Trial Discussion Thread #48

[kittychi]

In case this has not already been posted...it is a really nice write-up about Reeva from a Port Elizabeth friend.

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2013-02-14-the-reeva-i-knew/#.U9O_L1ZOhRz

"Reeva had the look of a superstar in the making, someone on the cusp of bigger things. Whatever the next level is in the realm of celebrity modelling and TV, she was going to be there.

My homie from the Bay.

Today her name is known worldwide. In a few hours, I’ve spoken to the BBC, CNN, The Guardian, The New York Times and the Sunday Independent, all wanting to know, “What was Reeva like?”

Tragically, it’s in the wake of her shooting at the home of her boyfriend, Oscar Pistorius.

I tell them she was amazing. Charismatic, vivacious, intelligent, hilarious as well as beautiful, with a deep, masculine voice, permanent smile lines round the corners of her lips and a naughty sparkle in her eye.

She was going places."

 

[saraomar]

Apologies if this has been posted before, but a good read!

http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/07/14/oscar-trial-has-the-states-case-been-proven/

 

[kaos]

Apologies if this has been posted before, but a good read!

http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/07/14/oscar-trial-has-the-states-case-been-proven/

I completely missed that there were no bloody handprints on the phone etc. I was thinking too that OP said at one point he knew Reeva was dead before he took her out the toilet (think it was his testimony) so why did he try to insist that Carice Stander put her finger into Reeva's mouth?

Just got to the bit where Judge Masipa is annoyed about the electrical cord not being part of the inventory but surely she must know not every single item at a crime scene can be seized? The state didn't realise the importance of the cord until OP got onto the stand but the defence making such a big deal about it suggests to me they knew the importance of it and that they know exactly where it is.

 

[Greater Than]

I completely missed that there were no bloody handprints on the phone etc. I was thinking too that OP said at one point he knew Reeva was dead before he took her out the toilet (think it was his testimony) so why did he try to insist that Carice Stander put her finger into Reeva's mouth?

Just got to the bit where Judge Masipa is annoyed about the electrical cord not being part of the inventory but surely she must know not every single item at a crime scene can be seized? The state didn't realise the importance of the cord until OP got onto the stand but the defence making such a big deal about it suggests to me they knew the importance of it and that they know exactly where it is.

BIB1 - He said he thought she was dead, but when he pulled her onto him to cradle her he could hear her breathing.

He didn't insist Carice Stander put her finger in Reeva's mouth. OP did that himself.

BIB2 - The defense was grasping at straws. The length of the power strip cord will not make or break this case. The PT used the photo evidence of the power strip to argue that there isn't room for small fan's plug, and then further argued that the length of the cord is too short for the large fan to have been where OP claims it was.

The PT would not have known that OP was going to accuse the police of moving the fan, nor would they have known where OP was going to claim it was until he got on the stand. The only way the DT could defend that the cord is, in fact, long enough to reach where OP said he put the fan was to ask the PT to produce the cord. Whether they know where the cord is or not, they knew the PT didn't have it to submit as evidence. They just wanted to call the PT out on it.

Masipa saying on record that it was worrisome that the PT didn't have it was to demonstrate she didn't dismiss the DT's objection IMO. Like you said, she along with everyone else knows not every item in the room would be taken as evidence without knowing it played any role at all in the crime or the defense.

MOO

 

[Greater Than]

Oh carp, Fox!!! Egads I wish I had seen your post before I posted earlier today. Yikes... I made the mistake of thinking there were gun charges Counts 1-4 !!

Believe me, I sure wasn't addressing the murder in my posts. Ty so much for pointing out my error.

I figured you meant one of the gun charges, but I just wanted to get clarification to avoid confusion.

I believe the charges are:

Count 1 - murder
Count 2 - gun charge (sunroof)
Count 3 - gun charge (Tasha's)
Count 4 - unlicensed ammo

 

[Lux et Veritas]

I found this 2008 video of OP in his back yard playing with his Jack Russell. @1:00 I think the other guy may be Frank.

http://www.runnersworld.com/runners-stories/groundbreaker-oscar-pistorius

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Up until February 14, 2013, OP never considered himself disabled whatsoever.

In fact, he even refuses to park in handicapped parking spaces.

Now, charged with murder, cowardly OP is desperately trying to hide behind his disability.

Like a bully schoolboy, hiding behind his mother’s skirt, wailing and lying when angry parents come calling.

He was not hiding behind his disability when he fired four shots through a closed, locked door.
He very aggressively went after the “danger”!

HOW can one claim “vulnerability” via “disability” (and therefore, innocence of murder) when one has very successfully neutralized the “threat”, killed the “intruder” and ends up the last man standing?

In this instance, I’d say able-bodied Reeva Steenkamp was the one at a supremely serious disadvantage.

A 9mm Parabellum loaded with Black Talons, in the hand of a trained, certified shooter, tends to instantly remove disabilities.
It must - otherwise “terrified”, “vulnerable”, “disabled” Oscar Pistorius would never have done what he did - under his version.

The Judge should NOT consider his “disability”.

Why would she?

Oscar Pistorius never has.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

"I am not sure which witnesses the State will rely upon in order to attempt to prove its case against me. Nonetheless, I undertake not to communicate with any witness, whoever he or she may be, and any other persons whose names may appear on a list of “State witnesses”, to be provided by the State."
- Oscar Pistorius, Bail Application

I still do not understand how his very public comment to Gina Myers* in the courtroom is not a violation of his bail conditions? How and why was it virtually ignored by the Court?

* Even viewed and heard by a court police officer!

 

[Lux et Veritas]

James Grant @CriminalLawZA  Jul 6
Court enjoys a discretion to allow a party to lead new/late evidence after the close of it's case (Zeffertt & Paizes SA Law of Evidence 929)


Even at this very late date, could Nel reopen his case? Could either one of them present new evidence at closing arguments? If so, I’m totally hoping for fireworks from The Bulldog!

 

[Lux et Veritas]

I believe this person of #Oscar Pistorius needs to be put out from the community & given plenty time to think about his unacceptable, dangerous thoughts & actions against society! It goes without saying that it’s beyond despicable to use disability as an excuse to exert deadly force on a defenceless woman or anyone else for that matter. What convinced me Oscar is truly dangerous is words like “I wish Reeva had screamed & let me know where she was”, SERIOUSLY??, and to deny the blood curdling screams of a fatally wounded person 3m from you is just beyond EVIL! True love is not shielding someone from the bad consequences of their questionable behaviour. If Oscar’s family loves him at all they will want to make sure he gets the help he so desperately needs.
- Emerald

http://everyafricanwoman.com/?p=1608

Geezus, the man is vile. At least four solid, credible ear witnesses DID hear her scream!

That’s right. Oscar is essentially even blaming Reeva for her own death!

OP has thrown literally EVERYONE (including his mother and Roux) under the bus.

I expect God is next. Look for bitter God-tweets from @oscarpistorius between Nel's closing arguments and Masipa’s verdict.

Wonder if Oz will tweet from prison? LOL

 

[eimajjjj]

James Grant @CriminalLawZA  Jul 6
Court enjoys a discretion to allow a party to lead new/late evidence after the close of it's case (Zeffertt & Paizes SA Law of Evidence 929)


Even at this very late date, could Nel reopen his case? Could either one of them present new evidence at closing arguments? If so, I’m totally hoping for fireworks from The Bulldog!

That would be nice but I think it's got to the stage where there really can't be anymore evidence produced against him. When you have five independent witnesses hearing screams and a list of contradictions/tailoring/inconsistencies/improbabilities as long as the Nile, what else does a prosecutor need? The only thing that would make the case stronger would be an eye-witness or confession!

I was looking through the list of witnesses that were going to be called by the state and about 80% of them weren't called. There were so many. I can't help but think this was because they were unnecessary. I mean how many ear-witnesses do you need until there's a ceiling of proof already reached and it's just wasting time?

 

[Lux et Veritas]

That would be nice but I think it's got to the stage where there really can't be anymore evidence produced against him. When you have five independent witnesses hearing screams and a list of contradictions/tailoring/inconsistencies/improbabilities as long as the Nile, what else does a prosecutor need? The only thing that would make the case stronger would be an eye-witness or confession!

I was looking through the list of witnesses that were going to be called by the state and about 80% of them weren't called. There were so many. I can't help but think this was because they were unnecessary. I mean how many ear-witnesses do you need until there's a ceiling of proof already reached and it's just wasting time?

Reeva's screams, alone, will convict him of murder.

Defense never produced any hard evidence that OP screams like a woman, although they did perform scream/sound tests. (How impossible would it be for them to have OP reproduce a woman's DEATH SCREAMS?) The best Roux could do was have his FEMALE witnesses scream like they thought OP screamed! How miserably pathetic and useless was that? LOL WHY didn't Roux have Oscar scream??? He could not afford to take such a humiliating risk, because he knows the premise is a bizarre lie.

On top of that, Defense never called their own pathologist Reggie Perumal, who apparently agreed 100% with state pathologist Saayman, who said screaming is an involuntary act; not only could Reeva have screamed, he'd be shocked if she hadn't.

Without any real evidentiary challenge from the Defense producing reasonable doubt, the State's ear witness testimonies and evidence must stand as fact.

Oscar is screwed.

 

[soozieqtips]

"I am not sure which witnesses the State will rely upon in order to attempt to prove its case against me. Nonetheless, I undertake not to communicate with any witness, whoever he or she may be, and any other persons whose names may appear on a list of “State witnesses”, to be provided by the State."
- Oscar Pistorius, Bail Application

I still do not understand how his very public comment to Gina Myers* in the courtroom is not a violation of his bail conditions? How and why was it virtually ignored by the Court?

* Even viewed and heard by a court police officer!

Because although she'd been on the list as a potential witness, she wasn't called, and therefore OP didn't violate his bail conditions. Nel wouldn't have missed something like that, nor would the judge.

 

[eimajjjj]

Reeva's screams, alone, will convict him of murder.

Defense never produced any hard evidence that OP screams like a woman, although they did perform scream/sound tests. (How impossible would it be for them to have OP reproduce a woman's DEATH SCREAMS?) The best Roux could do was have his FEMALE witnesses scream like they thought OP screamed! How miserably pathetic and useless was that? LOL WHY didn't Roux have Oscar scream??? He could not afford to take such a humiliating risk, because he knows the premise is a bizarre lie.

On top of that, Defense never called their own pathologist Reggie Perumal, who apparently agreed 100% with state pathologist Saayman, who said screaming is an involuntary act; not only could Reeva have screamed, he'd be shocked if she hadn't.

Without any real evidentiary challenge from the Defense producing reasonable doubt, the State's ear witness testimonies and evidence must stand as fact.

Oscar is screwed.

Exactly. The idea that you can throw out the evidence of not just one , but FIVE ear-witnesses hearing a woman scream with an (unproved) defence that the accused sounds like a woman is so preposterous it's mind-blowing they attempted it. I guess they had no choice though.

If this defence was successful, it would set an incredibly dangerous and reckless precedent that would allow killers to walk free in the future using the same excuse: 'Oh no, that wasn't a woman screaming, it was me scared. Check the precedent of State vs OP, you'll see that it's a fair defence'.

One witness would have been enough IMO. Especially combining that with the rest of the absurdities.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Exactly. The idea that you can throw out the evidence of not just one , but FIVE ear-witnesses hearing a woman scream with an (unproved) defence that the accused sounds like a woman is so preposterous it's mind-blowing they attempted it. I guess they had no choice though.

If this defence was successful, it would set an incredibly dangerous and reckless precedent that would allow killers to walk free in the future using the same excuse: 'Oh no, that wasn't a woman screaming, it was me scared. Check the precedent of State vs OP, you'll see that it's a fair defence'.

One witness would have been enough IMO. Especially combining that with the rest of the absurdities.

Well said, Eimajjjj. That Roux even attempted this ridiculous defense proves how desperate the Defense was from day one.

And don't you know it! An acquittal would set outrageous, chaotic precedent in a country already plagued with rampant murder.

Essentially, anyone could use the "Oscar Pistorius Noise-Intruder-Ooops! Defense" and literally get away with murder. Oscar's crime would become the perfect blueprint; killers would enjoy total immunity from conviction. A recipe for wholesale, bloody disaster.

I simply cannot see Judge Masipa acquitting him and having such a vile precedent on her head.

 

[east2west]

I'm positive that NIKE does not at all appreciate that OP wore a NIKE tank and shorts in his reenactment video.

Real subtle, Oz.

Give up.

You are forever commercial poison.

Your previous life is over.

YOU killed it with four Black Talons.

I'm still baffled over his use of the Nike brand (shirt/shorts) for this reenactment video. OP I'm sure was aware of its implications and legalities. I see many Nike employees daily at my place of work here in Oregon. I will surely ask about this. Does anyone have the date that the reenactment video was created? tia

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Because although she'd been on the list as a potential witness, she wasn't called, and therefore OP didn't violate his bail conditions. Nel wouldn't have missed something like that, nor would the judge.

Even if OP didn't violate his bail conditions with his cryptically weird comment, it starkly illustrates how very aggressive, in-your-face and arrogant he is.

Most rational people on trial for murder wouldn't dream of such public confrontation.

But then, this entire trial has proven that OP is clearly not rational.

 

[808]

It was only supposed to be a video for a cartoon re enactment according to OP's sources.
...but they also have said that this piece should have aired after the trial. Nike should sue :happydance:.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

I'm still baffled over his use of the Nike brand (shirt/shorts) for this reenactment video. OP I'm sure was aware of its implications and legalities. I see many Nike employees daily at my place of work here in Oregon. I will surely ask about this. Does anyone have the date that the reenactment video was created? tia

As best as I can remember, I believe the American firm The Evidence Room was hired by the Pistorius family in October, 2013(?). When the actual video was made I don't know.

 

[HoolyDooly]

Hi everyone,
Have been monitoring here for quite a while, and feel that I would like to contribute. I have my trash can lid ready, and I don a hard hat. Big breath. Here goes. Putting aside the emotion, tears on both sides throughout evidence presented, I can still see that a young person with a disability, regardless of how accomplished, would feel fearful and threatened if suddenly he was aware of a noise he did not expect in a different room, especially in a place like South Africa with a culture overabundance of nervous trigger-fingers.
Is this reasonable, Yes. Is this a reasonable yarn to apply for guilty young person with a disability, also yes.
When I add history of brash behaviour of youth, which is not altogether uncommon or unusual for me, it does not necessarily add that much to the 'guilty of murder' cause. His mother was very nervous of home invasion and violation as well.

All I can think is if I was in the same situation and mindset I could fire off a volley of shots without thinking. There is also the idea that he lost his temper and head ( another thing that young men can do ) and fired at she that incensed him.

The judge and team have the data. They will make the right decision I am sure. I cannot imagine much would get past the Judge. She comes across as wise and dependable.

:truce: