Trial Discussion Thread #30

[sorrell skye]

OP has used the words "terrified', "vulnerable", "scared", "frightened", etc. to describe his alleged state of mind on the morning of the killing.

But, during direct examination, when describing his thoughts/state of mind immediately before shooting, he testified:

"I wasn't sure if somebody was going to come out of the toilet to attack me. I wasn't sure if someone was going to come up the ladder and point a firearm in my house and start shooting. So I just stayed where I was and I kept on screaming. And then I heard a noise from inside the toilet, um, what I perceived to be somebody coming out of the toilet. Before I knew it I'd fired 4 shots at the door."

He "wasn't sure" prior to hearing the alleged noise in the toilet room that someone was going to attack him, but after hearing the alleged noise, he "perceived" someone was coming out of the toilet.

It seems to me, that if he genuinely believed that someone was coming out of the toilet room to attack him, he would have said "I was sure someone was coming out of the toilet to attack me". Instead, he merely said he "perceived" someone was "coming out of the toilet" - he didn't say to attack him, just that someone might have been coming out of the toilet.

I know some may not give much weight to the words he used, but to me they're significant, since his defense is putative self defense and his words go to his alleged state of mind prior to shooting.

IMO, not being sure there was an attacker is evidence of his state of mind, regardless of how many times he used the words terrified, vulnerable, scared, frightened, etc.

By his own testimony, he wasn't sure. He merely heard an alleged "noise" and, according to OP, before he knew it, he fired 4 shots at the door.

The above testimony begins at about 7:10 in the video below.

Oscar Pistorius Trial: Tuesday 8 April 2014, Session 4 - YouTube

 

[Gbtaketwo]

It's the oldest one in the book, isn't it ..

It is a very scary thought that sends shivers down my spine to think that there could be many more intimate murders in the future where they will try this defence .
I think that's why even if it was an accident ( and IMO not ) a very tough sentence should be handed down for culpable homicide .

 

[Gbtaketwo]

And the deceased's family supported the plea deal which iirc came after the husband had spent 3 yrs. in jail awaiting trial.

Thanks for your post . I didn't know that he had been in jail for 3 years .

 

[TorisMom003]

Anyone interested in watching OP testify, here are the dates in which he took the stand. On Youtube you can look for sabcdigitalnews and type in Oscar Pistorius trial along with the date such as 7 April. The video will come up in a list of ones to choose from.

Beginning on April 7th Session 2 continuing on til April 15th Session 2.

 

[Suthrnqt]

Shaaaane..Shaaane...Shaane

Since this trial started, you have stated 'this one runs deep'. I for one am past curious. Can you please, please, please explain? TIA

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Oscar said on the stand around 5 minutes between gun and bat

Yes and although his bail application was a fairly brief statement I personally think it is a big thing to not have mentioned it at that time .
IMO this was tailoring to fit witness testimony .

 

[TrueDetective]

What does that mean?

It's my stunned/not really sure what to say now/don't want to upset anyone - default response.
You're not the first person it's confused...

On another note, are you a forensics expert in RL or just more interested in the technical/forensic elements of a case and not the circumstantial?

 

[shane13]

Shaaaane..Shaaane...Shaane

Since this trial started, you have stated 'this one runs deep'. I for one am past curious. Can you please, please, please explain? TIA

That phrase is at the end of many posts that explain or detail it's running deep. E.g look for my recent post on "randomness."

 

[Cape Town Crim.]

Hi Cape - loving your posts!

Okay, couple of questions. Please bear with me :smile:

1. One of the Standers (Johann) has been in court listening to evidence as far as I recall. I thought witnesses weren't allowed to be in court before giving evidence?

2. The missing phone. The DT handed it in a couple of weeks later. Since OP's house was a crime scene and someone deliberately removed the phone, can the Judge at least ask how the DT came to be in possession of it, ie; who gave it to them?

3. Do you have any idea what loose ends Nel might tie up in his closing argument? There seemed to be many things that he didn't pursue that several of us thought he would pursue. Is that part of his master plan to weave it all together right at the end? Can he imply that whoever removed the phone must have been someone of authority?

4. Is it at all possible that the Judge could be influenced/intimidated by people in higher places to let him walk free? If the scene was disturbed intentionally and included stealing a watch to make it look like the police were bumbling thieves, then certain people have gone to great lengths to protect OP. Bearing that in mind, do you think the Judge is immune to pressure from external sources?

Thank you!

Ok, let me try.

1. Has Johann been in court? I believe Mr Manalou was in court, Oscar's other friend. Haven't heard Stander mentioned? I might be wrong.

2. M'lady and her assessors are entitled to ask for clarification on certain aspects at any time. This might happen closer to the end, deliberation etc.
In fact, M'lady (if she is not happy for example, with either of the ballisiticians - for the PT and the DT, she can call a 2rd independent Ballistician in for 'clarification'. It doesn't happen often, but it does. The phone and it's concealment was mentioned by the PT fella who did the message retrieval. He stated they only found out about the phone accidentally and that there was NO information on it. Gerrie asked Oscar who charged his phone in the kitchen. It's on record, and M'lady should be able to to do the maths. Because the state did not know who removed the phone, it's tough to accuse, but it's on record that it disappeared and the inference is, this was done maliciously.
I know who I suspect in removing it.

3. Nel in his closing, should give the exact timeline, as well as the sequence of events, including relevant bits of additional. Gerrie Nel is a very 'simple' prosecutor truth be told. He will focus on a certain number of points he needs to prove - he doesn't get bogged down in things he's not 100% sure of.
The closing argument should however be the first time we get to hear the state's case in all it's glory. But don't expect him to tie up every loose end there is. He will string together what he feels is sufficient to convict. But expect a few additional bits. (Just to give you an idea - most of the criminal defense chaps in SA felt that Gerrie had got enough out of Oscar after his 2nd day on the stand and that he could finish up....sometimes we just want more I guess. I'm the same)

4. The political ramifications of this trial are huge. If justice is not SEEN to be done, there will be protests on the streets. Whether Oscar has friends in high places or not (although I doubt he has any longer, or else this trial would never have taken place.......) there are millions of disgruntled South Africans looking at the Criminal Justice System. M'lady has a wonderful reputation, and I can't see her being swayed. She will be fair, and her judgement will be detailed and thorough, so that the man in the street understands clearly, why she had ruled in this manner. <------ that bit - ESSENTIAL.

To be honest though, and thinking about it now, if powerful people wanted to protect Oscar, this case would never have made it to trial I don't believe. Because it is now in the 'public domain' (like Dixon's door :floorlaugh the repercussions of Oscar being acquitted of ALL charges and walking free would see mass action on a grand scale. Our govt can't afford that either.....

Tried to answer as honestly and best I could. :blushing:

 

[Simply Caustic]

I'm hesitant to admit this, because I've never followed a case where my viewpoint/beliefs ran against the prevailing tone of the forum members.

I hope no one will scoff at me, because I'm sincere: I don't believe that the judge will convict on anything more that culpable homicide. Despite the untruths that he's been caught up in, I think that the case for negligence is the only thing that's been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

JMO, with utter respect to all. I enjoy reading your theories and thoughts - every post brings something to the forum, and it's a great resource.

Via Kindle, like a true Amazon junkie

 

[Cape Town Crim.]

I feel exactly the same way as I do about OP's case, and I will wait for the court evidence before I make up my mind either way. I hope the evidence is more clear-cut in the Dewani case than it has been in the present case, cos I don't want this uncertainty to repeat itself. It is not good for the blood pressure.
And yes many will go straight into the Dewani case biased.
But we can argue the bit out when the trial starts.

How much more clear cut do you want the evidence?

4 Bullets. Designed to kill, not injure. Small cubicle. Bang......bang bang bang.

You think he should walk free?

And you feel Shrien is a victim as well?

Surely you jest?

 

[DebinGA]

It is a very scary thought that sends shivers down my spine to think that there could be many more intimate murders in the future where they will try this defence .
I think that's why even if it was an accident ( and IMO not ) a very tough sentence should be handed down for culpable homicide .

Seems like very few crimes in SA come with a mandatory minimum sentence, even culpable homicide iirc.

 

[Lyra500]

OP has used the words "terrified', "vulnerable", "scared", "frightened", etc. to describe his alleged state of mind on the morning of the killing.

But, during direct examination, when describing his thoughts/state of mind immediately before shooting, he testified:

"I wasn't sure if somebody was going to come out of the toilet to attack me. I wasn't sure if someone was going to come up the ladder and point a firearm in my house and start shooting. So I just stayed where I was and I kept on screaming. And then I heard a noise from inside the toilet, um, what I perceived to be somebody coming out of the toilet. Before I knew it I'd fired 4 shots at the door."

Snipped for brevity

I dare say this has been pointed out many times before, but just reading the excerpt of OP testimony from your post Sorrel skye has annoyed me all over again!


Did Nel ever ask OP why he stood and screamed non stop when he claimed to be too scared to turn on the light? Either you don't want the intruder to know where you are (In which case you would creep along and keep as quiet as possible) or you don't care and you can't be as scared as you are making out.

The only reason to suddenly start claiming that "I kept on screaming" is to try to discount the ear witness testimony. The claim has not foundation in fact and is totally illogical. Also, if he "just kept on screaming" then how on earth could he hear any "wood moving" inside the cubicle and therefore start to shoot?

Just wondering.

 

[TrueDetective]

Shaaaane..Shaaane...Shaane

Since this trial started, you have stated 'this one runs deep'. I for one am past curious. Can you please, please, please explain? TIA

Click on his username, click view all posts by shane13, make a BIG cup of coffee (or tea, can't decide/remember which) and enjoy! It's all in there!

 

[wb180]

I'm hesitant to admit this, because I've never followed a case where my viewpoint/beliefs ran against the prevailing tone of the forum members.

I hope no one will scoff at me, because I'm sincere: I don't believe that the judge will convict on anything more that culpable homicide. Despite the untruths that he's been caught up in, I think that the case for negligence is the only thing that's been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

JMO, with utter respect to all. I enjoy reading your theories and thoughts - every post brings something to the forum, and it's a great resource.

Via Kindle, like a true Amazon junkie

Maybe u can lay out ur arguments. But obviously, they might be tested by websleuthers.

I think he will be done for murder because there is already intention and his self defense claim is bad due to his low credibility and unreliable experts.

 

[Cape Town Crim.]

That phrase is at the end of many posts that explain or detail it's running deep. E.g look for my recent post on "randomness."

I understand what you are saying.

And I can honestly see why you believe this to be true.

I'm keeping the faith - for now.

 

[Viper]

His actions being reasonable might have to do with culpable homicide.

I'm not sure he will get off that one, because it is still not clear to me the SA meaning of that.

But he could still get that and a suspended sentence, like the other guy.

BIB. That is just a rumor that someone has been spreading here! You know people can get away with saying anything here. I don't know why anyone would take what others say as fact without verifying it independently.

Quote:
Pistorius therefore has to convince the court that his vulnerability, as a disabled person living in South Africa, genuinely led him to believe his life was in danger from an intruder hiding behind a closed toilet door. The court must further be convinced that his response &#8211; pumping four bullets through the door &#8211; was reasonable in the circumstances.

Do you get it now? If not, read the article below.

http://theconversation.com/the-pistorius-defence-and-the-fear-that-grips-white-south-africa-25559

 

[TrueDetective]

Ok, let me try.

1. Has Johann been in court? I believe Mr Manalou was in court, Oscar's other friend. Haven't heard Stander mentioned? I might be wrong.

2. M'lady and her assessors are entitled to ask for clarification on certain aspects at any time. This might happen closer to the end, deliberation etc.
In fact, M'lady (if she is not happy for example, with either of the ballisiticians - for the PT and the DT, she can call a 2rd independent Ballistician in for 'clarification'. It doesn't happen often, but it does. The phone and it's concealment was mentioned by the PT fella who did the message retrieval. He stated they only found out about the phone accidentally and that there was NO information on it. Gerrie asked Oscar who charged his phone in the kitchen. It's on record, and M'lady should be able to to do the maths. Because the state did not know who removed the phone, it's tough to accuse, but it's on record that it disappeared and the inference is, this was done maliciously.
I know who I suspect in removing it.

3. Nel in his closing, should give the exact timeline, as well as the sequence of events, including relevant bits of additional. Gerrie Nel is a very 'simple' prosecutor truth be told. He will focus on a certain number of points he needs to prove - he doesn't get bogged down in things he's not 100% sure of.
The closing argument should however be the first time we get to hear the state's case in all it's glory. But don't expect him to tie up every loose end there is. He will string together what he feels is sufficient to convict. But expect a few additional bits. (Just to give you an idea - most of the criminal defense chaps in SA felt that Gerrie had got enough out of Oscar after his 2nd day on the stand and that he could finish up....sometimes we just want more I guess. I'm the same)

4. The political ramifications of this trial are huge. If justice is not SEEN to be done, there will be protests on the streets. Whether Oscar has friends in high places or not (although I doubt he has any longer, or else this trial would never have taken place.......) there are millions of disgruntled South Africans looking at the Criminal Justice System. M'lady has a wonderful reputation, and I can't see her being swayed. She will be fair, and her judgement will be detailed and thorough, so that the man in the street understands clearly, why she had ruled in this manner. <------ that bit - ESSENTIAL.

To be honest though, and thinking about it now, if powerful people wanted to protect Oscar, this case would never have made it to trial I don't believe. Because it is now in the 'public domain' (like Dixon's door :floorlaugh the repercussions of Oscar being acquitted of ALL charges and walking free would see mass action on a grand scale. Our govt can't afford that either.....

Tried to answer as honestly and best I could. :blushing:

great stuff, your insights and opinion are really fleshing out the background to all this. Very very interesting and very useful.
It would fascinating to be on the inside of this. A lot going on behind the scenes.

If poss.. I asked you a couple of q's a few posts back regarding the Standers and DT witnesses in general.. Hope you can respond.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Seems like very few crimes in SA come with a mandatory minimum sentence, even culpable homicide iirc.

So I wonder what sentence this judge could hand down to OP if she only finds him guilty of culpable homicide . I think she is known for tough sentences so let's hope that even the worst case scenario in terms of verdict will still bring a tough sentence .

 

[kittychi]

I made a post a few days back:
People incl. here, do not grasp the intelligence of Oscar in his Oscar Speak coming from his Oscar World.

Oscar has said due to the trauma, he cannot recall the most important moments of the shooting and aftermath.

Now Dixon, e.g. testified that he spoke with Oscar, and that he was basing some of his testimony on what happened from what Oscar told him.

But Oscar testified under oath that he was offering a "reconstruction" of events as his memory fails in parts. But he then said his reconstruction is at least partly based on the testimony of experts [some of whom got their testimony from him, and on photographs [that were altered, don't ya know.]!

So I concluded a few days ago, that Oscar must be set free. Nel, SA Constitutional law--all are no match for Oscar in Oscar-Speak communicating the Oscar-World into our world. The infinite looping, Quantum-indeterminate Oscar-World [see Schoedinger's cat paradox] is just too much for Nel, SA const. law, etc.

He will go free, no one is a match for the creator of Oscar-Speak and the Oscar World.

People shoud be prepared...

BBM: Shane, here in Michigan, this is called a "circle jerk." Can this be translated into Oscar Speak?