Trial Discussion weekend Thread #24

[Val1]

Barry Roux asked Vermeulen to confirm that the toilet door of Pistorius’s home was first shot into before Pistorius struck it with a cricket bat.
Vermeulen agreed, explaining this was so because a crack in the wooden door is seen entering the right side of one of the four bullet holes and then leaving it on the left side.

“If it was the other way the crack would have gone straight down,” Vermeulen said.

The big chunk missing out of the door(which I also think OP used to help him target RS) could have easily have been from the first set of bangs and then after the shooting, to pry that initial panel out would have caused the long cracks that cut through the area of the one bullet hole, imo.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/dr/hln/www/release/sites/default/files/imagecache/gallery_780x583/2014/03/17/4.jpg
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/dr/hln/www/release/sites/default/files/imagecache/gallery_780x583/2014/03/17/2.jpg

 

[shane13]

Sorry, but you are incorrect. OP is not testifying because he wants to, as he claimed, waiting a year to give his version out of respect for Reeva. Indeed, OP has NO option but to testify and Roux or Oldwadge said as much when they told the press "It's not IF OP testifies, it's when" (u/c mine)

The appeal judgement for the De Olivier case shows why OP had to testify if he wanted to try to save his own skin (link:http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/1993/62.html):



I would suggest you may like to also read up on the case "S v Mdunge", in which Mdunge shot his very pregnant wife through the bathroom door as it was opening thinking she was a burglar. He collaborated fully with the police and made a plea bargain for CH. He got an 8 years suspended sentence. OP wants no less than an acquittal after his reckless deed and has refused to talk until now and imo if he could have avoided taking the stand he would have done so. On the other had he co-operated fully with the police and told his full story and plea bargained CH instead of lawyering up, then we probably wouldn't be here today and Reeva's family would have been able to move on and find the peace they deserve after the brutal and avoidable killing of their only daughter by OP.

Good post.
Case right on point. Except assume no possible PM charge, as here.
Minor correction, sorry. Re "only daughter.' Reeva had a sister or half-sister.

 

[jay-jay]

Still wondering what evidence supports your theory that Reeva broke up with OP that night, causing the fight and subsequent murder. Did she tell someone in advance that she was going to bring a gift, break up with OP and stay over afterward?

Fact: She did call a family member earlier in the evening saying she was too tired to drive home, thus her decision to sleep over. There was no distress in her words and tone of voice in that call

Did she call them? I understood it was a text .. the one to Gina .. and the one which she didn't end the text in the way that she normally would to her friend.

 

[soozieqtips]

They all have a context. Even if there are no claims of domestic violence, there is clearly domestic violence.

Context: Mark Hacking lying to wife about his entire life. Context: Lori has just found out and will expose and/or leave him.

You think that's not long term domestic abuse?


I'm looking for:

Context: see you soon baba baby booboo *advertiser censored* Context: shot dead 3 times over.

As we weren't there, we can't say for sure what they argued about (or why) but OP had a well-documented short fuse, an intolerance for people who 'disrespected' him, and a need to be put first. Reeva had already told him she was scared of him sometimes and how he would react to her. With OP's short temper, it doesn't take a giant leap of imagination to assume Reeva may have done something to 'disrespect' him that evening, whether that was blatantly chewing gum in front of him, or wearing her hair in a way he didn't care for, who knows! Pick a reason. The fact is that some people with OP's traits can snap very quickly and do something crazy on impulse. There doesn't have to be a logical reason why they flip. They just do.

 

[Gryffindor]

"If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." this pretty much got OJ off the hook in his trial when his defence lawyers did the "glove test".

What one thing, if anything will save OP do you think?

Lack of evidence.

 

[Gryffindor]

Good post.
Case right on point. Except assume no possible PM charge, as here.
Minor correction, sorry. Re "only daughter.' Reeva had a sister or half-sister.

You're right. Half sister called Simone.

 

[soozieqtips]

Did she call them? I understood it was a text .. the one to Gina .. and the one which she didn't end the text in the way that she normally would to her friend.

You're right. It was a text, not a call.

 

[jay-jay]

Oscar was fine with it. Evidenced in messages.

Just because he said he was ok with it in a text, doesn't actually mean he was fine with it .. and the fact that he called her twice in the space of 20 minutes while she met up with her ex, is shouting out that he was not one bit happy about it!

 

[molly333]

I stated a motive because I believed, perhaps incorrectly, that's what was being asked. The State is under no obligation to suggest a motive but I believe they have introduced an argument to serve as the 'reason' Oscar deliberately murdered Reeva. They do have to prove intent. Obviously, it's disputed whether or not the State has done so to everyone's satisfaction or this would be a really boring thread.


http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/oscar-pistorius-criminal-law-101/

I am asking for a motive.

As to the legal part of it, state has to prove intent for murder one. Motive helps to prove intent.

For the rest of it, I have to ask the lawyers but I would think you need a motive to counter his self defense plea.

Maybe the witnesses to the argument will be good enough, I don't know. But they don't know for sure it is Oscar and Reeva they are hearing.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Phil Spector is getting close. But, he had a history of threatening women [and men] with guns.



He also said some incriminating things to people [like his driver] if I recall.



This was his first date with this woman. There was no relationship.



Specifically: why did the Jury find him guilty? On what evidence?

I believe he was found guilty based on prior bad acts and inconsistencies in his version of events.

It was his gun, and she was dressed with her purse on her arm.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[james83]

Reeva's own words seem to indicate that he was possessive and insecure:



http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...-murder-trial-article-1.1731960#ixzz2ynwobukg

Yeah, i think without doubt those messages show he was jealous and insecure at least in this relationship, not saying it make him a murderer but i can't imagine deep down he was at all happy about her meeting her ex for coffee, to be honest even a non jealous/insecure person probably wouldn't like the idea of it so it must have really got to him even if he didn't immediately show it. JMO.

 

[Gavel Rash]

http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Oscar-Pistorius-Hero-or-Hooligan-20111103

Article dated 2011.



But what and who is the real Oscar? Is he a hero or is the truth that he is closer to a hooligan than we are usually led to believe? We have seen glimpses of the "non-hero" a number of times in the press. The boating accident and stories of drunkenness associated with the incident. The girl and the purported assault – again with stories of associated alcohol abuse. All of these stories have been rapidly, even vehemently denied. Nothing should tarnish the hero image.

To add to this, "friends of friends" come back from parties and report the latest incidences that demonstrate the (lack of) behaviour of Oscar with great relish. A waitress one knows who believes she had the misfortune to serve him. That type of thing. It’s not surprising therefore that I’ve often wondered whether the stories are true or not – you know the “where there’s smoke there’s fire” type of thing. And if they are true, whether they are made to “disappear” because somehow people feel sorry for Oscar and will excuse his behaviour because he is a "star" or the more likely option because he is handicapped.


There are a number of questions that have been left in our minds as a result of our unfortunate encounter with Oscar. Firstly, if he is such a ‘hero’ why was his default position one of extreme profanity, arrogance and disregard – even contempt - for others. Secondly, why did he believe being drunk excused his disgusting behaviour. Finally and I believe probably the most serious indictment against him from my perspective was related to why he felt the need to be abusive to women. The attack on us was without any provocation whatsoever. Not that I believe that provocation ever serves to excuse abusive behaviour but it does sometimes allow us to explain its occurence. As part of this abuse, why was it Oscar’s automatic mysoginistic response to label two women standing together as ‘lesbians’? While neither of us comes close to fitting any stereotypes attached to such a label, one would be profoundly concerned that someone who is punted as a “shining example” harbours negative stereotypes about women in any way (irrespective of their sexual orientation).

I am afraid that this ‘golden boy’ has not only tarnished his image as far as we are concerned. He offered us conclusive evidence that there is just a very, very thin veneer of gold paint that covers him.

 

[minor4th]

"If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." this pretty much got OJ off the hook in his trial when his defence lawyers did the "glove test".

What one thing, if anything will save OP do you think?

The only thing that will save OP is if he is factually innocent and telling the truth. If he murdered Reeva (with intent), I do not believe he will get away with it.

 

[minor4th]

I believe he was found guilty based on prior bad acts and inconsistencies in his version of events.

It was his gun, and she was dressed with her purse on her arm.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, Phil Spector seems to be the closest I can find to something like this case.

 

[Gavel Rash]

Zero to hero..

http://oscarpistoriusuniverse.tumblr.com/

 

[beach]

Temporarily closing for review.

 

[beach]

Okay, I'm not going to sit here and clean up this mess. Suffice it to say, don't start comparing the intricacies of a bunch of other cases to this one. There are going to be differences in EVERY single case you attempt to compare it to. We're not going there and driving this thread completely off topic.

Stick to discussing the facts surrounding the death of Reeva Steenkamp.

 

[fox1lady]

There are some tools out there and this one reminds me of OP...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zebOVoFY0BE

 

[minor4th]

I stated a motive because I believed, perhaps incorrectly, that's what was being asked. The State is under no obligation to suggest a motive but I believe they have introduced an argument to serve as the 'reason' Oscar deliberately murdered Reeva. They do have to prove intent. Obviously, it's disputed whether or not the State has done so to everyone's satisfaction or this would be a really boring thread.


http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/oscar-pistorius-criminal-law-101/

Motive is not an element of the offense, and so there's no obligation to provide proof of motive.

However, since this is a circumstantial case, without providing evidence of motive, premeditated murder makes absolutely no sense, and there's nothing on which to draw the necessary inferences.

 

[beach]

I'm sure it's in one of these threads but will somebody please humor me and enlighten me to the how SA legally defines premeditation?

I know what I think and how I feel - I have my own theory - but I want to read the legal definition. I'm not entirely convinced if premeditation has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.