Author Topic: Oscar Pistorius trial commences in Pretoria, South Africa. Includes Court video.  (Read 234014 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Tim Invictus

I am struck by what a classy and intelligent woman Reeva seems to have been. I too think she wasn't going to put up with OP's childish tantrums and moods and standing up to him and/or trying to leave him is what got her murdered in a blind fury by OP.

I believe OP is actually heartbroken and mortified by his own actions but that's no excuse. His sentence should be measured in decades!


Offline a.baker

The texts prove OP is a jealous,possessive control freak with a nasty temper. Poor Reeva,how terrified she must have been that night. Wonder if her ex,Warren Lahoud will be called to testify? He stated last year that during the five years he was dating Reeva that he doesn't ever remember her locking the bathroom door.

Offline John

Excellent posts guys and gals   8@??)(

Pistorius is guilty as hell, all they need decide is an appropriate sentence.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Anna

1.
2. having problems right now
3.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2014, 01:54:06 PM by Anna »
“You should not honour men more than truth.”
― Plato

Offline Amazon

Shame about today being the conclusion of the prosecution's case and it having to go out on Col cricket bat, as (with respect) he isn't the greatest/ most convincing orator is he?

I have no experience of South African criminal law but I am rather glad that this is going to be a judges decision. For anyone who is interested, this is quite a good short article http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/oscar-pistorius-criminal-law-101. I think that firing 4 black talons at close range through a door into a tiny room where any occupant could never avoid the bullets, shows that OP foresaw that any occupant would likely be killed, irrespective of who they were. Looking at his 'intruder' defence, I believe his actions unreasonable and therefore unlawful, given that his life wasn't immediately in danger.  He could have grabbed his girlfriend (if he did believe she was still in bed) and got out of the house setting off the panic alarm, firing his gun back only if the intruder pursued them.

So, I personally think that most of the defence evidence we are going to be subjected to (god, can you imagine it?!) is going to be irrelevant.

Offline Tim Invictus

The prosecution went out with a whimper and overall was a dull damp squib! Not impressed

Offline a.baker

Yes,the end of the prosecutions case was an anti climax wasn't it. But they have managed to show OP for what he is,have shown that he lied when he said they went to bed at 10pm and have neighbours supporting their case that there was an argument and also that Reeva did scream after the first shot. Hopefully when OP takes the stand Nel will tie him in knots!

Offline Tim Invictus

Yes,the end of the prosecutions case was an anti climax wasn't it. But they have managed to show OP for what he is,have shown that he lied when he said they went to bed at 10pm and have neighbours supporting their case that there was an argument and also that Reeva did scream after the first shot. Hopefully when OP takes the stand Nel will tie him in knots!

Do you think Nel is keeping his powder dry then? I fear he is ineffectual weak and that OP will handle his cross examination with ease and a 1000 fawning m' lady's! I hope I am wrong!

Offline Amazon

Nel has had some very high profile cases and has not shirked from prosecuting really difficult cases, like the corrupt police chief Selebi, where I am sure he had to contend with corrupt witnesses and all sorts of intimidation etc. He's also beat Roux several times before. Don't write him off, as he's an accomplished prosecutor. He's been introducing much evidence quietly and without the drama of Roux in this case, for no other reason than to give him ammunition to fire at OP in cross examination. I wouldn't underestimate the judge either. She has to deliver a lengthy judgement where she must explain the weight given to each witness testimony and other evidence and why, which is why she writes so much! She has previously shown little mercy to violent men. The fact that the Judge could retire in a good deal of luxury with her arthiritis at her age means she sits on that bench for the right reasons, and the fact that she has much younger assessors to help her means none of the 'modern/techie' evidence will be lost on her. Also Nel sits there quietly with his female assistant during proceedings whereas conversely, Roux and Oldwadge have sat there glaring at each witness, often smirking with eachother as if nothing can touch them.... well, I guess Roux at $6000 a day doesn't give a sh&t!! (Oldwadge is an ex police officer pre 2000, so we all know what he is likely to have got up to in his previous career and he's likely tarring currently serving police officers with his own brush!).

I'll get off me soap box now! Interesting case though, although it breaks my heart to see RS's mother have to sit through the trial, but she has done so with such dignity.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2014, 11:19:07 PM by Amazon »

Offline Tim Invictus

Excellent analysis as always Amazon.

I hope you're right about Nel and the judge and their prior experience you quoted does bode well for justice for Reeva! I would be much more confident in the judge handing out the right sentence to OP if I actually heard her finish a sentence of her own! She seems to me to have no command of her courtroom and very little of the English language.

I hope I will be retracting all my comments when she gives a concise and devastating reasoning for sentencing Oscar to life for premeditated murder. 

Offline Sherlock Holmes

I think Reeva was about to leave him - and that is what got her killed. So with this I answer your question in two ways:
1. Reeva was probably not a woman who would stay with an abuser, remember, their relationship was quite new, and he wouldn´t have shown her the abusive side of himself initially.
2. I think that many women stay with men like that out of fear - some get killed when they want to leave, so they have good reason to be afraid!
Also want to add that many of the women who stay in abusive relationships were abused as children. This is the norm for them, it is very tragic, but all studies show this.

Pistorius is a textbook abuser, and I was very upset to see Roux and Oldwage both getting away with making such a big song and dance about the fact that 90% of the messages between the couple were 'loving and normal'.

The whole point about an abuser is that he will seem perfectly normal - and probably also very charming - at least 90% of the time. This is another reason why women stick with such men. They convince themselves that because he is so great most of the time, he must be a good person with only a few minor flaws to tolerate.

But in reality,  this 90% appearance of normality - which also serves to shield the abuse from the outside world, as people find it hard to believe that a charming person could be making his loved one suffer, therefore making the one who is being abused fearful of reporting it lest she not be believed thus perpetuating the situation - is an essential part of the sickness.

This topic is a relatively new area of research, but these, according to most analyses of such behaviour, are the facts, and it is sad and somewhat concerning that Roux and his co-advocate were not brought up on the way they handled the situation.

If Roux had begun talking nonsense about a forensic matter, such as ballistics or DNA, he would be sure to have been tackled vigorously and corrected.


Offline Sherlock Holmes

Shame about today being the conclusion of the prosecution's case and it having to go out on Col cricket bat, as (with respect) he isn't the greatest/ most convincing orator is he?

I have no experience of South African criminal law but I am rather glad that this is going to be a judges decision. For anyone who is interested, this is quite a good short article http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/oscar-pistorius-criminal-law-101. I think that firing 4 black talons at close range through a door into a tiny room where any occupant could never avoid the bullets, shows that OP foresaw that any occupant would likely be killed, irrespective of who they were. Looking at his 'intruder' defence, I believe his actions unreasonable and therefore unlawful, given that his life wasn't immediately in danger.  He could have grabbed his girlfriend (if he did believe she was still in bed) and got out of the house setting off the panic alarm, firing his gun back only if the intruder pursued them.

So, I personally think that most of the defence evidence we are going to be subjected to (god, can you imagine it?!) is going to be irrelevant.

Thanks for that good link, Amazon. Let's hope that analysis bears out in reality. I am a bit nervous, like Tim, about the way things will be handled. A person can have a watertight case in theory but things can still go very wrong at court.

Best witness was definitely the ballistics expert, Colonel Mangena. Very eloquent and clear, especially considering English was probably his third language. He also stood his ground against Roux's shenanigans very strongly, whilst still maintaining a respect for the court. All whilst wearing a very nice suit  8((()*/


Offline Tim Invictus

Thanks for that good link, Amazon. Let's hope that analysis bears out in reality. I am a bit nervous, like Tim, about the way things will be handled. A person can have a watertight case in theory but things can still go very wrong at court.

Best witness was definitely the ballistics expert, Colonel Mangena. Very eloquent and clear, especially considering English was probably his third language. He also stood his ground against Roux's shenanigans very strongly, whilst still maintaining a respect for the court. All whilst wearing a very nice suit  8((()*/

At least there is no jury in this case. I could easily imagine a female juror allowing her liking for Oscar to cloud her judgement. Or a male juror being a sports fan and admiring Oscar. Or either sex seeking their 15 minutes of fame by being the stand out juror who saved OP from a life in prison.

Bamber so nearly got away with murder at trial and the whole world knows O J Simpson is guilty. Although I am not impressed by the OP trial judge so far, I am still glad a single trained, legal professional is judging the case. I cannot see how she can possibly ignore the very credible witnesses who all heard female screaming before the shots. If there was such screaming before the shots then surely OP is guilty of premeditated murder.

Offline John

You can be sure she isn't judging this case alone Tim.  There will be other judges counselling her.  You probably agree that the SA justice system really has to get this one right and the next one too which will be Dewani.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2014, 05:12:49 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Tim Invictus

Oscar P. is expected to take the dock tomorrow morning (fri. 28th). I am looking foward to his cross; I hope Nel is up to the task. I would start with the firearms charges OP has also pleaded not guilty to; expose OP as an obvious liar about his reckless use of a handgun, twice. Then hit him hard about the murder of Reeva.

It should be fascinating.