Trial Discussion Thread #48

[vansleuths]

OP would never take it!! Doesn't anyone think it's beyond laughable that the family continue to portray OP as an innocent victim who was just sitting there minding his own business, when for no apparent reason, Jared Mortimer thought he'd go over and "aggressively engaged" him with regards to the trial, while inventing a whole conversation about Zuma that allegedly never took place? The whole OP clan's stock defence is deny deny deny, even when it's flipping obvious that OP can't control his drink and becomes an obnoxious git once he's drunk. Having NOT tested him for alcohol after the mysterious boat accident (in which OP once again, bless his cotton socks, was the victim) and not tested him for so many hours after the murder, that the results would have read zilch anyway - I'd like to know who decides blood tests aren't necessary in cases like these. Was the guy (distant family member?) who showed up after the murder, who said he'd "look after OP", was he the one who decided to delay the testing that day?

While I believe that OP has self-control issues, I also believe that he has a big target on his back now. Every Tom, Dick and Harry is going to try and make a name for themselves to see if they can goad OP into a reaction. If they can, they know the press will cover it and the person has their two minutes of fame.

 

[AJ_DS]

That text wasn't an SMS message, though. They used WhatsApp to text each other.

I know… but can you elaborate on your thinking ?… I'm not understanding the point you are making.

Thanks

 

[AJ_DS]

BIB I think a lot of us were left scratching our head with this comment. I know we all made our own inferences, but it would have been nice to know just exactly what the judge meant when she made this comment. When was the first time OP suffered?

Just an idea…

Perhaps Masipa was referring to OP being 'sentenced' mid-Trial to a mandatory Court-ordered referral which was not desired and being opposed by Defence as a first 'punishment'.

Being referred as an inpatient would be the second 'punishment' as OP was granted bail and the outpatient option was readily available.

 

[Cherwell]

I thought she said "punished twice", not "suffer", but I may have misremembered it.

 

[AJ_DS]

I thought she said "punished twice", not "suffer", but I may have misremembered it.

IIRC you are correct

 

[808]

Masipa indicated she would be happy for him to be an outpatient, saying she did not intend for Pistorius to be "punished twice".
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/14/oscar-pistorius-trial-judge-mental-health-live

I took the "punished twice" to mean his big stretch in the Pretoria Jail. 40 years should be enough punishment for his crimes, that extra month in the funny farm would be the second punishment. :jail:

 

[Greater Than]

In total agreement with everything you said…

…except BiB

It has been explained that one can optimize search engine results to favor on site over others… there are companies that specialize in that alone.

It's not about being 'powerful' or 'influential' enough to modify Google results… it's simply about paying professionals to expertly exploit Google's search algorithms to produce the desired results.

… and we have seen the Pistorius clan doesn't shy from expensive professional services when OP is concerned, not even with seemingly frivolous inconsequential ones.

Well if that's true, they should ask for their money back.

Google is full of top results that are hardly favorable to him. I mean, the guy is on trial for murder and he just got thrown out of a club for fighting. All the money in the world can't make that go away. You reap what you sow, OP!

 

[Greater Than]

I know… but can you elaborate on your thinking ?… I'm not understanding the point you are making.

Thanks

Since they used a messaging app as opposed to their own phones' SMS messaging feature, would their texts actually be saved invisibly on their devices after they deleted them? Wouldn't they be stored on the WhatsApp server?

 

[vansleuths]

LOL… Thanks… but I can't take all the credit for the typing : Thank God for the miracle of auto-correct !

1. Masipa and the assessors have access to all of the material put into evidence and the typed Court record.

2. I believe only photos… because they are better quality than video and much easier to print, show, refer to, etc...

3. Sorry I'm not understanding your question

BIB, while the judge and assessors do have access to all the material (eg text messages) that have been submitted, I wonder if they would actually go through all of this information. There is mountains of information and if the PT or the DT didn't feel it was important enough for them to highlight it during the trial itself, what point would there be for the judge and assessors to go through it as well.

The same goes with some of the medical literature that the physicians gave to the court. It's just to much information overload.

 

[AJ_DS]

Since they used a messaging app as opposed to their own phones' SMS messaging feature, would their texts actually be saved invisibly on their devices after they deleted them? Wouldn't they be stored on the WhatsApp server?

Oh… now I get what you meant.

Not sure if all Whatsapp messages are saved in the Whatsapp servers… but a U.S. warrant would be required to obtain them.

However all the Whatsapp messages are stored in application data on the phone itself… when deleted, the messages would still be recoverable unless overwritten by other data.

 

[AJ_DS]

BIB, while the judge and assessors do have access to all the material (eg text messages) that have been submitted, I wonder if they would actually go through all of this information. There is mountains of information and if the PT or the DT didn't feel it was important enough for them to highlight it during the trial itself, what point would there be for the judge and assessors to go through it as well.

The same goes with some of the medical literature that the physicians gave to the court. It's just to much information overload.

Yes, I agree with you… Masipa will not read and study everything that was put into evidence… that would be useless and very time-consuming.

The original question that gave rise to my answer was : Does Masipa have access to everything in evidence or only the parts that were put into Court record ?

The answer is that she has access to everything in evidence …not just what was put into the Record.

The purpose of the question was originally because some posters wanted to know if 'surprise' information could pop-up during closing arguments.

My answer is :

- Everything in Court record is also in evidence

- Not everything in evidence is necessarily in the Court record

- YES, if the 'surprise' is contained in the evidence but not in Court record

- NO, if the 'surprise' is NOT contained in the evidence

So Nel can point out and use 'something new' contained in the evidence during his closing arguments that he chose not to address in Court during examination or cross-examination.

This 'surprise' information would be legal and Nel would provide a clear reference to Masipa so she can confirm its existence without having to read all of the evidence.

 

[808]

I hope Nell does pull out a surprise in his closing.

This is a Legal analyst who very succinctly wraps the case up. She thinks there's no way he's not going to get convicted :jail:.

http://nakedlaw.avvo.com/crime/oscar-pistorius-murder-trial.html

 

[ColonelMustard]

This one comes from Juror13's blog and opens up to about half my laptop screen. However I still can't read it as the details are not clear enough. Don't know if you can do anything with this.

http://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/diagram-of-reevas-calls.png

This one is 838 × 500 (pixels), just about the same size as the others. Thanks for the link, though. You never know!

 

[geevee]

I'm watching April 10 Session 3 ~45:00-50:00, Nel is going over photos 55 and 56, the tripod fan placement and telling OP how improbable his version is of moving the fan to the corner of the bed (instead of where it is in the pics) and it's making me nutty that Nel doesn't stop him cold by saying that if OP had put the fan there, drawn the drapes and put the jeans over the LED light so that it was pitch black in the bedroom when he heard the sound in the bathroom, either on his way to get his gun or when he came back to put his legs on, he would have smashed full into the fan, there's no way he could have seen it to avoid running into it. Esp. since on his way back, it would have been right in front of where he says he left his legs, and in the path to the balcony doors.

Improbable indeed.

 

[vansleuths]

BIB - I say yes to both. This isn't a case of "whodunit." We know who did it. He's admitted he shot and killed Reeva. The question to be answered is why.

He claims the reason is because he was acting in PPD - that he intentionally fired the lethal shots because he genuinely believed his life was in danger.

The state claims the reason is because he intentionally murdered - that he fired the lethal shots because he wanted Reeva dead.

It has to be one or the other. If the judge accepts one, it means she rejects the other.

It's only after if she rejects intentional murder and accepts PPD that she would then apply the objective reasonable man test to determine, even though she accepted that OP genuinely thought he acted lawfully when used lethal force, if the reasonable man in the same circumstances would have also believed an attack was imminent and would have also used the same deadly force OP did. If the answer is yes, she will find him not guilty. If the answer is no, she will find him guilty of CH.

Not the specific topic of our discussion, but him stupidly changing his defense on the stand will probably have implications too. Saying he didn't intend to shoot proves negligence, at the very least, to me. It may also be viewed by milady as yet another discrepancy in his versions, decide he's not credible at all, dismiss his entire version thereby accepting the state's version, and convict him of murder.

MOO

BIB I don't believe this is quite correct.

My understanding on this is that PPD is a legitimate defence to murder and if the judge finds OP's claim of PPD as valid, that is the end of the case. There is no murder charge, no CH and OP is innocent of all charges. The reason why is PPD is the lawful killing to defend yourself or property whereas murder is the unlawful killing of a person.

Here is a short excerpt from http://criminallawza.net/2014/04/13/pistoriuss-new-defence/

For murder, you must intend to unlawfully kill. If you are mistaken, and genuinely believe you are acting lawfully (such as in private-defence (the technical name for the defence under which self-defence is located)), whereas you are not acting lawfully, you cannot be convicted of murder because you don’t intend to act unlawfully. To escape a conviction of culpable homicide this mistake must be reasonable – one which the reasonable person may make. But on a murder charge, it is enough, for an acquittal, if the accused was subjectively mistaken.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Unfortunately this type of evidence would not have been admissible in court. The prosection was not allowed to bring character witnesses against the defendant.

I understand the Westkoppies examination was solely to find whether or not he had GAD at the time of the shooting. They concluded that he did not. Anything else was not really relevant.

You are, of course, correct, Cherwell. Sad, isn't it, though? ALL the truth should come to bear in cases like this.

IMO, when it comes to murder, ALL truthful evidence should be relevant, as it concretely demonstrates character, personality, intent, etc.

Isn't character part and parcel of the crime? How can one ever separate the two?

OP should be very happy I am not sitting in that judge's chair! LOL

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Correction for the sake of exactness : "gravitating together like liquid metal beads coming together to form the T1000 model Terminator."


:hilarious:

Thank you, AJ_DS! LOL

 

[G.bng]

Masipa indicated she would be happy for him to be an outpatient, saying she did not intend for Pistorius to be "punished twice".
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/14/oscar-pistorius-trial-judge-mental-health-live

I took the "punished twice" to mean his big stretch in the Pretoria Jail. 40 years should be enough punishment for his crimes, that extra month in the funny farm would be the second punishment. :jail:

Well for sure Masipa definitely could not have been referring to a future prison sentence she already had in her mind for OP because had she been as indiscreet or unconscionable as to refer to a future prison sentence before the end of trial and before retiring to her chambers to, with her assessors, analyse and ponder all the evidence together and all the relevant laws so as to come to a verdict as to exactly and what "crime", if any, was committed and what is OP's culpability in respect of the crime decided would be immediate grounds for a mistrial. And had the defence understood the "punished twice" in that way at the time it would have constituted immediate grounds for Masipa's recusal, i.e. her judicial disqualification certainly for this trial and possibly from the judiciary.

 

[zwiebel]

O/T but - there is such a happy event happening in South Africa at the moment, in contrast to all the sadness we have seen...

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...with-her-kidnapped-5-year-old-in-South-Africa

 

[kaos]

BIB I wonder what this trial will do for his ego if he does indeed walk away on the murder charge, slim, but stranger things have happened.

I was thinking about the same thing. A truly scary thought as I'd assume a not guilty verdict would also mean he's free to start gun collecting again