General Discussion Thread #2

[natsound]

Yes. Anything like that would kill his story. Him putting in his affidavit that he shot without the legs puts him in a confined area to where the bullets can go.

If he really did shoot with his legs on, why wouldn't he put that in the affidavit or just leave it out?

That's what I'd like to know... why he would put that in his affidavit if it could quickly be discredited. But did Roux refute that bit of Botha testimony? Roux knows the bullet trajectory at this point.

Actually, when Botha testified to this, he didn't sound convinced.

 

[joe jones]

How can they prove the intent to kill in his mind? They can't read his mind. They will have to look at actions/circumstances/physical evidence.[/quote]

they do and from that they will infer things, but as part of that inference they have to try to get into his head, and they have to be sure that he did make a choice to kill in his mind, because if the jurists who eventually try the case accept he never formed the intent to kill in his mind but he just shot at the door in fear for his and Reevas life then it is not premeditated murder but will drop down to lesser charges such as culpable homicide

 

[Estelle]

Yes. Anything like that would kill his story. Him putting in his affidavit that he shot without the legs puts him in a confined area to where the bullets can go.

If he really did shoot with his legs on, why wouldn't he put that in the affidavit or just leave it out?

Not having his legs on increased the perception of vulnerability to an intruder.

 

[saguaro]

This is compelling and I think important to the case....I have stated previously that it would be extremely telling if autopsy revealed if she had sex that night or not. They are young, beautiful, according to oscar...madly in love, it's valentines day, gifts are exchanged....if they DID NOT have sex that night, well..that definitely gives us something to ponder!

I don't find this compelling at all.

If they had sex some will say he forced her which is what led to a "fight". If they didn't have sex some will say that her saying no led to a "fight".

There is no proof whatsoever that there was a fight other than rumor and innuendo.

 

[joe jones]

I too am astounded at how sloppy the states investigation appears to be, they tramped through that scene without protective boots on, just because none were available, they should have waited to get booties,

did they wear protective gloves, we do not know, what other evidence did they miss beside the bullet in the toilet

 

[natsound]

I'm surprised more folks are not bothered by the fact that it was the defense that found the bullet casing in the toilet and was missed by the cops. Apparently (when Nair was ripping Botha) a whole lot more was missed/not followed up on. This investigation from the outset is already dirty. How can anyone take what the investigation had produced (especially the witnesses) with serious credibility?

It doesn't bother me so much because it doesn't change who did what and why. From the standpoint of an outsider looking in, a horrible police job doesn't change what took place.

 

[Estelle]

I'm surprised more folks are not bothered by the fact that it was the defense that found the bullet casing in the toilet and was missed by the cops. Apparently (when Nair was ripping Botha) a whole lot more was missed/not followed up on. This investigation from the outset is already dirty. How can anyone take what the investigation had produced (especially the witnesses) with serious credibility?

Boffa was a boffin with little intelligence or preparation. At the trial, a lawyer and expert witesses will be better able to argue the State's case.

 

[joe jones]

It doesn't bother me so much because it doesn't change who did what and why. From the standpoint of an outsider looking in, a horrible police job doesn't change what took place.

yes it does, police may have disturbed very important evidence by not processing the crime scene professionally that could either prove or disprove Oscars story,

which is why it should always be done in a thorough, professional, scientific manner,

defence attorneys have gained many an acquittal from sloppy crime scene investigation

 

[cityslick]

It doesn't bother me so much because it doesn't change who did what and why. From the standpoint of an outsider looking in, a horrible police job doesn't change what took place.

Well, we've already seen how it's changed perception for some. Botha got up there and said the bullet trajectory proves he meant to kill Reeva because he had his legs on, but when challenged by Roux couldn't back it up. Notice in the closing statement Nell did not allude to the bullet trajectory as proof of premeditation. I think the state needs OP to have his legs on when he shot because the idea of a legless OP chasing Reeva with feels weak.

That brings up another point. If both were fighting, at some point OP is going to have to put his legs on (if you believe what the state says). Did she stand there waiting for him to put his legs on, then get his gun, then run away?

The fact that Botha got up there and say nothing they found disproves OP's version says a lot.

 

[Inobu]

the statement of Oscars was prepared and worded by his lawyers, they were at this stage only using it for purposes of the bail hearing,

I am sure they will flesh out more details of the night as time goes on in preparation for trial,

and it seems they were initially not getting together that evening but plans were changed and they decided to spend the night together, so Oscar may or may not have bought her a gift, if he was not expecting to see her he my have been intending to get a gift later (if he had not previously bought her one)

then again maybe he did not intend to buy her a present as Valentines day was not something he celebrated,

This assumption poses a darker out look on the case with only one bad outcome at trial.

Based on the way the affidavit was written (if) by the 'lawyers" it paints a negative light in 3 ways.

1.) If the lawyers wrote the affidavit in the manner in which we are seeing then he is not represented very well. It has been pointed out that typically the response is Not guilty period, or not guilty in the manner the states presents it case. Nothing more nothing less. Mistrial potential

2.) If the affidavit was written with the lawyer recommending being over ruled
by OP and him forcing the issue to present it as is. Then it is a matter of time before they leave the case. We have seen that before.

3.) If the affidavit was written in the manner in which we are seeing (by the lawyers) then the root of the story is so bad that this is the only way the lawyers write the sequel of events then in OP is in trouble.


One side note:

I have a feeling that the unknown woman/lawyer that walked into court earlier is setting something up. If you recall she entered the court claiming his right were being infringed and requested a mental health test. I'm willing to bet she will be back to take over.

The question is....

Is she part of today's defense strategy or a secondary defense strategy
Is she linked to a mental health therapy associated with OP

It was quite bold of her to walk in like that.

Inobu

 

[onthecounter]

There are two sides to this story and it is a crying shame that we will never be able to hear Reeva's side. Fact.

I wonder if there are gender differences in fear responses? Does anybody know?

 

[cityslick]

This assumption poses a darker out look on the case with only one bad outcome at trial.

Based on the way the affidavit was written (if) by the 'lawyers" it paints a negative light in 3 ways.

1.) If the lawyers wrote the affidavit in the manner in which we are seeing then he is not represented very well. It has been pointed out that typically the response is Not guilty period, or not guilty in the manner the states presents it case. Nothing more nothing less. Mistrial potential

2.) If the affidavit was written with the lawyer recommending being over ruled
by OP and him forcing the issue to present it as is. Then it is a matter of time before they leave the case. We have seen that before.

3.) If the affidavit was written in the manner in which we are seeing (by the lawyers) then the root of the story is so bad that this is the only way the lawyers write the sequel of events then in OP is in trouble.


One side note:

I have a feeling that the unknown woman/lawyer that walked into court earlier is setting something up. If you recall she entered the court claiming his right were being infringed and requested a mental health test. I'm willing to bet she will be back to take over.

The question is....

Is she part of today's defense strategy or a secondary defense strategy
Is she linked to a mental health therapy associated with OP

It was quite bold of her to walk in like that.

Inobu

Not sure about that, Carol said she wasn't even local to SA, she came from the states.

 

[natsound]

Well, we've already seen how it's changed perception for some. Botha got up there and said the bullet trajectory proves he meant to kill Reeva because he had his legs on, but when challenged by Roux couldn't back it up. Notice in the closing statement Nell did not allude to the bullet trajectory as proof of premeditation. I think the state needs OP to have his legs on when he shot because the idea of a legless OP chasing Reeva with feels weak.

That brings up another point. If both were fighting, at some point OP is going to have to put his legs on (if you believe what the state says). Did she stand there waiting for him to put his legs on, then get his gun, then run away?

The fact that Botha got up there and say nothing they found disproves OP's version says a lot.

I disagree. To an outsider, it does not change who did what. To RS's family, it does not change who did what. I do understand, though, that it will have implications at trial (if trial ever occurs. A plea deal might be struck before then).

 

[otyikondo]

Grief, after all this defending I'm doing...I hope Mr Roux is at least here taking notes!!

Loud guffaw! Yes, Carol, you are playing a magnificent stonewall innings, but the bowling is largely confirmational full-tosses and speculative balls just outside OP's middle stump ( :floorlaugh: ) so far.

Wait till the blood spatter and the ballistics spinners come on... :what:

 

[Inobu]

Well, we've already seen how it's changed perception for some. Botha got up there and said the bullet trajectory proves he meant to kill Reeva because he had his legs on, but when challenged by Roux couldn't back it up. Notice in the closing statement Nell did not allude to the bullet trajectory as proof of premeditation. I think the state needs OP to have his legs on when he shot because the idea of a legless OP chasing Reeva with feels weak.

That brings up another point. If both were fighting, at some point OP is going to have to put his legs on (if you believe what the state says). Did she stand there waiting for him to put his legs on, then get his gun, then run away?

The fact that Botha got up there and say nothing they found disproves OP's version says a lot.

cityslick you are falling for OP line, hook and sink.

If you look back in my post you will see that I pointed out that he prefaced his comments (like brain washing the reader) to think along his lines.

I will give you the example I will highlight the brain washing in bold green. Read the bold the first time and read it the second time skipping over the green bold. You can see how the thought is injected into the readers mind.

On the 13th of February 2013 Reeva would have gone out with her friends and I with my friends. Reeva then called me and asked that we rather spend the evening at home. I agreed and we were content to have a quiet dinner together at home. By about 22h00 on 13 February 2013 we were in our bedroom. She was doing her yoga exercises and I was in bed watching television. My prosthetic legs were off. We were deeply in love and I could not be happier. I know she felt the same way. She had given me a present for Valentine's Day but asked me only to open it the next day.

The only reason you are challenging Botha's trajectory comment is you believed what was written to be fact.

My question what proof do see that states his legs were off other than his word?

Inobu

 

[Carol70]

NPR is now telling me you can shop for tennis shoes and jeans at 2 a.m. there! Okay, that is just asking to be robbed in my mind.

Hahahaha....where????? I sure want to know as this is the first I've heard of that!!!

 

[whiterum]

I disagree. To an outsider, it does not change who did what. To RS's family, it does not change who did what. I do understand, though, that it will have implications at trial (if trial ever occurs. A plea deal might be struck before then).

As Reeva's father said today, " Oscar Pistorius will have to live with his conscience. if he is lying, he will suffer. Only god and he knows what happened"

He might forgive him someday if he's telling the truth

 

[onthecounter]

I read somewhere that the valentines gift she bought for him was a white photo frame with four pictures of the two of them to go with it. She told him not to open it until valentines day. It was found smashed in the house?

This is not verified, just what I remember reading...

 

[Inobu]

Once again I have to go to the inverted situation in the context of the affidavit. When I say inverted I mean he reverses the situation. For example
If he says he was overcome with fear he is in fact describing Reeva's emotion.

Remember he stated that he needed the key to unlock the door to the toilet.
that means you must have a key to unlock the door.

He goes on to say during the intruder sequence that the bedroom door was locked and he felt "trapped".

He could be expression Reeva's emotion as that could be the reason that she ran to the toilet room. She could not get out of the bedroom.

He is telling the events that went on but it is inverted.

Inobu

 

[Carol70]

It doesn't bother me so much because it doesn't change who did what and why. From the standpoint of an outsider looking in, a horrible police job doesn't change what took place.

Then we can assume that perhaps Botha picked up the phones from next to the bed to check if any calls had been made from them, gets called quickly to the bathroom by a colleague, runs over not realizing he has the phones in his hand, kneels down at the toilet door to check out the scene and places the phones he is holding on the mat. And that wouldn't matter because we all know, at the end of the day, Oscar shot Reeva.

Forensics and evidence is absolute in a crime. Without it, there is nothing.