Yes, but are these cases all jury trials? I have had to keep reminding myself that the absence of a jury here makes a big difference to the way the case is presented. I have no doubt that if Gerrie Nel had been arguing his case in front of a jury he would have presented a very convincing scenario. But he doesn't need to do this before a learned and experienced judge with two able and alert assessors.
Many were jury trials, but I imagine the judge is human like the rest of us, and seeing a scenario laid out logically is helpful.
Two persons are up later than reported, most likely ate later than reported, there is arguing, there is screaming, the toilet light on, there is a history of being fearful, of reckless driving when angry, of drinking, there is the cell phone outside the toilet, there is someone who admits to saying get the f out (sounds like what you would say to your lover during an argument), the history of someone trained in gun safety, a shooter who was NOT psychotic the night of the murder and did NOT have PTSD, no ladder under the window, no dogs barking, what is a standard abusive scenario (woman flees to bathroom and locks herself in). This is all common sense. It isn't even heavy duty forensic science. It is ordinary. It just happened to not ordinary people.
I definitely wasn't expecting such a terse headers.
I was disappointed by their lack of context and elaboration.
But then I started thinking. And realized what the man was up to! Kind of.
Most of the facts are common cause.
I think most of Nel's stuff there is just prompts to consider things a bit more deeply - you can't reflexively say yes / no. If after each prompt is researched and leads to agreement almost every time then they should feel able to convict with a clear conscience.
Because they have been forced to think.
How else to make ones peace with the outcome of such an ambiguous, tapestried kind of set of claims and evidences?
You don't want to get lost going down a rabbit hole to a false exoneration.
But a false conviction would be even worse.
So they need to be utterly sure.
I really don't think Nel can say any amounts of pages of material to make that so. The panel needs to reflect on what it all means.
The only thing he can do is prompt them to consider the trial in totality - how it evolved - OP's testimony - the tapestries of evidence and claims - and that's it really.
Ultimate question: Is he truthful or not?
It's like the North and South pole if you go the wrong way.
More extreme than normal, because he either shot in anger or error the person he cared about and then either lied in contempt of her family, or was vilified by all and sundry. It's so extreme. I do find myself thinking there should be "Three Oscars or more" on the table, really.
Anyway, it's more about thinking, than outright convincing. No judge would ever take a single sentence assertion and say "well yes that's right" or "no I really don't agree with that". She'll want to really give it some thought each time. Same for assessors. Each and every head needs to be examined from both sides.
It's for that reason then that some of the prosecution headers are actually questions.
Why did he shoot?
That's a profoundly important question. If they have to come up with some answer, then they are going to really need to be thinking A LOT.
It's that really: It's saying - here is my perspective (the SOUTH POLE) - if you think it all makes sense, then don't ever lose any sleep about the decision you made in putting this man in prison.
Because it's a tough call kind of case and nothing less than personal certainty will do it.
So I have to say I like that approach - and in fact find it ethical if that's the game.
Nel's set out his case, the Judge and Assessors have the Court Record to refer to areas that Roux has contested, and look at witness testimonies and they'll see that Nel's case holds.
Shots occurred in the region of 3:02
Lights were on 3:02
Roux invented shots at 3:12
female and male screams were heard between 3:02 and in the region of 3:17
Johnson called to report screaming
Stipps called to report early shots and screaming
Mike called to report a shot
Second shots occurred in the region of 3:17 heard by Johnson and Stipps
you do contradict yourself moniker
However, Nel's set out his case, the Judge and Assessors have the Court Record to referr to areas that Roux has contested, and they'll see that Nel's case holds.
Because I previously said the state headers lacked context and elaboration in various ways and wished they had filled in more aspects?
Yes I did have that impression for sure.
But then interesting thoughts kept being triggered by the remarks. ;-)
And then I started to figure they were "working" on some level.
And then I started to try and figure out of there was actually a reason behind them being written in that style.
Perhaps because it means each person has to think. Fairly deeply in many cases!
A lot of the statements are quite abstract.
Don't get bamboozled and not see wood for the trees.
why sorry ?
and you can't be 'funny' remember,
sand. :D Nel will check Roux's timeline - and present to Court where there are errors,he said as much, he only confirmed to the Court what were common cause and it was only Phone Data.
It is the description of the noises given by the Stipps. But no-one else heard them.
The fact that they woke no-one (AS was already awake and JS heard all 3 so was also not asleep) suggests it wasn't as loud as the later shots/noises. So the court may decide that it could have been the cricket bat, they may not.
Many were jury trials, but I imagine the judge is human like the rest of us, and seeing a scenario laid out logically is helpful.
Two persons are up later than reported, most likely ate later than reported, there is arguing, there is screaming, the toilet light on, there is a history of being fearful, of reckless driving when angry, of drinking, there is the cell phone outside the toilet, there is someone who admits to saying get the f out (sounds like what you would say to your lover during an argument), the history of someone trained in gun safety, a shooter who was NOT psychotic the night of the murder and did NOT have PTSD, no ladder under the window, no dogs barking, what is a standard abusive scenario (woman flees to bathroom and locks herself in). This is all common sense. It isn't even heavy duty forensic science. It is ordinary. It just happened to not ordinary people.
Completely agree, if this case didn't involve a famous accused no one would be discussing a man screaming like a woman, nonsensical stories about moving fans or asserting the the man accused of murder was not negligent. As always money talks.
Completely agree, if this case didn't involve a famous accused no one would be discussing a man screaming like a woman, nonsensical stories about moving fans or asserting the the man accused of murder was not negligent. As always money talks.
Doesn't it just - people are paid to twist themselves in knots, and others do it voluntarily when it's someone they're invested in.
Doesn't it just - people are paid to twist themselves in knots, and others do it voluntarily when it's someone they're invested in.
You have much to say about OP, his life and times, his family and his friends, his lawyers and his doctors. You do seem rather emotionally invested in him.
You have much to say about OP, his life and times, his family and his friends, his lawyers and his doctors. You do seem rather emotionally invested in him.
I like that you're so interested in MY take on it all, though. It's fascinating:D
You have much to say about OP, his life and times, his family and his friends, his lawyers and his doctors. You do seem rather emotionally invested in him.
your reply to Rhum - No emotion going to OP other than anger having watched him lie through his teeth - watching a trial where it's obvious that the guy's as gulity as OJ was,,,,,,,,,yeah would be good if justice was actually served this time, and the murderer was actually punished- normal thing to want to see happen - some of us don't want to see a guilty man swan off grinning that he's got away with it, while the victim's family mourn the loss of their daughter at her grave who was shot and killed at hands of the murdering sh*t ! OP's testimony alone showed he's a liar.
Do you want to declare some kindredship with me dear BS?
No, I don't give a stuff about him. He's the subject of a most interesting trial, thats all.
He's not as bad as some scrotey people, but worse than some others. Very very average. If he got the book thrown at him I wouldn't care, but I'd be fascinated at the judgment. If he got off lightly the reasons behind the judgment would be equally fascinating.
But I'm just an average bod who has never joined a pitchforking forum, so i guess I break your 'rules'.
The court isn't in the business of speculating and imagining or creating cases for the prosecution or the defence. If only one of the parties offers inferences to be drawn about the facts - and the phone calls are one of the few facts - then theres nothing else it can consider. The OP's version of events at least exists and would fit the facts. The state's case is basically, 'bwooo hoo, we don't like him, and we especially don't like that his version makes more sense than ours'.
.
Actually the state based their version on the allegation by Hilton Botha during the Bail Hearing that because Oscar was wearing his Prosthetics when he shot , this would prove he was guilty of Pre. Med. Murder. When asked what ballistics they had done to support this, they hadn't done any. In fact these are the material issues that the State has changed it's approach and changed its story on in trial. It should have been about CH all along IMO
.
It's so disappointing just hoping against hope that justice prevails this time...
I really do too.
But I've lived through OJ having watched the whole damned trial, and I know, that even if he gets some lower sentence, he is guilty, and people really do know he's guilty, just like OJ.
The dust settles, ordinary sense kicks in, and no one will want to know him. And he'll betray himself along the line.
Because he is a dangerous, untrustworthy man, and he's shown how evasive, how truly unreliable and frighteningly amoral he is.
your reply to Rhum - No emotion going to OP other than anger having watched him lie through his teeth - watching a trial where it's obvious that the guy's as gulity as OJ was,,,,,,,,,yeah would be good if justice was actually served this time, and the murderer was actually punished- normal thing to want to see happen - some of us don't want to see a guilty man swan off grinning that he's got away with it, while the victim's family mourn the loss of their daughter at her grave who was shot and killed at hands of the murdering sh*t ! OP's testimony alone showed he's a liar.
Although it wouldn't diminish their sense of loss, do you think the Steenkamps would find some solace if the Judge ruled that their daughter's killing was a case of mistaken identity rather than at the hands of the boyfriend for whom she had declared her love?
your reply to Rhum - No emotion going to OP other than anger having watched him lie through his teeth - watching a trial where it's obvious that the guy's as gulity as OJ was,,,,,,,,,yeah would be good if justice was actually served this time, and the murderer was actually punished- normal thing to want to see happen - some of us don't want to see a guilty man swan off grinning that he's got away with it, while the victim's family mourn the loss of their daughter at her grave who was shot and killed at hands of the murdering sh*t ! OP's testimony alone showed he's a liar.
No offence, but wouldn't all that righteous passion be more appropriately directed at the atrocities in Iraq and Israel. Or even at the child molesters, rapists and murderers being dealt with right now in your home town?
Its a bit strange to get so invested in one killing - which might have been non-malicious, of a female in another country, whom you never knew, and whom you might have maligned as 'part of Oscar Pistorius's fast and privileged useless life' if she'd have lived longer and you'd ever come to hear about her via the tabloids?
Comments
Many were jury trials, but I imagine the judge is human like the rest of us, and seeing a scenario laid out logically is helpful.
Two persons are up later than reported, most likely ate later than reported, there is arguing, there is screaming, the toilet light on, there is a history of being fearful, of reckless driving when angry, of drinking, there is the cell phone outside the toilet, there is someone who admits to saying get the f out (sounds like what you would say to your lover during an argument), the history of someone trained in gun safety, a shooter who was NOT psychotic the night of the murder and did NOT have PTSD, no ladder under the window, no dogs barking, what is a standard abusive scenario (woman flees to bathroom and locks herself in). This is all common sense. It isn't even heavy duty forensic science. It is ordinary. It just happened to not ordinary people.
They just used the witnesses - who were women, wailing embarrassingly, but then saying, 'but like a man'.
Comedy central.
How is it fact that two sets of shots occurred?
There are some horribly cursed in that department. They are difficult, but we must be mindful of their lack in that department.
And hope they don't get all stabby because of it:o If crossed like.:o
Because I previously said the state headers lacked context and elaboration in various ways and wished they had filled in more aspects?
Yes I did have that impression for sure.
But then interesting thoughts kept being triggered by the remarks. ;-)
And then I started to figure they were "working" on some level.
And then I started to try and figure out of there was actually a reason behind them being written in that style.
Perhaps because it means each person has to think. Fairly deeply in many cases!
A lot of the statements are quite abstract.
Don't get bamboozled and not see wood for the trees.
I think that's the point really.
and you can't be 'funny' remember,
sand.
they should just have shown this :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnHzSdt2gF0
see OP does NOT scream like a woman
It is the description of the noises given by the Stipps. But no-one else heard them.
The fact that they woke no-one (AS was already awake and JS heard all 3 so was also not asleep) suggests it wasn't as loud as the later shots/noises. So the court may decide that it could have been the cricket bat, they may not.
Completely agree, if this case didn't involve a famous accused no one would be discussing a man screaming like a woman, nonsensical stories about moving fans or asserting the the man accused of murder was not negligent. As always money talks.
Doesn't it just - people are paid to twist themselves in knots, and others do it voluntarily when it's someone they're invested in.
Haha Sandy every time I see you post one of those links I have to watch again!
It's so disappointing
You have much to say about OP, his life and times, his family and his friends, his lawyers and his doctors. You do seem rather emotionally invested in him.
Definitely are
I like that you're so interested in MY take on it all, though. It's fascinating:D
No, I don't give a stuff about him. He's the subject of a most interesting trial, thats all.
He's not as bad as some scrotey people, but worse than some others. Very very average. If he got the book thrown at him I wouldn't care, but I'd be fascinated at the judgment. If he got off lightly the reasons behind the judgment would be equally fascinating.
But I'm just an average bod who has never joined a pitchforking forum, so i guess I break your 'rules'.
Actually the state based their version on the allegation by Hilton Botha during the Bail Hearing that because Oscar was wearing his Prosthetics when he shot , this would prove he was guilty of Pre. Med. Murder. When asked what ballistics they had done to support this, they hadn't done any. In fact these are the material issues that the State has changed it's approach and changed its story on in trial. It should have been about CH all along IMO
.
I really do too.
But I've lived through OJ having watched the whole damned trial, and I know, that even if he gets some lower sentence, he is guilty, and people really do know he's guilty, just like OJ.
The dust settles, ordinary sense kicks in, and no one will want to know him. And he'll betray himself along the line.
Because he is a dangerous, untrustworthy man, and he's shown how evasive, how truly unreliable and frighteningly amoral he is.
Most people sense that, and it scares them.
Although it wouldn't diminish their sense of loss, do you think the Steenkamps would find some solace if the Judge ruled that their daughter's killing was a case of mistaken identity rather than at the hands of the boyfriend for whom she had declared her love?
No offence, but wouldn't all that righteous passion be more appropriately directed at the atrocities in Iraq and Israel. Or even at the child molesters, rapists and murderers being dealt with right now in your home town?
Its a bit strange to get so invested in one killing - which might have been non-malicious, of a female in another country, whom you never knew, and whom you might have maligned as 'part of Oscar Pistorius's fast and privileged useless life' if she'd have lived longer and you'd ever come to hear about her via the tabloids?