Trial Discussion Thread #15

[steveml]

It will be interesting to see how defensive or not OP is (if and when he takes the stand). If he is defensive, I trust those who have been somewhat uncharitable about Mrs Stipp will judge and interpret his defensiveness in the same way. Otherwise that would seem rather unfair.

I will, I promise :angel:

The video of lawyer Robert Shapiro gives a good indication of how you can never be prepared for what you are about to experience as accused on the witness stand, in a media centered trial.
He mentions that no training or rehearsals can prepare anyone for what they will be about to experience.

We won't get to see his demeanour as it's audio only I believe.

 

[Gryffindor]

I do have to disagree with the non escalating violence element of your comments. The fact that the problems they were undoubtedly had in their relationship seem all to have occurred in the prior 4 weeks before her murder.

I found his agreement to her seeing her ex a bit surprising but I guess I found, in my own mind, a reason for this. I agree I have no evidence for the following but I think he may well have been on his best behaviour after the last angry, jealous outburst.

Imo, I reckoned he was testing her, to see if she would meet up with her ex. Him saying go ahead, was so he had a reason to berate her for when he next saw her . . . .

i.e. Would have, as he saw, a legit reason to punish her over

 

[Cherwell]

I don't want to seem like one of those "I never do that, so she couldn't have" people, but ....

it surprises me that a couple in their 20s, who had only been in a relationship for three months and didn't live together, would be wearing anything in bed. On a hot night. Unless it was something sexy on her part - but not plain vest and sports shorts.

 

[steveml]

every trial in South Africa is handled by a judge.....it doesn't have a jury system.
its neither an advantage or a disadvantage... it just is..

judge Masipa hasn't been a judge under a jury system. neither have her assessors..

I'm fully aware of that.

I'm indicating in comparison to a country that uses a jury system. What's the problem?

 

[jay-jay]

Good morning All! It will take me half a day to catch up, but did you hear the news? OPs bedroom doors were barged though so they could not be securely locked, it would just take a pull on the "locked" doors to open them, no key needed. So he and Reeva could have easily escaped. Oh, and OP lied about that in his Affidavit!

How many years in prison do you think he will get for Premeditated Murder? I'm thinking the judge gives him a break and just goes with the mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years!

arty:

Do you have a link for that, please .. I can't seem to find anything about it anywhere.

 

[steveml]

And you were saying..

:floorlaugh:

Have I missed something. I'm not quite sure what you mean?

 

[sorrell skye]

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/pi...lothes-are-key-evidence-pistorius-case-n39071

Another prosecution spokesman, Nathi Mncube, told 'Dateline' that what Steenkamp wore will be central to the government's case when the trial opens Monday.
'There is a piece of evidence around the clothes that could suggest what happened there,' he said. 'To disclose it now would be to disclose a lot of our thinking around the case before the time.'


Does anyone have any clue as to what this could be?

According to the date/timestamp, that article was published February 28th 2014, 4:31 a.m. (days before the trial started).

We now know that Reeva was not wearing pajamas or a negligee, but was wearing a black tank top and shorts when she was shot. The black tank top appears to be the same top she was wearing when she arrived at OP's house at around 6:30 p.m. on Feb. 13, 2013 (as seen in the security gate CCTV footage).

This suggests that either the two never went to bed that night, or that Reeva had, at some point, put the same clothes back on that she had been wearing when she arrived (which suggests that she may have been attempting to leave before OP fatally shot her).

In addition, forensic testimony has revealed that the shorts were pulled up when one of the bullets struck her in her right hip.

 

[Trooper]

Ive always thought it was odd she was in the same clothes ,for 12 hours, at least.. most probably 20 hours..

Pretoria.. even though its 4500 ft above sea level, is a hot place in summer.. 95 to 99 degrees F.. the nights go down to around 65-70 F...

* madly transposing Celsius to Fahrenheit. from the civilized to the uncivilized..

 

[MeeBee]

BBM

The point of the trial is because OP has pleaded not guilty to the charges (as is his constitutional right), therefore placing the burden on the State to prove the charges.

Right. How could he plead not guilty if intentional murder is that clear cut, black and white, open and shut? The state is charging him with intentional murder and now they have to prove it. If it's murder regardless, since we know OP is the one who shot Reeva there'd be nothing for the state to prove and nothing for oscar to plead not guilty to.

 

[MeeBee]

there are a lot of posters who are quite savvy as to what premeditation means , where it means it ( that is, under what legal system it is located) ..


there are some posters who cannot grasp what it means in South Africa.


there are plenty of posters who know what it means in their local system.

and then there are those who LIVE under the SAME system as South Africa, which is based on british law.


not seeing the point of this is a bit bewildering 3 weeks into the trial. that I don't understand at all.

The point is that if it really were that simple then there'd be no trial. It's possible the law has been misinterpreted by us lay people. We all know what intentional means. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. But to think that it'll be so black and white as to say he shot to kill, regardless of who he thought he was shooting, so he's guilty of intentional murder is naive.

 

[Viper]

Do you have a link for that, please .. I can't seem to find anything about it anywhere.

I'm on my mobile phone, so it is very hard to post them when I cannot really read them well to be sure I am giving you the correct documents. But a Google will get them for you easily.

 

[Cherwell]

Right. How could he plead not guilty if intentional murder is that clear cut, black and white, open and shut? The state is charging him with intentional murder and now they have to prove it. If it's murder regardless, since we know OP is the one who shot Reeva there'd be nothing for the state to prove and nothing for oscar to plead not guilty to.

It's murder, or culpable homicide. Two choices. That's it, as I understand it.
As someone said upthread, this is all going to be about the sentencing.

 

[BlueShoe]

I will, I promise :angel:

The video of lawyer Robert Shapiro gives a good indication of how you can never be prepared for what you are about to experience as accused on the witness stand, in a media centered trial.
He mentions that no training or rehearsals can prepare anyone for what they will be about to experience.

We won't get to see his demeanour as it's audio only I believe.

When a trial is audio-only, do we still get the sketches and drawings from the court artists to at least give a visual sense of things?

 

[Cherwell]

I'm on my mobile phone, so it is very hard to post them when I cannot really read them well to be sure I am giving you the correct documents. But a Google will get them for you easily.

"Pistorius bedroom door" isn't finding anything recent for me. Can you just tell us your source?

 

[sorrell skye]

Right. How could he plead not guilty if intentional murder is that clear cut, black and white, open and shut? The state is charging him with intentional murder and now they have to prove it. If it's murder regardless, since we know OP is the one who shot Reeva there'd be nothing for the state to prove and nothing for oscar to plead not guilty to.

It's his constitutional right to plead not guilty to any and all charges, as it is with anyone accused of a crime, regardless of the charge or regardless of the evidence.

I agree with LemonMousse, who posted upthread that the Defense is hoping for a reduced sentence, (or possibly hoping for a verdict on a lesser charge) rather than an acquittal.

 

[MeeBee]

He pleaded not guilty - that's the point of the trial. They are hardly going to say "Not guilty? Don't be silly - of course you are. Off to prison with you", are they?

Nel is a South African lawyer - he explained what was meant by premeditation.

Another one does here. He says:

"Intention can be formed at the instant of committing the crime and does not imply or necessitate any degree of forethought or planning on the part of the accused".

http://www.iol.co.za/dailynews/opinion/expert-clarifies-premeditated-murder-1.1573253#.Uzlotye9KSM

That's exactly what premeditation means in the US. It's been said many times that intent can be formed in an instant, a blink of an eye. Same as the US. And yet there have been murders that have been found to not be premeditated because of their passionate nature, I.e. They arose from an argument or confrontation and was based on emotion and little forethought. That's exactly what I'm saying. It will not be that easy. The judge will have to decide whose case she believes and then decide from there. If she decides she believes the state she will then have to weigh various factors in arriving at a decision of intentional homicide. All murders could, theoretically fall under the premeditated column. That's why you have to weigh the circumstances and the factors at play. Don't see how this is vastly different from the US. It almost identical, actually.

 

[Viper]

According to the date/timestamp, that article was published February 28th 2014, 4:31 a.m. (days before the trial started).

We now know that Reeva was not wearing pajamas or a negligee, but was wearing a black tank top and shorts when she was shot. The black tank top appears to be the same top she was wearing when she arrived at OP's house at around 6:30 p.m. on Feb. 13, 2013 (as seen in the security gate CCTV footage).

This suggests that either the two never went to bed that night, or that Reeva had, at some point, put the same clothes back on that she had been wearing when she arrived (which suggests that she may have been attempting to leave before OP fatally shot her).

In addition, forensic testimony has revealed that the shorts were pulled up when one of the bullets struck her in her right hip.

Good morning Sorrel,

Gavel posted an image of Reeva arriving at the estate gates in her Mini Cooper, the top was black but had thin shoulder straps, so it is not the black t-shirt she was wearing when she was killed, which had wide shoulder straps.

Her clothes were the t-shirt and white Nike shorts. This could be yoga attire. And she was likely wearing something when she went downstairs for a snack.

I do strongly believe that this got physical downstairs or on the way upstairs as Reeva was getting her things to leave; that is why she had to run to the bedroom and lock OP out.

 

[MeeBee]

It's his constitutional right to plead not guilty to any and all charges, as it is with anyone accused of a crime, regardless of the charge or regardless of the evidence.

I agree with LemonMousse, who posted upthread that the Defense is hoping for a reduced sentence, (or possibly hoping for a verdict on a lesser charge) rather than an acquittal.

I agree the defense is hoping for that too. But we're arguing an interpretation of the law in SA that I don't believe to be true.

 

[steveml]

The point is that if it really were that simple then there'd be no trial. It's possible the law has been misinterpreted by us lay people. We all know what intentional means. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. But to think that it'll be so black and white as to say he shot to kill, regardless of who he thought he was shooting, so he's guilty of intentional murder is naive.

[FONT=&quot]That's correct.

Prosecutors said they have enough evidence to prove OP killed his girlfriend with direct intention.
The nature of OP's defense isn't to show that he didn't kill Reeva, we already know that, as he's told us so.
[/FONT]

 

[Trooper]

The point is that if it really were that simple then there'd be no trial. It's possible the law has been misinterpreted by us lay people. We all know what intentional means. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. But to think that it'll be so black and white as to say he shot to kill, regardless of who he thought he was shooting, so he's guilty of intentional murder is naive.

could you tell me,.. in your own words.. what you think you are watching in regard to Oscar Pistorius being on trial.. would you do that for me?


just in your own words..