Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #63 ~ the appeal~

[GR_Turner]

Exactly.

What makes this thread frustrating to read at times is the assertions that Nel should have done things contrary to evidential and court procedure.

The call records were state exhibits. Stipp is a state witness.

Neither counsel challenged the contents of the exhibits.

The timing of Stipps call to security is thus common cause. As we know, Masipa changed around the timing of events Stipp witnessed to fit with Roux's timeline.

Clearly Roux's timeline is not common cause and never could be.

And of course Nel is "objecting" (sic) to the alleged timing because it is contrary to the State Witnesses own testimony

Finally, in terms of trial procedure, each side makes its closing arguments.

While there is room for submissions on particular points, it is not the case that State then picks the defence case to bits all over again.

Unfortunately all of these issues arise from Masipa's illogical approach to the evidence.

Masipa employs circular reasoning in deciding that Stipp must have observed events with wildly different timing because then everything fits.

By far the more obvious conclusion is that the timeline was simply incorrect.

Which, as I have said before, is exactly why Nel does not get into all of this speculation

The problem with arguing that only the state's phone records can be used to create a timeline is that there were 2 calls to security at different times in relation to events in the Stipps' evidence which the phone records don't agree with. I don't see why this should be ignored.

Moreover, if the state's case relied on a phone call that OP claimed he made and which wasn't made, wouldn't you be arguing that this was a legitimate use of phone records? But then in that case, the state would have produced all the phone records to prove that the call wasn't made. Yet they didn't do this to prove the Stipp's first call was made.

The state repeatedly said the second bangs were at 3.17 during the first week of the trial and again in their final arguments. I don't really see on what basis Masipa could have rejected this given that it was the State's own case.

And as far as I can see, if Masipa and the assessors had doubts about the timeline, then that's all they needed to dismiss the state's case. If they wondered whether they could trust Johnson's time then they may well have thought that the State could easily have refuted this evidence and proved Stipp's evidence was reliable by just producing the phone records. So why should the court do the State's job for them if the State couldn't be bothered to do it?

If it isn't standard practice for the state and defense to address each other's case in the closing arguments, then one wonders why they have sight of each other's heads before submitting their own (in the case of the defense) and a week before verbal submission (for the state). Surely, it is to give them the chance to properly address points raised by the other side that they hadn't planned to address.

 

[mrjitty]

I've answered various versions of your question many times in previous discussions.

So I will simply suggest that if Nel has not prosecuted the case in the way that you would expect, then perhaps your expectations are not realistic.

That is not to say with the benefit of hindsight, Nel has not have made errors in the case, however his trial strategy was certainly the one you would expect.

 

[mrjitty]

I think the problem with the above is Johnson's phone time. As I said in an earlier post, I was just re-watching Stipp's cross and what struck me was how Nel repeatedly placed the second bangs at 3.17 and yet was very cagey about how he would argue his case. I assume that's normal - why should he give his arguments at the start of the trial before all the evidence? - and yet he put the second bangs at 3.17. I wondered whether once he'd stated some part of his case, he was bound by it in some way, or whether if new evidence contradicts it he can just change his mind. Do you know?

The State can even argue in the alternative, as they did in this case.

However it is unlikely to look clever for the state to change their version of the case midstream.

Nel addressed all this in closing.

Of course the witnesses cannot be perfectly reconciled. You look for the broad strokes.

All basic stuff.

Once the judge is ignoring crime scene photos and glossing over the accused's lies, it doesn't matter exactly when Johnson heard shots

 

[Interested Bystander]

Seemingly Roux even gets mixed up about the real timeline

Here he is talking about OP coming in from the balcony - but as we all know - that was written out of the final script!

[video]https://youtu.be/hqp502_tS1M?t=34m28s[/video]

@34m28s

I watched that with interest because I think I missed Roux attempting to rubbish Nel's Heads at the time. I remember having to leave for a meeting that day. He seemed to twist evidence into one lie after another. I know he has to defend OP but legally is he allowed to tell lies to do this or were his words only his opinion of what happened and it is not considered dishonest if he twists the truth.

I feel fairly sure Roux knows OP is guilty of murder and he has done a very good job at getting him off that charge. If that is so, it seems to devalue Roux greatly as a person but obviously not as a lawyer because many murderers will now seek him out to be their attorney. Is it possible to live two separate lives, one as a lawyer and one as an honest upright citizen? If I knew I had got a murderer off my conscience would make my life impossible.

 

[Colin de France]

I feel fairly sure Roux knows OP is guilty of murder and he has done a very good job at getting him off that charge. If that is so, it seems to devalue Roux greatly as a person but obviously not as a lawyer because many murderers will now seek him out to be their attorney. Is it possible to live two separate lives, one as a lawyer and one as an honest upright citizen? If I knew I had got a murderer off my conscience would make my life impossible.

.......there really is nothing to support an accusation of murder.......even less by excepting the version bat/screams/shots which point to the door being the target........

 

[Interested Bystander]

.......there is nothing to uphold an accusation of murder.......even less by excepting the version bat/screams/shots which point to the door being the target........

Sorry, that is your opinion with which I profoundly disagree. If you are saying the door was the target in attempt to break it down the shots would have been from a completely different direction and not directed into the cubicle as they were. The shots crossed into the left side of the cubicle from the right. To shoot the lock off (the logical way to break the door open) they needed to point in completely the opposite direction. If I have misunderstood you I apologize but there is absolutely nothing in this case which points to anything other than OP in a rage, after an argument, shooting at RS in the cubicle. He probably loved her "in his way" ie selfishly, and no doubt regrets having killed her. I would go as far as to say his regrets are more likely that he will be angry at having to pay for this for the rest of his life.

 

[Colin de France]

Sorry, that is your opinion with which I profoundly disagree. If you are saying the door was the target in attempt to break it down the shots would have been from a completely different direction and not directed into the cubicle as they were. The shots crossed into the left side of the cubicle from the right. To shoot the lock off (the logical way to break the door open) they needed to point in completely the opposite direction. If I have misunderstood you I apologize but there is absolutely nothing in this case which points to anything other than OP in a rage, after an argument, shooting at RS in the cubicle. He probably loved her "in his way" ie selfishly, and no doubt regrets having killed her. I would go as far as to say his regrets are more likely that he will be angry at having to pay for this for the rest of his life.

.........the shots were in my opinion aimed at the door with the intention of blowing the wood apart, not the lock and after having failed with bat, but due to the small distance didn't work, it's my opinion again that he thought Reeva was more to the right when he shot........

 

[mrjitty]

I have revised and corrected the schematic showing the Bat/Gun/Kick scenario and added Oscar's Gun/Kick/Bat version for comparison. It's called GKB vs BGK and can be accessed via this link. Let me know if you spot any errors.

I'll add a proper key to the various symbols later but most are self-explanatory. Lighter shaded symbols mean the person didn't undertake the action but reported that they observed it.

I believe I can add one feedback point to your "how did OP's version come about"

This is in respect of the unlocking of the bedroom door/alarm, and its curious absence of from OP's EIC

In X he can't remember when exactly he unlocked the door and deactivated the alarm.

As you correctly point out, in his version, he does not check the door during the search for Reeva, which at first glance is quite strange given he could just say it was still locked.

But let's examine it from a defence strategy point of view.

Scenario A: OP checks the door and it is not locked.
Perhaps Reeva ate downstairs and forgot to lock it. This causes a big timeline problem because then OP realistically has to check downstairs instead of assuming Reeva is in the toilet.


Scenario B: OP checks the door and it is locked
This creates a different issue. He can't now deactivate the alarm and unlock the door as he is supposed to be searching for Reeva. So this will force the timing of unlock/deactivation to be after he finds Reeva in the toilet. But this creates another big problem. Why are there no bloodstains on the door handle and alarm remote?

So Roux comes up with something clever

Scenario C: The door is neither locked or unlocked
On the one hand it is fairly unbelievable that OP does not know exactly when he unlocked the door and deactivated the alarm. But this neatly avoids both the pitfalls above in X (both fatal IMO)

It also opens a wiggle room - perhaps the door was never locked/alarm never activated because Reeva forgot to do that after she ate downstairs.

IMO in terms of the process you have gone through - it reinforces the fact that the door never was locked and the alarm never on - and OP has to avoid committing to any specifics on this, because if it becomes specific, then an immediate plot hole develops.

This is similar to the location of Reeva's phone and the final moment for putting the gun down.

 

[mrjitty]

.........the shots were in my opinion aimed at the door with the intention of blowing the wood apart, not the lock and after having failed with bat, but due to the small distance didn't work, it's my opinion again that he thought Reeva was more to the right when he shot........

Well, if you are right - that would be murder in many jurisdictions.

First and foremost it is a culpable homicide because death has resulted from an unlawful act.

Secondly, even a halfwit would realise such an act entailed the possibility of killing someone.

RSA had a similar case, namely discharging a gun in a crowded bar to scare someone

 

[Colin de France]

Well, if you are right - that would be murder in many jurisdictions.

First and foremost it is a culpable homicide because death has resulted from an unlawful act.

Secondly, even a halfwit would realise such an act entailed the possibility of killing someone.

RSA had a similar case, namely discharging a gun in a crowded bar to scare someone

....if true i think we're looking at manslaughter........it's not murder even though it was reckless...

 

[mrjitty]

Sorry, that is your opinion with which I profoundly disagree. If you are saying the door was the target in attempt to break it down the shots would have been from a completely different direction and not directed into the cubicle as they were. The shots crossed into the left side of the cubicle from the right. To shoot the lock off (the logical way to break the door open) they needed to point in completely the opposite direction. If I have misunderstood you I apologize but there is absolutely nothing in this case which points to anything other than OP in a rage, after an argument, shooting at RS in the cubicle. He probably loved her "in his way" ie selfishly, and no doubt regrets having killed her. I would go as far as to say his regrets are more likely that he will be angry at having to pay for this for the rest of his life.

I am more mystified with the view that a shooter can admit to gunning down his girlfriend, and the police recover the murder weapon and the body but:

there is nothing to uphold an accusation of murder.

.... apart from the victim lying dead on the floor that is

 

[mrjitty]

....if true i think we're looking at manslaughter........

Well - lets see some statutory interpretation to back that up.

 

[Interested Bystander]

.........the shots were in my opinion aimed at the door with the intention of blowing the wood apart, not the lock and after having failed with bat, but due to the small distance didn't work, it's my opinion again that he thought Reeva was more to the right when he shot........

:banghead:

 

[GR_Turner]

The State can even argue in the alternative, as they did in this case.

However it is unlikely to look clever for the state to change their version of the case midstream.

Nel addressed all this in closing.

Of course the witnesses cannot be perfectly reconciled. You look for the broad strokes.

All basic stuff.

Once the judge is ignoring crime scene photos and glossing over the accused's lies, it doesn't matter exactly when Johnson heard shots

If they can argue in the alternative then it begs the question why the state didn't in relation to Johnson's phone time. I guess the argument is that they didn't need to as that wasn't their case.

 

[aftermath]

I believe I can add one feedback point to your "how did OP's version come about"

This is in respect of the unlocking of the bedroom door/alarm, and its curious absence of from OP's EIC

In X he can't remember when exactly he unlocked the door and deactivated the alarm.

As you correctly point out, in his version, he does not check the door during the search for Reeva, which at first glance is quite strange given he could just say it was still locked.

But let's examine it from a defence strategy point of view.

Scenario A: OP checks the door and it is not locked.
Perhaps Reeva ate downstairs and forgot to lock it. This causes a big timeline problem because then OP realistically has to check downstairs instead of assuming Reeva is in the toilet.


Scenario B: OP checks the door and it is locked
This creates a different issue. He can't now deactivate the alarm and unlock the door as he is supposed to be searching for Reeva. So this will force the timing of unlock/deactivation to be after he finds Reeva in the toilet. But this creates another big problem. Why are there no bloodstains on the door handle and alarm remote?

So Roux comes up with something clever

Scenario C: The door is neither locked or unlocked
On the one hand it is fairly unbelievable that OP does not know exactly when he unlocked the door and deactivated the alarm. But this neatly avoids both the pitfalls above in X (both fatal IMO)

It also opens a wiggle room - perhaps the door was never locked/alarm never activated because Reeva forgot to do that after she ate downstairs.

IMO in terms of the process you have gone through - it reinforces the fact that the door never was locked and the alarm never on - and OP has to avoid committing to any specifics on this, because if it becomes specific, then an immediate plot hole develops.

This is similar to the location of Reeva's phone and the final moment for putting the gun down.

BIB - why is it so unbelievable?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

.........the shots were in my opinion aimed at the door with the intention of blowing the wood apart, not the lock and after having failed with bat, but due to the small distance didn't work, it's my opinion again that he thought Reeva was more to the right when he shot........

I don't understand. Can he claim that he was clairvoyant (or even God) and can see through doors? Is he allowed to shoot to the left side, because Reeva is perhaps !! standing a little bit more to the right?? That's hopefully no explanation and no excuse.

 

[Colin de France]

:banghead:

......that's not polite and rather disappointing........show me where the motivation was to murder her......there isn't any, he never planned to murder her......as the bat didn't work he went for the gun to blow the door open and killed her in the process........

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Colin,

Am I totally stupid or have you changed the legal sides? :thinking: :waitasec: :notgood:

 

[Colin de France]

I don't understand. Can he claim that he was clairvoyant (or even God) and can see through doors? Is he allowed to shoot to the left side, because Reeva is perhaps !! standing a little bit more to the right?? That's hopefully no explanation and no excuse.

.....not at all.....i think he knew or thought he knew where she was either from her screams or from her voice ..........what he didn't realise was that she had slightly moved when he went for the gun.....

 

[Colin de France]

Colin,

Am I totally stupid or have you changed the legal sides? :thinking: :waitasec: :notgood:

.........i haven't changed anything, i never came on here with a pre-determined idea of what i think happened.......i am neither the intruder version nor the Reeva version.......i think there's a certain logic in the bat/scream/shots version which point towards the door being the target and not Reeva........it's an objective opinion....