Duchy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2014
- Messages
- 622
- Reaction score
- 3
Not as bad as the JFK autopsy photos.
Wearing the same T shirt she was wearing in her mini at the estate gates isn't she?
Not as bad as the JFK autopsy photos.
Well, I should qualify that I guess - I could not make a convincing argument for premeditated murder because I do not think there's any evidence of it, and I think Nel knows this as well. I just don't think this is even a close call at all.
But I could argue strongly for culpable homicide. The point is, I can look at a situation and come up with arguments for either side - and this is often a process we have to go through while preparing for trial. You try to come up with the best arguments the other side can bring, and then you figure out how your own evidence and arguments can overcome or counter the other side's best points.
'Contamination, disturbance, tampering'. Rinse, repeat. Look, I'm trying really hard to remain respectful of differing opinions here but you said yourself just a day or two into the State's case that witnesses who didn't allow for concessions that there could be a different version of the truth were making themselves look like fools. Not verbatim, of course, but that it made their testimony suspect because they were so dogged.This is where I totally thought Nel lost the plot. How did he damage OP with this line of questioning?
Has anyone kept a list of all the people OP's apportioned blame to so far? I kind of have half a one;
Darren - speeding, irresponsibility with a gun
Sam - stalking
Police - moving things, telling him he could wash his hands
Roux - he got his client's affidavit wrong
BBM - And he's only just started!!I don't know about you folks, but Nel completely freaked me out today with the plug issue! If he can damage OP to that extent with that excellent detective type discovery, I cannot even begin to fathom what kind of h*** is headed towards OP! LOL!!!!
... I don't know anyone can logically say this man is a sociopath. No psychologist would.
I find his reluctance to say the words, "I killed her," to ring true.
Truly self-serving. What he and his lawyers want to sound true is that he was not the active agent of Reeva's death. And they would like the judge to focus on O.P. as victim. Victim of "the tragedy," circumstances, fate, the need to protect Reeva, his great love for HIS baba, HIS terror "that night," which he does not want to have to re-live at the sight of wounds inflicted by tragic fate. MeeBee, you are too kind to OP. But I think it must be out of kindness and trust and that because you are truthful you believe others are.
I don't know about you folks, but Nel completely freaked me out today with the plug issue! If he can damage OP to that extent with that excellent detective type discovery, I cannot even begin to fathom what kind of h*** is headed towards OP! LOL!!!!
But he has owned it. Why does he have to say the specific words? What difference does it make how he says it???
As strategy, OP + defense have tried to distance the act from the agent and essentially blame "circumstances." So, as strategy, the prosecution needs to put the gun and its consequences squarely back in his hands. That's just a first step. The other strategy is to paint him a liar. In any case, the case all comes down to circumstantial evidence, to his state of mind. You might not like the prosecution's strategy, but it would be negligent and incompetent not to play the best cards. The defense must play the sympathy card. Prosecution must counter that hand.
Well culpable homicide sounds like a done deal to me. From everything I'm hearing in the media SA has a 1% rule for culpable homicide.
Hence mortified. People seem to conveniently omit the fact that this word also means shame when referring to OP's use of the term.
I agree that there's a difference - Mrs. Stipp was clearly lying (or she was tricked by the police into signing a statement that they fudged) and Oscar's was an in-artful use of words that has now been clarified - no reason for him to contradict himself and give a different version now. It's not like he totally made up seeing a person that he didn't see.
Yes, it was a mistake to shoot through the door - he mistakenly believed it to be an intruder. That ain't murder. Is he minimizing it at times? YES, of course he is.
Yes, that's a good point. Also, he says that he was looking down the corridor for the intruder (not exact words, I need to look them up, but he definitley used the word 'looking') .. yet he would never have been able to see them, because of this 'pitch blackness' (which has been reinforced by introducing the 'black out curtains' and the covering of the LED light)
BBM - And he's only just started!!
This short clip about whether the prosecution is being too tough on OP is very interesting.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/oscar-pistorius-accidentally-fired-gun-times/story?id=23251260
Nancy Grace (former prosecutor) is great!!!! She says: "I can guarantee you, in an American court of law, you gun down your girlfriend, and then you cry on the stand - we're not adjourning for the day for you to cry".
BBM. IMO this is a solid point.
Intense rage can lead the most seemingly normal of us to be reckless. You don't have to be a sociopath to shoot someone in anger. That is why in some countries "crime of passion" is an accepted defense.
It's unfortunate Oscar was such a gun toting enthusiast.