Do you think the prosecutor proved the case?

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

Do you think the prosecutor proved the case?

  • The case for murder was demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt

    Votes: 76 29.6%

  • Murder directus -OP fired shots knowing it was RS and intended to kill her

    Votes: 144 56.0%

  • Murder eventualis- OP believed it was a burglar, foresaw he would kill by shooting

    Votes: 21 8.2%

  • The case for culpable homicide was proven

    Votes: 35 13.6%

  • There are many holes in the case – too many unanswered questions

    Votes: 22 8.6%

  • Prosecutor’s evidence and witness testimony verify OP’s version

    Votes: 3 1.2%

  • The firearm charges were substantiated

    Votes: 38 14.8%

  • None of the above

    Votes: 1 0.4%
  • Total voters
    257

New Posts

An excellent post (and spot) by David H in his comments under Lisa's Oscar Trial Defense Heads of Argument blog:

David H says:
August 12, 2014 at 12:19 am
PART 1
Dear Mr Roux,
Your client gave evidence on 15th april at approx 1 hour 8 minutes of the first session in which he placed himself inside the toilet cubicle within 2 minutes of the shots being fired.
The words involved being “A COUPLE OF MINUTES AFTER THE INCIDENT”.
Click to expand...
Continues here: http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/08/08/oscar-trial-defense-heads-of-argument/ and scroll down

OP 15 April session 1 @ 1:08:00 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQBha2ZCAjU
 
JuneBug67 said:
With precedent being a shaping force in law I wonder if the cases of the two South African men who previously mistakenly shot their daughters to death in comparable circumstances will impact the judgement in a formal legal sense? As they were not prosecuted they may be ineligible for consideration legally, though they may enter the panel's mind personally on a moral level.
Click to expand...

No.

Firstly, as you acknowledged, they weren't charged.

Secondly, they took responsibility and didn't try to worm their way out of it by lying and blaming others.

Thirdly, their remorse and grief was entirely genuine. I am not sure that the same can be said about Pistorius: his concern seems only to be for himself.
 
Please correct me if I am wrong but didn't these men each fire only one bullet, which sadly proved to be fatal in each case. OP fired four bullets, the first of which badly injured Reeva but did he stop there, no he did not. He continued to fire three more bullets, two of which hit poor Reeva for a second and third time, the final shot being the fatal shot to the head .

IMO these two cases are in no way similar.
 
IMO, OP's performance on the stand destroyed his own sworn version/s. It will be obvious to the Judge just as it was to Nel and all who heard and cringed at his pathetic attempts to tailor the evidence to suit his version/s, and in doing so tied himself in knots. As Nel commented at the BH , his version has not yet been fully tested in a court of law. It has now been well and truly tested over days, and through the mouth of the most important of all witnesses , the killer himself, he has proven his own version to be nothing more than a concoction of lies.

IMO the Judge will find him guilty as charged !
 
Not sure if this case has been brought up yet, but we had a recent case here in the US where a man shot an unarmed girl at his front door who according to him was trying to come into his house in a wild manner after she wrecked her car.

There are not a lot of similarities with OPs case, although the cases do touch on a few things that could be considered similar circumstances.

The main point I think I am trying to make is if this guy can be found guilty of murder, then I surely think OP should be. JMO of course.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/porch-shooter-theodore-wafer-found-guilty-murder/story?id=24877849
 
IMO, the State has proved dolus directus:

1. OP admits killing Reeva
2. Mrs Burger's testimony that she heard a woman screaming: "I'm 100% certain I heard two different people that evening..."
3. Mr Johnson's testimony that he heard a woman screaming: "The lady screamed again, with more intensity and fear in her voice. It was clear that her life was in danger..."
4. Dr Stipp's testimony that he heard a woman screaming: "I find it hard to believe he was screaming in two voices..."
5. Mrs Stipp's testimony that she heard a woman screaming: " I heard a lady screaming, terrified, terrified screaming..."

How could Milady possibly justify rejecting their evidence, given the quality of their testimony and the fact that Roux has not produced any convincing evidence that they were mistaken about what they heard?

(Admittedly, the Defence has done its level best to capitalise on Estelle's Van der Merwe's admission that she mistook Oscar's post-event crying for that of a female, but her confusion is explicable because screaming from fear and crying from sadness are two very different sounds, arising from quite different emotions).

I fully expect Milady to rule that, having regard to their demeanour and what they sad, she finds the evidence of these particular State's witnesses to be cogent and compelling, whereas she did not find OP to be a credible or reliable witness.

And, if Milady accepts the female screams as fact, she won't have to waste her time getting bogged down in discussing PPD, dolus eventualis, culpable homicide, etc.
 
Sherbert said:
IMO, the State has proved dolus directus:

1. OP admits killing Reeva
2. Mrs Burger's testimony that she heard a woman screaming: "I'm 100% certain I heard two different people that evening..."
3. Mr Johnson's testimony that he heard a woman screaming: "The lady screamed again, with more intensity and fear in her voice. It was clear that her life was in danger..."
4. Dr Stipp's testimony that he heard a woman screaming: "I find it hard to believe he was screaming in two voices..."
5. Mrs Stipp's testimony that she heard a woman screaming: " I heard a lady screaming, terrified, terrified screaming..."

How could Milady possibly justify rejecting their evidence, given the quality of their testimony and the fact that Roux has not produced any convincing evidence that they were mistaken about what they heard?

(Admittedly, the Defence has done its level best to capitalise on Estelle's Van der Merwe's admission that she mistook Oscar's post-event crying for that of a female, but her confusion is explicable because screaming from fear and crying from sadness are two very different sounds, arising from quite different emotions).

I fully expect Milady to rule that, having regard to their demeanour and what they sad, she finds the evidence of these particular State's witnesses to be cogent and compelling, whereas she did not find OP to be a credible or reliable witness.

And, if Milady accepts the female screams as fact, she won't have to waste her time getting bogged down in discussing PPD, dolus eventualis, culpable homicide, etc.
Click to expand...
I really hope you're right, I so badly want Oscar Pistorius behind bars for a minimum of 25 years. Anything less would be unjust. This world has lost a beautiful young woman that had everything going for her. I feel like this sentencing has huge implications as well, Judge Masipa has to show the world that the justice system in SA works and that there is zero tolerance against domestic violence. I don't want her to make an example out of him, just want what he deserves. He should definitely get punished for his BS story.... what a coward! Man up OP and tell the truth.
 
Well reasoned arguments IMO.

I would add...

Even if one would accept and believe that 4 independent and corroborated witnesses hearing OP scream would all mistakenly attribute those sounds as coming from a woman… that cannot explain what was being screamed.

OP said that he screamed at intruders to get out of his house and for Reeva to call the police…

… that could NEVER be perceived and interpreted by 4 independent and corroborated witnesses as someone's screams of terror, as blood-curdling screams…

… also the crescendo in intensity and fear that culminated with 4 gunshots could NEVER be reconciled with OP's version.
 
AJ_DS said:
Well reasoned arguments IMO.

I would add...

Even if one would accept and believe that 4 independent and corroborated witnesses hearing OP scream would all mistakenly attribute those sounds as coming from a woman… that cannot explain what was being screamed.

OP said that he screamed at intruders to get out of his house and for Reeva to call the police…

… that could NEVER be perceived and interpreted by 4 independent and corroborated witnesses as someone's screams of terror, as blood-curdling screams…

… also the crescendo in intensity and fear that culminated with 4 gunshots could NEVER be reconciled with OP's version.
Click to expand...

VERY excellent observation, AJ! All screams are not created equal!

Seriously, I'm having a VERY difficult time envisioning HOW My Lady could ever come to a verdict of not guilty (she would have to turn herself into knots to do so). If she's as razor-sharp as I think she is, we have no worries. :D
 
It's worth noting that if OP is found guilty of Counts 2, 3 and 4 (Roux has said he should be found guilty of Count 3 Alternative 1 in his closing argument) then whilst each offence does carry a possible maximum sentence of 5 years (Counts 2 and 3) or 15 years (Count 4), a fine is also possible for each of these offences.

Section 121 of the Firearms Act reads:

Penalties
121. Any person convicted of a contravention of or a failure to comply with any
section mentioned in Column 1 of Schedule 4, may be sentenced to a fine or to
imprisonment for a period not exceeding the period mentioned in Column 2 of that
Schedule opposite the number of that section.

The other relevant sections are 90 and 120 (specific paragraphs, see below) for the offences (which are all mentioned in Column 1 of Schedule 4) and Schedule 4 itself, at the end of the Act, for the maximum penalties. See http://www.westerncape.gov.za/text/2...60_of_2000.pdf

The relevant sections for each charge as per the indictment are:
Count 2 Section 120(7) or 120(3)(b)
Count 3 Section 120(7) or 120(3)(a) or 120(3)(b)
Count 4 Section 90

Note that Roux has Count 2 as a Section 120(8) offence in his Heads, which is wrong. Very sloppy.

I suspect OP will get a fine if found guilty of these offences.

(Copied from my posting on DS)
 
Mr Fossil said:
It's worth noting that if OP is found guilty of Counts 2, 3 and 4 (Roux has said he should be found guilty of Count 3 Alternative 1 in his closing argument) then whilst each offence does carry a possible maximum sentence of 5 years (Counts 2 and 3) or 15 years (Count 4), a fine is also possible for each of these offences.

Section 121 of the Firearms Act reads:

Penalties
121. Any person convicted of a contravention of or a failure to comply with any
section mentioned in Column 1 of Schedule 4, may be sentenced to a fine or to
imprisonment for a period not exceeding the period mentioned in Column 2 of that
Schedule opposite the number of that section.

The other relevant sections are 90 and 120 (specific paragraphs, see below) for the offences (which are all mentioned in Column 1 of Schedule 4) and Schedule 4 itself, at the end of the Act, for the maximum penalties. See http://www.westerncape.gov.za/text/2...60_of_2000.pdf

The relevant sections for each charge as per the indictment are:
Count 2 Section 120(7) or 120(3)(b)
Count 3 Section 120(7) or 120(3)(a) or 120(3)(b)
Count 4 Section 90

Note that Roux has Count 2 as a Section 120(8) offence in his Heads, which is wrong. Very sloppy.

I suspect OP will get a fine if found guilty of these offences.

(Copied from my posting on DS)
Click to expand...

Not convinced a guilty verdict on the 3 minor charges will only lead to a fine…

OP's version and demeanor when addressing those charges are an aggravating factor that will weigh negatively against him at sentencing.

The fact that 3 charges for negligent/illegal/dangerous gun/ammo handling/possession are simultaneously brought against OP is also an aggravating factor that will weigh negatively against him at sentencing.
 
OP's crying just sound sooooo false there .. I couldn't believe it when I was listening to the trial live, when I heard him trying to get the crying going. I think Aimee helped with that, the way she cried out suddenly, just at that point .. why would Aimee have felt the need to cry out just at that particular moment?
 
It does sound very forced, that kind of dry sobbing. Like a child when told he can't have something : "Ugh-hurr-hurr-hurrr"
 
Trying to act the OP supporters side. Method to show Prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

1. OP says very improbable event as explanation (eg aliens was controlling OP's gun).
2. Event can exist and Prosecution cannot prove otherwise despite improbability.
3. (Reasonable) doubt!
4. OP freed to go partying again!

Haha :lol:
 
Murder directus -OP fired shots knowing it was RS and intended to kill her

-----------------

I can't believe that this was not taken into consideration

7. Locked in

It is not in contention that the door to the toilet cubicle within Pistorius' first floor bathroom was locked at the time he fired four bullets into it, killing his girlfriend. The door was locked from the inside, and crime scene police found Ms Steenkamp's mobile phone there with her. The state submitted the model and law graduate had "fled to the toilet with her cellphone".



http://www.smh.com.au/world/oscar-pistorius-eight-key-pieces-of-evidence-20140910-1060un.html

------------------

this was the most telling evidence to me,it's SO obvious what happened there!!

really really frustrated and disappointed with the verdict....
 
madeleine said:
Murder directus -OP fired shots knowing it was RS and intended to kill her

-----------------

I can't believe that this was not taken into consideration

7. Locked in

It is not in contention that the door to the toilet cubicle within Pistorius' first floor bathroom was locked at the time he fired four bullets into it, killing his girlfriend. The door was locked from the inside, and crime scene police found Ms Steenkamp's mobile phone there with her. The state submitted the model and law graduate had "fled to the toilet with her cellphone".



http://www.smh.com.au/world/oscar-pistorius-eight-key-pieces-of-evidence-20140910-1060un.html

------------------

this was the most telling evidence to me,it's SO obvious what happened there!!

really really frustrated and disappointed with the verdict....
Click to expand...

I want to know how they established that the door was actually locked from the inside .. we/they only have OP's word for it that it was, for all we know, he could've locked her in there himself, from the outside, then made up some *advertiser censored* and bull story about retrieving the key from the floor inside the toilet. The very thing about it having shot out of the keyhole (in OP's version) is absolute rubbish .. a key of that type, in that type of lock, if locked would not shoot out of the keyhole, it would be stuck in there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 133 more.
Total: 341 (members: 134, guests: 207)

Online statistics

Members online
134
Guests online
207
Total visitors
341
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,897
Messages
18,247,280
Members
234,488
Latest member
jamn19
Back
Top