THANK you so much. Wonderful!!!
I went to the place with the videos, but would have had to PLOW through all of them to try to find it.

Thanks for making it SO easy for me!

"JODI" Of ALL the people in the world to confuse me with...

Ooops! I have done that before.... sorry JONI
(I edited to fix)

I don't really think you are like Stabby Einsten

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

In discussion elsewhere the question has been asked about what Nel might focus on in his cross examination of OP.
OP's testimony and Nel's cross examination will both be critical aspects of the case.

My first thought.......

It gives me a headache trying to think down to Nel's level

But for the sake of discussion....

I think he has bet all his chips on the gunshots starting after 3:17 at the time that the Stipps heard a second set of bangs, and burgers heard their one and only set of bangs. That time is at least set and confirmed by independent phone records time. It is not in dispute, and fairly precisely defined. I have already noted that it is IMPOSSIBLE that the shots were at that time, given just the one fact that phone records also precisely give time 3:19 that OP made his first call. However, it seems that Nel will persist with trying to prove the unprovable. There is no disagreement that OP was on his stumps when he fired. It would be ludicrous to propose that he was chasing Reeva with his prostheses on, bashing the door etc with his prostheses on, and then took them off to shoot, before VERY quickly putting them back on straight after as the rest of the drama unfolded.

So..... I think issues around when OP was and wasn't wearing his prostheses are key for Nel. We have already seen Col Johannes Vermeulen push the narrative that OP was wearing prostheses when he hit the door with the bat. Even to the point of selectively editing his evidence and testimony and down-playing some door damage, and even omitting some evidence (photos of marks and tests he did on marks higher up the door). Vermeulen also (IMO) went out of his way to demonstrate that it would be awkward to swing the bat and make the marks if OP was wearing prostheses... IMO a demonstration that was about as scientific as OJ trying on the gloves and making it look awkward But I digress......

Nel will, I think be questioning vigorously to get OP to slip up in regards when he did and did not have his prostheses on. It is critical to the State case that OP should have been without his prostheses the whole time, including for the shots and ONLY THEN put his prostheses on.

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

You know Rumpy, I think we are expecting too much from Nel, I bet we are both disappointed. I'm basing this reasoning in his previous performance as Prosecutor, do you really think he can better that on cross - haha - doubt it, if he couldn't convince us he had a good case before in his own ball court, how the heck can we expect better in cross.

Makes ya think huh?

_________________
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 often thought about O.J... wouldn't those plastic gloves he had on make it very difficult to put on any gloves, whether they fit or not? I always felt that was such a dumb move!!

Only teasing you about Jodi - Frank. Don't mention it! lol

If I were to shoot and couldn't see the person - I would shoot low to the ground. The person might be crouching down but if you shoot down low, you will still get them for sure? Will they just be trying to prove OP a liar? You would waste your bullets if you shot up high... IF they were crouching down.

Comment: What to expect during the Oscar Pistorius Trial

It is important to understand that the prosecution team in the Oscar Pistorius ( Oscar’s) trial bears the onus to prove Oscar’s guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. As a result of bearing the onus the State will start by calling witnesses in order to lay the basis for a conviction on either premeditated murder or murder.

Before calling any witnesses the proceedings will start by the prosecution team putting all the charges to Oscar Pistorius so that he could plead to these charges. It is expected that he will plead ”not guilty” to all the charges and he may then briefly set out the basis for his defence on each count. He may of course remain silent and not disclose any version whatsoever, if he so wishes.

Once he has pleaded the judge presiding over the matter will record his plea and ask whether he confirms the version as was presented by his legal representative. Once that is done both parties, i.e. the prosecution team and the defence team, will have an opportunity to address the Court on what they seek to prove and disprove during this trial. It is important to note that during these preliminary stages Oscar Pistorius will not speak directly to the court other than stating what his plea is as his advocates are specifically there to represent him and to speak on his behalf.

The prosecution team will thereafter call various witnesses. Oscar’s defence team will cross-examine every witness that is called to testify and usually they will only have one opportunity to do so. There are however exceptions to this rule. During cross examination of the witnesses the defence will attempt to specifically identify discrepancies in the witnesses’ evidence and they may of course elicit evidence which might be favourable to the accused. If the evidence is damaging to the accused the defence will attempt to discredit the witness or they may attempt to soften the effect of the evidence. Oscar version relevant to that specific witness has to put to the witness for his/her comment and the prosecution team could use that version to later cross-question Oscar’s witnesses.

The Prosecution team i.e. the State will then close their case and by that is it understood that they will not call any further witnesses on the merits of the case. It is often referred to on TV as the State “rests”, but in South Africa the parties closes their cases. Once the prosecution team has concluded all the evidence, then of course the accused will have an opportunity to present his case.

In his defence he can of course testify himself but he can also call witnesses. In this instance we are of course aware of the fact that there are various witnesses that the defence team will call and once they have adduced all their evidence, the prosecution team will equally have an opportunity to cross-examine every witness the defence team calls. Once the defence has called all their witnesses and adduced all the evidence, they will then close Oscar’s case.

Once the defence case is closed, both parties i.e. the prosecution team and the defence team will now have an opportunity to address the Court on the liability of Oscar Pistorius and whether he ought to be convicted of any offence. The judge will thereafter interact with both parties during the addresses whereafter the Court will schedule a date on which the judgment will be made known to the Accused . The judgment will of course be handed down and once the judgment is known, should he be convicted, then of course the sentence proceeding starts. In the event of Oscar Pistorius being convicted of any offence, the defence team will then have an opportunity to adduce evidence in mitigation of sentence. This will mean they might call correctional officers to testify or criminologists or probation officers or maybe just character witnesses. Equally the prosecution team will also thereafter have an opportunity to adduce evidence which they believe might assist the Court in imposing a heavier sentence. Once all of that is completed, the judge presiding in the matter will then consider all the factors but the judge alone will hand down sentence in this matter.

...more at link
http://www.dutoitattorneys.com/recent-c ... rius-trial

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

An Observation:

At True Gossip Forums much of the chat is around "What if..." rather than "What is"

A "what if.." is a "rabbit hole"... there is no end to it. If you do try and debate and propose some counter argument then there is no limit to more speculation.. more "What if..." One usually ends up chasing and obscure detail far removed from any main stream of discussion. Like chasing a Rabbit down into it's burrow. You find yourself, and the discussion lost in a maze of tunnels. "What if... branching into more "what if..."
If you throw in a lot of anecdotal chat around what people IMAGINE they would do in the same circumstances, and little anecdotes from their own lives, about what happened to them, or their cousin's best friend's husband etc It really becomes just gossip as opposed to discussion of a case and trial.

What is needed is to look at what IS... perhaps what realistically may be, provided it is possible to test and determine when evidence is presented.


One example is the chat around the text messages.

What is = 4 "arguments" over thousands of messages. Actually evidence that they WERE a loving relationship since there were just so few disagreements (It had only been a relationship for a short time. I would expect FAR MORE disagreements, even in normal loving relationship, if it had gone on longer.. but I digress)

"What if..."Starts from that point... and spreads like a virus. The text arguments alone are seen as an indicator of the tone of messaging between them. They show OP to be verbally abusive, and so likely physically abusive (in the future if not now). Further more, this is supposed to be an indicator that he is a violent angry physical abuser, ready to snap and shoot Reeva in a rage.

See where we are? Donkey deep in "rabbit poo" somewhere deep in a maze of rabbit burrow tunnels


So.... as they say at True Gossip Forums...
Lets all chat about "What if..." because it is never-ending and can always confirm our Presumption that the defendant is guilty!

Where is the fun in discussing "What is"... that often falls short of proving guilt.

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

Oscar won't testify first - lawyers
2014-04-02



...more at link
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Oscar ... s-20140401

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

Who says it makes no sense to think that a noise in the toilet is an intruder?

Pulp Fiction - Vincent Dies

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

Another thought.....

I see people commenting in reference to the screams that witnesses heard. In mocking derisive tone they scoff about OP "screaming like a woman". The clear intent being to mock with some sort of "effeminate" innuendo (hints of homophobia.... but I digress)

The point is not so much that OP had an unusually "girlie voice", but rather the witnesses involved had linited experience of human voices in times of distress. They made a mistake in perception (it was auditory illusion in effect). It is the witnesses who do not have the wit or experience to realise that a MAN in extreme anxiety and distress can scream/wail in a high pitched (man's) voice.
It is similar to the witnesses mistake in categorising cricket bat on door sounds as gunshots. Human perception is about more that just "what is". The observer overlays his own experience and expectations on what his senses take in... hence illusions.

As I have said... NOBODY would guess cricket bat on door to explain loud bangs at 3:00AM. Gunshots or fireworks would be my guess I am sure. In SA I can imagine it's gunshots, since gunshots not unknown.

Similarly... high pitched screams/wails... who would pick "a guy" as first guess. Most people would tend to perceive (guess) that it was a woman.

Which brings me to a wider point. It seems that in SA witnesses are allowed to speculate.. report not only what they saw and heard, but also what they THINK it implies. They did not actually "hear a woman scream" ... they heard high pitched voice (which they took to be a woman)... there is a difference. Furthermore all the witnesses have embellished their testimony over time. Clearly emotive descriptions such as "blood curdling" have been added. It might have been revealing to press Mrs Burger on what she means by "blood curdling" Play her a few sample screams and ask her to rate on her personal "Blood curdling scale"

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

Just a snippet that caught my eye...



Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.

My prediction: This same person will be ripping DEFENCE witness testimony to shreds... EVERYTHING they say will be wrong, probably blatant lies to help OP. I am sure it is only Prosecution witnesses she wants to be believed without question.

The notion that you just accept witness testimony without question and cross examination is very daft. What would be the point of allowing cross examination, to have a trial at all really. They can't see it, but such people are in effect a Lynch Mob. They are sure about guilt...

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

In fact... we don’t have to wait for Defence witnesses to testify... their testimony is already being "dissed" in advance as it were

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

Also it seems Experts are to be believed... well not really... they like some bits... but not others

I bet you a million dollars to a burnt match that the rule does not apply to defence experts

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

I can't even remember who it was who said that OP sometimes sounded like a woman when he was upset or something, I know it was early on in the trial. Was this to plant the idea in our heads I wonder, that it was he and not Reeva - of course it was, but to be honest I can't see how it's possible that any man would sound like a woman screaming, but then again none of us know OP or have ever met him - perhaps this is how he sounds when he's stressed out.

I had forgotten about this until I ready your previous input to the thread.

_________________
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.

Not sure you get what I am saying. I am not saying the OP's wails were precisely like some "British Standard Woman" screaming.

As with bat and gunshot... Bat on Door is NOT exactly the same sound as gunshot. If you played a recording of each side by side, to compare...most people could pick which was which ( as you say Wroughead, you think you would).

My point: bat V gunshot or OP wail V Woman scream are sounds in the same ball park. Hearing just one sound in isolation... with no visual clues and no context... especially with less than ideal sound conditions.... over a distance, at 3 AM, etc. In such cases it is NORMAL human phenomenon to perceive adding our own expectations and experience. As I have already noted, Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition... nor do they expect neighbours to start "banging on the shit-house door" with an autographed cricket bat at 3AM, nor do they expect blokes to be shrieking in distress at 3 AM. They "perceive" what they know from experience...bangs=gunshots and high-pitched vocalisation = Woman Screaming.

I will add a point I have made before: Stipp was a great witness for the Defence. He does have "Military experience" and so can legitimately claim to have heard gunshots and know the sound. GREAT. He heard the first bangs and identified them as gunshots. It is pretty clear he was correct about that. Then he heard the "screams" etc and was convinced that "family murder" was occurring... he was alert to more sounds and only "too ready" to hear more gunshots, and so its not surprising that the bat on door bangs he assumed to be more gunshots, as he was on the phone and getting dressed and ready to go to assist what he imagined was a woman and a family in desperate distress. Gunshots having already been fired, he was predisposed to hear bangs as more gunshots.

Having only heard from State witnesses viewing the "Gestalt".. the overall picture... I have a clear picture of the events and time sequence on the night. I still do not have to decide whether OP is lying about thinking it was an intruder. Nel gave me NOTHING to doubt OP's word on that and so I would have to assume that OP is telling the truth. Actually I see circumstantial evidence that OP WAS telling the truth. and so am about 75/25 believing him now.(remaining 50/50 would be sufficient) For me the State has made the case for OP already. The Judge could rule now IMO. However, the defence now have the opportunity to hammer home any mitigation they can. I am of course no expert on SA law, and so I don't know what the judge will rule. But she will rule in the context of OP genuinely believing there was an intruder.
They say that in SA system the State will continue to make it's case via cross-examination. I find that highly daft... but there you go. As we have all said the OP testimony and Nel's cross are keys. I guess Nel is in with a (small) chance to get OP to fall to pieces and for the Judge to become SURE beyond reasonable doubt that OP is lying... but I think that is highly unlikely.

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

Matt Gutman's smarmy voice makes me want to puke.....
And he has lost all credibility after his involvement with the GZ case "Scheme Team".....


Oscar Pistorius Not Sprinting to Testify
PRETORIA, South Africa April 2, 2014
By LIEZL THOM and MATT GUTMAN

Champion sprinter Oscar Pistorius will not be the first witness out of the blocks when the defense begins it case, receiving prosecution permission to delay his testimony, a move which may help the Blade Runner's defense. Pistorius' attorney has said the legless paralympian will testify in his trial for the alleged murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp. In South Africa legal precedent dictates that when a defendant agrees to take the stand, the defendant is expected to the first witness unless an application to have witnesses testify out of turn is approved by the court.

Brian Webber, Pistorius' attorney said it is likely that forensic pathologist Jan Botha will be called to the stand first when the trial resumes Monday. It's understood Botha cannot testify later during the trial and the prosecution has agreed to let him go first. The judge must still approve the delay, but she is not expected to oppose it since the prosecution has already agreed.
It's unclear whether Pistorius will take the stand after the pathologist.
Prominent defense attorney Roy Black told ABC News it would be in Pistorius' interest to testify later in the trial rather than earlier. "You always want (the) defendant testifying at the end, rather than at the beginning," Black said.

Botha, a retired chief pathologist, is expected to refute this evidence. The defense claims Steenkamp was sitting on the toilet when Pistorius heard sounds and fired the shots.

...more at link
http://abcnews.go.com/International/osc ... d=23156097

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

HI ALL, HAPPY TO HAVE LEARNED OF YOUR FORUM ......

As a trial fanatic, I didn't think this would be one that would capture my interest but I have become a daily follower of this case and a mini-detective in my own right scrutinizing the details.

I have a summary of my present impressions that convey my sentiments to date that I would like to share and hopefully can contribute cogent thoughts as the trial winds it's way further through the Pretorian South African Court judicial process.

____________________________________________________

Well as with so many others that have reached this conclusion, the trial is over. Motive is positively established --- one fourth of one percent of 1,700 texts has shown a verbal knock--down drag out fight that certainly set the predicate for murder. Despite being all gushy and lovey a few hours later, forget that part, it's a virtual smoking gun.

We know other couples never have spats like this or arguments far far in excess of these demographics. It was certainly the catalyst that without question would result in wanting to see if Reeva's head could look like the watermelon at the shooting range.

The police didn't bungle a thing. It was like Scotland Yard. The Los Angeles County forensic lab team should fly right over there and find out their secret to the accuracy of processing a crime scene with textbook precision. They didn't move the sandals more than three times. Amazing.

I was surprised on how few extra marks they had put on the toilet door while it was in their possession. Dragging that big heavy door around, it was unmistakeable how paramount in their minds it was to keep it in pristine condition because it was the most crucial piece of evidence in the entire case. And only one $5,000 watch was stolen while the lead detective was in control of the premises. Now that's got to be a record.

We all saw Reeva being dragged into the complex on the security camera by Oscar's goons against her will a few hours after the searing 4-message airing of her imminent demise. I was stunned where he said I'm going to kill you b--tch on Valentine's Day in one of those four violent Whats Apps. Nel must have been orgasmic when his crack team found that on his I-phone.

It was all just a smokescreen that he said she should go and visit her old beau and have a good time because he was loading his 9 mm with hollow points and removing the light from the toilet to confuse the neighbors across the open green three blocks away. And testing the acoustics on the toilet door to insure that he could hit it just right to make it sound like a Glock. Then how fortuitious could it be that Reeva fell right into his trap when she asked him if she could cook for him. Few murderers have that kind of luck.

The Freudian slip in her heated missive to him about being attacked by him instead of the one who should be protecting her, couldn't possibly be what he was actually doing that very night. That has been totally debunked. It's now patently clear that--with full intent and jealous rage--he was so incensed by that suggestion, that he decided to slaughter her in the 4 x 4 death chamber he had meticulously prepared earlier.

Yup. How could I have been so blind earlier to not see all that? We don't need to hear from him now. We know exactly what happened. It's slam dunk. Premeditated murder without a scintilla of a doubt.

Let's just forget the defense witnesses and get straight to sentencing so we don't have this madman continuing his reign of terror on more individuals as we have learned so many others have, that have come forward to confirm his history of beatings and mayhem.

The overwhelming proof of wanting Reeva Steenkamp out of his life so that he wouldn't have to be bothered faking any more of those puppy-love candid camera moments on a CCTV tape was the last straw.

The proof against this Al Capone double amputee masterfully presented and backed by witnesses that never contradicted each other was uncontovertable. I'm literally speechless to find cause to believe he should have his opportunity to refute even one single thing anymore to prove it was a mistake.

Enough with this fair trial bs. Nancy Grace, as in her usual flawless knowledge of a case, has determined that Pistorius got the gun from under Reeva's side of the bed, and out of a holster.

What are we waiting for here? Find a rope and a tree.

Welcome to RT aavi

You nailed it!!!

Amazing what you can do when you just accept that cops only arrest guilty people, and prosecutors have got better things to do with their time than mess about with trials for defendants who are not guilty. Trials are only meant to maybe sort out details of which level of crime you can make stick, and to sentence defendants (perps).

Honestly, the whole "Judicial Process" thing is way over-rated. Why not simply leave deliberations and sentencing to the "experts". Posters at True Gossip forums have been commenting on trials since Al Gore invented the internet, and the posters there KNOW a guilty defendant when they see one. The system of Forum POLLS gauging posters opinions is about as accurate a decision making tool as there is. 40 - 50 True Gossip Forum posters are much better placed to see ALL the evidence, than a Judge or Jury of 12 (non forum members), limited in what they see by silly "rules of evidence", because they (Forum members) get to read the headlines from all the MSM sites and blogs and twitter, and of course they have the benefit of HLN in-depth analysis, especially Nancy Grace and her crack team of researchers. A Poll thread at a forum can give you an answer on verdict and sentence even before all the facts are released by the prosecution, even when there are no facts. In fact they can cut through all this "facts and evidence" BS.. with a few swift "What if's".... they can make a case based on absolutely no evidence at all. Now you can't ask for more that that! And at no extra charge, a True Gossip Forum can give you a complete pocket psychological evaluation of a perp. They KNOW that every defendant is a "sociopath", and if male, then also a "partner beater"/abuser from way back. If they have never shown any sign of it, that is only because it is "subliminal abuse of women" And of course all men are rapists. And all white defendants are racist. Black defendants are guilty of all of the above... except racist... they are never that.

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

_________________

hi Rumpy sorry i did misunderstand, and I see what you mean - i'm looking forward to the rest of this trial, simply because I actually think we will learn more from the defensive strategy, and Nel's cross as you say, I think this will be an interesting week coming up.

_________________
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