Trial Discussion weekend Thread #24

[Rumpole]

BIB. Do you mean for example, as OP says the police moved the fan in front of the door, closed the doors up a bit around where the fan is standing, opened the curtains and the blinds up all the way, turned on the patio light, and turned on the bedroom lamp; all before they took any crime scene photos? :unbelievable:

No


But to expand.

The reason that contamination of crime scene is such a serious matter is that you can not rely on photos at all. Certainly not to the extent of details seen in photos.

CLEARLY the cops dropped the ball as far as preserving the crime scene and evidence goes. You CAN NOT just pick and chose which bits are still ok to use as evidence. The whole lot should have been thrown out and the case dismissed. However, we are proceeding with the trial.
You are being simplistic (to make a point) suggesting that police set things up knowingly to portray a particular scene, but they DID move stuff, of that there is no doubt. If I had to guess, I would say it's likely they spread the duvet out to photograph it... the space big enough to spread it out had the fans in the way so they moved them. The little one on its lead towards the corner, and the bigger one on it's lead towards where we see it in the photo.... they could not have moved it anywhere else without first unplugging it. Who knows if they kicked the denim over a few inches, or picked it up while moving the duvet and then dropped it back where they thought it had been.

You simply can NOT rely on photo detail at all once the cops have been shown to have compromised the crime scene.

Pace yourself... Roux will clarify for you once Nel stops making an A$$ of himself.

 

[Interested Bystander]

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.

LOL - It was in his Bail Hearing Statement but no mention of the door in his Trial Statement.

I wonder why he didn't think of putting his prostheses on before leaving the bedroom with Reeva. No need for him to walk on his stumps. Whatever was he thinking of by saying that. It takes him seconds to don his legs! I am finding it increasingly difficult even to listen to his dissembling.

 

[molly333]

Listening to first witness. A Mrs Johnson in the estate next to Silverwood.

Woken up just after 3am to a woman's bloodcurdling screams. Hears a woman yell, 'help help help.' Hears a man yell "help help help." They call their security and tell them someone is being attacked in their house at Silverwood. Then they hear gunshots-- bang [pause] bang bang bang. She and her husband both heard. Next day she wanted to find out if someone died.

Next day learned about OP on the news.

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

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.

Well.. His first version was sooo improbable and impossible that even the DT taking the burden of OP being a liar , switched that story on OP testimony day 1 ( balcony stuff ) cause apparently the forthcoming evidences didn't support that version. Yet interesting the posters arguing then abt the probability of that version , adapted themselves easily to the probability of the new version as well disregarding the fact that is one and only one way of how things happened .
Beyond reasonable doubt does not include very very farfetched , biased or sick
doubt imo .

 

[Rumpole]

I take issue with how you're using reasonable doubt. It's not reasonable to expect any prosecutor to completely and totally recreate the incident perfectly.
It's way beyond reasonable that Oscar knew she was behind the door when he shot through it. That's all there really is to decide.
IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am not "using reasonable doubt"??

Reasonable doubt is what it is.

The State DO have a burden to propose a version of events and PROVE that it is true BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.

That is the rule in our common system of Jurisprudence. It is a VERY tough standard to achieve. A HUGE burden placed on the State... intentionally hard to achieve.

I didn't write the rules.

ETA
I agree

It is way beyond reasonable to assume that OP shot knowing that Reeva was behind the door.

Is that what you meant to say?

It is totally UNREASONABLE to think that.


I would say that the whole notion of rational normal (ish) young man chasing his girlfriend into the toilet and shooting her is so daft as to be totally unbelievable, unless there is some STRONG evidence to prove that such an unbelievable event occurred. On the other hand, and on the face of things, I find it easier to believe that somebody might be spooked by a noise and fire at an imagined intruder.

The crux of this case is that OP did that, but unfortunately he "missed" the intruder and shot Reeva by accident.

That I find easily believable.

 

[BritsKate]

Yes, OP is digging his own grave, and worse, he doesn't realize it. Why would he categorically deny letting the gun off in the restaurant? Even if he had said that his finger must have accidently touched the trigger, but to deny it altogether is beyond belief.
Surely his lawyers would have advised him not to deny this.
Also, you would think his lawyers would have advised him that saying he could not remember who picked him up on the night he claimed he had been shot at, would only go against him. Perhaps they did advise him, but he refused to comply.

RBBM
Or he feels superior and expects to be believed.

I think most people believe he's working against the advice of his legal team though. Reminder for those who don't know: Oscar is precluded from conversing with his attorneys while under cross. We'll see a lot of rehabilitation on redirect is my prediction.

 

[Gryffindor]

Can you please give the video link?

Oscar has slipped up many more times than Nel has called him on.
Sometimes in the same sentence, he gives opposing aspects or thoughts.

This too is part of what is involved, when I say "this one runs deep."

Can you verify/back up your "deep" claim? Nothing at all to indicate this IMO. Cheers.

 

[Val1]

I don't personally think he is paranoid with regard to people conspiring against him .. I don't believe he thinks they are conspiring against him at all .. it's basically just that he keeps on using things like 'police contamination' in order to make his own version of events stick .. he is using things like that as part of his one big fat lie, he doesn't actually believe that is what they are doing (i.e. conspiring against him). Again, this is all part of the thing where truth is becoming mixed up with fiction, and because we don't really know which bits are true and which bits aren't, we end up trying to find reasons for things which are actually a lie in the first place and don't even really exist, and therefore don't even need analyzing. OP is not paranoid in any way, shape or form, imo .. he isn't paranoid about the threat of intruders or being attacked, because all of his supporting stories on that are made up and he isn't paranoid about people conspiring against him either, because his accusations against those people are only in order to cover up his lies.

bbm - Yea right, if you look under Police and Forensics on this list, http://ewn.co.za/Features/oscarpistorius/Witnesses you will find the same police officer, Labuschagne that OP testified had introduced himself as a friend of OP's family and would make sure he was alright then whisked him away to the medical centre, added to the fact that one of his aunts is a famous SA criminal profiler who actually "participated in the training of nearly two hundred detectives"(wikipedia).
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pistorius-aunt-famed-criminal-profiler-article-1.1273003

 

[soozieqtips]

Well.. His first version was sooo improbable and impossible that even the DT taking the burden of OP being a liar , switched that story on OP testimony day 1 ( balcony stuff ) cause apparently the forthcoming evidences didn't support that version. Yet interesting the posters arguing then abt the probability of that version , adapted themselves easily to the probability of the new version as well disregarding the fact that is one and only one way of how things happened .
Beyond reasonable doubt does not include very very farfetched , biased or sick
doubt imo .

The State don't have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, just reasonable doubt. OP cannot remember what he says from one minute to the next (a common problem with liars), and he's very defensive all the time. Posters here who think he's innocent have always claimed if he was defensive, then it would ring alarm bells, but it still hasn't rung any bells! I'm sure the Judge is all too familiar with people like OP who think they're above the law and can't be held to account for anything because they're too 'important'. OP is just the 'accused' and not entitled to special treatment, except in his own eyes.

 

[BritsKate]

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?

He's testified to having two holsters though - the one he uses depends on what he's wearing.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I am not much good at keeping track of all the evidence, but I was under the impression that the prosecution having already made it's case, they could not now bring in new evidence. The jeans lying outside has never been mentioned, by either side, so it can't be brought into play now, which means it had nothing to do with the incident, or if it did, that one or both lawyers are totally incompetent. The same applies to the bedroom door. As far as I can remember the phones and internet records have already been explored and nothing else can come to light now. As for the trip to the Mamelodi medical centre I admit I have no clue what you are talking about.

All the photographs have been entered as evidence. Nel has every right to bring them into play.

 

[jay-jay]

bbm - Yea right, if you look under Police and Forensics on this list, http://ewn.co.za/Features/oscarpistorius/Witnesses you will find the same police officer, Labuschagne that OP testified had introduced himself as a friend of OP's family and would make sure he was alright then whisked him away to the medical centre, added to the fact that one of his aunts is a famous SA criminal profiler who actually "participated in the training of nearly two hundred detectives"(wikipedia).
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pistorius-aunt-famed-criminal-profiler-article-1.1273003

:thumb:

 

[Gryffindor]

"Critisizing forum members" is NOT limited to posters who post from the perspective of "Presumption of Innocence" In fact I put it to you... it is most often seen from from the "OP is guilty" crowd

"Straw Man" Argument:
OP has given "two different mutually exclusive stories" ?

Simply not true at all.

And even if he did... LOGICALLY that does not exclude one of the being true.

The State, through it's witnesses has not quite given any comprehenive detailed version of eevents. It will be impossible for them to do that since there are "mutually exclusive" points between ear witnessess, and they are all totally at odds with some of the State's own expert witness testimony, and the hard irrefutable physical evidence. SOME of the State's witnes testimony at least will have to be disregarded. That is NOT the sort of situation that leads to proof of ANYTHING,,, "Beyond reasonable doubt" The State's "case" comes with DOUBT built in

Thank you Rumpole, for you very first paragraph. Critical AND rude IMO.

You are a polite gentleman

 

[Gryffindor]

Particular fairy tales and fictitious creations "of guilt" massively exonerate even Oscar's occasional outlandish interpretations. LOL.

 

[Rumpole]

Thank you Rumpole, for you very first paragraph. Critical AND rude IMO.

You are a polite gentleman

Thanks! :blushing:

Not always... I can be vicious when cornered or aroused :floorlaugh:

(Do not want to spoil the image )

 

[jay-jay]

I concur... I don't think his presentation of this , or these 'fears' he claims he has is genuine..

I don't think he has fear.... I think he means to instill fear...the speeding with passengers... the inappropriate firing of the gun.. I don't believe for one moment that gun going off in the restaurant was an accident.. nor in the Vaal river drive.. it was to instill fear..I don't think the target he means to instill it in is specific, either.. it is mood dependant. When necessary for Oscar it can be specific.

those incidences were just the tip of the iceberg, in my opinion.

That is correct, and that is another classic sign of an abuser is to instill a sense of fear in others/their victim. In many cases of domestic abuse the abuser doesn't even need to lay a finger on their victim .. all they need to do is drop little hints about what they might be capable of doing (mine used to tell me he had a gun hidden in a drain somewhere .. I didn't believe him because fortunately guns are not that easy to get hold of in the uk and I didn't believe he had the connections to be able to have done so .. but nevertheless, it still scared the crap out of me at the time) .. they can also make little 'gestures' (so they call them) such as putting their hand to your throat .. remember the photos of Nigella Lawson outside the restaurant? I've had that done to me too .. plus being continually told about various violent incidents the abuser had been involved in, things such as holding a knife to someone's throat (which again, I don't believe he actually did) .. all these things deliberately done to instill a sense of fear in someone without actually hurting them <<-- for the most part .. until they can no longer withold their violent tendancies and actually end up playing them out on their victim.

 

[BritsKate]

It appears that both the PT and DT are are in agreement about the sequence of shots/bat :-

Link

Yep, I know. Which is why I think Nel asked if the bat could have been hit against the door - or was it kicked - to scare someone. There is no denying the shots were fired before that panel came out of the door.

There is question, imo, as to whether that bat was used to hit the door (first bangs) and used again after shots (second bangs) to pry/wedge the panel from the remainder of the door. For me anyway.

 

[Gryffindor]

Thanks! :blushing:

Not always... I can be vicious when cornered or aroused :floorlaugh:

(Do not want to spoil the image )

Awww You are always very reasoned and measured in your responses. No drama queen antics. :loveyou:

 

[sorrell skye]

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.

Until now, I've never seen a trial where the State has defended the Defense counsel regarding the defendant's own testimony.

It truly boggles the mind, doesn't it?

OP has gone so off the rails with his lies that the prosecutor is standing up for OP's attorney!

The camera showed glimpses of Roux during some of OP's outlandish claims, and I saw Roux's brow furrowed, I saw him rubbing his temples, I saw him looking as deflated as a Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade balloon the day after Thanksgiving.

The good thing is that the Defense team are prohibited from communicating with OP until after he's dismissed from the witness box.

I hope Mr. Nel keeps him there for several more days and lets him talk and talk and talk. I've noticed that Nel gives OP quite a bit of free rein to ramble endlessly. OP is every prosecutor's dream. Meanwhile, OP is every defense attorney's nightmare.

 

[shane13]

Particular fairy tales and fictitious creations "of guilt" massively exonerate even Oscar's occasional outlandish interpretations. LOL.

Nel has said that OP's own BH affidavit convicts him of at least culpable homicide.

Nice that you agree that it is fiction.