Trial Discussion Thread #29

[Carmelita]

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.

But isn’t that the entire concept behind “innocent until proven guilty” that the charge has not been proven until a judge makes her decision?

Therefore by default at this point, semantically speaking premeditated murder has not been proven?

 

[liesbeth]

If the State's expert says even one bullet was fired before the bat strikes, and the State's expert says all bullets were fired at the same time, then all bullets were fired before the bat strikes.

You are right only if the State's experts say that it was the bat strikes that was directly responsible for that crack. But look at the crack on the photo. Now look at the holes made by the bat.

That crack is not near one of the holes made by the bat. It is a straight crack running straight down the door and it was made when the door was being broken.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26417240

Edit: And here's a zoom of bullet hole D.
http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/i/MSNBC...-140325-pistorius-toilet-door-bullet-hole.jpg

 

[wb180]

But isn’t that the entire concept behind “innocent until proven guilty” that the charge has not been proven until a judge makes her decision?

Therefore by default at this point, semantically speaking premeditated murder has not been proven?

So unless a judge makes a decision there is no premeditated murder? So why do we even need to discuss in these threads?

 

[BritsKate]

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......

I've posted quite a few links too but it often just leads to goalposts being moved. I cite law - but South African law isn't the same as local law. I give times the witnesses stated - but the witnesses could be wrong. I highlight testimony that rehabilitated what a witness said under cross, but the cross trumps redirect apparently.

Sigh. At the end of this, Judge Masipa will rule and I highly doubt she will entertain impossible scenarios and unlikely hypotheticals just in order to conclude Oscar Pistorius must be, could possibly reasonably be, not guilty.


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

 

[Carmelita]

By the way Tipdog I enjoy reading your posts and being put in the position to defend my opinion, which is a good thing. I respect that you don’t bring misguided interpretations of my arguments such as I am an Oscar defender. I hope you are not tarred and feathered for having received a compliment from me.

Respectfully,
Carm

 

[Carmelita]

You are right only if the State's experts say that it was the bat strikes that was directly responsible for that crack. But look at the crack on the photo. Now look at the holes made by the bat.

That crack is not near one of the holes made by the bat. It is a straight crack running straight down the door and it was made when the door was being broken.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26417240

A simple explanation can be that the marks made by the cricket bat that weaken the door enough to make the hole broke away with the part of the door that is missing.

 

[Murphys_Law]

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

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.

You posters are just too rigid. Hey, its just his first pre-meditated murder indictment.

By Shakespearian standards, I'd say Oscar plays the child part well...

“All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages.

At first, the infant,
mewling and puking in the nurse's psychologist's arms"

 

[Viper]

You are right only if the State's experts say that it was the bat strikes that was directly responsible for that crack. But look at the crack on the photo. Now look at the holes made by the bat.

That crack is not near one of the holes made by the bat. It is a straight crack running straight down the door and it was made when the door was being broken.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26417240

Edit: And here's a zoom of bullet hole D.
http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/i/MSNBC...-140325-pistorius-toilet-door-bullet-hole.jpg

I just bookmarked your post Liesbeth. To use later when this fallacy comes up again; which is likely to be just a few hours from now! LOL!!!

 

[minor4th]

What other witnesses might Roux call? I believe he claimed he'd produce a test showing OP screams like a woman. I think there are 2 gun experts set to testify. What can they say that would help OP? Maybe a mental health person to explain OP's paranoia? Other guesses?

Additional ear witnesses, perhaps additional security on duty that night. Maybe the contractor who was painting the house and left the ladders. Can't really think of much more

 

[TipDog]

But isn’t that the entire concept behind “innocent until proven guilty” that the charge has not been proven until a judge makes her decision?

Therefore by default at this point, semantically speaking premeditated murder has not been proven?

Okay, that made me laugh. I know! SEMANTICS!

Yes, I suppose we could say that given the context of what you've just written. But I really meant it more to those on here who insist that it hasn't been proven by the PT thus far - as in, the evidence not supporting it. The trial is not over, not all evidence has been presented. Nel is not done. That's what I mean.

And I don't think it has been proven either. My opinion that OP is guilty is based more on OP's testimony than the evidence presented.

 

[Carmelita]

So unless a judge makes a decision there is no premeditated murder? So why do we even need to discuss in these threads?

No that is not what I said.

Premeditated murder is an objective truth in its bare reality it is separate from what the judge rules.

We were discussing whether or not it could be said that the legal burden of proof, that this was a premeditated murder committed by Oscar upon Reeva, has been met or not.

We can all have opinions as to whether or not it has been met but the judge technically should not.

The reason we discuss it is because it is interesting, our discussion has no bearing on Oscar's guilt or innocence. Our opinions are inconsequential to the matter.

 

[minor4th]

A simple explanation can be that the marks made by the cricket bat that weaken the door enough to make the hole broke away with the part of the door that is missing.

I swear, every time I see a picture of the door the marks and cracks and holes look totally different

 

[Sarahlou]

Using a child as another example is maybe telling to how some people see Oscar.

Another grown man in the same scenario doesn't sound as easy to defend.

 

[BritsKate]

I believe if one concedes Oscar lied on any one thing it must at least, in turn, call into question his credibility on everything.

Why are we expected to believe the events of February 14th per his testimony as gospel when he has clearly deceived the court about other events? Therein lies the biggest hurdle for the defence.

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

 

[whiterum]

If the DT do not show his animated video version it could be because it is based on the details of his second pre -trial version. During his cross by Nel he again changed details possibly rendering this video now worthless or even now contradictory to statements he made during Nel's cross.

 

[TipDog]

By the way Tipdog I enjoy reading your posts and being put in the position to defend my opinion, which is a good thing. I respect that you don’t bring misguided interpretations of my arguments such as I am an Oscar defender. I hope you are not tarred and feathered for having received a compliment from me.

Respectfully,
Carm

Likewise, Carmelita.

I hope I'm not coming across like a know-it-all. I certainly don't. And personally, I respect your opinions and contributions. If everyone on here agreed about OP and this case, this place would be Snoozeville!

As for tarring and feathering - they'd have to catch me first.

 

[liesbeth]

BBM - I haven't felt any genuine remorse for murdering Reeva emanating from him since the start of his trial. What I've seen is irritation at having to answer questions that he's already answered (he doesn't like to be caught out lying when he forgets what he's just said), and realisation that he quite possibly won't get away with murder (hence all the howling, wailing and vomiting at certain points of his testimony). Even when he got court adjourned the first time he was describing the murder, I didn't think that was about his loss of Reeva (because I don't think he gave a crap about her). I think it was because by reliving that moment, it 'dawned' on him just how his actions that night were about to affect his future - jail. Tears for him, not out of of loss for a loved one. I know I've always been extremely cynical about his tears, but if there was genuine remorse for murdering her, he would not be evasive, argumentative and constantly blaming others for the holes in his very own version, whichever version, pick a number!

I'm looking for the YT link now. To add to this when OP got riled up right at the start of Nel's cross exam OP said that he had waited a long time to..and a short pause...then he continued "not to tell my story, but.."

From 02:20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSMTopT9VzI

 

[minor4th]

I don't know why there are so many comments about "continual" screaming for 10 or 15 minutes. Dr Stipp said the "woman" screamed 2 or 3 times.

 

[TipDog]

Using a child as another example is maybe telling to how some people see Oscar.

Another grown man in the same scenario doesn't sound as easy to defend.

Agreed. And to some of us, a 26 year old, testosterone filled male is still very immature and child-like. But in no way is he not responsible for his actions.

 

[IfIMay]

The home is far from a multi-million dollar property. Multi-million refers to SA rand, the house is about £277K in my currency (GBP)

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