Trial Discussion Thread #15

[Harmony 2]

Friendly reminder: Posts should be about the content of posts and not directed personally at the person who posted it... thanks!

 

[Viper]

Viper - that's the bail hearing affidavit from 2013.

OMG! One beer too many, sorry!!!

 

[Val1]

He has threatened to break people's legs in the past and there is a video on You Tube that states he was always getting into fights. It seems he does have violent inclinations. I think jealousy was the reason for the threat to break someone's legs.

It helps to have a legal team that can scrub undesirable things from your past too... like suddenly dropping his years old countersuit against the girl that he injured at his home in 2009 just months before he had to go to trial for murder.

 

[G.bng]

You've got to admit she's a bit coy though. C'mon be fair.

If you saw your own hand and was asked if it was your hand, I'd really hope you'd say yes, and not be evasive. After all, there's no reason to be.

Oldwage asks: 'Is that your hand'?
Mrs Stipp answers: 'It looks like my hand.'

What is wrong with this woman! :banghead:

You've stumped me. I have only ever heard/used the word "coy" as in the two definitions in the Oxford dic:

1. (Especially with reference to a woman) making a pretence of shyness or modesty which is intended to be alluring:

2. Reluctant to give details about something regarded as sensitive:

but no idea which of them applies here. I presume the second as I cannot imagine Mrs Stipp having any desire to make herself at once modest and alluring to Oldwadge.

FWIW and imo, I saw Mrs Stipp as annoyed rather than coy. She was exasperated with OW, and wanted to go. OW had by then bullied her for some time in an attempt to get her to "agree", by way of a photo taken much higher up, that from her much lower position on the bed she couldn't have a clear view of OP's bathroom window through the curtain ties, when she most definitely could. He was literally trying to batter her to agree using a false argument. And it was not the first time I have seen the defence being devious and dishonest in this way. Roux did exactly the same when claiming two different photos showed the bat had moved because the tiles didn't line up the same, and he even got the poor simple photographer to agree obviously knowing little about perspective, foreshortening, etc.! I mean, how are tiles going to line up at the same point in photos taken at two different angles, one from behind and one from the front, two different distances etc.!

Plus iirc Mrs Stipp was referring to a different shoot to OW in respect of her hand although I was so annoyed at the use of such a devious trick that I lost interest to save getting further annoyed.

 

[vansleuths]

I was born in Africa and the one thing I remember was the corruption. So long as you have money, you could buy your way out of anything, including murder.

While I believe that OP is guilty of murder (perhaps not premeditated), I have a feeling he will simply get a non-custodial sentence. The rich and powerful tend to live by different laws that us mere mortals, but when you throw in the corruption in Africa with the bribes, it's a another game all to itself.

 

[Gavel Rash]

Another day, another dame, another door
'The lawsuit against Taylor-Memmory was scheduled to go to
court on 20 February but Pistorius was otherwise occupied
with the second day of his bail hearing aft er being charged for
shooting his girlfriend behind a locked toilet door. Had the
Taylor-Memmory case gone to court, attention would have
been on Oscar’s front door, and whether it had been broken
from the outside by Cassidy or from the inside by Oscar.
As it turned out, that week Pistorius’ – and the world’s
attention – was focused on a different door.'
No wonder he was in a fret that night, re Revvas text suggesting he spend it with family. He was about to be outed & Brand Pistorius was to be tainted!

http://www.oscarbook.co.za/OP1-Chapter4Pages54-57.pdf

 

[Bazinga]

That's why I find her testimony suspect. She was defensive the whole time, qualified everything, even questions that were pretty harmless. Jodi did this too. "Yeah, that looks like me," Didn't want to give an inch even on small matters because she just didn't Juan to be right on anything and wound up getting caught up in small lies that called her whole testimony into question. If you are honest and forthcoming the entire time people will not question your bias or honesty. If you act defensive the entire time that's a red flag, IMO.

Wow, now Mrs Stipp is compared to Jodi Arias?? What an awful unnecessary insult to Mrs Stipp. I hate to think that one day she might read this. :facepalm:
I fully understand her defensiveness on the stand about how she would be treated and questioned by Roux and her account picked apart. It was how it happened. It is very stressful to take the stand as a witness in any murder trial let alone one as big as this.
Also she must have been frustrated by the DT's audacity to carry out screaming tests at 3.30am unannounced and waking her family and neighbours. That's a good way to create a hostile witness! I hope neither she nor her husband have PTSD about the night of the killing as the screaming could have triggered a terrible flashback.
Jodi Arias? Seriously?

 

[MeeBee]

I am very certain I remember Mangena saying it would only expand when it hit human flesh as I was actually watching at this time. Here is a link Val posted earlier:


http://sports.yahoo.com/news/oscar-...imony-against-the-blade-runner-133426019.html


"Roux told Mangena that the bullets might have deflected course as they passed through the door. No, Mangena replied, "Black Talon only opens up when it hits a moist target like human flesh.""

 

[MeeBee]

Wow, now Mrs Stipp is compared to Jodi Arias?? What an awful unnecessary insult to Mrs Stipp. I hate to think that one day she might read this. :facepalm:
I fully understand her defensiveness on the stand about how she would be treated and questioned by Roux and her account picked apart. It was how it happened. It is very stressful to take the stand as a witness in any murder trial let alone one as big as this.
Also she must have been frustrated by the DT's audacity to carry out screaming tests at 3.30am unannounced and waking her family and neighbours. That's a good way to create a hostile witness! I hope neither she nor her husband have PTSD about the night of the killing as the screaming could have triggered a terrible flashback.
Jodi Arias? Seriously?

I didn't compare her to Jodi Arias. Seriously.

But if she has nothing to hide or no agenda then she has absolutely no reason to be defensive. If I was being cross examined and I felt confident in my testimony and I was telling the truth, I would never get defensive. When one person gets all hot and the other remains calm, it makes that other person seem like the irrational one making mountains out of molehills. If you get defensive back, it's going to make people wonder why.

 

[Gavel Rash]

Expansion[edit]
When a hollow-point hunting bullet strikes a soft target, the pressure created in the pit forces the material (usually lead) around the inside edge to expand outwards, increasing the axial diameter of the projectile as it passes through. This process is commonly referred to as mushrooming, because the resulting shape, a widened, rounded nose on top of a cylindrical base, typically resembles a mushroom.
The greater frontal surface area of the expanded bullet limits its depth of penetration into the target, and causes more extensive tissue damage along the wound path. Many hollow-point bullets, especially those intended for use at high velocity in centerfire rifles, are jacketed, i.e. a portion of the lead-cored bullet is wrapped in a thin layer of harder metal, such as copper or mild steel. This jacket provides additional strength to the bullet, and can help prevent it from leaving deposits of lead inside the bore. In controlled expansion bullets, the jacket and other internal design characteristics help to prevent the bullet from breaking apart; a fragmented bullet will not penetrate as far.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-point_bullet

 

[anagrammy]

Not necessarily. If the defense has done a through job tying up the loose ends, and helping him to practice, and readied him for the upcoming cross, then he might squeak through successfully.

And we all recall the look of relief on the accused's face when the postponement was announced. He needs more practice in giving a convincing performance under pressure.

Otherwise he might even be glad to say his piece and get the nightmare over with.

 

[Viper]

Well, as Gavel has put it to us, I have not found any language in OPs newest plea explanation that confirms his earlier affidavit statement that the bedroom doors were locked:

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/03/world/document-pistorius-plea-statement/

 

[screecher]

Hmm, and yet I don't recall even a single solitary "feelings" type message was found or presented by either the defense or prosecution where the three simple words most often used to convey being in love or in a loving relationship, I love you, were said, not from or to OP, among what 7000+ messages? Yup, definitely a problem.

I could have sworn I saw a text where Oscar did say I love you. Going back to see.

Phoned Netcare and described injuries and was told to bring her in to hospital himself.

Rumpole. Link please.

 

[MeeBee]

Rumpole. Link please.

Don't have one because I thought I heard while Roux was cross examining. I might be mistaken but I'm going to have to watch the cross examination again because I thought I heard it.

I did provide a link to Mangena's statement that black talons only open when hitting a soft target.

Eta: never mind, if you weren't asking me for a link.

 

[Val1]

Don't have one because I thought I heard while Roux was cross examining. I might be mistaken but I'm going to have to watch the cross examination again because I thought I heard it.

I did provide a link to Mangena's statement that black talons only open when hitting a soft target.

Eta: never mind, if you weren't asking me for a link.

If you read further in that article with Mangena's testimony, he also states that black talons can fragment, as opposed to open up, when they hit a hard object(like when they missed RS and hit the toilet room wall behind her). I think the link request was in reference to the Netcare call and what was said during it, I know I'd love to see that too.

 

[MeeBee]

If you read further in that article with Mangena's testimony, he also states that black talons can fragment, as opposed to open up, when they hit a hard object(like when they missed RS and hit the toilet room wall behind her). I think the link request was in reference to the Netcare call and what was said during it, I know I'd love to see that too.

Thanks I only realized that after I wrote. My post was quoted thus the confusion. :blushing:

 

[sorrell skye]

Right, so no evidence that he's ever been violent?

So if we're going to talk about risk factors for domestic homicide, let's talk about all of the risk factors.

Has he committed physical abuse or threatened to harm a girlfriend or family member? Nope.

Has his abuse involved choking an intimate partner? Nope.

Any history of emotional abuse escalating to physical abuse? Nope.

What about past threats of suicide? Nope.

What about a history of harming or threatening to harm pets or children to get his way? Nope.

What about controlling a partner's financial resources in order to ensure her dependence on him? Nope.

Did he recently become unemployed, suffer a death in the family or any significant loss? Nope.

Was he having severe financial problems? Nope.

Did they live together or recently separate? Nope.

Any history of stalking behaviors towards an intimate partner? Nope.

Ever forced or pressured a partner into sexual activities when they were not willing? Nope.

Any history with Reeva or any other girlfriend of prohibiting them from having friends or relationships with family? Nope.

A history of controlling where his partner goes and whom she sees and associates with? Nope.

Substance addiction? Nope.

Does he have access to guns? Yes.​

The only risk factor we can identify in Oscar Pistorius is that he has access to guns. That is predictive of exactly NOTHING.

ETA: And here's a link for anyone who cares to read more about the subject of risk assessment for domestic homicide http://www.dangerassessment.net/upl...ality_Risk_Assessment_Instrument-Campbell.pdf

I read that study.

The risk factors listed above are possible predictors for potential future repeat assaults or homicide between intimate partners, so that victim advocates, healthcare professionals, law enforcement, and victims can take proactive measures to ensure their safety in the future, as well as to assist shelters in assessing who may be in greatest need of emergency shelter (since domestic violence shelter space is extremely limited).

The Danger Assessment was and is not intended as a retroactive litmus test to attempt to absolve defendants of murder charges.

Nor is the Danger Assessment intended to be a crystal ball that can accurately predict who or who will not commit IPH (intimate partner homicide).

It is meant as a guide so that when particular potential risk factors are present, action can be taken to prevent possible future violence and/or death.

In no way, shape, or form does it seek to establish that if the potential risk factors listed in the Danger Assessment are absent, that a defendant charged with murder is not guilty of those charges.

 

[G.bng]

My advice would be to never lie in a sworn statement.

And as an attorney, what, pray, would your advice be to someone who in a sworn affidavit says something that at that time they genuinely think is their recollection of something but after going over it again realise they got confused and it isn't ?

Oh, and BTW, in the UK it is not perjury to lie in a sworn statement or in a statement under oath, UNLESS it was an intentional lie, done willfully and knowingly, in as much as that it was done deliberately and not by mistake or accident, so, in view of the fact SA tends to follow English law, I don't believe Judge Masipa will be too much concerned with Mrs Stipp's mistake and her correcting it immediately afterwards, more especially considering that the very fact Mrs Stipps did correct it would in most people's eyes demonstrate integrity. But we shall see in Masipa's statement of reasons... or not !

PERJURY
Under s1 of the Perjury Act 1911 (PA 1911), it is an offence for a lawfully sworn witness or interpreter in judicial proceedings wilfully to make a statement, material in those proceedings, which they knew to be false or did not believe to be true.

ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE
The prosecution has the burden of proving that:

• the witness was lawfully sworn in as a witness in a judicial proceeding the witness made a statement
  
• wilfully
  
• the statement was false
  
• 
  the witness knew it was false or did not believe it to be true
  
• the statement was, viewed objectively, material in the judicial proceeding

WILFUL STATEMENTS
The statement must be made wilfully and the person must know it to be false or not believe it to be true. The statement must therefore be made deliberately and not by some mistake or accident.

January 2010​

 

[Trooper]

Thanks I only realized that after I wrote. My post was quoted thus the confusion. :blushing:

you mean you Stipped ??

 

[MeeBee]

you mean you Stipped ??

Not really, but I appreciate the attempt at humor.