Trial Discussion Thread #47 - 14.07.8, Day 38

[jay-jay]

I think the programme makers have really confused the issue even further because you've actually got three things going on there .. you've got Oscar Pistorius himself giving demonstrations in his Uncle's house, then you've got bits of the actual animation made by the animation company, and then you've got reconstructions made by the programme makers (much of which is incorrect, even going by OP's testimony).

 

[04009margaret]

OK everyone, new revelations on OP to be revealed this Sunday on Sunday Night in Australia........the same channel that released the secret OP video.

 

[jay-jay]

I agree with you he said his back was to the bed. If the change in his reenactment is to be believed, the light from the balcony, which we know was on and still on when the police arrived, would have shone into the bedroom. How could he not have seen the bed and therefore Reeva? It seems OP shoots himself in the foot with his every move!

This aspect of the trial exercises me somewhat! So I did an experiment with a fan in our bedroom (I think Judgejudi did the same or was it someone else). The fan was not as large - about 14" inches but it was of the standard type (ie with a pedestal). Carrying the fan, I could not hear my OH close a bedroom door hard some 20ft away. The window in OP's alibi is about 30ft or more away, ie past the cupboards, along the corridor to the bathroom and a further 10 ft on from there. I have just had to do it again because I was sure he said his back was to the bed but the reenactment shows him to be behind the fan. Quite frankly I couldn't hear the bedroom door being hard closed on either occasion. The noise of the fan completely obliterated any other sounds. I know my fan was not the same but his was much larger and I think his would have created more wind sound.

Why on earth didn't forensics carry out this exercise? I am sure it would have proved the window could not have been heard above the noise of the fan and that would have determined OP's innocence or guilt (IMO) at the outset.

Like many here, I think the reenactment could not be used because it did not tie in with OP's evidence. In fact I think it may have incriminated him.

I meant to have said .. that was an interesting result from your experiment .. I think you might have to take into account that OP said he had moved slightly away from the fans at the point he supposedly heard the window opening and 'hitting the frame' .. he was in front of the music system by then, trying to cover the LED light .. but, I still think that he was near enough to the fans for them to have blotted out what would've been a fairly faint noise (window opening and hitting the frame or some kind of 'stop') .. as you say, it was all the way down that corridor and round the corner and he was still standing fairly near to the fans!

 

[AJ_DS]

I've actually interrupted a burglary at my house and said to the guy "get out of my house" but I didn't have a gun and he had the opportunity to flee - which he took. OP however never gave any chance to the person in the toilet and his words and the way he's stuck to that phrase throughout make me think he was unsure as to exactly what the ear witnesses could have heard. He knew they heard screams but had to cover himself for the possibility that one of them (Estelle Van der Merwe?) could also have heard his words.

The Professor said he carried around a "light gun". Is the gun he used considered a light piece?

Presumably a typo - could Milady say no when asked...

BiB… LOL… what a lack of imagination on my part… For the life of me, I could not figure out this typo last night !!! :doh:

I won't take responsibility for it though : Brasil lost in a bad bad way and I consoled myself with the drink…LOL

Answer to your question : yes

 

[AJ_DS]

bbm - Not hard to do since he managed to get pretty much all of the conditions taken off... imo I would say he broke the first conditions by appealing so quickly to have them changed after saying he would abide by them. Also, he has left the country and not for purposes of which the conditions had stated, so unless he was also granted the ability to travel the world as long as he gave notice he was leaving the country big frikkin deal.

I get your meaning and sympathize… I too believe the relaxing of conditions was a bit much.

However, petitioning a change in condition is not a breach of conditions…the fact that OP asked permission for something instead of doing something will play in his favor in the future when he petitions the Judge to remain out on bail whilst awaiting the Appeal.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I would think that the poster meant that the part showing OP's mobility on his stumps should be made available as evidence, if only to refute his pitiful performance in the courtroom.

You nailed it. That's exactly what I meant.

 

[04009margaret]

Preview clip to follow up story on Sunday Night.........claims evidence Reeva was about to leave Oscar

https://au.news.yahoo.com/sunday-night/video/watch/24417868/this-week-criminologist-on-pistorius/

 

[Interested Bystander]

Preview clip to follow up story on Sunday Night.........claims evidence Reeva was about to leave Oscar

https://au.news.yahoo.com/sunday-night/video/watch/24417868/this-week-criminologist-on-pistorius/

BIB

If she gave him a Valentine card saying she loved him I would think it might be difficult to prove she was about to leave him. I cannot play the video so I cannot see what was said. We know in the few days before her death there had been arguments but I assume as she left him the card that they had overcome the hurdle. However, it is possible that something else brewed up on that night that made her realise the relationship was not to be.

At times I have wondered whether he disapproved of her glamour modelling and I think she was about to sign new contracts. Could something in those contracts have enraged him?

Also, I think their telephone conversations show that they were often awake in the early hours of the morning. Can somebody confirm or shoot me down on that please?

 

[Interested Bystander]

Mods, when I use the option to Preview my post I find several sections of my post have been duplicated. It does seem that if I continue to upload the post that it is correct but I am never sure exactly what is going to show/not show. Is this a known problem?

 

[44ALLAN]

I've been looking to see if this has been mentioned anywhere but can't find reference to it.
When Nel was questioning OP's manager he asked him if he was aware of OP 'rolling' a rally car......or something similar?
If my memory serves me right he asked him twice if he knew about it and an injury that had occurred as a result of it............and this was 'after' the incident.
I need to go and watch it again.
Can anyone else remember this?

 

[Interested Bystander]

I meant to have said .. that was an interesting result from your experiment .. I think you might have to take into account that OP said he had moved slightly away from the fans at the point he supposedly heard the window opening and 'hitting the frame' .. he was in front of the music system by then, trying to cover the LED light .. but, I still think that he was near enough to the fans for them to have blotted out what would've been a fairly faint noise (window opening and hitting the frame or some kind of 'stop') .. as you say, it was all the way down that corridor and round the corner and he was still standing fairly near to the fans!

Thank you for that. I can now see he has walked back past the hifi. Not sure how much difference that would make but I am sure it would change things.

 

[BarnacleZA]

Just to check in quickly.

I did not disappear, but is quite busy with quite a few different things, including work and sport (as a coach), so I have very little time to post. I was reading the forum, basically every court day, just to catch up on parts of the trial that I missed.

Just to give a very short summary of my opinion so far:
At the start of the trial I looked at this case I tried to look at everything from a very neutral position and also did not take the state witnesses too seriously, as the defence could have called witnesses that "could have" heard or seen things different from the state witnesses. This did not occur and the defence had no witnesses to refute the evidence by the state witnesses. The same applied to the expert witnesses the defence used and they also did nothing to show that the state witnesses were unreliable as witnesses or that their evidence was unreliable.

The witnesses in general for the defence were weak and were not ideal for the purposes of the defence. If a proper experts assisted them, they would have done all the relevant tests from the start and they would have done them correctly from the beginning. Even if things were not in their favour, they would have been informed of this long in advance. They also, at the least, would have known which questions to ask the state experts or which questions not to ask. (Which mght have been more important in this case.)

But anyway, I will make do a much more detailed summary at some stage when I get the time. And will then post a link to that.

Despite everything that is mentioned and the fact that the state has a stronger case, there are a few aspects that might influence the outcome in terms of the requirement for "beyond reasonable doubt". Taking into account all I have heard of the evidence, I cannot see that there could be a not guilty verdict. It is however possible that another judge may make a different ruling in terms of the form of "intent" and whether it may have been direct or indirect. This already opens the door for a possible appeals process.

In terms of the appeals process, I agree that Roux mentioned the witnesses that "did not want to testify" as preparation for an appeals process, because they (the defence) are already of the opinion that the defence was not as strong as they would have hoped. It is however stupid (in my view), as the judge could have made a ruling regarding the broadcast of sound or images. In terms of court reporting, courts are open to the press in any case and reporters can publish in print what was said in any case. So it is basically a very weak attempt in my opinion.

"Heads of Argument" - Is merely the arguments in written form. During actual arguments, certain aspect may be highlighted further. I do however find it a little strange that two dates were given, as in the cases I was involved in (mostly civil litigation), both plaintiff and defendant usually file Heads of Argument on the same date. So I am personally not sure about the reason for that.

 

[04009margaret]

BIB

If she gave him a Valentine card saying she loved him I would think it might be difficult to prove she was about to leave him. I cannot play the video so I cannot see what was said. We know in the few days before her death there had been arguments but I assume as she left him the card that they had overcome the hurdle. However, it is possible that something else brewed up on that night that made her realise the relationship was not to be.

At times I have wondered whether he disapproved of her glamour modelling and I think she was about to sign new contracts. Could something in those contracts have enraged him?

Also, I think their telephone conversations show that they were often awake in the early hours of the morning. Can somebody confirm or shoot me down on that please?

It must be region blocked again grrrr.....This is what is written at top of page..."The follow-up to our world exclusive Oscar Pistorius investigation. Is he guilty? The criminologist who says Reeva was ready to leave her celebrity boyfriend." At the end of the clip it states "the evidence that shows she was about to leave him".
https://au.news.yahoo.com/sunday-night/video/watch/24417868/this-week-criminologist-on-pistorius/

I know in the Reeva special on you tube, her agent stated that she was re-evaluating her relationship as her agent had stressed to her that the relationship was not good for her career. I for one would have loved to have known just what was in her contracts that Oscar was helping her with.

 

[04009margaret]

Just to check in quickly.

I did not disappear, but is quite busy with quite a few different things, including work and sport (as a coach), so I have very little time to post. I was reading the forum, basically every court day, just to catch up on parts of the trial that I missed.

Just to give a very short summary of my opinion so far:
At the start of the trial I looked at this case I tried to look at everything from a very neutral position and also did not take the state witnesses too seriously, as the defence could have called witnesses that "could have" heard or seen things different from the state witnesses. This did not occur and the defence had no witnesses to refute the evidence by the state witnesses. The same applied to the expert witnesses the defence used and they also did nothing to show that the state witnesses were unreliable as witnesses or that their evidence was unreliable.

The witnesses in general for the defence were weak and were not ideal for the purposes of the defence. If a proper experts assisted them, they would have done all the relevant tests from the start and they would have done them correctly from the beginning. Even if things were not in their favour, they would have been informed of this long in advance. They also, at the least, would have known which questions to ask the state experts or which questions not to ask. (Which mght have been more important in this case.)

But anyway, I will make do a much more detailed summary at some stage when I get the time. And will then post a link to that.

Despite everything that is mentioned and the fact that the state has a stronger case, there are a few aspects that might influence the outcome in terms of the requirement for "beyond reasonable doubt". Taking into account all I have heard of the evidence, I cannot see that there could be a not guilty verdict. It is however possible that another judge may make a different ruling in terms of the form of "intent" and whether it may have been direct or indirect. This already opens the door for a possible appeals process.

In terms of the appeals process, I agree that Roux mentioned the witnesses that "did not want to testify" as preparation for an appeals process, because they (the defence) are already of the opinion that the defence was not as strong as they would have hoped. It is however stupid (in my view), as the judge could have made a ruling regarding the broadcast of sound or images. In terms of court reporting, courts are open to the press in any case and reporters can publish in print what was said in any case. So it is basically a very weak attempt in my opinion.

"Heads of Argument" - Is merely the arguments in written form. During actual arguments, certain aspect may be highlighted further. I do however find it a little strange that two dates were given, as in the cases I was involved in (mostly civil litigation), both plaintiff and defendant usually file Heads of Argument on the same date. So I am personally not sure about the reason for that.

:happydance:

Welcome back, your thoughts on the Oscar seen in the leaked video, compared to the Oscar portrayed by the professor in the witness box, re his capabilities because of his disability.

 

[04009margaret]

I've been looking to see if this has been mentioned anywhere but can't find reference to it.
When Nel was questioning OP's manager he asked him if he was aware of OP 'rolling' a rally car......or something similar?
If my memory serves me right he asked him twice if he knew about it and an injury that had occurred as a result of it............and this was 'after' the incident.
I need to go and watch it again.
Can anyone else remember this?

Your correct

 

[rachael123]

Does anyone know when arguments start.Thanks to Everyone who responds.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Just to check in quickly.

I did not disappear, but is quite busy with quite a few different things, including work and sport (as a coach), so I have very little time to post. I was reading the forum, basically every court day, just to catch up on parts of the trial that I missed.

Just to give a very short summary of my opinion so far:
At the start of the trial I looked at this case I tried to look at everything from a very neutral position and also did not take the state witnesses too seriously, as the defence could have called witnesses that "could have" heard or seen things different from the state witnesses. This did not occur and the defence had no witnesses to refute the evidence by the state witnesses. The same applied to the expert witnesses the defence used and they also did nothing to show that the state witnesses were unreliable as witnesses or that their evidence was unreliable.

The witnesses in general for the defence were weak and were not ideal for the purposes of the defence. If a proper experts assisted them, they would have done all the relevant tests from the start and they would have done them correctly from the beginning. Even if things were not in their favour, they would have been informed of this long in advance. They also, at the least, would have known which questions to ask the state experts or which questions not to ask. (Which mght have been more important in this case.)

But anyway, I will make do a much more detailed summary at some stage when I get the time. And will then post a link to that.

Despite everything that is mentioned and the fact that the state has a stronger case, there are a few aspects that might influence the outcome in terms of the requirement for "beyond reasonable doubt". Taking into account all I have heard of the evidence, I cannot see that there could be a not guilty verdict. It is however possible that another judge may make a different ruling in terms of the form of "intent" and whether it may have been direct or indirect. This already opens the door for a possible appeals process.

In terms of the appeals process, I agree that Roux mentioned the witnesses that "did not want to testify" as preparation for an appeals process, because they (the defence) are already of the opinion that the defence was not as strong as they would have hoped. It is however stupid (in my view), as the judge could have made a ruling regarding the broadcast of sound or images. In terms of court reporting, courts are open to the press in any case and reporters can publish in print what was said in any case. So it is basically a very weak attempt in my opinion.

"Heads of Argument" - Is merely the arguments in written form. During actual arguments, certain aspect may be highlighted further. I do however find it a little strange that two dates were given, as in the cases I was involved in (mostly civil litigation), both plaintiff and defendant usually file Heads of Argument on the same date. So I am personally not sure about the reason for that.

Very nice to see you back. I for one will be very interested in anything you have to say for and against.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Kaos, if you read this, please can you help with this video I cannot open. TIA

https://au.news.yahoo.com/sunday-night/video/watch/24417868/this-week-criminologist-on-pistorius/

 

[04009margaret]

Karyn Maughan @karynmaughan • 7h
In 2-page affidavit, Le Roux says he used the now missing cord to charge his camera in #OscarPistorius bathroom.

Karyn Maughan @karynmaughan • 7h
Le Roux says he put the cord back in #OscarPistorius bedroom "but not as I found it"

Karyn Maughan @karynmaughan • 7h
Le Roux: "I am not sure if I placed it on top of something or on the floor".

 

[04009margaret]

Does anyone know when arguments start.Thanks to Everyone who responds.

IIRC August 7/8