Trial Discussion Thread #34 - 14.05.06 Day 27

[crasshopper]

Budgie :welcome6:

 

[lithgow1]

Personally I don't mind being labeled with that word. Heck, I hate murderers. I'm ok with that. Especially ones like Jodi Arias, Casey Anthony, Oscar Pistorius, Martin McNeil, Josh Powell, etc.

But then I also stand up and voice my opinions for those that have been wrongfully accused/convicted as well.

MOO

I'll admit I don't like it as I don't hate anyone really, though I might hate what they have done. But I'd go as far as 'a dislike that has only grown deeper for someone I've never met' in instances such as this one. Anyway, flinging that term around seems like the last refuge of those who have not much else to say so it may make them feel better but it's never going to win them the debate.

 

[Budgie]

Thank you!!!
I'm now officially super glued to this thread.

 

[Val1]

Substituting our judgement safe behind our keyboards is in my mind terribly irresponsible. Of course there were other options that would have been better in retrospect. But if his story is true he feared an intruder in his EN SUITE BATHROOM. In his mind time was of the essence and and he had split seconds to make a decision. It makes perfect sense to me that he would not use two minutes to put on his legs when the 'intruder' was 10 seconds down a hallway. If he instinctively preferred confronting the intruder in the bathroom rather than having the intruder confront both he AND Reeva in the bedroom, well that makes split second sense to me too. He did what he did and while the outcome was horrible and heartbreaking and unnecessary people should really check their "it makes no sense!" thinking. Seen in the context of the circumstances, which were his circumstances and not ours, it had a certain tragic logic.

The tragedy is that OP himself states that he thought of RS as "the intruder" as was evidenced by his "get the *advertiser censored** out of my house, get the F!!! out of my house", then shot her to death behind a closed(possibly locked by him) door and then tried to justify killing her by using his unsubstantiated past experiences. That's like me telling my son's friend to get out of my house because he/she broke the house rules or whatever and is no longer welcome to stay over, then killing him/her in my anger while they're getting ready to leave, instead of calling the cops, because he/she is now an intruder in my home.

 

[crasshopper]

Not Deb but I'll answer. lol

See the post number in the upper right? Click on it, then when the single post shows up, copy the address then paste it on your message.

Thank you!!! :balloons:

 

[nastasya]

I expect OP to receive quite a lengthy jail term. I think he'll probably be found guilty of 2 or 3 of the firearms charges. With regard to the murder charge, there's no doubt in my mind that what he did was reckless in the extreme. I don't accept that he fired four shots in an accidental or spontaneous fashion, I believe that he thought there was an intruder, and would be fully aware that the shots would be likely to kill.

That said, it's obvious he understands the charges, and was trying everything possible to ensure he didn't say the words that Nel wanted him to say. I'm not really into this method, as it seems a bit like entrapment. What should be important in this trial is the mindset of OP at the time. If it's believed he meets the criteria to convict him of premeditated murder, then fine, let's have that charge. If it's a lesser charge, then so be it. What I don't like to see is prosecution and accused engaged in a cat and mouse word game. Nel's thinking 'if I can get him to say these words I've got him' and OP's thinking 'I mustn't say these words otherwise I'll get the maximum sentence'. That shouldn't be how sentences are determined in my opinion.

You're missing the entire point.

The prosecutor is eliciting evidence by asking questions of witnesses. He can use whatever words he wishes to elicit evidence.

The witness has a much simpler job. Just tell the truth of what happened.

 

[kittychi]

I expect OP to receive quite a lengthy jail term. I think he'll probably be found guilty of 2 or 3 of the firearms charges. With regard to the murder charge, there's no doubt in my mind that what he did was reckless in the extreme. I don't accept that he fired four shots in an accidental or spontaneous fashion, I believe that he thought there was an intruder, and would be fully aware that the shots would be likely to kill.

That said, it's obvious he understands the charges, and was trying everything possible to ensure he didn't say the words that Nel wanted him to say. I'm not really into this method, as it seems a bit like entrapment. What should be important in this trial is the mindset of OP at the time. If it's believed he meets the criteria to convict him of premeditated murder, then fine, let's have that charge. If it's a lesser charge, then so be it. What I don't like to see is prosecution and accused engaged in a cat and mouse word game. Nel's thinking 'if I can get him to say these words I've got him' and OP's thinking 'I mustn't say these words otherwise I'll get the maximum sentence'. That shouldn't be how sentences are determined in my opinion.

BBM: I haven't paid this close attention to a trial before this, but why does OP have to avoid certain words if those words describe the truth?

Am I naive to think that Nel wants the truth? IMO Nel knows OP is lying and wants to catch him up in those lies. If Nel felt OP was telling the truth, there would be no game. If OP did tell the truth, there would be no game.

ETA: I posted before I saw your post, Nastasya--Great minds :cheers:

 

[BritsKate]

I just hate the use of the term "hater"! I think I far prefer the term "disliker".

I dislike Oscar Pistorius - his arrogance, apathy, sense of entitlement, mockery, ridicule, disrespect, and complete avoidance of accepting any responsibility for his actions - immensely.

I hate that he ripped away the life of someone with so much promise - someone who was so quickly admired by those first meeting her and so deeply cherished by those who love her.

It absolutely breaks my heart that the only domestic violence shelter to be erected in Reeva's name will also be in her memory - instead of helping victims of violence, herself, as she planned.

 

[crasshopper]

Thank you!!!
I'm now officially super glued to this thread.

Careful, approach with caution. Highly addictive, wives getting annoyed, children starving and not getting dinner all around the world. Personally, I've gained 4 lbs...much more fun than the gymn

 

[crasshopper]

I dislike Oscar Pistorius - his arrogance, apathy, sense of entitlement, mockery, ridicule, disrespect, and complete avoidance of accepting any responsibility for his actions - immensely.

I hate that he ripped away the life of someone with so much promise - someone who was so quickly admired by those first meeting her and so deeply cherished by those who love her.

It absolutely breaks my heart that the only domestic violence shelter to be erected in Reeva's name will also be in her memory - instead of helping victims of violence, herself, as she planned.

I try to keep myself from 'disliking' him personally to try to stay objective about the evidence, but he makes it impossible.

Especially when hearing he had the gall to confront Ms. Myers...and then deny it. Thank goodness for the witnesses.

 

[thewagesofsin]

I don't know about all of you, but I am perfectly happy being biased as hell, small-minded, judgemental, cold-hearted, closed-minded, unfeeling and utterly unreasonable...and I even spent all weekend dusting my best torch and sharpening my old pitchfork. I'm ready! :biggrin:

:smile: Unless Roux has saved his best arguments for last, it's hard to see another witness dramatically changing what has been established in the eyes of most folks watching the trial. Long story short, Oscar's version sounded ridiculous before we heard any testimony or evidence and it still does.

 

[Feynman]

I probably mixed up which side the neighbor is on

You and a lot of the world! I was falling asleep last night watching this live on ESPN, channel 199 Carte Blanche. Roux asks a sensible question, "Mr. N., if you were in the street in front of OP's house, would your house be to the right or left of Oscar's house?" N. goes into a long and winding spiel, boring everyone by repeating what Roux just said, with a dozen m'ladys thrown in, helpfully suggesting that if you were traveling west and then looked east, or something, .... This perplexed everybody, including the aforementioned m'lady, who kindly suggested N. answer in the terms Roux proposed. N., finally getting the point, says "to the right". Exactly the wrong answer. High comedy actually: Mr. N. lives there, he's an engineer. A moron would have a 50% chance at getting this correct, but engineer N. blurts out "to the right". Roux was probably confused himself at this point, and continued on as if this had been the correct answer. Monty Python moment. (As I said, I had been falling asleep, but laughed so hard at this that I stayed awake for quite a bit afterwards.)

 

[Val1]

Barry Bateman's tweet today. Clarifying cricket bat sounds and gun shots as definitive.


"@....... the forensics don’t support that timeline. It’s undisputed that the bullets hit the door first, then bat."

I guess he missed that part of the trial, it was very clear that the only evidence that showed the bat after the shots was in relation to the one hole closest to the door handle and was deemed so only because of the crack leading to it, however, that piece could easily have become cracked by the bullet itself after the door had already been whacked at least a couple of times and/or by prying the rest of that sliver of the panel out when pulling the door apart to get at the key.

 

[crasshopper]

Aha ..... BUT .....

What if he is found guilty on any or all the three gun charges and is given a custodial sentence for them?

Excellent point, which sheds light on why Nel inluded the charges in this case.
It hadn't occurred to me that this was part of a 'multipronged' strategy to avoid an OJ ;-)

 

[JudgeJudi]

http://www.citypress.co.za/news/oscar-pistorius-reevas-friend-sleep-night/

Thanks Kate. That was a better article than the CNN one I linked to earlier because it said "Kim looked visibly upset and shocked after Pistorius passed her and was immediately approached by members of the police investigating team" which shows that he did say something despite the denials by OP and his family.

 

[BritsKate]

Ahem. I think Oscar Pistorius' legal position would not be nearly so precarious had he heeded the advice of his counsel.

It's not Nel's fault, or even that of his own defence advocates, that Oscar Pistorius decided to go into combat mode on his own defence strategy.

 

[Karmady]

Exactly, why didn't he call out for Frank instead of going to the Balcony and screaming for help. Who let Mr Standard and his daughter into the house?

I'm catching up, so maybe this was answered already, but I listened to the daughter's testimony and she said the door was slightly ajar when she arrived

 

[BritsKate]

I guess he missed that part of the trial, it was very clear that the only evidence that showed the bat after the shots was in relation to the one hole closest to the door handle and was deemed so only because of the crack leading to it, however, that piece could easily have become cracked by the bullet itself after the door had already been whacked at least a couple of times and/or by prying the rest of that sliver of the panel out when pulling the door apart to get at the key.

And links...typed transcripts...and video testimony have all been provided repeatedly too. Really, it was Vermeulen getting muddy under cross that caused all of this - which is why Nel redirected...but that's the part that's always 'forgotten'.

 

[wb180]

With regard to the blog link, it just shows how easy it is to make so few things seem like so many.

Here it is without the fudge...

OP got up, brought the fans in, covered a blue light, heard a noise, didn't see that Reeva had left the room, got his gun and went to the bathroom.

You can mention turning around at five different angles, feeling around the bedroom, not seeing this, not seeing that etc. etc. At the end of the day it's over-elaborating a few actions to make them appear inconceivable.

I've been in a room in daylight and somebody's left the room without me even knowing it. I bet we all have. Maybe it was something I said tho?

Either OP should have checked to see if Reeva was in the bed and didn't, or it's all a complete lie and he stalked after Reeva because he wanted to kill her.

Whichever you choose to believe I can't see how it was elaborate. An intruder killing isn't elaborate, and a spur of the moment rage killing certainly isn't.

You do realise there were like multiple versions of OP's story right so the elaboration was done by OP himself. Somehow, Nel calling him out on this is Nel's fault...right...

 

[Cherwell]

You and a lot of the world! I was falling asleep last night watching this live on ESPN, channel 199 Carte Blanche. Roux asks a sensible question, "Mr. N., if you were in the street in front of OP's house, would your house be to the right or left of Oscar's house?" N. goes into a long and winding spiel, boring everyone by repeating what Roux just said, with a dozen m'ladys thrown in, helpfully suggesting that if you were traveling west and then looked east, or something, .... This perplexed everybody, including the aforementioned m'lady, who kindly suggested N. answer in the terms Roux proposed. N., finally getting the point, says "to the right". Exactly the wrong answer. High comedy actually: Mr. N. lives there, he's an engineer. A moron would have a 50% chance at getting this correct, but engineer N. blurts out "to the right". Roux was probably confused himself at this point, and continued on as if this had been the correct answer. Monty Python moment. (As I said, I had been falling asleep, but laughed so hard at this that I stayed awake for quite a bit afterwards.)

I say the crucial part of the question was omitted. He should have said:

"if you were in the street in front of and facing OP's house, would your house be to the right or left of Oscar's house?"

It's the same problem that crops up when people talk about the left or right hand side of the bed. You need to know which way they are facing.