Trial Discussion Thread #19 - 14.04.07, Day 17

[graceholl]

Imo I don't really consider OP giving his own character reference/autobiography while on the stand as the accused in a trial for murder exactly fair, although this may open the door for Nel to bring in some real character witnesses.

Do you think it was necessary to have him go through how he rescued dogs and re connected with his religion, or his mother who had been deceased since he was 15 doing religious dances, relevant to the case? I didn't, anyway, g'night all.:seeya:

I agree with you and I think it's all a little fluffy. It's a defense tactic. It doesn't mean I want to start namecalling though :dunno:

 

[steveml]

One thing we have seen consistently; each time Op is asked to speak about Reeva, he becomes tearful and incoherent. Nel is going to struggle getting answers to any pertinent questions, I think.

Yep, this break may be beneficial for both sides though.

At least tomorrow they'll be starting with a cleaner slate. All the emotional things, the apology and background info. will be more or less forgotten.

OP's had some time on the stand now and should be more aware of what to expect. The sooner he deals with this, the quicker the case can move forwards.

 

[Rumpole]

I feel as though there is a lack of presumption of innocence in this forum. Regardless of whether we individually feel there is guilt or innocence, is it not better to save some of the OP-bashing, at least until we reach a verdict? It can make quite uncomfortable reading... :twocents:

I agree.
It's not discussion of the case at all.

FWIW IMO... I think Nel is coming across as a nasty petulant little man. I assume he has realized (been told) he has to "up his game" but I don't think being nasty and sarcastic and petty is going to do it for him.

 

[patCee]

I completely believe OP about the Jack Russell being a better watchdog than the big ones. Boy, can they bark...and bark....and bark.

....and hear the slightest sound or movement...love em.

 

[jay-jay]

As I've mentioned before, I don't lose a great deal of sleep over making the odd comment here and there about someone who has killed, and who had admitted to killing their girlfriend by pumping her full of black talon bullets. It's not like we are trying to prove here that OP didn't actually kill her, not like as in most other cases .. in this case, we already know who the killer was.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

I really do not know about this adjournment. If one of the police witnesses had said they were tired, would Roux have allowed them to step down and come back the next day?

I am sure Roux would not have agreed .
Fortunately it does also give Nel more time to pick through what he wants from today's evidence to hit him with during cross exam .

 

[Cherwell]

OP says his contractor was a friend on the estate and his home was also broken into by people using a ladder.

Then what in the world were they both thinking, leaving ladders lying around?

 

[04009margaret]

If anyone is exhausted, I think it may be My Lady after listening to this unending diatribe.

Nel definitely seemed as if he wanted to continue.

Oh well. I'd rather continue tomorrow when My Lady is rested.

Think of Reeva's parents exhaustion, I'm amazed a court allows the accused to request adjournments due to exhaustion. It wouldn't happen in Aus.

 

[zwiebel]

I think he mentioned Israel. Religious dancing is commonplace there. Why Israel? Did she have a Jewish background? Not that it matters. We all choose/learn our own religious beliefs. Interesting because OP does not follow Judaism.

Jewish dance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm wondering if they have relatives there, or if possibly they stayed in a kibbutz for a while?

 

[james83]

Its all about you, its all about you Oscar.

Anyone got a sick bucket I can borrow?.

 

[Rumpole]

You've started something now lol. Good luck :thumb:


I'll just sit and watch......... opcorn:

Just thought I'd support graceholl's comment... but I'll sit this part of the "discussion" out too.

 

[MeeBee]

I know what victim friendly means. BTW, OP is guilty of killing Reeva. He has admitted that he killed her. I don't feel anyone is bashing OP, just comparing (or sleuthing) his testimony to known facts.

I just feel like every time someone brings up the whole presumption of innocence thing and all that, someone mentions how this is a victim friendly forum and I fail to see how those two things are related. One can be victim friendly and still think it more appropriate to see all the evidence and hear all the testimony before jumping to guilt. Finding that a defendant might be telling the truth, or, god forbid, might be innocent, is not perp friendly or any less victim friendly than anyone else. And it doesn't mean if you don't automatically jump in and start bashing a person accused of a crime that you aren't victim friendly, though it sure makes for a difficult time on WS, unless the defendant is George Zimmerman. Now that was a totally non-victim friendly board if I ever saw one.

 

[katydid23]

Its all about you, its all about you Oscar.

Anyone got a sick bucket I can borrow?.

uke:

 

[jay-jay]

I agree.
It's not discussion of the case at all.

FWIW IMO... I think Nel is coming across as a nasty petulant little man.

~snipped~


.. erm .. you have said that in direct reply to graceholl's post with regard to OP and 'namecalling', and in the next breath you've called Nel a 'nasty petulant little man'! :facepalm:

 

[BritsKate]

I cannot find a reason why he needs to bring up every unfortunate experience he's ever had other than to manipulate.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I think he mentioned Israel. Religious dancing is commonplace there. Why Israel? Did she have a Jewish background? Not that it matters. We all choose/learn our own religious beliefs. Interesting because OP does not follow Judaism.

Jewish dance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not important, just interesting. Sheila Pistorius's birth name was Bekker. Bekker is an Ashkenazic surname. It may be she was going back to her roots for reasons unknown.

 

[graceholl]

Just thought I'd support graceholl's comment... but I'll sit this part of the "discussion" out too.

:blushing:

It's ok, we can move on now. I need to get back to work anyway :facepalm:

I just thought I'd come out and say it as I occasionally read a pretty vitriolic post that makes me feel uncomfortable, but hey, different strokes for different folks. :seeya:

Oh ok.. *edit* one last thing

I just feel like every time someone brings up the whole presumption of innocence thing and all that, someone mentions how this is a victim friendly forum and I fail to see how those two things are related. One can be victim friendly and still think it more appropriate to see all the evidence and hear all the testimony before jumping to guilt. Finding that a defendant might be telling the truth, or, god forbid, might be innocent, is not perp friendly or any less victim friendly than anyone else. And it doesn't mean if you don't automatically jump in and start bashing a person accused of a crime that you aren't victim friendly, though it sure makes for a difficult time on WS, unless the defendant is George Zimmerman. Now that was a totally non-victim friendly board if I ever saw one.

I couldn't agree more. A couple of trial discussions I have entirely kept out of for those reasons.

 

[MeeBee]

I agree.
It's not discussion of the case at all.

FWIW IMO... I think Nel is coming across as a nasty petulant little man. I assume he has realized (been told) he has to "up his game" but I don't think being nasty and sarcastic and petty is going to do it for him.

I found some of his behavior pretty inappropriate and I actually like Nel, so it was off putting.

 

[jay-jay]

Think of Reeva's parents exhaustion, I'm amazed a court allows the accused to request adjournments due to exhaustion. It wouldn't happen in Aus.

I've got a feeling that all this is being allowed because the Judge 'knows' .. and she is just humouring him/the DT.

 

[Patagonia]

Pretty sure Websleuths is 'victim' friendly. Not 'perp' friendly.

OP murdered Reeva. He has confessed to murdering her. No 'presumption of innocence' required.

No, he didn't confess to murdering her. There is a difference between murder and killing (as killing can be lawful).

And there is still presumption of innocence required here, at least of premeditated murder!

Just wanted to clarify a little bit, from the law's standpoint