Trial Discussion Thread #17

[whiterum]

Rest easy......this will all come together neatly for the PT.

Was he in fear for his life when he jumped out of his car with a gun....racing towards an unknown target?.......That could have (and should have) ended for him badly.:moo:

Yes indeed, the driver could have popped him one through the car window. Now that would be a genuine case of self defence since OP was visibly approaching with a weapon. Pity he hadn't since RS would still be alive today!

 

[soozieqtips]

But surely anything entered into evidence in the court has to be revealed to both the judge and the defence team. Does not the very act of entering it into evidence reveals it to the defence?

So if the transcripts and photos have been entered into evidence (which as I understand they have) why can't they be used?

Yes, I would imagine that anything that's been entered into evidence must already be known to Roux. So I don't get why some think it's not allowed to be used. If it's relevant to the case, how can it not be used?

 

[Insp.Dots]

I remember you posting the link below on 31st Mar because it was from a SA attorney and had a out line of some of the issues underlying this case. You suggested that it had been updated since the case, but i could only see references to the bail hearing and a mention that the case was still months away. The piece stated that the PT had failed to provide evidence to make a case at the bail hearing.

http://www.dutoitattorneys.com/recent-court-judgements/comment-oscar-pistorius-trial

I thought other FMs might be interested in a more up to date view from the attorney in question, so I am posting the link below which quotes Du Toit. I apologise because it is Fox News, not my favourite but one would hope they are quoting him correctly. The article was posted on 23rd March.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03/23/expert-screaming-gives-pistorius-major-problem/

Thanks for this (bedtime reading)..... I find it bizarre that there are South African 'experts' discussing the case on many news channels yet they still have major differences in opinion. Some say State have a solid case and others saying It's still not proven and some even saying OP could still walk!
I don't think there is a single person on here that doesn't want the right outcome for Justice, let's hope Masipa finds the answers she needs to make the right judgement!

 

[steveml]

But surely anything entered into evidence in the court has to be revealed to both the judge and the defence team. Does not the very act of entering it into evidence reveal it to the defence?

So if the transcripts and photos have been entered into evidence (which as I understand they have) why can't they be used?

That's the point I'm making. Roux has seen anything incriminating and dealt with it, as that's his job. There is no hidden message that DT haven't seen waiting to be sprung on OP.

As an example :

If Roux sees a problematic message upon discovery, he's not going to think 'that looks a dodgy one, I'll leave it to OP to sort that out'.

He took the opportunity to address anything that may become a problem, and dealt with it. Those messages offered by prosecution were the best/worst they had.

If you remember in the trial, once Nel finished, Roux responded to messages and then quoted messages he wanted reading out. This is his opportunity to counter. He can select any of those messages supplied by the defense as he chooses.

 

[Viper]

If the content data has not been revealed to defense (i.e Roux not OP) it cannot be used as evidence.

You are making things up :banghead: and misleading people.

BIB Below is MY FIRST reply to you, BIB2 copied and pasted, please read it:

BIB2. All of the evidence that the State has they have supplied to the defense. Roux knows what the State has, but you do not. Roux dealt with only what the State presented during live testimony. Roux has not dealt with what the State will present during cross examination; those images, WhatsApp messages, and whatever else is ALREADY in the State's evidence that they have ALREADY put in to evidence, have not been shown to you yet.

I take offense that you would say I am making things up to mislead people. You saying those things is based upon your own confusion which I have exhausted myself in trying to clear up for you. Really no need to say things like that.

 

[Val1]

Naturally the police can only preserve the crime scene starting from when they arrive.

They can at least then evaluate what may or may not have been altered on the scene. In this case the cops were busy contaminating the crime scene themselves, so if there was anything done by others how could they even investigate, let alone prove that.

If everything at the scene was suspect then they have to rely on witness statements and verifiable data like the data recovered from the electronic devices(one of which and probably the most important of which the defense hid and likely had tested or whatever with no chain of custody for almost two full weeks) that were not able to be tampered with on the scene(yes I even dare to say that Dr Stipp may have been tampered with - witness how he took at face value OP's excuse for killing an unarmed, unthreatening "someone" behind a closed door.). Oh and of course the accused did confess to killing the victim, he even named her.

The only contention imo is why and since there was in fact no intruder, the only thing left is motive which apparently isn't even necessary for a conviction for murder, all the rest of what we are discussing are just details to try and understand why someone would do what they did, we already know what.

 

[Harmony 2]

Hi all I am new to this forum but have been following this trial. Based on what I have read, at the moment, I think OP version of events only works in isolation but does not work when you bring his version into the context of that night and his character.

Anyways, I like the back and forth of the discussions. This trial remains me of Simon Gittany's trial in Australia.

:welcome: Thanks for joining the discussion!!!! :seeya:

 

[Rumpole]

That's the point I'm making. Roux has seen anything incriminating and dealt with it, as that's his job. There is no hidden message that DT haven't seen waiting to be sprung on OP.

As an example :

If Roux sees a problematic message upon discovery, he's not going to think 'that looks a dodgy one, I'll leave it to OP to sort that out'.

He took the opportunity to address anything that may become a problem, and dealt with it. Those messages offered by prosecution were the best/worst they had.

If you remember in the trial, once Nel finished, Roux responded to messages and then quoted messages he wanted reading out. This is his opportunity to counter. He can select any of those messages supplied by the defense as he chooses.

I really do not get this claim (belief) I am seeing that in SA the Prosecution can keep presenting their case after Resting, and that Nel has saved a lot of stuff up to present during Cross examination (especially of OP). That seems nuts to me if it is the system, and I doubt that it is. We'll see.
I am sure Nel WILL be try and be vigorous in his cross of OP but a CROSS examination to my mind is questioning the testimony given, and NOT an ambush with new points, and certainly I would imagine that new evidence can not be introduced by the State at all.

People are expecting a LOT from Nel... I do not see him being able (allowed) to deliver all that people expect... even if he had the cajones to try it.

 

[Harmony 2]

New thread with fresh clean paper is ready for posting... you know the drill... this thread will remain open for 10 minutes.

Trial Discussion weekend Thread #18 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[MeeBee]

Without having heard the Defence's side we seem to be stuck with varying scenarios. Apart from the screaming and 4 shots do we have any other 'solid' evidence of pre-meditation or intentional murder?

You're right about that one. Some think OP was pretending to try to and revive Reeva, others think he was trying to silence her by choking her (though his fingers were not in her throat).

Some think OP had RS locked in the toilet so he could scare her before intentionally shooting directly at RS's head. Others think she locked herself in and was banging on the door because he was mad she wouldn't open it then shot out of anger.

:scared:

 

[soozieqtips]

You're right about that one. Some think OP was pretending to try to and revive Reeva, others think he was trying to silence her by choking her (though his fingers were not in her throat).

Some think OP had RS locked in the toilet so he could scare her before intentionally shooting directly at RS's head. Others think she locked herself in and was banging on the door because he was mad she wouldn't open it then shot out of anger.

:scared:

Well, we're all entitled to our opinions, however ridiculous they may seem to some. I tend to think OP's version should win an award for best fiction story ever, and that whatever theories have been put forward, they're more believable than the fairytale he himself invented. :seeya:

 

[Harmony 2]

New thread with fresh clean paper is ready for posting... you know the drill... this thread is now closed.

Trial Discussion weekend Thread #18 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community