Trial Discussion Thread #26 - 14.04.15, Day 23

Discussion in 'Oscar Pistorius' started by beach, Apr 13, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Forensics

    Forensics Member

    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Dixon (expert currently testifying) says that the bullet core recovered from the toilet bowl is inconsistent with the bullets which hit the body.
     
  2. G.bng

    G.bng New Member

    Messages:
    984
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If judge accepts DT's expert as correct his testimony will create a reasonable doubt in respect of Mangena's version of what happened, but what this will do to creating a doubt in respect of whether OP is guilty whether of CH or Murder I don't see because it seems to me the verdict will be decided mainly on the judge's reasonings with laws than whether a bullet ricocheted on Reeva's back or not... JMO
     
  3. Forensics

    Forensics Member

    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    ..court has adjourned...
     
  4. rachael123

    rachael123 Member

    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    She is a gem:)





     
  5. james83

    james83 Active Member

    Messages:
    1,258
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Nel must be chomping at the bit to get stuck into this guy tomorrow, seems odd to have a jack of all trades like this testify.
     
  6. Carmelita

    Carmelita Former Member

    Messages:
    613
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Some observations after reading a portion of this thread.

    someone said;

    He is hardly a 27 year old with excellent upper body strength.

    Eh? He is a world class athlete missing his lower legs; his upper body is extremely well conditioned.



    IMO not much can be made of the fact that Oscar did not say he loved Reeva, he just stated in an interview not long before the incident that he was not involved in a serious relationship, did he think Reeva would be unaware of the interview, For Oscar it was a causal relationship. Reeva loved him, that is what her card stated.

    Endless inconsistencies are not evidence of premeditated murder, (I do not believe that there were endless inconsistencies, ie. I don’t think whisper and low tone are an inconsistency) .

    IMO a seasoned pit bull of a prosecutor went up against an emotionally immature boy man, the mistake that Nel made IMO is that he did not question Oscar with the exclusive goal of gaining the truth, he questioned Oscar with the goal of getting Oscar to confess on the witness stand, by taking advantage of Oscars immaturity, lack of sophistication, emotional makeup. Now I don’t have a problem with a prosecutor using any legal means to his advantage with the proper goal in mind which should be getting to the truth, forcing the witness to reveal evidence and the end goal being a guilty verdict.

    Instead I really think Nell wanted the accolades of getting an on the stand confession from Oscar.

    Oscar did not waver in spite of Nel’s tactics as to his basic version of the events of that night. I would call that a loss for Nel.
     
  7. LaLaw2000

    LaLaw2000 Louisiana

    Messages:
    12,386
    Likes Received:
    245
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Well, there is that old saying; A jack of all trades, but master of none!
     
  8. Sarahlou

    Sarahlou Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    946
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Regarding the my lady thing, I think he is supposed to say that. That's probably the only thing I'll say in Oscar's defence!
     
  9. jay-jay

    jay-jay New Member

    Messages:
    2,523
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oooh .. hope I didn't give them a bum steer earlier today when I said court had been adjourned until tomorrow by mistake ..! :scared:
     
  10. Magdalyn

    Magdalyn New Member

    Messages:
    2,571
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    :waitasec:

    Are we under the impression she filled out the inside of the Valentine's Day card while in the middle of her evening with OP on the 13th, or, perhaps, while she was hiding in the toilet room?

    Did she not fill out the card before arriving at OPs home? Could the night not have gone sideways *after* she handed him the card and gift? She couldn't very well have taken back the card and her sentiments after he went off in his first huge rage in front of her; she was dead.

    How exactly does the sentiment that Reeva loves him, and written hours and hours before all the screaming and gunshots occured prove:

    1) they weren't arguing the night/morning she was killed?

    2) That if they were arguing that night/morning, Reeva didn't want to leave?

    3) That during the course of the evening, Reeva wasn't becoming, hadn't become extremely unhappy?

    This wasn't some 'how was your stay' comment card filled out after her night's lodgings at Hotel Pistorious after all.
     
  11. Forensics

    Forensics Member

    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    He did say in his introduction that he had expertise in a wide range of areas. I guess we will know if he is indeed an 'expert' or a 'Jack of all trades master of none' when Nel cross-examines.
     
  12. TrueDetective

    TrueDetective New Member

    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think you are looking at the significance of the card in the incorrect manner.
     
  13. soozieqtips

    soozieqtips Owned by a cat...

    Messages:
    2,954
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    BBM - I believe the comment in red was referring to the 'expert' who was attempting to recreate the scene - not to OP.
     
  14. G.bng

    G.bng New Member

    Messages:
    984
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Prosecutions expert testified he found no blunt trauma from the bat or anything else on Reeva's body so I think it is fully discounted and agreed by both sides there was any beating.
     
  15. Forensics

    Forensics Member

    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Maybe they could only afford one expert witness?
     
  16. Val1

    Val1 New Member

    Messages:
    3,304
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I wonder if he's still using the morphine for his shoulder... the docs had my husband on it for over ten years after his accident before they stopped making the pills, or say they said... and put him on T3's. Then they wondered why he went into such a depression and talked about killing us all while we slept.:/ Imo, drugs are drugs, whether they're prescription or not.
     
  17. shane13

    shane13 New Member

    Messages:
    2,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Only problem with the way you put it now, Lisa, is that anything done out of Court is not a stipulation, it is an illegal act. It is corruption and collusion. Certainly there was no stipulation at the BH. Rather the opposite, as Nel put Botha back on the stand (after Roux ambushed him with news of the 5th phone, and asked why he didn’t access what he didn’t even know existed or had in his possession); who then testified that he only learned of the 5th phone’s existence the afternoon before in Court. Is it proper to even make a “stipulation” well after the alleged data in that crucial piece of evidence has already been testified to in court?

    And as I've detailed here numerous times, even at the BH that the matter of criminal crime scene removal of evidence seems quite proven. At BH, we heard Mag. Nair actually berate Det Botha for not getting records from the 5th phone that DT only told PT existed the day before, and which they would NOT surrender to Pros for another 11 days if my calculation is correct.

    And MSM drops all mention of this. I saw one video a year ago, where a reporter cornered Roux after BH day in court, and he, with a smirk or smile said "the defense has it and that's all I can say about it." This too may be gone.

    Furthermore I posted last week, from Wiki, standard jurisprudence procedure on "Chain of Custody” of evidence, at all times, from being taken from a crime scene to court aprearance for ALL items of evidence. And the standard being that if there is no Chain of Custody (signed or sworn to, at all points in time), the item must not be used as evidence in a trial. The DT would have insisted on inadmissibility, as they tried to do re the door--if they thought the Pros. did what they did with the 5th phone.

    16 days is long enough to send the phone anywhere in the world and get it back. E.g., it could have been sent to the NSA or GCHQ. And those great cryptographers would laugh at a measly 4-digit code or such. [That's just an example. Many other good cryptographers and electronics experts abound.]

    Once again the way that the media has excised the first 5 minutes of the first Session of Tuesday March 25 is telling. In contrast to the beginning of all other Session 1s that I have seen is also telling. (All other Session 1s begin with everyone standing as Judge walks in.)

    Also telling is the unconstitutional way freedom of the press for SAns was quashed for perhaps the most crucial autopsy evidence. SA Constituon does not say the people have freedom of the press unless it’s about a victim of a crime allegedly perpetrated by a Pistorius or other “elite” person. You can be assured that everyday in SA courts more gruesome autopsy photos are not blocked from public viewing.

    So this, along with cops also giving Carl, Aimee or Oldwage the .38 ammo after verifying that Oscar had no legal license to have that ammo. Curiously the Cops or Pros did get that back a short while later.

    But they did not ask (or get) the 5th phone back (till DT apparently were done with it). Why did they need 16 days?? And there was no asking for an investigation by Pros or any of the Judges. And the records of that 5th phone are used as evidence in the trial when there is ZERO Chain of Custody for it. The only “stipulation” Nel gave is that he got it back some 16 days after the shooting. Perhaps covering himself, if someone later should investigate the crime of removing it from the scene. But we do not even have video of this admission.

    Furthermore if cops on scene—all the way up to Colonels and a Brig General who is a “friend of the family” (and dare I say it: told Oscar everything was going to be fine [or such] who were there—someone gave Carl, Aimee or Oldwage the .38 ammo. This too should have been investigated and cops charged—all the way up to Cols or Generals. The fact that this did not happen indicates the likelihood that it was someone there of very high level who gave the .38 ammo to Oscar’s support team (after verifying he had no license for it) and who got to the scene very quickly. And furthermore, Aimee, Carl and Oldwage were allowed all over the scene shortly after the crime, by Col. van Rensburg by his own admission, and later stated to by Botha where he found Carl and Oldwage.

    Unlike Oscar’s view, any untowards acts at the scene by cops were likely to the benefit of Oscar, and not to his detriment. And indeed if there was any terrible handling of evidence at the scene, such as Col. Motha shockingly not putting on his gloves sitting in his breast pocket before handling the gun—well that too looks like deliberate mishandling to aid the accused—should a Judge decide to use it that way. Much light is on this, so they can’t just toss it. We will see.

    I like Oscar and his great triumphs over adversity. And perhaps even know the likely hidden problems he has, which is not offered as an excuse. But Reeva deserved to live out her life. And trials should be fair, and not have crucial items used as evidence that have NO Chain of Custody, and with evidence of possible collusion and/or corruption, and NO investigations.

    “This one runs deep.”
     
  18. patCee

    patCee Active Member

    Messages:
    777
    Likes Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    43
    So no comparison between the bat and the bullets.

    At least he was articulate, and was not afraid to say when he didn't know something. Although much fuller explanations, the door did not really contradict the PT expert.
     
  19. Magdalyn

    Magdalyn New Member

    Messages:
    2,571
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As I mentioned in an earlier thread, I wasn't in a chronically abusive relationship, but was in a situation where a boyfriend of three months threw a sudden onset-- and never before seen by me--- fit of rage against his home (walls, doors, cabinets, smashing, punching through walls, kicking) when I advised him I was breaking up with him.

    And instead of trying to run out of the front or back doors...

    I hid in a locked bathroom. :banghead:
     
  20. sleuth-d-

    sleuth-d- New Member

    Messages:
    923
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    no answer.
    excellent post imo. always good to look at things from everyone's perspective. not just oscar's.

    equally so... the 'intruder':

    enterers massively safe compound via stealth.

    then enters house via randomly placed ladder.
    that happens to sit below closed window.

    at top of ladder fortunately finds unlocked window.
    opens and slams window.

    hears man/woman screaming 'get out of my house' [no mention of 'i have a gun']

    ignores point of entry and escape.

    enters toilet. slams toilet door [revealing whereabouts] and locks himself into toilet [thus removing any chance performing any surprise attack] and removing any means of escape.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice