Trial Discussion Thread #58 - 14.17.10, Day 47 ~ sentencing~

[ColonelMustard]

R: When yyou look at the excessive force; the negligence...is it recklessness or a compromised person....when you come to seentence youu have to look at the actions within his frame of mind

Now talking aabout how he (R) was approached on the bus by an attorney who asked him if he read a book: 'And it changed the perspective'...and now he's going on about humanity in general, legal system in general.....And. Stealing.Goats.

Goats?

Are you sure it wasn't polar bears??

<sarcasm>

 

[mrjitty]

You claim to be good at reasoning, yet it is quite lacking here. I know you prefer to argue about uncertain debatable semantics like bullet holes, and bat strikes, noises, that can never be concluded 100%, and will remain questionable, but this issue is very black and while. We have clear photo evidence, vs Oscar's version of events. There is no doubt or muddy water here. It's fact.

Now, you claim Oscar could simply be mistaken or forgotten details, it does not mean he is lying, or as you so eloquently put it 'whatever'. There is no 'whatever', we are talking about his version of events his explanation for how he shot dead a person, he can't be mistaken, his defence relies on his version being consistent with the evidence, and if it incompatible then it means its not true. It's not about him forgetting details, it's about the photo's making his version impossible, even according to Oscar himself, he admitted it.




Complete nonsense. You can't just dismiss photographic evidence, or any evidence as unreliable without zero evidence, this is laughable. There is no evidence the scene photos was not accurate, no we must assume they are, especially considering the extremely implausible suggestion that 5 items were 'accidentally' placed in positions that make Oscars story impossible. There is much more than 1 fan being moved. Just a quick summary for you.

1. Oscar claims he moved the large fan from the balcony door, placed it at the front of the bed, and closed the curtains. This MUST be true for his version to be true, there is no mistaken here. The only option is to believe not only did the police accidentally move these items, but actually reversed what Oscar did!! They must have moved the fan right in front of the door and opened the curtains wide! Why and how could this possibly happen? Please explain, and keep in mind this MUST be reasonably explained, not just 'whatever'. In combination with the following of course...because there is so much more in photo 55.

2. Oscar claims the small fan was also in front of the door, which he moved, but the problem is there was no room for it to ever be plugged in where he claimed, because Nel showed evidence the adapter was full. Oscar was not mistaken he was ADAMANT he did this.

3. The Duvet was on the floor right where he claimed the fan had been, which means the police must have accidentally dragged it off the bed and put it there AFTER they moved the fans.

4. The jeans were on top of the duvet which means they must have accidentally dropped them on top AFTER they moved everything else. A major problem is that a blood trail on the carpet lines up perfectly with the duvet on the floor which basically proves it was there all along.


Like I said before, these things must have happened. Oscar cannot be mistaken because his whole reason for getting out of bed, and not hearing reeva while moving the fans, relies on this. If you are as good at reasoning as you claim you will know the above is not only not reasonably possible, but practically impossible, and further more there is no evidence to suggest anything to the contrary, thus Oscar is 100% guilty based on this. I find your flippant dismissal of such damning evidence quite disturbing, almost as if you have a different agenda.

I notice you also argued that this issue is not that important because the defence theory was dead by the apparently conflicting times lines, noises etc, but actually the above proves Oscars story was dead from the very beginning. The above is what commenced the entire sequence, and if its invalid then everything that follows is irrelevant.

Hear hear.

What has stunned so many legal people is that the Court approached the evidence in a wholly artificial way.

Here is what we would expect

1. OP shot Reeva. This is conceded. Therefore he must show lawful justification

2. The only evidence of lawful justification comes from the testimony of OP

3. The testimony did not make out any case for self defence even if true.

4. The testimony was clearly unreliable and false

5. Normally a Court would thus reject the reject the evidence of OP in toto except where independently verfified

6. If there is no reliable evidence of a mistake, the logical inference is that OP intentionally shot Reeva

7. This is supported by direct evidence from witnesses

8. This is supported by forensic evidence from the crime scene.

Therefore murder.

The focus on "the bullet wholes prove OPs version is true" is pure nonsense.

Anyone who thinks Nel "ignored the key evidence" lacks experience of how trial procedure works in my view.

As a question of logic, it is of course laughable that the witnesses all mistakenly heard a shooting with 4 bangs & screaming at 3.17 but wouldn't you know it, OP did in fact really shoot Reeva with 4 shots only 5 mins earlier!

There is no evidence that there were 4 cricket bat bangs.

In fact the bathroom discloses significantly more damage than that.

All this arises simply because OP gets to testify second and thus adjusted all his banging and screaming to try to match what everyone heard.

But as his version was obviously fabricated, it ought to have been dismissed.

Common sense really did not prevail.

 

[zoran]

did R just compare Reeva to a goat?

 

[JudgeJudi]

G'day all from the Blue Mountains of Sydney.

I'm really glad that we're almost at the end of this trial ... for the time being at least. Yesterday Nel had his last two witnesses in court and ready to go. I can't help but wonder if he's he dispensed with them on short notice because he's finally decided he will appeal. I certainly hope so for so many reasons.

 

[zwiebel]

R: Maybe there are cases where we must just sit back and say, 'Is that what the law's all about?'

Into rhetoric now: 'Society, society', again and again.

 

[04009margaret]

Am I watching story time on Play School or final arguments?

 

[toevlugsoord]

Ugh, now Roux is actually literally saying OP is now a victim!!!
I don't like getting so infuriated at 12:44am!
(in Seattle)

 

[zwiebel]

R: We say milady that what happened in this matter; there was an accused and a victim and shortly after, accused became a victim...he was charged and taken to court...

accuses police of makiing OP a victim, I think.

 

[ColonelMustard]

R: Maybe there are cases where we must just sit back and say, 'Is that what the law's all about?'

...

I used to be very naive about this believing that the law = justice.

I learned the hard way, personally, that the law = the law.

Sometimes justice, many times not even close.

 

[katydid23]

Restorative Justice= Pistorius clan pays off society, like bribery

"The accused became a victim, My Lady, the severe emotions , the accusations by police...that he had no emotions, victimized the accused, mY Lady, and those extreme emotions are not in dispute..."

 

[AlexUK]

Ugh, now Roux is actually literally saying OP is now a victim!!!
I don't like getting so infuriated at 12:44am!
(in Seattle)

'The accused has now become the victim'

Utter twaddle....!!!!!

 

[JudgeJudi]

story of 2 goats

Roux's the goat and OP's the kid.

 

[zwiebel]

R:...there's nothing about how the accused felt....(to say) he was just standing there and not saying anything is not right...those extreme emotions suffered by accused are not in dispute, verified by experts....he never, ever, considered it was Ms Steenkamp behind that door.

 

[04009margaret]

If you don't believe OP's demeanour in court aren't all an act, then watch the past 5 days videos of OP arriving at court. Outside of court we have the strong, confident almost arrogant OP, inside court we have the sad, meek destroyed OP.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

And the blubbering begins ... right on cue.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/arti...-privilege-the-farce-the-insult/#.VEDIZckUrUm

In fact, according to his agent Peet van Zyl, people so love Pistorius that those in &#8220;civilised countries&#8221; want pictures of him. Who knows what people in uncivilised countries want? Justice, perhaps?

Yes, best article ever, you are right!

 

[zwiebel]

R: Some of media, ably assisted by social media started speculating how he 'crushed her head' with a cricket bat......never, ever in any country have I seen an unfair attack (think he meant to say 'such as' then)

 

[K.T]

Amazingly Roux telling about case law about a famous goat case (won&#8217;t attempt the name). Roux tries to relate the analogy of &#8216;goat stealing&#8217; (!) to restorative justice. He frames punishment as &#8216;what&#8217;s good for society, the triad&#8230;&#8217; because that is not what society wants&#8221; by which he means any harsh punishment of any accused.

Roux wants the criminal to &#8220;do something to help society, for the victim, for the society, for the&#8230;&#8221;

I believe in restorative justice but this is excruciating.

He&#8217;s now playing to Masipa obvious weakness now for emotive displays of &#8216;remorse&#8217;.

Roux: Vorster, Lortzenburg etc. proved he was genuinely highly emotional.

 

[AlexUK]

Oscar...*snivel-mode on*

 

[Onlyamum]

Think Roux has been taking some acting lessons too, what a lot of drivel is coming out his mouth!! and we'll deeeeal with that........ urg!