Trial Discussion Thread #26 - 14.04.15, Day 23

[jay-jay]

Anyone heard anything about June Steenkamp today? I hope she is ok .. and hope her husband is ok, too :-/

 

[shane13]

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.

Thanks Hatfield!

(No jury here, just a judge with 2 assistants. I do not know if they have grasped Oscar-Speak yet.)

 

[aoibhinn]

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.

Thank you for the 'Irish' compliment (come visit, you will likely change your mind!)! I've been located here for a while. I've seen your name pop in and out. I'll review your posts if they're still available, I'd love to read what you had to say in this context. I dabbled in quantum psychology, though I doubt its acceptance/validity.

A pleasure to make your acquaintance. I look forward to your input

 

[jay-jay]

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.

Oh crikey, you could be right .. I keep on making the mistake of confusing things that OP has told us with the truth .. but yes, it's only his word that he said he went to open the gift and Reeva stopped him .. we don't actually know if that is fact, do we?

 

[Carmelita]

I completely disagree 100%.

OP didn't just waiver, he waivered within the same sentence at times.

The biggest "waiver" was when OP now denies that he was shooting at an intruder in self-defense. Nel asked him to repeat it and he did.

OP now claims that he did not kill Reeva because he was shooting at an intruder.

Do you realize what this means?

It means that entire defense case has just changed.

Whereas before they were building a case that OP shot Reeva protecting himself from a perceived intruder, now the defense MUST show that the gun accidentally went off - four times.

That's a huge waiver.

The entire defense case of mistaken identity has just been proven incorrect by the accused.

What evidence will they present to show the gun accidentally went off?

I know that there are loads of posts, and I can't read them all nor did I expect anyone else to.

I have already addressed this waiver, I do concede that it is different than his defense has contended but it is not necessarily different than Oscars story. Oscar claims that he was scared and expecting to confront an intruder that was hiding in his bathroom, he contends that he was thinking rationally until the point he turned the corner and faced the bathroom door and heard a noise on the other side. It is only at that point that Oscar shot into the bathroom (unknowingly now by his account) out of pure instinct and fear as to who was on the other side.

I will again say that I do not believe Oscar has given an accurate accounting of the events of that morning but his story really has not changed in its essence. Even though he is now claiming he was so incapacitated with fear at the time (exact moment) of shooting his gun, that he acted without knowing what he was doing, he is not changing his not guilty plea by reason of self defense to one of not guilty because of his inability to know what he was doing. He has just added that as a addendum to his self defense claim.

 

[TrueDetective]

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.

Shane, what do you think was on that phone and why didn't the PT make an issue of it.
Please share your thoughts.

 

[james83]

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.

That line "I think today is a good day to tell you, i love you".
Just heartbreaking.

 

[Carmelita]

Aaarghh.You just reminded me of something. My experience of an intruder;

Late night, I am on the first floor of a ruined, isolated house in a foreign country on a freezing night, taking a shower. Only my barky dog is with me, but locked outside the bathroom. There are two locked doors between me and the ruined ground floor, which has broken windows, doors and no lights.

As I'm in the shower, there is a crash, the tinkle of broken glass from downstairs, frantic barking from the dog for a moment, then all falls silent....Then all the power goes. I am naked, freezing, no idea where the dog is, in complete darkness and the only window that is survivable to jump from is in the bathroom where I am.

The most horrible experience of my life - I thought 'they' had got my dog.

Good gravy. I'm glad that you made it out, I hope your dog was ok.

 

[Cherwell]

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.

Oh crikey, you could be right .. I keep on making the mistake of confusing things that OP has told us with the truth .. but yes, it's only his word that he said he went to open the gift and Reeva stopped him .. we don't actually know if that is fact, do we?

We do know that she hadn't planned to stay the night though (evidenced by her texts). So it does make sense that she might have given it to him earlier in the evening, to be opened the next day.

 

[soozieqtips]

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.

BBM - maybe she didn't give it to him at all (because of an argument) and he took it out of her bag when he went upstairs to get her ID. You remember the bag that he "didn't go through" but just brought downstairs? That bag.

 

[TrueDetective]

We do know that she hadn't planned to stay the night though (evidenced by her texts). So it does make sense that she might have given it to him earlier in the evening, to be opened the next day.

Possibly, but I still think she would have left it / given it to him when she did leave. As she didn't leave I don't think she did. He found it and used it.
Pure conjecture and not important but more logical than OP's version.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I'm just surprised by it....

I'm not.

Personally, I adore Minor...even when we don't agree she/he has my up
most respect!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TrueDetective]

BBM - maybe she didn't give it to him at all (because of an argument) and he took it out of her bag when he went upstairs to get her ID. You remember the bag that he "didn't go through" but just brought downstairs? That bag.

Bingo.

 

[Fuskier]

This is not a normal case though. He killed her. He admits to killing her.

You cannot just kill someone and say "it was an accident!" Prove it wasn't!

Can you say that you believe his story 'beyond a reasonable doubt'?

Why should he be able to murder someone, and then not have to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that it was an accident?

Very good point in my opinion. This is a murder trial where Oscar Pistorius is before the Court for the murder of Reeva Steencamp. In my opinion his testimony 'blurred' the lines which may have been his strategy. It's hard for others to see clearly when thing appear 'blurred'. Maintaining 'a blurred vision' is just as much a strategy as is anything else.

 

[Linda7NJ]

For me it's easy.
When someone shows themselves to be a liar, in real life, in the cases I follow....in general...I do not believe a word they say from that point forward ....about anything.
They have lost all credibility to me.
I refuse to do any mental gymnastics trying to ascertain what's true and what's not.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sleuth-d-]

That seems to be the case quite often. OP is so often misunderstood. Instead of him telling lies on the stand (committing perjury) he is just misunderstood.

OP wasn't in such a state of mind that he didn't have time to think about the noise coming from the toilet room but yet when it comes to firing his gun 4 times through the toilet room door knowing full well how small that toilet room is he didn't have time to think.

Amazing really how he can think clearly when it suits him but not when it doesn't suit him or help his case.

MOO

op moved from the door to the rack as the [perceived] cause of the sound... but only in retrospect, not at the time of the event.

op didn't change his story here imo. i think nel was trying to get op to say the magazine rack moved, thus taking away the threat [of the 'movement' sound possibly being the door opening].

 

[aoibhinn]

BBM - maybe she didn't give it to him at all (because of an argument) and he took it out of her bag when he went upstairs to get her ID. You remember the bag that he "didn't go through" but just brought downstairs? That bag.

He made a point of mentioning that he didn't go through her bag, soozieqtips. You doubt him???? /s

 

[Gbtaketwo]

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.

And if I understand correctly from the testimony he must have also taken the time to close the sliding doors again

 

[Cherwell]

Possibly, but I still think she would have left it / given it to him when she did leave. As she didn't leave I don't think she did. He found it and used it.
Pure conjecture and not important but more logical than OP's version.

Well, yes - I would agree if it was just a card which she might have kept in her handbag until it was time for her to leave. But there was also a package containing the gift. What would she have done with it in the meantime? Seems feasible that she would have given it to him, or put it down somewhere, with the admonition not to open it till tomorrow. Anyway it's not really important.

I don't think it did the defence any favours to close with it like they did. In fact I think it would have been more effective for the prosecution to have closed with it!

 

[sleuth-d-]

You can use conjecture to formulate a hypothesis... but then you have to PROVE it beyond reasonable doubt.

Circumstantial evidence is OK provided there are enough "blocks" of facts.

This meal is just pure unsubstantiated supposition.

It was NOT a sandwich as I see suggested. State's own expert says it was some sort of vegetable meal. There had to be dishes etc. None were found.
And if the implication is that this was more than a "meal" it was an occasion for a violent argument that escalated into murder... I think food scraps, broken plates WOULD be circumstantial evidence to support that. The fact that such evidence was not found is circumstantial evidence that it never happened.

It really is a pathetic excuse for a case. Especially since there is testimony of just a single voice at 2:00 AM... and no sign of a disturbance at 3:20?

The "Screams" were all after the GUNSHOTS heard by 3 closest STATE witnesses, and so it is at the very least IN DOUBT that the screams were Reeva since they came at a time after she was dead.

The State's entire case is too tiny and scrappy to refute and replace OP's detailed version.


As an Aside:
I think it is pathetic for Nel to be requesting a 2 week adjournment. If time was of an essence he has known all along and could have upped his game, speeded up a bit..... NOT taken the extra day and a half tacked on to an existing long weekend.

OP (guilty or innocent) is entitled to have this torture of a trial completed ASAP. As are all the other interested parties... Reeva's family etc.
I do hope the Judge simply denies this request and tells BOTH sides to "pull finger"

is the meal/time not substantiated by the contents of her stomach and digestion times?