Trial Discussion Thread #35 - 14.05.08 Day 28

[katydid23]

No I think people are allowed their emotions and I have no problem with Reeva's family and friends hating Oscar from here to eternity. I have no problem with them being unable to view the case dispassionately. But they are not suitable judges of the situation.

I don't even have a problem with Gina's sister making an unsubstantiated claim after the prosecution didn't have the best day. I do have a problem with people deciding that Kim's words are gospel are indisputable and I do have a problem with there being "witnesses" to the words being spoken as the witnesses to "the words spoken" have been made up out of thin air.

The video PROVES that he did, in fact, lean towards her, and mumble something.

So the mystery is just about what exactly he said. They did not make up the entire incident.

So what do you think he said? Did he compliment her, or say something positive?

If she was going to lie, she could have said something much worse than what she did say. That leads me to believe her, right there.

 

[BritsKate]

I don't believe anyone outside of SA would have known anything about Reeva if she had been killed by another boyfriend. And I think very few people would have paid a lot of attention to her death even in SA, "reality TV stars" are not famous people.

It doesn't make her life worth less than a famous person but it is IMO the reality of life.

RBBM

In my experience, that isn't true. Court TV, in all its former glory, would never have existed had that been the case.

Laci, Caylee, Michelle, Nancy, Lori, Rachel, Teghan, Jonathan, April, Joanna, Sheri, Garrett, Gavin, Travis, Jessica, Lisa, Chelsea, Amber and Zahra weren't reality stars or famous and a ton of people still followed their cases, many nationally, some internationally (with international media also reporting on some cases), from the 911 calls to the convictions, regardless. Cases catch our hearts and our interest for a great many reasons. In that sense, I truly believe Reeva really isn't so different from any other the other victims I've listed. After being here for a few years and lurking for a few before that, I highly doubt many are following this case because of whose girlfriend she was. The media is a different story, of course, but I think there would still be interest and attention afforded Reeva regardless. The international interest and reaction to the murders of Anene Booysen, Noxolo Nogwaza and Anni Hindocha would suggest that too.


(Laci Rocha, Caylee Anthony, Michelle Young, Nancy Cooper, Lori Hacking, Rachel Souza, Teghan Skiba, Jonathan Foster, April Jones, Joanna Yeates, Sheri, Garrett and Gavin Coleman, Travis Alexander, Jessie Lunsford, Lisa Harnum, Chelsea King, Amber DuBois and Zahra Baker, respectively.) There are a great many more I could list still...but those are off the top of my head.

All JMO and FWIW

 

[katydid23]

I missed the later parts of today's trial. Did I miss anything?

I noticed a thread popped up about whether PT has proved their case or not, so either people are judging prematurely or court is dismissed pending verdict?

You didnt miss much today. That thread with the poll about the State's case was made right after the State rested their case in chief. Theoretically, that is where and when their case is supposed to be proven. But obviously, it is more complicated than that.

 

[Fuskier]

April 7:
6:49pm: Pistorius' psychologist cradled his head in her hands, kissing top of his head. She has moved away now, leaving just the three siblings clutching each other

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/oscar-p...e-the-stand-20140407-368r1.html#ixzz31A8VERiN
-----------

Should we start discussing blurring ethical boundaries or is it premature? <respectfully snipped>

BBM. Agree. Red flag here! For future discussion IMO.

 

[Jim Kirk]

You didnt miss much today. That thread with the poll about the State's case was made right after the State rested their case in chief. Theoretically, that is where and when their case is supposed to be proven. But obviously, it is more complicated than that.

Alright, thanks.

I thought there were still like 10 witnesses to go through.

 

[G.bng]

Roux gets paid almost £6000 a day!! No way does a state prosecutor earn anything like that.

So if Nel is 'well paid' - what does that make Roux?!


http://thenewage.co.za/120275-1007-53-Oscars_legal_fees_to_cost_in_the_millions

Did you make the conversions from Rand to GBP yourself because otherwise it beats me where the £6,000 figure came from as it is not in the article and the fact is that R50,000 = £2856 and NOT £6,000.

And that's if Roux is charging R50,000 Rand a day, which I would stake my reputation that he isn't as not even the higher paid litigation advocates (barristers) here in the UK (Queen's Counsels or Silks) charge that much per day and "The Bar", (all advocates have to belong to a bar which belongs to the General SA Bar), lays down certain rules for Advocates about charging and they are bound by these.

In any case interviewee, Professor James Grant (criminal law lecturer who also has a small but very informative lecturing blog at present round this case) notes:

“As far as I knew, senior council charge between R20000 and R30000 per day.”

which is:

R20000 = £1142.72

R30000 = £1714.08
currency conversion courtesy of Google
​

​

So I'd definately rely on Prof Grant's figures rather than scandalous figures put out by a dubious online newspaper writing articles for effect so as to better sell its advertising space. (IMO some press it's best to ignore because all you get is misinformation which doesn't lead anywhere, except to one being misinformed, and there is still good serious and reliable press around online for free.)

 

[G.bng]

The figure changes everywhere you look. No-one really knows. It took me 8 seconds to find a page quoting a £3500 a day.

It's almost halved in 8 seconds.

Link

Yes and it's all a load of poppycock... see a post I just made upthread.

 

[katydid23]

Alright, thanks.

I thought there were still like 10 witnesses to go through.

Supposedly, but they seem to be dropping like flies. One of today's experts, was a social worker, who came forward a week ago, because she didnt like the way peeps were accusing OP of faking it when he cried. She came on the stand to say how emotional he was in jail.

If he is going to rest The Defense on Tuesday, as promised, then he must not have too many experts left.

 

[Carmelita]

The video PROVES that he did, in fact, lean towards her, and mumble something.

So the mystery is just about what exactly he said. They did not make up the entire incident.

So what do you think he said? Did he compliment her, or say something positive?

If she was going to lie, she could have said something much worse than what she did say. That leads me to believe her, right there.

The video doesn't prove he said something to her. He could have been muttering under his breath to himself, whispering, talking in a low tone when he leaned toward her, and she could have recoiled at his nearness.


I have no idea what he said.

Let’s say for arguments sake Oscar did say “How do you sleep at night?”

Doesn’t that point to the fact that Oscar does not understand how they can think he murdered Reeva in cold blood? Doesn’t it lend credence to his version that he mistakenly thought that Reeva was an intruder? Doesn’t it logically through inference indicate that Oscar thinks that the prosecution is not seeking justice for Reeva but vengeance for a horrific accident?

 

[Carmelita]

It is known that Reeva was also a model, yes? Also one of the faces for Avon in SA. She was a "roaming presenter" for FashionTV in SA.

It ticks me off that what Reeva accomplished is being minimized. <modsnip>

Want to know what OP will be known for now? KILLING REEVA. Forget what he has done before on the track field, or what he overcame. HE screwed up the rest of his life, no matter what the verdict is, because HE KILLED Reeva.

MOO

Yes I do know that Reeva was a model.

Sorry I don't mean to trivialize Reeva's accomplishments. I was comparing her celebrity to Oscar's celebrity. Oscar was the face of SA and known around the world. His star was brighter it doesn't mean he was a better person but it is an undeniable point.

 

[G.bng]

I don't recall W. stating whether they had tried shooting through a door that had possibly been whacked up a bit first, if the bat "bangs" did come first which I'm still pretty convinced of, then surely that would have had some impact on not only the trajectory of the bullets but also any subsequent splinters spewed from said bullets?

Yes, they weren't the "original" Black Talons, but he and Dixon both referred to them as black talon bullets.... they just weren't the very collectible original version but the later version of the slightly lighter "Ranger" black talons.

Re the order, possibly not but a poster had previously commented on why there pretty much had to have been a slight pause after the first bullet was fired, because only after that would the magazine have "engaged" allowing the next three to load quickly upon firing.

Has anyone got written down the whole sequence fitting with the ear witnesses and other evidence that shows how the bats came first because the State's expert conceded, IIRC, that at least with one bat (the one with crack that stopped where the bullet hole was) the shot had to be first. And then there is the question, what were the first 3 bangs (3-5 Mr Stipp, I think) the Stipps heard?

I just can't account for these discrepancies to be able to believe bats were first, and of course it's only my opinion, but from how I see, and again it's only my opinion albeit much thought out at least, it is pie in the sky to think Masipa can determine bats then shots on the evidence so far. I have even wondered whether Nel might just change the State's case for the summing up albeit as CH seems to be pretty much in the bag he may not bother... Or he really believes it albeit that's not what he said when he let out that the State's case was bats first during Stipps cross but he said then something more or less to the effect that it was at that point of the evidence it was the State's case. I am baffled.

 

[Jim Kirk]

Supposedly, but they seem to be dropping like flies. One of today's experts, was a social worker, who came forward a week ago, because she didnt like the way peeps were accusing OP of faking it when he cried. She came on the stand to say how emotional he was in jail.

If he is going to rest The Defense on Tuesday, as promised, then he must not have too many experts left.

Thank you.

Now the only real question is how long it will take for the Judge and her advisers to reach their verdict.

 

[Carmelita]

RBBM

In my experience, that isn't true. Court TV, in all its former glory, would never have existed had that been the case.

Laci, Caylee, Michelle, Nancy, Lori, Rachel, Teghan, Jonathan, April, Joanna, Sheri, Garrett, Gavin, Travis, Jessica, Lisa, Chelsea, Amber and Zahra weren't reality stars or famous and a ton of people still followed their cases, many nationally, some internationally (with international media also reporting on some cases), from the 911 calls to the convictions, regardless. Cases catch our hearts and our interest for a great many reasons. In that sense, I truly believe Reeva really isn't so different from any other the other victims I've listed. After being here for a few years and lurking for a few before that, I highly doubt many are following this case because of whose girlfriend she was. The media is a different story, of course, but I think there would still be interest and attention afforded Reeva regardless. The international interest and reaction to the murders of Anene Booysen, Noxolo Nogwaza and Anni Hindocha would suggest that too.


(Laci Rocha, Caylee Anthony, Michelle Young, Nancy Cooper, Lori Hacking, Rachel Souza, Teghan Skiba, Jonathan Foster, April Jones, Joanna Yeates, Sheri, Garrett and Gavin Coleman, Travis Alexander, Jessie Lunsford, Lisa Harnum, Chelsea King, Amber DuBois and Zahra Baker, respectively.) There are a great many more I could list still...but those are off the top of my head.

All JMO and FWIW

I agree with you that many here follow all kinds of cases with unknown victims. I respect that and the intention of this site to be a gathering place for folks to noodle over crimes and pool information.

I don't know most of the names that you listed but of all the names I do recognize the case had something in it that made it sensational which garnered the media attention. Laci, a pregnant woman with a beautiful smile that went missing on Christmas eve with a charismatic sociopath husband ect.

If Oscar had not been the boyfriend involved in Reevas death it would simply not have garnered the attention that it has. A boyfriend in a rage or fit of fear kills his girlfriend, in and of itself, there is unfortunately nothing extraordinary about the story.

 

[G.bng]

You seem stuck on the locations that the casings were found. I am not. I specifically remember including information that the trajectory rods show that OP was moving from left to right as he fired with every pull of the trigger. Couple that with the locations where the casings were found and it demonstrates yet another significant OP lie.

No, definitely and absolutely not stuck on where the casings were found which IMO won't indicate anything, but yes thinking you were stuck on their placement as per when you wrote:

The casings are indicative of where OP was, one was ejected out of the bathroom and in to the carpeted hallway, the other three were ejected in to the bathroom. But the trajectory rods show that he was moving from left to right as he fired.

I don't see the casings as indicative to where OP was at all because rushing back and forth along the passage OP could have kicked, whether by stump or by prothesis, the casings into the bathroom.

On the aspect OP moving around, well yes, I see he could have moved a bit but imo not that much or very quick on stumps while shooting and aiming at the same time. But and if he did, what does that mean that is not already proven by other means ?

 

[katydid23]

The video doesn't prove he said something to her. He could have been muttering under his breath to himself, whispering, talking in a low tone when he leaned toward her, and she could have recoiled at his nearness.


I have no idea what he said.

Let&#8217;s say for arguments sake Oscar did say &#8220;How do you sleep at night?&#8221;

Doesn&#8217;t that point to the fact that Oscar does not understand how they can think he murdered Reeva in cold blood? Doesn&#8217;t it lend credence to his version that he mistakenly thought that Reeva was an intruder? Doesn&#8217;t it logically through inference indicate that Oscar thinks that the prosecution is not seeking justice for Reeva but vengeance for a horrific accident?

If he did say it, for arguments sake, why is he lying about it now?

And I don't agree that it lends credence to his version in any way. If he did this by pure accident, then he should be APOLOGIZING to her friends and family, not scolding them for being angry and suspicious.

I have been falsely accused of something before, and attacking the suspicious party does not help. And you actually have made me think of something interesting concerning guilt/innocence.

When I was in college and worked in a boutique, 600 bucks came up missing from the cash register. Only myself and one other employee worked that Sunday. The other worker had been there for a few years. I was new. The boss accused me because it made sense to him. He didn't know me. So he calmly told me that he was possibly going to fire me and said he was very disappointed.

He called a morning meeting and said the cops were going to come and interview the 2 of us. Did I verbally assault my boss and say he was 'way out of line' for even thinking I could do such a thing? No, that is what the long time employee said to him/ " How could you even think that?" she said angrily.

I told him I totally understood why he was suspicious and I had no problem with the investigation. [ she got busted for it that afternoon.]


And that is how I would expect an innocent suspect to react to Reeva's family and friends: with compassion. Why blame them for their intense grief and sorrow? His negligence and hotheaded irresponsibility killed Reeva. He should be asking for forgiveness, not scolding them for being suspicious of him.

 

[G.bng]

Fair point.

I would imagine Roux charges on a case by case basis, and would expect Nel to be salaried which could make a large difference.

They undoubtedly work hard for their money, but I couldn't be doing with all the stop and starts, tea-breaks etc.

Everyone could be done and dusted by lunchtime. Two piles of badges, (innocent/guilty), stick one on the accused after listening for 5 minutes. Job done.
When you see the first legal production line hit the news, remember where you heard it first.

I believe they charge fixed fees per day (or by hour) according to specialisation, experience, etc. and these are set down by the chamber and fees are same for similar barristers and and similar chambers. And they don't charge the client they bill the attorney who passes the cost on to the client in their bill as an expense, and in SA it appears from the SA Bar rules they are still very strict on this not like in the UK where from a few years back some barristers are now allowed to accept briefs direct from the client and bill them.

 

[Carmelita]

Or it could simply be because she represents a very large percentage of the population that has been statistically murdered by their "loved ones". Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't RS still the victim(the unarmed one who got shot and killed behind a closed door) in this case?

I have said nothing other than Reeva is the victim. So in that statement there is nothing to correct.

Now I think where we part ways is the murder aspect as I believe it has not been proven that this was a premeditated murder so as you are probably using the word "murder" in a way that I don't think applies to this case I would have to disagree.

All that matters is what the judge and her assessors decide, believe and rule.

 

[Gryffindor]

Thank you.

Now the only real question is how long it will take for the Judge and her advisers to reach their verdict.

General consensus from court etc is 6 - 8 weeks or longer.

 

[Fuskier]

And I totally don't disagree with you on that point.

However, it makes me think that she has to be a 'friend of a friend' so to speak (or a Pistorian), as OPs predicament and counselling needs are a world away from her field of expertise.

Respectfully snipped for relevance.

Whether in public or private, I'm aghast. Did she cradle his head her lap, perchance? Touching your client, apart from a handshake, is crossing boundaries. At least where I come from.

Agree with this post. The content of ColonelMustard's post applies equally to this psychologist according to her behavior reported in msm IMO. Is she providing 'hands-on' support to Pistorious? If so, then this is a world away from a trained Clinical assessment and diagnosis of possible underlying character disorder and/or mental illness.
Any number of interactions can be called 'professional' when they are not. IMO the title 'psychologist' is no guarantee against a practitioner blurring the professional/personal boundary in highly emotive cases. These practice conundrums provide the rationale for practice training pathways, education, Supervision, Codes of Ethics, Codes of Practice and Professional Auspice organisations. There are standards which are internationally agreed upon benchmarks in operation. IMO this case may invoke much debate/discussion about professional standards around the world.

There is much to learn from the conduct of professionals and experts in this case IMO. This is my opinion only.

 

[katydid23]

The video doesn't prove he said something to her. He could have been muttering under his breath to himself, whispering, talking in a low tone when he leaned toward her, and she could have recoiled at his nearness.


I have no idea what he said.

Let&#8217;s say for arguments sake Oscar did say &#8220;How do you sleep at night?&#8221;

Doesn&#8217;t that point to the fact that Oscar does not understand how they can think he murdered Reeva in cold blood? Doesn&#8217;t it lend credence to his version that he mistakenly thought that Reeva was an intruder? Doesn&#8217;t it logically through inference indicate that Oscar thinks that the prosecution is not seeking justice for Reeva but vengeance for a horrific accident?

BBM

It is not technically an accident. Even if he thought it was an intruder, his actions were highly unreasonable and negligent. He never looked to see where she was before shooting through a blind door.

An accident is driving off the road on a wet and stormy night. Manslaughter is driving impaired or with faulty brakes in a negligent manner. That is how this 'accident' unfolded, imo. With great negligence on his part.

And that is only if I give him the benefit of doubt, and don't assume he shot her in a jealous rage.