Trial Discussion Thread #57 - 14.16.10, Day 46 ~ sentencing~

[jay-jay]

Because I'm good at reason I actually have a reason to think I'm good at reason.

Interesting to see that you chose to reply to that particular post of mine, rather than the more important one I posted with regard to the blood trail. Speaks volumes, that does.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Okay, then. BAT - GUN - KICK if you prefer. No one knows exactly what went down that night except for OP. The "basis in evidence" to which you and Masipa subscribe is simply Oscar's own version of events, artfully re-ordered by Roux in his timeline.

I did not find Oscar to be a credible witness which leads me to consider other possible scenarios for how the toilet door was damaged. I have learned he is a man prone to jealous rages, capable of indulging in frightful full-on uncontrolled outbursts of temper, that he is controlling and obsessive in his relationships with women, and can be aggressive, bullying and confrontational, particularly when alcohol is involved. We have recently learned he was engaged in a lengthy (for him) phone conversation with his long-term ex-girlfriend Jenna Edkins even as he drove up to his house that evening. After which it was said he left Reeva alone downstairs preparing dinner while he went upstairs, bathed and watched a little *advertiser censored*, IIRC. It is not exactly reaching to find his version of events less than the most likely scenario for what happened that night.

:goodpost:

 

[east2west]

Just watching the Sky News round up and this is the glare from Aimee I mentioned just as Kim was saying that the suggested punishment didn't fit the crime. She glared at her pretty much all the time she was talking.

View attachment 61417

Zoom in, Contempt reflected in the eyes, Defeat registered in the mouth. Definitely a personal conundrum.

 

[JuneBug67]

~snipped~

LOL ... well, seeing as the photos show a distinct trail of blood going across the carpet, then up onto the duvet and across, in one continuous line, how do you think that must've happened? Do you think that the police saw blood on the carpet, and then blood on the duvet, then put the duvet on the floor and painstakingly tried to match up the blood trail on each of them in order to make it look like a continuous blood trail that wasn't previously a continuous blood trail, just so as they (and we) could all try to frame OP? :floorlaugh:

The 'trail' was spatter/spots. By definition, spatter cannot be a continuous trail. There is more spatter beside the bed but not on it, which can't then suggest that the duvet never covered the bed while the blood was being cast off. It's weak evidence and just not that important. Even accepting the duvet was on the floor at some point, you can't prove what point, or how.

 

[JuneBug67]

Interesting to see that you chose to reply to that particular post of mine, rather than the more important one I posted with regard to the blood trail. Speaks volumes, that does.

More great reasoning. It's the first one I saw. That's all. So better turn up the volumes a bit...

 

[soozieqtips]

I was thinking the same. It is just so bizarre. OP is treated with such uniqueness. He killed Reeva in a painful, scary, horrific way and his lawyer is arguing he should get house arrest because OP's personal physician might charge extra for "cell visits".

BIB - on the other hand, he'll save loads of money on food, heating, cable, alcohol, partying and petrol etc.

He can use that to pay the physician :smile:

 

[G.bng]

from the judgement:

"Another question is:
- Why the accused fired not one, one shot but four shots, before he
ran back to the bedroom to try to find the deceased.
These questions shall unfortunately remain a matter of conjecture.
What is not conjecture, however, is that the accused armed himself with
a loaded firearm when, on his own version, he suspected that an
intruder might be coming in through the bathroom window. He was not
truthful when asked about his intentions that morning, as he armed
himself with a lethal weapon. The accused was clearly not candid with
the court when he said that he had no intention to shoot at anyone, as
he had a loaded firearm in his hand, ready to shoot."

...

in a general point, the judge excused 'untruthfulness' being a direct sign of guilt, but has recorded here that op was not 'truthful' - on a major direct point.
is perjury a crime in sa?

For sure perjury will be an indictable criminal offence in SA but you cannot be tried for perjury when taking the stand as a defendant not in SA, the UK, US or anywhere else with a logical justice system.

What would be the point? ALL defendants that pleaded innocent (defendants that plead guilty miss trial and go straight to sentencing) who were at the end found guilty once convicted would automatically have to go through a second trial for perjury for the mere fact they pleaded innocent even if they never took the stand and lied on it. And on what evidence or proof would the prosecution base a case to prove beyond reasonable doubt a defendant had lied ? On a judge or juries' findings? Would judges and juries then be called to testify in the perjury proceedings?

Nope, can't see that would ever work. Findings are findings not facts and therefore cannot be proof of anything let alone beyond reasonable doubt, a burden the State needs to surmount to obtain a conviction even for perjury.

 

[WilliamMunter]

Don't forget Pistorius lied within the first few minutes under cross:

Quote:

....religious christian stuff blah blah blah

NEL: But, as a Christian you will not lie?

OP: I try not to lie, M'Lady. As I said, I am human. I am here to tell the truth.

NEL: Now let us answer this question. What is a zombie stopper?

OP: I have no idea what a zombie stopper is, M'Lady.

I guess he just forgot. Bless.

 

[Marfa Lights]

You have at least one strike coming after the shots. No evidence that can point to any time on the other two. The evidence is that there is are two distinct sets of sounds. Not more. Asking if a bat could be used to scare Reeva is NOT EVIDENCE. It's a question snuck in that had nothing to do with the expert on the stand meant to distract from their lack of EVIDENCE that the bat came first and the clear EVIDENCE that it came second.

And not to mention that obvious scuff mark OP's heel left on the door immediately to the left of bullet hole D. The man was in a fit of rage... Look at the force with which the metal access plate on the tub was bent-- you think he did that by tossing a piece of the door panel behind him while desperately trying to reach Reeva?

 

[JuneBug67]

Okay, then. BAT - GUN - KICK if you prefer. No one knows exactly what went down that night except for OP. The "basis in evidence" to which you and Masipa subscribe is simply Oscar's own version of events, artfully re-ordered by Roux in his timeline.

I did not find Oscar to be a credible witness which leads me to consider other possible scenarios for how the toilet door was damaged. I have learned he is a man prone to jealous rages, capable of indulging in frightful full-on uncontrolled outbursts of temper, that he is controlling and obsessive in his relationships with women, and can be aggressive, bullying and confrontational, particularly when alcohol is involved. We have recently learned he was engaged in a lengthy (for him) phone conversation with his long-term ex-girlfriend Jenna Edkins even as he drove up to his house that evening. After which it was said he left Reeva alone downstairs preparing dinner while he went upstairs, bathed and watched a little *advertiser censored*, IIRC. It is not exactly reaching to find his version of events less than the most likely scenario for what happened that night.

You've hit on something important. It is precisely because the crack through the bullet hole is so objective and independent of anybody's version that it should be given significant weight. Again, there was no evidence offered by anyone to suggest that the crack came from anything but a bat strike. Not even a hypothetical put forward. "Could that crack have be made as Mr. Pistorius pried out the door?" Such an easy question. Never asked.

 

[JuneBug67]

And not to mention that obvious scuff mark OP's heel left on the door immediately to the left of bullet hole D. The man was in a fit of rage... Look at the force with which the metal access plate on the tub was bent-- you think he did that by tossing a piece of the door panel behind him while desperately trying to reach Reeva?

I don't know how or when the damage to the bath panel happened. I don't assume the kick mark was a 'fit of rage' when the testimony was something completely different. I guess the difference between me and others is that I know what I don't know.

 

[mrjitty]

There is no evidence that there were four bat strikes - let alone that they happened after the shots.

There are only two bat marks on the door.

 

[Sherbert]

If the curtains were open, Pistorius is lying.
If the lights were on, Pistorius is lying.
If the large fan was in the door, Pistorius is lying
If the clippers were plugged in, Pistorius is lying
If the jeans are lying on the duvet, Pistorius is lying
If the duvet was on the floor, Pistorius is lying
If the small fan was unplugged in the corner, Pistorius is lying

And this should all be dismissed because of non-existent evidence of police tampering?

This is sound reasoning? No, it really isn't!

Anyway, I shall stop now as it seems like I am badgering you, which is not my intention.

I don't have time to look up the Judgement right now, but I'm pretty sure that Masipa made a finding that there was no evidence of tampering by the police.

 

[Sherbert]

I don't know how or when the damage to the bath panel happened. I don't assume the kick mark was a 'fit of rage' when the testimony was something completely different. I guess the difference between me and others is that I know what I don't know.

BBM Except that you don't seem to have noticed that it is evident from the State's Heads of Argument that it wasn't common cause that the first set of noises heard by the Stipps was the shots.

 

[emirates1957]

The "Behind the Door" is out on Amazon now (Kindle). If you’ve got it - can you share your thoughts? Is it worth it? Thanks

http://www.amazon.com/Behind-Door-O...id=1413476242&sr=1-1&keywords=behind+the+door

I ordered this last week. Will let you know what I think.

 

[JuneBug67]

BBM Except that you don't seem to have noticed that it is evident from the State's Heads of Argument that it wasn't common cause that the first set of noises heard by the Stipps was the shots.

I didn't say it was common cause. I said it was not refuted. Masipa used the phrase 'not contradicted'. The defense provided an order of events that the evidence objectively supported and the state effectively ignored and side stepped that major point in the chain of events effectively leaving the defense assertions on the issue stand without challenge. Again, not even a hypothetical. Roux pointed out correctly in his final arguments that you just can't just responsibly ignore such a major part of the evidence. The state's case was really shockingly weak. I understand why they brought it, but it was weeaaaak.

 

[Trotterly]

I believe it would be completely irresponsible for any observer of something as serious as a murder trial to effectively make up evidence. There was nothing offered in court - where it matters - even hypothetically, that that particular crack appeared through that particular bullet hole because of a specific action by Pistorius other than a bat strike. Nel didn't even suggest it. He didn't come back to it later in the cross of the defence expert. He didn't profer it in his Heads of Argument. There is absolutely no reason for any of us to assume that the evidence in fact supported that scenario despite the loose idea that, yes, a crack could appear in a door from a prying action in certain circumstances.

But Vermeulen did say that the crack through the bullet hole could have been caused by action other than the bat. Since OP was the only one there than he could have caused the crack after the two sets of sounds. That is also common sense.

 

[JuneBug67]

Might be a good time to remind people that I started off following this case thinking this was DV and that Oscar had deliberately murdered Reeva. Then the evidence starting rolling in...and not rolling in.

 

[WilliamMunter]

Surely he will be admonished for wasting hour upon hour of valuable court time over the Tasha's incident. I forget how many witnesses had to be called, examined and cross examined over this crime only for Roux to say "yeah, you know what, it was his responsibility the gun went off after all".

That's got to add at least another 45 minutes with the feather duster in the local museum.

 

[JuneBug67]

But Vermeulen did say that the crack through the bullet hole could have been caused by action other than the bat. Since OP was the only one there than he could have caused the crack after the two sets of sounds. That is also common sense.

Eventually qualifying that he could say at least that the door 'broke off' after the bullet (after just testifying that he believed the shots came before the bat strikes because of the crack explicitly) is not providing any kind of useful counter to the defence assertions at all. Again, does nobody wonder why an explicit alternative was not put to witnesses? Any of them that could have been addressed on this issue?