Trial Discussion Thread #29

[Val1]

Not sure even that a 12 year old has. I think the youngest has been a 14 yr old - not that it matters.

As for they're guilty, they're guilty - not sure I agree. Children really do not understand the full consequences of their actions. This is why I vehemently argue that OP was not acting on the level of a child.

I've never met a child that didn't know that killing was wrong.

 

[DebinGA]

Agreed, my ignore list is growing as a result.:ignore: I'm getting too old to explain the same thing over and over, providing the actual parts of the case and/or links of background/legal articles that helped me reach those thoughts, to certain posters that are commonly called trolls on any other forum.ullhair:

Putting an attention seeker on ignore does no good if others enjoy quoting and sparring with him/her though.

 

[soozieqtips]

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

If you're on a laptop, you can press ctrl together with the + sign, and it will increase the font (just on this website). Keep doing it until the font is readable. To decrease it again, press ctrl and the - sign.

 

[TipDog]

That is your opinion, one that is shared by most here but that doesn’t mean Oscar deliberately murdered Reeva. I have stated that Oscar version does not fit the evidence 100%, the prosecution has not offered a theory that fits the evidence and the scene 100% therefore the looking glass cannot lawfully be through Occam’s looking glass. There are simply too many possible variables.

As to the fan, IMO if one of the crime tech people moved it to cool off a hot muggy room filled with the stench of human blood in it, (trust me this is an awful smell) there is no way that they will admit to it at this time. The judge knows crime scenes get contaminated, the judge knows that people are fallible, I just think she has a wider viewing point that many others seem to believe.

BIB

No, it's not my opinion. In court, under oath, OP explained why the photos of the positions of the fans and duvet didn't fit his version, because they don't fit his version. And those photos are evidence. The evidence does not support OP's version. OP ultimately didn't even support his own version as he changed it to involuntary and not self defense. Therefore, it is more possible that his original version is not at all what happened that evening, which means he likely is guilty of premeditated murder.

The Rest

I've said all along that my opinion on OP's guilt (of premeditated murder) was solidified after watching his testimony. I simply do not believe that the the police moved every item that doesn't fit his versions. And I am not at all convinced anyone turned a fan on due to the smell of human blood.

 

[whiterum]

All I can say is you know a defendant is going down when he sits on a stand and in between sobs blames his attorney repeatedly for mistakes in the case. Gerri Nel often said Mr. Roux would not have forgotten that if you told him etc. It made OP look even worse. By building up the defense attorney Nel very cleverly pointed out how totally confused and caught up in his own lies OP is. All a total fabrication after completely losing it with Reeva.

At the BH Roux made a point that RS had slept on her usual side of the bed the night before which is the left side. Now when Nel points this out to OP during his cross he corrects Nel and says she slept on the right side the night before also to which Nel looks puzzled. Yet he did not correct Roux on this point at the BH even though Magistrate Nair expressed his scepticism regarding this coincidence that RS would change from her usual position on the one particular night she is shot.

He can't even remember his own lies and in the process is making a liar out of Roux.

 

[Val1]

Putting an attention seeker on ignore does no good if others enjoy quoting and sparring with him/her though.

It works for me, most of the time. I feel less compelled to respond when I can't do so directly.

 

[TipDog]

I am not talking about the court of popular public opinion, yours or unpopular opinion, mine. I was replying to a specific post which stated that it had been met.


It is the judge's responsibility to not have made that decision at this point in the trial.

I'm not talking about the court of public opinion either. I'm talking about the court, the real one. And, yes, I agree. It is Judge Masipa's responsibility to not make a decision yet - which is why we cannot say definitively that premeditated murder has or hasn't been proven.


Sorry I wasn't clear.

 

[wb180]

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.

If that is the case, there wouldn't be circumstantial evidence because the defendant can just make up a story that doesn't make sense.

 

[TipDog]

I've never met a child that didn't know that killing was wrong.

I respect that you may not have, but that doesn't make it universally true. There are valid reasons children are not tried as adults and the law protects them.

 

[Magdalyn]

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

Wait. You dismissed too fast. You didn't ask if the child had been certified and tested in safe gun handling and SA gun laws!

 

[BritsKate]

I'm trying to take the male/female sexual dynamic out of the equation.



I was looking for it and didn't find it. I have no reason to believe that Oscar killed Reeva on purpose.



Everybody says these things happen, but I don't see any proof they happened here.



She went there that night having openly declared love for him in a card she gave him.

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.

 

[BritsKate]

Premeditated murder has not been established.

Would you kindly provide South Africa's definition of premeditation? TIA


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

 

[shane13]

Update: OP's DT Says Dr Perumal has NOT Withdrawn from OP's DT

"Oscar Pistorius's legal team said on Friday that pathologist Dr Reggie Perumal was still part of the Paralympian's defence.

"The media reports suggesting that he has 'withdrawn' from the Defence Team are devoid of all truth. The decision to call an additional forensic pathologist was made on the basis of Dr Perumal’s availability," his lawyers said in a statement..."

http://www.enca.com/south-africa/oscar-trial-pathologist-still-part-defence

Could be true, or could be more spin...?
We will probably have to wait for an interview with Dr P after the trial ends. or is he still bound to silence even then?

 

[Carmelita]

BIB

No, it's not my opinion. In court, under oath, OP explained why the photos of the positions of the fans and duvet didn't fit his version, because they don't fit his version. And those photos are evidence. The evidence does not support OP's version. OP ultimately didn't even support his own version as he changed it to involuntary and not self defense. Therefore, it is more possible that his original version is not at all what happened that evening, which means he likely is guilty of premeditated murder.

The Rest

I've said all along that my opinion on OP's guilt (of premeditated murder) was solidified after watching his testimony. I simply do not believe that the the police moved every item that doesn't fit his versions. And I am not at all convinced anyone turned a fan on due to the smell of human blood.

When I said that is your opinion I was referring to your entire post and its conclusion not the simple statement that the evidence does not fit Oscar’s version of the death of Reeva which I have conceded many times is a true statement. If fact I even said it in my first reply to your post.

Here is a copy and paste

I have stated that Oscar version does not fit the scene 100%, the prosecution has not offered a theory that fits the evidence and the scene 100% therefore the looking glass cannot lawfully be through Occam’s looking glass.

So to clarify I was responding to the opinion part of your post.

 

[Emz73]

Agreed, my ignore list is growing as a result.:ignore: I'm getting too old to explain the same thing over and over, providing the actual parts of the case and/or links of background/legal articles that helped me reach those thoughts, to certain posters that are commonly called trolls on any other forum.ullhair:

I thought me posting James Grants blog would help, being a SA criminal law professor, clearly not. Better be careful though got my last two posts deleted.
Breath......

 

[TipDog]

When I said that is your opinion I was referring to your entire post and its conclusion not the simple statement that the evidence does not fit Oscar’s version of the death of Reeva which I have conceded many times is a true statement. If fact I even said it in my first reply to your post.

Here is a copy and paste

I have stated that Oscar version does not fit the scene 100%, the prosecution has not offered a theory that fits the evidence and the scene 100% therefore the looking glass cannot lawfully be through Occam’s looking glass.

So to clarify I was responding to the opinion part of your post.

Apologies - I misunderstood you.

 

[wb180]

OP has certainly lied - the Tasha's incident being the most glaring example IMO. Why he would lie about that is a mystery. I'm sure Roux was against pleading not guilty to that charge, but OP overruled him. Why? I don't know. He's an incomprehensible, stupid, arrogant, lying moron at times. Lying, however, does not necessarily imply OP is guilty as charged by the PT. Innocent people sometimes lie on the stand.

Ok we have now entered the twilight zone as innocent people will lie on stand.

 

[canny]

OP has certainly lied - the Tasha's incident being the most glaring example IMO. Why he would lie about that is a mystery. I'm sure Roux was against pleading not guilty to that charge, but OP overruled him. Why? I don't know. He's an incomprehensible, stupid, arrogant, lying moron at times. Lying, however, does not necessarily imply OP is guilty as charged by the PT. Innocent people sometimes lie on the stand.

OP has been charged with premeditated murder of his girlfriend Reeva, he has conceded on the stand that he is fighting for his life, whatever that means.His bail affidavit and his week long testimony under cross examination by the prosecutor contradict each other in 100 different ways.If you are trying to redefine the means of the word perjury under oath, then the consequences are yours alone. However for OP his false testimony indicates he is in deep trouble and his attorneys body language concede one fact that he will spend the rest of his life in prison.

 

[Val1]

I respect that you may not have, but that doesn't make it universally true. There are valid reasons children are not tried as adults and the law protects them.

Yes I know that, I was merely responding to a post asking a hypothetical... whether I would still consider it murder.

Moving on and out, time for a maple macchiato. :coffee::heart::leaf2:

 

[wb180]

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.

All I can see from the OP supporters on this case is the card Reeva wrote, the fact that she loved him with the whatsapp messages and OP didn't want her to die and these are the evidence to support his facts. I mean it's really weak evidence. Really weak. Websleuthers should be better than this.