Oscar Pistorius Trial part 9

[JillJ72]

Starting a new thread as part 8 is nearly full, here - www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/2080468-Oscar-Pistorius-Trial-Part-8

Just watching BBC3 on this case and saw the photos of the bath panel for the first time. If Oscar's version is the truth as the judge seems to believe then what is the explanation for that panel??

I don't think that was brought up.

Her parents are so dignified.

Aren't they such lovely people. So sad for them.

It's very moving. I don't know how they can bear it. So brave. I don't think they will ever get the truth they need though.

The bath panel and the smashed in bedroom door...

Thankfully we will never know.

I am unsure that in the peculiar circumstances where someone ends up shot dead in a locked room in your house that a case should be proved against you
Surely in those circumstances there should be some onus placed upon you to prove your innocence
There is a dead person - what is the possible good reason you can provide for a dead person in a locked room in your house unless you had absolutely no other choice at all, other than to kill them

Must be the pacifist in me - but I cannot imagine this being a sufficient answer for me if it were one of my family or friends

My heart literally bleeds for them.
Seeing the stark photographs of the crime scene again, so many unanswered or implausible answers to obvious questions

I'm watching this now. What a lovely, dignified couple. Heartbreaking

"Surely in those circumstances there should be some onus placed upon you to prove your innocence"

I agree with this RonaldMcdonald, (and I might have said it several threads ago). In such circumstances the burden of proof should lie with the perpetrator, not the prosecutor.

There's been lots of discussion about what you would expect to see if this had been a case where a violent partner murdered his girlfriend. And, from that basis, the bedroom door and the bath panel seem significant yet they weren't really treated as such. It seems to me they could have been interpreted as signs of a violent argument yet they were more or less ignored.

I hope the sentence is long. Otherwise, if I was a woman in a DV relationship in SA then I would be worried about the precedent this case sets.

Perhaps the door and bath panel had been explained/corroborated as having been damaged previously.

I can't think of any other reason why Gerrie Nel would not mention them. he alluded to an argument so would surely have asked on cross examination for an explanation. Be must have known that they were "old" damage

Why else not mention them

Innocent until proven guilty, with the onus being on the state to prove their case is one of the cornerstones of law, if we remove it, the whole house falls down.

As once we start saying there needs to be a different standard of proof in certain cases, it will soon spread to more cases.

I understand people's anger at the verdict, however I feel extremely uneasy at how blithely people are suggesting that the burden of proof needs to be shifted. They do so from a position of never imaging themselves or their loved ones in the dock.

People imagine those who are accused of committing serious crimes, to be somehow a breed apart. The whole big fascination about this case for many, has been the incongruity of someone so admirable having done something so terrible.

However, if you look at both acquittals and miscarriages of justice, they often feature people just like you and me, or more often, more disadvantaged members of society.

For all the talk of OP's expensive legal team, here the State also matched them in terms of expertise and skill. However, for most people, the State is far better equipped and funded then any legal representation they may have, so again it seems right, that the burden of proof should fall onto the State.

IPity

The prosecution always bears a burden of proof, true. But in some cases, depending on the defence that's been raised, there is an evidential burden on the accused.

One of these types of cases is self-defence. Another would be an insanity plea.

This is why Roux had literally no option but to put Pistorius on the stand....it was the only evidence that they could bring to court to support his claim of putative private defence.

I think a lot of people's anger about the verdict is that it would appear to be simply wrong. Various lawyers and high court judges have said she made a big mistake.

I think the state will probably appeal.

Again with the damage to the bathroom and bedroom door we only have the accused's version
Did any of you read his version of what happened to the bedroom door? It was very peculiar

The problem was that there was no way for Nel to dispute it.
There was no way to do anything other than photograph it and hope that it was considered or pondered over, along with other evidence, to help build a picture for information that can at times only be inferred.

If it is an accused and a dead person locked in a bathroom one might hope that this evidence might be more closely considered or examined

If the hole in the bedroom door was fresh, surely there would be evidence (bullet, wood particles on the floor) found when the police searched the house?

Likewise the dent in the bathroom, what caused the dent, was the implement that caused the dent still to hand, indicating that the dent happened that night?

I also thought there might be some mention from the prosecution of what food scraps/evidence of cooking and when had been found in the kitchen.

The prosecution case was pretty detailed in terms of details of the house, so I don't think any of these matters were overlooked, I guess they didn't produce any usable/relative evidence.

That's it exactly....no evidence. They (the State & police) can have all the suspicions in the world about what caused XYZ, but without actual evidence, they have nothing to contradict whatever explanation OP chooses to give.

I think, regarding the bullet hole in the bedroom door, if there was scientific evidence that the hole was "fresh", this would have been close to impossible for OP to fit innocently into his "version" and Nel would have raised it.

I can only assume that they were not able to conclusively say how old it was.

His explanation for the bashed in bedroom door was bloody ridiculous. He wanted to open it, so ran into it....then bent down to unlatch it???? Round object.

And the dented bath panel was raised by Vermeulen....he couldn't determine what had caused it, but had found traces of copper. So if OP said, "It happened when I pulled the plank out of the door and flung it down", then that's the end of that. He can't be contradicted.

Having said all that, I think the State could have done a far, far better job of nailing down some specifics. An alternative timeline for Masipa to consider might have helped. Or not. But not even to mention it seems incredible to me.

Also have to assume that whatever food scraps were found in the kitchen did not contradict OP. Of course, this can only say what was eaten, not when....so totally irrelevant, so not surprised they didn't bother with that.

Ipity iirc OP admitted that the damage to the bedroom door was caused that evening. The problem with OP being the only witness who is still alive means that for the State to present an alternative version of how the door was damaged means they have to move into the realms of supposition. It's the big problem with building a case out of circumstantial evidence.

There was an article by an SA lawyer (I think) saying that this case does raise questions about how the law is applied, how the burden of proof falls and how the law can address cases with similar circumstances.

If OP is telling the truth (despite being accepted as an evasive witness by both the judge and the state) then the judgement is right and the legal system does not need to be amended.

If OP is lying and what actually happened is they had an argument, he bashed the bedroom door, the bathroom door and shot Reeva in a rage then the problem is that the evidence would be exactly the same. I think we have to resign ourselves to the fact that in such cases, the law is going to trust the accused's version and we have to accept that means in a percentage of cases a murder charge will become a culpable homicide one. It seems to me that's the issue and since OP is still charged with something then that is the best we can hope for in the current system and it's necessary to protect the 'innocent' accused.

Reevas parents want to meet with him. Can't see that happening, can you?

Why would you think a meeting wouldn't happen.

As they said on the documentary he asked to meet before but they didn't feel ready. Now they feel that they could.

I would only hope that it would take place quietly and away from the glare of media /publicity

I watched the BBC3 programme this afternoon. I think they will meet. I hope they feel they get some answers from that.

I saw on BBC News website that Judge Masipa is bein given additional protection as sentiment in SA is disquiet towards her.

I've been away and only able to dip in and out of the verdict and it did go as I perhaps thought it would (easy to say after the event of course). I just hope he doesn't walk away with community service or a suspeded sentence as I read today the SA Olympic Committee see no reason why he can't compete again (depending on the sentencing of course). Should his life just resume as before... is that indeed possible.

this article summed it up for me.

It has been interesting to read all your comments as I was unable to follow the two days closely.

Ah Rousette but even if he could compete again I'm not sure that all countries would allow him a visa, USA wouldn't and I'm not sure the UK would either tbh.

Sorry, have deliberately stayed away from this thread as I'm not overly sure how I feel about the verdict and peoples reactions since

How amazing are Reevas parents, that would be such a hard thing to do.

Ooh I hate that face thing, I meant to just have [ confused ] there, as that's how I feel about it all,

Rousette - I found that article a bit overblown, tbh.

I know the media find the "fallen hero" narrative irresistible. However, talks of onlookers not getting "catharsis" from the trial, comes dangerously close to overshadowing the feelings of Reeva's family.

A family who have actually lost a loved one, who will live every day with her absence and the manner of her death, long after the media have found another subject to wax mythological metaphors over.

I have mixed feelings. His time on the stand was the opportunity to be open and honest. But he wasn't / couldn't be because that could have supported the prosecution's charge. I think there was too much awareness of the implications, therefore the need as defence to not admit responsibility in that way, and that was at the expense of the openness and honesty the Steenkamps needed.

There will be more interviews before sentencing. I wonder how much they will influence the decision.