Trial Discussion Thread #11 weekend thread

[Gbtaketwo]

Quick question for anyone that believes that OP actually thought that an intruder had used a ladder to climb into an upstairs bathroom window...............why on earth would an intruder go through the trouble of dealing with not only two dogs but also a ladder into a second floor bathroom window that would possibly be inside of a bedroom at night when the house occupants could be asleep in that bedroom when there is a broken window on the ground floor that provides easier access?

There are to many red flags that have not yet been answered. OP is going to have to testify to explain (or try to) those red flags away. Otherwise he can kiss his freedom goodbye.

MOO

The broken window and no glass may have been addressed by the police asking the housekeepers how long it had been broken assuming that it was not broken and the glass cleaned away on the night of Reeva's death. Even if it was the night of her death OP would claim it was accidental and with the only likely witness dead it couldn't prove anything unfortunately . Maybe that's why we haven't heard anything about it so far .

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I just feel that there has not been any real discussion about them but there must be some reason for them to be there . Ie either Reeva threw them out to attract attention or to collect on her way to the car without alerting OP or OP himself threw them out . Just seems one coincidence too many to believe that they had been put there to dry and blown off . If they had been put there to dry the likelihood would be that the bathroom window was indeed open all along .
That coupled with the flushing noise that he never heard really stand out as being important in disproving OP's statement
I am very much leaning towards the fact that she was indeed taking refuge in the toilet but I am worried that the prosecution have not proved that beyond reasonable doubt ,do hope i am wrong here and that the 4 shots will be enough to secure murder at least .Will have to see what happens on Monday

Yes, maybe he had taken them from the balcony (which is a much more rational place to hang jeans to air) and thrown them out the window during an argument. Here's my scenario.

Reeva and Oscar are fighting. She goes to balcony to fetch jeans to put on as she intends on leaving. He snatches jeans off her and throws them out of window in toilet. Fight escalates, he fetches and threatens her with gun. She barricades herself in there and locks door. He fires through door. Weren't all her belongings packed when the police arrived as if she was ready to leave?

 

[soozieqtips]

Watching (mainly US) trials the advice is usually that the defendant does NOT take the stand. The times I have seen a defendant take the stand despite that advice, it seems to do them harm rather than good. Obviously it opens them up to cross examination and a competent lawyer can usually show them in a bad light. In between late starts and tea breaks, I think Nel is probably more than competent at cross examining a defendant.

FWIW I would not recommend that OP testifies. An outline of his version is already in evidence.

BBM - you mean like Roux attempted to do with all the witnesses? What's good for the goose is good for the Oscar, and if he's so sure of his innocence then I don't see why he wouldn't want to stand up and fill in some of the gaping holes in his story. However, if he's been lying, then Roux probably wouldn't want him up there where those lies might be exposed.

 

[steveml]

It's true. They can overrule the judge. I was surprised too.

http://www.mediaclubsouthafrica.com/democracy/3733-faqs-on-the-oscar-pistorius-trial

I wonder if this law changes slightly different from province to province in SA? I had a look at one for Western Cape, and that still suggests that assessors can only advise on legal matters. As you say, it's clearly stated on the page link above that assessors are able to overrule the judge on majority decisions.

Good find.

 

[foxbluff]

These things combined with the gun previous incidents, smashing up of the speedboat and driving at crazy speeds are things that he should have got out of his system a long time ago. He seems to have a mature sensible sports personality life, and a reckless, nothing-can-touch-me social life. Something very Jekyll and Hyde going on there. I guess Nel needs to be careful not to bring out too much of the crazy side though, as OP's defense could try for a different plea.

:noooo:

BBM - I'm glad you mentioned this; it reminds me of something I've been meaning to ask this brd for some time now:

Q : What is the possibility that the defense #1 can and #2 would use the boating accident e.g. head injury, as a defense for OP's anger issues which are being described by friends, etc.?

Sorry... I'm not expressing myself clearly but hope brd will be able to understand what I'm getting at... TIA

 

[crasshopper]

IMO I don't think the State HAVE sufficient evidence to discredit OP's claim that he thought there was an intruder. At the risk of "sounding like a cracked record" I think they should have from the outset argued the case accepting that OP THOUGHT he was firing at an intruder. The State have spent 2 and a half weeks (excluding late starts, early tea breaks and early day ends) trying to prove Beyond Reasonable doubt something that they can not prove at all. They knew what evidence they had. We have seen that it largely supports OP's version of events.

I disagree completely. I think the state has proven beyond any doubt that OP was well aware of the gun laws and that he admittedly repeatedly shot an unarmed victim who posed him no threat.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Yes, maybe he had taken them from the balcony (which is a much more rational place to hang jeans to air) and thrown them out the window during an argument. Here's my scenario.

Reeva and Oscar are fighting. She goes to balcony to fetch jeans to put on as she intends on leaving. He snatches jeans off her and throws them out of window in toilet. Fight escalates, he fetches and threatens her with gun. She barricades herself in there and locks door. He fires through door. Weren't all her belongings packed when the police arrived as if she was ready to leave?

There are many possibilities of how the jeans ended up outside on the floor under the bathroom window and I feel sure that they are in some way connected to the shooting and not incidental . The problem is proving it .
My own opinion is of the most likely are either he threw them or she threw them out so she could leave without him realising she was going .
As you say if they were outside to dry or air they would more likely have been put on the balcony rather than the bathroom window sill.
I am not sure if her bag was fully packed or not ,I think there could have been her cosmetics bag still in the bathroom.
If the prosecutors do have some proof of an argument that would make their case against him stronger .
On a separate point has anybody else read that her car was unlocked and the drivers door wide open ?. I thought I had seen this somewhere but can't find the link now .
Found a post where I read something about it ,don't know whether it was ever verified.
Will do some further research .

 

[Viper]

I realize that historically most celebrity murderers have beat the charges, but not so much these days, thankfully. Oscar was a SA national hero, but I believe that the majority of SA is not blind to what he did. So this judge has got to handle her decision very wisely, not just for her but for all of SA. They are all watching the trial or keeping up day to day to be sure. So if she were to show undue leniency to OP there would surely be great turmoil and rioting. Woman's rights groups have thrown their support to Reeva's parents, I'm not aware of anything like giving OP political and public support, just his diehard fans and admirers. So what I am getting at is OP must show not just reasonable doubt but compellingly reasonable doubt that 90% of SA would accept. If all he has got is his story and paid specialist testimony then I think he is going away 25 years, maybe more with this hard- judge. And lastly, do any of you truely believe a paid expert is really going to convince any of us that the first shot fired hit Reeva in the head? For that to happen the states expert would have to be Mr. Bean in disguise. JMO

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I believe the judge will be very careful with her legal findings, she cannot take public opinion into account, however.

 

[steveml]

BBM - I'm glad you mentioned this; it reminds me of something I've been meaning to ask this brd for some time now:

Q : What is the possibility that the defense #1 can and #2 would use the boating accident e.g. head injury, as a defense for OP's anger issues which are being described by friends, etc.?

Sorry... I'm not expressing myself clearly but hope brd will be able to understand what I'm getting at... TIA

That's a good question. To be honest there are probably people here that would be better qualified to give you a clear answer. I can hazard a guess that if defense decided to go down the route of TBI (traumatic brain injury) there would need to be some kind of medical report indicating the possibility before this can be considered.

The nature of OP's athletic career may well work against him as I would imagine there's already a wealth of medical information already available. The very nature of his career as a top athlete would mean that he probably has already had many tests/medicals/scans over and above what a normal working person would have, therefore you'd expect something amiss to be detected at an early stage. Just a guess here.

 

[Viper]

I believe the judge will be very careful with her legal findings, she cannot take public opinion into account, however.

Oh yes of course. I'm more focused on precedent. Heck she might do what some OP fans want and find him guilty of just any minor charge and sentence him to 2 years and let him out in 1 - I've actually seen people express that opinion! But if he cannot truly (not like here were we claim victory on just about any small detail) demonstrate reasonable doubt then he must be treated as another other SA citizen would be. I guess I am discussing this because I am not seeing the reasonable doubt that many here do see. I'm not saying anyone is wrong but I believe what has been identified as doubt so far here is very weak and likely just out of bias.

 

[steveml]

I disagree completely. I think the state has proven beyond any doubt that OP was well aware of the gun laws and that he admittedly repeatedly shot an unarmed victim who posed him no threat.

I think the point Rumpole has made is referring to the charge that the state have gone for. We already know that OP had to be aware of the gun laws, as he had a gun license (which has an associated test). We already knew he repeatedly shot an unarmed victim (Reeva), as he has openly admitted that. The state doesn't need to prove those. They're playing for higher stakes with the premeditation charge.

 

[Rumpole]

I disagree completely. I think the state has proven beyond any doubt that OP was well aware of the gun laws and that he admittedly repeatedly shot an unarmed victim who posed him no threat.

I think you are replying to somebody else's post?

I never mentioned OP's awareness of gun laws?

"Posed no threat" is what we all know in hindsight, but the whole point of OP's defense is that he did in fact perceive a serious threat. And the state have NOT proved that he is lying and did not think that?

 

[BritsKate]

I just feel that there has not been any real discussion about them but there must be some reason for them to be there . Ie either Reeva threw them out to attract attention or to collect on her way to the car without alerting OP or OP himself threw them out . Just seems one coincidence too many to believe that they had been put there to dry and blown off . If they had been put there to dry the likelihood would be that the bathroom window was indeed open all along .
That coupled with the flushing noise that he never heard really stand out as being important in disproving OP's statement
I am very much leaning towards the fact that she was indeed taking refuge in the toilet but I am worried that the prosecution have not proved that beyond reasonable doubt ,do hope i am wrong here and that the 4 shots will be enough to secure murder at least .Will have to see what happens on Monday

Makes me wonder where her keys were too. If this was a domestic violence homicide, it's pretty easy to imagine he may have tried to prevent her from leaving. That alone could account for the jeans being outside.

To me it screams immaturity, i'm 28 and the thought of dating an 18 year old has no appeal to me what so ever, the difference in maturity would drive me nut's.

My abusive ex admitted he deliberately targets younger women. (I was 20 to his 33.) Some young women, especially if they have esteem issues and/or dysfunctional families, are easier to manipulate into and more willing to endure a bad relationship.

So his interest for women so young makes me wonder. JMO

 

[soozieqtips]

I wonder if this law changes slightly different from province to province in SA? I had a look at one for Western Cape, and that still suggests that assessors can only advise on legal matters. As you say, it's clearly stated on the page link above that assessors are able to overrule the judge on majority decisions.

Good find.

From what I've read in the press, OP's fate lies entirely in the judge's hands, but if the assessors can overrule her, that's not true. It's almost like a mini jury, or a mini judgery... which I think is good, because the more assistance the judge gets in processing and digesting all of the available evidence, the more likely there is to be a fair and unbiased outcome, in my opinion.

 

[Viper]

I believe the judge will be very careful with her legal findings, she cannot take public opinion into account, however.

Makes me wonder where her keys were too. If this was a domestic violence homicide, it's pretty easy to imagine he may have tried to prevent her from leaving. That alone could account for the jeans being outside.


My abusive ex admitted he deliberately targets younger women. (I was 20 to his 33.) Some young women, especially if they have esteem issues and/or dysfunctional families, are easier to manipulate into and more willing to endure a bad relationship.

So his interest for women so young makes me wonder. JMO

Well, it didn't work out very well the last time he dated a more mature woman, so...

 

[Rumpole]

From what I've read in the press, OP's fate lies entirely in the judge's hands, but if the assessors can overrule her, that's not true. It's almost like a mini jury, or a mini judgery... which I think is good, because the more assistance the judge gets in processing and digesting all of the available evidence, the more likely there is to be a fair and unbiased outcome, in my opinion.

I'd be a bit surprised if, in practice, the Judge's opinion did not have more weight than the assessors. It would be galling for a Judge to preside over a (lengthy) trial and find him(her)self out-voted by the two assessors. Perhaps even the basic verdict of Guilty or Innocent. IF the system was: "decision by a panel of 3 Judges", it would be described as so and not described as Presiding Judge with assessors to assist.

 

[james83]

Makes me wonder where her keys were too. If this was a domestic violence homicide, it's pretty easy to imagine he may have tried to prevent her from leaving. That alone could account for the jeans being outside.


My abusive ex admitted he deliberately targets younger women. (I was 20 to his 33.) Some young women, especially if they have esteem issues and/or dysfunctional families, are easier to manipulate into and more willing to endure a bad relationship.

So his interest for women so young makes me wonder. JMO

Firstly sorry to hear of your bad experience.
I read a theory that i thought quite plausible that Oscar usually dated younger women who were perhaps somewhat starstruck and happy to let him control them and that perhaps Reeva(couple of years older than Oscar) was the first women who opposed this.

 

[steveml]

I realize that historically most celebrity murderers have beat the charges, but not so much these days, thankfully. Oscar was a SA national hero, but I believe that the majority of SA is not blind to what he did. So this judge has got to handle her decision very wisely, not just for her but for all of SA. They are all watching the trial or keeping up day to day to be sure. So if she were to show undue leniency to OP there would surely be great turmoil and rioting. Woman's rights groups have thrown their support to Reeva's parents, I'm not aware of anything like giving OP political and public support, just his diehard fans and admirers. So what I am getting at is OP must show not just reasonable doubt but compellingly reasonable doubt that 90% of SA would accept. If all he has got is his story and paid specialist testimony then I think he is going away 25 years, maybe more with this hard- judge. And lastly, do any of you truely believe a paid expert is really going to convince any of us that the first shot fired hit Reeva in the head? For that to happen the states expert would have to be Mr. Bean in disguise. JMO

So am I right in thinking that you want OP to be treated exactly the same as a normal SA citizen not as a celebrity during the trial, but before the verdict he must prove not just reasonable doubt but 'compellingly reasonable doubt', which would then treat him entirely different than a normal SA citizen?

 

[Rumpole]

Anybody know of SA cases where there really WAS an intruder shot and killed by a home owner?
I guess in many such cases charges are never laid and so they are not on record?

I have a feeling that given the circumstances of this case, except an actual (dead) intruder, charges would never have been laid. IF the Judge views this case from the perspective of there being an intruder in OP's mind, will she convict him at all?