Trial Discussion Thread #17

[Viper]

Thanks Viper. I didn't think further/additional evidence could be presented, though, as prosecution has rested??

Thanks, if you can help me out.

Oh, general question for all - can the judge ask Oscar questions which she'd like clarified?

Nel put piles of evidence on the record, he did not talk about all of it. Once something is in evidence Nel can go to it whenever he chooses. The WhatsApp stuff has me the most interested, none of that has been talked about yet, and the deleted things were recovered; they did not finish the collection of data from OPs iPhone until March 5th, that was the same day the trial started.

Think of it like the photo of the jeans and now the photo of a man, those photos are in the State's photo book that they put in as evidence and yet they did not talk about them. That is because Nel intends to use them in his cross examination of OP.

 

[Insp.Dots]

He has a motive. IMO he was a jealous, possessive, boyfriend with a temper and a fascination with guns. It is not unusual - just look at the stats of how many women are killed by their male partners. I don't find the idea that he killed her for that reason too surprising at all. I wouldn't say he 'wanted her dead' as that implies he planned it. I suspect he killed her in a momentary rage. He had not planned it, but that doesn't mean it wasn't premeditated. But proving that is difficult as, if he didn't plan it, he probably didn't write a note to someone that he was going to do it, and the only person who would really know that he killed her intentionally is dead.

Totally understand what you're saying. I just wish there was clear evidence of Reeva trying to make a call or sent text or an argument that was heard clearly before her death. I am looking forward to hearing him explain the bedroom door and jeans as that may tell us more and give the state a more damning case.

IF I was OP and innocent I would want to shout it to the world, knowing it's already being recorded I wouldn't care about people seeing me. I am of the belief that TRUTH would/will show very clearly in an innocent man fighting for his freedom.
I am possibly naive in that, time will tell!

 

[foxbluff]

yes........we do....he intentionally after forethought pulled the trigger and killed a person who was on the other side of a door.

bbm - I simply couldn't agree more.

IMO, regardless of who he might have thought was behind the door, he's guilty of premeditated murder.

 

[Gryffindor]

Nel put piles of evidence on the record, he did not talk about all of it. Once something is in evidence Nel can go to it whenever he chooses. The WhatsApp stuff has me the most interested, none of that has been talked about yet, and the deleted things were recovered; they did not finish the collection of data from OPs iPhone until March 5th, that was the same day the trial started.

Think of it like the photo of the jeans and now the photo of a man, those photos are in the State's photo book that they put in as evidence and yet they did not talk about them. That is because Nel intends to use them in his cross examination of OP.

Ah brilliant! Thanks Viper So everything Nel has submitted is fair game, even though Roux doesn't address anything Nel wishes to bring up? X

 

[jay-jay]

I saw it too! Here ya go

I don't recognize him as one of her ex's though.... at least not the ones that I've seen. Also, the left hand side of the chat was cut off on the screen so I can't make out who this message was from, date, time, etc

Ahhh .. thank you, thank you, thank you lisa! I thought I was probably going mad as nothing I was reading in any of the summaries of that particular day made any reference to it whatsoever .. and yet, at the time it flashed up, I felt that there was a bit of an embarrased silence, coughing before they went onto the next one! I was just amazed that no journalists made any reference to it whatsoever .. maybe they didn't think it significant, or maybe it was just so quick they didn't see it!

You don't think it is Hougaard? It's a bit of an odd angle .. but that looks a bit like his mouth to me (which is an odd shape, imo)

Edit: just realised I referred to Hougaard as being an 'ex' of hers, but he wasn't an 'ex' was he .. he's someone rumoured to have been in some sort of 'love triangle' with her.

 

[Viper]

Ah brilliant! Thanks Viper So everything Nel has submitted is fair game, even though Roux doesn't address anything Nel wishes to bring up? X

No sure I am following... But after Nel cross examines OP and uses evidence that he previously submitted but that we have not seen, Roux then gets an opportunity at redirect to try to clean up the mess by asking OP more questions. Does that make sense?

 

[foxbluff]

Only Oscar himself can say WHY and what his motive/ catalyst was. I doubt he'll be truthful though :-(

My fear is that we'll be hearing a lot of "I don't recall," "I can't remember."

 

[Gryffindor]

No sure I am following... But after Nel cross examines OP and uses evidence that he previously submitted but that we have not seen, Roux then gets an opportunity at redirect to try to clean up the mess by asking OP more questions. Does that make sense?

Thank you, that's great.

I meant, say, Roux NEVER mentions the jeans outside. Can Nel then question Oscar on the jeans, using the photos, if he has questions regarding the jeans that he'd like to ask Oscar?

Sorry for being a pain . . . :-\

 

[Interested Bystander]

I wonder whether we will get to hear and see the Defence Pathologist or whether again it will be behind closed doors with only tweeting allowed. Standby for some more puking.

 

[Gryffindor]

My fear is that we'll be hearing a lot of "I don't recall," "I can't remember."

Or "in my induced state of terror and fear" I may have done that or "don't know why I did that"

I didn't think, I was being driven by instinct . .

Baloney . . . Ugh

 

[Viper]

Ahhh .. thank you, thank you, thank you lisa! I thought I was probably going mad as nothing I was reading in any of the summaries of that particular day made any reference to it whatsoever .. and yet, at the time it flashed up, I felt that there was a bit of an embarrased silence, coughing before they went onto the next one! I was just amazed that no journalists made any reference to it whatsoever .. maybe they didn't think it significant, or maybe it was just so quick they didn't see it!

You don't think it is Hougaard? It's a bit of an odd angle .. but that looks a bit like his mouth to me (which is an odd shape, imo)

Who do you (anyone on the forum) think the guy is? A lot of people here know what Reeva's ex boyfriends look like and no one has said that they recognize him. Also, from her texts to OP it seems obvious that Reeva was trying to build her relationship with OP, I saw nothing to indicate that she was interested in anyone else. So the guy could also be someone important to OP. Maybe important enough to kill for to keep it secret! LOL :smile:

 

[jay-jay]

"I fired shots at the toilet door. I moved backwards out of the bathroom, keeping my eyes on the bathroom entrance. Everything was pitch dark in the bedroom and I was still too scared to switch on a light. When I reached the bed, I realised that Reeva was not in bed. That is when it dawned on me that it could have been Reeva who was in the toilet. I returned to the bathroom calling her name. I tried to open the toilet door but it was locked. I rushed back into the bedroom and put on my prosthetic legs, ran back to the bathroom and tried to kick the toilet door open. I think I must then have turned on the lights. I went back into the bedroom and grabbed my cricket bat to bash open the toilet door. A panel or panels broke off and I found the key on the floor and unlocked and opened the door. Reeva was slumped over but alive.

Thanks for that .. I was trying to remember at which point the light was supposed to have been switched on. You were right then, one of your earlier posts when you said (words to the effect) "how come he couldn't see her in the pitch dark when he heard the noise, and yet he managed to see she was not in the bed when he returned to the bedroom without the light on??? According to his statement, he didn't switch the lights on until he went back into the bathroom again to try and kick the toilet door down.

:jail:

 

[fox1lady]

Or "in my induced state of terror and fear" I may have done that or "don't know why I did that"

I didn't think, I was being driven by instinct . .

Baloney . . . Ugh

I can't see how it would do him any good not to answer, surely the Judge would send him down on a premed murder charge if she wasn't satisfied with his answers.

 

[steveml]

Thanks Viper. I didn't think further/additional evidence could be presented, though, as prosecution has rested??

Thanks, if you can help me out.

Oh, general question for all - can the judge ask Oscar questions which she'd like clarified?

The judge has to remain impartial, although she can ask for clarification of replies if the answers are evasive, exactly the same as she would with witnesses.

She's really there to direct the proceedings, and deal with points of law.

If there's a question not put forward, she wont introduce it.

 

[james83]

I can't see how it would do him any good not to answer, surely the Judge would send him down on a premed murder charge if she wasn't satisfied with his answers.

Beat me to it, if he goes down the can't remember route he is digging his own grave.

 

[Viper]

Thank you, that's great.

I meant, say, Roux NEVER mentions the jeans outside. Can Nel then question Oscar on the jeans, using the photos, if he has questions regarding the jeans that he'd like to ask Oscar?

Sorry for being a pain . . . :-\

Oh yes!!! Not just the jeans (and now this new guy) but tons of stuff from the photo book and WhatsApp, and iPads, and OPs secreted iPhone, etc...

 

[jay-jay]

Thanks Lisa! Just wondering though, why is it automatically assumed that he is Reeva's ex boyfriend or some new interest of Reeva's? Reeva seemed dedicated to her relationship with OP. Isn't it just as likely that the man in the image was someone important to OP?

I just immediately though it looked like Hougaard when I saw it, and it just seem coincidental with all the rumours http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/reeva-steenkamp-close-friendship-pistorius-1714096

 

[james83]

Quote from Debora Patta, a South African broadcast journalist and TV producer.

"Nel is known to keep his cards close to his chest and for throwing out bombshells during his cross-examination of witnesses. Expect fireworks in court and a few surprises along the way".

 

[Viper]

I just immediately though it looked like Hougaard when I saw it, and it just seem coincidental with all the rumours http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/reeva-steenkamp-close-friendship-pistorius-1714096

The "new guy" does not look like Hougaard, to my eyes...

 

[Rumpole]

BIB IDK, but OP must be paying that guy (his ballistics expert) a boat load of money to write yet another fairy tale for him! :floorlaugh:

I would try to guess his version but putting Reeva's injuries, her positions as she received the injuries, and the bullet trajectories in a believable version that has her being shot in the head first is just too much of a puzzle for me to deal with. I only get as far as "Reeva was doing a backflip when, while she was in mid air, the first shot hit her in the head; as she fell the second shot..." I gave up at that point. :smile:

A presumption of guilt means that prosecution witnesses are to be believed. Lay witnesses are only there to tell what they saw/heard and truly believe. I have seen people post and take umbrage at any questioning of witness testimony. Roux is a nasty man for doubting them and cross examining them. State experts are all professional people whose opinion should be accepted as confirmed facts.
Defense lay witnesses are all biased and are making stuff up to help OP.
Defense experts are just saying what they are paid to say, and their opinion is to be disregarded, whatever it is, even before they have taken the stand :floorlaugh: