Trial Discussion Thread #29

[Viper]

Unless I missed it when OP was being cross examined, why do you think the PT never introduced the jeans that were found on the ground outside of the bathroom window?

IMO It was because the jeans, like the bedroom door and a bunch of other stuff, were outside of the scope of the State's primary focus and they were only going to use those things if OP or someone else opened a door to them. Nel was glued to: There was an argument (witness testimony), OP murdered Reeva (OPs confession, Stipp seeing OP walking after screams and shots), and OP carried Reeva downstairs (Baba, Standers); those are the only truths about the events that night that are important to the State, as I see it.

 

[Lyra500]

I haven't seen any Oscar supporters here. I have read a few posters that believe that the legal burden of proof, without a reasonable doubt, of premeditated murder has not been demonstrated through evidence or by the prosecution as of yet.

I think that view possibly shows a misunderstanding of the requirements for judging what is or is not beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, because OP has claimed he can scream like a woman and has introduced additional screaming into his version of events those who choose to take his word for everything now claim that it cannot be proved that it was Reeva screaming.

I think the legal opinion which has been linked to by another FM is very interesting in this regard (Big thanks to Emz73). It describes two ways of thinking of separate bits of evidence:

1. As a chain where each pieces of evidence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
2. As a rope made up of various strands of evidence which should be looked at as a whole to determine whether reasonable or not

The article goes on to provide this really helpful excerpt (which is the way I had been considering things):

Assume that, for our purposes, proof of these (intermediate) facts beyond a reasonable doubt (99% on our assumption), the accused would be guilty. For those who may wonder what may be going on at the level of maths (although it is controversial whether using maths is appropriate at all), instead of needing all the factors to be true at the same time (in the case of ultimate issues/facts), when we are dealing with an intermediate fact though, where any number of pieces of evidence could prove the fact, the formula swings around – we now ask what are the chances of all of the pieces of evidence offered to prove that fact all being wrong (false) at the same time. Thus, items of evidence at 90, 80, and 70% produce a probability of 99.4% (0.1 x 0.2 x 0.3 = 0.006)

So the real question should be:

"what are the chances that all those people who heard screaming and gunshots at around 3.17am are wrong?"

"What are the chances that all of those unlikely things in OP's testimony happening at the same time?

• Op shutting the curtains and being unable to see
• OP coincidentally having put the jeans over the LED so he could not see
• OP neglecting to ask Reeva if she had heard the noise
• the wondow sliding open just as OP was in the bedroom in time to hear it
• The police managing to mess up the crime scene in just the way that happened to raise questions about OP's claims

I could go on - in fact perhaps that is what we should do - create a list of all of the unlikely things which have to be in place to make OP's version viable.

 

[Hatfield]

IMO It was because the jeans, like the bedroom door and a bunch of other stuff, were outside of the scope of the State's primary focus and they were only going to use those things if OP or someone else opened a door to them. Nel was glued to: There was an argument (witness testimony), OP murdered Reeva (OPs confession, Stipp seeing OP walking after screams and shots), and OP carried Reeva downstairs (Baba, Standers); those are the only truths about the events that night that are important to the State, as I see it.

I agree.

All the other details just muddy the waters although it would be interesting to try to figure out why OP did some of the things he did.

I cant figure out why he was carrying her downstairs. Did he already know someone was in the house and he wanted to make it look like he was helping her or maybe he was trying to escape and get rid of her and make it look like abduction.

 

[Val1]

Good point. Acting like someone holding a live grenade with finger about to pull the pin, right in front of the judge, doesn't seem like the wisest way to convince her to let him go free.

bbm Since it's doubtful that may happen, maybe he thinks the next best outcome will be getting released into his "friend" of the family's hands, where his profiler Aunt(who "understands" killers) and other relatives can coddle him to his heart's desire and eventually move back into Uncle Arnie's mansion until he writes his sequel to the Blade Runner...(Guns'N Stumps, Guns Trump Blades?)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284048/Oscar-Pistorius-aunt-Micki-I-condone-serial-killers-I-understand-them.html

A prosecution lawyer confirmed to The Independent yesterday that Dr Pistorius will not be consulted about her nephew's psychology due to her family ties - although the issue is likely to be discussed in court.

 

[molly333]

Round up of the week which I thought was interesting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8jrG08YJcY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbKeIrZNgHE

I really enjoyed listening to those guys.

One of them said that Oscar's performance on the stand and towards the intruder could be explained by a syndrome his son had, a head injury, and he thought the defense should bring on someone to speak about this injury.

I didn't get the name he used.

 

[Val1]

I mean it might be some flavor of culpable homicide [the Judge can find him guilty of this and give him no jail time] but I don't feel it is premeditated murder of Reeva.

The only reason RS is named in that charging document is because she was the victim, if it had been a burglar, that person would have been named, I don't understand the confusion... All the prosecution had to prove is that he killed "someone" with intent.

 

[Hatfield]

I think that view possibly shows a misunderstanding of the requirements for judging what is or is not beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, because OP has claimed he can scream like a woman and has introduced additional screaming into his version of events those who choose to take his word for everything now claim that it cannot be proved that it was Reeva screaming.

I think the legal opinion which has been linked to by another FM is very interesting in this regard (Big thanks to Emz73). It describes two ways of thinking of separate bits of evidence:

1. As a chain where each pieces of evidence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
2. As a rope made up of various strands of evidence which should be looked at as a whole to determine whether reasonable or not

The article goes on to provide this really helpful excerpt (which is the way I had been considering things):


So the real question should be:

"what are the chances that all those people who heard screaming and gunshots at around 3.17am are wrong?"

"What are the chances that all of those unlikely things in OP's testimony happening at the same time?

• Op shutting the curtains and being unable to see
• OP coincidentally having put the jeans over the LED so he could not see
• OP neglecting to ask Reeva if she had heard the noise
• the wondow sliding open just as OP was in the bedroom in time to hear it
• The police managing to mess up the crime scene in just the way that happened to raise questions about OP's claims

I could go on - in fact perhaps that is what we should do - create a list of all of the unlikely things which have to be in place to make OP's version viable.

I like that idea. I wish I would have gotten to watch more of each days trial to be able to help out more. I only caught some days.

The jeans really interest me. I just learned today they were out the window. Wow. Wondering if she threw them out to flag for help.

Also wondering why she had on OP PJs backwards. That tells me he put them on her. Why? Did he just feel embarrased she was naked. Surely he would know that he shouldnt touch things. He even carried her. Why I think he may have heard the person in the house and made it look like he was helping her.

I love your idea of creating a list of things that OP did that dont make any sense or things he said that dont make sense.

 

[BlueShoe]

Yes !!....that is correct....hhhmmmm....so he knowingly held onto that gun that had just shot dead his beloved Reeva...... the gun that shoots on its own....instead of being repulsed by it and discarding it....he carries it about while wildly racing around.

:floorlaugh:

I think I missed something. Why did he need to testify that he carried the gun around with him? How did that bolster his case?

 

[Cherwell]

BTW the info re the OP's head injury following a boating accident, that he was in a coma and required facial reconstruction is significant. Did OP sustain a brain injury? Was there neuropsychological testing done following the boating accident? If OP sustained some permanent brain injury, this could be a 'contributing factor' yet unexplored. It may possibly have bearing upon his performance in the cross examination and other implications for his cognitive/emotional functioning and capacity in dealing with difficulties i.e. rage.

If he was any old Joe Public, it might be worth considering. However, he's a professional athlete who represents his country on the world stage and as such, his health and fitness is under constant scrutiny and he would have been thoroughly checked over after an incident of this sort.

 

[Lochlynsmom]

I think that view possibly shows a misunderstanding of the requirements for judging what is or is not beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, because OP has claimed he can scream like a woman and has introduced additional screaming into his version of events those who choose to take his word for everything now claim that it cannot be proved that it was Reeva screaming.

I think the legal opinion which has been linked to by another FM is very interesting in this regard (Big thanks to Emz73). It describes two ways of thinking of separate bits of evidence:

1. As a chain where each pieces of evidence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
2. As a rope made up of various strands of evidence which should be looked at as a whole to determine whether reasonable or not

The article goes on to provide this really helpful excerpt (which is the way I had been considering things):


So the real question should be:

"what are the chances that all those people who heard screaming and gunshots at around 3.17am are wrong?"

"What are the chances that all of those unlikely things in OP's testimony happening at the same time?

• Op shutting the curtains and being unable to see
• OP coincidentally having put the jeans over the LED so he could not see
• OP neglecting to ask Reeva if she had heard the noise
• the wondow sliding open just as OP was in the bedroom in time to hear it
• The police managing to mess up the crime scene in just the way that happened to raise questions about OP's claims

I could go on - in fact perhaps that is what we should do - create a list of all of the unlikely things which have to be in place to make OP's version viable.

The thanks button wasn't enough!

 

[Viper]

I agree.

All the other details just muddy the waters although it would be interesting to try to figure out why OP did some of the things he did.

I cant figure out why he was carrying her downstairs. Did he already know someone was in the house and he wanted to make it look like he was helping her or maybe he was trying to escape and get rid of her and make it look like abduction.

BIB. IMO yes! What I find really creepy is that he waited at the top of the stairs. Waited for the Standers to enter the door before bringing Reeva down. We all know that at that time Reeva had been dead for approximaty eight minutes, so he is moving her dead body and waiting for witnesses to see his heroic demonstration and presentation of her corpse. It freaks me out just thinking about it!

 

[Hope4More]

To believe that OP is not guilty of premeditated murder is not to be a "supporter" of him, or to have "chosen" a side. This is a murder trial, not a sporting event.

I follow trials because I'm fascinated by the law and frankly enjoy trying to puzzle through the evidence to reach my own conclusions. I had never heard of OP before this trial, and only in the past week or so have begun paying attention. The more I delve into the evidence the less convinced I am that OP meant to kill Reeva. If I end up concluding for myself that he absolutely did not intend to kill her that will not make me an OP supporter, just a person who examined the evidence, used logic, and who reached a different conclusion than most folks here.

 

[molly333]

"what are the chances that all those people who heard screaming and gunshots at around 3.17am are wrong?"
*snip*

.

The chances are 100 percent.

Some heard screaming after the [second set of] 'gunshots.'

We know they are wrong.

Just because the rest thought it was a woman, doesn't mean it was a woman.

We know the gunshots sound like the bat strikes. So, if gunshots were first, they are all wrong.

The State, in fact, says that the gunshots come before the bat strikes, so how do they explain the earlier 'gunshots' if those were not gunshots.

If they are gunshots, and there is no reason to presume they are not since they sound like gunshots, then all the witnesses are wrong because Reeva could not have screamed after the head wound.

 

[canny]

I did hear that one crime was caused by security staff. I didn't see the source of the other crimes.

But think about this, if you can't even trust security staff, who can you trust?

Has OP testified in court that he has no trust in the security staff? Due to his celebrity status in South African society he developed a special kind of relationship with the estate administrator Johan Stander and his family that is not disputed by anyone, unless you want to redefine the meaning of the word ‘trust’. He should have trusted his very expensive and reliable high tech burglar alarm security system that was in perfect working condition, it mysteriously did not sound the alarm when he heard a noise in his bathroom. OP should have trusted his girlfriend Reeva with whom he claimed to be madly in love with and couldn’t be happier, by physically touching her and waking her up to warn her about the danger lurking in his bathroom since moments ago he claimed to have had a conversation with her in bed that lead him to undertake an illogical and futile exercise that has since been disproved in court by the State prosecutor to be a work of fiction. The most important fact is that both his trusted guard dogs were housed just below his bathroom window in the backyard, from where the fictitious intruder entered his bathroom using a ladder being used by his civil contractor.

In court OP has strongly negated any thoughts about him have lack of faith in his attorneys and the SA judicial system when doubts were raised by his own dubious purged testimony during his week long cross examination by Nel. Yet you are deeply disturbed that an innocent man will go to jail.OP has testified in his own defense the time for wild rumors and innuendos are long gone, kindly produce some solid facts to back up your arguments. The evidence produced and witness testimony during the trial taking into consideration the excellent and neutral manner in which the judge has conducted herself has enhanced the reputation of the much maligned South African judicial system. This conclusively proves that he is getting a fair trial and Reeva will get justice for the most heinous crime perpetrated on her that lead to her untimely death at the hands of her own boyfriend in his toilet in his well secured home.

 

[james83]

The chances are 100 percent.

Some heard screaming after the [second set of] 'gunshots.'

We know they are wrong.

Just because the rest thought it was a woman, doesn't mean it was a woman.

We know the gunshots sound like the bat strikes. So, if gunshots were first, they are all wrong.

The State, in fact, says that the gunshots come before the bat strikes, so how do they explain the earlier 'gunshots' if those were not gunshots.

If they are gunshots, and there is no reason to presume they are not since they sound like gunshots, then all the witnesses are wrong because Reeva could not have screamed after the head wound.

No we don't

 

[Cherwell]

The chances are 100 percent.

Some heard screaming after the [second set of] 'gunshots.'

We know they are wrong.

Just because the rest thought it was a woman, doesn't mean it was a woman.

We know the gunshots sound like the bat strikes. So, if gunshots were first, they are all wrong.

The State, in fact, says that the gunshots come before the bat strikes, so how do they explain the earlier 'gunshots' if those were not gunshots.

If they are gunshots, and there is no reason to presume they are not since they sound like gunshots, then all the witnesses are wrong because Reeva could not have screamed after the head wound.

BIB 1 No, they didn't.

BIB 2 Source, please. Source for BIB 1 as well, while you're at it, please.

 

[Val1]

Maybe it's just me, but how important is the missing phone, really.

If RS had phoned anyone during the crucial evening/night. If she had, it would most likely be friends/family who would have come forward in any case. If she tried and a call didn't go through it would be meaningless.

Can't think of anything else that could be on the phone.:maddening:

It all depends on who OP had been talking to half the night, might mean a lot, might not. Point is, without it and the likely possibility that it was tampered with past the point of recovery we will never know, just like that thumbdrive that the brother removed from the safe. Yes I know records were recovered from the phone company but look at how much time was spent online, was he watching the clip of Tropika that RS was so worried about? Was he exchanging whatsapps with another love interest? Was he checking out RS's tweets and whatsapps? Was he having another row with yet another rival? Was he managing his offshore accounts?

 

[vansleuths]

IMO It was because the jeans, like the bedroom door and a bunch of other stuff, were outside of the scope of the State's primary focus and they were only going to use those things if OP or someone else opened a door to them. Nel was glued to: There was an argument (witness testimony), OP murdered Reeva (OPs confession, Stipp seeing OP walking after screams and shots), and OP carried Reeva downstairs (Baba, Standers); those are the only truths about the events that night that are important to the State, as I see it.

I can understand that, but the PT has said many times that their entire case is based on circumstantial evidence as the only witness to the event is now dead.

That being said, jeans outside a bathroom window on the ground seem to be highly suggestive of a argument.

 

[Cherwell]

To believe that OP is not guilty of premeditated murder is not to be a "supporter" of him, or to have "chosen" a side. This is a murder trial, not a sporting event.

I follow trials because I'm fascinated by the law and frankly enjoy trying to puzzle through the evidence to reach my own conclusions. I had never heard of OP before this trial, and only in the past week or so have begun paying attention. The more I delve into the evidence the less convinced I am that OP meant to kill Reeva. If I end up concluding for myself that he absolutely did not intend to kill her that will not make me an OP supporter, just a person who examined the evidence, used logic, and who reached a different conclusion than most folks here.

Can you explain which pieces of evidence are persuading you to accept OP's accounts? Genuinely interested.

 

[molly333]

The only reason RS is named in that charging document is because she was the victim, if it had been a burglar, that person would have been named, I don't understand the confusion... All the prosecution had to prove is that he killed "someone" with intent.

Is that what the charge says? Or does it say he killed Reeva Steenkamp with intent?