Trial Discussion Thread #26 - 14.04.15, Day 23

[Linda7NJ]

Did we learn anything new today?



I'm flummoxed and frustrated.



Looks like I have to give up my theory of Reeva breaking up with him.



So I'm back to square zero about any argument that could escalate to murder.



Nel didn't deal with the locked door at all, and ended with a whimper, not a bang.



All my theories are down the drain.

Is there any argument ever that explains murder? Yet, murders happen everyday.

"There was an argument", is enough for me. It could have been about anything, it doesn't matter what it was about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[clearskies1]

I do believe he said he shot at the door fearing an intruder on the other side.....but did not intentionally mean to pull the trigger. It was an accident....aimed, fired.. but did not shoot <---Oscar-speak. moo

Yeah, he said he did not consciously pull the trigger.

JMO

 

[Rumpole]

The "experts" weren't there.
The "experts" can be bought, same as they are in this country.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes?
And this only applies to Defence experts.

I wonder why we bother with trials. The defence experts always just lie and testify to what they are paid to say. And Lay witnesses are only to be believed if they are called by the State.

However in this case... the State witnesses confirm OP's version already... at the very least they do not disprove his version beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[aoibhinn]

The "experts" weren't there.
The "experts" can be bought, same as they are in this country.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unfortunately, yes. While eyewitness testimony may be coloured by perception and emotion, expert testimony can equally be tainted by monetary contribution and prestige.

 

[sleuth-d-]

So sad that Reeva likely returned to his house because he'd had such a disturbing meeting regarding "his hurdle" that she wanted to be there for him in his hour of need.

his hurdle versus her new contract
possible... downswing versus upswing

a narcissist wouldn't like that.

 

[Bobbie Elliott]

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:

I know just what it's like. Only last night when I was in bed, the dog let out almighty yelp - she sounded just like an intruder yelling. I awoke in terror and went for my gun. I then realised that I didn't have a gun and had never had one!!! Whew - lucky dog!!

 

[TipDog]

From the Daily Mirror "Live Blog" during the trial....

The prosecutor says he believes the court will make the following findings:

• That Reeva ate within two hours of Pistorius having shot and killed her
• That while Reeva was awake and eating, there was argument which was heard by neighbour Van der Merwe
• Witnesses Johnson, Burger and Stipps heard Reeva's "blood curdling" screams when she escaped from Pistorius
• Pistorius fired four shots through the door knowing it was her
• Pistorius armed himself with the sole purpose of shooting Reeva

The athlete denies all of these.



Not much of a "Version" IMO

And just about the only version that makes sense, in mine. And the only one that makes sense with all the screams that came from a woman. Perhaps, I'll change my mind when Roux has Oscar stand up and scream for Milady.

 

[Fuskier]

Thank Heavens we don&#8217;t have a jury system in South Africa, that&#8217;s all this Lawyer in Training can say!

Imagine having a bunch of these Pistorians deciding this case?

&#8220;I am worried about Oscar&#8221; - Oscar is the last person on earth that needs support right now.

At least 99% of the world&#8217;s population needs support before Oscar does. He&#8217;s not facing poverty, disease, a death sentence. In fact, all he&#8217;s facing are the consequences of his own actions, just like everybody else has to.

This Lawyer in Training can truly appreciate what an amazing time it is to be involved in the legal profession.

Some of the most boring concepts during my student years have now become heated, real life debates. What will it say for this Lawyer in Training&#8217;s profession if a man is able to bury four bullets into his girlfriend and face absolutely no consequences?

That is precisely what Oscar Pistorius is trying to achieve. As the Real Lawyers have pointed out, his bail statement and his plea explanation were both incredibly vague.

It&#8217;s almost like the Accused is at a fast-food drive-through. &#8220;Yes, My Lady, I thought there was an intruder so I shot at him &#8211; oh what&#8217;s that you say?

I don&#8217;t get Freedom with that? No no no, I wanted a side of Freedom please My Lady! And the Innocence? Any promotions on the Innocence today? You say I should just avoid the word "intend" today My Lady? Perfect thanks I&#8217;ll just say the right words and get the Innocence to go with that thanks!&#8221;

He will twist whatever words he can and disagree with whatever logic he must so as to avoid ANY kind of sentence. His girlfriend died after he shot her but he refuses to say he killed her.

He says he thought she was an intruder but didn&#8217;t want to kill any of those either. He wanted to shoot the door, but he didn&#8217;t "aim" at it, he "pointed" at it.

However, if the accused gets a hint that aiming would be better than shooting in terms of the &#8220;implications&#8221; he is so scared of then, Sorry M&#8217;Lady, he&#8217;ll go for the one that absolves him, thanks.

And this is how the Real Lawyers are given the unbelievable scene where an Accused now wants to try and have two defences.

He&#8217;s basically played a game of &#8220;choose your own adventure&#8221;, except none of the paths lead to Oscar having a clean record.

None of the paths lead to the next Olympics. His glory is gone. No matter how he tries to twist Valentines Morning last year, the Pistorians may be Oscar&#8217;s very last fans, ever.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/ilive/20...u-can-t-get-a-side-of-freedom-with-that-ilive

Oh so well said. Welcome breath of fresh air. (just getting through posts now).

 

[molly333]

From the Daily Mirror "Live Blog" during the trial....

The prosecutor says he believes the court will make the following findings:

• That Reeva ate within two hours of Pistorius having shot and killed her
• That while Reeva was awake and eating, there was argument which was heard by neighbour Van der Merwe
• Witnesses Johnson, Burger and Stipps heard Reeva's "blood curdling" screams when she escaped from Pistorius
• Pistorius fired four shots through the door knowing it was her
• Pistorius armed himself with the sole purpose of shooting Reeva

The athlete denies all of these.



Not much of a "Version" IMO

Thanks!

• Pathologist could be off on his time or maybe Reeva got up to eat again
• Van de Merwe doesn't know who she heard arguing
• Stipp heard gunshots, screams, gunshots in that order, implying it could be Oscar he heard screaming
• Johnson and Burger heards screams then gunshots, implying they heard the last portion of what Stipp heard, Oscar screaming
• You can't prove Oscar knew it was her behind that door.
• Not proven his sole purpose was to shoot Reeva

 

[aoibhinn]

Yes?
And this only applies to Defence experts.

I wonder why we bother with trials. The defence experts always just lie and testify to what they are paid to say. And Lay witnesses are only to be believed if they are called by the State.

However in this case... the State witnesses confirm OP's version already... at the very least they do not disprove his version beyond reasonable doubt.

This is untrue and an exaggeration. However, there are no absolutes. Such is human nature. We have to do our best with what we have.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Yes?

And this only applies to Defence experts.



I wonder why we bother with trials. The defence experts always just lie and testify to what they are paid to say. And Lay witnesses are only to be believed if they are called by the State.



However in this case... the State witnesses confirm OP's version already... at the very least they do not disprove his version beyond reasonable doubt.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

My point about experts in general... It's usually a push.
Both sides have experts. ....I'm
Not an expert.
So I'm back to using common sense, logic,

a dead clothed woman locked behind a bathroom door....her body riddled with bullets.

Neighbors hear a woman screaming.

On the other side of the door is a man notoriously inappropriate with a gun, a bad temper, an ego the size of Texas, a man that never takes responsibility for anything he's ever done wrong in his life. A proven liar.

I'll stick with my common sense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mister happy]

Originally Posted by james83
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.

lol That's classic! ...but circumstantial and open to interpretation, of course.

 

[Cherwell]

I do believe he said he shot at the door fearing an intruder on the other side.....but did not intentionally mean to pull the trigger. It was an accident....aimed, fired.. but did not shoot <---Oscar-speak. moo

No, no, no! He didn't aim - he pointed his gun firearm.

 

[Linda7NJ]

And just about the only version that makes sense, in mine. And the only one that makes sense with all the screams that came from a woman. Perhaps, I'll change my mind when Roux has Oscar stand up and scream for Milady.

Lmao!
He certainly can whine and cry like a little girl


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Forensics]

I cannot believe all the comments suggesting that a card from Reeva saying "I love you" is somehow evidence of an abusive relationship!

yes, agreed, but neither is it dismissive of an abusive relationship...

 

[Cherwell]

"his life was not in jeaporday because the person was locked on other side of door".

if he thought the intruder had a gun... his life clearly was in jeopardy. as he has proved it is possible to be shot through that very door.

but he hasn't gone with this version.

Except that the "intruder" couldn't see him. Unlike the "intruder", he wasn't contained in a tiny cubicle.

 

[Goforgold]

Yes he's said throughout that the patio light was on. Why, I have no clue

To ensure that we know the ladders could be seen by a prospective intruder?

 

[shane13]

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

I'm afraid that in Oscar-Speak, if he said he did not go through her bag, it may mean
1. He did and
2. He might have taken something.
3.As usual, this is indeterminate, and we will probalby never know for sure like many other things.

 

[molly333]

Oscar wasn't drunk, he had a beautiful woman who clearly adored him, he had no pressing appointments the next day, pressure was off for a while in his competitions--what could possibly drive him to kill Reeva on purpose and ruin his life?

I'm back to square zero.

It's looking like just a terrible accident again.

 

[TipDog]

Lmao!
He certainly can whine and cry like a little girl

My mother and I were discussing the trial last week and she said, "I don't know, Mary. With a voice like that, he might very well scream like a woman. Well, not a woman. A little girl."

She does have a point.