Trial Discussion Thread #48

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Greater Than said:
BIB - You may be able to see it from that perspective, but it is still against the law. To be a licensed gun owner, you have to pass a firearm competency exam. Licensed gun owners are aware that it is illegal to shoot at an unseen or unidentified target, regardless of how frightened you are. Even if you can see the person and you identify them as an intruder, if they are not actively threatening your life, you cannot legally shoot. Further, the law requires that if you're able to safely escape an imminent threat on your life, you must do so. Killing another human being is only lawful if there if no other option available in order to protect your own life. It must be your last and only resort.
Click to expand...

Yes and yes!! Re-watching the trial and the part with the firearms dealer who administered OP's gun exam, it really drove home the law to me again about what is permissable, in terms of putative self-defense, vs. what we might happen to intuit is a reasonable use for force. Myself, I've long-thought he was as guilty as sin, but I DID worry there could be room for his version (i.e., benefit of the doubt) re: the level of threat he claimed to have felt (especially as related to his "vulnerability" claim). But on his gun exam, he answered correctly a series of questions (and I paraphrase closely) -- this exam being based on the SA handgun laws--e.g.:

'it's late at night in an isolated area far from police and two unknown men scale yr fence. you're not expecting anyone, you don't know them, and it's very late -- can you shoot?' --
OP wrote "NO"

'you see/hear them break the security bars of yr house and enter -- can you shoot?' --
OP wrote "NO"

'from behind a security door, you see them stealing your expensive hi-fi. They turn to you and tell you to get out of here. Can you shoot?' --
OP wrote "NO"

'you're NOT behind a security door. They turn to you. One's brandishing a knife, the other, a gun. They tell you to leave or they will shoot you. Can you shoot?' --
OP wrote "YES"

So, this tells me there needs to be certain qualities for an absolutely imminent threat that would justify lethal force on OP's part: little distance/no barricade/a lethal weapon/a verbal statement of intended violence (and the means on hand) from the assailant(s). In OP's actual case, *none* of these attributes exist. Even if we believe HE believed there was an intruder, there still existed distance, a barricade, no (sight/knowledge of) a lethal weapon from the "burglar," and no statement from the "burglar" of intended violence.
 
I haven't been writing too much but I've been reading everything you guys wrote! I have so many questions. Esp based on the questions raised over at Juror13, such as jeans outside the bathroom window; broken bedroom door; air gun pellet shot through bedroom door (none of which were part of any version in the trial).

This is my question: I believe the Judge cannot possibly acquit him based on the law and his admissions. I believe, however, he may get bail until the retrial, and for SURE he will appeal if he can... When/if OP is retried, can he attempt a new, i.e. different defense?? In this trial alone he tried 3 defenses--putative self-defence; accident ("the gun went just off in my hand"), and mental health ("GAD"--since discredited). I keep wondering what he could possibly plead in a 2nd trial that could be any different (i.e., did he exhaust his potential defenses??). I'm also wondering if the record from the first trial could be used in a second trial to discredit whatever defence he could mount in a second trial?? Like, "in the first trial, you claimed this..." I realize now I don't even know how that works -- what would be admissable in a second trial related to bail application, testimony, etc. 2nd trial might not have Nel, either...
 
Oscar has endlessly whined that he’s anxious, vulnerable and fearful of crime.

Remember this:

He LOCKED his bedroom door (the one a couple feet away that he could have immediately escaped through, the locked doors that made him feel "trapped" LOL - instead walking 21 feet to “danger” in the bathroom) ... but slept with his bedroom balcony doors OPEN.

That brand of logic doesn’t even pretend to dip a toe into the cold pool of reality.

Seriously?!! This is a man “terrified” of intruders?!!

I guarantee you Masipa will not be dazzled by his brazen bullsh#t.
 
Figuring said:
Yes and yes!! Re-watching the trial and the part with the firearms dealer who administered OP's gun exam, it really drove home the law to me again about what is permissable, in terms of putative self-defense, vs. what we might happen to intuit is a reasonable use for force. Myself, I've long-thought he was as guilty as sin, but I DID worry there could be room for his version (i.e., benefit of the doubt) re: the level of threat he claimed to have felt (especially as related to his "vulnerability" claim). But on his gun exam, he answered correctly a series of questions (and I paraphrase closely) -- this exam being based on the SA handgun laws--e.g.:

'it's late at night in an isolated area far from police and two unknown men scale yr fence. you're not expecting anyone, you don't know them, and it's very late -- can you shoot?' --
OP wrote "NO"

'you see/hear them break the security bars of yr house and enter -- can you shoot?' --
OP wrote "NO"

'from behind a security door, you see them stealing your expensive hi-fi. They turn to you and tell you to get out of here. Can you shoot?' --
OP wrote "NO"

'you're NOT behind a security door. They turn to you. One's brandishing a knife, the other, a gun. They tell you to leave or they will shoot you. Can you shoot?' --
OP wrote "YES"

So, this tells me there needs to be certain qualities for an absolutely imminent threat that would justify lethal force on OP's part: little distance/no barricade/a lethal weapon/a verbal statement of intended violence (and the means on hand) from the assailant(s). In OP's actual case, *none* of these attributes exist. Even if we believe HE believed there was an intruder, there still existed distance, a barricade, no (sight/knowledge of) a lethal weapon from the "burglar," and no statement from the "burglar" of intended violence.
Click to expand...

Great facts and perfect summation, Figuring! Thank you.

I simply cannot see Judge Masipa acquitting him - at a bare minimum, she will convict on culpable homicide. (Personally, I believe she'll go for murder.) The hard case evidence, the strict gun laws and OP's training and certified knowledge of those laws practically DICTATE a conviction. She would be very hard-pressed to explain an acquittal.
 
Of all the witness testimony, I would think the Judge and her Assistants are going to pay a whole lot of attention to OSCAR'S testimony. And he basically "made a mess of it". All by himself.

Plus, the ear witnesses were strong, very strong. All the rest were kind of icing on the cake.

Conviction, without doubt. IMO.

Same for the gun charges. IMO.
 
I just can't help but feel that so much is MISSING from this trial.

Questions that will never be asked.

Answers that will never be given.

Evidence that will never be seen.

Truths and secrets that will never be told.

But I guess that's the nature of murder.

Some mysteries will forever remain mysteries.
 
Lux et Veritas said:
I just can't help but feel that so much is MISSING from this trial.

Questions that will never be asked.

Answers that will never be given.

Evidence that will never be seen.

Truths and secrets that will never be told.

But I guess that's the nature of murder.

Some mysteries will forever remain mysteries.
Click to expand...

That's how I've been feeling HOWEVER there is one thing that gives me hope : NEL :hero:

I have been told by a few South Africans that Nel is AMAZING with closing arguments. It is supposedly his greatest strength. He is able to tie all the tiny details together in a very cohesive and dynamic fashion. I really hope that is true. :judge:
 
katydid23 said:
That's how I've been feeling HOWEVER there is one thing that gives me hope : NEL :hero:

I have been told by a few South Africans that Nel is AMAZING with closing arguments. It is supposedly his greatest strength. He is able to tie all the tiny details together in a very cohesive and dynamic fashion. I really hope that is true. :judge:
Click to expand...

THANKS, Katydid! That really makes me feel much better.

I'm really, really looking forward to Nel's closing arguments. Yes, I expect FIREWORKS! :)

And then, of course, I'll be dying to see what new drivel Roux comes up with - from under the bus Oscar threw him under. LOL (Do you think Roux secretly wants him shipped off to prison? LOL)


p.s. Hah! LOVE the Superhero Nel and courtroom emoticons!
 
Cherwell said:
I have every confidence in Judge Masipa. My fears are that after she has passed sentence, he will go free on bail pending appeal, and that this situation may continue for a lengthy period. I still fear that money and influence will prevent him from ever seeing the inside of a real prison.
Click to expand...

My feelings too. I think absolutely he is guilty of murder but I have concerns about years of appeals and interference. I see Judge Masipa finding him guilty but the processes that follow keeping him out of prison for many, many years. I really hope I am wrong.
 
katydid23 said:
That's how I've been feeling HOWEVER there is one thing that gives me hope : NEL :hero:

I have been told by a few South Africans that Nel is AMAZING with closing arguments. It is supposedly his greatest strength. He is able to tie all the tiny details together in a very cohesive and dynamic fashion. I really hope that is true. :judge:
Click to expand...

He's been the state's saving grace. When he first rattled through the state's case and ended his witnesses, I honestly thought "Is that it? Is that all the state have?" but how wrong I was! Nel had the foresight to know he couldn't put Hilton Botha on the stand, he knew he had to get around the police 'tampering' (or lack of it ;)) and he absolutely knew that OP would destroy himself in the witness box. I'll bet Marcia Clark and Chris Darden wish he was on their team when prosecuting OJ!

I was thinking of OP's 'celebrity' status the other day and how he could very nearly have got away with this completely were it not for Hilton Botha - who knew there was something wrong with OP's story. If any of those police officers were OP fans, he could quite easily have been believed and been allowed walk free.

I found this article about OP visiting Mandela where his family were "annoyed and disappointed" because he wasn't allowed to take his gun with him!

http://africasacountry.com/oscar-pi...-to-visit-ailing-mandela-but-without-his-gun/

The article was posted on 26th September 2013 so was only a few months after Reeva's death and his family think OP should have been allowed
to take a lethal weapon into the home of probably the most loved man on the planet? What I'm getting from that article is the implication that OP must have still had access to guns if they had to broach the subject with Mandela's security in the first place. If his family were so afraid of
the 'crazy crime' in Jo'burg then one of them could have taken along a gun and sat in the car until OP's visit was over - or used the armed security guard whose apparently stood outside OP's bedroom at Uncle Arnold's every night since Reeva was murdered. :rolleyes:
 
vansleuths said:
I'm not the judge in this case but from listening to all of the testimony, I do feel he is guilty of murder and should spend a long time in prison.

The judge may see things differently and she will need to explain her reasoning during her judgement. I'm just saying there is a chance that he is acquitted (if strings are pulled) or he is charged with CH, avoids a prison sentence and receives house custody. There is a real possibility of CH. I'd hate to see it, but it could happen.

Under these circumstances, if he avoids the justice through the court, I believe he will still face justice through civil society and life won't be the same for him.
Click to expand...

bbm

... and that would be very dangerous for society (wounded ego, alcohol, perhaps illegal weapons etc.), I think.
 
Lux et Veritas said:
The ego and bravado never end, do they? lol

We'll see. He's never been convicted of murder and sent to prison before either. LOL Perhaps he's not as tough as he thinks he is. (Whining, wailing and puking into The Green Bucket is not exactly macho material.)

(I'm trying to remember - did he say that to a cop at the crime scene?)
Click to expand...

Yes, to a cop at the crime scene, when the cop said, OP would perhaps go in jail for a longer time.
 
vansleuths said:
Could you find one post where I say OP deserves to be acquitted? I've never said that. I've merely raised the fact that this is a possibility because of the strings that could be pulled or through appeal.

I've said a few times that my post was misread and I've tried over and over to clarify my position on this subject.
Click to expand...

I didn't say you said he 'deserves' to be acquitted .. I've said that you seem to think that, if he is acquitted, that it would still be ok because he has lost everything anyway.

I refer you back to your initial post in this line of discussion:

BIB, I think as a celebrity, whether he is found innocent or guilty, he will pay because he has lost everything he has ever worked for in terms of his athletics, his post-retirement plans, the respect of friends and family. It's all gone. No matter where he goes, people will always whisper behind his back about how he was once accused of murder and "got a way with it". It will never leave him in this life, it will haunt him until the day he dies.

As for the afterlife, I leave that up to OPs relationship with God, but I do believe everyone, no matter who, is entitled to forgiveness after atonement. While none of us have probably ever killed anyone, I'm sure we've all done some things we're not very proud of. Jesus did say, let he who is without sin, cast the first stone....
Click to expand...

I don't agree with you, now let's leave it at that now please.
 
Looks like we should be able to watch the closing arguments.

I think earlier in the thread, some doubt was thrown on whether or not it would be televised.

Judge Dunstan Mlambo said cameras would be allowed "to obtain a video and audio recording" of opening arguments, the evidence of state witnesses, closing arguments and the verdict and sentencing. But cameras will not be allowed to film Oscar Pistorius, witnesses for the defence, or anyone else who objects to appearing on camera.
Click to expand...

http://sports.ndtv.com/athletics/ne...ost-of-oscar-pistorius-trial-can-be-televised
 
YAYYYY I really really want to hear the closings.
 
kaos said:
What I'm getting from that article is the implication that OP must have still had access to guns if they had to broach the subject with Mandela's security in the first place. If his family were so afraid of
the 'crazy crime' in Jo'burg then one of them could have taken along a gun and sat in the car until OP's visit was over - or used the armed security guard whose apparently stood outside OP's bedroom at Uncle Arnold's every night since Reeva was murdered. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It's my opinion that the armed security guard is not there to protect Oscar, but to protect the family from Oscar in case he hears a noise. :winkaway:
 
soozieqtips said:
Looks like we should be able to watch the closing arguments.

I think earlier in the thread, some doubt was thrown on whether or not it would be televised.

http://sports.ndtv.com/athletics/ne...ost-of-oscar-pistorius-trial-can-be-televised
Click to expand...


That was me. I am very pleased to be wrong. I had seen some newspaper reports that we may not be able to watch. Your link seems to say otherwise. For me closing arguments will be very, very interesting. I can't wait :happydance:
 
kaos said:
He's been the state's saving grace. When he first rattled through the state's case and ended his witnesses, I honestly thought "Is that it? Is that all the state have?" but how wrong I was! Nel had the foresight to know he couldn't put Hilton Botha on the stand, he knew he had to get around the police 'tampering' (or lack of it ;)) and he absolutely knew that OP would destroy himself in the witness box. I'll bet Marcia Clark and Chris Darden wish he was on their team when prosecuting OJ!

I was thinking of OP's 'celebrity' status the other day and how he could very nearly have got away with this completely were it not for Hilton Botha - who knew there was something wrong with OP's story. If any of those police officers were OP fans, he could quite easily have been believed and been allowed walk free.

I found this article about OP visiting Mandela where his family were "annoyed and disappointed" because he wasn't allowed to take his gun with him!

http://africasacountry.com/oscar-pi...-to-visit-ailing-mandela-but-without-his-gun/

The article was posted on 26th September 2013 so was only a few months after Reeva's death and his family think OP should have been allowed
to take a lethal weapon into the home of probably the most loved man on the planet? What I'm getting from that article is the implication that OP must have still had access to guns if they had to broach the subject with Mandela's security in the first place. If his family were so afraid of
the 'crazy crime' in Jo'burg then one of them could have taken along a gun and sat in the car until OP's visit was over - or used the armed security guard whose apparently stood outside OP's bedroom at Uncle Arnold's every night since Reeva was murdered. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I wonder whether we have access to the court proceedings to tell exactly which bail conditions still existed at this time. As yet I haven't found anything in much detail and nothing covering him being allowed to carry a gun but that doesn't mean that he wasn't give permission. If he was allowed to carry a gun again that shows how allowances have been made for OP that any poor Joe would not get. So much for equality in SA if true.

OP asked to see Mandela. I am amazed that was granted by anyone. Another publicity stunt IMO. Poor lovely Mandela was suffering from advanced dementia and I am sure he knew not what he was being asked to do. I cannot believe he would have seen OP if he knew of Reeva's murder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 82 more.
Total: 1,136 (members: 83, guests: 1,053)

Online statistics

Members online
83
Guests online
1,053
Total visitors
1,136
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
598,618
Messages
18,083,838
Members
230,677
Latest member
Mary0309
Back
Top