Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 5

[Roussette]

Time for a new thread - Part 4 nearly full

'They said they didn't want Reeva to be known as just Oscar's girlfriend, they wanted her to have her own identity'

Was this after her death? I think it makes a difference if it was as there was a lot of talk about how RS had been reduced to 'girlfriend of' rather than being reported as a woman who had a career, education and identity of her own other than that of someone's girlfriend.

PD, I also came on here to discuss the trial never having seen one before. It has been fascinating. Any of us could be jurors one day ( I already have been) so maybe we should all know more about how trials really work, rather than what we see on TV.

I mean obviously I saw the trial in which I was a juror but that was not a major murder trial.

Hillwalker. I was a juror on a murder trial. It was one of the most fascinating experiences I have had. And it wasn't a unanimous verdict we gave, which shows how different people interpret the same evidence.

But I like the SA way better, I would have more confidence in the judge and her two assessors getting it right.

YNK here you go

at about 17.45 the guy says "we didn't want her to be labelled as Oscar's girlfriend".

It's quite an interesting piece altogether. I' afraid there's an ad at the beginning that you have to sit through.

No Stack it was before.
Since her death both sets of management have gone very quiet. Who cam blame them for wanting to avoid any associations their decisions would have to a murder trial.
at spoonfeeding me btw! There are some great double standards around on here!

(it could have been a black teenager in that toilet who had climbed the ladder as a dare)

To be frank I can't imagine any teenager would do that. Everyone in SA knows that middle class and wealthy people are armed and that they might get shot if they did that. That's why burglars often seem to be armed to the teeth.

Off topic really but did anyone watch Ch 4 "unreported world" last night about car jackings in Pretoria?

People are leaping to a judgement on here and I am just as guilty of that, I have speculated and drawn assumptions from evidence which others have quite rightly challenged, politely and in a measured tone and made me re-think. This is why these threads have been such a good place to debate intelligently and I have never felt "got at" by posters who have a different opinion to mine, I would hate it to all become a "bun-fight", I don't like the tone of "I AM RIGHT", the Defence has still to conclude their case after all.

If we are to believe absolutely the "ear" evidence of the Prosecution witnesses, are we then not duty bound to also believe the "ear" evidence of Defence witnesses?

The absolute truth will no doubt lie somewhere between the Defence and the Prosecution version of events, and one person's reasonable doubt is not the same as someone else's.

I am swinging over to this idea of Judge only trials as I think that the Judge will view the evidence objectively and dispassionately and base the decision purely on evidence provided, whereas a Jury will always add an emotional and personal dimension to what they see and hear, but the Jury trial has been such a long-standing element of the justice system and was introduced to ensure fair trials so I am terribly conflicted!

Louise no didn't watch that, was it good should I try and get it on catch-up? Do you think that programme has been aired to coincide with the Sheeran Dewani trial? (sorry if I have spelt his name wrong).

I think Judge Masipa will view the evidence objectively, but I suppose the concern with switching to judge only trials is that you might end up with a biased or corrupt iudge. How do you guard against that?

Speed that is exactly part of my conflict, jury trials were introduced because of corrupt and biased judges. I guess no system will ever be 100% perfect as it they are all run by humans and humans are fallible.

I think some Countries have Inquisitorial systems instead of Adversarial systems and that the determination is on "the balance of probability" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt". There was some discussion recently of moving to a less adversarial system in the UK particularly in cases of rape and sexual assault. I find the legal world fascinating, so much rests upon it being right.

Presumably that's why they have two assessors, so it's almost like a mini, very learned, jury.

I can't remember the dynamics of judgement there though, in terms of majority/casting judgement

Going to have to chuck myself off mumsnet and the kids off minecraft soon, but if I were forced to say which side I vere more towards I think it would have to be murder, just because although i swing from one to the other, I probably spend more of the time thinking on purpose than accident.

My sticking point has never been the one others have of "How did he not realise she wasn't in the bedroom?" I can imagine/get past that, my sticking point has always been what the neighbours think they heard, even though people have explained why they might be mistaken.

I'd prefer "beyond reasonable doubt" than "balance of probabilities" if I were being tried and I was innocent.

AmI I think someone up thread said they all have to agree, I initially thought it was purely the decision of the Judge and the assessors were there more to record the evidence and be a sort of checking facility for the Judge when reviewing the evidence.

Thanks Louise.

I think the phone times are undisputable, emotions, and 3 pathologists have agreed on their evidence.
I agree we should not 'blindly' accept the ear witness testimony, but the fact that 5 witnesses heard the 3.17 bangs is quite persuasive. The cross examination failed IMO to paint a real alternative.
I am very keen to hear the defense case witnesses. This is the only reason I hesitate to think a murder verdict will be the outcome.

Hope the Shrien Dewani trial isn't going to be televised. One per year is more than enough for me. Think I will studiously avoid it if it is!

Agreed YNK, the phone times are crucial as they are the only definite timings.

Also, the pathlogists evidence has not been fundamentally disputed, although the Defence's first witness did not agree on some of the State's findings, but Nel corrected that.

The Defence "ear" witnesses did differ in what they heard, one said he heard 6 gun shots (if I recall correctly), and of course this then leads into the cricket bat/gun shots argument. "Ear" witnesses for the Defence may contradict those used by the Prosecution, I believe Roux is calling neighbours who lived closer to OP than the Defence witnesses.

Personally, at the moment I think OP is guilty of murder, at the start I thought CH, tragic accident, but I am mindful of the fact that the trial has a long way to go and I need to hear the rest of the Defence evidence.

Speed I'll never get anything done if they televise the Shrien Dewani trial, so like you I hope they don't!

Yes, will be interesting to see what the defence ear witnesses have to say.

emotions "AmI I think someone up thread said they all have to agree, I initially thought it was purely the decision of the Judge and the assessors were there more to record the evidence and be a sort of checking facility for the Judge when reviewing the evidence."

I read that the two assessors can overrule Judge Masipa.

On the Dewani trial - poor Anni's family have waited four long years for the start of their justice . At least Reeva's family didn't have such a long wait, gruelling though this all is for them.

Roussette thanks.

Both the pathologists for OP did not have to appear in court because they totally concur with the state pathologists report.
The main witness for the defence has shown himself to have lied repeatedly. He also has the most at stake.
I think that most of Dixons evidence will be set aside, where he is not qualified to make a finding. This is likely to include the bangs, since he is not a "sound witness" .

Yes Roussette another dreadful and tragic case, I hope justice is found for her and her family.