1099 users online (212 members and 887 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Page 1 of 108 1 2 3 11 51 101 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 1611
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Up Nel's Arse
    Posts
    1,257
    I haven't posted for some months but in the interim i did discuss the case with a couple of experienced litigators who crystalized it better than me.

    The point is that the timeline at best can only corroborate some aspects of Pistorius version.

    However it was certainly open to the Court to find that OP was in the most part dishonest, deceitful and unreliable. Indeed quite a lot of circumstantial evidence proved he was lying about the key minutes - e.g. the duvet & blood stains.

    Therefore a typical approach would be to reject all of OPs evidence except where it is independently corroborated - because an accused pleading self defence ought to be expected to be able to offer an honest account of the critical circumstances. If he cannot - then the Court simply ignores his unreliable testimony.

    On this analysis - there is no reliable evidence Reeva went into the toilet without OP knowing.

    Now also - and this is critical.

    Defences to murder must be based on an evidential foundation. So the defence must establish some facts which allow the Court to find the mistake (plus PDD).

    What facts were established which would allow the court to find that OP was mistaken as to who was in the toilet?

    IMO this is where the Court went badly wrong because the manner of mistake as narrated by OP was highly unlikely and he was also a highly unreliable witness.

    His version is not reasonably possibly true at all - in fact we know he is lying. Nel proved that.

    It gets philosophical / jurisprudential at this point - but reasonable doubt does not mean the prosecution needs to disprove each of the facts of OPs version beyond reasonable doubt.

    The Court instead should ask what facts have been established.

    In order for the defence to succeed - the mistake actually needed to be proven as a fact.

    Yet what actually happened was that his account of the mistake was highly implausible and demonstrably dishonest.

    Now given that the defence never offered any evidence at all that OP screams like a woman - then you are left with the logical & natural conclusion that the witnesses heard Reeva screaming and there was no mistake.

    Otherwise it starts to get impossible for the prosecution to win cases because the defense can simply invent a highly implausible story the facts of which the prosecution cannot 100% rule out

    However that is not how the evidential burdern at trial works.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjitty View Post
    I haven't posted for some months but in the interim i did discuss the case with a couple of experienced litigators who crystalized it better than me.

    The point is that the timeline at best can only corroborate some aspects of Pistorius version.

    However it was certainly open to the Court to find that OP was in the most part dishonest, deceitful and unreliable. Indeed quite a lot of circumstantial evidence proved he was lying about the key minutes - e.g. the duvet & blood stains.

    Therefore a typical approach would be to reject all of OPs evidence except where it is independently corroborated - because an accused pleading self defence ought to be expected to be able to offer an honest account of the critical circumstances. If he cannot - then the Court simply ignores his unreliable testimony.

    On this analysis - there is no reliable evidence Reeva went into the toilet without OP knowing.

    Now also - and this is critical.

    Defences to murder must be based on an evidential foundation. So the defence must establish some facts which allow the Court to find the mistake (plus PDD).

    What facts were established which would allow the court to find that OP was mistaken as to who was in the toilet?

    IMO this is where the Court went badly wrong because the manner of mistake as narrated by OP was highly unlikely and he was also a highly unreliable witness.

    His version is not reasonably possibly true at all - in fact we know he is lying. Nel proved that.

    It gets philosophical / jurisprudential at this point - but reasonable doubt does not mean the prosecution needs to disprove each of the facts of OPs version beyond reasonable doubt.

    The Court instead should ask what facts have been established.

    In order for the defence to succeed - the mistake actually needed to be proven as a fact.

    Yet what actually happened was that his account of the mistake was highly implausible and demonstrably dishonest.

    Now given that the defence never offered any evidence at all that OP screams like a woman - then you are left with the logical & natural conclusion that the witnesses heard Reeva screaming and there was no mistake.

    Otherwise it starts to get impossible for the prosecution to win cases because the defense can simply invent a highly implausible story the facts of which the prosecution cannot 100% rule out

    However that is not how the evidential burdern at trial works.
    BIB 1 and 2. Exactly.

    Mr Jitty -
    Regarding this appeal for leave to appeal do you think this is correct?
    1) The Defence don't want the case heard by the SCA
    2) They're trying to stop this by arguing that Masipa's potential errors were those of fact and not law
    3) They're not actually expecting Masipa to change her mind in March but procedure dictates that they need to go through her before they can appeal to the SCA
    4) There will likely then be a preliminary ruling by the SCA as to whether the errors were factually based or a potential legal mistake; if the former then the full case won't be heard
    5) The fact that this is unprecedented suggests that they are either tactically brilliant or desperate

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    208
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjitty View Post
    I haven't posted for some months but in the interim i did discuss the case with a couple of experienced litigators who crystalized it better than me.

    The point is that the timeline at best can only corroborate some aspects of Pistorius version.

    However it was certainly open to the Court to find that OP was in the most part dishonest, deceitful and unreliable. Indeed quite a lot of circumstantial evidence proved he was lying about the key minutes - e.g. the duvet & blood stains.

    Therefore a typical approach would be to reject all of OPs evidence except where it is independently corroborated - because an accused pleading self defence ought to be expected to be able to offer an honest account of the critical circumstances. If he cannot - then the Court simply ignores his unreliable testimony.

    On this analysis - there is no reliable evidence Reeva went into the toilet without OP knowing.

    Now also - and this is critical.

    Defences to murder must be based on an evidential foundation. So the defence must establish some facts which allow the Court to find the mistake (plus PDD).

    What facts were established which would allow the court to find that OP was mistaken as to who was in the toilet?

    IMO this is where the Court went badly wrong because the manner of mistake as narrated by OP was highly unlikely and he was also a highly unreliable witness.

    His version is not reasonably possibly true at all - in fact we know he is lying. Nel proved that.

    It gets philosophical / jurisprudential at this point - but reasonable doubt does not mean the prosecution needs to disprove each of the facts of OPs version beyond reasonable doubt.

    The Court instead should ask what facts have been established.

    In order for the defence to succeed - the mistake actually needed to be proven as a fact.

    Yet what actually happened was that his account of the mistake was highly implausible and demonstrably dishonest.

    Now given that the defence never offered any evidence at all that OP screams like a woman - then you are left with the logical & natural conclusion that the witnesses heard Reeva screaming and there was no mistake.

    Otherwise it starts to get impossible for the prosecution to win cases because the defense can simply invent a highly implausible story the facts of which the prosecution cannot 100% rule out

    However that is not how the evidential burdern at trial works.[
    /QUOTE]

    BIB 1 and 2. Exactly.

    Mr Jitty -
    Regarding this appeal for leave to appeal do you think this is correct?
    1) The Defence don't want the case heard by the SCA
    2) They're trying to stop this by arguing that Masipa's potential errors were those of fact and not law
    3) They're not actually expecting Masipa to change her mind in March but procedure dictates that they need to go through her before they can appeal to the SCA
    4) There will likely then be a preliminary ruling by the SCA as to whether the errors were factually based or a potential legal mistake; if the former then the full case won't be heard
    5) The fact that this is unprecedented suggests that they are either tactically brilliant or desperate
    Where are you, mrjitty? This is driving me crazy! Would someone find mrjitty and let him know there are longstanding, unanswered questions here?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by L2L View Post
    Where are you, mrjitty? This is driving me crazy! Would someone find mrjitty and let him know there are longstanding, unanswered questions here?
    He's from NZ isn't he? Right now he's probably watching NZ playing Australia in cricket.

    Sorry, L2L, no idea why it looks like I'm quoting myself and not you.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    208
    That's alright, Jake18... just another of life's little mysteries! Now, if we can only entice mrjitty away from that cricket to things of greater importance! BTW, thanks for your excellent and concise 5 point summary for which I'm daring to predict .... "desperate"!

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by L2L View Post
    That's alright, Jake18... just another of life's little mysteries! Now, if we can only entice mrjitty away from that cricket to things of greater importance! BTW, thanks for your excellent and concise 5 point summary for which I'm daring to predict .... "desperate"!

    I agree, desperate. Desperate that this case doesn't get to the SCA, though (sad to say) I still have a concern that strings may be pulled at the top.


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by GR_Turner View Post
    Yes, I see that's what the State's case was in essence. But I still don't see why the timeline is a huge white elephant. Surely one of the strands of deciding whether to believe a witness' version involves looking at what else corroborates it and what contradicts it. All the things that Nel said were a problem seemed to me to be things that could be explained or could be mistakes. And Roux's timeline is hard to dispute and indeed Nel didn't even try. Do you say then that an experienced court will look at the timeline and say, oh well, that doesn't matter because of his poor testimony? I'd expect them to see that the evidence from the neighbours agrees with his version and conclude that it represented very strong evidence in his favour, at least as regards the primary case. DE is another matter but I was talking about the DD case.

    If you don't want to discuss further as all this is just repetition to you now, I understand.
    Go ahead and explain the crime scene photos not matching OP's testimony. Not only not matching but making his story impossible. We really don't need to go further than this and neither did Masipa if she was competent or not corrupt.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Miami
    Posts
    2,171
    Hold on. The defense is applying to leave to appeal the state's granted leave to appeal??

    Good grief.

    At the hearing back in December Roux already argued against the state's application to leave for appeal. I remember him telling the court that the appeal had no chance of success. Really Roux? If that were true, you would not be desperately trying to block the state from presenting the case to the SCA.

    He obviously is very worried about the outcome. As he should be... His client clearly committed murder.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Miami
    Posts
    2,171
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjitty View Post
    I could go on but we already had these discussions last year
    RSBM

    Ugh, indeed. This is well covered territory. We have discussed it ad nauseam. It's time to quit beating that dead horse.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    7,486

    Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

    Continue discussion here...



    link to previous thread


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    559
    Quote Originally Posted by mirage1 View Post
    Go ahead and explain the crime scene photos not matching OP's testimony. Not only not matching but making his story impossible. We really don't need to go further than this and neither did Masipa if she was competent or not corrupt.
    OK - how did the crime scene photos prove anything? To prove something they must contradict something that is intrinsic to Oscar's version of what happened before or after the shooting and be regarded as correctly depicting the scene at the time of the shooting. We know that Oscar himself doesn't remember clearly what happened after he broke the door down so he may not remember what he moved. He may also have just been mistaken about exactly where things were. Then there is the police Colonel whose evidence made it clear that the scene wasn't kept secure from contamination. Col. van Rensburg's evidence about who went upstairs and when was contradicted by at least three other policemen according to their affadavits, witnesses the State chose to not call to explain these discrepancies. This makes it hard to see how the photos can be said to depict the scene at the relevant moments.

    I assume you are talking about the fan/jeans/duvet evidence. As far as I remember, Nel claimed that Oscar couldn't have got onto the balcony as the big fan was in the way. However, Col. van Rensburg was able to do this when he arrived on the scene, apparently without moving anything. Oscar then said the fan must have been further over where the duvet was and then it became clear that the duvet must have been there when he carried Reeva over it after the shooting. Oscar said this wasn't the case as he thought Botha said the duvet was on the bed. The jeans may or may not have been slightly over the edge of the duvet; this is unclear.

    So what we can conclude is that Oscar must have made a mistake about exactly where the fan was. He must also have made a mistake about where the duvet ended up. But neither of these things prove that he didn't move the fan as he said and that the duvet wasn't on the bed at the time, nor that he lied about the jeans.

    It seems as though an accused in this situation is expected to have perfect recall of an event and to stick to that possibly shaky and perhaps contaminated memory when the prosecutor argues that his evidence isn't possible. It seems that he is stuck between a rock and a hard place. If he sticks with the fan being where it was in the photo then the prosecutor can say this is impossible as he couldn't go out on to the balcony, and if he says, well, it must have been further over, then he's accused of changing his story and tailoring. This is why judging whether the photos represent the scene from the moments after the shooting or not is important. If they don't then all of this is irrelevant imo. It's basically a win-win situation for the State otherwise. I don't see how the State showed that the photos do indeed depict the relevant scene and so I don't see that the photos can be used to contradict Oscar's version and the exchange during cross is meaningless if it is based on a false premise.

    Is that what you meant?

    I suspect that I'll be told again that the accused must provide a basis for their version but whilst I see that I don't see how this relates to the burden of proof. As far as I can see, an accused even in a self-defense or PPD case in SA does not have to prove their version is true - it is up to the State to show that it can't be true. Anyone got any links to SA judgements in which this aspect is explained? Or to an earlier discussion, for that matter.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    836
    Quote Originally Posted by GR_Turner View Post
    OK - how did the crime scene photos prove anything? To prove something they must contradict something that is intrinsic to Oscar's version of what happened before or after the shooting and be regarded as correctly depicting the scene at the time of the shooting. We know that Oscar himself doesn't remember clearly what happened after he broke the door down so he may not remember what he moved. He may also have just been mistaken about exactly where things were. Then there is the police Colonel whose evidence made it clear that the scene wasn't kept secure from contamination. Col. van Rensburg's evidence about who went upstairs and when was contradicted by at least three other policemen according to their affadavits, witnesses the State chose to not call to explain these discrepancies. This makes it hard to see how the photos can be said to depict the scene at the relevant moments.

    I assume you are talking about the fan/jeans/duvet evidence. As far as I remember, Nel claimed that Oscar couldn't have got onto the balcony as the big fan was in the way. However, Col. van Rensburg was able to do this when he arrived on the scene, apparently without moving anything. Oscar then said the fan must have been further over where the duvet was and then it became clear that the duvet must have been there when he carried Reeva over it after the shooting. Oscar said this wasn't the case as he thought Botha said the duvet was on the bed. The jeans may or may not have been slightly over the edge of the duvet; this is unclear.

    So what we can conclude is that Oscar must have made a mistake about exactly where the fan was. He must also have made a mistake about where the duvet ended up. But neither of these things prove that he didn't move the fan as he said and that the duvet wasn't on the bed at the time, nor that he lied about the jeans.

    It seems as though an accused in this situation is expected to have perfect recall of an event and to stick to that possibly shaky and perhaps contaminated memory when the prosecutor argues that his evidence isn't possible. It seems that he is stuck between a rock and a hard place. If he sticks with the fan being where it was in the photo then the prosecutor can say this is impossible as he couldn't go out on to the balcony, and if he says, well, it must have been further over, then he's accused of changing his story and tailoring. This is why judging whether the photos represent the scene from the moments after the shooting or not is important. If they don't then all of this is irrelevant imo. It's basically a win-win situation for the State otherwise. I don't see how the State showed that the photos do indeed depict the relevant scene and so I don't see that the photos can be used to contradict Oscar's version and the exchange during cross is meaningless if it is based on a false premise.

    Is that what you meant?

    I suspect that I'll be told again that the accused must provide a basis for their version but whilst I see that I don't see how this relates to the burden of proof. As far as I can see, an accused even in a self-defense or PPD case in SA does not have to prove their version is true - it is up to the State to show that it can't be true. Anyone got any links to SA judgements in which this aspect is explained? Or to an earlier discussion, for that matter.
    Rather an easy way out for the accused to make an unsubstantiated claim of contamination of the crime scene by police… OP repeatedly and vociferously argued that proof of the contamination would be forthcoming but it never was, was it ?

    What difference would it have made if police investigators had worn overalls and shoe coverings ?… there is no DNA, fingerprint, foot print, residue transfer, etc... evidence in the State's case… Roux's whole bit about contamination was a red herring.

    As for OP's memory… it is obviously and strangely very selective… it is highly detailed and specific on some aspects (… because they establish his defence) but very fuzzy and uncertain on other aspects (… because they would jeopardize his defence).

    As for what the photos show… perhaps looking at each element in a vacuum, one could possibly make the case that they don't amount to much… However this is NOT how evidence should be examined in a criminal Trial… evidence is looked at as a whole, as a portrait... not item by item in a piecemeal fashion.

    According to OP :

    A. The small fan was plugged in, turned ON, at the head of the bed (next to the large fan on the left)

    B. The large fan was turned ON, at the head of the bed (next to the small fan on the right), orientated towards the occupants of the bed

    According to the photos :

    A. The small was not plugged in, was turned OFF, was stored near the stereo (nowhere near the head of the bed or the large fan)… PLUS where the small fan should be according to OP, the photos show the duvet… PLUS there is no available outlet where the small fan could be plugged in.

    B. The large fan was turned OFF, was between the bed and the balcony doors (nowhere near the head of the bed or the small fan), was not orientated towards the occupants of the bed… PLUS where the large fan should be according to OP, the photos show the duvet… PLUS the large fan cannot reach the location indicated by OP without the multi-plug moving toward the corner of the bed.

    The keystone of OP's scenario rests on those 2 fans : they were the reason why he could not see nor hear Reeva leave the bedroom.

    For OP's version to be possible you must believe the following happened in sequence :

    0. No one took a single photograph of the bedroom

    1. Someone unplugged the small fan from the multi-plug, moved it and neatly gathered up the electrical lead

    2. Someone turned OFF the large fan, moved it so as to impede access to the balcony and reoriented it 90 degrees

    3. Someone moved back the multi-plug towards the nightstand

    4. Someone plugged the rechargeable base of the hair clippers into the multi-plug and placed the hair clippers upright onto the rechargeable base

    5. Someone moved the duvet where the fans used to be

    6. Someone moved the jeans so as to have them slightly overlap onto the duvet

    7. Someone gathered some of Reeva's blood in the bathroom and made a single blood trail which starts on the carpet and ends onto the duvet

    8. Photographs are now taken to document the bedroom

    One should remember that Police investigators had absolutely NO information whatsoever about OP's version of events during their investigation.

    Therefore, the probabilities Police would be blessed with the uncanny foresight to successfully tamper with so many seemingly unimportant items in order to eventually contradict OP's version of events are infinitesimal at best.

    The probabilities negligence and bad luck would be responsible for so many items being moved in precise sequence is also infinitesimal.

    Whereas the probabilities the accused charged with murder would fabricate a version of events to avoid life in prison are quite good.

    The fact a version conflicts so severely with so many secondary items is a telltale sign that said version is a fabrication… which is to be expected as the primary purpose of said fabrication is not to address these unimportant items but rather to provide a "plausible" alternate scenario to murder.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    836
    P.S.

    Justifying all these incongruities in OP's version by saying they could be mistakes or memory troubles is not very reasonable to say the least :

    1. OP moved the items himself… he should therefore have a clear recollection of his own actions

    2. OP moved these items before the stressful situation began

    3. OP went back and forth from the bedroom to the bathroom… he witnessed the bedroom and the items several times

    4. OP went back upstairs after he brought Reeva downstairs… he again witnessed the bedroom and the items

    5. OP went back upstairs a second time after the paramedics had arrived… he again witnessed the bedroom and the items

    6. OP studied the photographs of the bedroom and the items… yet no claims of tampering on these specific items were made until OP was being cross-examined about them.

    It's not surprising… the State must disclose all the evidence but not their strategy or line of questioning…

    OP prepared and rehearsed everything he could possibly think of... BUT he could not prepare nor rehearse for what he could not anticipate… which is basically how you unmask a liar and his lies.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by GR_Turner View Post
    OK - how did the crime scene photos prove anything? To prove something they must contradict something that is intrinsic to Oscar's version of what happened before or after the shooting and be regarded as correctly depicting the scene at the time of the shooting. We know that Oscar himself doesn't remember clearly what happened after he broke the door down so he may not remember what he moved. He may also have just been mistaken about exactly where things were. Then there is the police Colonel whose evidence made it clear that the scene wasn't kept secure from contamination. Col. van Rensburg's evidence about who went upstairs and when was contradicted by at least three other policemen according to their affadavits, witnesses the State chose to not call to explain these discrepancies. This makes it hard to see how the photos can be said to depict the scene at the relevant moments.
    The photos do depict the scene at the time of the shooting, the police said so, and why on earth would they move around key items before taking photos? makes no sense, and no evidence of it. Rensburg not being accurate on who went up first upstairs has NOTHING to do with evidence being moved the scene 'contaminated' at all. It is a non sequitur.

    Quote Originally Posted by GR_Turner View Post
    I assume you are talking about the fan/jeans/duvet evidence. As far as I remember, Nel claimed that Oscar couldn't have got onto the balcony as the big fan was in the way. However, Col. van Rensburg was able to do this when he arrived on the scene, apparently without moving anything. Oscar then said the fan must have been further over where the duvet was and then it became clear that the duvet must have been there when he carried Reeva over it after the shooting. Oscar said this wasn't the case as he thought Botha said the duvet was on the bed. The jeans may or may not have been slightly over the edge of the duvet; this is unclear.

    So what we can conclude is that Oscar must have made a mistake about exactly where the fan was. He must also have made a mistake about where the duvet ended up. But neither of these things prove that he didn't move the fan as he said and that the duvet wasn't on the bed at the time, nor that he lied about the jeans.
    You are missing the point. A mistake of memory does not excuse the fact the photos make OP's story impossible. I am not sure if you are aware of the gravity of the fans, because Op's whole story revolves around moving them because it gave Reeva the opportunity to slip past him without him noticing. If the big fan was moved to front of the bed as OP claims then the duvet could not have been under it. The small fan which he INSISTS was also plugged in could not have been because there was no room for it on the adapter. So you see the tangled web of lies? His story cannot be true according to the photos.


    Quote Originally Posted by GR_Turner View Post
    This is why judging whether the photos represent the scene from the moments after the shooting or not is important. If they don't then all of this is irrelevant imo. It's basically a win-win situation for the State otherwise. I don't see how the State showed that the photos do indeed depict the relevant scene and so I don't see that the photos can be used to contradict Oscar's version and the exchange during cross is meaningless if it is based on a false premise.
    How does the state prove crime scene photos do depict the relevant scene accurately? I thought it was to be assumed they are not lying and the photos are accurate, rather than trusting the accused. If we take your line of reasoning then we might as well throw out all crime scene photos.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,954
    mirage1 - yes. The fans were central to OP's whole fairy story.

    The photos prove his version(s) were utter rubbish. Remember how he was able to correct Nel on the smallest of detail regarding other things, and yet his memory conveniently failed when it came to the mystery of the fans, which was what his whole defence was based around!

Page 1 of 108 1 2 3 11 51 101 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #66~ the appeal~
    By KateB in forum Oscar Pistorius
    Replies: 701
    Last Post: 12-03-2015, 03:16 AM
  2. Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #65~ the appeal~
    By KateB in forum Oscar Pistorius
    Replies: 1357
    Last Post: 11-12-2015, 08:10 AM
  3. Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #64 ~ the appeal~
    By beach in forum Oscar Pistorius
    Replies: 1071
    Last Post: 10-26-2015, 08:26 PM
  4. Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #62 ~ the appeal~
    By KateB in forum Oscar Pistorius
    Replies: 1087
    Last Post: 08-05-2015, 09:28 PM
  5. Discussion Thread #60 - 14.9.12 ~ the appeal~
    By Harmony2 in forum Oscar Pistorius
    Replies: 1308
    Last Post: 02-28-2015, 11:08 AM

Tags for this Thread