Trial Discussion Thread #29

[Deleted member 102539]

Originally Posted by James50 View Post
I can't see OP being convicted of anything so far. Nel has so far failed to make the case as far as I'm concerned. All I see are a lot of people (Nel among them) who take an invidious position and come up with speculative scenarios of what happened, whereas the only version that rings true to me is the one OP has elaborated all along.

Taking into account his highly strung persona and tendency to make hasty judgements, it all fits in very well for me. A lot of people are angry with him for having killed Reeva but I feel they need to be careful not to allow that anger to colour their view of what actually happened. Others just assume that he's lying because they find it hard to put themselves in his shoes. Many South Africans believe him because they KNOW what it's like to be worried about intruders, whereas Americans and others don't understand this very well as house break ins in America and Europe etc. are rare by comparison.

There may be details here and there that don't sound right, but they don't alter the core narrative. <modsnip>

South Africans have to be disappointed and outraged, that OP is abusing the actual daily danger for his purposes.

 

[patCee]

To Trotterly at post 526...


Occam's Razor: Excellent account, straightforward, simple and IMO fits.

:drumroll:

 

[Cherwell]

And what has happened to his next door neighbor and good friend who claimed he woke up at 3:00 am to what sounded like thunder and waited for the rain which never came and went back to sleep. He woke up the next morning and found Police cars and ambulances parked in OP front yard.He was supposed to give OP an good character certificate. Has he changed his name and migrated to another country?

Just to clarify, Christo Menelaou is not OP's next door neighbour. IIRC, somewhere in that article he says he drove round to OP's house that morning.

Also, on the plan that has been posted several times, the next door neighbours on both sides are named and they all appeared in the witness list. It will be interesting to hear what they have to say if they appear.

I wonder also if OP's housekeeper and gardener have anything to contribute.

 

[steveml]

From a legal perspective perjury is dependent upon whether the nature of the lie affects the outcome of the proceedings.

Admittedly, it's never going to do you any favours if you have lied at all, but if a perjury offence was committed every time somebody told a lie under oath,
there would be many cases that would never reach conclusion.

 

[minor4th]

Who? And will she please do so? Being a layperson myself, I'd really love to hear her thoughts.

I think they are referring to me. As for perjury, that's a difficult charge to prosecute. It requires proof of a willful and intentional lie. It requires two mutually exclusive/destructive statements under oath that cannot be explained by the declarant as being mistakes or misunderstandings or errors.

For example - if Oscar said in one sworn statement "I didn't know Reeva was in my house the night of the shooting" and in another sworn statement he says "On the night of the shooting, Reeva and I had dinner together at my house and then we both went to sleep in my bed" <---- that would be perjury because there is no error or mistake that could be explained to account for those two totally contradictory statements.

Aside from that, criminal defendants are rarely charged with perjury because there are much more significant charges that are being tried - like murder.

 

[Apollo]

Yes you can transfer intent for premeditation but you can't transfer it from an innocent person to an armed burglar (if it's a genuine belief) - that's why it's putative self defense.

I've recall hearing OP use the term 'intruder' several times. I don't recall him using the term 'armed burglar'. Has he actually used that terminology? He may have---I'm just asking because I don't recall that.

 

[TipDog]

I think they are referring to me. As for perjury, that's a difficult charge to prosecute. It requires proof of a willful and intentional lie. It requires two mutually exclusive/destructive statements under oath that cannot be explained by the declarant as being mistakes or misunderstandings or errors.

For example - if Oscar said in one sworn statement "I didn't know Reeva was in my house the night of the shooting" and in another sworn statement he says "On the night of the shooting, Reeva and I had dinner together at my house and then we both went to sleep in my bed" <---- that would be perjury because there is no error or mistake that could be explained to account for those two totally contradictory statements.

Aside from that, criminal defendants are rarely charged with perjury because there are much more significant charges that are being tried - like murder.

Thank you, Minor!

What about changing your defense? Is that considered perjury and won't that hurt OP's case?

 

[minor4th]

It is not an argument. It is S.A. law.

Oscar is going for putative self defense (defence) and now he has to prove his state of mind on that night to the judge. That's why he had to testify.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_criminal_law

I was referring to Nel's "error in persona" argument. That's an argument - it's a legal argument. And it requires Nel to assume that the intruder was helpless and innocent.

 

[soozieqtips]

Who? And will she please do so? Being a layperson myself, I'd really love to hear her thoughts.

minor4th is an attorney. There is also another attorney from Australia (I think) but she doesn't post very often.

 

[Cherwell]

If the State's expert says even one bullet was fired before the bat strikes, and the State's expert says all bullets were fired at the same time, then all bullets were fired before the bat strikes.

Sounds logical, but only if all the bat strikes took place at the same time. This is not proved. It's possible that the bat was used both before and after the gunshots.

 

[Really?]

You may be right and that may be what happened, but did the prosecutor prove that?

Yes, he did. Moo

 

[minor4th]

Thank you, Minor!

What about changing your defense? Is that considered perjury and won't that hurt OP's case?

He hasn't changed his defense - but changing a legal argument is not perjury.

I would say that aspect's of OP's testimony definitely hurt his case. I think it casts doubts on his overall credibility.

 

[TipDog]

From a legal perspective perjury is dependent upon whether the nature of the lie affects the outcome of the proceedings.

Admittedly, it's never going to do you any favours if you have lied at all, but if a perjury offence was committed every time somebody told a lie under oath,
there would be many cases that would never reach conclusion.

Well, I'm dense as mud when it comes to understanding the law, but I can't believe that in a case involving murder in which there is only one person present and left to recount the crime (the killer) that lying would be extremely detrimental.

Some members on here accused Nel of interrogating OP. I was so confused by their comments. I would think that would be Nel's job as a prosecutor. And if the accused can't provide facts repeatedly without embellishing or changing versions, isn't that the whole rub to what Nel is trying to accomplish?

 

[soozieqtips]

He hasn't changed his defense - but changing a legal argument is not perjury.

I would say that aspect's of OP's testimony definitely hurt his case. I think it casts doubts on his overall credibility.

BBM - but he did change it through his ever-changing versions.

Gideon Scheepers, a defense lawyer, also said that Pistorius' description of being overcome with fear and firing the weapon by accident also presents a problem for his defense team.

"The fact that Pistorius changed his version from putative self defense, based on the fear that his life was threatened by an intruder, to involuntary action basically leaves his defense team with the task to explain the discrepancy between the version pleaded and put to the witnesses, and the new version advanced under cross examination." Scheepers said.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/oscar-pistorius-stumbled-testimony-experts/story?id=23332614

 

[TipDog]

He hasn't changed his defense - but changing a legal argument is not perjury.

I would say that aspect's of OP's testimony definitely hurt his case. I think it casts doubts on his overall credibility.

I thought he did. I thought his defense was acting in self defense. But on the stand, he changed that to involuntarily pulling the trigger when giving testimony. Or is that allowed?

And would you agree that this in fact did hurt his credibility? Just as claiming he never pulled the trigger of the gun in Tasha might have?

 

[minor4th]

I've recall hearing OP use the term 'intruder' several times. I don't recall him using the term 'armed burglar'. Has he actually used that terminology? He may have---I'm just asking because I don't recall that.

He did say burglar and he said he believed them to be armed.

 

[Really?]

I don't think any one of us can say it has or hasn't been.

:seeya: hi there.

I can say it has.

OP is a now proven liar....if he says the ball landed on red. It was really on the black. He lies. You can believe nothing that comes out of his twisted mouth.

He speaks Oscar speak. Moo

 

[liesbeth]

Yes, that does not describe continuous screaming

Meebee asked where the idea was coming from because she couldn't remember testimony like that. I gave her the link. That's all.

 

[Suthrnqt]

I wasn't commenting on anything that has happened in the trial or how it even has any relevance to the trial. I'm simply saying all the different pictures from different angles and distances are confusing me because they all look different.

ITA about the pics. But hey, I pitched my tent in the Twilight Zone a while ago.

 

[TipDog]

:seeya: hi there.

I can say it has.

OP is a now proven liar....if he says the ball landed on red. It was really on the black. He lies. You can believe nothing that comes out of his twisted mouth.

He speaks Oscar speak. Moo

You're so cute with all your Moos. I kept thinking you were really saying "Moo" like a cow. I've since figured out it's "my opinion only." I was kind of bummed by that.

I'm in agreement with you about OP being a liar but the case isn't over and the judge does have to follow the law.