Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 7

[Roussette]

here is Part 6. Nearly time for a new one.

Oh god, don't get me wrong, I don't believe a word OP says, I think he's guilty as hell, it just frustrated me that it seems the SA police force and forensics seemed not to do their job very well, there are clearly expert forensics there so That house should have had a fine nit comb taken to it.

I also find it hard to grasp if found guilty whilst appealing he can stay on bail?

It just sounds like a shambles.

I don't know how Appeals work but maybe the shambles WRT Police, experts etc would be reason enough.

There'd be an awful lot more people in jail around the world if there was a limit on what fear makes you do.

I think you could be right Roussette

I don't think the police deliberately tampered with evidence, but I do feel that their lack of attention could see a technicality option for appeal.

I am not convinced he knew it was Reeva, I don't feel the state have proved this beyond reasonable doubt.

I think they have enough, mainly through OP's evidence, that he shot with intent.

I don't know anything about SA law, but with the shambles with the police ect, surely that should be dealt with within the trial?

I'm delurking from following all 7 threads (which I have found overall to be very interesting and measured).
I live in SA and agree with what Ronald says above re a typical South African response to a potential intruder, ie. get your loved ones to a safe spot, hit the panic alarm and retreat (with your gun if you own one).

The fact he did nothing of the sort and advanced towards this "perceived danger" makes me (and almost every South Aftican I've spoken with about the case) think his story is fabricated. I really wanted to believe him however watching the case and reading up on it has changed my mind. I hope he is punished appropriately.

I also agree that the people around him are partly responsible. I can't help but think that Reeva would be alive today if his previous reckless gun use had been reported, particularly the Tasha's incident.

With regards to bail and bail conditions, I read a really good article recently discussing bail in SA. It stated that with SA's past history of detaining people without trial, there is a strong feeling that bail should not be punitive, as people should not be punished prior to being convicted.

I can't find that article now, but this describes the theory of this, but how in practice, people are still being detained because they can't afford bail.

mg.co.za/article/2013-12-05-bail-system-penalises-the-poor

Key part is this:

^Constitutionally, when someone is arrested for having allegedly committed a crime, he or she has the right to be released on bail provided certain requirements are fulfilled.

Legally, bail is awarded or denied on the strength of a two-stage inquiry. The first is to establish whether the accused qualifies for bail on the basis of whether they are a possible flight risk, whether they are a danger to society or whether they will tamper with the investigation. If it can be shown that the accused satisfies these criteria, then bail must be awarded.

The second stage is for the judge or magistrate to consider the amount of bail the accused can afford to pay. But if the accused cannot afford the bail sum proposed by the presiding officer, by law nonfinancial options should be considered.^

Interesting posts all, thank you. I too have taken a step back and completely understand the sense of frustration that everything is so unclear.

Hello Pyjama and thank you for that perspective. I think it's really useful to hear from fellow South Africans, with particular regard to the intrinsic sense of fear and potential reaction to an intruder. I think I share your sentiment regarding guilt although it is very uncomfortable on this fence.

OneStep - good post, although I think we should perhaps wait until we've seen a major trial televised here in the UK before we deign to say that our legal system is any more thorough. I've been in court a bit recently (regarding divorce/children) and have to say my impression so far is that it's all rather shambolic!

OneStep I've just reread your post and wanted to say that this:

"After this trial we can never be absolutely sure that he killed deliberately, there has been nothing to prove that, it doesnt matter what we think as indiviuals there needs to be proof and even I, who thinks he may be guilty, would not be happy to see someone sentenced for 25 years with no or very little evidence (I believe this happens in the US, which I totally disagree with) Its the police and forensics job to find that proof."

... is actually pretty identical to how I feel about it I think. I really do not envy the judge's position.

I agree with you whole heatedly Ronald, you have expressed my own feelings very well.
Thank you for your perspective Pajama I have found myself looking at a piece of evidence a number if times and firming an opinion and then having to stop myself and ask if I am forming this opinion based on life in the UK or if I am properly taking into account both the cultural differences and the different realities of life in SA. Always very happy to hear the opinions if those that can look at things while understanding those things.

Welcome Pyjama and thanks for the interesting post, it is good to hear from those in SA and what 'public opinion' actually is. I always seek SA newspaper articles if I can find them.

Anya I agree but I have no idea how the Appeals system works and don't know if this is something that can be brought up at a later date.

As much as OP shouldn't be sentenced for 25 years with little evidence, he also shouldn't walk free from Court when - I think - there was an intent to kill a human being (whoever he thought that person was). What punishment is suitable, I really don't know.

Pyjamas and Ronald can I ask who the panic button is wired up to? Is it police or a security firm?

Why has this not been talked about in court, aghhh?!

voice your probably right, I may be too harsh on their justice system but I've been left feeling quite frustrated, it just feels so much was missed.
I have an issue as I believe in fairness for everyone and do think proof needs to be made on something, if he gets sentenced to 25 years then it needs to be rather concrete, but on the flip side it would be awful to be found not guilty due to lack of evidence.

I'm a Virgo - perfectionist

On the appeal, my feeling (as a layperson) is that the prosecution are being quite careful to address some of these issues within this court session for that very reason. So it has already been registered that Pistorius has taken issue with the police photographers, and the situation surrounding that has been entered into this court for consideration.

So if he tries to appeal on grounds that the photographs show changes at the crime scene, he might struggle to appeal on that grounds alone.

From what I know of the UK appeals system (and again, I'm not in law) any appeal has to be based on new evidence. If the evidence has been weighed up in the original case, then it's not new.

I could be entirely wrong here though.

I honestly don't know if I'm going to listen today. If I do, it'll only be with half an ear.

On the other hand, I've finally finished transcribing the first day. It didn't take that long, given how many breaks I've needed to take, so that's good. One thing that struck me about Burger is that she was unflappable. Roux tried extremely hard to shake her, to make her say something inadmissible. For example, he told her 5 or 6 times that she only testified because she thought Pistorius lied at bail. 5 or 6 times she answered that she was not accusing him of lying. She knows what she heard, and has no explanation as to why Pistorius didn't hear the same thing. She actually said at one point that she was only there to say what she heard, not to pass judgement on him, and that she was only able to give one piece of the puzzle, and that the court must decide after they've heard everyone. I would not have been so calm.

Again, when he asked over and over why she didn't hear the cricket bat (assuming that she did hear the gunshots) she just repeated over and over that she couldn't say why; she could only say that she didn't.

When she was pushed to say that perhaps she only heard one person, and that Pistorius' voice was pitching up and down, she was certain that she heard two, because although she didn't hear them simultaneously, she heard two completely different 'help!' sounds. One from a woman, then a man saying it 3 times.

Roux tried very hard with all the same methods as Nel - jumping about, comparing testimony (and it was interesting to me that after he'd been told he hadn't read Dr Stipp's testimony properly, he didn't then read it again in Afrikaans - he just let the matter drop). At the end he suddenly asked when she'd invited a contractor to her house, and I was puzzled as she'd never mentioned that. I wonder if he intended to catch her out with a spontaneous new thing. She also said that she'd never invited him, and she'd never said she'd invited him. Only that her husband spoke to him on the phone. After confusing her here, he went back to the 'you said you were confused that night...' and she answered that precisely as she had before 'it was not a normal night; it was unusual'.

I'm inclined to believe her about the screaming.

I'm part way through listening to day one Fog and agree; Roux comes across as hectoring for hectoring's sake. Nel could also be accused of hectoring but it's usually to get clarification/information.

Got half an ear on this morning - Wolmarans seems to not be disputing the state so far.

He has made the point that Dixon is not a ballistics expert. I think that gives cause for the court to disregard Dixon's testimony on the gunshot order.

OUCH. Wolmarans is discrediting all the defence witnesses, one by one...!

Slightly unrelated but the Dewani case postponed till 20th June as although he is better, can't concentrate for more than 30 mins at a time.

ewn.co.za/2014/05/12/Pistoriuss-experts-what-have-they-been-doing This is quite interesting

Do you know why member?

How can Wolmarans say that those bruises on reeva back were cause by the magazine rack, but his reconstruction didn't include the rack itself?

Because he can't concentrate for more than 30 minutes at a time.
Interesting article Mary; underlines my feeling that the defense are responding to testimony to rebutt prosecution rather than constructing their own solid defence.

That seems a bit

3 weeks ago, Wolmaran went back to the house to do more tests, and he said that Frank opened the door. So Frank is still living in the house/grounds?

So Frank is still on the premises (as of 3 weeks ago)to open the door to Wolmarans.