Trial Discussion weekend Thread #18

[wb180]

Hopefully Oscar will take the stand and be cross examined on the contradictions in his statement.

 

[Val1]

There's a problem here though.

The phone wasn't found where it had been photographed (this point I referred to earlier) they moved the phone elsewhere.

What we then found out via further questioning was that the phone was found under a towel. This may have been found in the bathroom but we don't know what's been moved and what hasn't. So is the phone under towel photo correct? If so, then we are at a stretch to believe that Reeva dropped the phone in a scuffle, but a towel jumped on top of it. See how ridiculous that sounds. Although, it doesn't, and it isn't ridiculous because then you just say, ah, well OP used the towel and put it over the phone. The defense reply, ah well....

This is how a story becomes too stretched for trial purposes. They have to stick to the reasonable things they know to be true. OP may explain these details but nobody else can.

If Reeva did have a phone in that small cubicle, we can reasonably say there's a very good chance it came out with her as she was being pulled out.

Do we know which one was hers, the black one found with the cover off or the white one?

 

[Val1]

Yes... but the problem with that is that it is the Forum who decree who the "victim" is even before evidence is seen... the "no bashing the victim" decree means that posting facts from one is met with scorn, or even decreed as "verboten".

Probably because most would agree that the dead person is usually the "victim".

 

[steveml]

Do we know which one was hers, the black one found with the cover off or the white one?

That's a very good point Val.

I have overlooked the simple fact that the white one may not be Reeva's

:blushing:

 

[BritsKate]

I think EVERY defendant would be judged as guilty by Forum.. and sentenced harshly... most put to death.

I don't follow every case.

I do not recall ANY case where Forum posters consensus was "Not Guilty"

Has there been ANY such case?

Despite a consensus, there are often detractors. Most long-term cases or trials I have followed here have hosted at least a handful of people believing the defendant/chief suspect/POI not guilty BARD. The McCanns; Darlie Routier; Amanda Knox; George Zimmerman; Jodi Arias; Scott Peterson; Michael Peterson; Jason Young; Brad Cooper to name a handful.

So, its pretty likely in my opinion we'd have a holdout on our forum jury.

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

 

[Trooper]

Yes... but the problem with that is that it is the Forum who decree who the "victim" is even before evidence is seen... The defendant is (as I have said) GUILTY from the outset, and the "no bashing the victim" decree means that posting facts from one side is met with scorn, or even decreed "verboten".

scorn?? 'verboten??... a little bit of over dramatics there... perhaps your perception is clouded by a lack of agreement with your theories... and you have read into this 'scorn' 'verboten'...etc... perhaps you are not posting facts...

I don't see the problem.. at all. Do you feel a need to 'bash the victim'??

She is dead, . what more is needed to be done in that respect?

 

[Trooper]

Probably because most would agree that the dead person is usually the "victim".

there is certainly a tendency to take that position, Val...

 

[Trooper]

EXACTLY.

And obviously that is not always the case. (eg self defense cases, cases where cause of death is something to be decided etc)

Also there are cases where "whodunit" is an issue etc. (the wrong guy charged)

Since every defendant is "Guilty" I wonder why as a society we bother with trials at all?

well.. this case.. this one you feel scorned and verbotened is not a matter of self defence or mystery at cause of death, is it??? and it certainly not a who dunnit.


I still don't see what this problem is..

 

[BritsKate]

There are pro-defendant sites elsewhere on the web, too, for those interested. I believe websleuths goes a very long way in maintaining a level of respect between differing opinions.

I'd suggest if anyone takes issue with its ethos, they contact the sites owners/admin. I'm sure they'd be happy to explain why they take the stance they do.

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

 

[Trooper]

EXACTLY.

And obviously that is not always the case. (eg self defense cases, cases where cause of death is something to be decided etc)

Also there are cases where "whodunit" is an issue etc. (the wrong guy charged)

Since every defendant is "Guilty" I wonder why as a society we bother with trials at all?

and really.. its not every murder that websleuths sets up a site for... just the interesting ones... so its a bit of a dramatization to claim 'EVERY defendant is guilty'...


this one is though.. by his own admittance..

 

[Val1]

EXACTLY.

And obviously that is not always the case. (eg self defense cases, cases where cause of death is something to be decided etc)

Also there are cases where "whodunit" is an issue etc. (the wrong guy charged)

Since every defendant is "Guilty" I wonder why as a society we bother with trials at all?

I wouldn't say every defendant is automatically guilty per se, but there is usually good cause as to why they've been charged with the crime, otherwise they wouldn't have been charged, at least not in most civilized countries. As to why as a society we "bother" with trials, umm to try and determine whether the defendant has been charged correctly and if so whether there was a legitimate reason for the crime that has been committed.

Now if you're referring to this case in particular, so far there's been no question that the victim is RS and the perpetrator was OP, the only thing left is whether he had just cause to kill her in the manner that he did, I don't believe he did.

 

[Trooper]

I would not think that WS would claim to be biased towards all defendants being guilty? or even all dead people being "victims".

Surely the point of a Crime discussion forum is to dicuss both sides and come to a rational decision on guilt or innocence based on the evidence?

it seems that among any community. going back to the cave men ... the first thing a group of humans do is make laws...

the most enduring is the law against murder.. its generally taken for granted that a murdered person is a victim of a crime.

it is a novel idea that a murdered person isn't a victim..

 

[Trooper]

I would not think that WS would claim to be biased towards all defendants being guilty? or even all dead people being "victims".
Surely the point of a Crime discussion forum is to dicuss both sides and come to a rational decision on guilt or innocence based on the evidence?

who is preventing you from discussing any side of this matter??

I have not seen anyone 'verboten' you...

I have not seen any scorn, either.. certainly not what I would appreciate as scorn..

 

[BritsKate]

I would not think that WS would claim to be biased towards all defendants being guilty? or even all dead people being "victims".

Surely the point of a Crime discussion forum is to dicuss both sides and come to a rational decision on guilt or innocence based on the evidence?

I'm neither the site owner or administrator. My understanding is that they tolerate all sides of a debate while it remains civil - while also maintaining a victim-friendly stance. There are many families of the missing and murdered who post alongside the average joes.

Victims are those that are victimised by any crime - we have many that survived their ordeals too. I'd rather be on a site that's not allowed to speculate that what a woman was wearing led to her rape, iykwim.


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

 

[steveml]

I don't think I've seen anyone comment on this topic who is pro-defendant in respect of a not-guilty belief.

As long as posters are providing a reasoned argument against the charge, it's seems beneficial towards provoking debate, if nothing more.

I guess we have to accept that both prosecution and defense are providing reasoned argument at this stage of the case, due to the undecided nature of many watching law professionals and legal reporters.

 

[Trooper]

[modsnip]

(a) .. has Roux eradicated the Screaming Woman from the case? yes/no

(b).. has Roux managed to install a Screaming Oscar in place of the Screaming Woman , definitely and without doubt?? yes/no

 

[steveml]

I'm neither the site owner or administrator. My understanding is that they tolerate all sides of a debate while it remains civil - while also maintaining a victim-friendly stance. There are many families of the missing and murdered who post alongside the average joes.

Victims are those that are victimised by any crime - we have many that survived their ordeals too. I'd rather be on a site that's not allowed to speculate that what a woman was wearing led to her rape, iykwim.


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

I understand what you're saying, although it is necessarily to establish that by virtue of Reeva being the victim, it should not be accepted that justice is correctly served if the accused is charged over and above the level of the crime he committed.

The whole purpose of justice (fairness, ethics, law etc.) prevails or fails upon principles like this.

 

[luvmygarden]

EXACTLY.

And obviously that is not always the case. (eg self defense cases, cases where cause of death is something to be decided etc)

Also there are cases where "whodunit" is an issue etc. (the wrong guy charged)

Since every defendant is "Guilty" I wonder why as a society we bother with trials at all?

Jodi Arias went into her trial claiming she was the "victim". Unfortunately Travis was slaughtered by her hands and truly was the victim. Jodie Arias still claims to be the victim. Cases like that the word Victim is debatable.
If the prosecution never claimed the defendant was "guilty" then you are correct why have trials. Defense is the only side that can say "not guilty"
If a video was at hand of a murder the defense would still say "not guilty" because the prosecution has to fight the intent of the defendant to commit the murder and prove their evidence.
OP has had a good length of time to get his part correct when he takes the stand to defend himself. Did Reeva have time to defend herself?
Op is a handsome, talented, successful guy it appears with a mind that makes bad decisions.

 

[jay-jay]

He has killed his girlfriend, of that there's no doubt, and trial by both media and judge is underway.

However, it's one thing reporting on a story that OP is a reckless *******, and another thing to leak information with the intention of planting the seed that he maliciously planned a murder.

But killing your girlfriend is not just being a reckless *******, it's actually unbelievable. People do not kill their girlfriends by 'accidentally' pumping them full of bullets through a toilet door. Even Oscar Pistorius is not that stupid.

 

[jay-jay]

In addition I would have thought that 'tainting' was not necessary since OP has shown himself to be a liar already. His WhatsApp message indicates that it was indeed him who fired the gun in the restaurant and then got one of his friends to claim responsibility.

In fact, since it would be a shame if people lost sight of this fact, I am seriously considering referring to him as SCLOP from now on (Self Confessed Liar Oscar Pistorius).

And as other FMs have quite reasonably pointed out, the man shot an unarmed woman dead in his house without checking she was safe first - even if you accept his version. No need for 'tainting' at all.

^^^ all of this ^^^