Trial Discussion Thread #26 - 14.04.15, Day 23

[Rumpole]

I submit that one can assume that written words have their ordinary and plain meaning on face value - unless there is some extrinsic evidence that clearly suggests that the words mean something different.

That's a bit radical :floorlaugh:

 

[Britlaws]

He completely ignores the absurdity of OP's story, and points out flaws in the prosecutions.

For some reason they think OP does not have to prove that he did not mean to kill her (which I think he should). OP killed her, that is the fact of it. This isn't about proving if he shot her, it is about proving that it was an accident. The burden of proof should rest equally on both sides shoulders. As he clearly is not "innocent".

JMO

OP has to adduce sufficiency of evidence that he thought it was an intruder and he was in fear of his life. The prosecution then have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he knew it wasn't an intruder and therefore he didn't fear for his life.

Legalities aside, you are soooo right, his story is absurd!!

 

[james83]

I submit that one can assume that written words have their ordinary and plain meaning on face value - unless there is some extrinsic evidence that clearly suggests that the words mean something different.

Does that apply to whatsapp messages?.

 

[Hatfield]

All JMO
Ive been trying to find pics of the bullet holes in the door. I saw them briefly on TV. If I remember it right there were 4 holes real close together. If so, that tells me he shot very rapidly and unloaded all 4 shots very quickly. A semi-auto can unload shots rapidly.

Im thinking she had locked herself in trying to get away from his ranting. I bet he didnt have his leg attachments on at first during initial fighting and so she was able to run to the bathroom. I think he got his legs on and then grabbed his gun too and went towards the door and just unloaded on her in a fit of rage.

If the height of the holes are standing height then that tells me she was standing just on the other side of the door.

If the height is lower then that would indicate a more long drawn out verbal fight where she finally was sitting down trying to calm him down from inside.

Either way I dont think he gave her a chance. I think he just blew his temper and unloaded 4 shots on her. She had no idea he was that much of a lunatic.
The guy is unstable and creepy IMO. He is a loose cannon and is very arrogant.

I think as he became popular he began to feel he was over a lot of other people including her.

 

[minor4th]

As others have wisely noted, it's odd that a SINGLE card is evidence of a 'loving' relationship... yet FOUR nasty texts from OP to Reeva (where she says she is SCARED of him) is not considered evidence of an abusive relationship! You truly could not make this stuff up. I guess all logic has gone to ground.

It is EVIDENCE of a loving relationship, not to be confused with PROOF of a loving relationship.

"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. (Texas Rules of Evidence, Section 401)

It is intellectually dishonest to say that a card saying "I love you" does not tend to make it more probable that this was a loving relationship.

 

[AdnanJanuzaj]

The Jurisprudence system we all cherish is that the Defendant is innocent until proven guilty and that the (considerable) burden is on the STATE to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

People may WANT there to be an equal burden of proof on both sides, but that is simply NOT the rules.

This is not a normal case though. He killed her. He admits to killing her. You cannot just kill someone and say "it was an accident!", prove it wasn't!

Can you say that you believe his story beyond a reasonable doubt? Why should he be able to murder someone, and then not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was an accident?

 

[minor4th]

Does that apply to whatsapp messages?.

It applies to any communications.

 

[AdnanJanuzaj]

I submit that one can assume that written words have their ordinary and plain meaning on face value - unless there is some extrinsic evidence that clearly suggests that the words mean something different.

Making assumptions like that is very very naive and silly in a murder trial.

 

[minor4th]

Making assumptions like that is very very naive and silly in a murder trial.

Really? I think not. This is how it works. Words mean what they say unless there's other evidence to suggest that the words don't mean what they say.

Trust me on this

 

[jay-jay]

The defence team have primed them to do this... remind everyone that they are a God fearing Christian family

Correct .. it's all so staged, isn't it .. most people, if they did want to pray, would do it inside their heads and all this continual mouthing of prayers is because it needs to be seen (or so they think, when actually it looks worse because if they really thought OP was innocent then they wouldn't need to be praying like there's no tomorrow and the facts/truth would be speaking for itself).

Uncle Arnold isn't fooling anyone either, with all his nicey nicey stuff offering out food and drinks to all and sundry all the time.

 

[minor4th]

I am using the following as an example.

Let's say a stalker puts a card on my car. In that card the stalker says "I love you". Now just because that stalker loves me, has told me they love me in a card, does NOT a relationship make. It also does not mean that I love that stalker. When one person says "I love you" it does NOT mean that the other loves them back.

Let's remember that we are all adults here, not high school girls going crazy over some boy that we love that may or may not love us back. We can pretend to be in a "loving relationship" with that boy that we "love" but it doesn't mean that the boy feels the same way towards us and that he isn't using us for something in his favor.

MOO

Ok, but let's deal with the actual facts in this case.

What does Reeva mean when she says "I love you" in a card to Oscar?

 

[Rumpole]

Making assumptions like that is very very naive and silly in a murder trial.

Speculating based on nothing at all then twisting and turning adding more speculation, while denying, and down playing what facts there are, is illogical, unscientific, and dangerous in a murder trial (and even in discussion).

 

[Hatfield]

This is not a normal case though. He killed her. He admits to killing her. You cannot just kill someone and say "it was an accident!", prove it wasn't!

Can you say that you believe his story beyond a reasonable doubt? Why should he be able to murder someone, and then not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was an accident?

Here in the US the only way it would be a justifieable homicide is if he thouht his life was threatened. Even if we believe the lie about him thinking intruder, there is no way his life was being threatened at that moment. He could have ran out of the house.

The prosecution just needs to try to prove that he is lying about thinking it was intruder. But even if they fail, he should be guilty of manslaughter at a minimum because his life was not in jeaporday because the person was locked on other side of door. He was the aggressor and pursued the person.

JMO of course.

 

[TipDog]

You can use conjecture to formulate a hypothesis... but then you have to PROVE it beyond reasonable doubt.

Circumstantial evidence is OK provided there are enough "blocks" of facts.

This meal is just pure unsubstantiated supposition.

It was NOT a sandwich as I see suggested. State's own expert says it was some sort of vegetable meal. There had to be dishes etc. None were found.
And if the implication is that this was more than a "meal" it was an occasion for a violent argument that escalated into murder... I think food scraps, broken plates WOULD be circumstantial evidence to support that. The fact that such evidence was not found is circumstantial evidence that it never happened.

It really is a pathetic excuse for a case. Especially since there is testimony of just a single voice at 2:00 AM... and no sign of a disturbance at 3:20?

The "Screams" were all after the GUNSHOTS heard by 3 closest STATE witnesses, and so it is at the very least IN DOUBT that the screams were Reeva since they came at a time after she was dead.

The State's entire case is too tiny and scrappy to refute and replace OP's detailed version.


As an Aside:
I think it is pathetic for Nel to be requesting a 2 week adjournment. If time was of an essence he has known all along and could have upped his game, speeded up a bit..... NOT taken the extra day and a half tacked on to an existing long weekend.

OP (guilty or innocent) is entitled to have this torture of a trial completed ASAP. As are all the other interested parties... Reeva's family etc.
I do hope the Judge simply denies this request and tells BOTH sides to "pull finger"

BIB 1

Forgive me for being direct, but you do not know in the least if in fact the state has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt to Judge Masipa. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, but proving OP to be an unreliable (i.e. lying on the stand) defendant is enough to give reasonable doubt. From every article I've read and every opinion of actual attorneys, OP has been a disaster for his own defense. Sympathize with him all you want, it's your right to do so. But you simply do not know what the judge is thinking with respect to this case.


BIB 2

Hogwash. Given they were both trying to keep incredibly thin, she could have been eating raw vegetables out of a bag and a piece of fat free cheese with her fingers. No plates or forks needed. And I must have missed where the state is saying that the meal caused an altercation. They are merely using RS' stomach contents to show that OP is (yet again) lying about what happened that night.

BIB 3

In your opinion but not in mine or many others. It's the opposite - OP's defense is what is too thin and scrappy. And by details, do you mean the ones he kept adding in to fit "his version" to the evidence and then tripping up over whenever questioned about them?


BIB 4

You weaken your argument when you say Nel's attempt to do his job is pathetic, IMO. Perhaps you find it unnecessary, but it shows no "pathetic" maneuver by the PT.

 

[Rumpole]

Really? I think not. This is how it works. Words mean what they say unless there's other evidence to suggest that the words don't mean what they say.

Trust me on this

nice try... still radical :floorlaugh:

 

[DebinGA]

Nel: “Why did you have black talon ammunition?”

Pistorius: “It is the type of ammunition used for my firearm.”

 

[aoibhinn]

I think the main thing we can glean from the card is that if there was any continuing fallout from the texts prior to the fateful evening, by phone or by any other means,
it didn't look likely that Reeva had intention to end the relationship when she arrived at the house that afternoon. This rules out one probable cause for an argument.

As per the phone (tower) and text records, Reeva had intended to leave before OP got home that evening, so that sounds about right. She left in the late afternoon and returned shortly before OP.

 

[TrueDetective]

Can anyone deny the possibillity that OP could have kicked the door with prosthetics before he shot at it. Is is possible that he had them on initially during the allegged argument that progressed to the bathroom with RS locking herself in the toilet. Is is possible that they could have fallen off while kicking after which he used them to hit the door and or metal plate on bath. That would explain sufficient length of the accused to be seen from Stipps house initially as well as explain the initial set of noises and the low entry points of bullet holes on the door.

I would love to hear opinions on feasibillity or lack thereof on this scenario.

I've always thought it was possible even probable that OP had his legs on throughout. I know that this is not now the states case. I know that it is more likely from the measurements and experts testimony that he shot on his stumps and batted on his legs. But I still have the gut feeling his had his legs on at all times, that he used the cricket bat or baseball bat to inflict the damage / threaten and shot from a lower position purposefully as he was already creating the intruder narrative and knew the value of emphasising his disability and perceived vulnerability.
I think OP is a much smarter cookie than some think. I know some disagree but he created the version and has managed to spin the whole yarn for over a year and is still free with a shot (though now a long shot) at an acquittal or a reduced sentence. He wobbled violently during x-exam but he is still standing...

 

[jay-jay]

What Dixon did explain quite well was the splinters in Reeva's right arm and the distance and position her arm had to be in behind the door to receive the splinters to her skin. IIRC According to Dixon's investigation Reeva was standing very close to the door, 6-10 cm, at 20 cm the splinters would not penetrate the skin. Reeva had splinters in the upper and lower outer portions of her arm extending away from the elbow.

Looking at his positioning to demonstrate for the court, his right arm is acoss his stomach with the arm extended towards his left hip and his elbow bent. IMO it is likely Reeva was holding the door handle with (at least) her right hand, for safety just in case OP managed to open the lock or physically open the door open. I like that he did the tests to determine that, it gives a clearer picture.

I missed quite a lot of this guy Dixon's evidence earlier and am just going back over the bits I missed and there is some really interesting stuff there .. and a couple of things which I feel he has pointed out seem to be more in favour of the prosecution that the defence .. both what you've said there about Reeva's likely right arm position plus also how he was explaining about the mark on her back and it not being as a result of the ricocheted bullet and he seems to be suggesting it was from an earlier incident (either cricket bat or another type of gun pellet)

 

[jay-jay]

But it wasn't THAT good of a grouping (according to OP). However, the shots were perfect for hitting and killing Reeva 3 out of 4 shots.

What I want to know is how did he have his left hand on the wall, right hand on the gun, when the wall would have been on his right side? Did he put his hand in front of his body going across to the wall? Did he put his hand behind his body going across to the wall? Or has he changed his version yet again and now he is not next to that wall where the cabinets are in the passage way and instead he is next to the back wall to the left of the bathroom?

Yes, and what a thing to say! .. I was stunned when he made that comment, quite honestly.