Oscar Pistorius Trial (Merged)
![[Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/2976fedcb4a65480db5079e00a2958e5.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 687 Forum Member
✭✭
AnnieBaker wrote: »The thing is, people on this forum came up with some extremely good points after analysing the case for hours. Nel never investigated these properly or ignored/missed them completely. His closing argument was weak. It was all a bit frustrating.
It was a real surprise just how poor Nel's summation was. He had put some terrific evidence on record, and it would have been the work of a week or so to put together a very detailed, fully referenced timeline that outlined exactly how OP murdered Reeva. And yet he didn't. Not even an attempt.
I can only assume that his team was inexplicably under-resourced or was taken onto other cases. Roux's team on the other hand had clearly worked full-time and with many hands on their summation, and it showed. Nel's closing was very weak, and the judge relied on Roux's almost from start to finish when writing her judgement.
Continuation of: Oscar Pistorius Trial (Merged)
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Well not if it placed the screaming after the shots for example. I think the time line was crucial in understanding the crime. If phone records could assist in placing when the "shots" and "screams" were heard then it would assist the judge in working out what these witnesses actually heard... OR... reaching a conclusion that the witness evidence whilst compelling simply couldn't be trusted due to time line conflicts for example.
Article here. Henke was at the bail hearings . So was it this that caused problems?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/oscar-pistorius/9909367/Oscar-Pistorius-distances-himself-from-fathers-comments-on-the-ANC-and-guns.html
that's not strictly true smacka is it?
Vermeulens said the bullet hole was there before the crack that ran through the bullet hole. Not that the door must have been struck by the bat after the shot. And before you ask, it's on youtube and I'm not looking for the link.
now do you insist that a crack must only be made by a bat striking the door?
or can it also be made when ripping out panels?
I'm not interested in the defence version, just your own belief about what can cause wood to crack.
Anybody know?
Not sure how to do it now.
It could be never ending
I think if the prosecution take it to appeal the defence also attend to contest it at the time. I assume whatever the higher court finally decide at appeal will be the the final definitive verdict.
http://www.channel5.com/shows/the-wright-stuff/episodes/episode-180-51
Nel made it clear (not very clear, but clear) that the state's case was that the second set of bangs were the fatal shots. He did not rule out that a bat was used to remove the panel that contained a hole, but in his version that removal was NOT one of the bangs heard by the numerous witnesses.
The state's version was that there were 4 initial bangs (unspecified - and heard only by one witness) followed by 4 fatal shots. Those later 4 shots were preceded by screams and heard by all of the witnesses (including Mrs Mike) and the neighbourhood dogs. Sure OP may have pushed out the damaged panel with a bat once Reeva was dead, but that noise was not loud enough to be heard.
Such was his case. But as I posted earlier, Nel's summation was so poor that it allowed the judge (and indeed yourself) to believe incorrectly that the 'bat' then 'shots' were common cause. They absolutely were not - otherwise why lead with the screams?
Remember - if the screams are Reeva's then the first bangs CANNOT be shots - sinking the defence case instantly. That was why Masipa's factual error (or Nel's error of omission in his summary) was so catastrophic.
I think you have to click 'Add reply' in this thread, go back to the old thread and click 'Quote' on the post you want to reply to.
When the Reply window opens, copy the post making sure you include the brackets, come back to this thread, and paste the copied post into the Add reply window that you previously opened. Then insert your message.
At least that's how you do it on another forum I use - I reckon the mechanics here will be the same
As regards your reply to my second point.
No, I'm not saying he should have pleaded guilty to murder.
I should think if he had admitted full responsability for Reeva's death, co-operated with the police and co-operated with any prosecutors etc, there may not have been a charge of premed at all. It could have been a charge of CH from the start and saved the Steenkamps a lot of added pain. That I think is the normal behaviour of a person who kills someone by accident.
Thank you so much.
I could try this, but I'm crap on a computer.
Really appreciate you help. ;-)
I agree with this. That's exactly what he should have done. I'm sure he was advised to as the CH verdict was inevitable.
Aww go on - I'm an old fart and I can do it!
BIB 1
He did have months to fine tune the bail. If its all made up its odd that he made such a mess of it. There were much better ways he could have helped himself. Apart from the prosecutions version the bail version is probably the only story that could fit the evidence. I couldn't think of a better fabrication and believe me I've tried. Yet he came up with this just after the shooting.
BIB 2
I assume this is directed to OP's cross examination performance. if so then I think Nel is to blame for clouding the waters on numerous occasions, forcing OP to speculate instead of sticking to what he actually said he remembered. You cannot blame OP for fabricating something to answer Nel when he either said he could not remember or could not have known.
1.
I suspect you do not have experience or reliable knowledge of how loved ones react in the face of this sort of dramatic sudden loss. It is not with cold hard logic, only in the best interests of the victim. Especially when the victim is so obviously badly injured I would not have been surprised if he had just sat down in that toilet with Reeva and had not done anything. Nel himself said he was interested in OP's actions after the shooting because he knew that people's actions would vary so widely.
2.
This might be easier if he was only being tried for accidentally shooting her but he was charged with murder!
Roux said he should only have been charged with CH. If he was he might have just pleaded guilty to that.
There is a lot I think wanting in the prosecution's presentation of their case.
now I'm lost
with reports of arguing and screaming how was a verdict of CH inevitable?
Hahahahahaha you have really made me laugh.
Oh dear, I might have a go just to see what happens. But I could destroy DS in the process. ;-)
No. It's a point about if it really was an accident. It's how a person would normally behave so to speak.
ahh, got it. thank you
Did anyone actually hear an argument? Ie two sides sniping at each other, arguing back and forth, the names Reeva and Oscar being used? Or phrases like "I didn't cheat on you" or "Come out of there" or "Reeva i'm warning you" etc? No. There just wasn't enough evidence of a row. And the screaming is again in question.. was it really a woman or was it a man. Not enough evidence.
Although I will concede one witness did seem 110% sure she was listening to a domestic row. But i'm not sure if she actually heard the dialog of the row or just shouting and assumed it was a row. I'd have thought she must have heard two voices to conclude that.
Sorry. If he had pleaded to CH at the outset that may have been accepted by everyone. I'm not saying it would have been correct, I still don't accept that it's correct.however several factors could be taken I to account, the court time and expense, the anguish of Reevas family. We only know about all the evidence in hindsight. We know that if he had pleaded to the gun charges much of the character evidence would not have seen the light of day. As it has happened he has been found guilty of CH and as things stand that's the verdict. I'm playing devils advocate here.
You're making the mistake of thinking that because Nel said the second sounds were the gunshots, he then must have meant that the first sounds were the bat sounds, even though he never once stated that. That isn't the case - Nel just failed to discuss the first sounds entirely, and therefore provided no explanation at all for the first sounds.
Nel arguing the shots were second doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion he thought the bat sounds were first. It just means those first sounds are unexplained.
It seems as if people find it so hard to believe that Nel could've left such a gaping hole at the heart of his case that they're filling in the blanks for him, and argue that the judge should have done the same thing. The truth is he just made a colossal error (or rather, he realized that he simply had no plausible answer as to what the first sounds were which would've fit his case).
I'm sure the prosecution could have subpoenaed him but as OP's father he could well have been classed as a potentially hostile witness.
1 ) More importantly though there was no formal authorisation from him to Oscar allowing him to hold the ammo for safekeeping so father as well as son would have been in deep trouble, I'm not sure even a father would have wanted that charge against him just to protect his son assuming that it wasn't his ammunition.
2) To agree that it was his (if it wasn't) under oath would be perjury.
3) If it was the father's ammunition the defence team could have called him but didn't, that actually speaks volumes.
On this charge there was nothing further the prosecution needed to have done. The ammunition was in his safe, he didn't have a licence for it. Should have been a clear cut Guilty verdict.