Trial Discussion weekend Thread #24

[james83]

Too many bangs, too many voices (female and male), too many blood spatters, too much time between - is there anyone missing and we still don't know a second murder?

Hold on, when was the last time Henke Pistorius was seen in public?.....

 

[nastasya]

And I don't get why people won't keep an open mind and think that maybe, just maybe he is telling the truth. If a person is called to do jury duty, that is the position they are expected to take. We have still to hear lots more evidence, but so far I think his story is plausible. That does not mean I won't have a change of heart.
I don't even like the man, but that is neither here nor there, he deserves a fair trial.

:floorlaugh:

Once again you can tell the state of the defense case when people start criticizing the forum members instead of talking about OP's lame testimony.

When a person gives two different mutually exclusive stories he can't be telling the truth.

 

[shane13]

What's left for Nel on cross?
Guess very detailed on the shooting, and the after shooting events?

And some of the strangest things ever on crosss the last couple of days.

Nel defending Roux went something like, "I know Mr Roux, he would never do that..."

And Roux sat there stoically at times.

 

[BritsKate]

And I don't get why people won't keep an open mind and think that maybe, just maybe he is telling the truth. If a person is called to do jury duty, that is the position they are expected to take. We have still to hear lots more evidence, but so far I think his story is plausible. That does not mean I won't have a change of heart.
I don't even like the man, but that is neither here nor there, he deserves a fair trial.

Respectfully, the presumption of innocence is mainly for the fact-finder(s). I'm neither judge nor jury so there is nothing inherently wrong, and no violation of the accused's rights, by discussing opinion. It certainly is in no way impinging on his right or receipt of a fair trial.

For his story to be plausible, I would have to ignore:
- The testimony of 5 professional, articulate, intelligent witnesses who describe variations of hearing the same thing.

And accept that Oscar was screaming like a woman, shouting for help like a man, and yelling in both a woman's and man's voices. And accept the closest neighbours heard no screams at all. But most of this screaming began before the defendant ever fired. And the 5 witnesses are either mistaken, lying, have a vendetta, or are in collusion.

- That being disabled he chose to run towards perceived danger instead of using his phone to ring for help, pushing a panic button, or unlocking his bedroom door and escaping through the exit.

And accept that a disabled person who has physical limitations would run towards a perceived danger despite knowing what that danger was - even though my personal experiences with a disabled person tell quite a different tale.

- A seemingly prolific recklessness with firearms.

And accept that Kevin Lerena, Darren Fresco, and Samantha Taylor are all lying.

- What little forensics were available at the crime scene.

And accept that the police officers responding and subsequent experts are inept, corrupt, mistaken, lying, and apparently purposely moved evidence.

- That his story continues to change - sometimes even mid-sentence.

And accept that the stress of the trial, the antics of a malicious persecution on hyped up charges by a prosecutor out to make a name for himself, and the despairing loss of a woman he knew for a few months, whom he cannot even recall the correct birthday of, are the reasons for his changing testimony, 'correcting' statements, and arguing with opposing counsel.

Or...I could just believe he's lying.

 

[TorisMom003]

"I wasn't ready to take somebodies life. I screamed at the intruder/s to get out of my home."

But yet instead of letting said intruder/s get out of his home, have time to get out of his home, he fired 4 bullets through the toilet room door pausing after the first shot.

Makes complete sense, in some alternate universe.

 

[molly333]

Ok, I'm going to go there and go ahead and call BS on OP's claim that he was sleeping on the side of the bed closest to the bathroom instead of the sliding doors. Here's why:

1. His legs were on the side next to the sliding doors.
2. The Ipad was on the side next to the sliding doors.
3. His vest was on the side next to the sliding doors.
4. The Ipad cover was on the side next to the sliding doors.
5. He normally sleeps on the side next to the sliding doors.

The question is why would he lie about what side he was sleeping on? What purpose does this serve to the defense?

Is it reasonable to think

1. That Reeva would put up with all the junk on her side of the bed
2. That he would walk through all that junk in the dark twice to move fans
3. That they even went to bed that night

 

[Val1]

I thought she was actually meant to be going home that night, she txd them late to say she wasn't. This was said by the family she was staying with when it happened.

This is still assuming RS sent that text and willingly, and not someone else. Iirc her friend had also commented that RS hadn't ended the text the way she always did to her and all I've seen is that it appears it was sent either right at or possibly after the last time we saw in evidence that RS used her cell.

http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/03/28/oscar-pistorius-trial-day-15-state-rests/

20:04:00 – GPRS – 17 seconds – tower closest to Oscar’s.

20:04:17 – The last GPRS of the day – 41,029 seconds (over 11 hours) – tower closest to Oscar’s.

http://www.citypress.co.za/news/i-could-have-saved-reeva/

“That was the last SMS from her phone, probably about ten, ten thirty – the time they usually SMS.”

 

[soozieqtips]

What's left for Nel on cross?
Guess very detailed on the shooting, and the after shooting events?

And some of the strangest things ever on crosss the last couple of days.

Nel defending Roux went something like, "I know Mr Roux, he would never do that..."

And Roux sat there stoically at times.

Definitely lots of detail about events immediately after the murder, what steps OP took to get help, what thoughts he was having etc etc. I think the defence of Roux was very clever, in that it showed OP up even more that he could be possibly suggesting his own defence would have made the errors he was implying. Roux is a professional and a well-paid professional defending a high-profile sportsman. No way is he going to make silly mistakes, so I think Nel was highlighting that so that the ridiculousness of it was out in the open.

 

[kaos]

The gun was still supposed to be on the balcony side of the bed but the holster is on the bathroom side in police photographs and he states he took the gun out of the holster in his testimony. So for the holster to get back over to the bathroom side of the bed, I guess that's got to be police tampering as there's no good reason for OP to have went back into the bedroom to put his legs on, get a bat etc and launch the holster over to the other side of the bed?

 

[nastasya]

Respectfully, the presumption of innocence is mainly for the fact-finder(s). I'm neither judge nor jury so there is nothing inherently wrong, and no violation of the accused's rights, by discussing opinion. It certainly is in no way impinging on his right or receipt of a fair trial.

For his story to be plausible, I would have to ignore:
- The testimony of 5 professional, articulate, intelligent witnesses who describe variations of hearing the same thing.

And accept that Oscar was screaming like a woman, shouting for help like a man, and yelling in both a woman's and man's voices. And accept the closest neighbours heard no screams at all. But most of this screaming began before the defendant ever fired. And the 5 witnesses are either mistaken, lying, have a vendetta, or are in collusion.

- That being disabled he chose to run towards perceived danger instead of using his phone to ring for help, pushing a panic button, or unlocking his bedroom door and escaping through the exit.

And accept that a disabled person who has physical limitations would run towards a perceived danger despite knowing what that danger was - even though my personal experiences with a disabled person tell quite a different tale.

- A seemingly prolific recklessness with firearms.

And accept that Kevin Lerena, Darren Fresco, and Samantha Taylor are all lying.

- What little forensics were available at the crime scene.

And accept that the police officers responding and subsequent experts are inept, corrupt, mistaken, lying, and apparently purposely moved evidence.

- That his story continues to change - sometimes even mid-sentence.

And accept that the stress of the trial, the antics of a malicious persecution on hyped up charges by a prosecutor out to make a name for himself, and the despairing loss of a woman he knew for a few months, whom he cannot even recall the correct birthday of, are the reasons for his changing testimony, 'correcting' statements, and arguing with opposing counsel.

Or...I could just believe he's lying.

He contradicts his own statements within 30 seconds.

Yesterday's testimony began, "I whispered, spoke softly, blah blah blah"

Followed by arguing how he never said he whispered but instead only spoke softly. The guy's a complete tool.

 

[TorisMom003]

When asked why OP would go towards the danger the response was "I'm not sure. I was trying to get Reeva and myself as far away from the danger as I could."

So to get himself far away from the danger he goes TOWARDS the danger.

And it is questioned as to why OP is called a liar.

 

[TrueDetective]

And I don't get why people won't keep an open mind and think that maybe, just maybe he is telling the truth. If a person is called to do jury duty, that is the position they are expected to take. We have still to hear lots more evidence, but so far I think his story is plausible. That does not mean I won't have a change of heart.
I don't even like the man, but that is neither here nor there, he deserves a fair trial.

And he is getting a fair trial.
But his story is the very opposite of plausible.

 

[TorisMom003]

His instinct was to go towards the danger. Although he has testified that he does not like confrontations and tries to diffuse situations. His words contradict him.

 

[Emz73]

Even if Netcare doesn't have a recording of the call, it would be useful if one of their representatives could confirm or deny if it's remotely feasible that anyone would have told OP to bring Reeva in if they'd known the extent of her injuries.

I'm getting rather obsessed with this netcare call!! There's always a recording of a call. Unless he didn't leave his name?? But can't they trace calls?

Maybe he said "I'm asking for a friend....

 

[TorisMom003]

He and Reeva could have gone out the bedroom door. To which OP says that they could have but are not sure why they did not do that. Then he changes that to his limited mobility on his stumps on certain surfaces.

I thought the bedroom was locked and it was that reason for the door being an obstacle to his and Reeva leaving that way.

 

[TorisMom003]

"M'lady if you listen to Ms. Taylors evidence, that I went downstairs and looked, that is my personality....."

But OP has said that Ms. Taylor lies and lied on the stand.

So are we to believe that Ms. Taylor told the truth about that but not everything else?

 

[BritsKate]

Hello everyone, I'm new here and this is my first post.
I'd like to share with you a possibility of what actually happened and I'm afraid were it indeed the case, Prosecutor Nel might not be pushing Oscar in the right direction to get the confession he deserves.

Here's my "theory" of what actually happened. It's neither Oscar's version nor Prosecutor Nel's.
1. Oscar had a row with Reeva on the Valentine's night and they went to bed late (or maybe early next day since forensic studies suggested Reeva might have taken food around 1am). The couple did not reconcile at the time of the sleep and they acted indifferently.
2. Reeva woke up early next morning and went to use the toilet (forensics indicated an empty bladder). She locked herself inside and stayed for a while, thinking/sobbing, during which time Oscar was still asleep.
3. After a while, Reeva accidentally knocked something and the noise woke up Oscar. Out of fear and guilt, Reeva stayed still and silent. Oscar, on the other hand, took it for an intruder and out of fear and self-protection, grabbed the gun and hurried to the door of the toilet. (I guess he never thought about Reeva at that moment. He did not check whether Reeva was in bed or awake. All his actions were for the sole purpose of SELF-protection.)
4. Pointing his gun at the door, Oscar was struggling about what on earth was happening inside. He did not ask "Reeva is that you inside?" lest he should disturb and expose himself to the intruder. He might have thought "what if it's Reeva inside" but he dared not go back to check lest the intruder might come out in any minute.
5. Finally out of sheer fear and the strongest motivation to protect himself out of any possible hurt, Oscar made the irresponsible decision "All right I'll shoot anyway (whether it's Reeva inside, I don't give a damn)"
6. He didn't meant to kill but the aftermath of the first shoot (screaming and noise) prompted his subsequent shoots. I think he was paranoid at the time.

In any case, I think Prosecutor Nel was not asking the right questions during the cross-examination. His version of Oscar's intentional murder of Reeva is not sufficiently backed up by the evidences anyway (it's a pity that the investigators messed up the scene).

That said, I suggested him take a step back and focus on the following question instead:
"Did you ever do anything to MAKE SURE it was NOT Reeva inside before you pulled the trigger?"
Or
"Were you 100 percent sure it was not Reeva inside when you pulled the trigger? And if indeed so, how did you know that?"

Um. By his own admission his duty was to protect himself and Reeva. He's very careful to always, always mention he wanted to protect her.

Why would Reeva feel fear and guilt over accidentally knocking something? Especially if still ticked at him? How would she even know she woke Oscar? He says he didn't hear any screaming so that doesn't account for subsequent shots. Why no warning shot? Why not tell the 'intruder' you have a gun aimed at them? And if he was standing at the door thinking about it and decided to shoot anyway - well, that's a pretty clear case of murder by SA law. Intentional even. Though, it could and has been argued that screaming for 12 minutes before the accused shot (by his own admission) and four gunshots is also evidence of intentional murder.

As for Gerrie Nel...you do know he has 30+ years of experience doing this, right?

 

[Rumpole]

What's left for Nel on cross?
Guess very detailed on the shooting, and the after shooting events?

And some of the strangest things ever on crosss the last couple of days.

Nel defending Roux went something like, "I know Mr Roux, he would never do that..."

And Roux sat there stoically at times.

WHY would Roux intervene when Nel is making a fool of himself?

While Nel is digging himself into a hole, Roux does not want to hinder him. He certainly does not want to take Nel's spade off him.

There are lots of things that "don't make sense" to Nel. They make perfect sense to me, and I am sure also the defense and the Judge. (Roux has the opportunity to clarify things for the judge anyway). Nel's "confusion" is a gift, a good starting point to sharpen the defense points from. It is only through Nel's histrionics that Roux is getting a look at the version the State wants to propose. It is full of inconsistencies within itself. Their own "ear" witnesses disagree on some important points, and the interpretation that all the State witnesses have made is clearly at odds with the State's own expert witnesses and the real physical evidence.

 

[shane13]

Didn't the housekeeper and the gardener live either in the house or the grounds? Are they going to be called to give evidence? Haven't heard any mention of them.....surely they must have heard something or been aware of some of what went on?

A year ago, it was said that a loud water fountain or such (betwen OP's house and housekeeper's abode) prevented the housekeeper from hearing anything.

 

[jay-jay]

That's very believable to me, mainly because I think OP spends as little time as possible "legless" when others are around, especially a love interest. Mangena left open the possibility that OP could have fired wearing his legs if he shot from the waist instead of the more comfortable shoulder position.

I'm almost certain in my own mind that this is what he did .. I don't believe he was on his stumps and shot with his gun held up with arms straight out in front of him and using a sight line .. I think he was on his p.legs and did it from the hip in order to make it look as if he was on his stumps at the time of the shooting.