Trial Discussion Thread #37 - 14.05.12 Day 30

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Agreed. What is more curious to me is that her report was not done last year. She interviewed OP and his friends/family while the trial was going on in early May. That makes no sense to me at all. The way Roux handles gathering last minute experts and their testimony just looks so odd and desperate. He should have had all of this in his bag before the trial even started.
I don't understand this either. Roux is supposed to be a well-respected defence attorney (and I have no doubt he is good at his job) but in this instance, it seems like really sloppy work to have experts on the stand (who testify on subjects outside of their remit) and witnesses who have been roped in at the last minute. And almost all his witnesses have been damaging for the defence. What exactly is going on?
 
Dr Voster, also said, she interviewed Justin Di Varis.. no mention made of his input, but I found that a curious inclusion in her list of interviewees.. she had Oscar, naturally , Mrs Binge, who is?? an aunt?? Aiimee, and Carl, his coach , and his manager..
Isn't Mrs Benge ( Binge?) his maternal Aunty. The one who he is staying with ( for now).
 
I wonder what the judge is going to decide? Nel is forcing her hand here. wow

Nel wants to cover his *advertiser censored* in appeal, which is where this is heading. He doesn't want things overturned on a technicality for not acting when he should have.

He is also being allowed to flex his muscles because OP is in an impossible position. By not entertaining OP's version in the slightest, Nel has basically shifted the burden to the DT to explain away his guilt.
This is why we are seeing all these last minute DT witnesses.... OP has to get the judge to believe that his decisions (mistake) where made for X reasons.

Nel had the victim behind a locked door, gun, confessed suspect - his job could not be easier.
 
Not even Kelly Phelps will be able to dress today up as anything other than a disaster for the defence.
She'll try and find a way but you are right. Absolutely actually! At 3 pm I'm gonna look at CNN headlines. Let me know if you catch her and vice versa.
 
This seems a bit like the scene in A Few Good Men where Col Nathan Jessop says he ordered the code red and the trial has to stop.

Oscar Pistorius as Jack Nicholas in 'A Few Good Men': ”People of the internet, we live in a world that has fortress apartment walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, random internet poster? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Steenkamp, and you curse the armed boyfriend. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Steenkamp’s death, while tragic, probably saved my life. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves me. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, on twitter, on Facebook, on Websleuths, you want me in society, you need me to have fame. I use words like threatened, terrified, vomiting. I use these words as the backbone of a murder case spent defending my existence. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to anyone who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very interest that I provide, and then questions the killing manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and shoot into a toilet. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think I am entitled to."

sorry it was a surreal trial day, I couldn't help myself :facepalm:
 
The fact that Dr V agreed OP is dangerous re the flight/fight issue whilst in possession of a gun, has given the court a real dilemma re bail I would have thought. Especially if uncle Arnold has guns in the house.

In addition the court need to avoid future appeals, so have to take the witness assertions seriously.

Hey! Ho!

ETA: I would expect the bail to be a headache for the court, whether or not they refer for psychiatric assessment as the oppropriately qualified person (witness) has agreed he could be dangerous.
 
Dr Voster, also said, she interviewed Justin Di Varis.. no mention made of his input, but I found that a curious inclusion in her list of interviewees.. she had Oscar, naturally , Mrs Binge, who is?? an aunt?? Aiimee, and Carl, his coach , and his manager..

And Samantha, Justin's girlfriend/fiancée/wife???
 
I noticed that. I expected Nel to pounce. Do you think he's reserved it for later or just didn't notice?

I think he may use these types of things in his closing. I cant wait to see how Nel ties up everything in closing.
When he said something about 3rd defense it shows Nel is on top of things like this.
 
Nel wants to cover his *advertiser censored* in appeal, which is where this is heading. He doesn't want things overturned on a technicality for not acting when he should have.

He is also being allowed to flex his muscles because OP is in an impossible position. By not entertaining OP's version in the slightest, Nel has basically shifted the burden to the DT to explain away his guilt.
This is why we are seeing all these last minute DT witnesses.... OP has to get the judge to believe that his decisions (mistake) where made for X reasons.

Nel had the victim behind a locked door, gun, confessed suspect - his job could not be easier.
Yep and all Oscar has is money and though it often can skew everything it looks like in this case all the money in the world wouldn't be enough. Well maybe that would be in a James Bond villain way but you know what I mean.
 
Thanks everyone for the updates.Just caught the very end but it looks like that was the best part.:)
 
Oscar Pistorius: ”People of the internet, we live in a world that has fortress apartment walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, random internet poster? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Steenkamp, and you curse the armed boyfriend. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Steenkamp’s death, while tragic, probably saved my life. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves me. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, on twitter, on Facebook, on Websleuths, you want me in society, you need me to have fame. I use words like threatened, terrified, vomiting. I use these words as the backbone of a murder case spent defending my existence. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to anyone who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very interest that I provide, and then questions the killing manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and shoot into a toilet. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think I am entitled to."

sorry I couldn't help myself :facepalm:

What was this?
 
I have resorted to exercising in between refreshing my iPad to alleviate tension and have lost a kg following this trial.

I've deffo gained a couple of kg .. just sitting watching it all, munching my way through packets of crisps and choccie biscuits :scared:
 
Aislinn Laing @Simmoa Some legal experts on my timeline saying the psychiatrist's statement shows "dolus eventualis", that OP understood the consequences of acts

https://twitter.com/Simmoa

My reminder: dolus eventualis is one way of establishing intent required to prove murder.

I knew if I went back far enough, some kind person would have explained what dolus eventualis is again! :)
 
Just heard on whoop that the defence themselves have shot themselves in the foot and that's why Nel is going on the attack.
At this point, I'd have to agree. They seem to want the benefits of an involuntary defence by the suggestion of one but without actually coming anywhere close to proving it. And the same of putative.

But, they negate one another. This, on top of 'I never intended to shoot', secures a murder conviction to my mind. The defence really hasn't allowed the possibility of anything else. Crazy. It's usually the State's job to convict a defendant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
47
Guests online
2,252
Total visitors
2,299

Forum statistics

Threads
602,245
Messages
18,137,431
Members
231,281
Latest member
omnia
Back
Top