Trial Discussion weekend Thread #18

[Gbtaketwo]

I think he is arrogant AND feels himself invincible. This is what he said when he was arrested on 14th Feb 2013.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-suicidal-reveals-best-1753776#ixzz2y3Liznho
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook


Among the revelations is how Pistorius, 26, showed bravado after he was arrested over the Valentine’s Day shooting and told police: “I’ll survive. I always win.”

It was his response to a senior officer who had warned him: “You could go to jail for a very long time, Oscar.”

Thanks for the link . I think his self belief may have also been buoyed up following the result of his brothers trial .

 

[Cherwell]

On Thread #4 it was discussed that in a VF article it was stated that Christo Menelaou was the person that lent OP the ladder.

I did not find any link to the article itself though so cannot quote it. I just remembered the discussion and between Estelle and Shane 13 so took it as verified.

But you specified a link which you quoted, and I was referring to that and not to a discussion in another thread.

Unless someone can give a source, I'm not convinced that anyone lent OP a ladder. It sounds like someone read between the lines and made an assumption which has been repeated and is now treated as a fact.

 

[steveml]

JUST A THOUGHT

Imagine that we could replace the British (and its cousins) Judicial system with...

TRIAL BY FORUM

Would that be good or bad?

Forget presumption of innocence, and rules of evidence. Everything that people can find online is permissible to be considered. Past acts, comments from anybody who knows anything about the Defendant etc. The views ot the "victim" and their family given special weight, and not questioned because that would be "bashing the victim"

The final deliberations could be in the form of a Forum Poll... we know how dead accurate they are.

I put it to you that would get a lot of people convicted and given harsh sentences. :jail:

Would that be good or bad? :scared:

I may be some time.......
.................................
.................................
.................................
...................................................................... :hills:

 

[MeeBee]

A couple of investigative correspondents for NBC News suggested that the judge gave general indication of 3 weeks, but said it really is unknown and the judge could go away and take 2 months if necessary. It's in the news link below (you might not want to watch it as most if it just goes back over he case).

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/pi...s-your-questions-oscar-pistorius-trial-n56706

Oh, my lord! Well, that is going to be one unbearable wait.

Thanks, Steve!

 

[strydohj]

Forgive me if I have this wrong but I think there is much misunderstanding about the elements of the offence charged and what has to be proven. Without any legal gumpf, the charge is that:

1) OP intentionally or recklessly killed someone AND
2) that none of the available defences to this apply - e.g. putative self defence, insanity etc.

some stuff snipped

The most difficult part is #2, the putative self defence and that is what the case is about. The test is subjective, i.e. what OP felt/thought at the time and his fear of intruders, he thought it was an intruder etc. It is difficult to rebutt something in someones head. So all the state can do is to try to prove things like he knew it was Reeva and not a burglar as she screamed and if witnesses in the neighbourhood heard them he must have too, if he was so fearful of crime and had been a victim, how come he had never reported one before, that she was scared of him and they'd had problems, increasing the likelihood of an argument and rebutting the 'deeply in love' as well as generally discrediting his testimony by establishing he has lied and evidencing his general recklessness etc. etc.. They are doing this to prove that #2 - putative self defence doesn't apply, rather than prove #1 that he killed someone. So, this sort of evidence can't be considered for it's worth in proving he killed, it has to be considered re it's worth in establishing that his thoughts at the time were reasonable given his circumstances.

Hmm, I hope that makes some sense!

Does make sense. My spouse (law degree from SA University) confirmed that the putative self defence or private defense (??) would require the reasonable man test to be applied, like with culpable homicide as a result of negligence. Normal self defence would require a couple of fairly simple ticks such whether the threat was imminent and if the least amount of force was used to stop the threat.

I also suspect that is why the prosecution have presented evidence that on previous occasions he did check with guests when he heard something and hence in general would be capable of acting as reasonable person , nailing the putative self defence claim.

But I must say, implicitly going the putative self defence route was a very clever move IMO to increase the burden of proof on The State.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Yes maybe. I said earlier he may well regret not pleading guilty to those and preventing the bad character references.
I was merely trying to imagine how the defence will dispute all these things.
For example...the ammo, he will say belonged to his father and those bullets do not work with his pistol. They were maybe waiting for his Dad to collect or some tosh.
Then we have the Tasha's incident, not one single person in that 'packed' restaurant reported it to the Police. It still wouldn't be known about today had the PT not gone knocking on doors. DT can again say that gun was Darren Fresco's responsibility, he should have ensured the gun was safe etc etc
Then finally the shot through the sunroof. Again, DF and ST said nothing until this case was brought. Even the Police who stopped him, didn't take proper action.
The supposed jealousy and threats to Marc Batchelor, all fit for that. The charge was dropped against both men.

PLEASE PLEASE don't get me wrong, as I've said I am purely looking at what I see and what the Defence may come back with. The judge will decide on fact not emotion, exactly as she should. NONE of us KNOW the outcome of this trial, we all read differently into things, which is human nature.

Thanks
I was also surprised that the officer did not deal with the issue of the gun when he stopped his car for speeding but I guess that may be the power of celebrity .

As for the ammunition in the safe I was under the impression that ignorance of the law is not an excuse to break the law so you you would have thought he should have at least pleaded guilty to this .
We are all going to be listening very carefully to the defence , as I think you said yesterday it is a bit like a book that you can't put down once you have started .
Just wish it didn't have such an unhappy ending for Reeva .

 

[steveml]

But you specified a link which you quoted, and I was referring to that and not to a discussion in another thread.

Unless someone can give a source, I'm not convinced that anyone lent OP a ladder. It sounds like someone read between the lines and made an assumption which has been repeated and is now treated as a fact.

It's possible Danta could be referring to the connection that Christo is a project manager in the building industry, and supplied the ladders.

I think this possibility was suggested earlier.

 

[Cherwell]

It's possible Danta could be referring to the connection that Christo is a project manager in the building industry, and supplied the ladders.

I think this possibility was suggested earlier.

Err, yes, it was I who suggested it that he supplied the workforce ("contractors") who were responsible for the ladders.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

"Oscar Pistorius Faces His Day of Reckoning"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...car-Pistorius-faces-his-day-of-reckoning.html

Interesting article thanks for the link .
It might have solved one mystery for me which was why the pathologist is up first .
"He has pressing family commitments " so asked if he could go first !!!
Wonder if that is the case ?

 

[DebinGA]

Interesting article thanks for the link .
It might have solved one mystery for me which was why the pathologist is up first .
"He has pressing family commitments " so asked if he could go first !!!
Wonder if that is the case ?

Could well be. Our daughter is getting married in Aug., and the date's been set in stone for quite awhile.

 

[DebinGA]

OP has been working with a team of psychologists the past year, perfecting his "Why I was terrified" spiel, and he'll probably do great. Then Nel will get up and start asking him about sleeping with balcony doors open, security system turned off, ladders knowingly left outside instead of locked in garage, bathroom windows unburglarbarred, motion detector beams outside turned off, etc. Sound like a reasonable disabled man terrified of intruders? No.

 

[Cherwell]

unburglarbarred

What an absolutely splendid word.

 

[Interested Bystander]

But you specified a link which you quoted, and I was referring to that and not to a discussion in another thread.

Unless someone can give a source, I'm not convinced that anyone lent OP a ladder. It sounds like someone read between the lines and made an assumption which has been repeated and is now treated as a fact.

I think the most likely explanation, given what Christo.M said, is that his contractors left the ladders at Pistorius's home after carrying out some work there and he felt responsible for giving the non-existent intruder a way in.

 

[Cherwell]

I think the most likely explanation, given what Christo.M said, is that his contractors left the ladders at Pistorius's home after carrying out some work there and he felt responsible for giving the non-existent intruder a way in.

I'm sure that's right. Even though there was no intruder, it's poor practice anywhere.

 

[Feynman]

partial quote:

OP has been working with a team of psychologists the past year, perfecting his "Why I was terrified" spiel,

Do you have a link for that?

 

[DebinGA]

partial quote:
Do you have a link for that?

See post 357 for Telegraph "Day of Reckoning" link:

"Pistorius’s siblings Carl and Aimee, who rushed to the scene in the aftermath of the shooting, may be asked to talk about his behaviour and his heightened fear of crime that might have prompted it.

One of the team of psychologists who have worked with Pistorius in the year since the shooting may also be asked to put his actions in his own particular context, and explain the paranoia that drove him"

 

[Val1]

I'm sure that's right. Even though there was no intruder, it's poor practice anywhere.

However, the fact remains that apparently OP knew about them before he killed RS so if it was such a worry he could have either moved them himself or called his friend to come and do it for him. I'm sure considering how many people were able to arrive within minutes of OP calling them at 3:20 or so am, someone would have been available to assist him if CM was unavailable, heck, RS could have helped with that before they retired to the bedroom.

 

[MeeBee]

LOL, yes!

And a thank you from me to MeeBee, Minor4th, Rumpole and Steveml for keeping it interesting and thought provoking against some pretty heavy odds. (IMO)

:gthanks:

Lol, thanks kitty

And the point is really not to stir up trouble or get people mad. For me, it's just trying to look at the evidence from every possible angle.

Thanks to those who can argue and debate without taking to personally and resorting to personal resorting to hostility you guys rock! I know what it's like when you feel passionately and angrily about someone's guilt and someone doesn't see it the way you do. This has been a learning experience for me, to remain open minded and accepting from now on and in the future to different opinions on other boards. It's certainly not easy being on the other side!

 

[MeeBee]

No, it was allegedly ST that made disparaging comments to RS, she considered her partly to blame for her own breakdown with OP. IMO

If you looked through Twitter accounts before some Tweets were removed, it showed quite an insight into their relationship. It upset Reeva and she ended up reporting and blocking. From what I gathered OP was insecure, he had someone trying to put him off Reeva and name calling, hence the what's app comment, I am not a stripper etc. She was upset that OP was listening to any of it and not telling them to mind their own business. He was then trying to make up to her but seemed to then excuse his behaviour by saying it wasn't his fault and he had to be careful who he saw etc.....not exactly the way to instil undying love!
FWIW I think OP is a charmer, very good at gaining attention and sympathy from females, he had massive insecurities with women because he felt 'less than a man' without his legs. He played the big I am, but was totally paranoid that RS would leave him for a 2-legged hunk. He also worried that she was only with him to further her fame and career, thanks to others interference.
On the whole, he dated younger women as they were easier to impress and more likely, in his mind to be moulded by him into the perfect girlfriend.
He had it all, money, cars, guns, bikes, famous friends, adoration from millions around the world and everyone bowing to him. To the point of making excuses for inexcusable behaviour. How could anyone criticize a man who had spent his life fighting adversity, and doing so much for disabled people across the globe. All this gave him a superiority complex, he believed their hype and thought he was indestructible!
He had it all.......EXCEPT legs...deep down none of the fame, money etc could solve that inferiority and that to me is his downfall!!:jail:

That would explain some of the texts, the "people filling my head with sick things" and "the one person I need protecting from" (not from OP, but OP giving protection from others). I've also read she had friends warning her of his cheating ways and such. That probably also had a hand in the "sick things" comment as well as her texts being "the girl who fell in love" despite what people have told her about him, as well as others.

 

[Trooper]

A couple of investigative correspondents for NBC News suggested that the judge gave general indication of 3 weeks, but said it really is unknown and the judge could go away and take 2 months if necessary. It's in the news link below (you might not want to watch it as most if it just goes back over he case).

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/pi...s-your-questions-oscar-pistorius-trial-n56706

I enjoyed this clip... a happy pair of babblers, but oddly, they left out, and I am wondering if they even noticed, the Assessors, or know what their role is ...