General Discussion Thread #5

[Pisto_lius]

I have had another look at bail hearing notes when tracing the spent cartridge in the hall statement.

The following are a few notes from the bail hearing, one of which I don't recall hearing before, ie that Reeva was shot 5 times. How could I have missed that. Is this just bad reportage?

http://www.news.com.au/world/oscar-...for-bail-hearing/story-fndir2ev-1226582132899

WO Botha said the shots were fired from 1.5 metres, and that police found three spent cartridges in the bathroom and one in the hallway connecting the bathroom to the bedroom.

Police also found two iPhones in the bathroom and two BlackBerrys in the bedroom, WO Botha said, adding that none had been used to phone for help. Pistorius had said that he called the manager of his guarded and gated housing complex and a private paramedic service.

Mr Roux said Pistorius did make calls, including to the guards of the housing estate.

WO Botha laid bare the facts of the post-mortem carried out on Steenkamp's body. The model suffered five gunshot wounds to her head and neck.

Please, don't give too much attention to what was said in the bail hearing . Prosecutors had only a few days for investigation that had not yet completed - no evidence was shown, no expert reports were available.

Roux also gave no evidence, he only stated their own version. The best example once again is his claim regarding Reeva's empty bladder. Nel said "There is no evidence before court about [Reeva's] empty bladder." Botha said he couldn’t confirm it [the empty bladder].

And Botha himself said in an interview later: "There are certain things that happened and what was said in court did not happen."

Prosecutors now said: "At the time of the bail application the submission was based on an inference."

Regarding the shooting:

From the leaked documents we now know

- The amount, trajectory and grouping of the shots fired through a locked door can only be inferred to indicate a direct intention to kill the person behind the closed door.

- Reeva was clothed when she was shot.

- Reeva was standing upright facing the door when she was shot (and not - as in the bail hearing stated - that she may have been cowering in the toilet with her arms crossed)

- OP was most likely not wearing his prosthetic legs and fired from a distance greater than 60 cm from the toilet door.

- OP phoned his friends but never phoned the police or the Estate security.

- The security called him and when asked by the security guard after he had shot Reeva if everything was in order, he indicated that he was fine. He never asked for their assistence and did not make a report about the shooting incident to them.


And from the indictment we know:

- Reeva was shot and killed just after 03:00 am. (This doesn’t fit with OP’s and the defence’ claim that Reeva was still alive when OP carried her downstairs.)

- OP fired four shots [through the locked door] of Reeva.

- The cause of death is given in the post-mortem report as *multiple gunshot wounds*.

We still don't know whether OP really fired only four shots of Reeva - or one or two more at an other place of the house - because the indictment doesn't exactly mention how many gunshot wounds Reeva really had.

 

[Pisto_lius]

Did you asked yourself why prosecutors highlighted that OP surfed websites instead only to point out that he surfed the internet ?

Perhaps because there are soft websites and violence websites....

Only a thought that flashed through my mind

 

[Interested Bystander]

Thank you Pisto_lius for putting me on an even keel again. I was quite shocked to read about the possibility of 5 shots to the head. To me that was seemed like target practice!

 

[kittychi]

Did you asked yourself why prosecutors highlighted that OP surfed websites instead only to point out that he surfed the internet ?

Perhaps because there are soft websites and violence websites....

Only a thought that flashed through my mind

It seems to me that the amount of time he spent surfing the 'net is also important. Between the and the cars, it could have been quite a bit of time. He could have used the excuse that, yes, they are a loving couple and he was surfing the net killing time while Reeva did her yoga. But he already used the yoga in his affi as occurring later in the eve. So what was she doing when he was surfing and also on a long phone call?

I am thinking she probably WAS doing yoga during the time he was on the 'net and on the phone (and perhaps she wasn't really neglected.) That's why yoga came to his mind when he and the DT crafted his meticulous affidavit. OR she was doing a little snooping around and found some other girlfriend stuff during this time.

I know this isn't all-important--I am just trying to fill gaps in the timeline.

Alas, what they were fighting about will probably always be a mystery.

:curses:

 

[Pisto_lius]

It seems to me that the amount of time he spent surfing the 'net is also important. Between the and the cars, it could have been quite a bit of time. BIB 1 - He could have used the excuse that, yes, they are a loving couple and he was surfing the net killing time while Reeva did her yoga. But he already used the yoga in his affi as occurring later in the eve. So what was she doing when he was surfing and also on a long phone call?

BIB 2 - I am thinking she probably WAS doing yoga during the time he was on the 'net and on the phone (and perhaps she wasn't really neglected.) That's why yoga came to his mind when he and the DT crafted his meticulous affidavit. OR she was doing a little snooping around and found some other girlfriend stuff during this time.

I know this isn't all-important--BIB 3 - I am just trying to fill gaps in the timeline.

Alas, what they were fighting about will probably always be a mystery.

:curses:

BIB 1 - OP in his affidavit: While Reeva did her yoga, he watched TV.... And after Reeva finished her yoga they went to bed and slept. As befits a couple in love on Valentine's Day

OP talked about cars on phone with one of his friends. So I think, he surfed for cars after this phone call. And if finished his phone calls he surfed for porne. The first phone call he did shortly after he arrived at home. The second phone call ended at 8:45 pm....

What Reeva was doing in the meantime ?
Perhaps she took a shower and prepared the supper ? The leaked document states that Reeva had eaten before she died....

BIB 2 - She made the extra effort to drive to Oscar, bought a valentine gift for him and wanted to spend a cozy evening with him - but he surfs the internet and phoned with his friends for hours on end.... And you believe she wasn't really neglected ?

BIB 3 - Don't worry - Me, too

 

[kittychi]

BIB 1 - OP in his affidavit: While Reeva did her yoga, he watched TV.... And after Reeva finished her yoga they went to bed and slept. As befits a couple in love on Valentine's Day

OP talked about cars on phone with one of his friends. So I think, he surfed for cars after this phone call. And if finished his phone calls he surfed for porne. The first phone call he did shortly after he arrived at home. The second phone call ended at 8:45 pm....

What Reeva was doing in the meantime ?
Perhaps she took a shower and prepared the supper ? The leaked document states that Reeva had eaten before she died....

BIB 2 - She made the extra effort to drive to Oscar, bought a valentine gift for him and wanted to spend a cozy evening with him - but he surfs the internet and phoned with his friends for hours on end.... And you believe she wasn't really neglected ?

BIB 3 - Don't worry - Me, too

If we believe his affidavit.

:rotfl:uke:

Maybe he was Bible reading too!

:floorlaugh:

 

[Estelle]

Twitter account for Pistorius cold fact

A Twitter account called @OscarHardTruth has been set up by murder-accused paralympian Oscar Pistorius's media management team.

"This platform, along with the website, will become the key outlet for information," spokeswoman Anneliese Burgess said on Monday.

The account was linked to Pistorius's official website oscarpistorius.com. It's intended to be a factual sharing platform

She said the Twitter page would be linked to certain media coverage and would deal with issues which needed clarifying during the star athlete's murder trial.

A tweet sent out 17 hours ago read: "As the trial approaches, many untruths, half-truths and versions of the truth have [been] and shall be spread across the world."

"We will address the truth and expose those with ulterior motives. The Truth will Prevail."

http://www.enca.com/south-africa/twitter-account-pistorius-cold-fact


Do you think they will try to discredit the witnesses as well as the evidence on twitter? If so, this would be a trial by media still trying to protect OP's image even if he is sent to jail. Is this sort of thing illegal?

 

[Estelle]

BIB - I will try it

The publication of court documents which the public is not allowed to attend has nothing to do with the possible influence of the judge because of a so-called media circus.

The leaked written pleadings were not made available to the press and public.

The publication of court documents which the public is not allowed to attend could result in contempt of court. (Magistrate Daniel Thulare complained about this in the bail hearing when the crime scene photos were leaked.)

So, if prosecutors are sure their case documents were leaked by the DT and ask the judge for judicial consequences against the defence because they feel this could damage their case, it would be the only choice of the judge to dismiss the whole case because of the above quoted reason.

Further information:

So I am understanding that the PT has to simply tolerate this and say nothing otherwise the case will be thrown out of court.

So what happens if the case is thrown out of court? OP goes free????? This must be Barry Roux's best chance of getting Pistorius off the hook and that is what he has been telling OP all along I guess. Otherwise, knowing Pistorius he would have fled by now to a country without an extradition agreement. If the Judge wanted to she could demand that eNCA tell her who leaked the documents and how much they paid for them.

But apparently it is not a real problem.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/special-f...s-not-cross-legal-line-1.1528530#.UwwXAuOSxrU

On June 6, 2013, Milo and Singh explained that a breach of the sub judice rule could result in a charge of contempt of court and a criminal conviction. On Wednesday, Milo said the rule is that nothing can be published that will pose a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice. “I have not seen or read any publicity that in my view breaches this rule,” he said.

Milo and Singh had questioned whether this rule still applies in the South African context because of a Supreme Court of Appeal decision that changed the way this rule applies.

Both found that although the media has “been replete with sensational allegations” about what happened on February 14, they felt that none of the reporting had crossed the line.

Pierre de Vos, of the University of Cape Town’s School of Law, who also writes a blog called Constitutionally Speaking, said in the constitutional era this rule had been “completely watered down to the point of (being) close to extinction”.

He, too, felt the media had not legally crossed the line. “A well-trained judge would not be biased by these media reports,” he said. He did have issue though with the media publishing speculation instead of fact.

Govender felt the more important issue the court needs to address is where the leaked photographs came from and who authorised that this information be given to Sky News. “The leak must be identified because it might undermine the prosecution’s case”.

The same applies in this instance. But will the Judge and the NPA have to ignore it?

The war is definitely on with Roux doing everything he can to prevent justice with the leaked documents and the twitter account to tell their truth and thus discredit the Prosecution.

 

[Estelle]

So if the media are publishing the Prosecution's case can that be perceived as printing fact? If so, it apparently is not a problem in SA!

This article was printed on 19 February, 2013 in the UK:

The Oscar Pistorius media circus may test South Africa's contempt laws
Speculation over Reeva Steenkamp's shooting is all over the press. In South Africa's jury-free system, sub judice means little

The British public and press may well be baffled by the amount of detail the South African press has published about the state's case against Pistorius.
What is famously known in South Africa as the "sub judice rule", which allows for contempt of court prosecutions if media reports could prejudice a trial, is still, in theory at least, part of South African law. The legal test for when a successful prosecution can be brought is, in South Africa, very similar to the test applied in the courts of England and Wales: the question a court must ask is whether there will be "real risk" of substantial prejudice to the administration of justice.

The bar was set much lower before the dawn of South Africa's constitutional order in 1993. Then, publications could be (and regularly were) successfully prosecuted for contempt of court if a report "tended" to prejudice the administration of justice, but a seminal judgment of the supreme court of appeal, South Africa's highest court on non-constitutional matters, reviewed the test in 2007. The question must now be decided in the context of a balancing exercise between two competing constitutional rights: the right to a fair trial and the right to freedom of expression.

The big difference between the English system and South Africa is that South African criminal trials are not decided by jury.

The thinking is that judges are trained to put aside their prejudices and decide cases on the basis of the evidence before them and the law. Unlike juries, they also have to give reasons for their decisions. A real risk of substantial prejudice to the administration of justice is therefore much, much lower when there is no jury. [modsnip]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/19/oscar-pistorius-media-south-africa-contempt

 

[Pisto_lius]

Oscar Pistorius Trial Can Be Televised

The trial of Oscar Pistorius over the Valentine's Day killing of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp will be partially televised, but not his own testimony.

The double amputee, known as Blade Runner, is accused of killing Ms Steenkamp in a shooting incident at Pistorius' home in Pretoria, South Africa, last February.

In his ruling on Tuesday, Judge Dunstan Mlambo said cameras would be able to "obtain a video and audio recording of the permitted portions" - the opening arguments, prosecution witnesses, closing arguments, the verdict and setencing.

However, cameras will not be able to film the 26-year-old Olympic champion, defence witnesses or anyone else who objects to being on camera.

A live audio broadcast of the trial, which begins on Monday and is set to hear from more than 100 witnesses, will be permitted throughout.

http://news.sky.com/story/1216950/oscar-pistorius-trial-can-be-televised

.
.

 

[Estelle]

Pistorius is trending No 9 on Twitter.com on 25/12/2014 in the United Kingdom so there must be a lot of interest there perhaps due to his taking part in the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

#OscarMedia is trending at No 1 in South Africa on twitter and Judge Miambo is No 4.

 

[kittychi]

partially televised, but not his own testimony.

1. Wait...isn't the affidavit submitted at the bail hearing his testimony? :waitasec:

2. It looks like the world will be able to watch it on http://oscartrial.dstv.com. It doesn't look like you have to have a subscription.

I am hoping if a witness's testimony is not broadcast (who would give permission for that?!!), that there will be a decent summary given by journalists covering the trial, hopefully in real time.

I wonder if we will see much :crying: from OP.

 

[Estelle]

Pretoria - A woman, only known as Annamarie, addressed the High Court in Pretoria on Tuesday, opposing an application for the murder trial of Oscar Pistorius to be broadcast.

In February last year, the same woman requested to address the Pretoria Magistrate's Court on his “mental state” during the sports star's bail hearing.

She asked the court to put Pistorius under independent psychiatric observation for 60 days.

She also wanted Pretoria chief Magistrate Desmond Nair removed from Pistorius's bail bid.

Annamarie claims to be the ex-wife of Dr Gerald Versfeld who amputated Pistorius's legs when he was a child. She believed Pistorius had a mental breakdown.

http://newswall.co.za/news/latest/d.../d5ach.375985?utm_source=email&utm_channel=xx

 

[Estelle]

1. Wait...isn't the affidavit submitted at the bail hearing his testimony? :waitasec:

2. It looks like the world will be able to watch it on http://oscartrial.dstv.com. It doesn't look like you have to have a subscription.

I am hoping if a witness's testimony is not broadcast (who would give permission for that?!!), that there will be a decent summary given by journalists covering the trial, hopefully in real time.

I wonder if we will see much :crying: from OP.

I think you are right that OP's Affidavit from the bail hearing is his testimony.

But I would like to hear him cross-examined and that will be possible on radio. Can we listen in other countries?

I will go to that TV site and take a look at it. Thanks.

eNCA will follow everything on twitter and everything will be on radio.

I think Pistorius will ball his eyes out! lease:

 

[Estelle]

"The justice system is still perceived as treating the rich and famous with kid gloves whilst being harsh on the poor and vulnerable," the judge said.

"Enabling a larger South African society to follow first-hand the criminal proceedings which involve a celebrity, so to speak, will go a long way into dispelling these negative and unfounded perceptions about the justice system, and will inform and educate society regarding the conduct of criminal proceedings."


http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/25/world/africa/south-africa-pistorius-trial/

IMO this is a very important message that should be broadcast to the whole world because I have seen far too many comments about the fact that people believe that if a person is rich and famous they will not be punished. It seems to me that about 30% of people think that OP will not be put in prison just because he is an icon of South Africa but not because they think he is innocent.

So let's see what happens here. It looks as if this trial is also meant to educate South Africans about the judicial process.

 

[Pisto_lius]

OP' lawyers will appeal the today's judge decision.

This could delay the trial start :banghead:

I'm rather sure it will but we will see....

 

[Pisto_lius]

1. Wait...isn't the affidavit submitted at the bail hearing his testimony? :waitasec:

2. It looks like the world will be able to watch it on http://oscartrial.dstv.com. It doesn't look like you have to have a subscription.

I am hoping if a witness's testimony is not broadcast (who would give permission for that?!!), that there will be a decent summary given by journalists covering the trial, hopefully in real time.

I wonder if we will see much :crying: from OP.

1. OP' affidavit is well-known and can be used in the trial. But he also could testify in person during the trial - what he not will do like I assume

2. Thanks for this link

3. Before his/her testimony every witness will be asked by judge for permission whether his/her testimony shall be allowed for broadcast or not.

A summary given by journalists covering the trial doesn't accurately reflect the same what was said live in court by witnesses, lawyers or judge. So, I prefer the live broadcast and nothing else

 

[Estelle]

OP' lawyers will appeal the today's judge decision.

This could delay the trial start :banghead:

I'm rather sure it will but we will see....

How do you know that OP's lawyers will appeal the decision?

There has been no announcement of that fact yet as I have been following twitter all day so I think I am up to date with the latest but there is always tomorrow's news.

Also I have read that the whole trial will be broadcast on radio including Pistorius.

Perhaps he does not want to publicly shamed and found out to be a liar by the whole world!

 

[Estelle]

129 members have visited the poll that I asked our Mod to set up a few months ago on another thread.

On 26 February, 2014, these are the results:

View Poll Results: What do you think?

Innocent 10 7.75%
Guilty of premeditated murder 41 31.78%
Guilty of murder 38 29.46%
Guilty of culpable homicide 18 13.95%
Guilty of grevious bodily harm 3 2.33%
Guilty of gross negligence 10 7.75%
Not sure and/or other... 9 6.98%

About 76% believe that OP is guilty of premeditated/murder or culpable homicide. The other 24% are either not sure, think he is innocent, or he is simply guilty of gross negligence.

Do you from your reading of the comments after some articles, believe that this sample could be representative of the general population? Or do you think that these results are skewed due to our membership of a websleuths site where may of us have followed many other murder cases so we are more savvy than others?

 

[Pisto_lius]

I think you are right that OP's Affidavit from the bail hearing is his testimony.

But I would like to hear him cross-examined and that will be possible on radio. Can we listen in other countries?

But if he takes the witness stand nothing of what he would tell is allowed to be broadcast - neither in TV nor in radio.

eNCA will follow everything on twitter and everything will be on radio.

Tweets by whomever don't always accurately reflect the same what was said live in court.

Remember the *bullet* in the toilet bowl . This was referred via twitter and media articles to as

- bullet
- spent bullet
- bullet projectil
- projectile
- bullet cartridge
- cartridge
- cartridge case
- casing

and much more. So, until today no one knows whether this was a bullet (projectile) that failed Reeva and fell into the toilet bowl or whether this was a (spent/empty) cartridge case from a shot OP fired not through the closed toilet door….

I think Pistorius will ball his eyes out! lease:

You're so evil :naughty: But I like it :giggle: