Trial Discussion Thread #57 - 14.16.10, Day 46 ~ sentencing~

[sleuth-d-]

Might be a good time to remind people that I started off following this case thinking this was DV and that Oscar had deliberately murdered Reeva. Then the evidence starting rolling in...and not rolling in.

haha, yes... that crack through the bullethole keeps on rolling in... the evidence that didn't roll in was the telephone.

 

[east2west]

Might be a good time to remind people that I started off following this case thinking this was DV and that Oscar had deliberately murdered Reeva. Then the evidence starting rolling in...and not rolling in.

So how did he end up blasting 4 rounds into the toilet cubicle. By accident?

 

[soozieqtips]

Surely he will be admonished for wasting hour upon hour of valuable court time over the Tasha's incident. I forget how many witnesses had to be called, examined and cross examined over this crime only for Roux to say "yeah, you know what, it was his responsibility the gun went off after all".

That's got to add at least another 45 minutes with the feather duster in the local museum.

BIB - Good point. Will Masipa factor in that blatant lie about how the gun discharged itself? It was the gun's fault? She didn't even mention it when she was delivering the verdict. Trying to get OP to admit to anything at all was like pulling teeth. No wonder it's taken eight months!

 

[jay-jay]

The 'trail' was spatter/spots. By definition, spatter cannot be a continuous trail. There is more spatter beside the bed but not on it, which can't then suggest that the duvet never covered the bed while the blood was being cast off. It's weak evidence and just not that important. Even accepting the duvet was on the floor at some point, you can't prove what point, or how.

Dear oh dear, you are like Pistorius .. he had an answer for everything! Guess what, in many other murder cases, the accused will have an answer for everything. Are you familiar with the Tia Sharpe case? Her murderer, Stuart Hazell, also had an answer for everything. He will still guilty of her murder though.

 

[JuneBug67]

haha, yes... that crack through the bullethole keeps on rolling in... the evidence that didn't roll in was the telephone.

The bullethole crack is pretty important. Does deserve a lot of bringing up. But beyond that nothing meaningfully refutes Oscar's version, and many things support it. I know you're just being light, but again on reason - evidence missing from Oscar's phone doesn't mean missing phone evidence.

 

[JuneBug67]

Dear oh dear, you are like Pistorius .. he had an answer for everything! Guess what, in many other murder cases, the accused will have an answer for everything. Are you familiar with the Tia Sharpe case? Her murderer, Stuart Hazell, also had an answer for everything. He will still guilty of her murder though.

That's very good, very well reasoned evidence that my points are not valid. Well done!

 

[Marfa Lights]

You've hit on something important. It is precisely because the crack through the bullet hole is so objective and independent of anybody's version that it should be given significant weight. Again, there was no evidence offered by anyone to suggest that the crack came from anything but a bat strike. Not even a hypothetical put forward. "Could that crack have be made as Mr. Pistorius pried out the door?" Such an easy question. Never asked.

Sorry to repeat myself, but I was probably not very clear earlier. I can vaguely recall some testimony or discussion about the scuff mark from Oscar's heel kicking the door but not sure if any conclusions were drawn from that. Anyway, it seems obvious to me that the crack in the door panel at bullet D could have easily been caused by Oscar KICKING the door after he shot Reeva-- which would not necessarily create any sound similar to the gunshots or bat strikes reported by the neighbors. If you look at the evidence photo showing the backside of the door (the interior), you can see the especially long vertical splintering that happened on the back or exit side of bullet D. This is distinctly different than the smaller areas of splintering you can see around the exit points of the other 3 bullet holes, indicating IMO it was cracked with some force, either a bat strike or Oscar kicking the door panel.

Yes, he was trying to get to Reeva AFTER the shooting, but there is NOTHING that indicates he could not have first terrorized Reeva with the bat, striking the toilet door several times in the process, eliciting screams from Reeva who is trapped in the toilet while OP then retrieves his gun. She would have heard him coming down the passageway and standing closely behind the door peering out through the cracks, she could have seen him aiming the gun at the toilet door and let out the blood curdling screams the neighbor's reported. He shoots four times and hears nothing more from Reeva after the fourth bullet strikes her in the head. Frantic to get in the toilet cubicle to confirm what has happened, he kicks at the door panels and splinters bullet hole D. (And yes, I believe he had his prostheses on all the time.)

I just believe this version is not only reasonably possibly true, but far more likely, given ALL the elements that surround the events of that night.

 

[DarKHawK]

That's very good, very well reasoned evidence that my points are not valid. Well done!

First sensible comment I have seen from you in 2 days.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[jay-jay]

Might be a good time to remind people that I started off following this case thinking this was DV and that Oscar had deliberately murdered Reeva. Then the evidence starting rolling in...and not rolling in.

I've just gone back to the beginning of your post history, and that's not how it appears from your posts on here, they are all in the same vein right from back then.

 

[soozieqtips]

The bullethole crack is pretty important. Does deserve a lot of bringing up. But beyond that nothing meaningfully refutes Oscar's version, and many things support it. I know you're just being light, but again on reason - evidence missing from Oscar's phone doesn't mean missing phone evidence.

How does that indicate your 'logic and reasoning' skills? A man shoots a woman dead, and his brother wipes a ton of information off the killer's phone before the phone is eventually handed in, and probably only because its existence was known about. There are very very few people who think this could have been something innocent, like protecting OP's contacts. What could be innocent about deleting messages received after the killing? What do you think was sent that could have possibly been 'private' under those circumstances? And as has been pointed out to you many times before, the removal of the phone was proof of tampering with evidence, since it should never have left the crime scene. But you already know that.

 

[sleuth-d-]

The bullethole crack is pretty important. Does deserve a lot of bringing up. But beyond that nothing meaningfully refutes Oscar's version, and many things support it. I know you're just being light, but again on reason - evidence missing from Oscar's phone doesn't mean missing phone evidence.

i agree the bullethole is important, if we are just talking about the trial and the verdict. but after all this time dissecting, it must be obvious that to have reached two polar opposites with the same trial information, those polarised views are going to be deeply entrenched.

i for one am also interested in events beyond the evidence brought up in the courtroom, and even beyond how that evidence was presented. what i would call the websleuths version of the trial, which doesn't have to follow nel's version, or roux's version, or masipa's version. i think there is ample scope for this. for this reason i believe op's phone is also important.

with the appeal option in mind, what would be the websleuthing value of just reading through the judge's verdict and believing every word of it?

 

[PrimeSuspect]

What I find confusing and hopefully someone can set me straight. Why is OP considered a first time offender? He plead guilty to unlawfully discharging a firearm in a public place (Tasha's Restaurant) which happened before he killed Reeva. So technically he's not a first time offender if we look at the timeline. Is it because he's guilty of that offense at the same time he's guilty of CH? :gaah:

 

[Sherbert]

i agree the bullethole is important, if we are just talking about the trial and the verdict. but after all this time dissecting, it must be obvious that to have reached two polar opposites with the same trial information, those polarised views are going to be deeply entrenched.

i for one am also interested in events beyond the evidence brought up in the courtroom, and even beyond how that evidence was presented. what i would call the websleuths version of the trial, which doesn't have to follow nel's version, or roux's version, or masipa's version. i think there is ample scope for this. for this reason i believe op's phone is also important.

with the appeal option in mind, what would be the websleuthing value of just reading through the judge's verdict and believing every word of it?

:goodpost:

 

[Sherbert]

What I find confusing and hopefully someone can set me straight. Why is OP considered a first time offender? He plead guilty to unlawfully discharging a firearm in a public place (Tasha's Restaurant) which happened before he killed Reeva. So technically he's not a first time offender if we look at the timeline. Is it because he's guilty of that offense at the same time he's guilty of CH? :gaah:

He is a first time offender in the sense that he had no convictions prior to the date of the judgement convicting him of two offences.

 

[geevee]

It does not prove Oscar was lying. It doesn't prove the police moved stuff. It doesn't not prove police moved stuff. It only proves that the scene when photographed does not line up with Oscar's recollections. Roux led evidence on why we should have some doubt about the scene that was credible enough. The problem here is people's inability to reason and sort facts on their relevance and importance. It doesn't matter if there were monkeys swinging off the fans in bedroom by the time the police photographed it because the state's case is already deal on the the crack in the door.

In order to believe OP's version you must believe police moved items before photographing the room - do you believe they moved items around?

 

[emirates1957]

Because I'm good at reason I actually have a reason to think I'm good at reason.

I'm probably the only one on this forum that does not have any legal background at all. As a mature woman, this post says a hell of a lot to me.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

He is a first time offender in the sense that he had no convictions prior to the date of the judgement convicting him of two offences.

Thank you.

 

[Greater Than]

"I did not threaten anybody in court. I came in, I had a seat, I don't know where the allegations come from - they can go back and look at the video footage," he said.

When asked why he thought Aimee Pistorius was crying, he said maybe it was because "she realised her brother was going to jail".

Schultz said he was directed to sit close to the Pistorius family when he came in late but did not say anything. "They [are] the victims once again. The Pistorius's are clearly a bunch of liars along with Oscar."

When court was adjourned, Aimee Pistorius was crying. Her brother Carl comforted her as she wiped away tears.

Carl Pistorius allegedly told reporters the former boxer, who came in a few minutes before the case adjourned for lunch, mouthed "**** you" to his sister.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Oscar_Pistorius/Pistoriuss-a-bunch-of-liars-Mikey-Schultz-20141016

Give me strength.

So it's okay for OP to snarl "How can you sleep at night" to Reeva's best friend's sister, but it's not okay for this guy mouth something to Aimee?

Is this family for real??

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

I'm sure I'm not the only one, but I really wish that Nel would write a book after this whole ordeal. I would really like to understand his approach, how his team looked at all the evidence, why or why not he decided to call specific witnesses, what he thought about the verdict and upcoming sentencing and what he thought about Masipa's incessant sidling with Roux. I would buy that book in a heartbeat!!

 

[AW2B]

WOW! This case is weird to say the least..

So for a prison to be WORTHY of Pistorius it should be like a hotel..maybe even a 5 star hotel..with room service..spa bathtubs..how about a safe where he can store ammunition without the intention of possessing it? :banghead: