Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #68 *Appeal Verdict*

[cottonweaver]

......a bit of a cul de sac the watch going missing......i think it's fairly safe to say the family know the truth about the shooting....

I think some of the family may have inferred it -I doubt he has told anyone the truth of the events that night. Carl will know.
eg. Aimee etc must have worked it out but brother always came first ,not the victim who she did not know and bolsters herself these days with arguments that OP is a victim - of the press, personally by Nel, of "mob justice" or "haters", by the judiciary who have let others get suspended sentences etc for slightly similar crimes. Speculate that these self- defenses are used to bury any conscience or concerns for truth.

Aww it's all so unfair :tantrum:

We know that people can delude themselves on this case

 

[sleuth-d-]

With respect, I do disagree with this because the lay public may not always know what the rules are around a crime scene. While it may seem obvious to some, others may look at it as just removing personal belongings from a house, not knowing its potential relevance to an investigation.

This is why the police need to immediately secure a crime scene and ensure it doesn't get disturbed so that evidence is protected. Failing to do this is a clear failure on the part of the police department because this is something that they train for.

re: removing items from a crime scene. aka 'i am thinking of taking my brother's phone home with me'
1. there were police at the scene at the time the phone was removed from the house [reception moved to another cell tower]. anyone unsure about removing an item could check with the police.
2. if the phone was removed openly in front of police i am sure they would have stopped the perpetrator. so the obvious inference is that it was removed surreptitiously.

3. on this version, we are led to believe carl was unsure about the rules around removing a phone and keeping it for a few days, and also unsure around the rules of wiping information from the phone. do you really believe this?

 

[Interested Bystander]

Does anyone else wonder why Pistorius was not asked by Nel to show how he hit the door. It would have added to the marks but would that have been an issue as long as the historical marks were properly recorded? We know the shots were in quick succession and as was discussed on here at the time we could not see how he (or anyone) could wield a cricket bat so quickly.

 

[Tortoise]

Does anyone else wonder why Pistorius was not asked by Nel to show how he hit the door. It would have added to the marks but would that have been an issue as long as the historical marks were properly recorded? We know the shots were in quick succession and as was discussed on here at the time we could not see how he (or anyone) could wield a cricket bat so quickly.

possibly to preserve the evidence - in case of a retrial?

could have used a substitute door though.

 

[Interested Bystander]

possibly to preserve the evidence - in case of a retrial?

could have used a substitute door though.

That makes sense and yes a substitute door could easily have been used.

 

[cottonweaver]

Does anyone else wonder why Pistorius was not asked by Nel to show how he hit the door. It would have added to the marks but would that have been an issue as long as the historical marks were properly recorded? We know the shots were in quick succession and as was discussed on here at the time we could not see how he (or anyone) could wield a cricket bat so quickly.

Worth asking this question certainly but I wonder if he would just have used the argument of :

-I can't replicate the speed as there were panic stricken circumstances that night - impossible to replicate - so evidentially gaining nothing for Nel. ( Rather like the screams- "I have never screamed like that before in my life " of wtte

- and then they may have thrown in Dixon to explain adrenalin super-feats. Why not? Dixon can turn his hand at anything.... as long as he gets his beer & his pork chop ( The Woolie & Dixon lunch . )

 

[Interested Bystander]

Worth asking this question certainly but I wonder if he would just have used the argument of :

-I can't replicate the speed as there were panic stricken circumstances that night - impossible to replicate - so evidentially gaining nothing for Nel. ( Rather like the screams- "I have never screamed like that before in my life " of wtte

- and then they may have thrown in Dixon to explain adrenalin super-feats. Why not? Dixon can turn his hand at anything.... as long as he gets his beer & his pork chop ( The Woolie & Dixon lunch . )

I think you are probably right!

 

[mrjitty]

Its clear pistorius deceived the police to get the phone out of the house - especially by leaving his work phone prominently to be discovered.

The Police did not know he had a second iPhone

Blaming the police is nonsense.

 

[cottonweaver]

I think you are probably right!

I agree though, would have been very entertaining if they had got the best cricketer in the land to show that even he could not have matched the bangs tempo against a mocked-up door.

 

[CriLondon]

You don't think wielding a bat quickly requires strength?

Yes to some extent , agility of movement and elasticity of the muscles would play more of a role imo.

 

[mrjitty]

Does anyone else wonder why Pistorius was not asked by Nel to show how he hit the door. It would have added to the marks but would that have been an issue as long as the historical marks were properly recorded? We know the shots were in quick succession and as was discussed on here at the time we could not see how he (or anyone) could wield a cricket bat so quickly.

I doubt this is allowed on X

 

[Tortoise]

I think some of the family may have inferred it -I doubt he has told anyone the truth of the events that night. Carl will know.
eg. Aimee etc must have worked it out but brother always came first ,not the victim who she did not know and bolsters herself these days with arguments that OP is a victim - of the press, personally by Nel, of "mob justice" or "haters", by the judiciary who have let others get suspended sentences etc for slightly similar crimes. Speculate that these self- defenses are used to bury any conscience or concerns for truth.

Aww it's all so unfair :tantrum:

We know that people can delude themselves on this case

We do certainly. What I personally detest is that Oldwadge had a part in the tampering with evidence and should not have been allowed to represent him at trial because of objectivity. Roux must also know that his client was lying because he lied to witnesses about the screams tape he would produce and about being corrected on the double taps but keeping it to himself, manipulated both Stipps' and Johnson's phone evidence, and deceived in his timeline. There is advocacy and then there is deceit and deception, and he crossed the line big time on this case IMO.

 

[lithgow1]

You don't think wielding a bat quickly requires strength?

Agility is much more important than strength when it comes to wielding a bat quickly IMO. Strength just relates to how much force you can exert with it. But Roger Dixon should know - he did the fast wielding at the testing party. Bit of a difference there in age, fitness and strength between OP and the all-round expert but that kind of detail never seemed to bother the DT much.

BTW, the debate about who is responsible for what happened with the phone - the bungling police or the person who actually took it and wiped it is one of the more mind boggling and head shaking of late.

 

[soozieqtips]

Agility is much more important than strength when it comes to wielding a bat quickly IMO. Strength just relates to how much force you can exert with it. But Roger Dixon should know - he did the fast wielding at the testing party. Bit of a difference there in age, fitness and strength between OP and the all-round expert but that kind of detail never seemed to bother the DT much.

BTW, the debate about who is responsible for what happened with the phone - the bungling police or the person who actually took it and wiped it is one of the more mind boggling and head shaking of late.

BIB - how crazy is it to absolve two adults of the crime of tampering with evidence in order to blame the police for it? It was the fault of the police for not securing the scene, not the fault of the two thieves? Next we'll hear how Reeva was to blame for her own murder. Oh wait. We already have. If she'd grassed on OP about a situation (Tasha's) where she wasn't even present - she would still be alive because he'd have had his licence taken away! And that is pure speculation considering all the stuff he'd already got away with.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I doubt this is allowed on X

Thank you Mr Jitty. I did wonder. If you have a moment would you please explain why. I have no legal background, as is obvious, but it seems a very logical step to test the veracity of what seems to be an important lie. Is the PT allowed only to ask questions?

 

[akp]

re: removing items from a crime scene. aka 'i am thinking of taking my brother's phone home with me'
1. there were police at the scene at the time the phone was removed from the house [reception moved to another cell tower]. anyone unsure about removing an item could check with the police.
2. if the phone was removed openly in front of police i am sure they would have stopped the perpetrator. so the obvious inference is that it was removed surreptitiously.

3. on this version, we are led to believe carl was unsure about the rules around removing a phone and keeping it for a few days, and also unsure around the rules of wiping information from the phone. do you really believe this?

It's simple really, isn't it? Any reasonable person would know that removing things from a crime scene is a grave offence, there is a good chance of getting caught, being charged and being sent to prison. So why would he do that, despite that huge risk involved? Only reason can be that the possible benefits far outweigh the risk involved. What kind of benefit in this situation can outweigh the risk of him being sent to prison? Only reasonable answer I can see is, the possibility of saving his brother from a murder conviction. Those who refuse to see this, will not be convinced about OP's guilt no matter how hard you try to reason with them. Oh, wait - maybe the justification will be that CP was so shocked by Reeva's death that he wasn't thinking, like OP wasn't when he shot!

 

[cottonweaver]

We do certainly. What I personally detest is that Oldwadge had a part in the tampering with evidence and should not have been allowed to represent him at trial because of objectivity. Roux must also know that his client was lying because he lied to witnesses about the screams tape he would produce and about being corrected on the double taps but keeping it to himself, manipulated both Stipps' and Johnson's phone evidence, and deceived in his timeline. There is advocacy and then there is deceit and deception, and he crossed the line big time on this case IMO.

On Roux, I have read that he was well-known for taking on "unwinnable" cases, and even when he suspected clients were lying, not uncommon to defense lawyers. apparently in such cases he could advise them to plead guilty at the same time believing they would not agree to that. Professional ethics means that he still had to go ahead and do the best defense job he could.

As for Oldwadge - how could it be proved that he had tampered, but I totally appreciate your feelings. Apparently it was often him at Waterkloof , he was "almost family" raging about the press turning against OP, so he definitely wasn't objective but again I can't see how that would bar him from taking on OP as a client.......... BUT not having legal knowledge, IDK if that is sufficient grounds.

 

[Tortoise]

On Roux, I have read that he was well-known for taking on "unwinnable" cases, and even when he suspected clients were lying, not uncommon to defense lawyers. apparently in such cases he could advise them to plead guilty at the same time believing they would not agree to that. Professional ethics means that he still had to go ahead and do the best defense job he could.

As for Oldwadge - how could it be proved that he had tampered, but I totally appreciate your feelings. Apparently it was often him at Waterkloof , he was "almost family" raging about the press turning against OP, so he definitely wasn't objective but again I can't see how that would bar him from taking on OP as a client.......... BUT not having legal knowledge, IDK if that is sufficient grounds.

Wasn't there something removed from the safe that had to be handed back?

I understand Roux has a job but I feel a line was crossed several times. Justice demands fair play, not trickery.

 

[cottonweaver]

Wasn't there something removed from the safe that had to be handed back?

I understand Roux has a job but I feel a line was crossed several times. Justice demands fair play, not trickery.

Yes, as non-legals, that's what we want and that is what is so frustrating here but I think a lawyer would say law & justice are not synonymous.
IMO because we are British, we never see all this chicanery that undoubtedly happens here too. We got to see it on a big scale here, plus the incompetence too so it seems all the more appalling.

I read that the judge that allowed the trial to be broadcast gave his reasons as those of media distortion - he did not trust the media to not distort the trial in their reporting, whether through laziness or other sinister motives - he wanted transparency due to the global interest in the case. I know OP and his fans bleat about this now but it could have worked very well in his favour but OP made himself into the panto villain ( not the media) , and he had his 2 Ugly sisters Oldwadge & Roux.

Who is Buttons Tortoise , as it sure as hell isn't OP!

 

[cottonweaver]

@ Tortoise

PS wasn't that the ammo that he had to give back?


ETA https://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/oscar-pistorius-trial-day-11/

"van Staden was present when Oscar’s brother Carl and lawyer Oldwage opened the safe. The items inside were taken out, photographed, and given to Oldwage. The safe contained a box of .38 Special ammunition, some other personal items and medals. There also was another safe downstairs in the kitchen. A locksmith was called out to help them open that safe and they did remove contents from there as well.