Do you think the prosecutor proved the case?

[AlwaysShocked]

1.) The screams

2.) The sounds of a man and a woman arguing

3.) The physical evidence (open door to patio, broken window not fixed on first floor) plus Oscar's own testimony of not knowing for sure if the alarm worked properly, plus leaving his vehicles outside, in combination strongly refute his claims of extreme fear of intruders.

4.) The hole and the break in the bedroom door and the smashed cover plate and tiles at the bathtub. Not brought up by the Prosecutor, but the pictures are there. Somebody in that house was capable of destruction and I don't think it was Reeva.

5.) The numerous, numerous changes to his story plus several outright lies: Out on the patio to get the fans, nope, wait, not out on the patio to get the fans; double tap shots, nope, wait, not double tap shots; two people testify to him shooting through the sunroof, he says they're both liars; he absolutely was lying his butt off when he said his finger was not on the trigger of the gun in the restaurant

And more and more and more. I too cannot see how he can fail to get convicted.

Looking forward to the return of testimony!

 

[Johnbhoy]

Pistorius is guilty of Murder Directus.
Before the trial even started it was agreed that there were only two people in that house at the time of the killing - Pistorius and Reeva. And it was agreed that it was Pistorius who fired his gun four times through a locked bathroom door and killed Reeva.
His defence is that he didn't know it was Reeva behind the door.
In my view, his version of how he was unaware of who was behind the door is clearly concocted.
1. For OP's version to be correct, he had to advance towards the bathroom without ascertaining by touch, sight or hearing that Reeva was safe. To do this he needed a pitch black room, he needed Reeva to say nothing amid this supposedly terrifying situation and he needed to have no physical contact with her at any point, not even a comforting touch on the arm.
2. Witness evidence from respected neighbours suggests there were sounds of an argument and/or a woman screaming. This is devastating testimony which OP's team have not been able, as yet, to negate.
3. Pistorius has come across as an unreliable witness whose testimony has at times appeared to be calculated and - as with his testimony regarding the earlier firearms incidents - totally unbelievable. Given that his defence relies on the judge's trust in his far-fetched "intruder" scenario, he would surely have been better advised to "fess up" to the earlier gun charges and show a measure of contrition. Instead, he has revealed himself as someone unable or unwilling to accept responsibility for his actions.
4. The defence team's efforts to cast doubt on the Stipps' key eyewitness evidence (that they saw a light in the bathroom) dissolved into farce when their "expert" witness proved he was anything but an expert.
5. Pistorius demolished his own "self defence" claim by stating that his mind was blank as the gun just went off in his hands. Four times.

If the judge and her assessors conclude that Pistorius knew it was Reeva behind the bathroom door then he is guilty of Murder Directus and will spend the rest of his life in prison.

 

[Carmelita]

I still believe that PM has not been proven by the prosecution.

One hurdle for the prosecution is that judge Masipa will be looking not only at Oscar with a critical and experienced eye but also the prosecution witnesses with that same deliberateness.

Mrs. Stipp IMO has tailored some of her testimony. Perhaps she didn’t like Oscar, she certainly did the prosecution no favors when she claimed to have not been in the room when pictures were being taken but then was shown a picture which contained her hand which we can safely assume was attached to her body.

It’s obvious that Mrs. Stipp doesn’t like Oscar whether that dislike predates that horrific morning or not I don’t know. I think she may have decided Oscar is guilty and has reprocessed what she heard that night to fit what she believes happened. Her variation of what she heard morphed to fit that of what Dr. Stipp heard.

Without consistent and clear cut "scream testimony" that nullifies it, Oscar's version is plausible. I do not believe that the prosecution has presented clear and irrefutable "ear witness" testimony.

The human mind is quite a fascinating thing.

 

[nastasya]

4. He approached the perceived danger and he stated that it's not his personality to run away.

You do realize that in and of itself is premeditated murder, right?

He was attacking, not defending.

You do understand the word defense means to resist an attack. He wasn't attacked. OP was the one doing the attacking.

 

[Frigga]

I'm pretty sure Minor4th is aware of more than many of us as he is an attorney.

 

[soozieqtips]

I'm pretty sure Minor4th is aware of more than many of us as he is an attorney.

But minor4th admits to not being an expert in SA law.

 

[Bobbie Elliott]

This article has helped me to understand it so much more

http://everyafricanwoman.com/?p=1608

With that said, I'd like to change my vote to Murder directus as there is no need for motive. I was waiting for the State to prove motive but as it isn't necessary for them to do that I feel I can go straight to MD.

Fox1

Thank you for this amazing link. It's very well written - a beautifully clear explanation of the trial and its related legal issues. Unless it's proved to be incorrect, I'll use this article as my reference point for the related legal points. It will be my "SA legal system for idiots".

The author, Sani Dowa, is an African woman (probably originally from Zimbabwe) who now lives in Sydney Australia. Google came up with quite a few items about her. Very impressive!!

 

[swissmonster]

OP has not convinced many people with his mistaken identity excuse......going by the results of this poll......here's hoping the jury share our opinion. I cannot imagine what RS family and loved ones must be enduring. lease:

Hi fellow Aussie,
There's no jury. One Judge will decide. Makes such a difference. Unable to tell whether it's good or bad thing so far..

 

[soozieqtips]

Hi fellow Aussie,
There's no jury. One Judge will decide. Makes such a difference. Unable to tell whether it's good or bad thing so far..

Don't forget she can be overruled by her assessors.

 

[swissmonster]

Don't forget she can be overruled by her assessors.

Thanks soozieqtips, I do recall reading that somewhere. Do all three need to agree on the verdict? How does this work?

 

[soozieqtips]

Thanks soozieqtips, I do recall reading that somewhere. Do all three need to agree on the verdict? How does this work?

Any two of them can overrule the other one. It's almost like a mini jury, but without actual jurors!

"A criminal procedure law expert at the University of Pretoria, Professor Annette van der Merwe, explained that in terms of South African law, the two assessors could “overrule” the judge when it comes to a verdict on the facts, based on the majority doctrine.

This means that if the two assessors, for example, rule in favour of murder, or the judge and one assessor rule as such, that verdict will be the accepted one. The same applies for when two of them rule in favour of an acquittal".

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/oscar-trial-judge-appoints-assessors-1.1646332

 

[swissmonster]

Any two of them can overrule the other one. It's almost like a mini jury, but without actual jurors!

"A criminal procedure law expert at the University of Pretoria, Professor Annette van der Merwe, explained that in terms of South African law, the two assessors could “overrule” the judge when it comes to a verdict on the facts, based on the majority doctrine.

This means that if the two assessors, for example, rule in favour of murder, or the judge and one assessor rule as such, that verdict will be the accepted one. The same applies for when two of them rule in favour of an acquittal".

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/oscar-trial-judge-appoints-assessors-1.1646332

Thank you so much

 

[Jim Kirk]

Is this just premature speculation or has court been dismissed pending a verdict?

 

[Greater Than]

Is this just premature speculation or has court been dismissed pending a verdict?

The prosecution rested a month ago. The question is do you think they proved their case.

 

[Nunehi]

Oscar has no history of being a victim of violent crime. Or any at all that can be independently verified.


Oscar also has no history of being violent toward women that has been independently verified.

Hi I'm not one to really comment... more of an observer :blushing: But I may have a little bit more insight with regards to OP's history as I'm living in the same area and are in little bit of a better position to remember any news about him in the past. He actually has a history or rather then an "alleged" history about misbehaving towards women in the past. I have attached newslinks regarding a lawsuit a lady has brought against him before the February 14th incident.

Herewith the links some may find interesting:

http://ewn.co.za/2014/02/12/EWN-Exclusive-Taylor-Memmory-speaks-on-Oscar-Pistorius

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/more-sports/oscar-pistorius-settles-with-cassidy-taylormemmory-in-alleged-assault-case/story-fnii0hmo-1226825468973

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-agrees-out-of-court-settlement-3138427

 

[Suthrnqt]

Is this just premature speculation or has court been dismissed pending a verdict?

Court is adjourned till Monday am. Hth.

 

[Cherwell]

Is this just premature speculation or has court been dismissed pending a verdict?

The prosecution rested a month ago. The question is do you think they proved their case.

I think it is premature. The prosecution may have rested its case, but there is still potential for further proof through cross-examination of defence witnesses. Plus the possibility that the prosecution may reopen its case. Plus of course the closing arguments.

Only after all this can we judge if they have proved their case. That's why I haven't voted yet.

 

[Marfa Lights]

~snipped~

BIB - yes, absolutely .. if he had stood right in front of the door, he wouldn't have been able to use his 'intruder' version as his defence because it would've looked too obvious he was lying.

Sorry, I could not figure out how to include the original post from Carmelita that Jay-Jay is responding to in the above quote, but it is worth noting that OP stated he did not fire a warning shot in the bathroom because he was concerned about potential ricochet. To me, this indicates a very considered and deliberate action-- not an uncontrollable impulse born out of panic and fear as he now claims.

 

[Tink]

Sorry, I could not figure out how to include the original post from Carmelita that Jay-Jay is responding to in the above quote, but it is worth noting that OP stated he did not fire a warning shot in the bathroom because he was concerned about potential ricochet. To me, this indicates a very considered and deliberate action-- not an uncontrollable impulse born out of panic and fear as he now claims.

You know, that is an excellent point. If he had the calmness and rational thinking to be considering that possibility, then he certainly wasn't overcome by fear and unable to think about the consequences of his actions. Very good point.

Tink

 

[fox1lady]

You know, that is an excellent point. If he had the calmness and rational thinking to be considering that possibility, then he certainly wasn't overcome by fear and unable to think about the consequences of his actions. Very good point.

Tink

I seem to recall he said when Nel posed the same point that he was thinking in hindsight!