Blade Runner becomes Blade Gunner **Mod Warning Read OP""

Cushie Butterfield

Deise Vu wrote: »

Having said all that I do not know how OP or all his defenders on here can explain this line:

I haven't read many posts in which people are defending him, I think that it's more the case that people are looking at the trial & commenting on things that seem unlikely to them - either on the prosecution side or the defence side.

Deise Vu wrote:

Pistorius says he doesn't remember speaking to security but the phone records show he rang him (sic) first. He doesn't know why he apparently told security "everything is fine". (Also from the Guardian).

There is one reason and one reason only you tell security everything is fine after you have just shot the head off your girlfriend.

Yea the phone recors show that he rang them first. I don't understand your point here: are you saying that he rang security to tell them that everything was fine? We only have the word of the security guard as to what the exact conversation was.

Cushie Butterfield

Tasden wrote: »

That's what I originally thought about her having the phone, a light source, but nel pointed out that if she used the phone as a light source she would've used it to guide her to the bathroom and therefore he would've seen her go to the bathroom- a light in the middle of a dark room is fairly noticeable.

Looks like there is too much doubt all round I think. I'd be surprised if he doesn't get away with it, not necessarily because he is believed but just because there is too many questions still unanswered.

Yes, seemingly they have passed on the opportunity to change plea, proably because they know that he'll probably be found guilty of culpable homocide anyway?

But because the burden of proof is much greater & requires 'beyond all doubt' for the two higher charges they decided to go ahead with the trial as they have nothing to lose.

Seemingly they have moved speakers into the courtroom so we may get to listen to the 'scream tests'.

weldoninhio

Cushie Butterfield wrote: »

I haven't read many posts in which people are defending him, I think that it's more the case that people are looking at the trial & commenting on things that seem unlikely to them - either on the prosecution side or the defence side.

Yea the phone recors show that he rang them first. I don't understand your point here: are you saying that he rang security to tell them that everything was fine? We only have the word of the security guard as to what the exact conversation was.

It'd be a serious conspiracy if his ex-gf, best mate, the security guard and neighbours are all making stuff up. And his father refused to back up OPs story about the bullets in the safe being his.

Deise Vu

Cushie Butterfield wrote: »

I haven't read many posts in which people are defending him, I think that it's more the case that people are looking at the trial & commenting on things that seem unlikely to them - either on the prosecution side or the defence side.

Go back over the thread, there are plenty of posters who believe OP's version of events. Someone even posted something along the lines that they 'couldn't understand why people don't believe OP'. I would consider that defending him.

Cushie Butterfield wrote: »

Yea the phone recors show that he rang them first. I don't understand your point here: are you saying that he rang security to tell them that everything was fine? We only have the word of the security guard as to what the exact conversation was.

And why would the security guard be lying about the phone conversation? OP didn't even deny it, just that he couldn't remember what he said.

If I have to spell it out for you, the implication of the statement, is that OP was buying time to cover the fact he had just shot his girlfriend dead.

Merkin

Seems like a bit of a damp squib of an ending. I don't know what I was expecting/hoping for but I was expecting more of a crescendo I suppose.

Here's part of an Associated Press story on Nel's final moments of cross-examination.

Nel closed his cross-examination Tuesday by inviting Pistorius to take the blame for shooting Steenkamp, but the runner steered away from a direct response, saying only that he opened fire because he believed his life was under threat. That remark drew barbed follow-up questions from the prosecutor.
"We should blame somebody ... Should we blame Reeva?" asked Nel, who has harshly criticised Pistorius as someone who is unwilling to take responsibility.
"No, my lady," Pistorius replied, addressing the judge in line with court custom.

"She never told you she was going to the toilet," Nel said. Then he asked: "Should we blame the government?"
When Pistorius responded with another reference to a perceived attacker in his toilet, Nel asked: Who should we blame for the Black Talon rounds that ripped through her body?"

He abandoned his line of questioning soon after the judge questioned whether he was asking the same thing in a different way. Nel summed up by saying Pistorius intentionally killed Steenkamp.

FunGoose

Deise Vu wrote: »

Yet more strange evidence today:

Pistorius says he tried to pick Reeva up but couldn't. He saw her mobile phone on the bathroom floor so picked it up, rushed to the bedroom and left it there. He then picked up his own mobile phone and ran back to Reeva's body. (from the Guardian).

Apart from that being a bit peculiar (to put it mildly), now we know we only have OP's word that Reeva had her phone in the bathroom. That would definitely explain the lack of phone calls to the police or security. Was she screaming out the window instead? That might explain why some of the neighbours from a distance away could hear her. On that point, where were the security people when the alleged screaming was going on? Was there any evidence from them or will we hear that in the defence? Of course OP says he was screaming like a girl so I suppose that won't be considered definitive either. I have to say, security must be pretty poor, if they heard nothing if there was a screaming match and shots fired.

Having said all that I do not know how OP or all his defenders on here can explain this line:

Pistorius says he doesn't remember speaking to security but the phone records show he rang him (sic) first. He doesn't know why he apparently told security "everything is fine". (Also from the Guardian).

There is one reason and one reason only you tell security everything is fine after you have just shot the head off your girlfriend.

A lot of OPs version is peculiar.

He stated earlier that he picked up Reevas phone in the toilet to use it to call for help but the screen was locked and he didn't know the code so went to get his own phone.

OP has an answer for almost everything, not very good answers though. When something is put to him that he can't explain he seems to just not remember, which is handy. He says he doesn't remember the phone call to security at all so that he doesn't have to explain why he said everything is fine.

I believe this strategy will work in OPs favour, even though it's making him look bad, it has to be better for him than telling the absolute truth. If he tells the truth I think he would be found guilty of premeditated murder and if he doesn't he may not be.

123balltv

Why would they get an old man in his sixties to recreate the noise with a bat when Oscar is an pro athlete with very muscular arms?

Cushie Butterfield

Deise Vu wrote:

Go back over the thread, there are plenty of posters who believe OP's version of events.

No, I won't. You referred to 'all his defenders' implying that there's a significant amount of posters constantly defending him throughout the thread. I've read the entire thread. There aren't, but if you feel that strongly about it I'll gladly read all the posts if you care to provide links to them.

Deise Vu wrote:

Someone even posted something along the lines that they 'couldn't understand why people don't believe OP'. I would consider that defending him.

Ok, so that's one poster in one post defending him. Hardly amounts to 'all his defenders'.

Anyway, if that's what you think so be it, !'ve no intention of arguing about it any further.

Deise Vu wrote:

And why would the security guard be lying about the phone conversation? OP didn't even deny it, just that he couldn't remember what he said.

I've no idea why the security guard would have lied, but that's irrelevant as his credibility is already shot by claiming that he made the fiirst phone call. One possibility is that perhaps he was concerned that he'd be accused of not doing more about the situation at the time & simply said that OP told him everything was ok. Who knows?

Deise Vu wrote:

If I have to spell it out for you, the implication of the statement, is that OP was buying time to cover the fact he had just shot his girlfriend dead.

Thanks for spelling that out to me, I'm very slow on the uptake. Ok, we know from phone records that OP made the first call. I fail to see why he would waste time making a call out of the blue to security at 3am just to say ''Hi, sorry to trouble you, but I decided to ring you to let you everything is ok here, have a nice night'' if his aim was to buy time when, as you say he was busy covering up the fact that he had just shot his girlfriend dead.

Cushie Butterfield

weldoninhio wrote: »

It'd be a serious conspiracy if his ex-gf, best mate, the security guard and neighbours are all making stuff up. And his father refused to back up OPs story about the bullets in the safe being his.

True, it would be - but we're talking about a real life court case here. What we'd like to happen & what is possible to happen under the legal process are two different things.

The court has to be satisfied of the credibility of the witnesses. His ex is his ex, so may have an axe to grind dating back to when she was dumped, but apart from that it has been shown that she has given inaccurate statements as it is, so that creates doubt.

The security guard has done the same, so that creates doubt, it has just been shown that the neighbours are (at best) stretching the truth as regards what they could possibly see from their bedroom, so that creates doubt.

M'Lady might think that it's an unlikely conspiracy, but that's not the point.

sopretty

Just heard that legal analyst state that if there is even the SLIGHTEST doubt in the judge's mind, she will have to acquit him. Said analyst, is to become a judge in a few weeks, so presumably he knows what he was talking about. While I 99% believe he did it, there is some slight doubt in terms of some of the witnesses. I've a nasty feeling he will get away with murder.

Tasden

sopretty wrote: »

Just heard that legal analyst state that if there is even the SLIGHTEST doubt in the judge's mind, she will have to acquit him. Said analyst, is to become a judge in a few weeks, so presumably he knows what he was talking about. While I 99% believe he did it, there is some slight doubt in terms of some of the witnesses. I've a nasty feeling he will get away with murder.

Is that not how it always is? That was my reasoning for him getting away with it, too much questions left unanswered.

Cushie Butterfield

sopretty wrote: »

Just heard that legal analyst state that if there is even the SLIGHTEST doubt in the judge's mind, she will have to acquit him. Said analyst, is to become a judge in a few weeks, so presumably he knows what he was talking about. While I 99% believe he did it, there is some slight doubt in terms of some of the witnesses. I've a nasty feeling he will get away with murder.

Yea, LLewyellyn Curlewis.

That's the whole thing about the legal process, it has to be followed by the book, especially as the world is looking on.

I'd say that he could still get convicted on the lesser charge, purely because of the laws relating to doubt - a culpable homocide verdict allows for the slightest doubt by the judge but the other two don't - there has to be no doubt for those.

He could still face a lengthly prison term on the firearm charges if found guilty on those.

sopretty

Tasden wrote: »

Is that not how it always is? That was my reasoning for him getting away with it, too much questions left unanswered.

I thought the judge would have been allowed reasonable doubt. Not no doubt at all! My misconception obviously.

That's interesting Cushie about the culpable homicide allowing for some doubt. That's the only charge really that I can see NO DOUBT in. You sound like you know what you're talking about anyway, unlike myself!!! I'm just picking up bits and pieces from the media and the trial. I find it very interesting. I really wish I had studied law...

Cushie Butterfield

sopretty wrote: »

I thought the judge would have been allowed reasonable doubt. Not no doubt at all! My misconception obviously.

No, you're right I should really have said beyond ALL reasonable doubt instead of NO doubt in the case of the higher two, whereas the lesser charge allows for reasonable doubt or as Curlewis put it even 1% doubt is enough to convict.

Deise Vu

Cushie Butterfield wrote: »

No, I won't. You referred to 'all his defenders' implying that there's a significant amount of posters constantly defending him throughout the thread. I've read the entire thread. There aren't, but if you feel that strongly about it I'll gladly read all the posts if you care to provide links to them.



Ok, so that's one poster in one post defending him. Hardly amounts to 'all his defenders'.

Anyway, if that's what you think so be it, !'ve no intention of arguing about it any further.


I've no idea why the security guard would have lied, but that's irrelevant as his credibility is already shot by claiming that he made the fiirst phone call. One possibility is that perhaps he was concerned that he'd be accused of not doing more about the situation at the time & simply said that OP told him everything was ok. Who knows?


Thanks for spelling that out to me, I'm very slow on the uptake. Ok, we know from phone records that OP made the first call. I fail to see why he would waste time making a call out of the blue to security at 3am just to say ''Hi, sorry to trouble you, but I decided to ring you to let you everything is ok here, have a nice night'' if his aim was to buy time when, as you say he was busy covering up the fact that he had just shot his girlfriend dead.

I know you admit you are slow on the uptake but OP says he didn't remember what he said to security. He didn't contradict what the guard alleged or even say that he wouldn't have said that, just that he didn't remember. He didn't even venture a reason as to why he rang. Yet you think the guard's credibility is shot because he thought he had rung OP rather than the other way round?

sopretty

Are you guys still getting coverage of the trial? The Ukraine has taken over on sky...

sopretty

Cushie Butterfield wrote: »

No, you're right I should really have said beyond ALL reasonable doubt instead of NO doubt in the case of the higher two, whereas the lesser charge allows for reasonable doubt or as Curlewis put it even 1% doubt is enough to convict.

Enough to acquit you mean?

Whatsisname

sopretty wrote: »

Are you guys still getting coverage of the trial? The Ukraine has taken over on sky...

had to go onto bbc website and watch the live coverage, sky just replaying the same ukraine footage every 10 minutes

Cushie Butterfield

Deise Vu wrote: »

I know you admit you are slow on the uptake but OP says he didn't remember what he said to security. He didn't contradict what the guard alleged or even say that he wouldn't have said that, just that he didn't remember. He didn't even venture a reason as to why he rang. Yet you think the guard's credibility is shot because he thought he had rung OP rather than the other way round?

He did say that he wouldn't have said that. The guard's credibility is shot in the eyes of the court because he gave false information. This casts reasonable doubt as regards his credibility as a witness, whether you or I like it or not.

FunGoose

sopretty wrote: »

Are you guys still getting coverage of the trial? The Ukraine has taken over on sky...

I can't watch it live, I watch it in the evenings on mediaite.com.
Not sure if you are watching it on TV or online but mediaite.com show it live via UK Telegraph and also live via NBC.

When the live stream ends the full days session is available to view. Every day so far is available on the site.

Here's the link for live coverage today: (and yesterdays session)
http://www.mediaite.com/online/watch-live-here-oscar-pistorius-murder-trial-april-15th/

Take note: This footage is NOT censored and shows graphic images.

Cushie Butterfield

sopretty wrote: »

Enough to acquit you mean?

No, for the lesser charge of culpable homocide, even if M'Lady has a 1% doubt as regards OP's credibility or intent she can still convict.

This is why Curlewis thought that Roux would advise OP to change his plea to guilty for that charge, as he felt that Nel had done enough already to create that 1% doubt.

Whatsisname

I can't tell if Dixon is helping OP or the prosecution anymore?

sopretty

Do you know what has just crossed my mind, and apologies, it is a little gross!

Did they check the contents of the toilet bowl, to see whether Reeva had indeed gone to the toilet?

If there was nothing there apart from water, then she either hadn't gotten to pee yet, or else she had peed and flushed the toilet. Which you would presume OP would have heard.

ETA - if there was no pee in the bowl, no sound of flushing was heard, then you could presume she had gone in there for something other than doing her business if you get me?

FunGoose

sopretty wrote: »

Do you know what has just crossed my mind, and apologies, it is a little gross!

Did they check the contents of the toilet bowl, to see whether Reeva had indeed gone to the toilet?

If there was nothing there apart from water, then she either hadn't gotten to pee yet, or else she had peed and flushed the toilet. Which you would presume OP would have heard.

ETA - if there was no pee in the bowl, no sound of flushing was heard, then you could presume she had gone in there for something other than doing her business if you get me?

If I'm not mistaken Reevas bladder had been emptied and there was urine in the toilet, I presume the toilet hadn't been flushed. This suits OPs version (as I believe his version is moulded around such details).

sopretty

FunGoose wrote: »

If I'm not mistaken Reevas bladder had been emptied and there was urine in the toilet, I presume the toilet hadn't been flushed. This suits OPs version (as I believe his version is moulded around such details).

Hmmm, that does indeed suit his theory.

FunGoose

Cushie Butterfield wrote: »

No, for the lesser charge of culpable homocide, even if M'Lady has a 1% doubt as regards OP's credibility or intent she can still convict.

This is why Curlewis thought that Roux would advise OP to change his plea to guilty for that charge, as he felt that Nel had done enough already to create that 1% doubt.

My understanding is that the onus is on the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt their version of events. Disproving OP's version isn't the same thing.

Maybe this applies to the charges of Premeditated Murder and Murder but not Culpable Homicide? Is that when doubting OP's intent or credibility comes in to play?

I think there is enough reasonable doubt to acquit OP of the Murder charge. If this happens he will face the charge of Culpable Homicide. Is this when the defendants version can be doubted and he can be convicted partly based on that as opposed to doubting the prosecutions version and not being able to convict based on that?

Or did I misunderstand what you said and have now confused myself!?

Deise Vu

FunGoose wrote: »

If I'm not mistaken Reevas bladder had been emptied and there was urine in the toilet, I presume the toilet hadn't been flushed. This suits OPs version (as I believe his version is moulded around such details).

The defence is maintaining Reeva's bladder was empty :

From the Guardian:

Police Pistorius fired at an angle into the toilet door. Steenkamp's wounds suggested she was not on the toilet at the time but "hiding" in the right-hand side of the toilet room.

Defence Steenkamp's bladder was empty when she died, indicating she had indeed got up to use the toilet as usually at 3am you would not find an empty bladder. Autopsy showed no sign of defensive wounds or an assault.


There was no evidence of urine in the toilet bowl of which I am aware. Presence of urine in the toilet bowl would be of huge significance for the defence.

Edit: And of course absence of urine in the toilet bowl is of huge significance to the prosecution. If she 'went' then she must have flushed the toilet, something burglars are not known for, or else she was in the toilet when she didn't need to be there.

I presume all this will come out in the summing up.

Merkin

He *looks* absolutely ghastly at the moment. I'm sure the five days spent with Fel haven't helped....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/correspondents/andrewharding/

FunGoose

Deise Vu wrote: »

The defence is maintaining Reeva's bladder was empty :

From the Guardian:

Police Pistorius fired at an angle into the toilet door. Steenkamp's wounds suggested she was not on the toilet at the time but "hiding" in the right-hand side of the toilet room.

Defence Steenkamp's bladder was empty when she died, indicating she had indeed got up to use the toilet as usually at 3am you would not find an empty bladder. Autopsy showed no sign of defensive wounds or an assault.


There was no evidence of urine in the toilet bowl of which I am aware. Presence of urine in the toilet bowl would be of huge significance for the defence.

Edit: And of course absence of urine in the toilet bowl is of huge significance to the prosecution. If she 'went' then she must have flushed the toilet, something burglars are not known for, or else she was in the toilet when she didn't need to be there.

I presume all this will come out in the summing up.

I thought that the toilet bowl contained Reevas blood from the head wound and her urine. I must have got the urine part wrong -thanks for clarifying.

I'm not nearly as sharp as Mr. Nel!

Whatsisname

Richard Hinds ‏@rdhinds
Not sure how #Pistorius hasn't cracked under Nel's examination. I broke down and confessed 30 minutes ago.
#OscarTrial

:pac: