Trial Discussion Thread #10 - 14.03.19, Day 13

[Really?]

I do not think that a person who truly believes there is an intruder in their home uses a check list (while in a state of panic) to tick off reasons why it may not be an intruder. I would never think along the lines of "The dogs did not bark so it can't be an intruder". "The ladders are too short so it can't be an intruder". I would have trouble thinking at all in that situation. If he had left Reeva in bed just moments before hand and did not see or hear her getting up, in his mind he did not need to check her whereabouts. Of course he still broke the law even if his version is true.

But......as a gun owner....He read the test questions for ownership......he passed mostof the questions.

It was his dutyto remain calm.....remember the rules etc.......He wasin control as his imaginary intruder would hid in the toilet. OP knew he had a very powerful weapon in his hand. Loaded and ready to fire, he should have called security whilst the intruder took a potty break before he grabbed the hi-fi.

You are correct.....anyway we look at this.....this is OP soon -->:jail:

 

[steveml]

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.

It's as if he feels that legs give him a sense of power. Perhaps the same feeling he gets when he holds a gun. Not good.

 

[zwiebel]

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!

Lol, mods will have to start a separate thread if English posters get started on property!

 

[minor4th]

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.

Here's the quote from the article:

But his announcement has left legal experts wondering what is really going on behind the scenes.

Kelly Phelps, a senior law lecturer at the University of Cape Town, said it might well be that the state's case was simply running ahead of schedule – but there are also two other possibilities.

A new "smoking gun" piece of evidence could have been discovered and it must be examined before the case proceeds, she told Fairfax Media, or else Nel might be thinking about throwing in the towel.

"It could be... that their case has been fundamentally damaged and that he needs the long weekend to really re-evaluate the focus of the case, and see whether the initial lines of argument and their initial conception of the events is still sound, in the light of all the evidence that has come up subsequently," she said.

If the State has not proved their case at the conclusion of their evidence, then there has to be a judgment of acquittal or dismissal of charges - irrespective of what may come from OP's testimony. The state can't rely on cross-examination of defense witnesses to prove their case.

The chance of Nel finding "surprise new evidence" is interesting too but the judge will not allow a "trial by ambush" and allow the presentation of completely new evidence that has never been disclosed to the defense.

 

[steveml]

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.

He'll be wanting to get that figure as low as possible, especially now some of his sponsorship deals have been pulled.

 

[Val1]

He's selling the house to pay his legal costs. His 'mansion' as the press is calling it.

I thought this might happen. I think he has a two million mortgage on it? Those payments must be heavy, what with the loss of sponsorship and all.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ria-mansion-to-cover-legal-costs-9205624.html

Does that mean that after he succeeds with his "I always win" he plans to move to Italy and live in his home there? The one he had said in an interview that he lived in 4 months every year but his defense omitted to mention in his bail hearing?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/last-oscar-pistorius-interview-before-1723955

He also spoke of how he spends four months every year living in his home in Gerona, Italy – contradicting his lawyer’s submission during the bail hearing that he owns no such property.

Pistorius said the local mayor had even built a running track for him.

 

[minor4th]

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.

Here's another article that is linked in the one I posted earlier:

Dramatic turnaround in prosecution's case in Oscar Pistorius trial

But the unexpected announcement by chief prosecutor Gerrie Nel that he was "close to wrapping up" the state’s evidence has left legal experts wondering if the case has substantially faltered.

Only 18 of a possible 107 witnesses have so far been called to testify, and while serious questions remain about the Blade Runner’s culpability in the death of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, doubts have been raised about whether the case has surpassed a test of "beyond reasonable doubt".

"It might be that they realise they had a very bad day in court today, which I think they did," Ms Phelps told Fairfax Media.

Noting Mr Nel’s use of the term "in the interests of justice", Ms Phelps said the experienced prosecutor may require time to assess whether there is enough evidence to proceed at all.

 

[Val1]

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

OP wouldn't have had to have woken RS but if awake RS also should have heard the "intruder" noises and surely running and locking herself into the toilet room when that's the direction the "noise" of the intruder had supposedly come from would defy all logic? Especially if OP had run to grab his gun and was advancing in the same direction...

 

[Duchy]

I got the impression yesterday when Nel said he would wind up his case early next week, that he had done enough and was confident of Oscar being found guilty. Did anyone else get this impression?

 

[Interested Bystander]

Lol, mods will have to start a separate thread if English posters get started on property!

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[minor4th]

OP wouldn't have had to have woken RS but if awake RS also should have heard the "intruder" noises and surely running and locking herself into the toilet room when that's the direction the "noise" of the intruder had supposedly come from would defy all logic? Especially if OP had run to grab his gun and was advancing in the same direction...

But OP's version is he didn't hear the noises coming from the suspected "intruder" until he was up and bringing in fans. That would mean that Reeva got up and went to the toilet while OP was doing this - presumably to use the toilet, so those would be the noises that OP believed to be an intruder, as he claims.

So I don't think that defies logic. What doesn't make much sense to me is if his testimony is going to be that he and Reeva were both awake at or near the time he moved the fans in - or if he thought Reeva was sleeping. This is not clear, even considering both of his statements.

 

[Really?]

What are the sentencing guidelines for premeditated murder? For premeditated murder, the mandatory sentence in South Africa is a life sentence, which in practice is 25 years unless someone can prove extraordinary circumstances.

What would the sentence be if Pistorius were convicted of the lesser charge of culpable homicide?
If Pistorius is convicted of culpable homicide, no minimum sentencing legislation would be triggered. "Courts are able to exercise their complete and ordinary discretion," Grant said.
This means, theoretically, Pistorius could get a non-custodial sentence if convicted of culpable homicide. Grant said there had been examples of people killing a loved one accidentally where they had avoided jail.
If, however, the court took a view that Pistorius had been grossly negligent, Grant said, he would guess the runner could be jailed for up to 15 years.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/22/world/africa/pistorius-legal-q-and-a/

BBM...Thanks for this....my DH says that the SA jails are.....baaaaaaaaad.

Will he be coddled ?...

 

[Viper]

Here's the quote from the article:



If the State has not proved their case at the conclusion of their evidence, then there has to be a judgment of acquittal or dismissal of charges - irrespective of what may come from OP's testimony. The state can't rely on cross-examination of defense witnesses to prove their case.

The chance of Nel finding "surprise new evidence" is interesting too but the judge will not allow a "trial by ambush" and allow the presentation of completely new evidence that has never been disclosed to the defense.

The commentary (speculation) in the article was prefaced by her immediate thoughts:

Quote:
"Kelly Phelps, a senior law lecturer at the University of Cape Town, said it might well be that the state's case was simply running ahead of schedule – but there are also two other possibilities."

And that is exactly what Nel said, the testimony had moved along much faster than he had thought it would. I'm inclined to just accept that over her other two guesses. But that is just me. :smile:

Mr. Nel seems to be a stickler about timing, for example wanting to get a full day with a single witness to complete his testimony in full. So I do believe that he has a series of witnesses planned next whose testimony bookends one another.

 

[minor4th]

The commentary (speculation) in the article was prefaced by her immediate thoughts:

Quote:
"Kelly Phelps, a senior law lecturer at the University of Cape Town, said it might well be that the state's case was simply running ahead of schedule – but there are also two other possibilities."

And that is exactly what Nel said, the testimony had moved along much faster than he had thought it would. I'm inclined to just accept that over her other two guesses. But that is just me. :smile:

Mr. Nel seems to be a stickler about timing, for example wanting to get a full day with a single witness to complete his testimony in full. So I do believe that he has a series of witnesses planned next whose testimony bookends one another.

I just think the possibilities are interesting. I'm not guessing which of them it might be.

ETA: Nel does seem to be a stickler about timing - much of that I believe is strategic. e.g. He doesn't want to conclude a day with his witness after direct exam because he doesn't want Roux to have the night to consider his cross exam. And that could be why Nel wants the adjournment before presenting the rest of his case - he doesn't want to give Roux the long weekend to formulate his cross examination of his next witnesses.

 

[zwiebel]

There are a few links here to news articles speculating about the unexpected state's conclusion to the trial next week having some important meaning. I am going to put myself on the line here and say I don't think it does.

I think Nel believes he has presented roughly enough evidence to get a murder conviction from the judge. I don't think he is going to add anything 'big' next week. I think this was always going to be the total of his case, and I also think the judge is going to convict.

I believe the judge will convict using the reasoning of 'balance of probabilities' to justify her decision. Lol, I'm just hoping this is a concept permitted in SA!

'Has prosecutor found surprise new evidence?'
http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news...us-has-prosecutor-found-surprise-new-evidence

'The surprise move prompted questions about whether Nel was thinking about throwing in the towel....'
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/19/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-trial/

'Dramatic turnaround in Prosecution's case..'
http://www.smh.com.au/world/dramati...-in-oscar-pistorius-trial-20140319-hvk7r.html

And....someone making Lego recreations and getting death threats makes the news on TMZ....
http://www.tmz.com/2014/03/19/oscar-pistorius-death-threats-over-graphic-lego-recreations/

 

[nastasya]

Time yes more time. AFAIK OP did not tell the police his story that night, he told Stipp he though he had a monstrous heavily armed intruder on his hands and he dealt with him accordingly / just sarcasm, sorry! He and his team, which included forensics and pathology experts had IIRC 5 days to create his fantasy accident. It is interesting that if you remove a single element of what he said that relates to why he got out if bed and why he overlooked Reeva, his story falls completely apart. The fans for example, he had to go outside to get them that made him awake alert and outside away from Reeva - the silly fans were never outside, he just needs a reason for being up and away. The ladders, well they were laying flat on the ground and were not tall enough to reach the window anyway, but a team walking through the crime scene would incorporate that in to the story. It was too dark to see Reeva, that's because he closed the door on that very hot night and the curtains and whatever else so that it was pitch black, again nice detail. I could go on.

The most glaring point that points to OP making up the entire story is this:

His story describes closing the door to the deck, the curtains, and the blinds only for the few moments it took to kill RS.

OP's story is that he opened up the outside door again after she's dead, and after the gunshots. This means the only sounds witnesses could have heard were OP's own voice and the cricket bat (according to his version.)

That's because OP is 100% guilty if the witnesses would have heard:

• a woman's voice at ANY time, OR
• any voices BEFORE gunshots

OP's story has the door to the deck closed at the precise time RS was awake and going into the bathroom, then open again precisely after he killed her. He had to make up a story that allowed for witnesses hearing something, but that made it impossible for witnesses to have heard RS's voice or the actual killing.

 

[Really?]

He should have stated what happened immediately, and not been allowed several days to get his rubbish story together. Yep. He needed a reason to be outside so that he didn't see or hear Reeva allegedly go to the toilet. I feel that his celebrity status has thrown some people off guard, and they don't want to believe he's capable of killing someone in a fit of anger. But if he'd been Mr Nobody down the street, he wouldn't be afforded the same support.

Money....that is what is on OP's side......money

 

[Really?]

BBM - I agree. Also, his saying he closed the doors, closed the blinds, and closed the curtains is simply "too many details" IMO to sound true; especially since he didn't bother to say how he happened to wake up to begin with... such as "I woke up because I was too hot" or say why he was bringing the fans in.

Excellent point.....:loveyou:....such smart thinking.

 

[soozieqtips]

Here's another article that is linked in the one I posted earlier:

Dramatic turnaround in prosecution's case in Oscar Pistorius trial

From that article:

Ballistics expert Captain Chris Mangena testified about the order in which Ms Steenkamp was likely shot,

saying the timing between the first and second bullets had to have been such that she had time to fall and
in line with other evidence - scream.

This is the prosecution's strongest point, indicating Pistorius knew exactly who he was shooting because he must have heard her scream.

No one knows what's going on, it's all pure speculation at the moment.

 

[james83]

Regarding the ipad testimony

Barry Bateman ‏@barrybateman Mar 19
#OscarPistorius note: this web history might seem insignificant now, but its value could become apparent when another witness testifies. BB

Barry Bateman ‏@barrybateman Mar 19
@neilbcross Capt. Francois Moller will be called next week to provide significantly more detail on the phone analysis.

Barry Bateman ‏@barrybateman Mar 19
#OscarPistorius Sales is Capt Francois Moller’s superior - Moller is responsible for cellphone analysis. BB
Expand