Oscar Pistorius Defense

[Carmelita]

RSBM

Ah, but, the topic being OP and not you, (according to OP's version) there was a hallway and two doors between OP, Reeva and the 'intruder'. AND a free and clear way to safety for OP to take Reeva and himself to safety.

We will have to disagree that a woman and a man on his stumps on a second floor behind a locked door with a cricket bat wedged in it had a "free and clear way to safety"

 

[Carmelita]

BIB. OK. Here, let OP tell you when Reeva voided her bladder! :facepalm:

Go to about the seven (7) minute mark and wait for it!

http://youtu.be/qQBha2ZCAjU

Oscar is guessing at when Reeva emptied her bladder, perhaps he is guessing that time frame on not hearing the toilet flush, that doesn’t really prove anything other than it is possible that Reeva voided her bladder and then closed the window but didn’t flush the toilet in-between the two acts.

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

Bail affi - noise in bathroom
Plea statement - noise in bathroom was a window sliding open
OP under oath - bathroom window slid open, hit the frame hard, sound was loud and clear.

I wonder if Nel could test OP's window-hitting-frame testimony during this break and introduce tests refuting OP's new claim?

He hears so much noise from the bathroom and the toilet as he's 7 meters away
behind the hallway walls himself in the bedroom , yet his same ears doesn't hear Reeva moving and getting up from the bed 1-2 meters away and walking in front of him to the bathroom. I believe every single person including his whole family in that courtroom very well knows he is guilty as hell..

 

[Viper]

Oscar is guessing at when Reeva emptied her bladder, perhaps he is guessing that time frame on not hearing the toilet flush, that doesn’t really prove anything other than it is possible that Reeva voided her bladder and then closed the window but didn’t flush the toilet in-between the two acts.

BIB. Perhaps that is your belief or some speculation about what could have happened. But what OP said happened is the Defense Team's case, and it is on the record, it is evidence. So it really makes no sense to go any further with that argument, there will be no other expert(s) taking the stand to contradict what OP has testified to as having happened.

He's toast!

 

[shane13]

Where Oscar Fvcked Up

If he had emptied the clip of what 8 or 10 rounds all over the bathroom, it might have lent credence to "the bathroom was dark' or that he "randomly shot", and that he was in "great panic". etc. He might have gotten away with it with 1 or 8 shots.

But firing 4 and only four, as opposed to just 1 or the whole clip damns him. Likewise stopping after the fatal head shot... For reasons I've stated for a year [he could see her] should damn him in the ruling.

 

[Carmelita]

BIB. Perhaps that is your belief or some speculation about what could have happened. But what OP said happened is the Defense Team's case, and it is on the record, it is evidence. So it really makes no sense to go any further with that argument, there will be no other expert(s) taking the stand to contradict what OP has testified to as having happened.

He's toast!

I don't understand your logic that a single assertion will bind the judge to convict Oscar it doesn't seem a reasonable conclusion to me.

Oscar also said, "I never meant to kill anyone Milady" that testimony is in evidence obviously you do not believe that statement will bind the judge. Is it possible that the judge might have the same interpretation that I have and think perhaps Reeva simply opened a window with the intention of flushing the toilet afterward and Oscar didn't really know whether or not Reeva voided her bladder?

 

[G.bng]

BIB. IIRC... South Africa has constitutionally mandated Mandatory Minimum Sentencing for the crime of murder. It is 25 years in prison. No judge that finds an accused guilty of the charge of Murder can give a lesser sentence. Judge Masipa can give a greater sentence, but not a lesser sentence.

BIB It is a myth that in SA a judge is unable to hand down a lesser sentence for murder than the minimum "mandatory" ones, i.e. 15 years for murder without aggravates, and a "life" sentence with a minimum of 25 years when aggravates of premeditation, rape, or serious robbery are present.

Even from my limited knowledge of SA law I have read at least two judgements (three with the Malgas appeal linked below) that do not follow "minimum sentencing" criteria. In one "life imprisonment" for an aggravated murder with robbery and premeditation (i.e. mandatory minimum of 25 years) was reduced to "life" of 18 years, and one where the minimum of 15 years for a non aggravated murder was reduced to 10, and then the Malgas verdict where a "life" sentence was set aside and substituted with a non-life sentence of 25 years. I can search and provide links to the first two verdicts however the judge's discretion to give lesser than mandatory sentences is written into the law which is freely accessible on SA's Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (doj&cd) website, in which it seems that if a judge finds "substantial and compelling circumstances" they are actually obliged to impose a lesser sentence:

Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 - (Section 51 (3) (a)) (page 5 of the pdf)

"If any court referred to in subsection (1) or (2) is satisfied that substantial and compelling circumstances exist which justify the imposition of a lesser sentence than the sentence prescribed in those subsections, it shall enter those circumstances on the record of the proceedings and must thereupon impose such lesser sentence"​

The absence of any official clarification as to how judges should interpret "substantial and compelling circumstances" is discussed in a couple of legal articles I found, e.g.:

International Society for the Reform of Criminal Law (page 1, para 4) (ISRCL)

"The current position, as far as murder is concerned, is determined by legislation informally referred to as the “minimum sentences legislation”. This legislation came into operation in 1998. The finer details are not of current importance, but it prescribes life imprisonment for certain specifically described aggravated forms of murder, such as premeditated murder and murder accompanying rape or serious robbery. Other instances of murder should be sentenced to at least 15 years’ imprisonment. Courts have the discretion, in all these instances, to deviate from the prescribed sentences, if satisfied about the presence of substantial and compelling circumstances, justifying a lesser sentence. The legislation provides no guidance regarding the phrase “substantial and compelling circumstances” and a substantial body of case law has developed as to the practical application of the test. Despite this body of case law outcomes remain largely unpredictable and dependent on the value judgement of the court. In general, the court is required to take into account all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors in determining whether substantial and compelling circumstances are present. Courts are also expected not to impose sentences that would be unjust, and have departed from the prescribed sentences in many cases. A good example is cases where the wife of an abusing husband eventually murders him after many years of severe abuse.​

And on "Jurist":

"Minimum Sentences in South African Law" (Professor Andries Cilliers)

All the provisions referred to above are subject to a very important qualification (section 51(3)(a)), viz that, if the court is satisfied that “substantial and compelling circumstances” exist which justify the imposition of a lesser sentence than any sentence prescribed (as set out above), it must enter those circumstances on the record of the proceedings and may thereupon impose such lesser sentence.

The above-mentioned qualification re-introduces judicial discretion as to sentence in particular circumstances, which are not specified by the law itself. These circumstances must be decided by the courts from case to case. In the course of the past few years the courts have decided what constitutes substantial and compelling circumstances in the particular cases before them. The most recent general formulations appear in authoritative decisions of the Supreme Court of Appeal and of the Constitutional Court, referred to below.​

Legally curious posters may like to read the judgement State v Malgas (2001) which it appears is considered significant for clarifying how to interpret "substantial and compelling" as well as showing some mitigants.

In all, imo, for Masipa to give OP "life" (i.e. 25 years plus except when reduced by a judge) Masipa will not only have to believe BARD that OP was not acting in putative self defence and did in fact murder Reeva or a perceived burglar, but that he also did so with premeditation and not just on the spur of the moment. IMHO, on the evidence so far, she will be hard pushed to find this (I do believe she could find intent to kill a burglar or CH), because, IMBW, but I don't see it has yet been proven BARD that OP purposefully shot to kill Reeva even with all the circumstantial evidences that don't add up. At least not by the "reasonably possibly true" test Masipa has to apply while working through the judicial flow-chart of conundrums to arrive at a verdict and through another to weigh-up aggravates and mitigants to arrive at a sentence. Masipa's judgement will I am sure be very revealing of how a bench system works. JMO

 

[lithgow1]

I don't understand your logic that a single assertion will bind the judge to convict Oscar it doesn't seem a reasonable conclusion to me.

Oscar also said, "I never meant to kill anyone Milady" that testimony is in evidence obviously you do not believe that statement will bind the judge. Is it possible that the judge might have the same interpretation that I have and think perhaps Reeva simply opened a window with the intention of flushing the toilet afterward and Oscar didn't really know whether or not Reeva voided her bladder?

She'd flush the toilet as soon as she had finished IMO. Who would finish on the loo and then go into another room, in essence, to open a window, intending to go back into the cubicle to flush? I'm not calling you shirley, but surely that's an extremely unlikely chain of events. Why would she do that?

 

[Cherwell]

I am saying that Reeva could have emptied her bladder and opened the window without flushing the toilet.

Well, it wasn't what you were saying, it is a non sequitur, but nevertheless ... why wouldn't she flush? As I pointed out above, she knew OP was awake so needn't have been concerned about disturbing him.

No I am saying perhaps a hot sweaty Reeva peed and before she flushed she opened a window and that she then never flushed the toilet because Oscar started screaming.

That makes no sense. She would have to come out of the WC to open the window, which she would pass on her way out through the bathroom anyway. It would only take a second to press the flush before leaving the WC; no reason to delay doing so.

 

[sicknote]

I don't understand your logic that a single assertion will bind the judge to convict Oscar it doesn't seem a reasonable conclusion to me.

Oscar also said, "I never meant to kill anyone Milady" that testimony is in evidence obviously you do not believe that statement will bind the judge. Is it possible that the judge might have the same interpretation that I have and think perhaps Reeva simply opened a window with the intention of flushing the toilet afterward and Oscar didn't really know whether or not Reeva voided her bladder?

Your thinking Reeva got up and went to the toilet cubicle, left the toilet cubicle to open the window and then went back to the toilet cubicle and locked the door? All this time she never uttered a single word, flushed, washed her hands or turned on a light?

At roughly the same time her partner <modsnip> was walking backwards, moving fans, moving jeans, picking up his gun, opening doors, vaulting over the bed, screaming like a woman, shouting for help, lifting a cricket bat, talking in a low tone and firing his gun four times. Not only was he doing these things he was doing some of these things with a loaded gun in his hand and in total darkness. In no particular order by the way.

<modsnip>

I bet if one of the witnesses said they heard what sounded like an elephant, OP would have said he was playing the trumpet.

 

[G.bng]

Indeed.

He lived like a man who wasn't afraid of intruders. Secure community. Slept with open balcony doors. No burglar bars on the windows. Dogs. Went to bed without caring if the alarm's censors outside were working. He was code-red trained to find an intruder in the house and he's done it twice before without shooting anyone.

But also...he knew Reeva was in the house with him. So why assume it wasn't her making the noise?

Whether telling the truth or lying through his teeth, OP bases his assumption that it was an intruder without considering the possibility of it being Reeva on his having seen and talked with Reeva in bed just moments before.

The conundrum is whether Masipa believes it could be "reasonably possibly true" (RPT) that OP jumped to the conclusion it was a burglar/intruder without thinking it could be Reeva. IMO, unless OP's credibility is so shot with Masipa that she discards practically all of his testimony, which could be but I am not sure it is, imo Masipa could find it was RPT that OP did make that mistake as quite a few others in SA have done, shooting family members for intruders. But in which case Masipa might well still find OP intentionally shot at a burglar. JMO

 

[katydid23]

Your thinking Reeva got up and went to the toilet cubicle, left the toilet cubicle to open the window and then went back to the toilet cubicle and locked the door? All this time she never uttered a single word, flushed, washed her hands or turned on a light?

At roughly the same time her partner with no feet was walking backwards, moving fans, moving jeans, picking up his gun, opening doors, vaulting over the bed, screaming like a woman, shouting for help, lifting a cricket bat, talking in a low tone and firing his gun four times. Not only was he doing these things he was doing some of these things with a loaded gun in his hand and in total darkness. In no particular order by the way.

I honestly think your at the wind up.

I bet if one of the witnesses said they heard what sounded like an elephant, OP would have said he was playing the trumpet.

:goodpost: :wave:

 

[Forensics]

I am an avid reader, and of course, lately I have been reading a lot about the OP case. So I consumed with interest the following article regarding "Growing Support for Oscar Pistorius" of which the summary was...

"Overall, there seems to be no reliable evidence that Oscar intended to kill anyone, let alone Reeva. The principle of “Mens Rea” states that if there is no criminal intent, there is no crime, provided Oscar’s actions were reasonable. Given Oscar’s lack of a criminal record, and exemplary character preceding the shooting of Reeva, he is entitled to the benefit of any doubt.

As time passes during the long adjournment for Easter, and sensation gives way to sober reflection, the “strong” prosecution case seems to be fading away, like a mirage, at least in South Africa. A Facebook group for supporters has grown rapidly from a handful before trial to over 800 members. With more defence witness to come when hearing resume on May 5th, the odds of a conviction for murder appear to be slim to non-existent."

The article was written by Geebee2 for Ground Report. That sounded warning bells in itself as it was obviously not a journalist... anyone could have written it. Trawling through the internet I read these Geebee2 is an advocate for the Innocent. Then I read the following comment:

"This "geebee" character is all over the internet claiming that anyone and everyone accused of a crime is innocent. He even tired to claim Jodi Arias was innocent by suggesting Travis Alexander severed his own head with a knife to atone for his sins."

Enough said!



http://groundreport.com/support-growing-for-oscar-pistorius/

 

[BritsKate]

Despite the appellate cases we've all read, the simple reality is that Oscar didn't shoot Reeva mistaking her for an intruder. Oscar, by his own testimony, shot a door after supposedly hearing a noise. (A noise his own expert contradicted, which also won't be missed by the judge, I'm certain.) There hasn't been another case similar that's made it's way through court according to our South African posters, much less appeals. In every single similar case that's been posted the most important distinction (again, pointed out by our SA posters) is that the defendant had, at the absolute least, a visual of a perceived intruder.

 

[IfIMay]

I am saying that Reeva could have emptied her bladder and opened the window without flushing the toilet.

at her new boyfriend's house.. It gets more and more absurd. Really?

 

[Viper]

<RSBM>

In all, imo, for Masipa to give OP "life" (i.e. 25 years plus except when reduced by a judge) Masipa will not only have to believe BARD that OP was not acting in putative self defence and did in fact murder Reeva or a perceived burglar, but that he also did so with premeditation and not just on the spur of the moment. IMHO, on the evidence so far, she will be hard pushed to find this (I do believe she could find intent to kill a burglar or CH), because, IMBW, but I don't see it has yet been proven BARD that OP purposefully shot to kill Reeva even with all the circumstantial evidences that don't add up. At least not by the "reasonably possibly true" test Masipa has to apply while working through the judicial flow-chart of conundrums to arrive at a verdict and through another to weigh-up aggravates and mitigants to arrive at a sentence. Masipa's judgement will I am sure be very revealing of how a bench system works. JMO

BIB. Premeditation is accounted for, he fired four times at a human being locked in a tiny closet lined in tile, he wanted that person dead. Regarding Putative Self Defense, simply read his testimony. Spoiler alert, it gets really good towards the end! LOL!

Nel: Before we move on, I have to just cover one aspect as far as the &#8230; what you shouted at the intruders. You said that they should get out of your house. You never said to them that you&#8216;re armed. Now, they were in the toilet .. as far&#8230; you knew they were in the toilet, or thought they were in the toilet, am I right?
OP: I thought there was a possibility that one or more persons was in the toilet or on the ladder, M&#8217;Lady.
Nel: How would they get out of the toilet?
OP: Through the window, M&#8217;Lady
Nel: Through the window? And then go where? Fall down two st.., two fligh.., two storeys?
OP: M&#8217;lady, this question was posed to me on Thursday or Friday already, where we discussed the two possibilities. Mr Nel put to me that either they could have come out of the bathroom or they could have gone out the window with the ladder. We have already covered this, M&#8217;Lady
Nel: I am doing it again. How would you.. did you.. At the time, you are saying &#8216;Get out of my house!&#8217;, they are in toilet, what did you think? How would they get out?
OP: I wasn&#8217;t thinking M&#8217;Lady, I was screaming for the person to &#8216;Get out! Get out!&#8217;
Nel: You see &#8216;I wasn&#8217;t thinking&#8217; isn&#8217;t good for you Mr Pistorius. &#8216;I wasn&#8217;t thinking&#8217; is so reckless, at least. &#8216;I wasn&#8217;t thinking, I just fired&#8217;. Isn&#8217;t that what you are saying?
OP: No that&#8217;s not what I&#8217;m saying.
Nel: What are you saying then?
OP: I&#8217;m saying as I said about 10 minutes ago M&#8217;Lady, at the time I couldn&#8217;t think of any other words to say except to Get out and for Reeva to phone the police. Those were the two lines that I remember distinctively repeating. My inference is that they came in the window. Surely they could get out the window of the toilet?
Nel: Mr Pistorius, one of the ways of getting out was to come through the door.
OP: That&#8217;s correct, M&#8217;Lady .
Nel: You never gave them a chance, on your version, because that door never moved.
OP: That&#8217;s correct, M&#8217;Lady
Nel: So you said to the people &#8216;Get out!&#8217; which you never gave them a chance to do.
OP: I shouted and screamed for the people to get out and.. when&#8230;
Nel: You didn&#8217;t know who was in the toilet, am I right?
OP: I didn&#8217;t, M&#8217;LadyM&#8217;Lady
Nel: You didn&#8217;t know how many people were in there?
OP: That&#8217;s correct, M&#8217;Lady
Nel: You didn&#8217;t know if they were armed?
OP: That&#8217;s correct, M&#8217;Lady
Nel: You didn&#8217;t know if it could have been a child? It could have been anyone.
OP: That&#8217;s correct, M&#8217;Lady
Nel: It could have been a burglar, unarmed
OP: That&#8217;s correct, M&#8217;Lady.
Nel: But you gave them no chance, you just fired.
OP: That&#8217;s correct, M&#8217;Lady.

 

[Really?]

I am saying that Reeva could have emptied her bladder and opened the window without flushing the toilet.

Are you saying she exited the loo without a flush?....why....with OP's defense where does that come into play?

 

[Really?]

I don't know why Reeva didn't call the police.

I agree with your second point as I have stated many times. He should have known for a fact where Reeva was at.

He believed she was in bed by his account because that is the last place he had knowledge of her being. He acted out of fear and panic is his claim and he made a fatal assumption that he believed to be a true fact.

so...OP is a victim of circumstance....and his whole defense in this mind boggling murder is that he kept his back to the bed at all times...until he entered the passageway....??mighty convenient don't cha think ?

 

[liesbeth]

I was just wondering how much OP's failure to determine exactly who was in the cubicle, or even try to do so, will be a factor in the final deliberations. IIRC Pistorius had no answers to Nel's questions regarding this. You'd think that when the judge and assessors are looking at the questions regarding reasonable behaviour, OP's failure to not ask (or scream) 'Who is in there?', especially as a gun-owner with a weapon and seemingly the upper hand, will be another black mark against him. Any thoughts?

Very important observation, thank you, lithgow1.

Oscar's own testimony has the alleged intruder trapped inside the toilet with nowhere to go but out through the toilet door. Oscar never warned the intruder that he (OP) had a gun and was about to shoot. OP said he had just screamed at the intruder to get out of his house when he heard the toilet door opening...

 

[liesbeth]

Oscar claims that he interpreted the noise he heard as the door of the toilet opening which meant the intruder was moving further into his home in what could only reasonably be interpreted as a move of aggression, it would not be unreasonable to think that the intruder is of ill will at this point.

Oscar never told the intruder that he (Oscar) had a gun. He never said: "Stay where you are or I'll shoot." Nope. Oscar screamed at the intruder to get out of the house. He literally told the intruder to get out. How could the sound of the toilet door opening be perceived as an act of aggression by the intruder?

Edit: I meant to ask: How could Oscar not tell someone he had a gun, tell that someone to get out and then think the opening door is an act of aggression?