Trial Discussion Thread #9 - 14.03.18, Day 12

This is an aside, but I thought it funny so will share it.

When I watch the trial live, I watch it on a South African live broadcast station that I found on youtube. If you keep the screen small, to the right of the screen is scrolling text of people in a chat area. Most of whom seem to be from SA.

They have been making comments about the lady enterpreter, some of which are hilarious. She does not seem to have a lot of fans. Actually there have been comments about how poor all of the interpreters have been during the trial so far.

Apparently the lady we saw today (and yesterday) has a heavy South African accent. (Well who didn't know that?) And sometimes what she is saying is not exactly what the witness just said. Roux corrected some translation a few times one day. Other times the witness himself (and all of them apparently are bi-lingual but get to choose which language they want to testify in) has provided her with a word she could not think of. Someone said today that she was chewing gum. I did not see that.

People from various countries , including SA, joke a lot about Barry Roux and his "let me put it to you". Apparently the phrase does indeed have a sexual connotation in several other countries!

It can been amusing to read the posts when the trial testimony is boring, boring, boring.

minor4th said:

Haha! I do wish our judge would interrupt now and then and get to the point or clarify things. Sometimes it seems to me she is sedated or something.

Click to expand...

What a drastic change in your stated position regarding Mylady’s rulings. Few days ago you were showering accolades on her, insinuating that she was leaning towards the right side of her courtroom as she overruled most of the objections of the prosecution. Remember her ruling that Roux can put words in the mouth of the witness, or have you finally conceded that the State has a water tight case against OP. She should be commended for her sagacity and high level of professionalism displayed in conducting the most high profile murder trial in the history of SA being broadcast live to the whole world. OP with criminal intent used race as his excuse for the cold blooded murder of Reeva, the judge in all her wisdom had decided to run her court in a cool calm and resolute manner. The CDA in you would prefer her to in an agitated state of mind that would strengthen OP’s appeal in a higher court. Sorry to disappoint you, it won’t happen.

I want him to be innocent. I think there are many people who want him to be innocent, even if they think he's guilty. I agree with you in that I am willing to give OP the benefit of the doubt (innocent until proven guilty and all) and so far there has been no evidence that suggests premeditation or suggests that he knew he was shooting at Reeva.

Click to expand...

He screamed to Reeva to call the police and for the intruder to get out of his home.Maybe he momentary lost his hearing during the shooting, that resulted in him not hearing Reeva screaming out in pain.Any rational thinker will conclude that his suspicious refusal to call the Police and inform Reeva parents about the accident that killed their daughter is amply proof of premeditation.

minor4th said:

Does anyone know if there is video or audio or transcript of the bail hearing? TIA

Click to expand...

This may help you, they have audio snippets from their broadcast, if you scroll through the list just under the twitter section. There are a few covering the bail hearing.
http://ewn.co.za/features/oscarpistorius

minor4th said:

Well, I'm not saying it's a good defense or that he will be successful, but that's what I understand his defense to be. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on SA law - I don't think any of us understand all the nuances and such.

I disagree about Roux' tactics - I think he is defending against the State's indictment for premeditated murder. And that is what all opposing counsel do during the other party's case in chief - they cast doubt on the witness testimony and evidence. What else can he do during the State's case in chief? He's not just going to sit there and allow the witnesses to say whatever they want without challenging it. That's not "attacking" though, it's defending, and in this case Roux has done a good job of bringing to light the weaknesses of the State's witnesses - there are clearly weaknesses and contradictions and suspicious testimony.

Click to expand...

BBM

According to SA law (which was provided by the testimony of firearms expert Sean Rens) the legal requirement to use lethal force in self defense requires that the assailant must be seen, must have access to him, must be armed with a deadly weapon, must express the intent to harm or kill him, and must approach him.

I don't see any nuance there. SA law regarding the discharge of a firearm in self defense is as plain as plain can be.

Sean Rens was the singular witness who Roux couldn't get off the witness stand fast enough.

minor4th said:

IMO it is not so black and white as that. There is a judgment call that the judge will have to make about the reasonableness of his fear of imminent harm.

Click to expand...

BBM

Same goes (see above pertaining to SA law) for OP's alleged fear of so-called imminent harm.

It really is black & white, despite OP's and Roux's attempts to create grey areas and to try to muddy the waters by using OP's poor amputated legs to try to garner sympathy from the Court.

The law is the law. Oscar Pistorius is not above it.

minor4th said:

I don't find that unusual, as he was describing different aspects of his mobility and the reason for his claimed vulnerable state of mind.

Click to expand...

Why did he not mention his so called “vulnerable state of mind” based on his paranoid fear of burglars in his written competency test. He could have honestly stated that due to his handicap he was entitled to more concessions, therefore he did not have to adhere to the strict govt law that stipulated he could use his arms in self defense only if the burglars attacked him with their knives and guns threatening his life. Once again OP was caught lying in his illegal bid to acquire highly sophisticated arms and bullets for his one man army.

"It may be the State believes OP knew Reeva was in the toilet when he shot but I would be surprised if they believed he shot her on purpose, rather that there was a nasty argument that got out of hand and an enraged OP shot at the door when she refused to open it. Otherwise what motive is there to adduce ?"

I'm pretty sure when the State charges premeditated murder it mean they think the murderer shot the victim on purpose. I don't think it matters if they had an argument or not. Nor whether he was angry or not. They do not think he mistook her for a burglar. They think he knew very well it was Reeva behind the door in the toilet. He shot 4 shots through the closed door. That's what was "on purpose".

I think what you may be thinking of is something like "temporarity insanity", which has not been put forth as a defense in this trial.

I ..just reject the intruder story.. in all its components.. the noise he says he heard, the yelling of get out get out, and Reeva call the police... I am 60/40 towards him having his legs ON rather than off when he shot the gun and whacked the bat around..

I don't even believe that the argument heard was about anything much at all. it was loud and it was piercing, but it could have been about something trivial that set Oscar off into a fury.. . a dropped pair of sunglasses, a difference of opinion that Oscar took as defiance..

I have often thought back to the athlete who was billeted in the same room as Oscar at the London Olympics.. he lasted 2 days in that shared room.. Oscar was on the phone screaming ( not in a womans voice ) and yelling at this room mate for 48 hrs straight. He asked to be re assigned elsewhere, and got swiftly relocated after the officials heard Oscar 's rants..

redheadedgal said:

hey sleuths. i don't normally come on and ask questions... i really try to find answers myself, but i haven't been able to follow this trial thoroughly. has anyone from OP's camp tried to explain why there was blood on the headboard (or was it the bedroom wall... maybe it was both?). thanks !

Click to expand...

Howdy friend! :seeya:

The blood spatter analyst hasn't testified yet. But I'm just as curious as you are about how & why those blood drops were deposited on the wall above the headboard. I'm anxiously awaiting that testimony.

Trooper said:

I ..just reject the intruder story.. in all its components.. the noise he says he heard, the yelling of get out get out, and Reeva call the police... I am 60/40 towards him having his legs ON rather than off when he shot the gun and whacked the bat around..

I don't even believe that the argument heard was about anything much at all. it was loud and it was piercing, but it could have been about something trivial that set Oscar off into a fury.. . a dropped pair of sunglasses, a difference of opinion that Oscar took as defiance..

I have often thought back to the athlete who was billeted in the same room as Oscar at the London Olympics.. he lasted 2 days in that shared room.. Oscar was on the phone screaming ( not in a womans voice ) and yelling at this room mate for 48 hrs straight. He asked to be re assigned elsewhere, and got swiftly relocated after the officials heard Oscar 's rants..

Click to expand...

Gosh, Trooper, I'd read about, but forgotten about, that Olympic roommate who endured OP's endless tirades. TY for reminding me!

Yet another example of OP's short fuse and propensity to abuse.

'Temporary insanity' you really think that ? So are all murderer's etc etc temporary insane ? Mm not sure about that


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's almost that time....

Let's start moving on over to the new trial discussion thread linked here.

Locking up here in about 5 minutes.

:tyou:

sorrell skye said:

BBM

According to SA law (which was provided by the testimony of firearms expert Sean Rens) the legal requirement to use lethal force in self defense requires that the assailant must be seen, must have access to him, must be armed with a deadly weapon, must express the intent to harm or kill him, and must approach him.

I don't see any nuance there. SA law regarding the discharge of a firearm in self defense is as plain as plain can be.

Sean Rens was the singular witness who Roux couldn't get off the witness stand fast enough.



BBM

Same goes (see above pertaining to SA law) for OP's alleged fear of so-called imminent harm.

It really is black & white, despite OP's and Roux's attempts to create grey areas and to try to muddy the waters by using OP's poor amputated legs to try to garner sympathy from the Court.

The law is the law. Oscar Pistorius is not above it.

Click to expand...

I agree that OP is not above the law, but I have a hard time accepting that the only time you can use self defense is if a gun is pulled on you. I do not think that is the law - certainly there must be some mitigation for mistaken, but reasonable, belief that one is facing imminent harm.

Hypothetical: Suppose on the night in question there really had been an intruder in the house and OP saw the intruder, who was armed with a water gun and nothing else. The intruder flashed the water gun at OP, and OP shot him in self defense, reasonably believing the water gun to be a real gun. You're saying SA law is so black and white that OP would be guilty of murder because the threat of being shot was no a real threat because it was only a water gun - even though it's a completely reasonable belief that it was a real gun that could kill him.

I really believe that the law is not so black and white as you suggest, even in South Africa.

beach said:

It's almost that time....

Let's start moving on over to the new trial discussion thread linked here.

Locking up here in about 5 minutes.

:tyou:

Click to expand...

Locking up now. Link to the new thread is in the above quote.