Trial Discussion Thread #26 - 14.04.15, Day 23

[BritsKate]

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?

He led Oscar through how much he was in fear that night and asked what Oscar's interpretation of an accident is.

Minor's argument (verified attorney poster) if I'm correct is essentially its a semantics game - Oscar really meant to imply he never intended to kill anyone, hurt anyone - basically he deeply regretted it. (If I'm wrong, they will correct me. ) That's essentially what Roux had Oscar testify to.

My argument is that by refusing to accept any responsibility and repeatedly stating he didn't intend to shoot, Oscar threw putative self-defence away altogether...there has to be some intent to do something to save your own life. He just can't have it both ways. Either he intended to defend himself which led to him incorrectly believing it was reasonable to kill someone or he didn't.

ETA: Oh! And welcome!

 

[Magdalyn]

I think you're still confusing evidence and proof.

You are free to think what you like.

I actually understand what you are saying, how you see it, and can appreciate the difference between evidence and proof. I'd appreciate it if you would not assume I don't, or am somehow too dim to wrap my brain around these confusing subtle nuances, just because I don't agree with you.

 

[Really?]

I wouldn't expect you to .. OP didn't just try to 'add clarity', he directly contradicted himself on numerous occasions, simply because he kept chucking stuff into his 'version' (as even he himself started referring to it as in the end) as he went along.

LMAO......he did....I thought it odd ....."in my version"....what about...'it went like this'...lol

 

[Julian]

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

Err - but if Pistorius intentionally shot at a door believing that a burglar was behind it and meant to hit the burglar - well then, he did shoot Reeva intentionally. That's the entire murder case.

Whether it was pre-meditated is another matter.

 

[James50]

Well, duh, I've been listening to all of the cross examination, every day, day in day out and I know that when Nel says OP is tailoring the evidence I have heard all of that tailoring for myself .. I haven't just taken that terminology from him and used it without foundation, I've heard it all with my own ears!

No, you haven't just taken that terminology from him, no doubt, but you do seem to have bought into his spin, and Roux could just as easily say he was merely clarifying, not tailoring, because that's what it looked like to me, and I didn't have the benefit of listening to attorney say it.

And so it becomes an issue either of mere semantics or interpretation.

 

[fox1lady]

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

Do you remember he asked Oscar if he asked them would they confirm that Oscar didn't shout or swear at Reeva so that others but them could hear in the car park as they were leaving her friend's party.

 

[fox1lady]

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

Do you remember he asked Oscar if he asked them would they confirm that Oscar didn't shout or swear at Reeva so that others but them could hear in the car park as they were leaving her friend's party. OP said that they would say that he didn't

 

[nastasya]

I have posted that there is an argument that it boils down to an "Accident" and so warrants an acquittal.. but IANAL most certainly

Only one big problem with the "accident" defense.

The accused provided direct non-impeachable testimony that he was not shooting at an intruder.

So which shot was the accident? The first that hit her hip? Maybe the second that hit her arm?

And the fourth shot the exploded from the gun by itself that hit her brain? Was the fourth shot an accident?

Remember, OP testified he was NOT shooting at an intruder.

So we have a dead body, and a confessed killer who denies he was shooting in self-defense.

What exactly is his defense then?

 

[TipDog]

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.

This is what my gut tells me as well.

I remember being in my 20s. You fall in love so fast, hard and passionately to only fall out of love just as easily. Reeva was a very bright young woman but even she was taken by Oscar and I'm sure his celebrity had its allure for her just as it would any young woman. I am cynical, sorry. I can see the both of them finding mutual benefit in seeing each other that had nothing to do with deep, long-lasting, respectful love. But of the two, Reeva was certainly the more sincere and obviously not dangerous. Oscar, on the other hand, was (and still is, IMO) a bomb just waiting to explode. Had none of this happened, I believe they'd not be together today. She'd be dating a far more mature and more suitable man, while he'd be dating a teenager (which is rumored to be exactly what he is doing in reality).

 

[Rumpole]

Err - but if Pistorius intentionally shot at a door believing that a burglar was behind it and meant to hit the burglar - well then, he did shoot Reeva intentionally. That's the entire murder case.

Whether it was pre-meditated is another matter.

er... no.


As I have outlined several times before....

OP shot at an intruder, but he missed and hit Reeva by mistake. An Accident.

There is still room to argue that OP was not justified in shooting at an intruder in the first place and issues around that, but Nel was too busy trying to bully and badger Op and prove he knew Reeva was in the toilet. IMO Nel would have been MUCH better served arguing points around the (imagined) intruder. We could have dispensed with all of the ear witnesses, and a lot of the expert testimony. Nel could be off on his vacation by now, while The Judge prepared her opinion and verdict. She may even have done that by now

 

[james83]

No, you haven't just taken that terminology from him, no doubt, but you do seem to have bought into his spin, and Roux could just as easily say he was merely clarifying, not tailoring, because that's what it looked like to me, and I didn't have the benefit of listening to attorney say it.

And so it becomes an issue either of mere semantics or interpretation.

Can you Seriously read his bail affidavit, then look at the opening court statement and then listen to O.P on the stand and come to the conclusion that he has not been tailoring evidence?, he clearly has, it's obvious.

 

[jay-jay]

Exactly he should of just said "yes she could of gone down for some food, but I dont know as I was asleep". End of questioning about Reeva's midnight snack.

The problem with OP throughout x-exam is his over elaboration of the questions posed to him, for whatever reason. Simple questions turned into elaborate answers when a yes or no answer would of sufficed or even I dont know would of been better.

It proves he's trying to prove his innocence too much by giving extra info which keeps coming back to bite him in the arse.

That's another one from the 'Domestic Abuse for Dummies' handbook .. "I'm too honest for my own good".

Oh, which reminds me .. I read an article in one of the online papers the other day about a previous incident where some woman had gone to a music gig and OP was there being really drunk and obnoxious and when she said to him "what's your problem" his reply was "I'm drunk, what's yours?" Another one straight out of the handbook .. I used to have that one said to me quite often. http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Oscar-Pistorius-Hero-or-Hooligan-20111103

 

[james83]

er... no.


As I have outlined several times before....

OP shot at an intruder, but he missed and hit Reeva by mistake. An Accident.

There is still room to argue that OP was not justified in shooting at an intruder in the first place and issues around that, but Nel was too busy trying to bully and badger Op and prove he knew Reeva was in the toilet. IMO Nel would have been MUCH better served arguing points around the (imagined) intruder. We could have dispensed with all of the ear witnesses, and a lot of the expert testimony. Nel could be off on his vacation by now, while The Judge prepared her opinion and verdict. She may even have done that by now

Lol shot at an intruder and missed and hit Reeva, WTF?.

 

[Julian]

He led Oscar through how much he was in fear that night and asked what Oscar's interpretation of an accident is.

Minor's argument (verified attorney poster) if I'm correct is essentially its a semantics game - Oscar really meant to imply he never intended to kill anyone, hurt anyone - basically he deeply regretted it. (If I'm wrong, they will correct me. ) That's essentially what Roux had Oscar testify to.

My argument is that by refusing to accept any responsibility and repeatedly stating he didn't intend to shoot, Oscar threw putative self-defence away altogether...there has to be some intent to do something to save your own life. He just can't have it both ways. Either he intended to defend himself which led to him incorrectly believing it was reasonable to kill someone or he didn't.

ETA: Oh! And welcome!

No, I don't think that's Minor's argument. But I'll not answer for him - I'm sure he'll do that himself.

In any case: I agree with you: I believe that OP threw putative self-defense away (or at the very least made it difficult to maintain that there was any self defense). My argument is very simple: you just cannot state (a) that OP didn't mean to shoot anyone and, at the same time (b) that he meant to defend himself. The first negates intent; the second relies on it.

However, that is exactly what Pistorius has been trying to do. As a result, his stance became - legally - problematic. So, we agree on that? But, if so, how did Roux manage to "rehabilitate" that?

 

[G.bng]

When asked if Reeva knew how to activate/deactivate the alarm (in the house), OP responded that he wasn't sure if she knew how to or not.

Now this brings up more questions about just how concerned with security and safety OP really was. Remember, Reeva went to OP's house on the 13th when he was not there to do laundry and get some work done. So, how did Reeva get into the home without knowing how to deactivate the alarm? Or did OP leave the home without turning the alarm on? And if he left the home without turning the alarm on, then one can say that his claims of paranoia about security and safety are nothing more than hot air blown to get away with murder.

MOO

Very well spotted so I reply mainly to repeat your post because from it, it would certainly seem that either OP wasn't activating his security alarm or that Reeva knew how to handle it.

 

[aoibhinn]

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?

:welcome6:​

 

[nastasya]

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?

He had OP read a card from Reeva that said:

Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
Today might be a good day,
to Say I love you

Awesome, huh? Totally makes up for the dozens of lies and contradictions over the last few days.

 

[minor4th]

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

No, I don't think that's true. It's only more compelling given the outcome if you assume he intentionally killed her.

 

[shane13]

Re OP's testimony that when he woke up (after 3 am) Reeva said to him "can't sleep baba?" this suggests that he's saying Reeva never fell asleep that night. What was she doing when she said that -- lying down, sitting up? Did OP testify about that? If I woke up at that time and the person next to me (Reeva) was still awake I would definitely ask the person what was wrong, why are you still awake?

Ah, I have tried to explain Oscar-World and Oscar-Speak to you all.
It is quite profound. It incorporates Quantum Physics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Please look up Schroedinger's Cat--which you can't be sure is dead or alive.

Likewise I already pointed out that when for Oscar's case, darkness is needed, it will be dark. When a moment of light is needed, there will be LED Blue for a moment.

Reeva's State of Awakeness is the same thing. It is indeterminate. When for his allibi, her wake state is needed to be awake, she will be awake. When for his alibi, she is needed to be asleep, she will be asleep.

And here is the kicker (pun semi-intended), when her wake state is needed to be indeterminate--in Oscar-speak, her state of wakeness will then be indeterminate. Indeed when needed, her location itself will be indeterminate.

An action upon Reeva (shooting alas) determines her state.

Now Oscar-World can only be understood or transmitted to others via Oscar-Speak.

So when on the witness stand, even the best Prosecutor may not be able to ovecome the indeterminate nature ( unproveability) of events related to the shooting of Reeva.

Finally in Oscar-World, if any evidence could prove definitiveness, we've already seen from 2 known items given by police to Oscar's team, such items might long ago have gone into a Black Hole.

Are you finally getting the nature of Oscar-World and Oscar-Speak?

 

[jay-jay]

I'll one up you there....lol...I'm reading here and my bathroom door slammed shut on its own !!!!! <----due to a very windy day here and an open window....so....i never flinched.

Well all this talk about the trial has been spooking me out .. a saucepan moved of it's own accord and crashed down on the drainer in the kitchen earlier this evening, and I jumped out of my skin! :scared: