Trial Discussion weekend Thread #18

[jay-jay]

we haven't really gone into the drugs/steroids.....that OP had.....pig something or another.....whatever were in those vials....a sexual enhancer? wth was that stuff???

Yes, I would like to know more about it, too. I heard that it was legal, herbal, stuff (and yeah, I'm quite into natural remedies) .. but who the heck injects herbal stuff??

 

[jay-jay]

Which is weird coz he should have put his legs if that makes him safer just like when he was getting the gun to make him feel safer.

It only seems to take him a split second to put them on, too .. I saw it on a video somewhere yesterday .. I'll see if I can find it again and post it up.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Right...and I still want to know how much he had to drink...he had just come from a party.

I am fairly sure I have read that there were no drugs or drinks in the samples that were taken.

 

[DebinGA]

Yes, I would like to know more about it, too. I heard that it was legal, herbal, stuff (and yeah, I'm quite into natural remedies) .. but who the heck injects herbal stuff??

http://www.livescience.com/27547-testis-compositum-pistorius.html

Roux better hope that "known to increase aggression" is erroneous.

 

[jay-jay]

Oh, just to be picky, his prized medals in the safe were in disarray, ribbons just stuffed in there; they would I think normally be stored in their presentation cases.

I was quite astonished by that too .. I know that something like that does not make one a murderer, more that I was just taken aback by his general disregard for anything, even those incredible medals he won.

 

[steveml]

I have to disagree with you that 'a reckless act is a reckless act'. In the case of reckless driving, in the majority of cases it does not end in the death of their partner .. it might do in some instances, but 9 out of 10 times it won't end in anyone's death and that's generally why they do it is because they know it probably won't (not that I am in any way supporting the kind of stupidness that can end up with someone being killed as a result).

In the case of OP, he went into that bathroom, armed with a gun which he knew was loaded with bullets designed to cause maximum possible injury and which would result in killing whoever they hit, and he shot blindly through a toilet door without having first checked to make 100% sure that it was not his girlfriend who was in there (if you believe the 'Oscar's Fairytale' version). So, in this kind of 'reckless act' which will 100% always end in the death of a person, you make damned sure it's not your girlfriend you are going to end up shooting.

I agree with most of that jay-jay. A statistic doesn't matter if you have experience of someone killed through reckless driving though. Just as many people speak about experiences of DA very passionately, some of us have experience of the above. I'm not going into detail as it's a bit too close to home.

I do welcome your comments though. :smile:

 

[Gbtaketwo]

RSBBM

Which is why the defence, in my opinion, will have to challenge that a reasonable amputee can't be held to the same burden as any other reasonable person.

Yes I totally agree with that and that will be the case here His disability should quite rightly be taken into account ,I suppose the degree of leniency or reasonableness to allow for his disability will be a very tricky area for the judge after weighing up everything the prosecution has put forward as well as the defence .
Funnily enough though when I read his statement I personally feel there are unusual/anomalies in the statement that stand out whether he is disabled or not
An example of this could be it is difficult for me to believe that neither of them put so much as a bedside lamp on to get up despite knowing the other person was not asleep .
Another example is that it is more normal to speak to your partner when hearing a noise to ensure that you know where they are and to verify if they heard something . He has always done this in the past .
Another thing odd to me is the fact that if Reeva was scared enough to not answer OP back when he asked her to phone the police why would she be moving about and alerting a potential intruder to her location and why was he did not think it could be Reeva at this time .
He says he is vulnerably but doesn't seem to be security conscious .

I could carry on and write quite a lot of things that sound odd to me and my hubby who I have been discussing things with where disability doesn't have any bearing
Would certainly not like to be the judge in this case having to take on board all this .
Of course we are about to hear from the defence so things could change . Lots of things may or may not have reasonable answers
JMOO

 

[Duchy]

Pic of different OP gun in bin beside bed in 2010:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-first-picture-blade-1724074

Looks like same bed as in 2013. No reachable underneath. Looks like he was sleeping on left side of bed in 2010. Did he have a bad shoulder then too?

Sorry if i'm talking rubbish.

 

[Duchy]

Looking at the pics, you can see underneath the bed. Plus, I recall now that in testimony it was mentioned that one of the iPads was found under the bed on the right hand side.

The right side of the bed area was pretty sloppy... t-shirt thrown on the floor, iPads on the ground (one under the bed) and it appears that one of the iPad covers may have come off of one of them.

It could mean nothing, just pointing a few things out.

You can only see under the bed at the end of the bed facing photographer. There are platforms along both sides of bed and no underneath.

 

[Viper]

The prosecution witnesses in this case are rather believable as different people, from different places who were awake at slightly different times, who heard the same incident from their own experience.

The common things are very important.

In order to counter these witnesses who heard a woman scream before and during the last bangs (prosecution shots) the defense need to find a witness who heard the whole incident (defense shots first, then bats) and who heard no screaming before the bangs and only a MAN screaming during the bangs.

That's very particular. And there would ideally have to be more than one.

 

[DebinGA]

The prosecution witnesses in this case are rather believable as different people, from different places who were awake at slightly different times, who heard the same incident from their own experience.

The common things are very important.

In order to counter these witnesses who heard a woman scream before and during the last bangs (prosecution shots) the defense need to find a witness who heard the whole incident (defense shots first, then bats) and who heard no screaming before the bangs and only a MAN screaming during the bangs.

That's very particular. And there would ideally have to be more than one.

And with absolutely no reason to lie on OP's behalf, i.e. friendship.

 

[DebinGA]

Remember recently Op's lawyer Webber answering the question, "Will Oscar testify?" with the ill-advised "We have no choice"? He's done it again today. Asked why Mr. Botha is testifying first, Webber said, "We have no choice" [due to his prior commitments]. I think I'd tell Webber to please hush if I were Roux.

 

[Cherwell]

That will become clear during defense.

What has already been determined is that the reenactment of OP wearing his prosthesis didn't work when the state tried it out. As this was their initial claim.

I dread to think of the meltdown if OP had changed his initial statement from stumps to no-stumps. A fan and a word was bad enough.

It's fine for the PT to do that though, not a single query about that.

This is an example why we should never presume the prosecution are merely seeking the truth.They will on occasion actively pursue the result that they want.

This is a little disingenuous, is it not.

The prosecution team have to infer the course of events from the evidence. This will involve testing out theories.

Oscar Pistorius knows what happened. There is no reason for him to change his version at all.

 

[Viper]

I was quite astonished by that too .. I know that something like that does not make one a murderer, more that I was just taken aback by his general disregard for anything, even those incredible medals he won.

After OP killed Reeva I'm sure the thought of fleeing the crime scene at least flashed though his mind. He valued those medals enough to lock them in a safe. So it is possible that he grabbed them (his special treasures) with the intention to leave but quickly changed his mind and threw them back in to the safe.

 

[DebinGA]

After OP killed Reeva I'm sure the thought of fleeing the crime scene at least flashed though his mind. He valued those medals enough to lock them in a safe. So it is possible that he grabbed them (his special treasures) with the intention to leave but quickly changed his mind and threw them back in to the safe.

Flee? No. Try to give them to Carl/John/Clarice/Dejaris/etc. for safe keeping? Absolutely. Shows OP was somewhat rational just after the killing imo, not simply weeping and wailing and tearing his clothes in grief.

 

[BritsKate]

The prosecution lucked out. Five professional, articulate, seemingly well-educated and intelligent witnesses.

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

 

[steveml]

This is a little disingenuous, is it not.

The prosecution team have to infer the course of events from the evidence. This will involve testing out theories.

Oscar Pistorius knows what happened. There is no reason for him to change his version at all.

A little disingenuous?

The state based their whole case on the basis of OP wearing his prosthesis.
Are you aware of when the PT changed their claim? They changed it after the bail hearing.
They'd presumed all along that defense were going to claim OP was wearing his prosthesis.

Make of that what you will.

 

[Viper]

Flee? No. Try to give them to Carl/John/Clarice/Dejaris/etc. for safe keeping? Absolutely. Shows OP was somewhat rational just after the killing imo, not simply weeping and wailing and tearing his clothes in grief.

I disagree slightly :wink: because if the medals were simply left undisturbed in the safe, the Pistorius family or his attorney would collect them after the police turned the home back over to OP.

 

[DebinGA]

A little disingenuous?

The state based their whole case on the basis of OP wearing his prosthesis.
Are you aware of when the PT changed their claim? They changed it after the bail hearing.
They'd presumed all along that defense were going to claim OP was wearing his prosthesis.

Make of that what you will.

PT didn't have Mangena's ballistics report until after the bail hearing?

 

[soozieqtips]

I think Roux will have made it clear to OP that he must remain humble and remorseful on the stand, and under no account lose his temper under cross examination. When Ian Huntley was on trial for murdering Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, he lost his temper under questioning, and the prosecutor, Mr Latham, asked something like: "Did you lose your temper with the girls too"? Huntley was also accused of inventing a defence to fit the facts... which is something I think many of us feel OP is doing, as he already knew people had heard gun shots and screaming... and now, apparently, not only can he scream like a woman, but he's also mastered the art of Hungarian throat singing to take care of the 2 intermingled voices that were heard.