Trial Discussion Thread #13 - 14.03.25, Day 15

[DebinGA]

Yeah my gut feeling is Nel is going to destroy Pistorius when he takes the stand, i'd be amazed if Oscar can sleep at night right now.

IMO by the time Nel gets his crack at OP, Roux will have reduced him to a pathetic figure, so damaged by his life experiences as a vulnerable, disabled man that shooting the mythical intruder was rational in his terrified mind. IOW, Nel will be left to cross-examine a pitiful, emotional wreck, whose public macho persona Roux has deftly destroyed.

 

[Trooper]

Whilst I go out for lunch as well can you guys please sort out why he was claimed he was on the left hand side of the bed that night please .because my view is the defence scored a home goal .

TIA

he has to claim that.. and he has to stick to it, too.


otherwise..............

the reason he gave was he had a shoulder injury. now, .. in the pics VS took, he had a sort of strapping on his shoulder..

 

[Trooper]

IMO by the time Nel gets his crack at OP, Roux will have reduced him to a pathetic figure, so damaged by his life experiences as a vulnerable, disabled man that shooting the mythical intruder was rational in his terrified mind. IOW, Nel will be left to cross-examine a pitiful, emotional wreck, whose public macho persona Roux has deftly destroyed.

I expect that to be the exact plan. but Good Old Gerrie Nel has seen it all before..

the hulks that turn into kindergarten assistants, the professors that turn into drooling idiots..

Nel cut his teeth on all of them.

 

[nastasya]

I completely agree with you. However, I think we forget that OP was more than likely capable of moving about his house in the pitch dark and knew the layout of the bathroom intimately, just as we all are in our own homes but an intruder could not possibly know what was happening past the entrance to the bathroom and the layout of the room certainly giving OP the upper hand, if there was an intruder of course.

Yes, and this is why it is completely unreasonable to believe the killer would give up that upper hand by moving INTO the same room with the phantom burglar. Makes zero sense. If he wanted to protect himself as he claimed, he would have simply waited at the end of the dark passage, hiding behind the corner, gun drawn, waiting for the phantom burglar.

 

[nastasya]

I completely agree. To dismiss the fact he has no legs as irrelevant is utterly astounding to me.

OP is the one who dismissed the fact he had no legs when he grabbed a gun, then ran into the bathroom and started shooting.

 

[Viper]

he has to claim that.. and he has to stick to it, too.


otherwise..............

the reason he gave was he had a shoulder injury. now, .. in the pics VS took, he had a sort of strapping on his shoulder..

OP really damaged the front of his prosthetics IIRC in my view of the photos. Those things are really expensive. He must have had a hard time barging open the BEDROOM door! Probably hurt his shoulder too. By the time he saw yet another door he probably thought, "Enough with the doors! That's it!!! I'm getting my gun!" :smile:

 

[wishIknewmore]

Hello All,
First time posting, thank you ver much Websleuths Admin for letting me join in! Been reading and lurking for ages. Apologies in advance if I get the format all wrong.

Okay, I think Oscar Pistorius is guilty of murder, his story is just too strange/doesn't seem to pass sniff test. Whether or not he gets convicted though, I have no idea, looking forward to seeing what the defense team has next in store.

While I was waiting to join I wrote a really long screed about why I think Pistorius shot intentionally at Steenkamp. I think I have to break it down in smaller chunks to make it easier to read and post it sporadically... while I get used to be able to *talk* to all your fascinating posts.

:wagon:

I think most of us write a long post when we first join! It's like there's so many things to say and it's hard to keep it inside any longer. Actually, I still write long post sometimes, errr, most of the time. . :blushing:

 

[Duchy]

.............with a 9mm gun loaded with black talon bullets....I bet he was scared.

Don't forget the door between him and the reeeeeely dangerous intruder :floorlaugh:

 

[Trooper]

OP is the one who dismissed the fact he had no legs when he grabbed a gun, then ran into the bathroom and started shooting.

if its a contest as to whom was the most disabled, in this confrontation, .. people could cast a vote, I suppose..

Oscar on his stumps, with a loaded Parabellum and a chamber of Black Talon bullets,

or Reeva, hip bone shattered, collapsed and unarmed behind a door.


results will be published..

 

[nastasya]

If one is thinking rationally, then no, nothing makes sense.

Irrationally walking down two passages in the dark, gun drawn, to kill somebody is still premeditated murder.

It's not self-defense. The trigger wasn't pulled accidentally. The shooter knew the victim was in his line of fire -that's why he shot.

 

[Trooper]

brilliant stuff, Viper..

 

[screecher]

:waitasec: Can you please provide when and where was this proved? I missed that somewhere.

TIA

Paul Owen - The Guardian:

Day 2 - Bail Hearing

Nel read from a magazine article that stated that Pistorius had a house in Italy, in order to demonstrate that Pistorius was a flight risk.
i.e. Nel suggests OP had a house in Italy to try and get his bail refused.

When Roux denied Pistorius owned the house, Nel said it was on loan to him and the athlete spent four months a year there.
i.e. Nel suddenly changes his story and then says it's on loan to him. (which again is not specifically true as it's part of a sponsorship deal.

Hence my statement Roux indicated this was nonsense.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/bl...istorius-bail-hearing-day-three-live-coverage

Wait. :naughty: OP says he owns a house in Italy You neglected to post this: "...He also spoke of how he spends four months every year living in his home in Gerona, Italy...." :tsktsk:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/last-oscar-pistorius-interview-before-1723955#ixzz2xAcUMVrc
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

The man hasn't spoken yet? :crystalball:

As far as I'm aware SA has a constitutional justice system.

:what:

:snowball:

oh Oscar has spoken.. he has given 2 statements, both tendered in evidence . his bail aff, and his trial aff.

that's called 'speaking ' in law.

:yes:





And Steve...how about when he lied, yes, spoke an untruth, regarding his popping off a round in the restaurant? Asking someone else to lie? Oh and texting Reeva about event? :sothere:


Oh...wait, he lied about owning the house in Italy...:laughcry:


OP has shown a pattern of inocchio: :notgood:

 

[steveml]

Irrationally walking down two passages in the dark, gun drawn, to kill somebody is still premeditated murder.

It's not self-defense. The trigger wasn't pulled accidentally. The shooter knew the victim was in his line of fire -that's why he shot.

<modsnip>

I agree, self-defence is going to be an extremely tough call. It's really a decision based on whether the intention was to kill Reeva. There is no doubt in my mind that OP's intention was to kill.

 

[james83]

I have a feeling Gerrie Nel has quite a few "surprises" to spring on Pistorius on the stand.

 

[Trooper]

that bedroom door.. . this is the door, that Reeva would have had to unlock exit and lock behind her, and go downstairs to the kitchen to get that salad and cheese at around midnight, 1.00am...

I maintain, that is more likely than her storing food in the bedroom, or the bathroom, on a hot night with a broken airconditioner. it makes no sense that she didn't access that food from the downstairs kitchen /refrigerator..

she then comes back upstairs, midnight, -1.00am.. unlocks the bedroom door, . enters, locks it behind her..


oh. fer petes sake.. its all too much.

 

[Viper]

Thanks for a sensible post, I thought I was on twitter/facebook for a while.

I agree, self-defence is going to be an extremely tough call. It's really a decision based on whether the intention was to kill Reeva. There is no doubt in my mind that OP's intention was to kill.

Transferred Intent:

Quote:
Transferred intent (or transferred malice in English law) is a legal doctrine when the intention to harm one individual inadvertently causes a second person to be hurt instead, the perpetrator is still held responsible. To be held legally responsible under the law, usually the court must demonstrate that the person has criminal intent, that is, that the person knew another would be harmed by his actions and wanted this harm to occur. If a murderer intends to kill John, but accidentally kills George instead, the intent is transferred from John to George, and the killer is held to have had criminal intent.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transferred_intent

 

[steveml]

Transferred Intent:

Quote:
Transferred intent (or transferred malice in English law) is a legal doctrine when the intention to harm one individual inadvertently causes a second person to be hurt instead, the perpetrator is still held responsible. To be held legally responsible under the law, usually the court must demonstrate that the person has criminal intent, that is, that the person knew another would be harmed by his actions and wanted this harm to occur. If a murderer intends to kill John, but accidentally kills George instead, the intent is transferred from John to George, and the killer is held to have had criminal intent.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transferred_intent

Thanks. That's a description of transferred intent under English law, however nobody seems to be entirely sure if this is interpreted the same in SA.

It'd be good if someone could get hold of a SA lawyer's take on it.

 

[Viper]

Thanks. That's a description of transferred intent under English law, however nobody seems to be entirely sure if this is interpreted the same in SA.

It'd be good if someone could get hold of a SA lawyer's take on it.

SA Law is based on English Law.

 

[steveml]

SA Law is based on English Law.

The interpretation of laws isn't I'm afraid.

 

[Trooper]

SA Law is based on English Law.

mainly, .. of course, but not entirely because it was once a British colony. then a part of the British Commonwealth, then it zoomed off and broke ties, and labored under world sanctions, then it rejoined the British Commonwealth as an Independent Republic..


about 97% of SA law is British. the odds and ends are Dutch / Roman law.. .