Trial Discussion Thread #48

[Interested Bystander]

Not a link explaining the appeal process, but Ulrich Roux (SA attorney who contributes to the round table discussions on Oscar Channel 199) tweeted this in response to a question about it:

@ulrichroux: @MariMapulasa a convicted accused will have to re-apply for bail pending finalisation of his appeal.Full bail application to take place

https://twitter.com/ulrichroux/statu...96032379199488

Thanks Greater Than. I am fairly sure we covered this way back in 2013 and I think, as is said, he will need to reapply BUT if he was allowed bail prior to his trial and has not transgressed in the intervening time, he will almost automatically be given bail until his appeal is heard. Whether we agree he has transgressed or not is a moot point. I would have thought his recent altercation might have some bearing on this but the lawyers that have responded on this point seem to think not. I suppose it would have to be known exactly what happened and not only what is read in the newspapers. Had he been picked up by the police, I am sure the court would have been interested.

 

[eimajjjj]

A bit OT (as constantly rewatching OP's testimony), but is his slip-up about saying he 'checked the balcony' really an example of tailoring or is it just a verbal slip that Nel makes a lot out of? There are many examples where Nel doesn't make enough of these kind of slips but in this case, he could have just said 'checked' because that's the topic they were talking about.

I think the biggest tailoring mid-trial was OP introducing the possibility of her eating when it seemed impossible and even beginning to say 'he didn't remember' the duvet being there after completely denying it. Oh, and deactivating the alarm system was a clanger!

 

[kittychi]

Bulls eye, Kaos! You make such an excellent point.

How many defendants has this faux-expert Dixon helped convict or acquit?! Frightening. Unless it’s pertaining to rocks, I can’t see any competent court ever considering his testimony as credible. By allowing such a massively unqualified person to testify, that means anyone, including you and I, could pass ourselves off as (forensic) experts! It reduces the entire justice system to a dangerous, corrupt farce.

And you nailed it - what forensic expert produces no written report? Any such expert should be automatically disqualified as a witness and shown the door, the attorneys sanctioned with contempt or stupidity or both.

Wonder how long it took Roux to round up such experts - those actually willing to testify WITHOUT reports? Shady in the extreme. Only one reason to seek out such people - the greed and willingness to verbally testify to be able to TAILOR the evidence. One cannot argue with their own report.

It’s clear Roux started out knowing his was gonna be a brutal uphill battle (geez, just look at his client! Lol) and he only became more desperate as the trial progressed.

No wonder all his other potential witnesses freaked and fled!

BBM1: In the law business, around here anyways, these "expert" witnesses are called "*advertiser censored*."

BBM2: Plus Roux had to keep switching strategies in the middle of his game. No wonder he had a few days there that they had to adjourn early because he didn't have any witnesses available (or did witnesses back out?).

 

[eimajjjj]

BBM1: In the law business, around here anyways, these "expert" witnesses are called "*advertiser censored*."

BBM2: Plus Roux had to keep switching strategies in the middle of his game. No wonder he had a few days there that they had to adjourn early because he didn't have any witnesses available (or did witnesses back out?).

Well didn't their pathologist back out? Presumingly because he was going to testify that RS most likely ate at 1am. In that case then, why was he not called by the PT?

 

[Cherwell]

You would think that since the defence really didn't put up any argument against the firearm charges, he will be found guilty on all counts. The only issue is that more often then not, first time offenders for these sorts of charges are usually given a fine though you would hope that Masipa would come down a little harder due to the evidence that appears to suggest that OP did lie about how these events really unfolded.

When there are multiple charges, can you be considered a first time offender on all of them? Just something I've never thought about before.

 

[Interested Bystander]

When there are multiple charges, can you be considered a first time offender on all of them? Just something I've never thought about before.

Interesting point. Maybe as they have only been brought to court under the 'cover' of the murder charge, everything counts as first offence but I am guessing wildly and I cannot see why it should be so. If he had been charged separately at the time of the dastardly deeds they quite obviously would not be considered as first offences. Interesting, as said earlier - lol. I hope someone comes up with the answer.

 

[Greater Than]

_________________________
"It cannot be explained as of now," he said Steenkamp's attire, "until such time the accused can actually take up a stand and say, 'She decided to put on clothes to go to the bathroom' or 'She decided to say, "I'm gonna sleep in clothes. I'm not gonna put my nighties on."'"

Another prosecution spokesman, Nathi Mncube, told "Dateline" that what Steenkamp wore will be central to the government's case when the trial opens Monday.

"There is a piece of evidence around the clothes that could suggest what happened there," he said. "To disclose it now would be to disclose a lot of our thinking around the case before the time."

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/pi...lothes-are-key-evidence-pistorius-case-n39071
___________________________________________

This has intrigued me since the first documentary about the trial. All the prosecution evidence got leaked before the trial but what was the special detail that was to be revealed in the trial? Having lived in the kind of humid / hot conditions like Pretoria I would be wearing nothing to bed. Maybe the argument is just that she was wearing anything or that she had night clothes ready for bed that were unworn.
I also believe that perhaps some of the autopsy reports that were withheld could hold a few clues.
View attachment 55512 View attachment 55513

Might be Nels coup de gras in his closing argument (If he can disclose it publicly.)

Unless there's something we don't know, I always assumed the importance of what she was wearing is:

1. The fact that she was fully dressed in clothes (as opposed to sleepwear) proves they weren't asleep as he claimed, and

2. The fact that the bullet hole through the waistband proves she wasn't sitting on the toilet going to the bathroom, as I believe the DT originally tried to claim.

 

[vansleuths]

_________________________
"It cannot be explained as of now," he said Steenkamp's attire, "until such time the accused can actually take up a stand and say, 'She decided to put on clothes to go to the bathroom' or 'She decided to say, "I'm gonna sleep in clothes. I'm not gonna put my nighties on."'"

Another prosecution spokesman, Nathi Mncube, told "Dateline" that what Steenkamp wore will be central to the government's case when the trial opens Monday.

"There is a piece of evidence around the clothes that could suggest what happened there," he said. "To disclose it now would be to disclose a lot of our thinking around the case before the time."

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/pi...lothes-are-key-evidence-pistorius-case-n39071
___________________________________________

This has intrigued me since the first documentary about the trial. All the prosecution evidence got leaked before the trial but what was the special detail that was to be revealed in the trial? Having lived in the kind of humid / hot conditions like Pretoria I would be wearing nothing to bed. Maybe the argument is just that she was wearing anything or that she had night clothes ready for bed that were unworn.
I also believe that perhaps some of the autopsy reports that were withheld could hold a few clues.
View attachment 55512 View attachment 55513

Might be Nels coup de gras in his closing argument (If he can disclose it publicly.)

BIB I thought her clothes would play an important role in this trial, especially as the survellience footage of her arriving at the estate seems to show she is wearing very similar clothing to what she was wearing the night she was killed. For whatever reason, I don't believe Nel made much of it.

 

[Greater Than]

~rsbm~

I totally agree with you there .. and I do believe that a defence lawyer will only properly defend a client if they believe them to be innocent, other than that (if they think they are guilty), they are just there to do a job because all persons facing trial are entitled to be defended. I think that a defence lawyer would lose their reputation if they deliberately and actively tried to get people off the hook for crimes they know them to have committed.

BIB - I think the opposite. Criminal defense attorneys who are able to get their guilty as sin clients off, even if on a mere technicality, are the most sought after. Their reputations rely on winning, not for defending innocent people.

Whether Roux thinks OP is guilty or not, he is absolutely not trying to blow this case. It's far better for his reputation to win (i.e. OJ's "dream team") than for him to intentionally get his client convicted because of his personal moral conscious. Not only that, if OP can prove his DT failed to properly defend him, it's grounds for a mistrial. Roux would never risk that.

MOO

 

[vansleuths]

When there are multiple charges, can you be considered a first time offender on all of them? Just something I've never thought about before.

That's a good question and I don't know if I know the answer to this. But, just from inference, would he not be a first time offender because he has never been previously charged and found guilty of any incidents. At this time, these are just allegations.

 

[Greater Than]

Thanks Greater Than. I am fairly sure we covered this way back in 2013 and I think, as is said, he will need to reapply BUT if he was allowed bail prior to his trial and has not transgressed in the intervening time, he will almost automatically be given bail until his appeal is heard. Whether we agree he has transgressed or not is a moot point. I would have thought his recent altercation might have some bearing on this but the lawyers that have responded on this point seem to think not. I suppose it would have to be known exactly what happened and not only what is read in the newspapers. Had he been picked up by the police, I am sure the court would have been interested.

I hope those lawyers are mistaken. I was thinking since he publicly admitted to being involved in the incident (via his PR manager), that it could be used by the PT at his next bail hearing. Maybe even bringing Mortimer in to testify at it? He did, after all, challenge OP to a lie detector test. Or at the very least, use his own family's statement that he is exhibiting "self-harming behaviors" against him?

I can't resign myself to the possibility of him not going to jail. I just can't.

 

[eimajjjj]

I hope those lawyers are mistaken. I was thinking since he publicly admitted to being involved in the incident (via his PR manager), that it could be used by the PT at his next bail hearing. Maybe even bringing Mortimer in to testify at it? He did, after all, challenge OP to a lie detector test. Or at the very least, use his own family's statement that he is exhibiting "self-harming behaviors" against him?

I can't resign myself to the possibility of him not going to jail. I just can't.

Agreed!

 

[Greater Than]

A bit OT (as constantly rewatching OP's testimony), but is his slip-up about saying he 'checked the balcony' really an example of tailoring or is it just a verbal slip that Nel makes a lot out of? There are many examples where Nel doesn't make enough of these kind of slips but in this case, he could have just said 'checked' because that's the topic they were talking about.

BIB - I think the biggest tailoring mid-trial was OP introducing the possibility of her eating when it seemed impossible and even beginning to say 'he didn't remember' the duvet being there after completely denying it. Oh, and deactivating the alarm system was a clanger!

I think it's definitely an example of tailoring. His bail application (and/or his plea statement?) specifically said he went "onto" the balcony, but then changed his version to the fans being half in the room/half on the balcony, making him not go out onto the balcony at all.

I think this was changed because if he actually went out onto the balcony, he would've had to turn around to bring the fans in. Turning around gives him a clear view of the bed, and he needed to keep his back to the room the whole time for his story to work. Having the fans lodged between the balcony doors allows him to grab them and just twist his body to place them inside.

MOO

 

[Interested Bystander]

I hope those lawyers are mistaken. I was thinking since he publicly admitted to being involved in the incident (via his PR manager), that it could be used by the PT at his next bail hearing. Maybe even bringing Mortimer in to testify at it? He did, after all, challenge OP to a lie detector test. Or at the very least, use his own family's statement that he is exhibiting "self-harming behaviors" against him?

I can't resign myself to the possibility of him not going to jail. I just can't.

It is an horrendous thought, I agree

 

[eimajjjj]

I think it's definitely an example of tailoring. His bail application (and/or his plea statement?) specifically said he went "onto" the balcony, but then changed his version to the fans being half in the room/half on the balcony, making him not go out onto the balcony at all.

I think this was changed because if he actually went out onto the balcony, he would've had to turn around to bring the fans in. Turning around gives him a clear view of the bed, and he needed to keep his back to the room the whole time for his story to work. Having the fans lodged between the balcony doors allows him to grab them and just twist his body to place them inside.

MOO

Oh yes definitely, 100% tailoring that. What I meant was when he talks about 'checking on the balcony for Reeva'. He's being grilled about why he didn't check outside the bedroom moments before and then when he talks about running to the balcony for help he says "I then ran and checked on the balcony..I mean, I went to the balcony to check for help". Nel then spends a few minutes highlighting OP saying he said he checked balcony to which OP says was slip of the tongute.

The on/onto the balcony re:fans though, definite tailoring!

 

[Greater Than]

Well didn't their pathologist back out? Presumingly because he was going to testify that RS most likely ate at 1am. In that case then, why was he not called by the PT?

He was hired by the DT. He's part of the defense team even they don't call him.

The PT had their own expert pathologist - Saayman. He revealed during testimony that both he and the DT pathologist (Dr. Perumal) agreed on his interpretation of the evidence when they attended the autopsy together.

A colleague of that star pathologist reportedly said that he had heard Perumal refused to alter his version. (OT but coincidentally, when Nel kept grilling Wolmarans on whether or not he had filed an earlier report and then added to it after the trial began, Wolmarans said, "I was never asked to amend my report to suit the DT's case." Nel never made that suggestion, so by him offering it, it suggests that they actually did.) MOO

 

[Greater Than]

Oh yes definitely, 100% tailoring that. What I meant was when he talks about 'checking on the balcony for Reeva'. He's being grilled about why he didn't check outside the bedroom moments before and then when he talks about running to the balcony for help he says "I then ran and checked on the balcony..I mean, I went to the balcony to check for help". Nel then spends a few minutes highlighting OP saying he said he checked balcony to which OP says was slip of the tongute.

The on/onto the balcony re:fans though, definite tailoring!

Okay I'm sorry, I misunderstood what you were referring to.

I thought Nel was challenging him about going to the balcony to call for help because the fan blocked the doorway to get to the balcony, the duvet on the floor would've been in his way, and the power strip with the cords would've caused him to trip.

He probably was also making a big deal about it because I think he took every opportunity to highlight to the court how many inconsistencies there were when OP told details about that night. Every time Nel did that it would rattle OP's cage, which IMO scored points for the PT.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

He fired four shots, not one. He meant to kill. On his own version, he's bound to be convicted."
- Gerrie Nel

It’s nearly impossible to argue this logic.

The gun used to shoot Reeva actually has a triple safety mechanism, meaning it’s impossible for it to discharge accidentally. For Oscar to fire four shots means he had to deliberately override the safety mechanism four times which in turn suggests intent.
- Sani Dowa
http://everyafricanwoman.com/?p=1608

Then again, OP’s guns do have a magical history of independent thought and action.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

No wonder he opted to give evidence without the cameras on him because he would know that body language experts and forensic psychologists would have had a field day interpreting his body language. What I have noticed is that one minute he is blubbering then the court adjourns but when he comes in and out of the court he never looks upset in the slightest. ... One thing worries me is that the judge seems to accept that he is genuinely remorseful and suffering from stress as she has made a few comments in his favour. He has gone out of his way to curry favour with her. I have noticed that he is the last person to sit down when the judge enters the court and everyone else has sat down. He seems to focus on her more than anyone else. He also looks like he is praying every day. I bet he hasnt been to church or prayed in years. ... He is the ultimate con-man ...
- Hookiemama
http://everyafricanwoman.com/?p=1608

Oscar Pistorius is nothing short of the worst kind of coward. What kind of man shoots a defenseless woman four times through a closed, locked door?!! He did not even have the cojones to face Nel during testimony. He could NOT look him in the eye because he knows he’s a craven LIAR! He could not look at Nel because each time he would have seen Reeva’s eyes staring back at him.

He's a big, brave, trash-talking “man” only with his legs and/or 9mm. Beyond that, called out for his sins and misdeeds, he’s little more than a tantrum-throwing 4 year old in a 27 year old’s body. His overprotective family has done him NO favors.

 

[foxbluff]

RSBM

I don't think the black tank top she was wearing when she arrived is the same one she was wearing when she was shot. The one she arrived in looks more low cut to me and the straps look thinner.

Arriving
http://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/cctv-image-of-reeva-arriving-on-feb-13-2.jpg

Evidence Photo
http://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/black-tank-top.jpg

Crime Scene Photo ***WARNING: GRAPHIC***
http://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/reeva-head.png


As for the shorts, I don't think she's wearing baggy basketball shorts in the picture of her at the bottom of the stairs. I believe that is a white towel (drenched in blood from the shot to the hip) over her lap. It's been reported she was wearing grey Nike running shorts. I could swear I've seen an evidence photo of them being held up showing the bullet hole through the waistband, but I can't for the life of me remember where I saw it.

***WARNING: GRAPHIC***
http://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/reeva.png

BBM - I think you're correct.

From my notes: The autopsy, pathologist Saayman testified that RS "was wearing a sleeveless black top and grey Nike shorts." OP testified that these were his clothes.


O/T - I'm holding my breath here. By all appearances it would seem that the last six days of "posting yell" has been corrected... <see Fox w/fingers crossed>

ETA: Bless my magical new best friend for solving my major posting problems! And my thanks to Kimster and Bessie for responding! Fox