Trial Discussion Thread #29

[Carmelita]

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.

I have a pair of Nike's I can lend you : )

 

[shane13]

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.

Do we not have Oscar lying with 100% certainty in at least 1 matter?

This is the charge of his illegally having that .38 ammo. As he said it was his father's (which still makes him guilty for possessding it) And his father refused to take the rap. So it's proven Oscar lied, and I would think his conviction for this charge is 100% [or should be.] Oscar aso lied and contradicted himself that he hadn't seen his father in years. Fascinating that his father touched him 1x or 2x at the BH a year ago.

Furthermore, it was so conclusive that police collaborators gave Carl or Oldwage or someone on "Team Oscar" that .38 ammo and they left the crime scene with it (a criminal act).

But anyway--to answer your point: Is it not conclusive that Oscar is lying that the ammo is his father's? And we have 1 sure conviction? Tasha's will likely be another.

 

[TrueDetective]

To believe that OP is not guilty of premeditated murder is not to be a "supporter" of him, or to have "chosen" a side. This is a murder trial, not a sporting event.

I follow trials because I'm fascinated by the law and frankly enjoy trying to puzzle through the evidence to reach my own conclusions. I had never heard of OP before this trial, and only in the past week or so have begun paying attention. The more I delve into the evidence the less convinced I am that OP meant to kill Reeva. If I end up concluding for myself that he absolutely did not intend to kill her that will not make me an OP supporter, just a person who examined the evidence, used logic, and who reached a different conclusion than most folks here.

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.

 

[TipDog]

Do we not have Oscar lying with 100% certainty in at least 1 matter?

This is the charge of his illegally having that .38 ammo. As he said it was his father's (which still makes him guilty for possessding it) And his father refused to take the rap. So it's proven Oscar lied, and I would think his conviction for this charge is 100% [or should be.] Oscar aso lied and contradicted himself that he hadn't seen his father in years. Fascinating that his father touched him 1x or 2x at the BH a year ago.

Furthermore, it was so conclusive that police collaborators gave Carl or Oldwage or someone on "Team Oscar" that .38 ammo and they left the crime scene with it (a criminal act).

But anyway--to answer your point: Is it not conclusive that Oscar is lying that the ammo is his father's? And we have 1 sure conviction? Tasha's will likely be another.

BIB

I will fall over in shock if he is not convicted for the Tasha incident.

 

[canny]

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

OP at the end of Nel's cross examination got pally with MyLady and complained to her about something similar, but used different terminology until his attorney Roux stood up, abruptly interrupted him and indicated to him to keep quite.

 

[steveml]

My personal opinion has always been based on reasoning by inference, not on conjecture or speculation.

I think it's an easy trap to fall into whereby to reach a conclusion we use our imagination and keep adding to the scenario to build a picture.

The picture that's built should be based on the facts available.

With circumstantial evidence, the general principal would be :-

Establish the objective facts of the case.

Determine those facts from which we are able to apply *reasoning by inference.

Apply common sense and logic to those facts.

We can't apply common sense and logic to anything that is speculation or conjecture, as that in itself makes a mockery of common sense and logic.

*To apply reasoning by inference :-

If we seek to apply reasoning by inference then that reasonable inference should be based on proven facts.
If the inference is not based on a proven fact, then that inference should be doubted.

 

[minor4th]

It was Dr Stipp, the radiologist, not the Burgers. And Stipp came to that conclusion because of the nature of the screaming. He heard a female screaming, oh, and a male screaming as well - and at one point, he heard male and female voices at the same time. DT hasn't yet shown evidence that OP screams like a woman (even though Roux assured the court he would provide evidence). Aside from that, I don't suppose Stipp's first thought was that OP was murdering his g/friend, and so probably did think it was intruders. Doesn't mean they were paranoid about home security just because they didn't jump to the conclusion that a famous athlete was in the middle of killing his g/friend.

The thing is Dr Stipp also thought the cricket bat hits were gunshots. And Merwe thought she heard a woman's loud cries when it was actually Oscar. Ear witnesses can be sure of their interpretation but at the same time be mistaken.

About Stipp hearing a man and a woman screaming - that was not in his initial statements, and his description of Oscar screaming help help help after the last loud bangs seems to be misplaced. I think he is perhaps remembering the sequence of screams incorrectly now a year later. I do think he was being honest to the best of his recollection though.

The thing is - whether or not they produce sounds of Oscar screaming like a woman - I believe the judge already has enough information to conclude that it was Oscar screaming by reference to the testimony about the order of the cricket bat hits and gunshots, Merwe's mistake and having heard for herself that Oscar's voice dramatically rises in pitch when he is distressed.

 

[wb180]

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

He likes to be specific I guess. People should use multiple million rand instead due to the fluctuating exchange rate

 

[liesbeth]

You are entitled (justified) in law to intentionally lawfully (such as, in self-defence) kill another human being. There is no criminal liability for doing so. Whether you are under attack and entitled to act in self defence is judged objectively, on the facts.

Pistorius is not making this claim. He accepts he acted unlawfully – he was not entitled to shoot at anyone that night.
In addition, you will be excused on a murder charge for unintentionally unlawfully killing another human being. This is a mental state defence – it denies the required guilty mental state.

For murder, you must intend to unlawfully kill. If you are mistaken, and genuinely believe you are acting lawfully (such as in private-defence (the technical name for the defence under which self-defence is located)), whereas you are not acting lawfully, you cannot be convicted of murder because you don’t intend to act unlawfully. To escape a conviction of culpable homicide this mistake must be reasonable – one which the reasonable person may make. But on a murder charge, it is enough, for an acquittal, if the accused was subjectively mistaken.

An interesting article about putative self defense by Prof Pierre de Vos. He cites S v De Oliveira where the judge found De Oliveira guilty of murder because “...no reasonable man in the circumstances in which the appellant found himself would have believed that his life or property was in imminent danger.” De Oliveira had also pleaded putative self defense because he fired out his window at men outside his gate.

As intention is tested subjectively, the pivotal question would be what the actual state of mind of the accused was at the time when he killed the victim. If an accused genuinely but mistakenly believed that an attack was imminent or that his life was in danger, the court will find that he lacked the intention to be convicted of murder.

http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/oscar-pistorius-criminal-law-101/

 

[Suthrnqt]

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

Thanks for saying that. I thought it was just me.

 

[shane13]

BIB

I will fall over in shock if he is not convicted for the Tasha incident.

You don't think the .38 ammo charge is more conclusive?

 

[TipDog]

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.

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.

 

[Carmelita]

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.

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.

 

[minor4th]

OP at the end of Nel's cross examination got pally with MyLady and complained to her about something similar, but used different terminology until his attorney Roux stood up, abruptly interrupted him and indicated to him to keep quite.

And what? My comment is similar to OP so I must be irrational or lying?

Every picture looks different.

 

[Viper]

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.

IMO What Sara was keying in to is what I see as well. Namely that OP is behaving like a child because he wants the motherly forgiveness that a child would typically receive. But that is not reality. He is a grown man and Judge Masipa is not his mother.

This also may be why another member posted an analogy using a 10 year old boy. Shaking my head...

 

[wb180]

My personal opinion has always been based on reasoning by inference, not on conjecture or speculation.

I think it's an easy trap to fall into whereby to reach a conclusion we use our imagination and keep adding to the scenario to build a picture.

The picture that's built should be based on the facts available.

With circumstantial evidence, the general principal would be :-

Establish the objective facts of the case.

Determine those facts from which we are able to apply *reasoning by inference.

Apply common sense and logic to those facts.

We can't apply common sense and logic to anything that is speculation or conjecture, as that in itself makes a mockery of common sense and logic.

*To apply reasoning by inference :-

If we seek to apply reasoning by inference then that reasonable inference should be based on proven facts.
If the inference is not based on a proven fact, then that inference should be doubted.

I am sure many people is doing this. In fact I see many people discounting state evidence (ie being real websleuthers) and yet still arriving at the same conclusion. OP is a liar.

 

[Carmelita]

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.

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

 

[wb180]

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.

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.

 

[TipDog]

You don't think the .38 ammo charge is more conclusive?

I think he's going to be found guilty of both. But in terms of absurdity, him stating under oath that the gun fired without his finger on the trigger is the real winner.

 

[liesbeth]

My personal opinion has always been based on reasoning by inference, not on conjecture or speculation.

I think it's an easy trap to fall into whereby to reach a conclusion we use our imagination and keep adding to the scenario to build a picture.

The picture that's built should be based on the facts available.

With circumstantial evidence, the general principal would be :-

Establish the objective facts of the case.

Determine those facts from which we are able to apply *reasoning by inference.

Apply common sense and logic to those facts.

We can't apply common sense and logic to anything that is speculation or conjecture, as that in itself makes a mockery of common sense and logic.

*To apply reasoning by inference :-

If we seek to apply reasoning by inference then that reasonable inference should be based on proven facts.
If the inference is not based on a proven fact, then that inference should be doubted.

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