Do you think the prosecutor proved the case?

[Hoosen_Fenger]

.... Please be gentle - I have only just joined Web Sleuths and this is my first post.

What is clear, is that there is a great deal of difficulty on deciding whether or not the Prosecution has proved its case. This is because the only living witness to the events leading up to Reeva's death, is being asked to give an account of them, which if it does not exonerate him, will lead to incarceration.

I do have a slightly different perspective on the question of the prosecution proving its case. Has anyone else considered the notion that Nel is making defence witness testimony, actually support the States case?

The prosecution has been hampered by its reliance on Pistorius being the only witness to the events leading up to Reeva being shot & killed. That Nel is rattling people who have clearly been coached to act for the defence, is testament to his skill.

As for an answer on whether the Prosecution has done enough? I would argue yes, with the proviso that there are many things not straightforward in this case.

 

[soozieqtips]

.... Please be gentle - I have only just joined Web Sleuths and this is my first post.

What is clear, is that there is a great deal of difficulty on deciding whether or not the Prosecution has proved its case. This is because the only living witness to the events leading up to Reeva's death, is being asked to give an account of them, which if it does not exonerate him, will lead to incarceration.

I do have a slightly different perspective on the question of the prosecution proving its case. Has anyone else considered the notion that Nel is making defence witness testimony, actually support the States case?

The prosecution has been hampered by its reliance on Pistorius being the only witness to the events leading up to Reeva being shot & killed. That Nel is rattling people who have clearly been coached to act for the defence, is testament to his skill.

As for an answer on whether the Prosecution has done enough? I would argue yes, with the proviso that there are many things not straightforward in this case.

Hello Hoosen and :welcome: to WS.

Great first post. Hope you'll be joining us on the general discussion thread later today. We get a new thread for each day's testimony where we can discuss what's happening in 'real' time. As for Nel, he does seem to be getting the defence witnesses to concede points that are helpful to the PT. But I think OP helped them out even more when he was on the stand! At this stage, I still think the PT have done enough to prove murder with intent.

Welcome again :smile:

 

[MsMarple]

I voted Murder Eventualis- OP believed it was a burglar, foresaw he would kill by shooting.

1. Retrieving his gun.
2. Approaching the bathroom versus retreating or waiting in the bedroom under the cover of darkness.
3. Failing to verify Reeva was calling police or security or calling himself, not pushing the panic button on the alarm remote.
4. Screaming at the intruders to leave but giving them no opportunity to do so.
5. Shooting more than one time.

OP's actions that night all point to him deciding to have a shoot out with someone. There were other, non-lethal options. I gave a lot of weight to the facts that he's had specialized training in the use and handling of firearms, he successfully passed a test showing his competency and he regularly visits the shooting range.

Regardless of the fears and emotions he may have felt, he in no way acted in the manner expected of a reasonable certified gun owner. As such, he's being held to a higher standard and he failed to meet that standard. He was aware of the distinction between a lawful and unlawful shooting. I believe this makes him guilty of murder. And I believe the prosecution has adequately shown all the above listed factors to be true.

My vote doesn't mean I don't have personal opinions on whether or not he intentionally killed Reeva - it just means that I believe that so far the prosecution has adequately shown an intention to kill the person behind the toilet door. The remainder of the trial may reveal other factors.

MOO

 

[Angela Carr]

Had a fight with reeva who wanted to leave and tried to get dressed and phone someone to come and fetch her.
Grabbed the phone off of her, threw her jeans, that she wanted to put on so she could leave, out the bathroom window.
Her blood curdling screams showed she feared for her safety.
Bashed down door with cricket bat.
Shot her x4 until she stopped screaming.
Phoned friends for help.
Lied about phoning net care, did not speak to net care.
Pretended to try and "save" Reevas life by opening airway, stopping bleeding etc when he knew she was dead due to her brain matter being outside her head.
Lied, lied lied and lied and still continues to lie.
Guilty as charged.

 

[Hope4More]

1. State has proven that OP doesn't want to take responsibility for accidentally killing Reeve.

2. The State has demonstrated the unreliability of earwitnesses, and that it is prudent , when possible, to base the heart of one's case on evidence more substantial than sleeping and half-awake neighbors ' interpretations of screams and bangs.

3. The state utterly failed at providing a compelling reason why OP would harm Reeva. 4 worried texts out of over 1700 isn't meaningful. OP has a bad temper and he has had longer more intense relationships and yet not one woman has ever claimed physical abuse or violence. Nor has he whipped out a gun to intimidate a girlfriend.

4. It isn't evidence of guilt that a macho man doesn't express his feelings very well or doesn't choose the perfect words to say how he feels.

It was silly of the State- even very 19th century-to parse his emotions in search of truth. And no, I don't think his vomiting that night or in court was play acting.

 

[Greater Than]

1. State has proven that OP doesn't want to take responsibility for accidentally killing Reeve.

2. The State has demonstrated the unreliability of earwitnesses, and that it is prudent , when possible, to base the heart of one's case on evidence more substantial than sleeping and half-awake neighbors ' interpretations of screams and bangs.

3. The state utterly failed at providing a compelling reason why OP would harm Reeva. 4 worried texts out of over 1700 isn't meaningful. OP has a bad temper and he has had longer more intense relationships and yet not one woman has ever claimed physical abuse or violence. Nor has he whipped out a gun to intimidate a girlfriend.

4. It isn't evidence of guilt that a macho man doesn't express his feelings very well or doesn't choose the perfect words to say how he feels.

It was silly of the State- even very 19th century-to parse his emotions in search of truth. And no, I don't think his vomiting that night or in court was play acting.

BIB - The state has absolutely no burden to prove a motive; only that he committed the crime.

 

[Hope4More]

BIB - The state has absolutely no burden to prove a motive; only that he committed the crime.

Yes, of course. But it helps when the State can tell a story that makes sense of the crime being alleged. It hasn't IMO, which is my point.

 

[Emz73]

Yes, of course. But it helps when the State can tell a story that makes sense of the crime being alleged. It hasn't IMO, which is my point.

This is what you wrote 3 weeks ago "with all due respect his version of events is one of the most ridiculous I've ever heard. What self-respecting burglar has the smarts to break through the extreme outer gates of that community and then into an house with multiple security systems, only to immediately trap himself inside a locked toilet with no escape route? Seriously?

Pistorious, IMO, knew it was Reeva . They argued, he became very threatening, she ran for safety into the bathroom, locked the door, wouldn't come out. That pissed him off even more and he went for the gun. It wasn't premeditated in the sense he asked her there to shoot her. He knew his guns, though, he knew what kind of ammo he had loaded, he knew how little room there was behind the locked door, he heard her scream after the first shot, yet he fired 3 more.

Who does that? Someone who is trigger happy, has absolutely no self control, filled with rage, and best case, has such a grandious sense of entitlement that he feels justified in lashing out at anyone who doesn't defer to him.

I feel sad for Reeva that she didn't have the self respect to walk away the first time he mocked her or instructed her how to behave."

What happened to this? You just here to be argumentative?, this was only around 3 weeks ago. Changed your mind somewhat.

 

[Hope4More]

This is what you wrote 3 weeks ago "with all due respect his version of events is one of the most ridiculous I've ever heard. What self-respecting burglar has the smarts to break through the extreme outer gates of that community and then into an house with multiple security systems, only to immediately trap himself inside a locked toilet with no escape route? Seriously?

Pistorious, IMO, knew it was Reeva . They argued, he became very threatening, she ran for safety into the bathroom, locked the door, wouldn't come out. That pissed him off even more and he went for the gun. It wasn't premeditated in the sense he asked her there to shoot her. He knew his guns, though, he knew what kind of ammo he had loaded, he knew how little room there was behind the locked door, he heard her scream after the first shot, yet he fired 3 more.

Who does that? Someone who is trigger happy, has absolutely no self control, filled with rage, and best case, has such a grandious sense of entitlement that he feels justified in lashing out at anyone who doesn't defer to him.

I feel sad for Reeva that she didn't have the self respect to walk away the first time he mocked her or instructed her how to behave."

What happened to this? You just here to be argumentative?, this was only around 3 weeks ago. Changed your mind somewhat.

I'm honored that you took the time to research my posts. Yes, I have changed my mind about what happened. If you read all my posts you've read multiple times that I came late to the case and don't feel the fascination for it that I have had for many other trials.

Seeing how few posters thought OP was not guilty of premeditated murder , though, I decided to put aside my hasty and uninformed judgements and plow through what the minority here believed and why.

On the controversial points that interested me I watched and/or read original testimony, background, then did research on my own ( reliability of ear witness testimony, dB levels of gunshots, etc.).

I concluded that there was reasonable doubt on most if not all the key aspects of the State's case. Nothing of what I've read in the trial discussion thread in past weeks has changed that conclusion, in part, perhaps, because unlike other cases I've seen discussed here, there seems to be a great deal of opinion asserted as absolute fact.

I don't have a problem with opinions -- I think that's obvious -- but when opinion is substituted as fact and persons questioning the opinion are responded to as if they are on an opposing sports team, there's precious little room left for constructive debate and minds just stay closed.

Changing one's mind based on becoming better informed is a GOOD thing. Have to have an open mind to get there, though....

 

[Emz73]

I'm honored that you took the time to research my posts. Yes, I have changed my mind about what happened. If you read all my posts you've read multiple times that I came late to the case and don't feel the fascination for it that I have had for many other trials.

Seeing how few posters thought OP was not guilty of premeditated murder I decided to put aside my hasty and uninformed judgements and plow through what the minority here believed and why.

On the controversial points that interested me I watched and/or read original testimony, background, then did research on my own ( reliability of ear witness testimony, dB levels of gunshots, etc.).

I concluded that there was reasonable doubt on most of not all the key aspects of the State's case. Nothing of what I've read in the trial discussion thread in past weeks has changed that conclusion, in part, perhaps, because unlike other cases I've seen discussed here, there seems to be a great deal of opinion asserted as absolute fact.

I don't have a problem with opinions -- I think that's obvious -- but when opinion is substituted as fact and persons questioning the opinion are responded to as if they are on an opposing sports team, there's precious little room left for constructive debate and minds just stay closed.

Good for you....twice.

 

[Cherwell]

Yes, of course. But it helps when the State can tell a story that makes sense of the crime being alleged. It hasn't IMO, which is my point.

We haven't heard the closing arguments yet. That is where the story will be told.

It feels odd because there were no opening arguments - normally we would have a good idea of both sides of the story from the start.

 

[Hope4More]

Good for you....twice.

Noted. Deleted once. Weird.

PS...I haven't changed my mind about not liking OP. I don't like him. He should have been held accountable for previous gun episodes and been stripped of his guns. And I still do feel sorry that Reeva didn't walk away from him the first time he tried to control her behavior.

I just don't have any problem separating those emotion-based opinions from how I examine and interpret the evidence.

 

[DarKHawK]

This is what you wrote 3 weeks ago "with all due respect his version of events is one of the most ridiculous I've ever heard. What self-respecting burglar has the smarts to break through the extreme outer gates of that community and then into an house with multiple security systems, only to immediately trap himself inside a locked toilet with no escape route? Seriously?

Pistorious, IMO, knew it was Reeva . They argued, he became very threatening, she ran for safety into the bathroom, locked the door, wouldn't come out. That pissed him off even more and he went for the gun. It wasn't premeditated in the sense he asked her there to shoot her. He knew his guns, though, he knew what kind of ammo he had loaded, he knew how little room there was behind the locked door, he heard her scream after the first shot, yet he fired 3 more.

Who does that? Someone who is trigger happy, has absolutely no self control, filled with rage, and best case, has such a grandious sense of entitlement that he feels justified in lashing out at anyone who doesn't defer to him.

I feel sad for Reeva that she didn't have the self respect to walk away the first time he mocked her or instructed her how to behave."

What happened to this? You just here to be argumentative?, this was only around 3 weeks ago. Changed your mind somewhat.

I would your bet on the intelligence of the average South African Burglar.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/hapless-burglar-puts-himself-behind-bars-1.78944#.U3TEKIFdW60

 

[believe09]

I think Nel proved the case and I am completely confused by the expert/non expert witnesses called by the defense. I agree with Nel that the defense is a moving target...a spaghetti on the wall approach. JMO.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I would your bet on the intelligence of the average South African Burglar.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/hapless-burglar-puts-himself-behind-bars-1.78944#.U3TEKIFdW60

Hmmmm, I have to agree, a silly and pretty desperate burglar.:facepalm: I've read many news stories like this before, but locking themselves in the toilet? This one has to be a first. So the imaginary burglar saw OP's gun and hid for protection? So the lights were on and OP hunted him down, phew, where am I going with this? Round and round we go, it's just nonsensical.ullhair:

BTW, I notice the home owners thought it was quite funny. Maybe, Oscar should take note but then again he might have thought the situation was funny too if this happened in his instance, but it didn't, Reeva was his target, she set off something deep and dark in this man, there was no burglar. jmo

 

[fox1lady]

Had a fight with reeva who wanted to leave and tried to get dressed and phone someone to come and fetch her.
Grabbed the phone off of her, threw her jeans, that she wanted to put on so she could leave, out the bathroom window.
Her blood curdling screams showed she feared for her safety.
Bashed down door with cricket bat.
Shot her x4 until she stopped screaming.
Phoned friends for help.
Lied about phoning net care, did not speak to net care.
Pretended to try and "save" Reevas life by opening airway, stopping bleeding etc when he knew she was dead due to her brain matter being outside her head.
Lied, lied lied and lied and still continues to lie.
Guilty as charged.

This account sounds very convincing! I wonder if they ever checked OP for bruising, I'm sure Reeva would have fought back somehow and then got the chance to run into the toilet.

 

[BatGunKick]

Originally posted by Carmelita:

7) The scream testimonies are inconclusive.
12) The scene was contaminated by poor police work which makes the grand photographic evidence, of Oscar’s story being impossible because of what the photographs show, a moot point.

......
With regards to the above: the witness testimony does fit if you consider this: batgunkick.blogspot.com

And secondly, you cannot discount ALL crime scene photos under the umbrella of 'police tampering'. Otherwise all suspected criminals would just swipe an item from the scene and shout tampering and no one would ever be convicted.

The most damning evidence:
(1) blood spatter from duvet to carpet and jeans on top of duvet.
(2) Michele Burger testimony (who has no reason to fabricate and who was a very credible witness who heard a WOMAN scream, and who testified to knowing the difference between a woman and a man. (And, it would have been so easy to clear up: just play the tape of OP screaming like a girl - BUT I ask you WHY the DT didn't play a recording of Oscar screaming like a girl to witnesses, or even at all - it's because they know it's BS and that anyone hearing it would testify that they definitely heard Reeva, not OP screaming for her life).

 

[BatGunKick]

We haven't heard the closing arguments yet. That is where the story will be told.

It feels odd because there were no opening arguments - normally we would have a good idea of both sides of the story from the start.

I'm with you on that... and I feel Reeva's own voice is going to clinch it: her very frantic screams heard by witnesses is going to be what seals OP's fate. It's fitting and I have faith in our Justice system.

 

[BatGunKick]

.... Please be gentle - I have only just joined Web Sleuths and this is my first post.

What is clear, is that there is a great deal of difficulty on deciding whether or not the Prosecution has proved its case. This is because the only living witness to the events leading up to Reeva's death, is being asked to give an account of them, which if it does not exonerate him, will lead to incarceration.

I do have a slightly different perspective on the question of the prosecution proving its case. Has anyone else considered the notion that Nel is making defence witness testimony, actually support the States case?

The prosecution has been hampered by its reliance on Pistorius being the only witness to the events leading up to Reeva being shot & killed. That Nel is rattling people who have clearly been coached to act for the defence, is testament to his skill.

As for an answer on whether the Prosecution has done enough? I would argue yes, with the proviso that there are many things not straightforward in this case.

:seeya: :wagon: Hi, I'm also relatively new on here, these people are fabulous, you'll soon feel at home. So welcome, and enjoy the threads

 

[BatGunKick]

Murder directus.

In 2004 Rudi Visagie, a well known Rugby Player in SA, shot and killed his teenage daughter that he mistook for someone stealing their car one night. He was so remorseful he turned himself in immediately and apparently stated to authorities: "My life is already over, do with me what you will."

Excerpt from article:
"Dreyer, in a submission to the prosecuting authority, argued that Visagie should not be prosecuted on humanitarian grounds as the death of his daughter had been punishment enough. Steve Tuson of the Wits Law Clinic applauded the decision. "If the facts as portrayed in the media, that there was a genuine mistaking of circumstances and that it was reasonable for him to assume that the car was being stolen, then strictly speaking his conduct was negligent. Any punishment the court may well impose can in no way approach the punishment Visagie must put on himself. He must be living a thousand agonies every single day." Makhosini Nkosi, spokesperson for the National Prosecuting Authority, confirmed that Visagie would not be prosecuted. "There's no doubt that Visagie's culpability in the matter can be argued successfully in court, but we believe that justice wouldn't ultimately be served. "He has been through traumatic circumstances, and his pain would only have been aggravated by his part in her death. We feel he has learned a hard lesson and the courts cannot achieve more than that," he said.

In contrast we have Oscar.
When asked who should be blamed for shooting Reeva, his answer: "I don't know Milady." He has not shown proof of living 'a thousand agonies' as Mr Visagie endured above. Instead he carried on with training, went to Mozambique and started a new relationship.

He has tried to escape all responsibility, for Tasha's and for the incident through the sunroof, as for Reeva, he seems solely concerned with escaping all consequences of his actions that night...including using self-defense, then "not sure why" and finally GAD.
As Nel put it: "That your version is not only untruthful but it's so improbable that it cannot be reasonably possibly true…. The court WILL on the objective fact and circumstantial evidence, make the following findings… I'm putting it as strong as this, the court WILL Mr. Pistorius...."

Looking at testimony, forensics, circumstantial evidence and OP's version, I agree with Nel. I say Murder directus.

Justice must prevail.