Trial Discussion Thread #29

[TipDog]

Let's say all the facts are the same but Oscar is a ten year old boy whose parents aren't home.

He thinks it is a burglar and shoots to protect himself and his babysitter.

But it turns out it is the babysitter he shoots.

Would you still have these judgments of premeditated murder and so forth?

OP is not a child. I have nowhere to go with this example.

 

[Viper]

What happens in court when a crime reenactment video is shown? Who answers questions about it, the videographer? What can s/he say beyond, "I just went by the info Roux provided"?

IMO There will not be a video animation. There is just too much time that has to be included, 12-19 minutes of dead air that is unexplainable. The company does other graphics for reenactment, maybe a series of slides but no video.

 

[Lyra500]

Well but this is a self defense case.

No, it really isn't.

Can you elucidate who or what was threatening OP and therefore leaving him with no choice but to shoot four times?

 

[james83]

No. I think they heard two sets--one guns, one bats.

But you have to prove the bats were first if you are going to prove that was Reeva screaming, and I don't believe the prosecution has proven this.

But i stress again, if we look at this logically

Michelle Burger, Charl Johnson Burger, Estelle Van Der Merwe, Johan Stipp, Annette Stipp, Mr Nhlegthwa(phoned security at 3.16 to report gunshot's), all heard a set of sounds they thought were gunshots

Johan Stipp and Annette Stipp who happen to be directly in line with Pistorius bathroom heard an additional set of sounds that they thought were gunshot's.

4 Gunshots were fired and we know without doubt that this was one of the set's of sound's.

What is the logical conclusion?, be it Occams razor or whatever else?.

 

[Val1]

Let's say all the facts are the same but Oscar is a ten year old boy whose parents aren't home.

He thinks it is a burglar and shoots to protect himself and his babysitter.

But it turns out it is the babysitter he shoots.

Would you still have these judgments of premeditated murder and so forth?

If the boy goes and gets a loaded gun(after having previously been known to have a personality conflict with said babysitter), and follows his babysitter to the toilet room and then fires 4 rounds into the closed door in the "general" direction of where she/he would be if seated on said toilet, then yes. Age has nothing to do with it and neither should disability or fame.

 

[Murphys_Law]

What happens in court when a crime reenactment video is shown? Who answers questions about it, the videographer? What can s/he say beyond, "I just went by the info Roux provided"?

Good question, but the chances of the defence playing a re-enactment video to bolster their case is a close to zero as one can get. OP's testimony on the stand was the team's big chance to gain clarity and momentum. Well we all know how well that turned out.:floorlaugh:

I am aware of the animated video that was created by the defense team, but its always been my strong opinion that it was created to help the legal team formulate its plan and more importantly, assist OP in learning, memorizing and visualizing version 2.x

:twocents:

 

[TipDog]

I'm not sure it is.

I kind of think that was the level Oscar was operating at.

He is not a child and was not operating at the level of one. At no time in this trial has that even been mentioned, and for good reason.

 

[molly333]

But i stress again, if we look at this logically

Michelle Burger, Charl Johnson Burger, Estelle Van Der Merwe, Johan Stipp, Annette Stipp, Mr Nhlegthwa(phoned security at 3.16 to report gunshot's), all heard a set of sounds they thought were gunshots

Johan Stipp and Annette Stipp who happen to be directly in line with Pistorius bathroom heard an additional set of sounds that they thought were gunshot's.

4 Gunshots were fired and we know without doubt that this was one of the set's of sound's.

What is the logical conclusion?, be it Occams razor or whatever else?.

What is the presumption of innocence conclusion?

If a fact can be equally interpreted for the defendant or against him, you must chose the interpretation that is in the defendant's favor.

The gunshots were first.

If they were not, prove it.

 

[DebinGA]

Good question, but the chances of the defence playing a re-enactment video to bolster their case is a close to zero as one can get. OP's testimony on the stand was the team's big chance to gain clarity and momentum. Well we all know how well that turned out.:floorlaugh:

I am aware of the animated video that was created by the defense team, but its always been my strong opinion that it was created to help the legal team formulate its plan and more importantly, assist OP in learning, memorizing and visualizing version 2.x

:twocents:

Ooo.. That wouldn't have even occurred to me. Good thinking.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Let's say all the facts are the same but Oscar is a ten year old boy whose parents aren't home.



He thinks it is a burglar and shoots to protect himself and his babysitter.



But it turns out it is the babysitter he shoots.



Would you still have these judgments of premeditated murder and so forth?

Why make him a child? I don't understand.

Why not make him ...any other man on the face of the planet?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[soozieqtips]

No. I think they heard two sets--one guns, one bats.

But you have to prove the bats were first if you are going to prove that was Reeva screaming, and I don't believe the prosecution has proven this.

BBM - I think the Judge will consider what the possibility really is that 5 witnesses who heard a woman screaming were mistaken, and weigh it up against the failed promise of Roux to produce his proof that OP screamed like a woman.

Sadly, no matter how much OP carries on with the same old same old, everyone is lying (including the respectable Dr Stipp who OP claimed didn't know what he was doing ...) the fact is none of these witnesses had dealings with OP and had absolutely no reason to conspire against him. OP is totally deluded if he truly believes his version has a shred of possibility. Sorry. I meant versions.

 

[Chelly]

Sorry, OT, but is anyone else having problems with the font on this forum changing, getting smaller and tighter?

 

[TipDog]

If the boy goes and gets a loaded gun(after having previously been known to have a personality conflict with said babysitter), and follows his babysitter to the toilet room and then fires 4 rounds into the closed door in the "general" direction of where she/he would be if seated on said toilet, then yes. Age has nothing to do with it and neither should disability or fame.

Not sure about SA, but here age would have something to do with it. A 10 year old will not be tried as an adult.

 

[patCee]

It all depends on who OP had been talking to half the night, might mean a lot, might not. Point is, without it and the likely possibility that it was tampered with past the point of recovery we will never know, just like that thumbdrive that the brother removed from the safe. Yes I know records were recovered from the phone company but look at how much time was spent online, was he watching the clip of Tropika that RS was so worried about? Was he exchanging whatsapps with another love interest? Was he checking out RS's tweets and whatsapps? Was he having another row with yet another rival? Was he managing his offshore accounts?

Ah! sorry all, but I misunderstood. I was thinking it was RS' phone that went missing. I've just realised that hers was the one on the bathroom floor. That's why I said that her friends/family would have come forward. House full today and my heads scrambled:blushing:

 

[BritsKate]

Because we may have those elements now:



1) high crime rate in SA

2) disabled celebrity

3) possible brain damage from head wound [yet to see]

4) propensity towards feeling vulnerable, paranoid, and afraid

No evidence a higher crime level affects him more than any other South African; no evidence his disability puts him at any more disadvantage than anyone else disabled - and it could be argued able-bodied; no mention and no evidence to prove brain damage; and his word alone he is paranoid enough to not fix a broken window; vulnerable enough to not secure ladders; and afraid enough to leave windows unlocked. Where are the dozens of calls to security over every noise he imagined to be an intruder over the years?

And all that aside, I still find it highly disturbing to compare a twenty seven year old man who had firearms training and lived independently for many years to a 10 year old boy.


Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[TipDog]

Sorry, OT, but is anyone else having problems with the font on this forum changing, getting smaller and tighter?

yes! I thought it was just me and my eyes.

 

[DebinGA]

Sorry, OT, but is anyone else having problems with the font on this forum changing, getting smaller and tighter?

The font is normal for me at the moment, but earlier today it was teensy.

 

[Chelly]

yes! I thought it was just me and my eyes.

Oh thank goodness. I am not alone! It's making me crazy, and I can't find a fix.

 

[Val1]

No. I think they heard two sets--one guns, one bats.

But you have to prove the bats were first if you are going to prove that was Reeva screaming, and I don't believe the prosecution has proven this.

I don't understand why you think she would only be screaming because of the bats? How do you know OP wasn't threatening her with a gun long before he shot her? Heck, maybe he was faffing around firing his air rifle(with the silencer as shown in the pic) off and glanced one off her back and that's what started it all and when she wouldn't calm down and went running into the toilet room with her cell phone he freaked out thinking she was going to call the cops on him. There was an argument heard before the screams, bats and guns that was testified to.

 

[Clutchbag]

BBM - I think the Judge will consider what the possibility really is that 5 witnesses who heard a woman screaming were mistaken, and weigh it up against the failed promise of Roux to produce his proof that OP screamed like a woman.

Sadly, no matter how much OP carries on with the same old same old, everyone is lying (including the respectable Dr Stipp who OP claimed didn't know what he was doing ...) the fact is none of these witnesses had dealings with OP and had absolutely no reason to conspire against him. OP is totally deluded if he truly believes his version has a shred of possibility. Sorry. I meant versions.

Oh! Why did Roux not provide the taped recordings of OP screaming to show it was "like a woman" ??

Further, why were said recordings not played to the ear witnesses and be asked is this what you heard?

re everyone is lying....well OP said he himself was lying when he said if anyone said I said I whispered to Reeva they would be lyng, well he is on record sayng it several times, couldnt make this sh** up could you?