Trial Discussion Thread #10 - 14.03.19, Day 13

[Duchy]

Good gosh any UK posters - they expect to sell the house for no less than £278,000. That seems really inexpensive for such a big house to me. I wonder if that is the going rate for houses like that in SA?

Oscar's lawyer says he 'cannot contemplate' ever living there again.

Yes I saw that figure and was surprised. Wouldn't even buy a tiny 2 up 2 down cottage in Surrey!

 

[zwiebel]

Yes I saw that figure and was surprised. Wouldn't even buy a tiny 2 up 2 down cottage in Surrey!

Great weather too. But I wouldn't want to join any gated community that would accept me as a member.....

 

[soozieqtips]

The best thing OP can do is keep his mouth shut at the moment. Does he think the trial's just a mere inconvenience?

Don't forget the poor little <modsnip> had to sell a couple of his racehorses too (cue violin). He seems to have overlooked the fact that the only reason he's in this mess is because he killed Reeva, and the only person to blame is himself - no one else. He might have been able to palm off his previous bad behaviour on friends, but this is something he has to take responsibility for, like it or not.

 

[Cherwell]

You're probably right, however we can be fairly certain that Roux will call up his defense expert with the literature that points out all the possible anomalies, and once again we'll have probable doubt. The judge will probably have to take the word of the one with the nicest smile. Nel knows this isn't a deal-breaker, as even the experts disagree on digestion times (and certainly digestion times with an unknown quantity of food as the starting point).

Or OP will just say that she had a late snack.

 

[minor4th]

I think Nel should have, and in fact did, know exactly what his own witnesses were going to testify to.

I think it is a travesty that Nel is allowed to rework his case having seen clues as to the defense case via cross examination. That is NOT the way things are supposed to go. The prosecution are supposed to present a case... then the Defense respond to that. The Prosecution DO get a chance to rebut after that... which is already a huge advantage. IANAL but it would make sense to me if this fiasco by Nel is a ground for appeal?

Nel has had a year to prepare a case... I think he likely took too many tea breaks during that time.

I disagree on this - I do believe that he should have an opportunity to reevaluate his evidence and present it differently now hat he has most of his case in chief behind him and has a better idea of the defense's position and evidence. He could withdraw the premeditation charge and concentrate now on culpable homicide (which he has not spent much time dealing with).

I do agree that he cannot change his case and change his overall theory at this point, and I do not think he will be allowed to do that

 

[minor4th]

No. I don't accept he believed there was an intruder. Where did I imply that? What I said was that on two previous occasions when he thought there was an intruder, he woke up his guest (Sam Taylor) to alert her before going off with his gun. On the night of the shooting, when he apparently also thought there was an intruder, he didn't bother to wake Reeva up (like he did with Sam). He just shot and killed her. How did you interpret my post to mean I thought OP believed there was an intruder that night?

Ok, I see what you mean. I was misinterpreting your comment. I thought you were saying that he thought there was an intruder, but unlike similar situations in the past - this time he did not wake his guest, so that indicates that he was reckless this time.

 

[zwiebel]

Now I've got my head around the currency a bit more; Oscar declared his yearly income to be 5.6 million Rand. Approx £300,000 or $500,000.

With the sponsorship deals he had, that seems a little low to me. Maybe I just have a suspicious mind.

 

[soozieqtips]

Ok, I see what you mean. I was misinterpreting your comment. I thought you were saying that he thought there was an intruder, but unlike similar situations in the past - this time he did not wake his guest, so that indicates that he was reckless this time.

That's okay. Feynman made a good point earlier that if OP had been talking to Reeva shortly before the incident, then he wouldn't have needed to wake her as she'd already have been awake.

 

[zwiebel]

That very fact is the bit that isn't making sense when we look at Nel's response. What I heard was what appeared to be an automated (robotic) voice of an American lady, or similar. Whatever it was it certainly didn't sound anything like an argument.

Why on earth did Nel explain that it was 'a recording of an argument unrelated to the case', I wonder?

If we look back at the situation, the iPad starts chattering, the court laugh, Nel looks flustered...and then his response should be something like 'I'm so sorry M'Lady, that shouldn't have happened, or 'I'm so sorry M'Lady, I don't know how to switch the iPad off. But, he doesn't. Instead he explains out loud 'it was a recording of an argument unrelated to the case'.
Neither the judge, Roux or anybody else asked Nel who the voice on the iPad was, or what the playback was about. Nel volunteered this statement out of the blue.

Attorneys very very rarely volunteer information that hasn't been requested, unless there's a very good reason for them to do so.

Is it possible he had accidentally breached client confidentiality with that, and all the legal people in the courtroom knew the problems it could cause if they asked questions? I think Nel gave the explanation to try and nip any speculation in the bud, myself.

 

[minor4th]

Now I've got my head around the currency a bit more; Oscar declared his yearly income to be 5.6 million Rand. Approx £300,000 or $500,000.

With the sponsorship deals he had, that seems a little low to me. Maybe I just have a suspicious mind.

I wouldn't be surprised if that's accurate since he is not a team athlete with a negotiated yearly salary. Pretty much all of his income must come from sponsorships I believe.

 

[minor4th]

Is it possible he had accidentally breached client confidentiality with that, and all the legal people in the courtroom knew the problems it could cause if they asked questions? I think Nel gave the explanation to try and nip any speculation in the bud, myself.

I agree with that - I think he was just explaining that it had nothing to do with the present case so there's no need to go into it further. Especially since this is not in front of a jury, that should be a sufficient explanation.

I don't think there's any worry about breaching client confidentially since his client is the State and they are required to fully disclose everything in advance.

To me, it seems like just a technical error that was unexpected and flustered Nel (as it would any attorney in that situation, considering the strict rules for decorum and such)

 

[minor4th]

That's okay. Feynman made a good point earlier that if OP had been talking to Reeva shortly before the incident, then he wouldn't have needed to wake her as she'd already have been awake.

Yes, that bit from Oscar's plea statement is confusing to me, and I'm looking forward to an explanation.

 

[Dmacky]

Interesting photo of the contents of OP's bedside table, taken in 2010. Watch, keys, phone, TV remote and gun. Also his shoe on the same side of the bed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-The-gun-Blade-Runner-kept-bed-pictured.html

LOL ~ after I looked at the pic, I then read about his shoe being shown...and I didn't see a shoe. I had to go back and look for the shoe...it took me a few seconds because I initially thought his shoe was the remote!!! I was thinking that in SA they have some big remotes.
Don't even ask me to find Waldo :giggle:

 

[zwiebel]

Guys regarding Nel's ipad malfunction
Nel's says "sorry it was an arguement i wanted to argue now", then talks about wanting the trial adjourned until monday.
The ipad had read out a note he had made about asking for the adjournment.

I didn't see your post. I wonder if there is some sort of app that converts text to voice reminders? I could be right about the robotic voice after all! I'm not going searching though - I'll end up buying loads of things, they are really addictive and Apple makes it so, so easy to buy......

ETA: I lasted 30 seconds not looking. Here they are. I want one now.

http://appadvice.com/appguides/show/text-to-speech-apps-for-ipad

 

[james83]

I read an article yesterday that had an SA lawyer speculating about the State's case and why the adjournment and what it could mean. I will look for the link - but she gave several possibilities but the one that struck me is that it could signal that Nel is reevaluating his case and considering dismissing the charge of premeditated murder now that he's had further opportunity to evaluate his witnesses' testimony and the defense's case.

She also said it could be just as Nel said - that he would like additional time with witnesses before concluding his case.

ETA: Link

Another possibility is that Nel has found surprise evidence that he needs to evaluate!

The new evidence theory makes sense given the Ipad testimony from yesterday which seemed to aid the defence, there must be something more to that.
Cannot see the state re-evaluating it's case when they will in all likely hood get the chance to grill Pistorius on the stand.

 

[steveml]

Is it possible he had accidentally breached client confidentiality with that, and all the legal people in the courtroom knew the problems it could cause if they asked questions? I think Nel gave the explanation to try and nip any speculation in the bud, myself.

It's been confirmed that the recording was Nels own trial notes (hence the automated voice). I guess it must have been his own device. The confusion relating to Nels comment regarding 'an argument', is that he was referring to his own argument (in the legal sense) with defense to adjourn the trial, and not regarding any argument between two people. There goes my theory...:facepalm:

 

[james83]

I didn't see your post. I wonder if there is some sort of app that converts text to voice reminders? I could be right about the robotic voice after all! I'm not going searching though - I'll end up buying loads of things, they are really addictive and Apple makes it so, so easy to buy......

Maybe it was just subliminal advertising, Nel was paid a fortune by Apple to make that "error" and suck us all in, Lol.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Yes I saw that figure and was surprised. Wouldn't even buy a tiny 2 up 2 down cottage in Surrey!

Sooo true. Where I live it now costs £300,000 for a tiny terrace. Still a lot cheaper than South West London though where a similar sized terraced house will cost upwards of £1,000,000 if renovated. Scary!

 

[steveml]

Maybe it was just subliminal advertising, Nel was paid a fortune by Apple to make that "error" and suck us all in, Lol.

I like that one.

I wish I could charge his rates for my hours of wasted 'thinking time' because of that.

To confirm, yes there is an automated notereader app for iPad and for many similar tablets.

 

[weeeva]

His pleading not guilty to the other three charges in the face of damning evidence looks very strange on the surface doesn't it? To many it looks dumb, shows a lack of personal responsibility for certain, and it is risky because it allowed Nel to bring in so much about OP character flaws.

But if you look at what they represent it may be Roux's strategy of trying to explain to the court something like this: "My client is always reckless and irresponsible with guns, that is why when he became panicked terrified and felt vulnerable he acted out in the horrible way he did. He wishes that he had taken note of his lack of capability to responsibly own and handle guns before the accident, but he knows now. It is really not his fault, he wishes that he had never bought that gun and he refuses to own another for the rest of his life. Further accidents like what happened on that tragic night with not occur again in the future, we assure you My Lady."

Yes I see what you mean, but I think it will go against him. Especially the restaurant incident when he asked someone else to take the blame. Is he going to make his friend and ex girlfriend out to be liars re the charge of shooting out of the sun roof of the car?
I remember reading an article, I think it was by a sports writer, where during an interview OP stated that the only time he feels vulnerable is at night in bed without his prosthetics. I have searched for the article but I can't find it. Then there is the time he heard a noise and drew his gun, and it turned out to be the tumble dryer. Also his ex girlfriend testified that more than once he had wakened her up and went searching with his gun after he heard a noise. This type of evidence could be used by the defence to give credence to OP's feelings of vulnerability at night without legs.