Trial Discussion Thread #26 - 14.04.15, Day 23

[jay-jay]

and he totally ignored it in the text bless her. She was clearly wrong about it being the right time to tell him though. I didn't watch today, how did OP respond to the card being shown and read? Did he have a breakdown?

Certainly didn't sound like it .. it sounded like he was reading something out of a newspaper.

 

[Hope4More]

I keep having to play catch up and read dozens of pages of posts at a time. Spring break with kids.

Reading through the posts of the past half day just have to say....hey, give Minor a break! She's not just an attorney , but from what I remember about her posts on other cases, imo she's an astute, analytical, fair & balanced trial watcher.

I don't agree with her perspectives on this case but I respect them...and her. So should y'all. She's earned it.

 

[fox1lady]

As far as direct witnesses - I'd say just other neighbors and other ear witnesses. Don't exactly know who those would be. I think the defense actually established a lot of their case during the state's case - with cross examination of witnesses and admission of phone data and so forth.

Aside from that, I think we'll hear audio tests and some things like that. Don't really know what else there could be.

I doubt if they will call Fresco and the other one that Nel was quite interested in cross examing for fear that he will catch them out

 

[hetty]

Being married for 30 years and happily is a big achievement. Congratulations.

There is a huge difference between a married couple of 30 years, and a young couple dating for 3 months. You know your husband loves you, so forgotten anniversaries and absent cards and gifts probably don't mean much to you. But these young people do not know that the other cares for them, so it is more important that this caring be shown in some way, the easiest way being to buy gifts and cards.

We are living in the age of over-sharing, a.k.a the age of twitter and facebook. What you do, where you go, what you get for Valentine's day is all shown off. This is very important to a young person's ego and a person's relationship.

Lastly, these 2 are not ordinary people. They are celebrities. They were probably "catches" for each other. The expectations are more. The number of people watching them are more. The followers on twitter, friends on facebook are more.

Your situation is hardly the same.

I mean this respectfully. If you consider cards and flowers important to a woman, and your husband has not yet understood that, its sad.

My only point was that it can't necessarily be taken as a sign someone doesn't love someone, even if it is an important act. However, since someone else posted that OP did in fact shower another girlfriend with surprises on that day in the past, it does show that something was very different with his relationship with Reeva, it assumes more significance.

Please don't feel sad for me, there are a million other ways to show someone you love them, and he does that every day. I'm lucky, undeservedly so. I had to grow up a lot before I realised a card on a certain day was not the pinnacle of love, I very much regret all the times I did not realise it.

 

[moomin]

What comments? "All" the comments? Haven't seen a single post that says a Valentine's Day card is evidence of an abusive relationship.

Was there a valentine card found for Reeva ? just a thought

 

[Really?]

I don't know. This case must be tough on OP's family. The brother / nephew they were so proud of, suddenly killing someone, and facing a long imprisonment?

If it was my brother, I would be constantly praying too. Maybe even with my lips moving and in court.

May I ask < praying for what ?

 

[G.bng]

His 'torture of a trial"? oh pulleeeeese! What about the victim? what about her family??! They haven't complained. Geeze, I just think you do this out of some perverse desire to wind people up.

Muchas gracias!

 

[jay-jay]

He read out the card. Made a mistake with some of the words. No tears, no sniffling, no need for the green bucket.

These are the last words that Reeva ever wrote to him, the one in which she tells him that she loves him, and he reads it out as if he is reading something from a stranger.

MOO

Absolutely astonishing, wasn't it.

 

[minor4th]

I doubt if they will call Fresco and the other one that Nel was quite interested in cross examing for fear that he will catch them out

They won't and I don't think Nel will either because Fresco and Larena have both been sitting in court I believe.

 

[Julian]

Roux already rehabilitated Oscar on redirect. It's back to officially being putative self-defence.

Hello everyone! New here; hope to fit in.

BritsKate: I missed the redirect. How did Roux "rehabilitate" Pistorius? How could we be back to putative self defense?

Could you explain, please?

 

[james83]

Thank Heavens we don&#8217;t have a jury system in South Africa, that&#8217;s all this Lawyer in Training can say!

Imagine having a bunch of these Pistorians deciding this case?

&#8220;I am worried about Oscar&#8221; - Oscar is the last person on earth that needs support right now.

At least 99% of the world&#8217;s population needs support before Oscar does. He&#8217;s not facing poverty, disease, a death sentence. In fact, all he&#8217;s facing are the consequences of his own actions, just like everybody else has to.

This Lawyer in Training can truly appreciate what an amazing time it is to be involved in the legal profession.

Some of the most boring concepts during my student years have now become heated, real life debates. What will it say for this Lawyer in Training&#8217;s profession if a man is able to bury four bullets into his girlfriend and face absolutely no consequences?

That is precisely what Oscar Pistorius is trying to achieve. As the Real Lawyers have pointed out, his bail statement and his plea explanation were both incredibly vague.

It&#8217;s almost like the Accused is at a fast-food drive-through. &#8220;Yes, My Lady, I thought there was an intruder so I shot at him &#8211; oh what&#8217;s that you say?

I don&#8217;t get Freedom with that? No no no, I wanted a side of Freedom please My Lady! And the Innocence? Any promotions on the Innocence today? You say I should just avoid the word "intend" today My Lady? Perfect thanks I&#8217;ll just say the right words and get the Innocence to go with that thanks!&#8221;

He will twist whatever words he can and disagree with whatever logic he must so as to avoid ANY kind of sentence. His girlfriend died after he shot her but he refuses to say he killed her.

He says he thought she was an intruder but didn&#8217;t want to kill any of those either. He wanted to shoot the door, but he didn&#8217;t "aim" at it, he "pointed" at it.

However, if the accused gets a hint that aiming would be better than shooting in terms of the &#8220;implications&#8221; he is so scared of then, Sorry M&#8217;Lady, he&#8217;ll go for the one that absolves him, thanks.

And this is how the Real Lawyers are given the unbelievable scene where an Accused now wants to try and have two defences.

He&#8217;s basically played a game of &#8220;choose your own adventure&#8221;, except none of the paths lead to Oscar having a clean record.

None of the paths lead to the next Olympics. His glory is gone. No matter how he tries to twist Valentines Morning last year, the Pistorians may be Oscar&#8217;s very last fans, ever.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/ilive/20...u-can-t-get-a-side-of-freedom-with-that-ilive

 

[Really?]

and he totally ignored it in the text bless her. She was clearly wrong about it being the right time to tell him though. I didn't watch today, how did OP respond to the card being shown and read? Did he have a breakdown?

I'm sure this has been answered.....naw....he just read it matter of factly.....no remorse.

 

[Lochlynsmom]

Oscar should have stuck to his original narrative and been clear about it, he heard someone in the bathroom and fired the gun, all this accident involuntary nonsense is making thing's even worse for him.

I agree and why not plead to the CH. If it truly was an accident and he cared about her he should have been grief stricken/guilt ridden and taken responsibility for his actions. I find very suspicious that he will not accept any blame at all.

 

[TipDog]

BBM

With respect, that isn't true. If a question is posed whereby you cannot give an answer we should never presume that the person is therefore lying.

If Reeva did nip down for some vegetables to eat during the evening and OP was asleep, how can he be expected to give a yes or no answer?

Nel has obviously made this appear to some as if OP was lying, therefore it clearly demonstrates how unfairly the question was delivered.

I've presumed nothing and I absolutely disagree that the question was delivered unfairly to OP by Nel.

The state is questioning his version of events that evening and discussing the contents of her stomach and at what time she could have eaten so as to establish a timeline that does not coincide with OP's version. They are basing this on evidence (that I believe is credible). OP saying he didn't hear her slip out the locked bedroom door (isn't a key required to unlock it?), down the steps to the fridge and back at 1am is the same thing as him saying he didn't hear her slip out of bed and to the toilet to tinkle at 3am. But in order to fit his version to the evidence (that she ate within 2-3 hours of her death), OP is using the same nonsensical excuse that he didn't hear it if it even happened.

The state state's case is that he is lying about both just as he is lying about shooting Reeva mistakenly (which OP then changed to "accidentally"), and that the events OP is claiming happened is not what happened. I personally agree with the state. It isn't logical given the evidence of a locked and fortified bedroom door, logistics in the dark for RS to do all this creeping around the house undetected and OP's terrible hearing except for when windows slide open in the night to think that OP's version is anything but a lie. That would be why he's on the stand to begin with. If the evidence backed his version or his version backed the evidence, we'd all not be debating this.

 

[Rumpole]

IMO, and we are in the same position as I, i.e. neither of us is the judge on this case so either or both may be wrong, the State has proven culpable homicide BARD... I repeat, the State has proven culpable homicide BARD. For the prosecution, anything else, and imo it could still result in murder conviction by transferred intent, is bumph.

Therefore it is a mystery, to me at least, (and it would likely be to you too except that as a N. American you may think it normal for someone to shoot a teenager dead simply for asking the way to a Halloween party), why OP has not changed his plea to guilty of CH.

Think of the benefits; it would likely result in a lesser sentence for OP, probably even a suspended one; it would save OP further distress having to hear how his "beloved" Reeva was brutally shot to pieces by his own hand; it would save Reeva's family, his sister, brother and uncle, etc. having to continue to suffer the torture of the trial any longer giving everyone closure; it would save the SA tax payer further costs; and last but not least it would save OP any further costs on his defence which he alleges has forced him to have to sell his home.

So many benefits for accepting a lesser plea and throwing himself at the mercy of the judge (in three similar cases the accused was not given prison time) yet OP continues to deny any responsibility whatsoever !

Do you really find that is reasonable ?
Do you really expect an acquittal as OP appears to expect ?

My view from early on has been that the State overcharged. They went for proving that OP shot Reeva intentionally.

There was NEVER enough evidence to prove that beyond reasonable doubt.

Rather than question why OP did not plea down to lesser charge, I question why the lesser charge was not laid in the first place. Seeing how Nasty Nel is... I doubt he offered any plea deal.

I think the State COULD have made a good case on lesser charges... but instead we wasted day after day after day with Nel repeatedly banging on about trivia.... Trying to build a "circumstantial case" that was doomed from the outset.

Since Nel did neglect arguing in and around lesser charges, he may have lessened the chance of conviction there as well.

I am pleased that the basic facts of the case have been put clearly to the Judge. I (of course) defer to her as to what lesser charges may apply (if any)
I have posted that there is an argument that it boils down to an "Accident" and so warrants an acquittal.. but IANAL most certainly

 

[emmavoberry]

I don't think it matters if Reeva loved him or not. I think what's important is that Oscar said he was more into her than she was into him. I believe him on this. A man being insecure in a relationship and having Oscar's personality can lead to some ugly behavior,, jealousy ... etc. ... not a good combo.

I have a problem with self-reporting. It is often, especially when delivered in personal defense, self-serving. OP serves himself by making a case for his being terribly in love with Reeva, her not as much into him, and their relationship being mutually loving.

Doing so counters the theory he would be so enraged at her as to harm her. His claim that he was more in love than she garners sympathy and once again, goes to his not wanting to intentionally harm a person he is so besotted with. AND, let us not forget, Oscar is not only a gun-grabber, but a blamer. He gets ticked off, overwhelmed and off goes the gun through thee sun-roof, at the dog. And then it's all someone else's fault and he didn't do it, or not willfully. The tenor of his testimony about his feelings for Reeva and their relationship inequity implies that she's to blame for his shooting her. He was just trying to protect her, so mistakenly killed her to do so. IF (and remember, Oscar is covering bases in advance) it's established to any probably degree he did mean to kill her or scare her or reflexively shot but without lethal intent it's he we should feel sorry for and she who had the upper hand in the relationship, loved this worthy person less...In the OJ case, the jury felt Nicole had beatings and her killing coming to her. In a variety of ways, the defense made this case. Thus, jury nullification.

But the interesting thing is how transparent Oscar's strategy is in casting himself as the martyred one in a star-crossed love affair. That he doesn't see how others might perceive his testimony goes to a streak of the sociopathic in his character. Before the uproar--I did say streak. And I do not man to indict all sociopaths, in any case, as homicidal. Most are good salespeople, politicians, money embezzlers... A hallmark of the character disorder is blatant lying with seemingly no care for the fall-out ("I'll think about that tomorrow") coupled with an inability to read other people's emotional responses. Though this can undermine their credibility, it can also, paradoxically, lead others to be so incredulous that they will say "why would he/she commit to a glaring falsehood, when the truth could be determined later, or say something so appalling? He/she must be telling the truth as he/she knows it. He/she, in the second case, must not MEAN what she/he said. It's a slip.

I have a problem with those who believe wholesale what Oscar reports. Many (not all) who end up with criminal charges are, if not "born liars," sociopathic ones who acquire the habit to avoid the consequences of their anti-social behaviors.

Nel is trying to show this about Oscar. And since it's a cunning, baffling, and powerful trait he does well to do so.

 

[jay-jay]

OP was insistent that Reeva could NOT go down to the kitchen for a snack without him knowing about it. OP painted himself into a corner with that remark. Much like he has painted himself into a corner throughout his testimony.

MOO

Oh my word, did he really?? I missed that bit .. it's a bit like yesterday's grilling where he ended up saying (during the bit about having realised it could be Reeva in the toilet cubicle), that he checked the bed then the floor by the side of the bed and then kept on saying/insisting how small all that area was! .. errr .. yeah, it's a small bedroom .. so how did ya miss Reeva getting out of bed and going down the passageway to the bathroom? :facepalm: )

 

[aoibhinn]

No, I mean love. I'm not confused between the two. This wasn't a whim. She had been planning to say she loved him for some time. It was clearly something that mean more to her than mere sex. She spoke about "the right moment" etc. All the hallmarks are there that she had fallen in love with him. There's really no other way to read it, unless you're the coldest cynic in the world, or you've never fallen in love.

We move kinda fast these days but a three month relationship still equals infatuation with potential. Sounds to me like she was dipping her toe in the water. She hadn't even intended to spend the night with him. It appears she returned at his behest. He'd had a bad day (sniff, sniff). She was being a good friend by coming back to his house. What a pity he couldn't return the favour in kind. Instead, he shot her to death.

 

[fox1lady]

No, I mean love. I'm not confused between the two. This wasn't a whim. She had been planning to say she loved him for some time. It was clearly something that mean more to her than mere sex. She spoke about "the right moment" etc. All the hallmarks are there that she had fallen in love with him. There's really no other way to read it, unless you're the coldest cynic in the world, or you've never fallen in love.

You sound like you knew Reeva personally very well. Did you?

 

[TipDog]

Yes, I already said I believed her texts as well. They're not mutually exclusive.

No, but one is far more compelling evidence than the other. And given the outcome, well...