Oscar Pistorius Defense

[Carmelita]

For me, he made a decision to kill whoever was in the toilet. I believe he knew it was her and it happened after an argument yes, but that is secondary to the fact that he must have known that whoever was in that toilet would die. That is murder IMO.

This I tend to agree with, not that he knew it was Reeva, but he knew that firing into that toilet he would be likely to kill someone. By SA law this is culpable homicide unless Oscar by the end of his defense case has convinced the judge and her assessors that he acted reasonably and with intent only to protect himself and Reeva. I think Oscar's "split second" has meaning.

How the judge and her assessors will apply the law is yet to be seen. It is my opinion and my opinion based only on my gut instinct of reading people that the judge regardless of her past decisions is warm toward Oscar. What does that mean? Absolutely nothing because it is totally based on the intangible.

 

[toevlugsoord]

For me, he made a decision to kill whoever was in the toilet. I believe he knew it was her and it happened after an argument yes, but that is secondary to the fact that he must have known that whoever was in that toilet would die. That is murder IMO.

I think the strongest evidence for this is that he shot 4 times. Had he shot once, Reeva would likely not have died and he would possibly not even be looking at a court case at all. Having shot 4 times in such a small space, he intended to incapacitate that person....and had he done his research on the Black Talon bullets he would know using those bullets would likely mortally wound the person. These factors alone could lead to a murder charge, less likely culpable homicide.

 

[Ncl1968]

It's not binary, Carmelita.

Hypotheses of OP's state of mind when firing:
1. So panic-stricken as to be incapable of any rational or volitional act;
2. Very frightened but still responsible for his actions;
3. So angry as to have lost all self-control;
4. Angry but in full control;
5. Calm, deliberate and cold-blooded.

There may be more.

OP himself is arguing for option 1 but it is incompatible with what he says when he forgets his own defence - about avoiding ricochets, about ceasing to scream when screaming has no useful purpose etc.

I was initially inclined to the No 4 option, but on reflection I think there is a strong case that the anger fit was around 3 am and led to an incident from which he calmed down and took a cold-blooded decision to kill in order to avoid the consequences of what he had done at 3 am becoming public. I would now on probability vote for No 5.

Only if he convinces the court of No 1 is he likely to escape conviction for murder.

The burden of proof is squarely on his shoulders and he doesn't like it there. He even finds it inexplicable that he is on trial at all. God help women if lawmakers or the judiciary were to agree with him.

I go with number 5.as well simply because of the number of bullets.. 4.... Screaming stops bullets stop...

 

[lithgow1]

This I tend to agree with, not that he knew it was Reeva, but he knew that firing into that toilet he would be likely to kill someone. By SA law this is culpable homicide unless Oscar by the end of his defense case has convinced the judge and her assessors that he acted reasonably and with intent only to protect himself and Reeva. I think Oscar's "split second" has meaning.

How the judge and her assessors will apply the law is yet to be seen. It is my opinion and my opinion based only on my gut instinct of reading people that the judge regardless of her past decisions is warm toward Oscar. What does that mean? Absolutely nothing because it is totally based on the intangible.

Re the first paragraph I think you will find that under SA law, if the judge decides he knew his actions were likely to result in someone's death and he had no genuine reason to fear for his life that will be judged as murder, not CH.

Re the 2nd point, in the testimony I've seen the judge appears very even in her rulings - sometimes they favour the defence, sometimes the prosecution. When she asked, repeatedly, about his being tired she said it would not be fair on him and nor would it be fair on the court. Another instance is when Roux tried to stop Nel asking questions that would only lead to Pistorius getting upset. The judge ruled that the questions weren't repetitive and Nel could continue with that line. That to me suggests someone wanting to get as close as possible to the truth of matter.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Hello everyone!

I'm newly registered after having read Websleuths for awhile; this court case got me to finally register so I can add in my thoughts. I've watched every minute of this trial and it's safe to say I'm probably obsessed. It's just so fascinating and my family moved from South Africa a year before I was born...due to the violence. So I feel connected to it for that reason too.

I wanted to share a documentary that is FASCINATING.
It was done by Channel 5 and is called "Why Did Oscar Pistorius Kill Our Daughter." Warning -- it's pretty sad and made me cry. You will learn a lot about Reeva.

http://putlocker.bz/watch-why-did-oscar-pistorius-kill-our-daughter-online-free-putlocker.html

I will probably share this link again when the general discussion opens up again!

Edited: oops first wrote Channel 4 but it's Channel 5!

Welcome to this fascinating forum. I'm a newbie too. I've watched the whole trial and pretty well put my life on hold due to my obsession with it. I'm off to bed in a minute but I'll watch the documentary tomorrow morning. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Carmelita]

It's not binary, Carmelita.

Hypotheses of OP's state of mind when firing:
1. So panic-stricken as to be incapable of any rational or volitional act;
2. Very frightened but still responsible for his actions;
3. So angry as to have lost all self-control;
4. Angry but in full control;
5. Calm, deliberate and cold-blooded.

There may be more.

OP himself is arguing for option 1 but it is incompatible with what he says when he forgets his own defence - about avoiding ricochets, about ceasing to scream when screaming has no useful purpose etc.

I was initially inclined to the No 4 option, but on reflection I think there is a strong case that the anger fit was around 3 am and led to an incident from which he calmed down and took a cold-blooded decision to kill in order to avoid the consequences of what he had done at 3 am becoming public. I would now on probability vote for No 5.

Only if he convinces the court of No 1 is he likely to escape conviction for murder.

The burden of proof is squarely on his shoulders and he doesn't like it there. He even finds it inexplicable that he is on trial at all. God help women if lawmakers or the judiciary were to agree with him.

I do think it is twofold thought process, if we are to believe the fight and cold blooded murder theory, one conscious deliberate, proactive and devious, and one is pure rage and reactive, but that is what this discussion is about different interpretations of the same event.

I find it implausible that Oscar would willfully throw his life into turmoil by shooting dead his bed mate in his toilet.

 

[Viper]

I think the strongest evidence for this is that he shot 4 times. Had he shot once, Reeva would likely not have died and he would possibly not even be looking at a court case at all. Having shot 4 times in such a small space, he intended to incapacitate that person....and had he done his research on the Black Talon bullets he would know using those bullets would likely mortally wound the person. These factors alone could lead to a murder charge, less likely culpable homicide.

BIB Yes that is true. But to be more specific, those factors support Premeditated Murder. Firing more than once demonstrates intent for a person to be killed, no question about that. Premeditated.

 

[Carmelita]

Re the first paragraph I think you will find that under SA law, if the judge decides he knew his actions were likely to result in someone's death and he had no genuine reason to fear for his life that will be judged as murder, not CH.

Re the 2nd point, in the testimony I've seen the judge appears very even in her rulings - sometimes they favour the defence, sometimes the prosecution. When she asked, repeatedly, about his being tired she said it would not be fair on him and nor would it be fair on the court. Another instance is when Roux tried to stop Nel asking questions that would only lead to Pistorius getting upset. The judge ruled that the questions weren't repetitive and Nel could continue with that line. That to me suggests someone wanting to get as close as possible to the truth of matter.

You are right if Oscar was not in genuine fear for his life about murder rather than CH it is Oscar's contention that he was in genuine fear for his life.

You may also be right about the judge that is why I put so many qualifiers in my post as that opinion is held by me almost solely on instinct which means nothing to reality.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

This I tend to agree with, not that he knew it was Reeva, but he knew that firing into that toilet he would be likely to kill someone. By SA law this is culpable homicide unless Oscar by the end of his defense case has convinced the judge and her assessors that he acted reasonably and with intent only to protect himself and Reeva. I think Oscar's "split second" has meaning.

How the judge and her assessors will apply the law is yet to be seen. It is my opinion and my opinion based only on my gut instinct of reading people that the judge regardless of her past decisions is warm toward Oscar. What does that mean? Absolutely nothing because it is totally based on the intangible.

I respect your opinion but I personally think what you perceive as warmth may in fact be the judge demonstrating her desire for OP to have a fair trial whilst ensuring that there are no procedural reasons for an appeal
I have great admiration for the judge so far and think she is showing why she holds the position that she does.
JMOO

 

[lithgow1]

You are right if Oscar was not in genuine fear for his life about murder rather than CH it is Oscar's contention that he was in genuine fear for his life.

You may also be right about the judge that is why I put so many qualifiers in my post as that opinion is held by me almost solely on instinct which means nothing to reality.

Thanks Carmelita. Yes it is OP's contention that he was in genuine fear for his life but can you see any justification for that fear? The sound of 'wood moving' and a mistaken belief that the door was opening comes nowhere near forming a sound basis for a genuine fear IMO.

 

[Nausicaa]

I do think it is twofold thought process, if we are to believe the fight and cold blooded murder theory, one conscious deliberate, proactive and devious, and one is pure rage and reactive, but that is what this discussion is about different interpretations of the same event.

I find it implausible that Oscar would willfully throw his life into turmoil by shooting dead his bed mate in his toilet.

But suppose he had already in a fit of rage done something that was going to throw his whole life into turmoil anyway as soon as Reeva had access to the police or the media?

In any event, murder happens: hey, that could be a tee-shirt slogan.

 

[crasshopper]

I think, if there's been any "secret coding" most of its been going on in this case frim the getgo from Oscar's side (with crime scene removal and cops deliberately messing up things etc.)

And who is that in your gif? Jodi? And what's with the skirt coming up?

It is Jodi, with her straight finger during police interviews. Oops, thought I deleted that.

I am unaware of anything with a skirt so tahnks for pointing that out.

 

[bessie]

respectfully snipped

Hello everyone!

I'm newly registered after having read Websleuths for awhile; this court case got me to finally register so I can add in my thoughts. I've watched every minute of this trial and it's safe to say I'm probably obsessed. It's just so fascinating and my family moved from South Africa a year before I was born...due to the violence. So I feel connected to it for that reason too.

Welcome, toevlugsoord!

Thank you so much for sharing a link to the documentary about Reeva. It's beautifully done -- poignant, but informative, as well.

I've copied your post to this new thread.


Reeva Rebecca Steenkamp - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

:welcome5:
​

 

[crasshopper]

I respect your opinion but I personally think what you perceive as warmth may in fact be the judge demonstrating her desire for OP to have a fair trial whilst ensuring that there are no procedural reasons for an appeal
I have great admiration for the judge so far and think she is showing why she holds the position that she does.
JMOO

I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment.

 

[Carmelita]

Thanks Carmelita. Yes it is OP's contention that he was in genuine fear for his life but can you see any justification for that fear? The sound of 'wood moving' and a belief that the door was opening comes nowhere near forming a sound basis for a genuine fear IMO.

Honestly I can't answer for Oscar. Number one I would never ever leave the other person alone in the room without absolute verbal, physical confirmation of where that person was and where they would be and that they were dialing 911. Neither would I attempt to flee down a staircase if I had a firearm. I would probably have stood with my gun pointed at the hallway and announced that I would shoot anyone coming through the door-less hallway. If I heard some one come out of the toilet and precede toward the bedroom I would not hesitate to shoot once I saw them.

That is my best guess as to what I would do.

So what hypothetically brought Oscar to being in a dark bathroom with his gun pointed at a toilet would not happen to me. I don't think that it would happen to a reasonable person.


But I am not sure that it didn't happen to Oscar and that he didn't fire the gun in a blind panic of self-preservation. SA law seems to have very little latitude in it's gun laws and self defense laws so I don't know what the judge will do with the "extenuating and extreme circumstances" part of Oscar's defense.

 

[Carmelita]

I respect your opinion but I personally think what you perceive as warmth may in fact be the judge demonstrating her desire for OP to have a fair trial whilst ensuring that there are no procedural reasons for an appeal
I have great admiration for the judge so far and think she is showing why she holds the position that she does.
JMOO

You may be spot on correct.

 

[Carmelita]

But suppose he had already in a fit of rage done something that was going to throw his whole life into turmoil anyway as soon as Reeva had access to the police or the media?

In any event, murder happens: hey, that could be a tee-shirt slogan.

We can't go from one set of past results to another wholly new expected result from poor behavior.

It has been the consensus of the majority here that Oscar continually got away with bad behavior and was given special treatment by everyone including the law. What would make Oscar believe that he would suddenly be held accountable for bad behavior to the point that he would reach the conclusion that murdering his girlfriend in cold blood, while she was locked in a toilet, was a behavior he would more likely get a pass on than whatever it was he had already done?

 

[Ncl1968]

His sponsors for one don't forget he had a bad financial meeting that day
And would do anything to keep bad press out. Don't forget he denies any wrong doing so in his eyes he is the victim of circumstance
Whatever tipped him over the edge probably involved bad press so he had to remove that threat

 

[BritsKate]

I think it is important to note that Oscar has not ever been diagnosed with NPD. And should not be by a bunch of strangers on the internet. He has narcissistic traits, he has histrionic traits, that is all that can be stated. Many world class athletes share these traits.



If Oscar was not out of control but manipulating through feigned rage then by virtue of eliminating viable options he would have to have made a conscious choice to brutally murder Reeva and thereby also choose to end his life of luxury and running (his one "true love") as he knew it.



As I said I think Oscar is dull but not an imbecile I cannot imagine him making that conscious choice.

I was making a comparison to someone who does have NPD - whether he does or not is anyone's guess - I think the argument his personality has narcissistic traits is well-founded. Further, due to the nature of this forum, personality disorders are very, very often a topic of discussion for obvious reasons. It isn't people trying to diagnose so much as it is trying to make sense of the unthinkable. I do, very strongly, believe narcissists and abusive personalities share a great many traits though. Whether he's an abuser could be argued too...but there's a lot there seemingly very consistent to someone who is.

I believe, very simply, Oscar thought he would get away with Reeva's murder and still probably does. His entire adult life, and quite possibly much longer, he has never been required to account for his actions. Why should now be different than every other experience? Though he denies it, there is a claim that he boasted to police after being arrested he'd beat the murder charge. "I'll survive. I always win."

I'd thought initially Oscar wasn't the brightest crayon in the box...but I have a sneaking suspicion he's far craftier than some give him credit for.

Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[Nausicaa]

We can't go from one set of past results to another wholly new expected result from poor behavior. [...]

Just to answer your first point in this post Carmelita, you are obviously right that we can't infer one from the other as certain. But this is about balancing probabilities.

We know what OP did. We are exploring why he did it. As private individual amateur sleuths we are first looking at what seems the most credible explanation of OP's evening of carnage. We are not bound by any of the rules that bind judges and juries - we are just evaluating likelihood using common sense.

However, even in legal terms, OP has admitted what in England we might call the actus reus (physical part) of murder. So the onus is on him to convince the court that there was no mens rea (criminal intention). Different legal systems use different names but they all recognize roughly this analysis.

The issue for OP and his DT is not to refute in detail the credibility of Mr Nel's reconstruction. It is to offer a seriously credible alternative account which does not include the intention to kill someone who was not engaged in active aggression.

My view is that we have not been offered such an account because OP's version™ is not credible. There are individual bits that some people here find incredible that I might accept at a pinch, but there are too many internal and external inconsistencies in the story for it to pass muster. So in my view the natural presumption prevails that acts are done deliberately.