General Discussion Thread #2

[cityslick]

It was not, I suspect, in CNN's reporting, as they had this to say:

Pistorius said in his statement that he used the bat to break down the door in an effort to get to Steenkamp to help her.
Botha agreed with the defense contention that, other than the bullet wounds, her body showed no sign of an assault or efforts to defend herself.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/20/world/africa/south-africa-pistorius-case/index.html

Note. Botha on the stand. Presumably under oath. What's the going rate for perjury and perverting the course of justice these days?

The obvious flaw in all this is that if Oscar had whacked her as suggested with a bat, would he not have factored this action into his one-size-fits-all fable of what happened, in order to be able to explain away the awkward bits of Reeva's skull and brain that are going to turn up later on the bat?

Arguing that it was all a clever trick by the prosecution to hold back the bat-on-skull evidence, in order to get Oscar to commit himself to a specific account and then to bring this whole thing up - voilá - at trial is all very well, but if OP did bash her skull in with a bat then he must KNOW that, and he would have manufactured an explanation. Seeing as he's as clever and devious as he's supposed to be.

I agree. The whole point of putting his story in a affidavit is to try to pass that off as the truth with no way to refute it (whether it's really the truth or not). If he caused her injuries other than shooting her (and he would know this if he used the bat), he will know that he has to somehow account for that in his affidavit because if he does not, his entire story is destroyed. If her skull was truly injured beyond the bullet wound (and it would be if a bat was backing against it, there would be contusions), that wipes him because there is no defending that.

You can say the state was willing to hold out information, heck we'll even entertain the notion of actually lying when asked if there were additional injuries, but OP doesn't know that. For all he knows that will come up and he has to somehow account for that. Simply saying he used the bat on the door when she has evidence of contusions on her head isn't going to fly. His lawyers are not dumb. They would not allow something like that to go unexplained.

 

[cityslick]

Well a member of the missing Liele Jones case here told us on this forum that she could not disclose any details. It was not a trial, it was only a bail hearing. It is called detective strategy, I guess, and perfectly acceptable.

It was lying in court. That's not strategy. That's against the law, no matter what country your in.

Seriously, the Daily Mail is on the same level as the National Enquirer and last I checked WS does not consider NE as verified MSM.

 

[shane13]

I think it is mainly self-pity. However, he must have horrific memories so is likely to commit suicide if he can find a way to do it.

Why are you going into my posts and adding things in there?

You can enbolden things and reply outside of my post.

 

[Estelle]

OP's crying.

If this was an accident, I am certain it is very painful.

If it is not, he could have remorse, self pity, and pity for her once he calmed down. (Must say it is very clear that "love" is not what these 2 really had, just a crush at best, jmo.) I also think he was instructed to show a great deal of remorse in Court for the Judge and for the cameras. Any defense attorney will tell you to "wear your Sunday best, and show some remorse for your actions."

I mention the love thing, as all media is saying they were in love. Well, first of all, that is not how it works. At just a few months it is still a crush, and definitely sexual. Barring that, his actions prove the relationship had not matured to love.

If you truly love someone, in an emergency where they are present, your first thought is of that person and their safety. Not to get a gun and go shooting, either b/c you are scared or to prove you can protect her. Your first action once at the bed to the gun would be to look or reach out to touch, to communicate to be quiet I have it under control.

You are so right. A crush or romantic love which never see the warts and all. Another word is limerence. They had only known each other nine weeks! Hardly enough time to declare love. They probably admired each other at best. I suspect he was a misogynist at best - one of those men who charm you off your feet at first and then change when you start returning it.

 

[shane13]

The magistrate who granted bail to Oscar Pistorius says he is related to a woman suspected of killing her two children and then committing suicide last weekend.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Tragedy-hits-magistrate-in-Pistorius-case-20130226

 

[Estelle]

Is there an MSM link for this?

It is police procedure and commonsense actually.

 

[joe jones]

It was not, I suspect, in CNN's reporting, as they had this to say:

Pistorius said in his statement that he used the bat to break down the door in an effort to get to Steenkamp to help her.
Botha agreed with the defense contention that, other than the bullet wounds, her body showed no sign of an assault or efforts to defend herself.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/20/world/africa/south-africa-pistorius-case/index.html

Note. Botha on the stand. Presumably under oath. What's the going rate for perjury and perverting the course of justice these days?

The obvious flaw in all this is that if Oscar had whacked her as suggested with a bat, would he not have factored this action into his one-size-fits-all fable of what happened, in order to be able to explain away the awkward bits of Reeva's skull and brain that are going to turn up later on the bat?

Arguing that it was all a clever trick by the prosecution to hold back the bat-on-skull evidence, in order to get Oscar to commit himself to a specific account and then to bring this whole thing up - voilá - at trial is all very well, but if OP did bash her skull in with a bat then he must KNOW that, and he would have manufactured an explanation. Seeing as he's as clever and devious as he's supposed to be.

totally agree, he is paying thousands of dollars per hour to get the best lawyers he can, I doubt he would leave out a very important detail such as bashing her head with a bat, his very expensive attys would not be happy to learn this detail after they had been to court arguing his case

I doubt he hit her with a bat because he would have told his attys so they could fit it into his story,

if he did hit her with a bat states case is proven, so why did we have days of arguing over the minutae of phone calls, witnesses, lights on or off etc,

if state had evidence he hit her with bat then there case is rock solid, and to me their arguing over details shows its not,

Botha said he was present at autopsy, to then come to court and lie about injuries would be a very serious crime,

 

[cityslick]

It is police procedure and commonsense actually.

Do you have a link that backs up your statement? Otherwise it's opinion.

A police officer lied in court. Lied. That is not procedure. That is disobeying the rules of the court. I can tell you right now in most courts, LE or the state knowingly giving false testimony is going to get your case thrown out every time.

 

[Estelle]

It was not, I suspect, in CNN's reporting, as they had this to say:

Pistorius said in his statement that he used the bat to break down the door in an effort to get to Steenkamp to help her.
Botha agreed with the defense contention that, other than the bullet wounds, her body showed no sign of an assault or efforts to defend herself.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/20/world/africa/south-africa-pistorius-case/index.html

Note. Botha on the stand. Presumably under oath. What's the going rate for perjury and perverting the course of justice these days?

The obvious flaw in all this is that if Oscar had whacked her as suggested with a bat, would he not have factored this action into his one-size-fits-all fable of what happened, in order to be able to explain away the awkward bits of Reeva's skull and brain that are going to turn up later on the bat?

Arguing that it was all a clever trick by the prosecution to hold back the bat-on-skull evidence, in order to get Oscar to commit himself to a specific account and then to bring this whole thing up - voilá - at trial is all very well, but if OP did bash her skull in with a bat then he must KNOW that, and he would have manufactured an explanation. Seeing as he's as clever and devious as he's supposed to be.

So he tells the court "I bashed Reeva on the back of her skull accidentally as she ran into me when I was holding it my my hands moving it to another place"! IMO he could think of no explanation for it, could you? except he used it to bash the door down.

 

[cityslick]

So he tells the court "I bashed Reeva on the back of her skull accidentally as she ran into me when I was holding it my my hands moving it to another place"! IMO he could think of no explanation for it, could you? except he used it to bash the door down.

No, but he wouldn't detail his account in an affidavit if it could easily be refuted like that. He would just say 'not guilty' and let the chips fall.

 

[Estelle]

I agree. The whole point of putting his story in a affidavit is to try to pass that off as the truth with no way to refute it (whether it's really the truth or not). If he caused her injuries other than shooting her (and he would know this if he used the bat), he will know that he has to somehow account for that in his affidavit because if he does not, his entire story is destroyed. If her skull was truly injured beyond the bullet wound (and it would be if a bat was backing against it, there would be contusions), that wipes him because there is no defending that.

You can say the state was willing to hold out information, heck we'll even entertain the notion of actually lying when asked if there were additional injuries, but OP doesn't know that. For all he knows that will come up and he has to somehow account for that. Simply saying he used the bat on the door when she has evidence of contusions on her head isn't going to fly. His lawyers are not dumb. They would not allow something like that to go unexplained.

I think it is unexplainable by his lying so he needs to tell the truth.

 

[joe jones]

he did not have to go into details of the crime at the bail hearing, it was commented upon that he has given a much more detailed account of crime than most applicants at bail hearings,

all he had to say was he feared for his life and thought he was shooting at an intruder,

then later he and his team could try to work a scenario where he bashed her in head, could have been an insanity defence, a brief pyschotic episode, or other scenarios they could have come up with

his lawyers are some of the best he could find, they do not get egg on there faces, before putting down one word of that affidavit they would have got the full story out of Oscar, and they would have worded it accordingly,

you don't get to the stage of being able to charge thousands of dollars a day atty fees if you make such basic errors as not knowing your client using a cricket bat to bash his victims head in pre going to court,

his attys would not let there reputation be besmirched in such a way

 

[Estelle]

It was lying in court. That's not strategy. That's against the law, no matter what country your in.

Seriously, the Daily Mail is on the same level as the National Enquirer and last I checked WS does not consider NE as verified MSM.

I think it could be called non-disclosure actually.

 

[Estelle]

Why are you going into my posts and adding things in there?

You can enbolden things and reply outside of my post.

I am sorry, Shane, I thought it was obvious to readers that my comments were in bold so I have now added that the comments in bold are mine.

 

[Carol70]

The magistrate who granted bail to Oscar Pistorius says he is related to a woman suspected of killing her two children and then committing suicide last weekend.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Tragedy-hits-magistrate-in-Pistorius-case-20130226

Lawd, what next???

Shame, poor kiddies!!!

 

[joe jones]

I agree. The whole point of putting his story in a affidavit is to try to pass that off as the truth with no way to refute it (whether it's really the truth or not). If he caused her injuries other than shooting her (and he would know this if he used the bat), he will know that he has to somehow account for that in his affidavit because if he does not, his entire story is destroyed. If her skull was truly injured beyond the bullet wound (and it would be if a bat was backing against it, there would be contusions), that wipes him because there is no defending that.

You can say the state was willing to hold out information, heck we'll even entertain the notion of actually lying when asked if there were additional injuries, but OP doesn't know that. For all he knows that will come up and he has to somehow account for that. Simply saying he used the bat on the door when she has evidence of contusions on her head isn't going to fly. His lawyers are not dumb. They would not allow something like that to go unexplained.

so much logic and reason today, nice to read, if he did bash her head in and did not mention it in affidavit then he stood no chance of getting bail, once his affidavit is read into the record he can't take it back,

so the state could then have stood up and said we have a copy of the autopsy and it states the victim had a fractured skull as well as bullet wounds, the affiant is lying,

bail denied,

he can't change the story at that point, so state gains nothing by keeping the bashing a secret as Oscar has just lied under oath when swearing to his affidavit,

 

[shane13]

Well my point was that I don't know if that door was capable of being in the closed position without being locked--as many such doors will be well inside the stall unless locked.

One thing that fits your scenario is that he needed to carry her after he was done because he already carried her; otherwise her blood on him will not be explainable.

But it's not conclusive as she still could have gone to the toilet on her own and if he shot into her fractured skull from close range, he would have gotten her blood and tissues all over him at that point--even if he did not carry her to the toilet. That is firing into her skull from close range likely would have some blowback of blood and tissue, so he had to do the carry down the stairs bit whichever way it happened earlier. Again the hand wound (shielding the head) is important here along with the door.

But I can see why he sobbed whenever they touched upon the horrors that he did--and likely from close range while looking at her. Does he have some conscience? Or just self-pity that he may be going to jail for a long time?

A previous post of mine without alteration.

 

[joe jones]

I think it could be called non-disclosure actually.

Botha perjured himself, if lied by saying when questioned she had no other injuries, that circle cannot be squared,

 

[Estelle]

No, but he wouldn't detail his account in an affidavit if it could easily be refuted like that. He would just say 'not guilty' and let the chips fall.

That is what OP is doing - hoping to get away with it. as there is no innocent explanation

 

[shane13]

I do not know if SA jurisprudence is different than in the USA.

But in the USA, if a client tells his lawyer such and such happened, the attorney is not supposed then lie about what he was told. Therefore many attorneys actually tell their clients at first meeting NOT to tell them exactly what happened.

Rather the defense atty tries to get as much evidence of the crime from the prosecution. In other words, the defense does not have to ever get into "what really happened", only has to to refute the evidence that other side has.

Attorneys are also supposed to not subborn perjury. But if the atty first told the client not to tell him what happened, and the client did not tell, it is not subborning perjury.

Then too many defendants are too ashamed, or in shock, denial etc to tell their attorneys what happened anyway. ANd others, on their own, invent a *advertiser censored* and bull story.

But bottom line is that many attorneys tell their clients NOT to tell them what happened.

[For the record, I am not an attorney, but have been close to several.]