Trial Discussion Thread #29

[BritsKate]

SO value must be determined in YOUR currency and not his? I don't understand what you are saying here.

Property values vary considerably. I moved from a big 3 bedroom home, finished basement, mother in law apartment, with a large yard, above ground pool and 2 car garage worth $139k to...

A small 2 1/2 bedroom terraced house, tiny garden, and on street parking worth £100k...worth well over $200k at the time of purchase.

And yes...people ask me all the time why I moved. The average price of a large home in SA is $161k or £95k.


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

 

[wb180]

Semantics!

In all seriousness, I agree. If you're considered an OP supporter, it simply means you believe he may be telling the truth.

I personally have no problem whatsoever being told I'm an OP detractor or that I'm on Nel's team, etc.

I am definitely on state side based on the evidence right now. Unless the defense gives me something, it is all state. The current arguments for OP on here are weak arguments. The evidence for the defense is also weak at the moment. The worst is having the accused lie on the stand.

 

[sorrell skye]

Okay...and by giving him a card
declaring her love it must mean he didn't kill her? Despite what legally constitutes murder? Despite that the State's case has yet to be refuted? Despite Oscar being consistently inconsistent (and that's being really accommodating to his testimony)? Despite having to create unreasonable and disbelieving hypotheticals to make his version of events plausible? Despite the knowledge that 3 women are knowingly murdered by their intimate partner in South Africa every single day?

I can't suspend my logic because she said 'I love you'. Once.

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

Let us not forget that we were reminded in previous threads that Reeva was "the most beautiful woman he'd ever met" and "Reeva was gorgeous", ergo OP couldn't have meant to kill her.

1. Reeva gave OP a Valentine's Day card, saying she loved him

2. Reeva was the "most beautiful woman he'd ever met"

3. Reeva was "gorgeous"

Try as I might, I cannot understand why these would be among the reasons why OP could not have intentionally killed Reeva.

Women who express love toward their intimate partners are murdered by their intimate partners every day worldwide.

As Tina Turner would say "What's love got to do with it?"

Beautiful women, gorgeous women are murdered by their intimate partners every day worldwide.

I fail to understand the assertion that because Reeva was beautiful and gorgeous that OP could not have intentionally shot & killed her. It makes no sense to me whatsoever, regardless of how it's framed.

If Reeva had been average looking or homely, would that make it more plausible that OP had intentionally killed her? Is that the implication? If so, I find that idea disturbing, to say the least.

If not, what difference does it make whether or not she was beautiful or gorgeous?

 

[Carmelita]

We do have someone that believes innocent people do lie on the stand though. And hence we should give OP a break because he is inherently innocent.

I don't understand your statement. All defendants are considered innocent by the judge during the trial portion of a court proceeding, she should decide guilt or innocence during her mindful deliberations while considering the evidence after both sides have concluded.

 

[wb180]

There is a third option and it lies somewhere between Oscar's story and the prosecutors theory.

It depends on which Oscar story you are talking about

 

[Hope4More]

But for the purposes of this trial you either believe the state or the defence and if you are for whatever reasons veering on the side of believing OP's version then you are to all intents and purposes supporting OP. Fine, you're not a fan but you are supporting the defence's case. I don't get how anybody can't accept that. You can't have it all ways at once.

I was responding to the posts saying....there are "always a few supporters of murderers on these threads," and to posts lamenting.." how can anyone be a supporter of this murderer? "

Not for the first time or for just this trial I've also seen the majority turn on the minority posters who don't agree with them. IMO that is poor form.

Semantics? Not really. I could care less whether or not my opinion or any one else's conforms to a group think, and I care even less what anyone chooses to label my opinions.

I do care when minority opinions are attacked or dismissed with emotionally charged and/ or logically irrelevant rhetoric. Hence my objection to terms such as "sides" and " supporters."

 

[wb180]

I don't understand your statement. All defendants are considered innocent by the judge during the trial portion of a court proceeding.

My statement is stating that someone mentioned that innocent people may also lie on the stand.

If that is the case, we might as well give a free pass to OP coz no one will ever get convicted.

 

[shane13]

O/T

And for help with withdrawal from the OP trial for 2weeks:

I just saw the pilot episode of Fargo. New TV show.

If you liked the movie, and the 1st 4 seasons of Dexter, I can almost guarantee you will like this new show. It was very good IMO. A few minutes of slow going, then it was fascinating. Some graphic you know whats, so...

It has Billy Bob Thornton, and is exec produced by the Coen bros, who did the movie.

Enjoy.

 

[james83]

I wonder why the defence did so many test's around Silverwoods but when it came to the bat strikes test they did it in the middle of a field, strange that.

 

[TipDog]

In this case circumstantial evidence is accepted as evidence because the only other direct witness is dead.

Exactly. Plus, speculation is what the state must do to even begin to pursue a guilty charged for a crime in which there is only circumstantial evidence.

And this case is even more complicated since no one is debating who the killer is. That is known. It's the why that matters and one must speculate when asking why.

 

[steveml]

SO value must be determined in YOUR currency and not his? I don't understand what you are saying here.

Nope, you can use whatever currency you wish. If a home is a multi million dollar property it should be *worth that same value wherever you are.

OP's home isn't a multi-million dollar property. It's worth about 277K GBP approx. 465K USD.

*ETA, perhaps worth the same value is misleading. The point being made is that it was indicated that OP's property is a 'multi-million dollar' property.

 

[wb180]

I was responding to the posts saying....there are "always a few supporters of murderers on these threads," and to posts lamenting.." how can anyone be a supporter of this murderer? "

Not for the first time or for just this trial I've also seen the majority turn on the minority posters who don't agree with them. IMO that is poor form.

Semantics? Not really. I could care less whether or not my opinion or any one else's conforms to a group think, and I care even less what anyone chooses to label my opinions.

I do care when minority opinions are attacked or dismissed with emotionally charged and/ or logically irrelevant rhetoric. Hence my objection to terms such as "sides" and " supporters."

Ironically u are using sides and supporters and dividing the group into majority and minority right now.

Anyways as part of majority (I guess), I do dismiss the minority view if it is not based on fact or evidence. That's the discussion.

 

[TipDog]

I am definitely on state side based on the evidence right now. Unless the defense gives me something, it is all state. The current arguments for OP on here are weak arguments. The evidence for the defense is also weak at the moment. The worst is having the accused lie on the stand.

Respectfully, I don't agree.

 

[turaj]

I have been thinking about this. Who could the defense call to bolster OP's version? I will be very surprised if there are more then a couple additional witnesses/experts.

I'm sure Roux is carefully considering his list after the Dixon disaster. I wonder if he will actually get the scream test going trying to prove OP sounds like a woman? I too feel that not too many witnesses coming up.

 

[BritsKate]

Again I haven't read anyone that believes Oscars testimony is gospel. If events occurred much as he said they did I believe his testimony would have been much as it was, given our limited knowledge of him. I do not think he is capable emotionally/mentally of accepting that he killed Reeva even accidentally.

Yet if one discounts Oscar's testimony on the determination that it isn't wholly credible, what's left to support the assertion Oscar didn't intentionally kill someone, without resulting to implausible and unlikely scenarios using anecdotal beliefs never presented in court?


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

 

[minor4th]

The only reason RS is named in that charging document is because she was the victim, if it had been a burglar, that person would have been named, I don't understand the confusion... All the prosecution had to prove is that he killed "someone" with intent.

That's incorrect

 

[Karmady]

Semantics!

In all seriousness, I agree. If you're considered an OP supporter, it simply means you believe he may be telling the truth.

I personally have no problem whatsoever being told I'm an OP detractor or that I'm on Nel's team, etc.

For me, in this case and others, it doesn't matter whether I believe the defendant or not. If I don't think the State has proven its case I don't care whether the defendant is a liar. Personally, I also don't care about being called an "[insert defendant] supporter" -- it's just that it's not true for the reason I mentioned. I also don't really see the point of calling someone a "supporter" of a person on trial for murder and whom most believe is guilty. No one wants to be called a suppporter of an actual murderer is the premise, I suppose. Again, I personally don't care. But I can see how others who are more sensitive might. jmo

 

[Suthrnqt]

I can't see OP being convicted of anything so far. Nel has so far failed to make the case as far as I'm concerned. All I see are a lot of people (Nel among them) who take an invidious position and come up with speculative scenarios of what happened, whereas the only version that rings true to me is the one OP has elaborated all along.

<snipped by me>


<modsnip>

Surely you must admit that OP will be convicted of the Tasha's incident and the ammo charge.

 

[turaj]

OP is an adult. Why use a child in the example? Apples and oranges.[/Q

Honestly this is one of the worst analogies I have seen ever set forth. It has no bearing on this case. This was in reference to Molly's post.

 

[Karmady]

That's incorrect

Is it? I was wondering about that. Can you not transfer the intent for premeditated murder? - assuming the state can prove a premeditated intent to kill an intruder.