Trial Discussion Thread #30

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm a bit doubtful about those acting allegations. I can't find any other backup and I would have thought, if OP was to have done that, the acting coach would have been tied up with all sorts of non-disclosure agreements and it would have been kept top secret.

Unless he just asked an actor friend to help him out for free, and that actor has a loose tongue? That wouldn't be unheard of, in the acting world.

Very early on, something Uncle Arnold said early on made me uneasy. When OP's father made some statement, Uncle Arnold said it 'hadn't been approved by our media team'? I just found it very strange that a forthcoming murder trial was being treated like a large PR Campaign, and even stranger that the family were being so open about it.

As though good publicity could actually have some influence on the outcome of the trial?
 
aa9511 said:
Oh oops. I read the posts on here, guess I didn't read that part. Or am confusing her with her husband now? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Yep. Easily done with corrected statements, re-examinations that rehabilitate a cross and pages of the same arguments going round and round. I believe many of us are a little crazy from this case. I, for example, am going to have Vermeulen's redirect testimony tattooed on myself. How's that for dedication to a case? ;)

Here you go:
Johan Stipp, testified that when he looked towards Pistorius’s bathroom after he heard the sounds of “loud bangs”, the lights were on and he saw someone walk from the right to the left. He said the lights were also on in the toilet window next to the bathroom.
Click to expand...
http://www.sabreakingnews.co.za/2014/04/17/pistorius-could-have-been-seen-through-bathroom-window/
 
jay-jay said:
It's always an error to grant a murderer bail, they need to be kept away from other people.
Click to expand...

Well, first he has to be judged a murderer in a court of law. If the bail judge didn't perceive the weakness of the state's case, he wouldn't have allowed him out on bail.

He hasn't killed anyone else while he's been out of jail has he? He hasn't committed any crimes has he?

The system worked.
 
Enough already! Please move on to discussing the case instead of each other...
 
zwiebel said:
I'm a bit doubtful about those acting allegations. I can't find any other backup and I would have thought, if OP was to have done that, the acting coach would have been tied up with all sorts of non-disclosure agreements and it would have been kept top secret.

Unless he just asked an actor friend to help him out for free, and that actor has a loose tongue? That wouldn't be unheard of, in the acting world.

Very early on, something Uncle Arnold said early on made me uneasy. When OP's father made some statement, Uncle Arnold said it 'hadn't been approved by our media team'? I just found it very strange that a forthcoming murder trial was being treated like a large PR Campaign, and even stranger that the family were being so open about it.

As though good publicity could actually have some influence on the outcome of the trial?
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that there is a PR aspect to all of this for Oscar. Just like there would be/are with other celebrities in trouble with the law for something so serious, or even not serious.

Personally, I do think ALL of Oscar's courtroom behavior is an act.

Like I said one time, how is it that Oscar is an emotional basketcase inside the courtroom, yet walks out with his back straight, shoulders out, and kind of with a swagger in front of the cameras??

One would expect Oscar to leave the courtroom with slumped shoulders, head down, maybe shielding his head and face with his folder, etc.? Giving a signal to the media of, hey, leave me alone, can't you see I'm a broken man right now?

He does not do that when he's walking into and out of court.

It's all an act.

JMO.
 
aa9511 said:
Oh oops. I read the posts on here, guess I didn't read that part. Or am confusing her with her husband now? Thanks.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about Mrs Stipp's statement (and her correction of it the next day) for ages! I wonder if it was due, not to any police pressure, but to her implicit trust and faith in her husband? So if he saw it, it must have happened, and she was safe to say she saw it too?

Something like those couples you sometimes come across who finish each other's sentences, because they are certain they know what the other one's going to say.

The most interesting thing to me was she corrected what she had said the next day, I think? Nobody could have argued she didn't see Oscar in the window that night, except her husband. So I think they may have had a conversation about their statements, and without any outside pressure, decided her false bit could not be allowed to stand and she had to be completely accurate. About what SHE saw, not what she believed her husband saw.

I don't think there was any sinister motive in her original statement but it didn't look good. It's to her credit she admitted it was false and corrected it without outside prompting though, I think.
 
Viper said:
BIB1: Please provide a link that confirms that Dr. Saymaan said that Reeva had significant blood loss. Just that: significant blood loss.

I recall that this "significant blood loss" issue originated with you. You picked on a notation that Saymaan made about the color of Reeva's heart being pale and then you made a determination, based solely on that one notation, that Reeva died of exsanguination (she bled to death). But you have not considered what the pathologist that performed the autopsy determined; he did not make a determination of exsanguination. I challenge you to proved links to support your opinion.

BIB2: So wait, now you are whispering softly that you are a doctor of medicine too? Respectfully, I don't believe that.

FYI: Reeva's cause of death is "gunshot wound."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeva_Steenkamp
Click to expand...

What I remember Saayman saying is that either of the other two injuries, hip and arm, could have killed her by themselves from massive blood loss---if the head wound hadn't killed her first.

Brain matter outside of the head is about as bad as it gets.
 
steveml said:
I guess we don't need to bother with trials then. Just lock up every whiny dude who's a sore loser.

I can't believe John McEnroe's still walking the streets to this day. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

If he had murdered his girlfriend, he wouldn't be. :seeya:
 
minor4th said:
Well, first he has to be judged a murderer in a court of law. If the bail judge didn't perceive the weakness of the state's case, he wouldn't have allowed him out on bail.

He hasn't killed anyone else while he's been out of jail has he? He hasn't committed any crimes has he?

The system worked.
Click to expand...

He might not have done, but lots of people do, and that is the whole idea of keeping them in prison before their trial comes up. It's a pre-emptive thing, it's not something which is done so that you ('one') can look back and say, "oh, well it was ok because that person didn't kill someone". That's a bit like not bothering to take out holiday/health insurance while visiting the US and then coming back after not needing to use the US health services and saying "there ya go, I didn't need my insurance anyway".

I'm actually astonished by how so many are allowed out on bail, to be honest, but this is what happens when such people are let out on bail, in many instances ..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...s-carried-out-by-criminals-while-on-bail.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ble-crime-minutes-including-rapes-A-WEEK.html

I'm guessing the reason for it is that we just don't have enough space in prison to keep them all.
 
shane13 said:
And not so frail. When OP did his high pitched 'get the fvck outta my house," she skidaddled from her seat rather quickly, saying court was adjourned.

I believe I detected some fear at that moment.
Maybe a victim herself of crime or DV?
Click to expand...

Notice the long pause as as he prepared himself for his debut loud high pitch voice. No, not high enough first go, try again a bit louder and higher in pitch but still didn't hack it, still a definite male voice. In fact , the same tone but louder than his whining 'poor me ' voice that he had used throughout Nel's cross. You are right My Lady scarpered from her seat. What woman with a verbally abusive partner hasn't heard that line before, big mistake IMO !!
 
Here's a newspaper that agrees with me:


But, while the prosecution throughout the trial have had Pistorius on the ropes, ducking and weaving, at no stage have they managed to land the knockout blow they need.

They have highlighted his love of assault rifles, his short temper, his fights with Reeva, but the one thing they simply haven’t been able to establish is motive.

Why would a man with seemingly everything in life, including a beautiful, intelligent girlfriend, all of a sudden want to kill that very same woman?

The prosecution have built a narrative for murder, but they haven’t produced — for want of a better term — a smoking gun.


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ap-in-this-opera/story-fni0cwl5-1226891434954



No knock out blow--just a lot of smoke and mirrors.

Oh! And the prosecution case in chief is over.
 
sicknote said:
OP said so himself. If Stander denies it, OP is still lying. Unless of course he can't remember why he was required to be at Oscars in the middle of the night.
Click to expand...

I don't think Stander is going to be testifying since he's been sitting in court. Nel could have called him if he thought Stander would contradict OP
 
zwiebel said:
I was thinking about Mrs Stipp's statement (and her correction of it the next day) for ages! I wonder if it was due, not to any police pressure, but to her implicit trust and faith in her husband? So if he saw it, it must have happened, and she was safe to say she saw it too?

Something like those couples you sometimes come across who finish each other's sentences, because they are certain they know what the other one's going to say.

The most interesting thing to me was she corrected what she had said the next day, I think? Nobody could have argued she didn't see Oscar in the window that night, except her husband. So I think they may have had a conversation about their statements, and without any outside pressure, decided her false bit could not be allowed to stand and she had to be completely accurate. About what SHE saw, not what she believed her husband saw.

I don't think there was any sinister motive in her original statement but it didn't look good. It's to her credit she admitted it was false and corrected it without outside prompting though, I think.
Click to expand...

I don't think she said she corrected it the next day. If anyone can confirm this, I'll gladly stand corrected.

I don't think there was any sinister motive either. I do think the police pressured witnesses and wrote up statements that were favorable to their case and not necessarily the witnesses' own words in every instance.
 
minor4th said:
Well, first he has to be judged a murderer in a court of law. If the bail judge didn't perceive the weakness of the state's case, he wouldn't have allowed him out on bail.

He hasn't killed anyone else while he's been out of jail has he? He hasn't committed any crimes has he?

The system worked.
Click to expand...

If the state's case was really that weak, then they wouldn't even be bringing it to court (if it's anything like the UK, anyway).
 
molly333 said:
Here's a newspaper that agrees with me:


But, while the prosecution throughout the trial have had Pistorius on the ropes, ducking and weaving, at no stage have they managed to land the knockout blow they need.

They have highlighted his love of assault rifles, his short temper, his fights with Reeva, but the one thing they simply haven’t been able to establish is motive.

Why would a man with seemingly everything in life, including a beautiful, intelligent girlfriend, all of a sudden want to kill that very same woman?

The prosecution have built a narrative for murder, but they haven’t produced — for want of a better term — a smoking gun.


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ap-in-this-opera/story-fni0cwl5-1226891434954



No knock out blow--just a lot of smoke and mirrors.
Click to expand...

Smoke and mirrors?, actually smoke and mirror is claiming a man was screaming like a woman and that several people heard a bat hitting a door and not gunfire, smoke and mirror's from the defence is what some people have somehow fallen for.
 
Thank you all for your answers to my questions. I know I go in and out so appreciate you all being patient with me while I catch up!!

As per the bail issue - I guess I can see why a judge would grant bail before the trial and any testimony - as the judge had not heard Oscar's testimony yet.

In legal terms, the judge had to give more weight to the defendant's rights.

JMO.

Thanks again folks!
 
minor4th said:
Well, first he has to be judged a murderer in a court of law. If the bail judge didn't perceive the weakness of the state's case, he wouldn't have allowed him out on bail.

He hasn't killed anyone else while he's been out of jail has he? He hasn't committed any crimes has he?

The system worked.
Click to expand...

I don't know.
 
james83 said:
Smoke and mirrors?, actually smoke and mirror is claiming a man was screaming like a woman and that several people heard a bat hitting a door and not gunfire, smoke and mirror's from the defence is what some people have somehow fallen for.
Click to expand...

Unless a screaming man does sound like a woman and a bat hitting a door does sound like a gun, which we know from Stipps it does.

The prosecutor thought he had an easy slam dunk case--woman screams, shots ring out, woman dead.

He doesn't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 191 more.
Total: 4,453 (members: 192, guests: 4,261)

Online statistics

Members online
192
Guests online
4,261
Total visitors
4,453
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,752
Messages
17,958,426
Members
228,603
Latest member
megalow
Back
Top