Trial Discussion Thread #21 - 14.04.09, Day 19

[nastasya]

If that's what the state is resorting to in order to prove their case or to disprove Oscar's account ....then they are in big trouble!

The killer must prove his admitted shooting of the victim was an exception to SA murder laws.

The killer now has provided varying and contradictory accounts of material points in his alibi, both sworn under penalty of perjury.

The killer has also admitted that he signed a sworn affidavit that was materially false, and until questioned about it, did nothing to correct the error.

It is the killer who is in "big trouble" because he shot four times at his girlfriend who he claims just spoke to him and went into the bathroom to pee, and none of the versions he offered to explain his actions are reasonable.

 

[Interested Bystander]

two Qs:

Am I right that today was the first day of state's cross-exam of op?

What does BIB stand for?

tia

BIB = Bit In Bold

 

[crasshopper]

I don't think it was either. I think it'd be very hard to say the words, out loud, that you'd killed someone you loved, if you've done it by accident.

He could man up and softly answer "I did."

jmho

 

[MsY]

Websleuths friend Beth Karas and criminal defense attorney Alison Triessl will be doing a Spreecast tonight about the Pistorius trial.

Spreecast starts at 8 PM Eastern, 5 PM Pacific.

Both women offer a very interesting and unique look into this strange case. You don't want to miss what they have to say.

And they love Websleuths by the way.

CLICK HERE TO WATCH TONIGHT 8 PM EASTERN

Will this only be live or will a person be able to watch it later on?

 

[minor4th]

This appears to be because the movement of items at the scene, and other anomalies have never really been addressed properly.
Defense have not really made such a big issue of this, but it looks like it's not going to go away.

It was quite obvious today that Nel was angling for OP to say the specific words that would enable conviction without the need for much direct evidence.

It makes me wonder, does Nel perhaps think the evidence to show OP killed Reeva knowing she was behind the door is not really that strong to stand up on it's own?

It's been quite a bizarre day today - I'm not really sure what to make of it.

I suggest that even Nel does not believe that Oscar premeditated killing Reeva. How can he when he has no evidence and when he has lots of evidence that suggests otherwise?

You can tell in some of his questioning that he has basically accepted that he doesn't have a case for murder and the best he can do is get him on culpable homicide and try to get a lengthy sentence by painting OP as a totally reckless bad guy.

 

[MeeBee]

He could man up and softly answer "I did."

jmho

He did do that, unless you already knew that. Nel asked him again and OP said, "I did, My Lady."

 

[ShadyLady]

That face-off between OP and Nel today illustrates that. Nel demanded several times that OP say the words, "I killed Reeva Steenkamp" and iirc each time OP replied, "It was a mistake." Was that Roux's advice or OP's obstinacy?

Mistake...accident...that's all he has. IMO :jail::jail::jail:

I can't believe he got out on bail.

 

[Viper]

I have to say that it felt great to finally have OP sitting in the stand today, with Mr. Nel hammering him without a drop of mercy. This will continue for many days, perhaps over a week; as Mr. Nel said, "I have lots of time." And, "Im not going away Mr. Pistorius." Mr. Nel said those things with a smile, and his leg casually up on the podium shelf. The Killer is now being confronted head on by the criminal justice system in the form of a highly skilled prosecutor that does not care if the Killer cries or pleads, he is going to tear OP and his lies to shreds, no matter how long that takes.

 

[minor4th]

He could man up and softly answer "I did."

jmho

He did do just that when pushed by Nel.

In any event, what's the point of that line of questioning anyway? Everyone in the courtroom knows and agrees that Oscar shot and killed Reeva. It's not in dispute at all. Nel was bullying Oscar just to make him uncomfortable and to rattle him on the stand. It provided absolutely no information on Oscar's guilt or innocence of the murder charge or even culpable homicide.

 

[Tricia]

Will this only be live or will a person be able to watch it later on?

It will be live and yes you will be able to watch it later at www.wildabouttrial.com

 

[DebinGA]

I don't think it was either. I think it'd be very hard to say the words, out loud, that you'd killed someone you loved, if you've done it by accident.

I think he'd have helped himself if he had owned his, perhaps mistaken, action and admitted he killed her, rather than downgrading his offense to the tepid "I took her life".

 

[MeeBee]

I think he'd have helped himself if he had owned his, perhaps mistaken, action and admitted he killed her, rather than downgrading his offense to the tepid "I took her life".

But he has owned it. Why does he have to say the specific words? What difference does it make how he says it???

 

[supernovaNic]

What's the 411 on the judge? Is she known to be tough, etc?

 

[ShadyLady]

I suggest that even Nel does not believe that Oscar premeditated killing Reeva. How can he when he has no evidence and when he has lots of evidence that suggests otherwise?

You can tell in some of his questioning that he has basically accepted that he doesn't have a case for murder and the best he can do is get him on culpable homicide and try to get a lengthy sentence by painting OP as a totally reckless bad guy.

I thought there was evidence of an argument earlier...seems OP had plenty of time to know what he was doing. IMO

 

[Duchy]

Not sure if I am allowed to post this? Photo of her head wound as published by our very popular local magazine YOU. http://you.co.za/news/warning-graphic-images-of-reevas-head-in-court/

Very Graphic
(please adjust or delete if not allowed)

Don't know how OP can refer to this as a 'mistake'. The word just doesn't fit.

 

[emmavoberry]

His post-shooting account of his actions undermines his account of pre-shooting state of mind, reasoning. Immediately after shooting through door, he abandons his ground to get his legs. He swaps out combat posture for more height, stability in terms of "footing," whereas pre-shooting he rushes to confront perceived danger without this advantage. Post-shooting, by his own account of it, he acts as if he knows what he could not yet know--that there is no threat and Reeva is not in bed.

Moving back down the corridor, he is not watching his back, aware of possible hiding places, entry points. It seems the fear-propelled adrenaline no longer surges. He does not call out to Reeva, is not concerned about her safety any longer, or his own, only getting his legs on, for which he must turn on the light, thus noticing Reeva is not in bed and putting two and two together.

Posters here say that in SA typically more than one invader enters. How does OP know he has vanquished first intruder? That first could still be alive and pursue him down corridor. A second could climb up bathroom window. And Reeva, whom he tried to protect no longer needs protection? No longer a need to call out, ask for her help or in any way relate to her as he moves down the hall, or when he gets into the bedroom, even before turning on the light?

In post-shooting account, as in pre, there's a person missing: Reeva. No accounting for Reeva's part in the script. More baffling is that all thoughts of, reactions to extreme danger factor so easily dissipate with the discharge of the gun.

 

[minor4th]

I love Beth Karas, I watched her for years on courtTV, no one holds a candle to her. Except maybe Joey Jackson, but he often views things like the defense attorney he is ;-)

Their loss.

I first started watching Beth during the OJ trial. She is the best, and I've had the good fortune to get to know her socially - and she's really a top notch person all the way around. Very smart, very funny, very compassionate but not sappy ....

 

[MeeBee]

I thought there was evidence of an argument earlier...seems OP had plenty of time to know what he was doing. IMO

The only evidence is Mrs. Van der Merwe's testimony and she has no idea where the arguing was coming from.

 

[seattlechiquita]

Just able to log in. Will skip to cross.... can't deal with OP for much longer.

 

[soozieqtips]

He did do just that when pushed by Nel.

In any event, what's the point of that line of questioning anyway? Everyone in the courtroom knows and agrees that Oscar shot and killed Reeva.
It's not in dispute at all. Nel was bullying Oscar just to make him uncomfortable and to rattle him on the stand. It provided absolutely no information on Oscar's guilt or innocence of the murder charge or even culpable homicide.

BBM - then why not just say "Yes, I killed her". It's just one more thing that he doesn't want to verbally admit. He also said he'd 'taken responsibility' but I don't have a clue what he meant by that. Taken responsibility for what exactly? Killing Reeva? He could hardly deny it and there's no one else for him to blame for once, so what do you think he meant when he said "I've taken responsibility"?