Trial Discussion weekend Thread #18

[Cherwell]

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.

As I recall, the bail hearing took place within days of the crime, so there had been very little time for evaluating the evidence.

 

[BritsKate]

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.

The State based their whole case on the assertion that the shooting of Reeva Steenkamp was an unlawful killing. That has not changed.

Theories change, expert opinions shift, evidence is unearthed and more evidence tested while a trial is in its preliminary phases - this is true for both sides and does not indicate anything nefarious or irresponsible. For either side.


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

 

[DebinGA]

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.

"The 27-year-old Paralympian, who has denied the murder charge, has to explain why he fired four shots at model and aspiring television actress Reeva Steenkamp through a locked toilet door in his home on Valentine's Day last year. To do this, he has hired an extensive team of forensic experts to describe the events in the early hours of February 14, 2013, including an American animation firm that will visually depict the crime scene using three-dimensional computer generated images." [The New Age]

http://sports.ndtv.com/othersports/...o-take-the-stand-as-defence-presents-its-case

OP's job is to remember his lines, don't get angry, and don't over-act imo. The script was mostly written for him by others from the meager outline he provided.

 

[BritsKate]

FTR,
The bail hearing was February 21st.

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

 

[Deleted member 102539]

There's a thought.

It does look like they could have come off during a consistent movement as a single line of tiles is missing all the way down. It could even be one really large door slam.

You've started something now you know... :scared:


ETA: As the force looks like it was acting against the right hand side of the door from the outside, this would tie in with OP's kicking of the door.

I like your thought and the thought of the WS you quoted!
Strong door slamming sounds in a large empty tiled room very loudly and perhaps like thunderclap - maybe 3 x.

 

[Cherwell]

FTR,
The bail hearing was February 21st.

I think it began on the 19th February. It went on for several days.

 

[G.bng]

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.

Nope. You are absolutely not "talking rubbish"... to the contrary a really great find and great observations too. The bed does very much look the same and photo confirms what Sam Taylor said, that at night he kept his gun on the bedside table. Of course some may say she could be lying out of some kind of sick revenge, i.e. a woman scorned, but then she wouldn't have said he was unstable without prothesis which goes to supporting his claims.

Interesting comment in the article too, i.e. "Other journalists invited into his inner sanctum have already told of seeing a gun lying next to his bed and a machine gun by the window."

 

[kittychi]

I don't understand why OP's even included points 1 to 4.

If I was lying about something they wouldn't be in my plan, as they don't seem to serve any purpose other than to incriminate.

My POV is they had to add a fan being brought in and OP speaking with Reeva to his statement to make his story more believable.

Adding that he had spoken to her makes sense, but adding that a second fan was brought in seems so inconsequential. Why bother to add it to his statement unless there was a specific reason?

- It would take him a little longer to bring in two fans...more time to "not notice" that Reeva had gotten up to go to the loo.

- He had to say he spoke with Reeva so she was awake enough to go to the loo during the time of him moving the fans.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

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.

I think, only a few people think of "maliciously planning a murder". IMO he wanted to cover up something else (chasing, rage, screams/calls for help etc.) and perhaps to cover up the first shot, then fired more shots without clear thinking to silence Reeva. That's how I imagine the situation.

 

[kittychi]

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.

BBM: I understood that the PT originally took Hilton Botha's word for it because that's what he thought after looking at the door. They had not yet had the benefit of forensics investigation.

IMO they made a big mistake by making the prosthetics claim in the first place. It seems they put more thought at that time to just keeping OP from getting bail instead of waiting until a thorough and proper investigation was completed.

 

[Viper]

My POV is they had to add a fan being brought in and OP speaking with Reeva to his statement to make his story more believable.

Adding that he had spoken to her makes sense, but adding that a second fan was brought in seems so inconsequential. Why bother to add it to his statement unless there was a specific reason?

- It would take him a little longer to bring in two fans...more time to "not notice" that Reeva had gotten up to go to the loo.

- He had to say he spoke with Reeva so she was awake enough to go to the loo during the time of him moving the fans.

This fan thing is ridiculous IMO. I've read that at that time on that night it was 62 degrees Fahrenheit = 17 degrees Celsius. If he's cold why not just close the door, leaving the fans alone? Not sure why the fans got placed in the web of lies.

 

[04009margaret]

The State based their whole case on the assertion that the shooting of Reeva Steenkamp was an unlawful killing. That has not changed.

Theories change, expert opinions shift, evidence is unearthed and more evidence tested while a trial is in its preliminary phases - this is true for both sides and does not indicate anything nefarious or irresponsible. For either side.


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

Well said

 

[Deleted member 102539]

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?

I wouldn't always plead guilty. Do you know the case "Dellen Millard/Tim Bosma" here on WS? I can't help, I want to see DM not guilty so far, though much is speaking against him.
OP seems to be temporarly not quite master of his senses and his fairy tales I don't believe. However I almost "admire" the quick ability of thinking up the nonsense with intruder/s.

 

[Viper]

This may be important: IIRC OP does not specifically say that the patio door was open; he says something like, "I went out to bring in the fans..." That could mean that he opened the door to go out, or it could mean (as most here believe) that he went through the already opened door to fetch the fans. It is very vague and so I don't know which one is the story he will tell.

 

[wb180]

This fan thing is ridiculous IMO. I've read that at that time on that night it was 62 degrees Fahrenheit = 17 degrees Celsius. If he's cold why not just close the door, leaving the fans alone? Not sure why the fans got placed in the web of lies.

For me, it's not the temperature, his bail statement just seems weird. It is like his fear was tacked onto it.

E.g.

1. A victim of violence/death threats/burglaries but still sleeps (1) with bathroom window unlocked and (2) his sliding doors open (which gives burglar access to a sleeping OP and a loaded gun).

2. Has a "sense of terror" (because he immediately knew it was a burglar from just a noise) but chose not to put on his legs or press button for security (or ask Reeva to call security) before heading into potential "violent crime".

3. Was "too scared" to switch a light on (also coz he was in a sense of terror) but was ok with screaming to the burglar to get out (without knowing where the burglar is in the bathroom).

4. Filled with "horror and fear" that the burglar was in the toilet but he chose to go there in the first place (without do any further steps to reduce such fear (like putting on legs, call security, etc other than grabbing the gun)).

5. Felt "extremely vulnerable" without his legs but chose not to put them on when he had the chance (i.e. when he grab the gun).

I am not that smart (many smart people in this forum) but I really don't understand his fear.

 

[whiterum]

I wouldn't always plead guilty. Do you know the case "Dellen Millard/Tim Bosma" here on WS? I can't help, I want to see DM not guilty so far, though much is speaking against him.
OP seems to be temporarly not quite master of his senses and his fairy tales I don't believe. However I almost "admire" the quick ability of thinking up the nonsense with intruder/s.

What other excuse could he possibly make for the shooting other than intruder/s. That is basically it, as Botha said at the BH he did not elaborate other than those few words. Obviously, further detail to be filled in later with the help of paid experts after his hired DT had examined the crime -scene. If I remember right he did not hand his affidavit over to the police until the morning of the BH, so other than 'he thought it was an intruder' there was little time for the PT to familiarise themselves with any of his claims.

 

[steveml]

BBM: I understood that the PT originally took Hilton Botha's word for it because that's what he thought after looking at the door. They had not yet had the benefit of forensics investigation.

IMO they made a big mistake by making the prosthetics claim in the first place. It seems they put more thought at that time to just keeping OP from getting bail instead of waiting until a thorough and proper investigation was completed.

Thanks,

That's correct. It just ended up as a lawyer game really, and didn't achieve anything constructive. I feel that the Botha situation didn't help.

The first time it was revealed that the PT had changed their stance was at the start of the trial. The PT had plenty of opportunity to make the correct charge, one for which OP could have pleaded guilty to. If they fail to achieve that, it's likely to be because they aimed too high.

This could be the PT's second big mistake.

We'll see how they get on during the coming weeks.

:smile:

 

[steveml]

I think, only a few people think of "maliciously planning a murder". IMO he wanted to cover up something else (chasing, rage, screams/calls for help etc.) and perhaps to cover up the first shot, then fired more shots without clear thinking to silence Reeva. That's how I imagine the situation.

Yep, I think you're right. The rage scenario does seem to be the preferred one at present.

If it is a cover-up I wouldn't be too worried as it's not a very good one.

His DT want sacking if they helped him with it as it's far more complex than it needs to be.

Simplicity is the key to cover-ups, not going back and adding more information.

 

[BritsKate]

Legally, the State has a case for murder. They would be doing a disservice to Reeva, her family, and all homicide victims in South Africa not to attempt a conviction for murder.

Charging a lesser offence; plea bargaining - those are events that occur when the State doesn't have the evidence to prove a higher charge. If Oscar didn't testify, he would most likely be convicted of murder. Simply because there would be no mitigation for requisite intent.

It isn't the prosecutors job to predict what a defendant's defence will be and charge accordingly. Had Oscar been wearing his prosthetics, on stumps, or even with his own natural legs had he been born with them - the charge would have been the same - because black and white, they have legal grounds to do so. No less, no more.

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

 

[steveml]

My POV is they had to add a fan being brought in and OP speaking with Reeva to his statement to make his story more believable.

Adding that he had spoken to her makes sense, but adding that a second fan was brought in seems so inconsequential. Why bother to add it to his statement unless there was a specific reason?

- It would take him a little longer to bring in two fans...more time to "not notice" that Reeva had gotten up to go to the loo.

- He had to say he spoke with Reeva so she was awake enough to go to the loo during the time of him moving the fans.

BIB

I agree with this.

Yet to me none of the story even needs to be there, it's too over-complicated. If you didn't see someone in bed, there's no way to prove you didn't see anyone in bed. You just say 'I thought Reeva was still in bed'.

The fact of speaking to Reeva gives me the indication that she was awake, and therefore there was more reason to expect her to possibly go to the loo.

'It was dark, heard a noise in bathroom, got gun, shouted back to Reva, saw bathroom window open, heard noise from toilet, shot 4 times at door, realized Reeva hadn't responded to my shout, went back, realized Reeva wasn't in bed'.

OP can put Reeva's sandals at the side of bed furthest away as cover-up, and that's all the story requires.

Adding details of patio, fan, sleeping on other side of bed, leaving phones in bathroom, cosmetic bag, are all things to arouse suspicion. Then going back and adding more details to the statement seem even more baffling if your intention is to lie. A story that revolves around going to sleep and waking up seems less believable the more things you add to it IMO.