You are right that the jury is not supposed to discuss a case outside the jury room, this woman made the comment to me whilst we were still in the courtroom seated in the designated area, it was during the 80s. He was found guilty and sentenced to 5 years.

I watched a pre trial docu which was shown over here, but not in SA. The ballistics evidence, I agree will explain a lot more, I guess we should never rush to judge and that we are all human at the end of the day. Perhaps wondering what we would have done given the exact same set of circumstances, living in a country such as SA and not having our own legs - I know this puts a somewhat comical slant on what I'm trying to say, basically I mean of course had it been me, I'd certainly feel insecure and vulnerable without my 'legs' in any country, but particularly in SA.

I'm not too sure at the moment, in the beginning I was 50/50 but I am trusting myself to keep an open mind until I've heard all the evidence that we can hear, without the benefit of scene of crime photographs which the judge will have, and possibly those two assessors.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

Just as an illustration, I recall somebody posting to the effect that their "Theory" that OP had been drinking a lot and so alcohol fuelled his anger. The post was along the lines that they were sure OP had high blood alcohol, but lamenting that it was not tested.
That sort of supposition, guess, is typical of what I see as mere gossip. Effect of alcohol is a factor worth considering, but it is somewhat daft to propose a hypothesis that CAN NOT be tested. A defining aspect of scientific (logical) reasoning is to propose hypotheses that can be Disproved by observation. Scientific investigation is about testing hypotheses made in advance ("a priori") by doing experiments, or looking at available data AFTER making a prediction. To pull a notion out of one's arse, and in the same sentence admit it can not be known one way or the other is.... daft!

That is just one example I recall. A LOT of posting is along those lines. Supposition about what can not ever be known for a fact, or worse... continued "opinions" despite the facts refuting what is supposed. Imprinting and delusion as was very evident in the GZ case.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I know there are plenty of sites around where the various theories abound. Apart from what has been reported in the media, principally the news on TV I have chosen not to go to any other sites, but I agree with you to talk about stuff like that is daft, because it's not been tested and proven that he had consumed too much alcohol, it amazes me where all these people get their information from when one considers for all intents and purposes as far as we are led to believe, Reeva and Oscar were alone at his home, which means (for me) forensic and bullistic evidence is highly important because we are lacking eye witness corroboration or otherwise as to what the evening was like for the couple prior to the killing.

I don't see any resemblance here with the GZ case at all, as someone mentioned earlier in the thread - might have been you Rumpy as I've not been myself this week.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

If it was me... I did not mean to compare this case with the GZ case... the comparison I draw is the style of posting about the two cases at "True Gossip Forums"... and that is the same for EVERY case


I don't read other sites to find facts about the case (mostly)... I just read for the laughs
Perhaps more than laughs, to confirm my opinions about gossip vs discussion and analysis

Also it can actually be helpful to see what "the other side" are saying.. it helps to focus one's own reasoning as to why their notions are unfounded on evidence and/or are wrong.

I think WHERE they get their notions is most likely from their own lives... they bring in a lot of "baggage" to the discussion

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I think you're right about the 'baggage' issues. I noticed it where other discussions are concerned.

I think you have to keep an open mind in the early stages of any trial, and not (if possible) watch the trial with preconceived notions based on what we' ve heard pre-trial - which isn't all that easy in this day of 24/7 media, but I try my best.

I'm looking forward to next week's coverage, and hopefully I will feel more like myself than I have in the past week.

I'm certainly looking forward to the Defense case.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

Yes I am really looking forward to the Defence presentation.

Another point where I am at odds with a lot of posting is that there is consensus that Roux is not doing a good job. To me he seems to be doing a GREAT job and I see hints of more to come in the Defence presentation.

The whole court procedure seems a little disorganised, but I think that is largely down to the South African Court rules etc just being different from what we are used to. Both lawyers seem a little disorganised and not properly prepared with documents to hand etc. But again that seems to be the way it is done in SA.

Roux is slow and VERY repetitive to the point of being annoying... but I see an underlying "Canny" (as you Scots say) strategy... "Mental Chess" is in play. He has got witnesses to lock into statements that have been brought into doubt by subsequent witnesses, and as I have mentioned, I get the sense he is setting up some things that he is going to "spring the trap" on during Defence presentation.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Another point occurs to me.....

The witnesses now are all STATE witnesses... prepared by the prosecution to give testimony. We all know that in USA (for instance) that the prosecution go through testimony with witnesses ahead of a trial.... more so with what are considered important witnesses. It is supposedly all above board, with no "coaching" in regards content of testimony, but I do wonder if it's not inevitable that the prosecution do influence testimony? My guess would be that in SA that effect may be even greater. There are plenty of indicators that testimony in court has been "sharpened" since earlier statements were taken.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I have seen people complain that Roux is just trying to confuse matters. For instance he has claimed times of phone calls etc. which are not confirmed. It's been hard to clarify the time-line of events.

But... IMO.... any confusion in that regard is because it is the STATE who have all the phone record details. They have chosen to not introduce them yet (for whatever reason).. I guess they will? but maybe not if they do not support their case. Roux has made reference to some times of phone calls.. and the State has not objected, and so we assume the times are correct? But Roux can not do much more than that. SA seems to allow some leaway, but essentially at this stage, Roux can only "cross examine" evidence that was elicited from the witness by the prosecutor's questions and the witness testimony in reply. People (posters) seem to forget that all we have seen from Roux so far is "cross examination". He is not ALLOWED at this stage to introduce evidence of his own. IF people want clarity on phone calls and the time-line they should look to Nel and the prosecution to provide it!!

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I have applied the same logic to this trial as I try to use in my own day-to-day life. I admit the trial is different from what we're used to watching, and certainly in my case, the many live trials I've attended here in Scotland, bearing in mind our legal systems are so different from what it would appear in SA.

I agree they both look slightly disorganized which surprises me, but I've put it down to the differences in how things work in the SA legal system, and court procedures, so am trying to push that to the back of my mind. Like you, I can't understand why the phone records haven't been brought up at the trial, perhaps we are still to be surprised by this, at another time. If the State has good evidence such as phone records, you would have thought we would have heard this past week.

Both the Prosecutor and Mr. Roux have gained over the years excellent reputations so I bow to the better knowledge of those SA citizens who would be in a better position to take this on board than me, because I'd never heard of them until last week of course.

I think Mr. Roux knows exactly what he's doing, and also he is in a prime position to know what he has up his sleeve too and what witnesses and evidence is still to come on behalf of his client. That's why I'm looking forward to the Defense.

I think to ignore the gossip'ists who are around for all trials spread across the net, they are best ignored.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

Another point that occurs to me. I see comments claiming that since several witnesses have testified that they heard a woman scream.. it must be true, they can't all be wrong. One or two could be mistaken, but not so many.

Where do I start

There is only one REALITY!!!

Reality is NOT decided by a "majority vote", nor even by a unanimous vote. History is filled with examples of the majority getting things wrong. (The world is flat). And there are countless simple examples of "Optical illusions" and such that demonstrate that human perception can be in error. "Illusions" that appear to EVERYBODY as showing something that is not true.... still seen that way even when people have the illusion explained and KNOW what they perceive to be true is WRONG!!

In this case specifically..... IF OP's screams were such that people thought it was a woman, then it is irrelevant that a certain number of people heard it that way, or even that ALL people heard it that way. Apart from the point that people can be error, the point about "reasonable doubt" is in play too. For the Defences purposes all they need demonstrate is that the screams being OP is a reasonable (plausible) explanation. AGAIN..... the burden is on the State to disprove that it was OP screaming.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

IMO The Prosecution need to STOP trying to spin the time-line of events to fit Burger's notions of what went down. Her (and hubby's) evidence as to what they heard is OK... they testified what they heard, but Burger has obviously interpreted that (wrongly) to form her own opinion about what happened... and she is stubbornly sticking to it, despite doubts about her interpretation... to say the least. I actually think her interpretation (and her husband’s parroted version) has been shown to be WRONG. She did not hear the first set of bangs (she was still asleep). She heard the second set of bangs, which are likely the sound of cricket bat on door AFTER Reeva was dead. The "Woman's screams" must have either been OP or else some other woman screaming... and that's a bit of a stretch.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

On the last point, I'd say it probably is a bit of a stretch. I don't know what OP sounds like when he's screaming, does he sound like a woman, I've no idea. If the screams were those of Reeva, the medical inplications dictate that after the shots, the screams could not have been hers as she was already dead.

As far as what other people have said they heard, and the fact that basically they appeared to hear the same screaming, you can't discount that they were all wrong, but you can't discount IMO that they were all right either, particularly since a number of them claim not to know each other or, even spoke to each other before appearing in court or before giving their written evidence, so I don't know where that leaves us. There have been cases in the past where people have mass believed they've heard or seen something, only for it to be subsequently proved wrong - don't ask me to quote because I honestly can't remember which cases these are, and not all necessarily criminal trials. Another scenario, could it be that there was indeed another couple close by to that house having an argument that night, and people are assuming it was Reeva and OP since they heard the news the following day? Just a thought!!

It's a toughie, and it leaves me a bit confused - perhaps today's evidence will change my mind.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

Now there is a news blackout, for all intents and purposes. Newspapers etc., have always been allowed to carry these trials, and the public galleries fully seated, which means they see and hear all the evidence as it's presented in real time, even the post-mortem evidence.

I think none of this bears down on the dignity of the deceased, and only adds to any idea that there's something else being kept back from the public - I'm quite frankly amazed at this turn of events from the courtroom.

I went over to the locked thread to see what you'd been saying RU and I agree, there's nothing unique about this trial, but perhaps it is seen that way in SA because OP is an athlete who knows, but I think in hindsight, the SA judicial system may feel this trial should not have been televised or audio fed live after all, because it is rapidly becoming a negative on their Judicial system. Just my 2c worth.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

Hi Wroughead.

Sorry about the locked thread. I would open it if we could all comment on the actual trial, but right now all we can do is bitch and moan and stamp our feet.

I am still trying to find ANY snippet of news from court.... but seems all people dare report is Oscar vomiting

I will look some more, but soon give up and go to bed

This ruling is NUTS. I understand sensitivity and all.... but this is a MURDER TRIAL and not the Spring Flower show.

Bloody crime scenes and ME reports on autopsies are part of that.

The Media Lawyer was a HUGE disappointment.... his "compromise" was basically a surrender with NOTHING shown.

I hope the print media at least have the BALLS to file some sort of objection to this. At the very least I want to see a transcript of the testimony AND the complete ME/Autopsy report

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

You will probably be asleep by now Rumpy but I've scoured and can't see anything. I think you're right about locking the other thread though.

Something occurs to me that not everyone on facebook or twitter will stop tweeting even if their coverage is received second hand - just can't see it myself.

It is Professor Gert Saayman’s wishes apparently that the details of the autopsy not be revealed. Had it been the family of Reeva then perhaps I could have had some sympathies with it - I don't think any of them are in court this week, and apparently Reeva's mother was only in court on the first day of the trial.

When we think of the evidence we've all heard in various other trials that were most certainly gory and explicit, aka the Jodi Arias trial and all those photographs, you'd think we could pretty much stomach anything, I know I could and there will be thousands who can because it is in the nature of the crime, that these will not be pretty pictures or pretty descriptions of the rundown of the Professor who did it.

But, obviously SA views things differently, which surprises me for a country with the highest crime rate in the world. You would think they would be stouter souls.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

I would not suggest that watching the testimony be made COMPULSORY

People do not have to look online.

I don't expect to see autopsy pics, but I can handle hearing a description. Blocking even that is daft IMO.

I DO want to see any crime scene photos... that is part of what we do online following cases... look at the evidence.

It will actually be a huge plus for True Gossip Forums... they can continue to imagine and make stuff up... but I would like to see the evidence.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

This is how a Black Talon ammunition bullet looks like,before and after

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Oscar Pistorius trial: Athlete shot girlfriend Reeva with lethal 'Black Talon' bullets designed to cause 'maximum damage'
Mar 10, 2014 13:42
By Lucy Thornton, Steve Robson

Olympic athlete Oscar Pistorius shot his former girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp dead with lethal 'Black Talon' bullets - designed to cause "maximum damage".

The deadly ammo, which has since been withdrawn from sale by its manufacturer, "opens like petals on a flower" - but with jagged edges, a pathologist revealed.

The double amputee held his head in his hands and repeatedly vomited as "explicitly graphic" details of Reeva Steenkamp's injuries emerged at his murder trial today.

She suffered gunshot wounds to her right skull, upper right arm and right hip - each one potentially fatal, the court heard.

There was also an injury to webbing between two fingers believed to have been caused as Reeva put her hands over her ears and was shot.

Pistorius began rocking backwards and forwards, gagging and retching loudly as he tried to cover his ears.

At one stage the court policeman had to move the microphone as he almost drowned out Professor Gert Saayman's testimony.

...more at link
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/os ... ot-3226441

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

As far as "Reeva was fully dressed" rumour goes....

Steenkamp had been wearing a pair of grey Nike shorts and a sleeveless black vest at the time of the shooting, he told the court.

http://www.enca.com/south-africa/oscar- ... -testimony

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I suppose we have to therefore assume, both of them had just gone to bed when he decided to bring the fan in from the balcony, otherwise they had been fully awake since they both last ate.

We don't know and without evidence watching or hearing of, it's conjecture. But, one thing we do know is that there have been many accounts from the courtroom of OP throwing up, so much that they had to remove a nearby microphone as it was so loud.

In the blocking of the media coverage today, and possibly tomorrow also, I assume (because one would) that they will also clear the court of all but those officially required to be there, i.e. press and public gallery!!

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov