Trial Discussion Thread #37 - 14.05.12 Day 30

[ColonelMustard]

Was there not any provisions in OP's bail release that he is to not be around any firearms? I think I remember that it was said he could not have possession of any himself but doesn't Uncle Arnold own them? I certainly hope that Uncle Arnold's firearms are under lock and key with OP having no way of obtaining the key. I don't believe that he would harm himself, after all the only true person he loves is himself IMO, but I do believe that based on the way the trial is going that he would be angry enough to possibly hurt someone else.

MOO

That's an interesting thought. Pistorius during this trial is the "Man of a Thousand Faces." We've seen everything. BUT what I saw yesterday, in one glimpse of the camera was the darkest look I've ever seen him have. My first thought was, "Was that the last face Reeva ever saw?"

 

[ColonelMustard]

That is a great question.

I'm sure that when OP was on the stand during his cross with Nel, when OP kept throwing the defense team/Roux under the bus, that Roux wanted to quit on the spot. I noticed that he (Roux) kept getting lower and lower in his chair, almost as if he wanted to get under the defense table.

MOO

Roux was so upset that he had to borrow OP's bucket to wretch into, himself.

 

[anagrammy]

I'm just being goofy here but, following your train of thought, my question is why didn't he simply bash the door with his prosthesis, the one he just took off to look more vulnerable?

Because, imo, he decided Reeva had to die before she could tell whatever it was that he had done that would ruin him (probably domestic violence) because he already had a legal case pending against him by the former girlfriend.

I also think he threw all the phones in the toilet room with her so no one could say she was prevented from calling the police. That long delay while she was dying he was racing around adjusting the crime scene and walking through his "version," concocting his story trying to make it sound just like the SA guy who was just let off.

As always, JMO. Is this plausible to you?

 

[ColonelMustard]

Re 1st BIB - she also stated that he was dangerous before she added he could be dangerous with a gun. Re 2nd BIB, I think it for this reason that an assessment will be made.

Someone directed us newbies to an acronym page but BIB isn't on there.

Translation?

---------

If she approves the assessment will be be hauled right out of there?

 

[ColonelMustard]

There was one moment right at the very end where Nel was flustered

when he triumphantly dismissed the witness with no further questions and was about to approach the bench , leading the court and with the whole world on the edge of their seats he was about to finish off a pure ingenious tactical maneuver ....but it was not to be.

That move if he completed it successfully on the spot forcing a decision from the judge would have placed him in instant legend status. I think he felt a bit flustered then.

True that.

I think the person who was befuddled was M'Lady. She was with most of the rest of us - she sort of understood, she knew it was big, but the details were alluding her at that precise minute.

One step up from," That doesn't ring a bell for me."

 

[K.T]

The 2am intermittent argument and one hour sounds of an angry female that Van der Merwe testified hearing is one important piece of evidence that the defense has done little to refute.

All the defense and prosecution neighbours in court talked about going to bed relatively early, making it seem as if Silver Woods was that night was a sleepy, quiet suburb.

The defense could have interviewed everyone around Van der Merwe and if they had found someone who was awake and talking at that time, or even had a television on, then they would have brought them forward to show reasonable doubt. But they didn’t.

The only other sound Van der Merwe’s heard were the bangs from Pistorius’ home and his crying.

If the judge believes the testimony of Van der Merwe its very bad news for Pistorius. Now his new diagnosis of a general anxiety disorder may even help the prosecution suggest Pistorius is controlling, likely to overreact and be dangerous in stressful times over anger or abandonment.
It’s appears even more plausible now that an anxious Pistorius was arguing before shooting.

He could have left his home but now it was in his nature was to "fight" with the person challenging him, Steenkamp.


Also, did anyone see that ABC hilariously taglined their video… Pistorius "Defense: Itchy Trigger Finger”

http://abcnews.go.com/International...estimony-questioned-experts/story?id=23683612

 

[JudgeJudi]

If an assessment is ordered I really worry what the results of that assessment will be.

OP has demonstrated in court that he is "unusual" in some ways. Past incidents with him firing guns also are hints that something may be seriously wrong with him.

Could what we are seeing in court and elsewhere be a reflection of something much deeper that nobody expected.

We may all be shocked at the results of the assessment if one is ordered.

I know nothing of what's involved in these assessments. What's the likelihood of OP putting on act to suit his cause? Is it likely that his acting ability would be detected?

 

[Zuri]

I don't know SA law, but wouldn't Aimee and Carice's actions of removing Reevas belongings from the scene be considered obstruction of justice? I just find their actions very very strange. JMV

 

[toevlugsoord]

That's an interesting thought. Pistorius during this trial is the "Man of a Thousand Faces." We've seen everything. BUT what I saw yesterday, in one glimpse of the camera was the darkest look I've ever seen him have. My first thought was, "Was that the last face Reeva ever saw?"

When was this? I noticed some dark looks. Can you remember when? There were a lot of close-ups of him yesterday.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Wollie handed Nel his report as he walked by him to be sworn in. Ditto Dr. Vorster and her report. In what legal universe does that seem fair?

IMO the law is a complete *advertiser censored* at times. I was more than a little surprised that Nel only got Dr Vorster’s report an hour before she entered Court. I do know about “discovery” and that it is the law, not a courtesy issue, but I had to do some research. Paraphrasing as much as I can, it’s basically all geared to help defendants, and prosecutors must hand over certain information that's helpful to the defence.

Traditionally, the prosecutor wasn’t entitled to information about a defendant’s case but this has changed and prosecutors can now examine certain evidence in the hands of defendants. This does not mean that the prosecutor has to reveal its case strategy but does have to provide raw information like names of witnesses, police reports, and drug or alcohol test results.

Advance disclosure promotes fairer trial outcomes, but it also promotes case settlement, which saves judicial time and resources. If a guilty defendant finds out before trial that the prosecution has a particularly strong case, that defendant will be more likely to plead guilty and save the government the hassle of trying the case. Discovery is likely a significant reason why at least 90% of criminal cases settle before trial. The defendant is then able to examine evidence that the prosecution proposes to introduce at trial.

Nel would have known that a psychiatrist/psychologist was on Roux’ list of witnesses but I can’t find anywhere that he was entitled to have the expert’s report pre-trial/

I'm not happy. :anguish:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-when-the-prosecution-must-disclose.html

 

[zoran]

True that.

I think the person who was befuddled was M'Lady. She was with most of the rest of us - she sort of understood, she knew it was big, but the details were alluding her at that precise minute.

One step up from," That doesn't ring a bell for me."

lol right at that moment she reminded me of a duck. Composed on the surface but paddling like hell underneath

 

[JudgeJudi]

Re the psych evaluation, isn't the main thing not what OP's mental condition is now, but what it was the evening/week leading up to the fatal night? Of course, he's depressed now that he's lost his status, his brand, his livelihood, his former courtiers, and a good chunk of his money, etc., but what does that have to do with his killing Reeva in Feb./13? And the real prospect of a SA prison must fill him with anxiety/terror, but so what?

I'd imagine his increasing anxiety is getting to dangerously high levels now, now that Roux will have explained the implications of what's happening.

 

[DILLIGAF]

Someone directed us newbies to an acronym page but BIB isn't on there.

Translation?

---------

If she approves the assessment will be be hauled right out of there?

Bit In Bold I think Colonel.

 

[Forensics]

Oscar Pistorius trial: Psychiatrist testifies that athlete has an 'anxiety disorder' that makes him dangerous

Oscar's public persona is certainly taking a battering with headlines such as the one above being brandished worldwide. I would think someone with an ego as large as Oscar's would find this totally crushing...

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/oscar-p...m-dangerous-20140512-zraou.html#ixzz31ZYdkH46

 

[JudgeJudi]

It's easier to list the people who are not out to get OP.

Here's my list.

Brilliant.

 

[K.T]

Some links to the Weskoppies Psychiatric Hospital in Pretoria that Pistorius may go to for evaluation. I read he would be evaluated by three independent psychiatrists, one from defense, one from prosecution and another outside of the legal trial.

Liezl Thom ‏@liezlthom 18h
@CharlduPlessc he won't go to Sterkfontein, he'll be sent to Weskoppies

http://www.ovguide.com/weskoppies-psychiatric-hospital-9202a8c04000641f8000000015381802

Weskoppies Psychiatric Hospital - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[04009margaret]

IMO the law is a complete *advertiser censored* at times. I was more than a little surprised that Nel only got Dr Vorster’s report an hour before she entered Court. I do know about “discovery” and that it is the law, not a courtesy issue, but I had to do some research. Paraphrasing as much as I can, it’s basically all geared to help defendants, and prosecutors must hand over certain information that's helpful to the defence.

Traditionally, the prosecutor wasn’t entitled to information about a defendant’s case but this has changed and prosecutors can now examine certain evidence in the hands of defendants. This does not mean that the prosecutor has to reveal its case strategy but does have to provide raw information like names of witnesses, police reports, and drug or alcohol test results.

Advance disclosure promotes fairer trial outcomes, but it also promotes case settlement, which saves judicial time and resources. If a guilty defendant finds out before trial that the prosecution has a particularly strong case, that defendant will be more likely to plead guilty and save the government the hassle of trying the case. Discovery is likely a significant reason why at least 90% of criminal cases settle before trial. The defendant is then able to examine evidence that the prosecution proposes to introduce at trial.

Nel would have known that a psychiatrist/psychologist was on Roux’ list of witnesses but I can’t find anywhere that he was entitled to have the expert’s report pre-trial/

I'm not happy. :anguish:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-when-the-prosecution-must-disclose.html

This was discussed on Oscar radio yesterday, if you listen before trial starts today. They tend to replay discussions they had the previous day & with a bit of luck this might be one of them. They said that the legal profession is trying to get the laws regarding this issue changed due to how disruptive it is to court time.

 

[ColonelMustard]

Some links to the Weskoppies Psychiatric Hospital in Pretoria that Pistorius may go to for evaluation. I read he would be evaluated by three independent psychiatrists, one from defense, one from prosecution and another outside of the legal trial.

http://www.ovguide.com/weskoppies-psychiatric-hospital-9202a8c04000641f8000000015381802

Weskoppies Psychiatric Hospital - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ncl1968]

Someone directed us newbies to an acronym page but BIB isn't on there.

Translation?

---------

If she approves the assessment will be be hauled right out of there?

BIT IN BOLD=bib

 

[PPKik]

IMO the law is a complete *advertiser censored* at times. I was more than a little surprised that Nel only got Dr Vorster’s report an hour before she entered Court. I do know about “discovery” and that it is the law, not a courtesy issue, but I had to do some research. Paraphrasing as much as I can, it’s basically all geared to help defendants, and prosecutors must hand over certain information that's helpful to the defence.

Traditionally, the prosecutor wasn’t entitled to information about a defendant’s case but this has changed and prosecutors can now examine certain evidence in the hands of defendants. This does not mean that the prosecutor has to reveal its case strategy but does have to provide raw information like names of witnesses, police reports, and drug or alcohol test results.

Advance disclosure promotes fairer trial outcomes, but it also promotes case settlement, which saves judicial time and resources. If a guilty defendant finds out before trial that the prosecution has a particularly strong case, that defendant will be more likely to plead guilty and save the government the hassle of trying the case. Discovery is likely a significant reason why at least 90% of criminal cases settle before trial. The defendant is then able to examine evidence that the prosecution proposes to introduce at trial.

Nel would have known that a psychiatrist/psychologist was on Roux’ list of witnesses but I can’t find anywhere that he was entitled to have the expert’s report pre-trial/

I'm not happy. :anguish:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-when-the-prosecution-must-disclose.html

I'm been trying to understand the strangeness of SA discovery, but am confused by your post and link. When I read your post I assumed your were talking about SA law, but your link seems to be a general definition of US discovery practices.

Hoping you can clarify, as the absence of reports given to the PT and the spontaneous witnesses of the DT are a bit odd. lease: