Trial Discussion Thread #47 - 14.07.8, Day 38

[fox1lady]

BBM - You're a hoot! I expect you're right about Nel. However, regardless of how hard Nel squeezed, I don't believe he would have gotten anymore than "I don't know. I was asleep." And upon waking up "I didn't hear anything."

Surely they could have asked him about how the two of them were generally and did he hear or see anything of an argument previously. He could have been called as a character witness for the defence even, but no niente!

 

[Giles]

Sorry if already posted, this is from a highly respected S.A criminal law professor

James Grant @CriminalLawZA · 5h
Pistorius conceded: 1) intention to kill & 2) unlawfulness. His (original) defence is that he did not intend to UNLAWFULLY kill.

@CriminalLawZA So out of interest, which way do you see it going? How much has been proven, what will hold weight etc?

James Grant
‏@CriminalLawZA
@makeitcountforO My head won't allow me to call it - I'd wanna see all the evidence again. My gut tells me Oscar is in trouble.

Thanks. I find Prof Grant's thoughts really illuminating. There is a little bit more from him here:

http://criminallawza.net/2014/07/12/205/

 

[fox1lady]

I totally agree. Although in the last sentence I would add two words: "where he could again hurt AND KILL someone".

Hello to all of you. I have been following quite regurlarly your communication here (and also the trial) and I'm glad to finally having succeeded in joining you. I really enjoy the way you're exchanging thoughts and knowledge.
Unfortunately, I won't be able to participating in an interesting way as I am not at all into "law affairs" neither able to express myself well in english. I am German living in the french part of Switzerland.

Welcome! And you write English perfectly well

 

[fox1lady]

Could the cancer diagnosis have been a factor in that decision ?

… something like the guy had already a death sentence, therefore he had nothing to loose by skipping on bail.

As in the Dewani case you mean?

 

[Interested Bystander]

Surely they could have asked him about how the two of them were generally and did he hear or see anything of an argument previously. He could have been called as a character witness for the defence even, but no niente!

Well, as so many character witnesses were used, that is a good point. Nel could have delved into the relationship generally, ie other arguments, night sleep habits (did they tend to get up to use the toilet in the middle of the night). I imagine Frank probably knows OP better than most. Like you, I expect Frank would have been tight lipped but Nel could at least have put him under pressure. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

 

[fox1lady]

I'm sure I had read about one of Reeva's text implying that he had had lots of girlfriends... can't imagine he is shy with women.

 

[Val1]

I can see your point but I suspect she was aware they were presents from a past girlfriend or she would not have said "that was then not now". However, that is pure speculation on my part. I am not too sure many young men collect small animal paraphernalia but I am happy to be wrong. My son thought it laughable that a guy of his age would be attached to rabbit paraphernalia. His opinion was that the boy has a problem if he is collecting such trivia.

There is the possibility that these items and even the pics have to do with Playboy "rabbits", something that many older "boys" have a fondness for but that their significant others typically would not, at least not in the honeymoon phase of their relationship when you would expect both to be totally enamored with each other to the exclusion of all others. Perhaps I'm just showing my age....

 

[Interested Bystander]

There is the possibility that these items and even the pics have to do with Playboy "rabbits", something that many older "boys" have a fondness for but that their significant others typically would not, at least not in the honeymoon phase of their relationship when you would expect both to be totally enamored with each other to the exclusion of all others. Perhaps I'm just showing my age....

Good point re Playboy bunnies but why her comment "that was then, not now" or maybe it was just a throwaway comment. Shall we ever know?
Reeva was more mature than OP and knew what she wanted from a relationship. OP comes over as a very immature young man who doesn't really take her feelings into consideration until there is a row/discussion about his treatment of her.

Looking back, if my OH had spent time photographing bunny girls or rabbits at the start of our relationship, I would have thought it really odd. If he started doing it now I would laugh but perhaps I am the one who is odd - LOL.

 

[pandax81]

Sorry if already posted, this is from a highly respected S.A criminal law professor

James Grant @CriminalLawZA · 5h
Pistorius conceded: 1) intention to kill & 2) unlawfulness. His (original) defence is that he did not intend to UNLAWFULLY kill

Hmmmmm. Only in his bail application (and even then OP would contend that interpretation). In his plea explanation, he never says any such thing and in his testimony, he explicitly rejects it, (as far as I know anyway?) The concessions the prof mentions were a good thing for OP - the basis of putative self defence - his change away from it is what makes his position and defence very difficult

(The professor does seem to like rehashing this point he finds interesting about the nature of putative self defence - that one can have intended to kill and did in fact unlawfully kill - over and over? I think he's just saying the same thing here, not analysing OP's evidence in court.)

Thanks for the find, interesting.

 

[Val1]

I'm sure I had read about one of Reeva's text implying that he had had lots of girlfriends... can't imagine he is shy with women.

Yes she had, in that really long one...
http://www.[link removed].au/social/reeva-steenkamp-text-message/

 

[Cherwell]

I can see your point but I suspect she was aware they were presents from a past girlfriend or she would not have said "that was then not now". However, that is pure speculation on my part. I am not too sure many young men collect small animal paraphernalia but I am happy to be wrong. My son thought it laughable that a guy of his age would be attached to rabbit paraphernalia. His opinion was that the boy has a problem if he is collecting such trivia.

BIB I think that would be overstating it a bit, but who's to say. People collect all sorts of things, agreed small fluffies is more of a girly thing but we don't really know what it was, do we. Wooden carved figures is quite different from cuddly toys.

I just think it's a big assumption to connect it with an ex-girlfriend, as there doesn't seem to be anything to suggest that to the exclusion of anything else. It could just as easily have been a connection with his sister or his mother. It reads to me as if that was the first time she'd brought up the subject.

 

[Cherwell]

Surely they could have asked him about how the two of them were generally and did he hear or see anything of an argument previously. He could have been called as a character witness for the defence even, but no niente!

The problem for both prosecution and defence is that they have no idea what Frank might come out with - so they couldn't risk calling him in case he dropped some bombshell that would wreck their arguments. He is clearly regarded as a "loose cannon".

 

[pandax81]

BIB I think that would be overstating it a bit, but who's to say. People collect all sorts of things, agreed small fluffies is more of a girly thing but we don't really know what it was, do we. Wooden carved figures is quite different from cuddly toys.

I just think it's a big assumption to connect it with an ex-girlfriend, as there doesn't seem to be anything to suggest that to the exclusion of anything else. It could just as easily have been a connection with his sister or his mother. It reads to me as if that was the first time she'd brought up the subject.

I think it's an even bigger assumption to assume its a big assumption! How do you know what has been said before between the two of them or noticed by her? She seems very astute on these matters, and if she says it I bet it's with good foundation personally.

I also think you're missing the very point she's making: she could speculate and cast stones and make big a deal too, just like OP has done first without foundation, but she's saying let's not, and let's not lead a double standard relationship (sound familiar?).

Just my opinion. There's probably no right or wrong on this. I think the discussion has gone awry from the original query of simply understanding her intention and what she means, this is different to a discussion of whether she's right or wrong, she can't defend herself and I think we should all respect that.

 

[delilah]

In addition to your observation (which I totally agree with), I also thought it odd that OP waited until August 2013 (Reeva's 30th birthday), 6+ months after her death, to open the VD card & gift from her.

Respectfully snipped

I've always thought it was strange that Nel didn't have a go at OP because he:

- made a big thing about opening the gift and card on RS' birthday, but managed to get the date wrong;

- didn't appear to have bought her a gift or a card himself. (That stuff about the bracelet was all very vague and unconvincing).

Odd, given he was suggesting they were so much in love, about to move in together and was clearly into all that soppy pet name 'romantic' stuff ( 'Baba', 'Angel' etc).

Any thoughts?

 

[minor4th]

The problem for both prosecution and defence is that they have no idea what Frank might come out with - so they couldn't risk calling him in case he dropped some bombshell that would wreck their arguments. He is clearly regarded as a "loose cannon".

Frank gave a statement and said he heard nothing and saw nothing.

 

[foxbluff]

I'm just popping back in for a moment to make this one post... I found my scribbled note regarding the rabbits.When OP was testifying about text messages... and reading them out loud... Nel asked about the "rabbit things" around his house which RS referred to. OP said it referred to little wood carvings of rabbits which he bought for friends as gifts and Reeva had asked about it. (From memory, I think he said they had hearts on them.)

 

[minor4th]

Thanks. I find Prof Grant's thoughts really illuminating. There is a little bit more from him here:

http://criminallawza.net/2014/07/12/205/

He doesn't answer the ultimate question - is it reasonably possible that OP thought he was entitled to use force in private defense.

Has this professor stated an opinion elsewhere?

 

[fox1lady]

He doesn't answer the ultimate question - is it reasonably possible that OP thought he was entitled to use force in private defense.

Has this professor stated an opinion elsewhere?

That was one of the things he learnt in "firing school" sorry, don't know what it's called. He knew that it was unlawful to shoot behind a closed door knowing that someone was behind it.

 

[fox1lady]

I'm just popping back in for a moment to make this one post... I found my scribbled note regarding the rabbits.When OP was testifying about text messages... and reading them out loud... Nel asked about the "rabbit things" around his house which RS referred to. OP said it referred to little wood carvings of rabbits which he bought for friends as gifts and Reeva had asked about it. (From memory, I think he said they had hearts on them.)

She must have had reason to be suspicious of them... why would he be taking pictures of them? Perhaps to text to an ex girlfriend? We'll never know. All I know is that I don't usually distrust people until they give me reason to!

 

[Cherwell]

Frank gave a statement and said he heard nothing and saw nothing.

I think we are all aware of that.

The question is, would he have said anything different in the witness box under cross-examination? He could still have been called as a witness and asked about such things as the security routine, the ladders, the damage in the house etc. No one wanted to risk it though.