Oscar Pistorius Defense #2

New Posts

Hatfield said:
This is a good question. I agree with another poster that because we have a judge and her assistants then I am more confident they will have taken good notes and can jump right back in the fray.

Now if it was a jury of peers I would have reservatiions that what you bring up could be a concern.

The reason I wanted to reply is I think this is such a good point and in my opinion only from watching past cases like the Casey Anthony case and some others, I think the prosecution attorneys sometimes makes a big mistake by going into way too much detail on certain things.
I truly believe they get the jury so confused on certain points that they end up throwing the baby out with the bath water with that particular point. Meaning at first they probably had made their point and convinced the jury but because they hammered on it with way too much detail about it, then the defense finds opportunities to argue insignificant points about the evidence that doesnt amount to a hill of beans but does have a "win" for the defense because it ends up clouding up the point they were trying to make in the first place.

And then if each point is hammered to death with this approach, the trial ends up taking days and days and days and sometimes months. My point is further justified when you think how little time a jury really deliberates on those really long drawn out trials. Sure they may deliberate X days, but they surely are not going to ask the judge to hand them back for review all those fine points and materials that were discussed ad-nauseum throughout the trial. Sometimes a jury will only take a day or 2 to come to a verdict when the case took months.

So the point I am trying to make and probably am failing miserably. :floorlaugh: is I think attorneys should try to keep things simple and to the point as much as possible as each point they need to make is discussed. If too many days of fighting with the defense about very specific details, then the case as a whole kind of gets lost in the shuffle.
Especially if a defense attorney scores some big wins on minor pieces of evidence. The jury may remember the defense proved that some testing was wrong about something and that will score big but the evidence may have not even been that important. The jury will remember that part and then not trust some other parts where the prosecuture showed what really mattered.

Hope this makes some sense what I was trying to discuss.
Anyway, all JMO of course.

Cant wait for trial to start again here.
Click to expand...

Makes sense to me. I know I and many others have been frustrated with Nel that he did not pursue certain points or deeper questioning of OP at times. However, I am optimistic that Nel has the big picture in mind, not wanting to get bogged down. Defense has done a decent job of clouding issues, but i have my fingers crossed that Nel will cut through it in final statements at the trial.

As regards juries...did you see recently that one of OJ's jurors said "we just wanted to go home!"

Looking forward to Zwiebel's tea and biscuits! :)
 
lisasalinger said:
Makes sense to me, and I agree :)

I think Nel has actually tried to be cautious of this by not digging in to everything that happened after Oscar carried Reeva out of the bathroom, as well as some other things that we all wanted to know out of curiosity (jeans on the ground outside, bedroom door, etc)...

I have to believe that there may be some elements of what you mention above in his strategy.
Click to expand...

Lol, Lisa, i read your post after I wrote mine about Nel. I hope we are right :crossfingers:
 
Hi All, great forum!

This youtube video is saying that the next witnesses for the defence will be his surgeon (The original leg mutator) and the screaming expert.

The leg guy will testify about amputees in general and the "screams like a woman" person ... will perhaps get Oscar to sing soprano :rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LN84101c6DQ

These are great satire directed at the ridiculous defence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yGbXY8eEPc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBTNBv2g5OY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8NU7HVqGks

(Shane I would love to hear some more of your analysis.)
 
As for the lawyer's opinion that you quoted... If OP is found to have diminished criminal responsibility, then doesn't the trial end?

If he has diminished criminal responsibility, the trial continues as normal but his mental state is taken into account during the punishment phase of the trial assuming that he is found guilty. The only time the trial would stop is if the assessment came back saying he was mentally incapacitated.

Let's say that OP is found to have GAD, but was also found to be able to act accordingly at the time of the event, then it's possible that Masipa could consider GAD as a mitigating factor (if guilty)... but I wouldn't go so far as to say that she "would" consider it.

You are right, Dr. V did confirm this when she said that GAD would not have prevented OP in deciding between right and wrong, but it may have impacted his actions (ie fight instead of flight) on that night. She continued to say that it would be up to the court to decide what role GAD would have in this trial.

I hope I'm wrong and I hope that the book is thrown at OP if he is found guilty of murder, but time and time again, we see that justice is different for the rich and GAD and his vulnerability could really play a role as a mitigating factor.

I guess we're only about 3.5 hours away from seeing what was the unanimous decision of the assessment. Should be interesting.
 
Hey guys! I have to admit I've enjoyed the 30 day break from this case, but I'm eager to hear the results of the evaluation in the morning. I expect (or should I say hope) that he has not been found to have any mental illness relating to diminished capacity. I firmly believe he knew exactly what he was doing, and that he could indeed distinguish right from wrong.

Bring on the docs! See you all later! :wave:
 
808 said:
Hi All, great forum!

This youtube video is saying that the next witnesses for the defence will be his surgeon (The original leg mutator) and the screaming expert.

The leg guy will testify about amputees in general and the "screams like a woman" person ... will perhaps get Oscar to sing soprano :rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LN84101c6DQ

These are great satire directed at the ridiculous defence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yGbXY8eEPc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBTNBv2g5OY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8NU7HVqGks

(Shane I would love to hear some more of your analysis.)
Click to expand...


:greetings:
 
Greater Than said:
Good question. I don't see a new one locked and ready to go. Hopefully a mod will start one prior to today's court session.
Click to expand...

I can't believe it has been 30 days already. I bet nothing much will happen today though.
 
I've asked about a new thread. We have another hour and half to go, I think?
 
Greater Than said:
Hey guys! I have to admit I've enjoyed the 30 day break from this case, but I'm eager to hear the results of the evaluation in the morning. I expect (or should I say hope) that he has not been found to have any mental illness relating to diminished capacity. I firmly believe he knew exactly what he was doing, and that he could indeed distinguish right from wrong.

Bring on the docs! See you all later! :wave:
Click to expand...

Ironic, the hot-head is unbalanced AFTER he needs an excuse to get away with murder. OH I forgot, it went off accidently four times...AGAIN AND so loud he did not hear Reeva scream for her life, but it was him screaming like a girl because he is an amputee. Someone has lost more than his legs...his marbles! Very bad Jackie, sorry if I a fended anyone. Every ones Judicial system seem to be for the guilty and the poor family members/friends have to be subjected to such utter nonsense for a @#$%!!* to use anything in the book to get off. \

Thank-you all for your posts, want to say something and you do it for me, so I find myself reading and AGREEING.
 
1. State had absolutely NO foreseeable reason or ANY possible way of knowing that the fan would eventually become relevant to the murder case… much less the extension cord to which the fan was connected.

2. State conducted their forensic investigations between 14 and 17 February 2013… the ONLY statement they had to go on from Oscar Pistorius was that he shot Reeva in the toilet cubicle thinking she was intruder.

3. All items seized by the State were inventoried… the extension cord does NOT appear in said inventory which was divulged to the Defence during discovery.

4. State released the house to the Defence on 17 February 2013.

5. The FIRST time the fan was even mentioned was in a prologue to the events during the bail application between 19 and 23 February 2013.

6. The FIRST time the fan was put forth as an integral part of Oscar's version of events was during Oscar's testimony in chief between 7 and 9 April 2014.

7. The FIRST time the physical impossibility of the fan's location was put forth was during Oscar's cross-examination between 9 and 15 April 2014.

8. Oscar Pistorius sold and vacated his house in May 2014.

9. The FIRST time Defence requested the State to produce the extension cord because it was important to their case was on 6 June 2014.

10. Roux alleges that the State must have seized the extension cord because on 14 February 2013 it was photographed next to the bed and on 15 February 2013 it was no longer next to the bed… Police investigators cannot and do not ever inventory every single item contained within a house.

11. I suspect the hair clipper that was next to the bed was also moved… Roux could request the State to produce it as well. This fallacious reasoning and underhanded tactic could be applied to any and all items that were moved but never seized… Ridiculous !

12. Roux alleges the extension cord is 5 meters in length… absolutely LUDICROUS… One can clearly see on the photographs without any possible doubt that the extension cord cannot even reach the length of the bed… the longest standard bed available is 2.13 meters long and the extension cord stretches approximately 2/3 of the bed's length : this means that the extension cord is about 1.5 meters in length… Roux would have the Court believe that the extension cord is more than 3 times longer than its actual length !!!

Roux is obviously desperate : not having been able to deliver a remotely plausible Defence, he is attempting to confuse the Court on all fronts.

- Although the extension cord was missing from the house and it did not appear in the inventory, why did the Defence not inquire on its whereabout on 17 February 2013 ?

- Although the extension cord was relevant ONLY to Oscar's version of events, why did the Defence wait 16 months to inquire on its whereabout ?

- Although the extension cord was of great importance for Oscar's credibility, why did the Defence wait 2 months after Oscar finished his testimony to inquire on its whereabout ?

The State had control of the contents of the house for 3.5 days and had no way of knowing the extension would be relevant until 14 months later, when Oscar Pistorius testified.

Oscar Pistorius had control of the contents of his house for about 478 days… he knew the fan was important and that the length of the extension cord contradicted his version of events… it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out what happened with that extension cord !!
 
Apologies guys if I'm lost on the forum, can't find the new thread I think !
(if anyone can point me in correct direction, would be appreciated, lol)

After defense sound 'expert I can only say:

Regarding the windows and sound traveling:

Who's to say the small toilet window wasn't open the whole time? (Until perhaps Oscar closed it when he finally got through the toilet door and to Reeva at the end and closed it, not wanting to draw further attention?) OR: It was closed, and Reeva opened it to scream for help?

From crime photos we know the far left window is the toilet window.
On the night of the incident the toilet door would have been closed when Reeva was in the cubicle, meaning said toilet window would have been seen as a "black shape" to witnesses - near impossible to see if the pane was slid up and open or down and closed.

NB: Dr. Stipp testified 'the windows' looked closed to him when Dr. Stipp was on the balcony. Note that the toilet light was not working. If the toilet window was open for sound to carry, being a window that slides up and down, not opening outwards, Dr Stipp then wouldn't have been able to tell if the toilet window was open, he may have assumed it was closed and commenting on the bathroom windows, as he did in his testimony. Yet the toilet window could indeed have been open for sound to carry.

possibility (1)
Let's say small toilet window was open from earlier in the evening - (toilet is after all where one would want immediate ventilation for hygiene purposes) while they were up arguing. Sound would travel to ear witnesses. It remains open and screaming from Reeva plus her cries for help, plus Oscar mocking help, plus bat bashing, plus Reeva screaming escalating when she unlocks and ventures out, and ultimately gunshots, all carries to witnesses from inside the cubicle. Oscar, opening the unlocked door when Reeva has been shot, simply closes the window immediately not wanting to draw attention. Then, because toilet window may have been closed at this point, sound of Oscar posing the door as locked and door being pried open may not have traveled to witness ears (?)

possibility (2)
Let's say small toilet window was closed from earlier in the evening. When Reeva runs the first time to the toilet and locks herself in, surely it's within reason that she opens the toilet window and begins screaming as he's bashing with the bat. I would have done that for sure! Oscar then realizes too much attention is being drawn now in the dead of night, that neighbours will hear. He goes to get the gun, at this point Reeva unlocks and opens the toilet door, sees OP coming, explaining why intense screams traveled to Burger/Johnson. She just closes the toilet door as she is shot - not managing to lock it. Then gunshots and Reeva's screams fading would all travel to witness ears. as above: Oscar, opening the unlocked door when Reeva has been shot, simply closes the window immediately not wanting to draw attention. Then, because toilet window may have been closed at this point, sound of Oscar posing the door as locked and door being pried open may not have traveled to witness ears (?)

Furthermore, there was testimony that Oscar returned upstairs while Dr Stipp and stander were attending to Reeva downstairs. Could he have gone upstairs to open the bathroom window - having suddenly realized he needed it for the point of entry for the 'intruder' - after all, the toilet window he closed was too small to say the intruder came through it, but the bathroom window he could say was the point of entry for the intruder.
 
BatGunKick said:
Apologies guys if I'm lost on the forum, can't find the new thread I think !
(if anyone can point me in correct direction, would be appreciated, lol)

After defense sound 'expert I can only say:

Regarding the windows and sound traveling:

Who's to say the small toilet window wasn't open the whole time? (Until perhaps Oscar closed it when he finally got through the toilet door and to Reeva at the end and closed it, not wanting to draw further attention?) OR: It was closed, and Reeva opened it to scream for help?

From crime photos we know the far left window is the toilet window.
On the night of the incident the toilet door would have been closed when Reeva was in the cubicle, meaning said toilet window would have been seen as a "black shape" to witnesses - near impossible to see if the pane was slid up and open or down and closed.

NB: Dr. Stipp testified 'the windows' looked closed to him when Dr. Stipp was on the balcony. Note that the toilet light was not working. If the toilet window was open for sound to carry, being a window that slides up and down, not opening outwards, Dr Stipp then wouldn't have been able to tell if the toilet window was open, he may have assumed it was closed and commenting on the bathroom windows, as he did in his testimony. Yet the toilet window could indeed have been open for sound to carry.

possibility (1)
Let's say small toilet window was open from earlier in the evening - (toilet is after all where one would want immediate ventilation for hygiene purposes) while they were up arguing. Sound would travel to ear witnesses. It remains open and screaming from Reeva plus her cries for help, plus Oscar mocking help, plus bat bashing, plus Reeva screaming escalating when she unlocks and ventures out, and ultimately gunshots, all carries to witnesses from inside the cubicle. Oscar, opening the unlocked door when Reeva has been shot, simply closes the window immediately not wanting to draw attention. Then, because toilet window may have been closed at this point, sound of Oscar posing the door as locked and door being pried open may not have traveled to witness ears (?)

possibility (2)
Let's say small toilet window was closed from earlier in the evening. When Reeva runs the first time to the toilet and locks herself in, surely it's within reason that she opens the toilet window and begins screaming as he's bashing with the bat. I would have done that for sure! Oscar then realizes too much attention is being drawn now in the dead of night, that neighbours will hear. He goes to get the gun, at this point Reeva unlocks and opens the toilet door, sees OP coming, explaining why intense screams traveled to Burger/Johnson. She just closes the toilet door as she is shot - not managing to lock it. Then gunshots and Reeva's screams fading would all travel to witness ears. as above: Oscar, opening the unlocked door when Reeva has been shot, simply closes the window immediately not wanting to draw attention. Then, because toilet window may have been closed at this point, sound of Oscar posing the door as locked and door being pried open may not have traveled to witness ears (?)

Furthermore, there was testimony that Oscar returned upstairs while Dr Stipp and stander were attending to Reeva downstairs. Could he have gone upstairs to open the bathroom window - having suddenly realized he needed it for the point of entry for the 'intruder' - after all, the toilet window he closed was too small to say the intruder came through it, but the bathroom window he could say was the point of entry for the intruder.
Click to expand...

Here you go:
Trial Discussion Thread #43 - 30.06.14 Day 33 still open for discussion

Trial Discussion Thread #44 - 1.07.14 Day 34 today's new thread
beach
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 168 more.
Total: 3,379 (members: 169, guests: 3,210)

Online statistics

Members online
169
Guests online
3,210
Total visitors
3,379
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,164
Messages
17,964,460
Members
228,710
Latest member
SunshineSteph
Back
Top