Do you think the prosecutor proved the case?

[Suthrnqt]

Oscar Pistorius Clashes With Prosecutor Over Picture Of Reeva Steenkamp - Trial Day 19 - YouTube

I do not think that the defense has proven PM.

<snipped by me>

Carmelita, did you mean the prosecution? ?

 

[Dr Mattus]

1. Body (homicide)
2. Murder weapon with hollow tip ammunition (means)
3. Accused admitted firing the weapon (opportunity)
4. Ear witness testimony of screams and arguments during homicide (motive)
5. Texts indicating recent jealousies and arguments in day prior to homicide (motive)

 

[Trooper]

1. Oscar lied to the police on the day. He lawyers up instantly , and he didn't call the police that morning.

2. Mrs VD Mewre heard arguing .. all was not well in that house that night and right into the early morning, resulting in Reeva's death... I dismiss the intruder story, mainly because of Mrs VD Mewre's testimony.. what intruder is going to choose a household where the folks are arguing into the early hours of the morning??

3. Oscar lied off the top of his head to Dr Stipp that morning.. he was trying out his story. I don't think Dr Stipp bought it.

4. The gunshots. they are aimed. he was following her screaming as he shot.

5. He moved her body.. I don't believe Net care told him to. I will never believe that until the director of Net care states it under oath. its too unbelievable . it requires me to suspend whatever logic and rationale I possesses and enter into Oscar world.. no thanks.

 

[Trooper]

Oscar Pistorius Clashes With Prosecutor Over Picture Of Reeva Steenkamp - Trial Day 19 - YouTube

I do not think that the defense has proven PM.


1) (15:54) “The accident was that I discharged my firearm in the belief that an intruder was coming out to attack me I never intended to shoot anyone Mi’Lady I got a fright from a noise I heard inside the toilet, I perceived it to be somebody coming out to attack me that is what I believed.”


2) “Mi’Lady as I said I wasn’t meaning to shoot anyone, I went to the bathroom so I could put myself between what I perceived was danger and Reeva, to approach in the time that I did, I didn’t have much time to think..” “Mi’Lady I shot because I at that point that split moment I believed somebody was coming out to attack me.” It is here that I think Nel feels his case slipping away and begins to try to get Oscar to admit to culpable homicide which Oscar does not do. IMO Oscar either through honesty or brilliance beat Nel at his own game in this exchange.




3) Oscar has stuck to the core of his original version of that morning.


4) Oscar opened wide his front door, after he had been screaming, after the gunshots, and I think it bends the realms of logic to think he did so with the intentions of toting Reeva’s body off somewhere after the loudness of events that just happened.



5) Oscar did admit to killing Reeva,(7:17) his exact words were “My mistake was that I took Reeva’s life Mi’ lady”. Nel demanded that Oscar not only state that he mistakenly took Reeva’s life but Nel insisted “You killed her you shot and killed her won’t you take responsibility for that.” To which Oscar responded “I did Mi’Lady”.


6) Nell can and did outwit Oscar at points, he twisted Oscar’s words and I don’t believe that will be lost on Mi’lady, one instance of this is when Nel chastised Oscar when Oscar admitted that he was trying to understand the implications of his own answers to Nel’s questions. IMO Oscar said exactly what he meant, Oscar is horrendously sorry that he killed Reeva, but it was unintentional and Oscar poorly but correctly stated that Nel was playing semantics in order to get Oscar to admit premeditated murder.


7) The scream testimonies are inconclusive.


8) I think the video (8:30) showing Oscar firing guns and talking about a Zombie brain will be seen as the parlor stunt that it was and that Oscar was very accurate in his assessment in saying that it carried no relevance.


9) Nel’s nonsense of saying that Oscar was getting emotional when it was convenient for him was in stark opposition to the recorded history of the trial. More importantly was the arrow shot across the bow by Judge Masipa when she said “It’s fine, he can be emotional, he has been emotional, I don’t think you can ask him why, now, he has been emotional throughout.”


10) Oscar sounds like a woman when he gets emotional; there is no reason to think if the morning unfolded on a similar fashion in which he has told it did, to think that his screaming could not have easily been mistaken for a screaming woman.


11) The difference between whisper and low tone is a nonissue.


12) The scene was contaminated by poor police work which makes the grand photographic evidence, of Oscar’s story being impossible because of what the photographs show, a moot point.


I think Masipa has shown sound judgment in the past and will continue to do so in this case, I will respect her decision. I also think that the assessors, one a former defense attorney and one a newly minted academic are going to be Defense friendly.




I believe Nel is more interested in his own ego than getting to the facts.


That Oscar has character issues and some histrionic traits does not make him a cold blooded killer. Nor IMO has the evidence proven him such so far. I think his remorse and emotion is for both Reeva and himself.

BBM

I disagree.. I think the defence has indeed proven calculated murder.. so has the prosecution. its like a double whammy for Oscar.

 

[james83]

Oscar Pistorius Clashes With Prosecutor Over Picture Of Reeva Steenkamp - Trial Day 19 - YouTube

I do not think that the defense has proven PM.


1) (15:54) &#8220;The accident was that I discharged my firearm in the belief that an intruder was coming out to attack me I never intended to shoot anyone Mi&#8217;Lady I got a fright from a noise I heard inside the toilet, I perceived it to be somebody coming out to attack me that is what I believed.&#8221;


2) &#8220;Mi&#8217;Lady as I said I wasn&#8217;t meaning to shoot anyone, I went to the bathroom so I could put myself between what I perceived was danger and Reeva, to approach in the time that I did, I didn&#8217;t have much time to think..&#8221; &#8220;Mi&#8217;Lady I shot because I at that point that split moment I believed somebody was coming out to attack me.&#8221; It is here that I think Nel feels his case slipping away and begins to try to get Oscar to admit to culpable homicide which Oscar does not do. IMO Oscar either through honesty or brilliance beat Nel at his own game in this exchange.




3) Oscar has stuck to the core of his original version of that morning.


4) Oscar opened wide his front door, after he had been screaming, after the gunshots, and I think it bends the realms of logic to think he did so with the intentions of toting Reeva&#8217;s body off somewhere after the loudness of events that just happened.



5) Oscar did admit to killing Reeva,(7:17) his exact words were &#8220;My mistake was that I took Reeva&#8217;s life Mi&#8217; lady&#8221;. Nel demanded that Oscar not only state that he mistakenly took Reeva&#8217;s life but Nel insisted &#8220;You killed her you shot and killed her won&#8217;t you take responsibility for that.&#8221; To which Oscar responded &#8220;I did Mi&#8217;Lady&#8221;.


6) Nell can and did outwit Oscar at points, he twisted Oscar&#8217;s words and I don&#8217;t believe that will be lost on Mi&#8217;lady, one instance of this is when Nel chastised Oscar when Oscar admitted that he was trying to understand the implications of his own answers to Nel&#8217;s questions. IMO Oscar said exactly what he meant, Oscar is horrendously sorry that he killed Reeva, but it was unintentional and Oscar poorly but correctly stated that Nel was playing semantics in order to get Oscar to admit premeditated murder.


7) The scream testimonies are inconclusive.


8) I think the video (8:30) showing Oscar firing guns and talking about a Zombie brain will be seen as the parlor stunt that it was and that Oscar was very accurate in his assessment in saying that it carried no relevance.


9) Nel&#8217;s nonsense of saying that Oscar was getting emotional when it was convenient for him was in stark opposition to the recorded history of the trial. More importantly was the arrow shot across the bow by Judge Masipa when she said &#8220;It&#8217;s fine, he can be emotional, he has been emotional, I don&#8217;t think you can ask him why, now, he has been emotional throughout.&#8221;


10) Oscar sounds like a woman when he gets emotional; there is no reason to think if the morning unfolded on a similar fashion in which he has told it did, to think that his screaming could not have easily been mistaken for a screaming woman.


11) The difference between whisper and low tone is a nonissue.


12) The scene was contaminated by poor police work which makes the grand photographic evidence, of Oscar&#8217;s story being impossible because of what the photographs show, a moot point.


I think Masipa has shown sound judgment in the past and will continue to do so in this case, I will respect her decision. I also think that the assessors, one a former defense attorney and one a newly minted academic are going to be Defense friendly.




I believe Nel is more interested in his own ego than getting to the facts.


That Oscar has character issues and some histrionic traits does not make him a cold blooded killer. Nor IMO has the evidence proven him such so far. I think his remorse and emotion is for both Reeva and himself.

Oscar has stuck to the core of his story?, really?,, if he is innocent then why not tell the full story that night to the police?, or even at the bail hearing 4 day's later?, see to me it seem''s like the the defence have thought- oh we better change that bit about being on the balcony because it's obvious that when he came back in he would have had a clear view of the bed.
Why does he's story appear to be tailored?, answer is because it very clearly is tailored, double tap eh no actually that Mangena is rather good and clearly know's his stuff so it definitely wasn't a double tap m'lady, how does someone who fired the gun go from double tap to not a double tap, does that not set alarm bell's ringing?

All of the witness's testified with total certainty that they heard a woman screaming, a woman died and a man killed her how does that make the scream's inconclusive?.

The first set of photo's were of the untouched scene, so there will be no problem with those photo's.

Oscar opening his front door proves nothing about his intention's?, what else could he have done?.

 

[Ncl1968]

this is a case for the defense to really prove there case because we have a murdered woman shot 4 times and a man who shot her...
Someone is responsible for reevas death/ murder.. Sometimes the defense case is so weak they have to go the extra mile to convince the judge and reevas family of not guilty... So far they have failed

 

[Carmelita]

I have never stated that Oscar is innocent, that is not the topic of this thread. It is a question as to what the prosecution has proven up to this point. I offered my viewpoint which is different from most of the people here. I am looking as the prosecution&#8217;s case, Oscar&#8217;s defense and the perimeters and latitude of a prima facie case, reasonable doubt, the possible verdicts and the burden of proof that both sides carry.

Here is an illustration in absurdity on how one can find defect in everyone and their statements if it is defect that you presume to find.

1) Nell cannot remember that it is Reeva who was shot. Nel: And one hit someone.

2) Nel cannot remember that it was 3 bullets (possibly 4) that struck someone. Nel: And one hit someone.

3) Nel cannot remember that Oscar did admit to killing Reeva. &#8220;My mistake was that I took Reeva&#8217;s life Mi&#8217; lady&#8221;.

4) Nel said Oscar is only emotional when it suits him, the judge politely admonished Nel for this untruth. &#8220;It&#8217;s fine, he can be emotional, he has been emotional, I don&#8217;t think you can ask him why, now, he has been emotional throughout.&#8221;

5) Nel purposefully left off the end of Oscar&#8217;s &#8220;Zombie Brain&#8221; comment to try and make a nefarious correlation to Oscar&#8217;s shooting Reeva in the head.

Can we surmise from this that Nel is a liar and if so what does Nel being a liar tell us about his ability to be an ethical prosecutor?


Has anyone seen &#8220;Fractured&#8221; with Anthony Hopkins, every egg is imperfect; you just need a candle and an eye willing to find the imperfection. Now just imagine if you knew the egg was a bad egg even before you started to look for the fracture? Just a little food for thought.


It is not lost on me that an innocent woman was shot down and that her life was robbed from her, her future was bright and her death is a terrible tragedy and far more tragic to those who love her, those who wake up every morning bearing her loss. She will never experience the joy of bearing a child, never use her law degree, she will never again feel the warmth of sun on her face, swim in cool water or feel the embrace of a lover. Life is beautiful and that was undeniably robbed of her. Do not assume that I am unaware of the horrific loss of Reeva's life, I know more than you may assume about loss.


I am looking at this though the eyes of objectivity which is what will be required of the judge and her assessors.


Again I have never said I think Oscar is innocent, but IMO the prosecution has not proven premeditated murder. I think depending on the judge&#8217;s interpretation and application of SA law, her assessors influence, and her personal impression of Oscar, that a culpable homicide verdict could reasonably and logically be in the works. But that is sheer speculation based on what I have seen and read and my interpretation of the evidence so far. The defense still has 12 witnesses to come to the box.

 

[Karmady]

Why does the poll total well over 100%?

 

[nastasya]

Again I have never said I think Oscar is innocent, but IMO the prosecution has not proven premeditated murder.

Oscar's BA and all but his latest version in which he said his intent wasn't to shoot were confessions to premeditated murder.

According to OP...

Fact: He walked to get a gun.
Fact: He pursued the victim.
Fact: He ordered the victim to leave.
Fact: Victim retreated into the toilet.
Fact: The victim did NOT begin to exit the toilet, the door was locked.
Fact: He shot 4 times at the victim, killing the victim with a final head shot.

If that's not premeditated murder, what is it?

 

[Carmelita]

Oscar's BA and all but his latest version in which he said his intent wasn't to shoot were confessions to premeditated murder.

According to OP...

Fact: He walked to get a gun.
Fact: He pursued the victim.
Fact: He ordered the victim to leave.
Fact: Victim retreated into the toilet.
Fact: The victim did NOT begin to exit the toilet, the door was locked.
Fact: He shot 4 times at the victim, killing the victim with a final head shot.

If that's not premeditated murder, what is it?

Getting his gun for protection is not evidence of PM.

He wasn't in his mind"pursuing a victim, he was placing himself between the intruder (a danger) and Reeva.

He did scream at who he claims he perceived to be an intruder to get out of his house.

According to Oscar, the toilet was locked from the inside (something he did not know until after the shooting), Oscar perceived the noise in the toilet as someone coming out to attack him, in that "split second" Oscar thought he was defending himself and Reeva against an intruder.

 

[Apollo]

I don't know I am terrible with math

Because you can vote on as many options as you like. You're not limited to one option.

 

[Giles]

Why does the poll total well over 100%?

I think it's because you can vote for more than one option. I did. I voted that 'the case hasn't been made yet' AND 'guilty of firearms charges' - I ticked both boxes...

 

[44ALLAN]

My five reasons for voting for Murder Directus have already been listed above in other posts. I also believe that the other weapons charges have been proven as well.

Well I only want to give 1 reason and not 5 because this one thing really says it all for me and it leads to no other conclusion than Murder Directus.

1). He changed the angle of the last 3 shots ...............he could see her of that there is no doubt in my mind...........he executed her.

 

[patCee]

1) OP had no realistic reason to believe there was an intruder, living on an estate with excellent security, and as demonstrated by lax security in his home that night.

2) Credible witnesses heard a woman in distress.

3) Made no realistic attempt to check the noise, nor to sound the alarm, nor to remove himself and RS, but went straight to bathroom with his gun.

4) Fired 4 shots into the toilet that appear directly aimed.

5) Made no attempt to ensure medical help came, instead phoned a friend.

 

[Carmelita]

Well I only want to give 1 reason and not 5 because this one thing really says it all for me and it leads to no other conclusion than Murder Directus.

1). He changed the angle of the last 3 shots ...............he could see her of that there is no doubt in my mind...........he executed her.

The prosecution has not argued this perspective. Perhaps they will in the closing argument but I would think that would be considered new evidence as it has not been argued as of yet that the state believes that Oscar could see Reeva while he was shooting her. It is my understanding that the state must produce all of their evidence and then only summate what they have presented in the closing argument, not bring in a totally new theory.

 

[jilly]

I actually voted Murder eventualis because of the reasons you gave for it. However, I'm wondering why it can't be Murder directus using my theory.

I believe that OP intended to kill whoever was in the toilet.

He gave no warning shots, although he claimed that by shouting "Get the **** out of my house" and shouting to Reeva to phone the police was in his way a warning. However, he shot as soon as he heard another noise which he thought was wood moving. He claimed that the only ways out would be the window or the door. The fact that the door handle didn't move meaning the door wasn't opening would suggest that the "intruders" would have perhaps been trying to flee through the window as he had hoped. He shot four times at that point so didn't give them a chance.

Also he claimed that he didn't check with Reeva whether she had heard anything because "he was sure of what he heard", this could suggest he was sure it was an intruder and so he reached for his gun, walked to the bathroom in order to deliberately confront the intruders and then fired the 4 shots using black talon ammo into the toilet door.

It could be argued that he had planned the murder of an intruder by purchasing deadly ammunition which wasn't just going to harm, it was going to cause "maximum damage". He didn't use the gun in self defence, that is obvious. Shooting 4 times at a door of a room that size with those bullets would have to either kill or seriously injure whoever was in there as he is a trained shooter.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. Could be either pre-meditated (dependant on which definition is used) or murder.

This part really struck me to the core. Iirc - He broke down when he gave that testimony somewhat hollaring, "Get the **** out of my house!" That sealed it for me. I believe that he knew it was Reeva in there and that's what he was yelling at her. So half truth there, and when she wouldn't come out, he started blasting.

 

[UndiscoveredTruth]

Ah! Thank you I am apparently not only bad at math I am also bad at poll interpretation

You might like to add "I am bad at quoting" too! (I'm just kidding)

I'm not sure whether you (I think it was you ?) received a response to a post you made where you mentioned you didn't know how to quote a post when copying and pasting from another thread so I'll try giving you directions here. Feel free to ignore if you received a response and I missed it.

Type the characters, [ quote] at the start and [/ quote] at the end of the context/paragraph/word (whatever it is you're wanting to quote). NO spaces inbetween those characters. I've had to leave a space to show you what characters to type because if I didn't leave spaces it would be quoted like this

at the start and

Hope that helps. Also, the multi-quote feature, is right next to the quote feature and can be used to quote multi posts as you know. To do this, just click onto the multi-quote box, it changes colour (orange for me), then keep reading other posts--every post you would like to respond to, just click the multi-quote feature, it will change to orange too. When you're ready to respond to all the posts you've multi-quoted, you need to make sure you hit the QUOTE box only on the LAST post-- (just like when you normally quote a post you want to respond to.) A reply box will appear with all the posts you have multi-quoted. Insert the cursor under the first post AFTER the [/quote] and type your response. Then move your cursor to the next post AFTER the [/quote]--etc. Hope you find this post helpful and it's not too confusing to follow. (I'm not that great at giving directions but I try lol) Good luck! :seeya:

 

[BritsKate]

The State has shown:

Reeva could not have lived long enough to make OP's timeline plausible.

Oscar's 'version' changed significantly from earlier statements.

Oscar changed his angle after firing the first shot, which bolsters the testimony of Mangena who in turn strengthens Burger's testimony about a pause between the first two shots.

Saayman testified it would be abnormal not to scream after being shot in the hip. Botha conceded this if there was a pause between shots. This furthers the suggestion it was Reeva screaming as there was a pause indicated by ballistics rods, Reeva's injuries, Burger and Mangena.

The woman's screams became more distressed between the first and second bangs.

Oscar has no history of being a victim of violent crime. Or any at all that can be independently verified.

Previous suspicions of a possible intruder led to him either asking his prior girlfriend if she'd heard anything or going into 'combat mode' at white goods. Neither of which led to anyone or anything being shot, much less killed.

Oscar lived in a highly secure gated community with an extremely low crime rate.

Despite being fearful and paranoid over crime, he neglected to fix a broken window downstairs, left windows unsecured in unoccupied rooms, isn't certain Reeva could activate the alarm unless she had access to a remote, didn't secure ladders he knew were on his property, left his car in the driveway, and slept with balcony doors open.

There is no history, much less a prolific one, to show a record of contacting security or police over perceived suspicious behaviour that would be consistent with someone paranoid over crime.

That Reeva 'felt loved' by a man who got her birthday wrong on the witness stand and had no gift or card for her for Valentine's Day.

He has a history of screaming at women, he mocked and ridiculed Reeva, had a heated argument with her witnessed by others, in public, and Reeva herself expressed fear of him.

He has a history of reckless behaviour and threatening others.

He has contempt for authority figures.

Oscar has labelled or alluded all those who have testified against him as mistaken, liars, corrupt, inept, or vindictive.

Oscar had access to several phones and a panic button (Baba's testimony) yet he decided to confront the intruder rather than reaching out for help from anyone.

Oscar had to bypass the only exit in order to confront the intruder. He literally went out of his way.

At no time did Oscar seek verbal acknowledgement from Reeva or question why she wasn't responding when he whispered, spoke softly, screamed and shouted to call the police.

It's possible the first bangs were the result of the defendant kicking or hitting the toilet door.

Phone a Friend trumps contacting emergency services.

'Everything is fine' when one 'accidentally' shoots his girlfriend and is contacted by security.

Oscar immediately fired at the 'intruder' after screaming - allowing no time for the intruder to escape.

Shot at a closed door without visual or verbal assessment.

No one heard gunshots (or bangs) at the time Oscar estimates he fired.

Oscar saw no point in screaming upon finding Reeva on the floor, after screaming and shouting while breaking down the door.

No witness heard him scream 'Reeva' despite clearly hearing a man yell for help, and a screaming woman, before the gunshots at 3:17.

Oscar has a history of jealousy.

While his direct was fluid and uninterrupted, Oscar's cross was plagued by emotional breakdowns, memory lapses, and inconsistency within his account.

Oscar had the absolute gall to disparage the doctor who left his own home in the middle of the night, to go into a possibly dangerous situation, to save the very woman Oscar is responsible for killing.

Five articulate, intelligent witnesses heard some variation of an altercation which quickly escalated, until the bangs at 3:17, when the woman's final scream fades with the last bang. Then there is silence.

The majority of those witnesses heard both a man yelling and a woman screaming. The man yelling is described as flat and monotone. According to Oscar, this is him, yelling for help after 'accidentally' shooting the girlfriend he loved dead.

Oscar has a history of an extremely reckless, negligent attitude towards firearms.

Oscar testified he never intended to shoot therefore his claim for putative self-defence, which requires intent, may be nullified.

Oscar was extremely concerned with his image and the media's portrayal of him.

Oscar had a financial meeting that left him troubled the morning of February 13th.

Oscar is willing to lie under oath. After stating he would 'try' to tell the truth.


Picked apart, anyone could invent reasonable excuses for everything I've listed. A circumstantial case (and most are) is based on building blocks of evidence. It requires reasoning, inference and considering the culmination of evidence. This is one of the strongest circumstantial cases I've ever seen.

MOO


Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[Harmony 2]

Please do not veer away from the intent of the thread.. thanks

 

[mister happy]

***Respectfully Snipped***

I believe Nel is more interested in his own ego than getting to the facts.


That Oscar has character issues and some histrionic traits does not make him a cold blooded killer. Nor IMO has the evidence proven him such so far. I think his remorse and emotion is for both Reeva and himself.

At times I think Nel's tactics are more sizzle than steak. But I do feel, at the very least, Pastorius should be found guilty of culpable homicide. What's the prison sentence for that, generally? I would barf more than Oscar himself if he's given some sort of probation, or a candybar prison term.