Trial Discussion Thread #13 - 14.03.25, Day 15

[jay-jay]

Another thing I would be grateful for assistance/clarification on please .. for some reason I have it in my mind that when OP brought her downstairs, she was unclothed. Now I have no idea where I have got this notion from because she was clearly wearing the vest top and shorts in the toilet cubicle .. because the bullet holes went through the clothing and corresponded with the parts of her body that got hit .. but I also read that when she was received at the mortuary, she was unclothed and her clothes were provided in a separate bag. I'm not really sure at which point these clothes were removed from her .. and I don't know why I automatically assumed she was unclothed when the doctor arrived (I thought he had stated that in his evidence, but on looking back at it I can see nowhere where he said that). So, just wondering what the actual postion was on this .. was she actually clothed when he brought her downstairs .. or not?

 

[Viper]

What charges do you think the state should have gone with after the case we have seen ?

So how exactly did oscar hear the bathroom window sliding open but didnt hear the toilet door shuting and the sound of the door being locked?.

I'm on the same page as you. He hears a window noise, perceives a threat, charges the threat, and when he gets there then what? He assumes that because there is no one in the bathroom that someone is in the WC, and he fired wildly four times to protect himself, and somehow hit Reeva three times. The charging and firing without seeing or hearing anyone will put him in prison.

 

[jay-jay]

So how exactly did oscar hear the bathroom window sliding open but didnt hear the toilet door shuting and the sound of the door being locked?.

.. and also the toilet being flushed ..

 

[Trooper]

The law would apply exactly the same had it been Reeva who shot Oscar, under the exact same circumstances.. Oscars testosterone, or Reevas estroegen would be of no matter under the law.

 

[steveml]

You can find a copy of OP’s Trial Statement/Plea here.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/210458767/Oscar-Pistorius-plea


Does the fact that he has now changed various elements of his Bail Affidavit mean that it is technically deposed?

The reason I ask is that he does not mention the bedroom door being locked in his Trial Statement but clearly adds two fans and the fact he spoke to Reeva.

I think he can still be cross examined on both.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I'm on the same page as you. He hears a window noise, perceives a threat, charges the threat, and when he gets there then what? He assumes that because there is no one in the bathroom that someone is in the WC, and he fired wildly four times to protect himself, and somehow hit Reeva three times. The charging and firing without seeing or hearing anyone will put him in prison.

I hope Nel is jotting all this down - :floorlaugh:

 

[jay-jay]

interfering with a corpse and attempting to pervert the course of justice .

Yes, I believe that was his real reason for bringing her downstairs .. basically he deliberately contaminated the crime scene. Roux made quite a thing of the police crime scene investigators contaminating the scene, but the fact is that it had already been contaminated .. by Pistorius himself.

 

[Trooper]

HIs bail affidavit has been 'impeached' by his trial affidavit..


*snort*

 

[Interested Bystander]

I think he can still be cross examined on both.

Roux goes "spare" when a witness slightly changes anything and infers they are lying. Will Nel do this with these two statements, do you think?

 

[minor4th]

What charges do you think the state should have gone with after the case we have seen ?

I think the state should have done a better investigation and come up with a plausible theory supported by evidence - or they should have dismissed the charges or simply charged him with culpable homicide.

 

[Trooper]

Yes, I believe that was his real reason for bringing her downstairs .. basically he contaminated the crime scene. Roux made quite a thing of the police crime scene investigators contaminating the scene, but the fact is that it had already been contaminated .. by Pistorius himself.

Precisely.. and not only once, during the commission of the crime..

he zipped upstairs while Dr Stipp was frantically trying to find a sign of life in Reevas body. ( stipp was so concerned about Oscars state of mind, he checked to make sure where the gun was, in case Oscar went upstairs to suicide.. ...Standar said, he had secured the gun, but this was a blatant lie. the gun itself, fully cocked and loaded and ready to fire was still in the bathroom)


and Clarice Standar also said SHE had been upstairs before Stipp got there, on the pretext of hunting down bigger towels to stem the flow of blood onto Oscars nice hallway tiles..

not just contaminated by Oscar.. but by Oscar AND Clarice.

 

[minor4th]

Roux goes "spare" when a witness slightly changes anything and infers they are lying. Will Nel do this with these two statements, do you think?

No doubt about it.

 

[K.T]

NBC News posted another RS/OP msg that was new to me:
.............................................................................................................
On Feb. 13, Steenkamp tries to console Pistorius about something that has gone wrong and tells him, “you’re a nice guy. “
“You are an amazing person with so many blessings,” she writes, “and you are more than cared for. Your health and future monetary blessings far out way this hurdle I can promise u that.”
................................................................................................................
Wonder if Nel knows what this "hurdle" was, and whether OP was especially upset that day? Didn't RS call and ask to come over that night, and OP blandly offered that she could stay over if she wished? And she thanked him? Very odd imo.

Oh, thanks. That's interesting. That was the day of the shooting where now Pistorius had some "hurdle" he needed reassurance about?

I haven't yet talked about the testimony around the short whatsapp messages, where Steenkamp claimed she had felt scared of Pistorius at some points of the relationships when they were arguing. It's all circumstantial but it did strengthen the State's case as a window towards motive.

From the CNN article minor4th quoted:

"Though the defense has placed the negative messages in context, the state has finally managed to suggest a potentially plausible explanation for the alleged intentional killing - that Pistorius, due to his temper and fascination with guns, had a row with Steenkamp and shot her -- thereby providing at least a minimum of a case to answer to."

 

[Interested Bystander]

I think the state should have done a better investigation and come up with a plausible theory supported by evidence - or they should have dismissed the charges or simply charged him with culpable homicide.

Interesting then that Roux did not try for a trial dismissal.

 

[nastasya]

Very good editorial on CNN from SA criminal lawyer analyzing the case so far and what to expect:

Opinion: Winners and losers in the Pistorius trial so far

Kelly Phelps is a journalist with a law degree, not a criminal lawyer. She's a college lecturer.

Her editorial misstates the evidence.

Her conclusion that the states' case in inherently implausible because OP doesn't have a criminal record, has no history of violence, and because he was in a new, loving relationship, is so far from reality that it makes me wonder if she was smoking weed when she wrote this. Nobody can really be that stupid without being on drugs, can they?

The state's case is not just plausible, the state has a prima facie case for murder based on OP's affidavit alone. Dead body with admitted killer who shot four times with the intent to kill.

 

[Trooper]

Roux goes "spare" when a witness slightly changes anything and infers they are lying. Will Nel do this with these two statements, do you think?

of course.. not only what he changed, but why he changed it, but as important, when he changed it. and whose advice he changed it on.

 

[Trooper]

Interesting then that Roux did not try for a trial dismissal.

Roux knows the score.. he knows exactly where his client's position is situated..

running the risk of going for a trial dismissal in the time frame would have been the act of an attorney who's career suddenly went in the bin forever and ever.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

No doubt about it.

He may be relying on his cross examination of OP to offset some of the sloppy elements of the prosecutions case .
Their case would have likely being presented differently if they had had the benefit of an uncontaminated crime scene and access to all phone records much earlier .

 

[Trooper]

Oh, thanks. That's interesting. That was the day of the shooting where now Pistorius had some "hurdle" he needed reassurance about?

I haven't yet talked about the testimony around the short whatsapp messages, where Steenkamp claimed she had felt scared of Pistorius at some points of the relationships when they were arguing. It's all circumstantial but it did strengthen the State's case as a window towards motive.

From the CNN article minor4th quoted:

"Though the defense has placed the negative messages in context, the state has finally managed to suggest a potentially plausible explanation for the alleged intentional killing - that Pistorius, due to his temper and fascination with guns, had a row with Steenkamp and shot her -- thereby providing at least a minimum of a case to answer to."

Roux's advice to his client to insert in his bail hearing.. and his trial, that ' He. ( Oscar) knew Reeva was in love too ' opened the door to that.. sloppy work by Roux.. it certainly hasn't closed yet, either..

 

[nastasya]

LOL - the State's own case isn't supported by its own witnesses

It's the defense case that OP shot and killed the victim.

It's the state's case that 5 witnesses heard the victim prior to her being killed.

The five witnesses all corroborate each other - a woman was heard screaming/arguing before gunshots. OP fired those shots, and would have heard the woman's voice, just like the witnesses did.

It's a very simple case.