Lux et Veritas
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2014
- Messages
- 1,131
- Reaction score
- 4,212
Ive got that addiction to perfection when Im off the track as well.
- Oscar Pistorius
@ :57 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doL8vwHEyo4
Theory Thread - What happened at Pistorius' house on the night of Feb. 13, 2013?
- Thread starter beach
- Start date
- Status
Ive got that addiction to perfection when Im off the track as well.
- Oscar Pistorius
@ :57 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doL8vwHEyo4
Lux et Veritas
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2014
- Messages
- 1,131
- Reaction score
- 4,212
I know one thing, OP would NEVER sign anything without first going over it with a fine-tooth comb, picking out the tiniest errors, adding and deleting things, rewriting it endlessly till it was perfect - especially something as potentially life-altering as a Bail Statement.
He wants the world to think that hed give less acute attention to his Bail Statement than a competition or sponsorship contract? Uh, NO! Remember, this guy - a professional athlete for the past ten years - is very used to closely scrutinizing legal contracts - hes sophisticated in that sense. He simply cannot plead ignorance to what he was signing and toss his DT into highway traffic.
If nothing else, this one stark act paints him as a completely selfish, amoral pig, absolutely loyal to no one. Ive no doubt that if it came down to brass tacks, he would not hesitate to throw anyone in his family under the bus, too.
Lux et Veritas
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2014
- Messages
- 1,131
- Reaction score
- 4,212
Laurie A Claase @LaurieAClaase  Aug 7
@sanscrit52 I like Nel's definition of premeditation - 'The deliberate weighing up of proposed criminal conduct.'
I don’t think I’ve ever heard a more concise, eloquent definition of premeditation than this one simple sentence. I love Gerrie Nel.
- Lux et Veritas
Alas, this isn't Nel's definition. He was quoting a quote, originally in an appeal judgement by Bozalek, J:
"The concept of a planned or premeditated murder is not statutorily defined. We were not referred to, and nor was I able to find, any authoritative pronouncement in our case law concerning this concept. By and large it would seem that the question of whether a murder was planned or premeditated has been dealt with by the court on a casuistic basis. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 10th edition, revised, gives the meaning of premeditated as to “think out or plan beforehand” whilst “to plan” is given as meaning “to decide on, arrange in advance, make preparations for an anticipated event or time”. Clearly the concept suggests a deliberate weighing up of the proposed criminal conduct as opposed to the commission of the crime on the spur of the moment or in unexpected circumstances. There is, however, a broad continuum between the two poles of a murder committed in the heat of the moment and a murder which may have been conceived and planned over months or even years before its execution. In my view only an examination of all the circumstances surrounding any particular murder, including not least the accused’s state of mind, will allow one to arrive at a conclusion as to whether a particular murder is “planned or premeditated”. In such an evaluation the period of time between the accused forming the intent to commit the murder and carrying out this intention is obviously of cardinal importance but, equally, does not at some arbitrary point, provide a ready-made answer to the question of whether the murder was “planned or premeditated”.
All seems very sensible and sound. Until you read his judgement that the court had erred in deciding pre-meditated murder. He concedes that the accused formed a "plan" to kill, that he went to effort to retrieve a gun from his safe, that he pronounced that his victim, his wife, was looking for trouble and was going to get it, that he struck his son who tried to dissuade him forcibly with the gun, and that he then exited his house, walked across the street and shot his wife dead as she emerged from a neighbour's house. Nevertheless, he says because the plan was rudimentary, conceived only minutes before and carried out in an emotional rage, that it cannot have been a planned and pre-meditated murder and was instead spur of the moment.
(I disagree with this - if it's planned it's planned, how can it both be planned and spur of the moment, he is adding in requirements of sophistication and cold, calm, thought that he has plucked from nowhere, and though the plan may have been conceived in the spur of the moment, the carrying out of the plan was not spur of the moment - unless it was the longest, most eventful spur of the moment in history - and that is the crucial aspect... Anyway, that's just my view).
This goes to show how difficult it can be to uphold pre-meditated murder and how strong the burden is in cases like this, and why I have said before I am not sure Judge Masipa will venture there even if she thinks it's valid, I'm not sure I would either. It is too easily overturned on appeal, and then sentencing is out of your hands. Robust sentence can be delivered without pre-meditation, only the minimum requirements are different.
- Pandax81
Thank you, Panda, for that correction!
Great info. Yes, I can see how difficult proving premeditation really is - as it should be, being the most serious charge, with the harshest consequences.
I agree with you, the judge in that case erred. Any sort of “plan”, however rudimentary, in my mind, excludes a crime of passion. True crimes of passion by definition exclude any plan whatsoever. That the guy actually took time to fight with and force his son to open the gun safe equals a cold, calculated plan - unlike instantly grabbing a handy gun on a dresser or in the midst of a fight, suddenly grabbing someone around the throat. He most definitely had enough time to reflect, think about what he was doing, to stop (indeed, even his son tried desperately to stop him) - but did it anyway.
Emotional rage and premeditation are not mutually exclusive. Rage may burn and fester as well as suddenly flare up - indeed, simmering rage over a long period of time may be the most deadly of all.
And “rudimentary” plan? What a terrible judicial barometer either for or against premeditation! One does not need a flowchart , Powerpoint presentation and mission statement to commit premeditated murder! Some of the most heinous premeditated murders have been based on the most rudimentary plans. A plan is a plan - however minimal. If you have to ATTACK and FORCE your son to open a locked safe before you can get a gun to walk across the street to kill your wife, that’s COLD pre-planning in my book. I agree, that judge was playing both sides against the middle and landed on the wrong side.
Another picture puzzle fellow sleuthers ...
I'm trying to figure why OP phones Security after phoning Johan Stander and NetCare. Does he simply select the wrong name from his contacts on the iPhone or what? On the phone chart presented by Moller, the names on the left have a little blob to their left which tells us that it's the name OP used in his contacts list. So "# Johan Silverwoods" is in his contacts for Johan Stander. Moller doesn't explain what the 6797 Security number is in under and the screen image is very blurred. Here's what it looks like when he hovers over the call line:
On the left it says "0020 Oscar Pistorius" and on the right it says "6797" and then possibly the blob and then the name he recorded it as. I swear I'm seeing "Pistorius" as the surname! Is this why he mistook it? Any thoughts?
I'm trying to figure why OP phones Security after phoning Johan Stander and NetCare. Does he simply select the wrong name from his contacts on the iPhone or what? On the phone chart presented by Moller, the names on the left have a little blob to their left which tells us that it's the name OP used in his contacts list. So "# Johan Silverwoods" is in his contacts for Johan Stander. Moller doesn't explain what the 6797 Security number is in under and the screen image is very blurred. Here's what it looks like when he hovers over the call line:
On the left it says "0020 Oscar Pistorius" and on the right it says "6797" and then possibly the blob and then the name he recorded it as. I swear I'm seeing "Pistorius" as the surname! Is this why he mistook it? Any thoughts?
Lux et Veritas
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2014
- Messages
- 1,131
- Reaction score
- 4,212
A thought just struck me. Even with his double amputation, OP still has one striking physical advantage in that he is still able to walk without his prosthetics (quite well).
This cannot be said of single amputees like Arnu Fourie and Jonnie Peacock, who I must assume (someone correct me if I’m wrong), cannot walk at all without their prosthetic leg, due to extreme disparity in the length of their legs. Disabled individuals such as these would genuinely be unable to "flee" without their prosthetic - unlike OP on his stumps, who could have simply walked out his bedroom door away from danger. His "fight" defense is pure bullsh#t.
In that regard, there are athletes even MORE disabled than OP (some athletes have no legs).
What of Samkelo Radebe, OP’s teammate in the 2012 Paralympics 4X100m, disabled with two amputated arms (now there’s a severe vulnerability)?
What of female amputee athletes, who are even more inherently vulnerable in South Africa?
Again, how many of OP’s disabled peers - especially those who live in South Africa, all subject to the same “fears”, “crime” and "anxiety" - have committed murder?
This cannot be said of single amputees like Arnu Fourie and Jonnie Peacock, who I must assume (someone correct me if I’m wrong), cannot walk at all without their prosthetic leg, due to extreme disparity in the length of their legs. Disabled individuals such as these would genuinely be unable to "flee" without their prosthetic - unlike OP on his stumps, who could have simply walked out his bedroom door away from danger. His "fight" defense is pure bullsh#t.
In that regard, there are athletes even MORE disabled than OP (some athletes have no legs).
What of Samkelo Radebe, OP’s teammate in the 2012 Paralympics 4X100m, disabled with two amputated arms (now there’s a severe vulnerability)?
What of female amputee athletes, who are even more inherently vulnerable in South Africa?
Again, how many of OP’s disabled peers - especially those who live in South Africa, all subject to the same “fears”, “crime” and "anxiety" - have committed murder?
AJ_DS
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2014
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
03:19:03 24s Outgoing Johan Stander
Idle 38s between voice calls
03:20:05 1m6s Outgoing Netcare
Idle 22s between voice calls
03:21:33 9s Outgoing Pieter Baba
Idle 6s between voice calls
03:21:47 7s Outgoing Voicemail access
Idle 11s between voice calls
03:22:05 12s Incoming Pieter Baba
I believe we can infer what OP was up to from the idle time between phone calls.
Once the self-evident scenario of a mistaken identity intruder sparked in OP's mind, he knew he had to call somebody…
1. He wanted friendly witnesses on the premises ASAP
2. He wanted to avoid being found alone in his house with a corpse in his bathroom by an unsympathetic authority figure
3. He wanted to reinforce his scenario by demonstrating he was trying to save Reeva's life
4. He wanted to remain in control of the situation for as long as possible
… so he called Stander… laid the foundation for his scenario and asked him to come over quickly.
Then OP continued thinking about what a person in that scenario would normally do… that process took OP 38 seconds… a very long time if you clock it and imagine what he is doing during that time.
… OP realized that calling Netcare would be the normal thing to do… Netcare is not so much of an authority figure, they are a private ambulance service company… OP would still be in control of the situation.
OP called Netcare but he did not request an ambulance… this would reinforce his scenario whilst avoiding a loss of control of the situation
OP continued thinking about what a person in that scenario would normally do… that process took OP 22 seconds… also a very long time
… OP realized that calling security would be the normal thing to do… Security was somewhat of an authority figure but they are employed by the estate and view the residents as their clients.
OP dialed security and as Baba answered, OP realized that whatever he said to Baba would automatically lead security to his house… security would be first on the scene and Reeva was still in the bathroom… the control of the situation would be lost… police would be called… the second floor of his house would compromised… Security would probably arrive before Stander… not good.
So OP was stuck and hung up
When Baba called back, Stander had not yet arrived… OP did not know how much longer it would take for Stander to arrive… so he said "everything is fine" hoping to buy some time for Stander to arrive.
Sherbert
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2014
- Messages
- 528
- Reaction score
- 0
I hesitate to barge into this erudite discussion, particularly as I'm not sure I've been able to pinpoint what the main point of contention is, but I don't think it follows that honest belief equates to lawful intent.
For example, OP is stating that he honestly believed that there was an intruder, but we know from his evidence that he was aware from his firearms training that he had no legal entitlement to open fire.
So, in the example you provide AJ, I don't believe the Judge would find lawful intent leading to unlawful action - both the intent and the action were unlawful.
AJ_DS
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2014
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
Allow me to clarify as I understand it…
Unlawful intent : I want to take revenge so I shoot you
Lawful intent : I want to defend myself from your attack so I shoot you
I could very well held an honest belief that my intention was lawful… and the Judge may believe me as being credible when I relate my intentions at Trial… the Judge may accept that in my mind I did believe my intentions were lawful… BUT that does not make my intention lawful in the eyes of the Law.
Intent is solely relevant when considered with conduct.
I have the intent to kill you BUT I do not act on that intent… intent is irrelevant
Lawful intent + Lawful conduct = acquittal
Lawful intent + unlawful conduct = many possibilities from acquittal to culpable homicide
Unlawful intent + unlawful conduct = murder
… the important bit and difficulty is that the Judge must find your intent was genuine, honest and reasonable… it is easy to state that one's intention was lawful it is another thing to convince the Judge that what one is stating is the Truth.
In PPD, how does the Judge determine whether the erroneous belief of the accused is honest and genuine ?
By inferential reasoning: by an evaluation of objective factors, what is the only inference that can be made regarding the accused’s state of mind ?
The Judge may find that the accused is telling the Truth about what he felt and believed at the time… but that it was not reasonable to believe that his life was in danger and that he was justified in using force against the threat.
In my example, you genuinely and honestly believed your life was in danger and that your intent was lawful in shooting Bob in the back… but in fact, the Law would find that your conduct was unlawful
Welcome aboard, BlessedMommy! Yes, we are indeed anxiously awaiting THE verdict. The Judge has scheduled the verdict for September 11 at 9:30AM (SA Time).
Lux et Veritas
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2014
- Messages
- 1,131
- Reaction score
- 4,212
By his own version, by his very own testimony, OP will FAIL with a defense of (P)PD.
By his own account, there was NEVER any attack, not even a vague threat of an attack.
This one fact is absolutely fatal to his case.
However much OP fantacizes it so, a sound, noise, movement, fear, terror and startles are NOT attacks.
If this was the case, 99.9% of us would be killers.
A genuine attack must be imminent or in progress and inescapable.
His insane fairytale, along with the hard evidence, convicts him on both counts.
By his own account, there was NEVER any attack, not even a vague threat of an attack.
This one fact is absolutely fatal to his case.
However much OP fantacizes it so, a sound, noise, movement, fear, terror and startles are NOT attacks.
If this was the case, 99.9% of us would be killers.
A genuine attack must be imminent or in progress and inescapable.
His insane fairytale, along with the hard evidence, convicts him on both counts.
Ty for the article! I think the questions in the following quote are excellent:
When he admitted to a fight or flight instinct where sudden loud noises such as a car backfiring freaked him out I wondered how did he cope with the starter's gun when he ran? the official said.
If he was so scared of loud noises how did he ever get out of the blocks after the bang? I'm serious. The question should have been asked.
AJ_DS
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2014
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
Could not agree more…
Even in fairytale land where the Judge would deem :
A) State witnesses non-credible and/or not reliable
B) OP a credible witness
C) OP's version as being the Truth of what happened
D) that OP genuinely and honestly believed that his intention was lawful
… it would still not work because hearing a sound does not constitute an imminent attack… it is not reasonable.
but let us go further into imagination land and say the Judge believes the startles meet the required criteria of an imminent attack…
… it would still not work because the conduct is not within the bounds of self-defense : i.e. possibility of avoiding threat and reasonable response to threat
It's 2AM… I'm asleep… I wake up for whatever reason… I hear noise at my house door… I investigate and see that someone is fiddling with my door handle and my lock… I hear whispering voices behind the door… I think it must be a group of intruders trying to get in… They could be armed… no, they are surely armed… If they succeed in opening the door they might have a jump on me… so I empty my magazine into the door.
Behind the door was a drunk neighbor and his wife who had mistaken my house for theirs.
I could very well be telling the Truth about what happened… and all the evidence corroborates my story… but PD or PPD would not work.
Having an overreaching imagination + being truthful, does not mean you can kill people and get away with PPD and an acquittal… self-defense is an important part of our Justice system but it is highly circumscribed within legal boundaries… and rightly so.
I've now analysed Reeva's GPRS info in some detail and, as I might have expected if I'd sat and thought about it properly first (and saved myself some work!), the sum of the GPRS connection times equals the total time that her phone is switched on.
So, the presence of a GPRS signal in itself tells you no more than that the phone is switched on. It does not indicate that Reeva has initiated a hotspot, nor does it tell us she might be WhatsApp-ing, surfing the web or using any other application for that matter. It just tells us that her phone is connected to the network.
Where her GPRS data is useful is that it tells us which cell tower the phone is connected to at any given time, which may change as the phone moves across cell boundaries, and for how long it is connected (though a handover on a cell boundary does not have to always happen, it depends on relative signal strength and available bandwidth in each cell). Nevertheless, it does give a very reasonable indication her whereabouts and roughly how long she was in a given area.
Note that the iPhone sometimes reconnects to the same cell at the end of a call. This seems to be a bug which has been discussed on the Apple forums.
So, the presence of a GPRS signal in itself tells you no more than that the phone is switched on. It does not indicate that Reeva has initiated a hotspot, nor does it tell us she might be WhatsApp-ing, surfing the web or using any other application for that matter. It just tells us that her phone is connected to the network.
Where her GPRS data is useful is that it tells us which cell tower the phone is connected to at any given time, which may change as the phone moves across cell boundaries, and for how long it is connected (though a handover on a cell boundary does not have to always happen, it depends on relative signal strength and available bandwidth in each cell). Nevertheless, it does give a very reasonable indication her whereabouts and roughly how long she was in a given area.
Note that the iPhone sometimes reconnects to the same cell at the end of a call. This seems to be a bug which has been discussed on the Apple forums.
If my conclusions in the GPRS data post above are correct for Reeva's phone, this begs the question "what about OP's phones?".
I haven't gathered all the GPRS data for his phones yet, but it certainly seems that his GPRS usage is not continuous and therefore the question is why? This will have to wait until tomorrow!
I haven't gathered all the GPRS data for his phones yet, but it certainly seems that his GPRS usage is not continuous and therefore the question is why? This will have to wait until tomorrow!
AJ_DS
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2014
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
BiB… That can't be right…
There are many consecutive GPRS connections that last mere seconds… if the connection was continuous and uninterrupted there would be 1 long connection and not many short connections one after the other.
Also, we have whatsapp messages being sent and calls being received during a long uninterrupted GPRS connection in the beginning of the afternoon.
It would be useful that you post your work (timeline of GPRS connections with durations) so we can examine it and confirm or infirm your conclusions
I am afraid they are all living and communicating from under the bus and are pretending not to notice.
He dishonored and exploited them all long ago. They all continue to be apologists for him without realizing he has thrown them under that bus already.
Sherbert
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2014
- Messages
- 528
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't see it in terms of lawful and unlawful intent. Either there is an intention to kill or not. In PD and PPD, the argument is not that the intent is lawful, but that the intent to kill necessary for a murder conviction is absent.
In your example, the accused had the option to flee instead of shooting, so, given that it was foreseeable that the shooting would result in death, the Court should find that the intention to kill was present. And, if an intention to kill is present, it's murder.
Cherwell
Ice Cream
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 6,476
- Reaction score
- 16,466
Cherwell
Ice Cream
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 6,476
- Reaction score
- 16,466
I've said all along that she probably ate something like cottage cheese and/or some kind of salad. Cole slaw perhaps. Not at all an unusual snack for someone following a healthy diet.
Cherwell
Ice Cream
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 6,476
- Reaction score
- 16,466
- Status