Trial Discussion Thread #10 - 14.03.19, Day 13

[minor4th]

From that article:



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

And more:

Captain Mangena also conceded Pistorius may have been standing exactly where he said he was when he fired the shots, as far away as the far bathroom wall.

Ms Phelps said Captain Mangena had been unable to refute any key part of Pistorius’ version of events.

"So essentially what he is doing is putting forward an alternative: that’s not going to meet the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt until you can actually show that what Pistorius is arguing is fundamentally inconsistent with the physical scene, and he didn’t manage to do that," she said.

Yes, it is all speculation at this point.

 

[minor4th]

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

Considering the next witnesses up to bat, I'm beginning to think that Nel's request for a long adjournment is what I speculated earlier - Nel does not want to put these witnesses on and then give Roux a 3-day weekend to prepare his cross examination.

That seems logical and likely to me. And it's clever on Nel's part.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I thought Roux seemed very 'retiring' yesterday. Not his normal argumentative self. Perhaps he knows something devastating is in the air. How about Apple have cracked the iPhone and there are incriminating messages on it? My mind is going into overdrive now so I will sign off for the evening .

 

[Viper]

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

Dramatic turnaround in prosecution's case in Oscar Pistorius trial

Wow, this "article" is 95% identical to the content of your other article, same commentary from the same person as well. Many of these "news agencies" seek permission to use the material that others create. This one definitely looks like they did that, and added a fantastic title to add drama!

 

[minor4th]

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/

LOL at the diversity in your articles.

"Balancing probabilities" is certainly not a concept in a criminal trial where the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt." So if the judge thinks it's probable that it was premeditated - that's not enough for a conviction.

Balancing probabilities is consistent with civil cases where the burden of proof (in the US) is "preponderance of the evidence" which means ..it's more likely than not.

 

[minor4th]

Wow, this "article" is 95% identical to the content of your other article, same commentary from the same person as well. Many of these "news agencies" seek permission to use the material that others create. This one definitely looks like they did that, and added a fantastic title to add drama!

I know! I actually think it was the 2nd article that I had read yesterday but when I tried to find it today with a Google search, the first article is what came up.

The one with the fantastic title though is the one that came first - the other article references it.

 

[Really?]

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.

Thank you for this...

 

[Viper]

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.

I use my mobile so it is very hard for me to bold.

But anyway.... Indeed! I agree with all of that. I know many people love Roux, can't understand why really, but I tend to favor Mr. Nel. Many are expecting Mr. Nel to be like Roux with the defense witness, but I doubt that very strongly.

 

[soozieqtips]

And more:

Yes, it is all speculation at this point.

Nel may think that now it's been established once and for all that the head shot was not first (as Roux demanded everyone should think) and that Reeva would have automatically screamed (like witnesses heard) that OP must have known she was behind the door when he shot. I'm looking forward to OP taking the stand to hear his own account... or whichever of his accounts he's going to go with.

 

[Trooper]

the most significant testimony from Col.Micheal Sales, the IPAD man, was this.. ( bearing in mind that his evidence was referring to the method of retrieval, and the chain of evidence , and the analyst of the info retrieved is up on the stand next week ) ..

he used a non destructive and non intrusive method of entering the IPAD... the only change to the record on the IPAD is his dialing in.

he testifies re the deletion of history prior to 13th Feb.

the next 16 minutes is Nel and Col. Sales verifying that he then retrieved ALL the information on those two Ipads.. Ipad 2, Ipad 3.

and then the fine detail of handing over to the defence the entire info and the both IPADS...

having established this , he turns it over to Roux , and Roux goes to pieces.. it is at this point that Nel requests the next day ( 1 ) day as an adjournment in consultation with Roux.. who agrees wholeheartedly to this.. faced with both attorneys requesting it, and not a conflict between one wanting it and the other not, the Judge agrees to it.

Nel states he wishes to reconsider. not re do, or re work or re align.. but reconsider the States case, and Roux and Oscar immediately go onto deep observation of the IPAD.

make of it what you will !... I think .. with no basis or foundation or a specific particular, that s.o.m.e.t.h.i.n.g. has changed, and its not the matter of the order of shots, ( which solidly confirms Oscar as a pre meditated murderer) or the blood spatter evidence but IPAD stuff..

all will be revealed..

the property.. Don't know if this is standard anywhere else, but in Sydney, and mostly across AU. a real estate agent has to tell potential buyers of any event that took place on the property of a criminal nature, in particular, murder.. naturally , it lowers the value , but them's the breaks.. !! you kill some one in your property investment, you lose big time!!

 

[Morag]

Originally Posted by soozieqtips

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.

I thought that perhaps he had said to her It's hot in here, I'll bring in the fans to blow directly over us. While he was doing that, she went to the loo. When he shouted, Call the cops, there's someone in here! She, not wanting to call attention to herself, locked the door and remained silent. She heard him shouting, Get out of my house! and didn't realize he was shouting at the 'intruder' in the loo.

And why wasn't the air conditioning on? It sounds like some of the neighbors were also sleeping with their windows open.

Oscar may be a jerk, but he doesn't seem to be a murderous jerk. I can't see a motive. IMO, this was a tragic accident. Gun laws here in the states are very lax, and it is not at all unusual for someone to kill his/her spouse, child, dog, etc.

 

[Trooper]

the announcement that overtook the court was a direction of the court and court personell not being operative on Friday 21st March due to the Public Service Holiday.. Human Spirit Day,( I think is what the label of the Holiday is )

Nel merely made a joke about it because he couldn't get the damned thing to stop.

 

[soozieqtips]

Pistorius's defence costs are estimated at 150,000 to 200,000 rand (£8,301 to £11,068) a day for at least three full-time lawyers in court, plus ballistics and forensics experts and a US crime scene reconstruction company. Defence counsel Barry Roux is rumoured to be earning around 50,000 rand (£2,767) a day.Laurie James, a criminologist following the case, said: "At 200,000 a day anyone would struggle to fund the defence. Even if he walks out exonerated, what sponsor is going to touch him in the future? What brand would want to make itself toxic?"

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/mar/20/oscar-pistorius-home-sale-trial-costs

 

[Trooper]

the airconditioning unit was broken.. so was his Jacuzzi but that's beside the point.

 

[Morag]

And for those who think that Reeva would have automatically screamed when the first bullet entered and broke her hip, that's not necessarily so. I witnessed my husband falling and breaking his left leg. He immediately went into shock and said not a word, although he was in agony. (He's fine now, thanks, after surgery.)

Someone remarked earlier that although OP said he felt vulnerable without his legs, that what he really felt was power with his legs. I've not been legless, but I imagine he felt normal with his legs- and vulnerable without them.

 

[Trooper]

Originally Posted by soozieqtips




I thought that perhaps he had said to her It's hot in here, I'll bring in the fans to blow directly over us. While he was doing that, she went to the loo. When he shouted, Call the cops, there's someone in here! She, not wanting to call attention to herself, locked the door and remained silent. She heard him shouting, Get out of my house! and didn't realize he was shouting at the 'intruder' in the loo.

And why wasn't the air conditioning on? It sounds like some of the neighbors were also sleeping with their windows open.

Oscar may be a jerk, but he doesn't seem to be a murderous jerk. I can't see a motive. IMO, this was a tragic accident. Gun laws here in the states are very lax, and it is not at all unusual for someone to kill his/her spouse, child, dog, etc.

The State of South Africa doesn't need a motive.. it requires a parameter of the laws pertaining to the legal boundaries to shoot to kill. Oscar is beyond those boundaries in his execution of Reeva.. it really is that simple, whichever way one looks at it. Oscar cant even claim ignorance of those laws..

 

[minor4th]

And for those who think that Reeva would have automatically screamed when the first bullet entered and broke her hip, that's not necessarily so. I witnessed my husband falling and breaking his left leg. He immediately went into shock and said not a word, although he was in agony. (He's fine now, thanks, after surgery.)

Someone remarked earlier that although OP said he felt vulnerable without his legs, that what he really felt was power with his legs. I've not been legless, but I imagine he felt normal with his legs- and vulnerable without them.

Very good points. Absolutely, there is no proof that Reeva screamed after the first shot. If the first set of bangs at 3:08 -3:10 were the gunshots (and I dont see how any other scenario is possible), then no one heard screams during the shots. The only witness who heard the actual gunshots was Dr Stipp and he testified that he did not hear voices or screaming until after the shots.

And even if Reeva did scream, it's more than likely that Oscar would not have heard it because he would have been deafened by the loud explosion of the first gunshot in a small enclosed space.

 

[soozieqtips]

I thought that perhaps he had said to her It's hot in here, I'll bring in the fans to blow directly over us. While he was doing that, she went to the loo. When he shouted, Call the cops, there's someone in here! She, not wanting to call attention to herself, locked the door and remained silent. She heard him shouting, Get out of my house! and didn't realize he was shouting at the 'intruder' in the loo.

And why wasn't the air conditioning on? It sounds like some of the neighbors were also sleeping with their windows open.

Oscar may be a jerk, but he doesn't seem to be a murderous jerk. I can't see a motive. IMO, this was a tragic accident. Gun laws here in the states are very lax, and it is not at all unusual for someone to kill his/her spouse, child, dog, etc.

Most murderers don't seem like murderers. But it's a fact that OP was controlling, had a bad temper, no respect for authority and had no qualms about asking his friend to take the rap for the restaurant incident. Add manipulative to that list. However, I don't think for a second he planned to murder her (in the sense of spending days thinking about it) - but I do think an altercation took place that night and he lost it, just like he lost it on previous occasions, but this time he went too far and actually killed someone.

 

[Dr Mattus]

Hi all,

Long time reader, first time poster.

From my very amateur perspective, I agree with posters like minor 4th that none of the evidence yet presented is really inconsistent with OPs version of events. However, I'm not sure that will prevent a murder conviction. On the contrary, I think the case is extraordinarily strong. Let's take a look.

1. OP fired through the door into the bathroom. This is beyond reasonable doubt.

2. OP was aware there was a person on the other side of the door. also beyond doubt.

3. OPs intention was to kill the person on the other side of the door.. This is important for premeditation. I think this is also beyond doubt. He fired 4 times using particularly deadly ammunition.

4. The person on the other side of the door posed absolutely no threat to OP.

5. The person on the other side of the door was killed. OP wanted to kill the person on the other side of the door, and he did so.

That's a pretty strong case for murder right there. The only thing missing is motive, and it's not clear to me that the prosecution needs to prove motive beyond reasonable doubt in order to prove premeditated murder. But let's look at motive.

Prosecution: OP was angry with the person on the other side of the door. evidence for this motive is quite weak. It seems to be based solely on the neighbours hearing screaming and arguing. Much of which can be explained away. Evidence against this is that there is no history of problems in the relationship or any trigger for such anger. That said, establishing such a motive is extremely difficult in the context of a romantic relationship.

Defence: OP was afraid of the person on the other side of the door. evidence for this is pretty weak too. It's based on a history of flipping out about intruders. Evidence against this is the fact that the person on the other side of the door posed absolutely no threat. That said, establishing such a defence is also very difficult, as there is absolutely no evidence to support that it was reasonable to be afraid of the person on the other side of the door, beyond paranoia.

So, I wonder if it is possible that the judge will find OP guilty of premeditated murder, which acknowledging that he may immediately regretted the act when he realised who was on the other side of the door.

 

[Trooper]

Dr Stipp testified that he heard shots AND screaming , man and woman intermingled..

these testimony can be easily verified on the transcript of his segment in the witness stand..

screaming, shot,.. screaming man woman , shot, shot, shot.

that's his evidence.. on record.