Trial Discussion Thread #26 - 14.04.15, Day 23

[Harmony 2]

Mod note: Closing the thread for a few minutes to clean up. Meanwhile, please read the message below:

STOP PERSONALIZING POSTS. STOP. Just because others view the evidence differently than you do doesn't make them wrong. The evidence is open to interpretation. Opinions are on equal footing which means that no opinion is superior to others.

STOP TELLING OTHERS THEY ARE WRONG and stop directing posts at members to attack their opinion. Also, discuss the topic of the thread and refrain from discussing other members.

THIS GOES FOR BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE.This post lands at random.

 

[Rumpole]

Lol shot at an intruder and missed and hit Reeva, WTF?.

Makes more sense than an argument over supper (that is not shown to have happened by any evidence)... leading to murder. That does not make sense... and you know what Nel's rule is when stuff does not make sense.

 

[Harmony 2]

Thread is now open again ... carry on...

 

[aoibhinn]

Ah, I have tried to explain Oscar-World and Oscar-Speak to you all.
It is quite profound. It incorporates Quantum Physics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Please look up Schroedinger's Cat--which you can't be sure is dead or alive.

Snipped in awe

Bring on the quantum physics. Your reputation preceeds you. I can totally see how Shrodingers Cat applies in this instance, the Uncertainty Principle also. Awesome analogies.

 

[Lochlynsmom]

No, you haven't just taken that terminology from him, no doubt, but you do seem to have bought into his spin, and Roux could just as easily say he was merely clarifying, not tailoring, because that's what it looked like to me, and I didn't have the benefit of listening to attorney say it.

And so it becomes an issue either of mere semantics or interpretation.

bbm- Yes, op has been clear as mud clarifying things

 

[clearskies1]

Roux already rehabilitated Oscar on redirect. It's back to officially being putative self-defence.

In South Africa, automatism is termed involuntary. It's very rarely used there too due to a high burden.

If convicted of culpable homicide, Oscar could still in effect go free. Sentencing under that charge is wholly at the judge's discretion.

JMO

I just watched Roux's re-direct of OP. OP testified that he did not consciously pull the trigger. To me that sounds closer to involuntary rather than putative self-defense. Maybe I'm missing something?

JMO

 

[TrueDetective]

This is what my gut tells me as well.

I remember being in my 20s. You fall in love so fast, hard and passionately to only fall out of love just as easily. Reeva was a very bright young woman but even she was taken by Oscar and I'm sure his celebrity had its allure for her just as it would any young woman. I am cynical, sorry. I can see the both of them finding mutual benefit in seeing each other that had nothing to do with deep, long-lasting, respectful love. But of the two, Reeva was certainly the more sincere and obviously not dangerous. Oscar, on the other hand, was (and still is, IMO) a bomb just waiting to explode. Had none of this happened, I believe they'd not be together today. She'd be dating a far more mature and more suitable man, while he'd be dating a teenager (which is rumored to be exactly what he is doing in reality).

You are a wonderfully insightful poster and I enjoy reading your posts

 

[Linda7NJ]

The Jurisprudence system we all cherish is that the Defendant is innocent until proven guilty and that the (considerable) burden is on the STATE to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.



People may WANT there to be an equal burden of proof on both sides, but that is simply NOT the rules.

Well there's a pile of evidence on the prosecutions side.

On oscars side, we gave Oscar...the words of a proven liar with a motive to lie.

We ourselves have common sense.

IMO

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

It is EVIDENCE of a loving relationship, not to be confused with PROOF of a loving relationship.



"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. (Texas Rules of Evidence, Section 401)



It is intellectually dishonest to say that a card saying "I love you" does not tend to make it more probable that this was a loving relationship.

How one person feels about another is not evidence of the quality of the relationship.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[aoibhinn]

Well all this talk about the trial has been spooking me out .. a saucepan moved of it's own accord and crashed down on the drainer in the kitchen earlier this evening, and I jumped out of my skin! :scared:

You're with (Websleuth's) friends. Feel safe

 

[Carmelita]

Are you insinuating that his defense will now claim that he was temperately insane on Valentine's day, or Reeva killing has now made him lose his mind given his disturbing behavior in court?

That is not what I am saying. He will not meet the legal definition of insanity during the killing of Reeva ( I don't even have a clue what an insanity defense would entail in SA) .

I am talking about his mental capacity due to mental defect (lack of sleep, drug intake, badgering by the prosecutor, mental fatigue ect.) to present a solid, coherent and sober defense for himself.

 

[Really?]

No, I mean love. I'm not confused between the two. This wasn't a whim. She had been planning to say she loved him for some time. It was clearly something that mean more to her than mere sex. She spoke about "the right moment" etc. All the hallmarks are there that she had fallen in love with him. There's really no other way to read it, unless you're the coldest cynic in the world, or you've never fallen in love.

I think you missed my point.:facepalm:

 

[Julian]

I just watched Roux's re-direct of OP. OP testified that he did not consciously pull the trigger. To me that sounds closer to involuntary rather than putative self-defense. Maybe I'm missing something?

JMO

This is what fascinates me too.

I'd love to have Minor4th's take on this. Minor, do you feel (a) OP shot totally by accident, i.e. it was some sort of muscle spasm, or (b) that he shot because he thought someone was coming out of the toilet to attack him?

In other words, was there intent or was there not? And, if so, what was the intent?

 

[Emz73]

He had OP read a card from Reeva that said:

Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
Today might be a good day,
to Say I love you

Awesome, huh? Totally makes up for the dozens of lies and contradictions over the last few days.

I never realised it had a rhyme!!!!! Thought it was a heartfelt announcement.

Why give it to him at 6.30 to open in the morning? Why not keep it in her bag and give it to him in bed in the morning? She must of thought she was leaving!

Also its a silly sweet rhyme we've all heard before, I think she just seeing what he would say back. Bit of a lacking of confidence way of doing it, sort of shy.
I wonder when she wrote it, she knew she wasn't seeing him so she felt more comfortable putting it out there.
Better to be rejected from afar than to your face!
All seems something you'd do in your teens really.

 

[Lochlynsmom]

Almost more ridiculous than the idea of a man on his stumps with one hand on the wall in a state of terror and panic with no time to think accidentally unconsciously firing 4 shots into a door he wasn't aiming at in the dark and getting all 4 shots in a close enough proximity to suggest the shots were aimed and directed, before with the gun still in hand getting up onto his bed and jumping off the other side, opening sliding doors with the gun still in hand running back to the bathroom with the gun still in hand, shoulder charging the toilet door that opened outwards still with a gun cocked in his hand, doing all this whilst screaming like a woman who was in fear of her life before finally breaking down the toilet door and stopping screaming all together immediately.

But op said this is what happened so it must be the truth lol!

 

[Really?]

I keep having to play catch up and read dozens of pages of posts at a time. Spring break with kids.

Reading through the posts of the past half day just have to say....hey, give Minor a break! She's not just an attorney , but from what I remember about her posts on other cases, imo she's an astute, analytical, fair & balanced trial watcher.

I don't agree with her perspectives on this case but I respect them...and her. So should y'all. She's earned it.

I'm just surprised by it....

 

[Hatfield]

Ah, I have tried to explain Oscar-World and Oscar-Speak to you all.
It is quite profound. It incorporates Quantum Physics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Please look up Schroedinger's Cat--which you can't be sure is dead or alive.

Likewise I already pointed out that when for Oscar's case, darkness is needed, it will be dark. When a moment of light is needed, there will be LED Blue for a moment.

Reeva's State of Awakeness is the same thing. It is indeterminate. When for his allibi, her wake state is needed to be awake, she will be awake. When for his alibi, she is needed to be asleep, she will be asleep.

And here is the kicker (pun semi-intended), when her wake state is needed to be indeterminate--in Oscar-speak, her state of wakeness will then be indeterminate. Indeed when needed, her location itself will be indeterminate.

An action upon Reeva (shooting alas) determines her state.

Now Oscar-World can only be understood or transmitted to others via Oscar-Speak.

So when on the witness stand, even the best Prosecutor may not be able to ovecome the indeterminate nature ( unproveability) of events related to the shooting of Reeva.

Finally in Oscar-World, if any evidence could prove definitiveness, we've already seen from 2 known items given by police to Oscar's team, such items might long ago have gone into a Black Hole.

Are you finally getting the nature of Oscar-World and Oscar-Speak?

Yes and excellent job at explaining the unexplainable.

The prosecution needs to step up their game to counter act this tactic. In the Jodi Arias trial she also used these sort of skills and even the excellent Proscuter attorney Juan struggled at times to combat her style.

One of the worst things a prosecuter can do when thrown an Oscar Knuckle Ball is to try to put the bat on the ball. It is much better to let the ball pass and not swing and just make a mental note of it and then use subsequent questions to catch them in their own trap.

Then unleash a barrage offensive that clearly shows to the jurors that the defendent has said 2, 3, and even 4 different things to the same question.

Thanks Shane for making me realize what Oscar was doing to me. I was getting suckered into Oscar-speak and Oscar-World and had no idea what was happening to me. If the jurors are experiencing what I was experiencing , then it will take a good lawyer to smack the jurors upside the head and make them realize what Oscar is doing to us all.

 

[shane13]

Snipped in awe

Bring on the quantum physics. Your reputation preceeds you. I can totally see how Shrodingers Cat applies in this instance, the Uncertainty Principle also. Awesome analogies.

Thank you kindly! I love you Irish people!

But alas perhaps the most crucial physics analogy, I put at the end of my post.
if there was anything definitive, it likely went into a black hole a year ago.

Indeed there is so much more I could say aboiut the 5th phone.

May well have been conclusive data therein... That too went into a black hole for 16 days. It came back out of a white hole (physcists speculate). So in this parallel Oscar-world, that phone is NOT likely to have the same data it held before being sent into the black hole for those 16 days.

This one runs deep.

 

[clearskies1]

Ah, I have tried to explain Oscar-World and Oscar-Speak to you all.
It is quite profound. It incorporates Quantum Physics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Please look up Schroedinger's Cat--which you can't be sure is dead or alive.

Likewise I already pointed out that when for Oscar's case, darkness is needed, it will be dark. When a moment of light is needed, there will be LED Blue for a moment.

Reeva's State of Awakeness is the same thing. It is indeterminate. When for his allibi, her wake state is needed to be awake, she will be awake. When for his alibi, she is needed to be asleep, she will be asleep.

And here is the kicker (pun semi-intended), when her wake state is needed to be indeterminate--in Oscar-speak, her state of wakeness will then be indeterminate. Indeed when needed, her location itself will be indeterminate.

An action upon Reeva (shooting alas) determines her state.

Now Oscar-World can only be understood or transmitted to others via Oscar-Speak.

So when on the witness stand, even the best Prosecutor may not be able to ovecome the indeterminate nature ( unproveability) of events related to the shooting of Reeva.

Finally in Oscar-World, if any evidence could prove definitiveness, we've already seen from 2 known items given by police to Oscar's team, such items might long ago have gone into a Black Hole.

Are you finally getting the nature of Oscar-World and Oscar-Speak?

Yes, I got it on Day 1 of his testimony. Was just pointing out some more testimony that I found odd and that I had not seen any comments about. JMO

 

[TrueDetective]

I never realised it had a rhyme!!!!! Thought it was a heartfelt announcement.

Why give it to him at 6.30 to open in the morning? Why not keep it in her bag and give it to him in bed in the morning? She must of thought she was leaving!

Also its a silly sweet rhyme we've all heard before, I think she just seeing what he would say back. Bit of a lacking of confidence way of doing it, sort of shy.
I wonder when she wrote it, she knew she wasn't seeing him so she felt more comfortable putting it out there.
Better to be rejected from afar than to your face!
All seems something you'd do in your teens really.

Has anyone thought of this..
That she didn't actually tell him about or give him the card/present. Why would she reveal it before Valentines Day - that's not the normal way of doing things at all. It's only his word that she gave it to him and I barely believe a word he says.
So more likely alternative explanations - either he went through her stuff when she was locked in the toilet or after the shooting. OR - it was found later (not sure when first details of the gift/card was mentioned) and gratefully put by for a rainy day in court...
Either way, it has been used quite cynically by OP and his defence as evidence of their loving relationship when in fact it is a desperately sad reminder of the last kind act of an innocent victim who never got the chance to give it to him in person and declare her feelings. It's actually heartbreaking.