to expand...

We don't know the rack never moved. We certainly don't know there was no sound at all. How could such things be known, anyways?
 
minor4th said:
It's not an apology for murder, I agree. I think the thrust of the doctor's testimony about disability was to explain how Oscar's vulnerability makes it more likely that he really believed there was an intruder coming after him. The first hurdle for the defense is getting the judge to accept that it's reasonably possibly true that Oscar believed there was an intruder.
Click to expand...

Actually, I believe the 1st hurdle will be for the Defence to convince Masipa that Oscar's version of events is the truth of what happened… and that would mean convincing Masipa that Oscar was the only one screaming alternatively with a man's and a woman's voice whilst Reeva remained completely silent throughout, even when she was shot.

… plus a whole bunch of other things
 
Feynman said:
We don't know the rack never moved. We certainly don't know there was no sound at all. How could such things be known, anyways?
Click to expand...

Indeed… but all these sounds are solely relevant in Oscar's version of events… and these sounds which could never be proven or disproven are the ONLY thing that can begin to explain Oscar's story… but they are not sufficient for a putative private defence.

If one does not subscribe to Oscar's version of events, those sounds are a fabrication and irrelevant.
 
AJ_DS said:
Actually, I believe the 1st hurdle will be for the Defence to convince Masipa that Oscar's version of events is the truth of what happened… and that would mean convincing Masipa that Oscar was the only one screaming alternatively with a man's and a woman's voice whilst Reeva remained completely silent throughout, even when she was shot.

… plus a whole bunch of other things
Click to expand...

I think we are saying the same thing - the judge must first accept OP's version
 
kaos said:
I'd forgotten about the *advertiser censored* and at the time wondered why it wasn't made a bigger deal of by Nel but there had to be either some kind of agreement between the DT or the judge and Nel. Any other criminal case the world over it would have been pounced on by attorneys to try and show some kind of deviant behaviour. Perhaps they couldn't prove it was OP and the DT could have said they'd imply it was Reeva if Nel tried making it an issue or maybe it was out of respect for June Steenkamp who was in court to see what were her daughter's last words on this planet? :(
Click to expand...

IIRC Roux tried to raise it with OP - in OP's version the timing of it was while Reeva was supposedly stir frying chicken and "fibrous vegetables"- and OP was evasive (for a change). Roux didn't pursue it, although I think he said he'd "come back" to it. I'm not surprised Nel didn't bother as neither response from OP would be particularly damning, IMO. I'm not for a second suggesting that it's classy to briefly watch *advertiser censored* while your girlfriend's in your house but it's neither a crime nor, I'd imagine, that uncommon. If OP had sheepishly admitted to it it wouldn't have been a big deal and if he'd, more likely, denied it then Nel wouldn't have gained much by confronting him on cross except learning that he watches *advertiser censored* and is embarrassed about it being known publicly. It's certainly not a good "look" to be looking at online *advertiser censored* while your gorgeous girlfriend is visiting you though but it doesn't make him a murderer or even of deviant character.

Disclaimer : I am not a watcher of online *advertiser censored* but i must confess to sneakily checking in with the trial while I'm supposed to be having special reading time with the kids.
 
kaos said:
I'd forgotten about the *advertiser censored* and at the time wondered why it wasn't made a bigger deal of by Nel but there had to be either some kind of agreement between the DT or the judge and Nel. Any other criminal case the world over it would have been pounced on by attorneys to try and show some kind of deviant behaviour. Perhaps they couldn't prove it was OP and the DT could have said they'd imply it was Reeva if Nel tried making it an issue or maybe it was out of respect for June Steenkamp who was in court to see what were her daughter's last words on this planet? :(
Click to expand...

I agree with Jake, I don't think the *advertiser censored* thing is a particularly big deal. And I really can't agree with the BIB above. "Deviant behaviour"? It's really very common for people to look at *advertiser censored*. Even before the internet made it so readily available, there were the "top shelf" magazines that my brother used to keep hidden under his bed :wink: Very popular and commonplace.
 
Jake18 said:
IIRC Roux tried to raise it with OP - in OP's version the timing of it was while Reeva was supposedly stir frying chicken and "fibrous vegetables"- and OP was evasive (for a change). Roux didn't pursue it, although I think he said he'd "come back" to it. I'm not surprised Nel didn't bother as neither response from OP would be particularly damning, IMO. I'm not for a second suggesting that it's classy to briefly watch *advertiser censored* while your girlfriend's in your house but it's neither a crime nor, I'd imagine, that uncommon. If OP had sheepishly admitted to it it wouldn't have been a big deal and if he'd, more likely, denied it then Nel wouldn't have gained much by confronting him on cross except learning that he watches *advertiser censored* and is embarrassed about it being known publicly. It's certainly not a good "look" to be looking at online *advertiser censored* while your gorgeous girlfriend is visiting you though but it doesn't make him a murderer or even of deviant character.

Disclaimer : I am not a watcher of online *advertiser censored* but i must confess to sneakily checking in with the trial while I'm supposed to be having special reading time with the kids.
Click to expand...

Cherwell said:
I agree with Jake, I don't think the *advertiser censored* thing is a particularly big deal. And I really can't agree with the BIB above. "Deviant behaviour"? It's really very common for people to look at *advertiser censored*. Even before the internet made it so readily available, there were the "top shelf" magazines that my brother used to keep hidden under his bed :wink: Very popular and commonplace.
Click to expand...

I agree… The fact that Oscar Pistorius watched *advertiser censored* is not a big deal.

I suspect Nel did not bring it up because it wasn't going to lead anywhere (not relevant or probative) and it might have been perceived like he was trying to humiliate Oscar Pistorius in open Court… which would not have been appreciated by Masipa or any Judge for that matter.

But in forums such as this one, Oscar Pistorius watching *advertiser censored* and relieving himself whilst his recent model girlfriend is downstairs is certainly interesting information that can help posters speculate on Oscar's personality, sexuality, habits, etc… … and, of course, what the heck happened that night !
 
Cherwell said:
I agree with Jake, I don't think the *advertiser censored* thing is a particularly big deal. And I really can't agree with the BIB above. "Deviant behaviour"? It's really very common for people to look at *advertiser censored*. Even before the internet made it so readily available, there were the "top shelf" magazines that my brother used to keep hidden under his bed :wink: Very popular and commonplace.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it's deviant behaviour. My post was referring to how attorneys would have tried to link *advertiser censored* to deviant behaviour - similar to how heavy metal music and goths are usually linked when a teenager goes on the rampage.
 
Looking back at the DT witnesses, I can't remember a single one who heard OP's version of exactly what happened directly from him. I think they were forced to rely on the bail/trial affis and perhaps OP's testimony, if Roux allowed them to hear it. Why would that be if OP's version is true?
 
I'm watching Nel's cross of OP and wondering why Roux was going on yesterday about the extension cord not being inventoried nor taken my the police, the fan argument is about the length of the cord of the small fan, it's across the room plugged into nothing. The extension cord, and how long it may be, has nothing to do with the problem of the small fan that OP said was in front of the tripod fan.

Something else I'm not getting, OP is tripping all over how he may have tripped over its cord and unplugged it, but the extension only has room for 2 items to be plugged in, and the clippers and tripod fan are plugged in it, if the small fan had ever been plugged into it and he accidentally knocked it out, did the clipper plug jump up on its own to take its place?
 
AlwaysShocked said:
I too have not had much problem in understanding Nel's questions. I thought he was brilliant today. And I too love it when he says "Now, you see, that concerns me..."

Today'a witness is one of the most pompous idiots I think I've ever heard. After being clearly warned by the judge that in speaking to Mr. Nel he is speaking to the court (meaning the judge) he then today proceeds to get both obstinate and snarky at times.
His addressing Mr. Nel on a personal basis with comments like "Are you happy now?" were highly, highly out of line.

Good stuff today!
Click to expand...
Nel wanders around in his thinking, his voice is this sing-song frilly thing that is too quiet at times, he's always rocking on this heels and toes, nodding and shaking his head around before the witness answers like he's in the first throes of senescence. He is not an articulate speaker at all IMO. He does impress with his thinking on his feet at times, and he has had success dismantling some of the DT's witnesses. After all this time I have to say none of the three lawyers in this trial impress me. Where are the SA versions of F. Lee Bailey and Vincent Bugliosi?
 
Feynman said:
Nel wanders around in his thinking, his voice is this sing-song frilly thing that is too quiet at times, he's always rocking on this heels and toes, nodding and shaking his head around before the witness answers like he's in the first throes of senescence. He is not an articulate speaker at all IMO. He does impress with his thinking on his feet at times, and he has had success dismantling some of the DT's witnesses. After all this time I have to say none of the three lawyers in this trial impress me. Where are the SA versions of F. Lee Bailey and Vincent Bugliosi?
Click to expand...
Perhaps Mr Nel is less interested in self-promotion than the Bugliosi's of this world and just goes about his job in a low-key professional manner. Not everyone wants to be a 'star' and that, to me, is a relief when compared to showboating American lawyers in televised trials. Personally I think Nel, on the whole, is brilliant at his job, as his conviction of the former head of Interpol would suggest.

Aside from that, having finally caught up with today's proceedings on you-tube, I'd like to think that whether we are in agreement as to Pistorius's guilt or not, we would all come together in judging Mr Oldwage to be a pompous ________ of the highest order.
 
44ALLAN said:
Does it matter though?

We know the door didn't open and we know the magazine rack never moved so in actual FACT............there was NO sound at all.
He made it all up to suit his version and the Judge will know that IMO :)
Click to expand...

Or as Nel suggested, the magazine rack did indeed move, but it was between the first and second shots, when Reeva fell on it-- not prior to him firing the first shots as he claimed.

Oscar also tried to claim it was in another location closer to the end wall (somewhere more in front of the toilet bowl and near the right side of the door) when he broke into the cubicle and found Reeva, but the PT found a photo showing how the blood had pooled around the left front leg of the magazine rack and it had to have been there where Reeva fell on it after the first shot.

This is important because it was not in a position close to the door where the sound of the rack moving might lead Oscar to believe someone was coming out the door or confuse it for the sound of the door opening which he claims caused him to fire the first shot. The ballistics evidence and medical examiner's reports indicated Reeva was directly behind the door when the first bullet struck her right hip. The magazine rack was on the other side of the toilet and it is unlikely that she would have kicked it and made a noise before Oscar fired the first shots and then it somehow ended up beneath her against the back wall partially behind the toilet bowl.

Even more damning, if he heard the rack move after the first shot hit Reeva in the hip and she fell backwards onto it, this means he knew he had struck someone with the first bullet. Instead of stopping to investigate, he refocused his aim and fired three more rounds.
 
kaos said:
Why doesn't he allow for the fact that OP might have been lying to him?
Click to expand...

At least Vorster said he could be lying. I find it curious that those who still believe OP's version conveniently overlook the fact that it's been proven over and over again that he's lied. The legal fraternity in SA and around the world have also agreed this is the case. And how odd that he's changed his defence so many times. All the legal eagles say this is very damaging to his case, but once again the OP fans choose to ignore this point too.
 
kaos said:
I didn't say it's deviant behaviour. My post was referring to how attorneys would have tried to link *advertiser censored* to deviant behaviour - similar to how heavy metal music and goths are usually linked when a teenager goes on the rampage.
Click to expand...

I know what you said and I quoted it:

"Any other criminal case the world over it would have been pounced on by attorneys to try and show some kind of deviant behaviour".

And I disagree with that, because as I said, it's a commonplace thing.
 
Feynman said:
Nel wanders around in his thinking, his voice is this sing-song frilly thing that is too quiet at times, he's always rocking on this heels and toes, nodding and shaking his head around before the witness answers like he's in the first throes of senescence. He is not an articulate speaker at all IMO. He does impress with his thinking on his feet at times, and he has had success dismantling some of the DT's witnesses. After all this time I have to say none of the three lawyers in this trial impress me. Where are the SA versions of F. Lee Bailey and Vincent Bugliosi?
Click to expand...

I'm not really interested in starting up a heated debate with ya on this but WTH, which defense witnesses has Nel not had his way with, in your opinion?

From the very first defense witness that I saw Nel shred, IIRC it was pathology Professor Botha, I've said that I would love it if SA would televise all of the trials where Nel is the lead prosecutor. He is extremely good at this, brilliant, and really fun to watch! If he were a defense attorney, Nel would be the SA F. Lee Bailey, not a doubt in my mind.
 
lithgow1 said:
Perhaps Mr Nel is less interested in self-promotion than the Bugliosi's of this world and just goes about his job in a low-key professional manner. Not everyone wants to be a 'star' and that, to me, is a relief when compared to showboating American lawyers in televised trials. Personally I think Nel, on the whole, is brilliant at his job, as his conviction of the former head of Interpol would suggest.

Aside from that, having finally caught up with today's proceedings on you-tube, I'd like to think that whether we are in agreement as to Pistorius's guilt or not, we would all come together in judging Mr Oldwage to be a pompous ________ of the highest order.
Click to expand...


Mr Nel is a genius IMO I am absolutely in awe of the man !
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 247 more.
Total: 547 (members: 248, guests: 299)

Online statistics

Members online
248
Guests online
299
Total visitors
547
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,049
Messages
18,248,828
Members
234,533
Latest member
newonlinecasinos
Back
Top