Trial Discussion Thread #10 - 14.03.19, Day 13

[katydid23]

Correct... then he heard a separate set of bang noises at 3:17... sounded like gunshots too... obviously cricket bat on door.... so the second set of bangs fooled his experienced ear, and so not surprising they fooled the burger(s)

...even if that was what they heard, it still does not mean that he didn't know that was her in the toilet when he shot through the door.

 

[Trooper]

On planet earth, where women getting up to pee in the middle of the night is common, it is REASONABLE to assume the noises in the toilet stall are from the woman who's sharing your bedroom.

Imagining noises from a burglar climbing through a 2nd story window and immediately going to pee, then immediately rushing to put through bullets through the door... not so reasonable.

:denied:

and strangely enough, you would hardly believe it, but South African law agrees with this odd and unusual conclusion.

so does Australia New Zealand, Britain, France , Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Switzerland, Italy, Thailand, Singapore, Japan, Kenya, Belgium, blahblahblah..

of course, there is probably a place on earth that doesn't agree, in fact, encourages the shooting of women who get up in the night to pee.. I don't know where, but ... I know that in the USA, the highest cause of death in the world among pregnant women is murder, and they get up and pee a lot thru the night. hourly.. . it comes with the territory, so.. maybe its there.. I dunno.

 

[MeeBee]

My question for you is how can you be so sure that Stipp did not hear two sets of actual gunshots instead of the defense's version of bat and gun sounds?

Just because OP managed to only score 3 out of the last 4 actual gunshots on RS that were definitely heard by what, four different witnesses?, doesn't mean there weren't more that they didn't hear(probably because they were deeper in the house and/or by then the doors and windows were closed muffling the sound, or they were still asleep, had the stereo up, etc.) and we haven't heard evidence about yet other than the photo of the other door with another gun close by, anymore than the 2 marks from the bat can be made out to be more than the evidence shows, no matter how much the defense wants there to be.

There is definitely bias on both sides I get that, but unless you or I were there, all we can do is try to make sense of what the judge has been presented with as evidence and hope it goes the way we would prefer and preface our comments with imo....

I can't be sure. I'm not sure. And if I'm not sure then I must give the benefit of the doubt to Oscar.

I get that this is a forum and people are free to post what they feel and to fill in the blanks for themselves. I've been there. But when most of the arguments are "why didn't he do this or that? Wouldn't he have done this? His story is dumb," that's not enough to convince me, personally of someone's guilt. There's very little in the way of fact there. It's more a gut feeling. If I'm going to condemn someone I better make very sure I am confident in their guilt. He could be guilty. But he might not be.

I think manslaughter, or the SA equivalent is what I would convict him of.

 

[luvmygarden]

Roux. "I will put to you I am not trying to discredit you" BUT
I AM discrediting you.

With every interview he tries to discredit what the witness has heard.. He makes me crazy. At first it was just irritating but every single witness goes through this. These people are going to hate the name Pistorius. He is on trial not these witnesses. What a waste for an attorney getting up and giving his scenario to the witness over and over as if it is a FACT. Roux is giving them false facts and trying to get them to agree with him when they don't he badgers them to death. Maybe I need to quit watching this. Ugggg

 

[Rumpole]

My question for you is how can you be so sure that Stipp did not hear two sets of actual gunshots instead of the defense's version of bat and gun sounds?

Just because OP managed to only score 3 out of the last 4 actual gunshots on RS that were definitely heard by what, four different witnesses?, doesn't mean there weren't more that they didn't hear(probably because they were deeper in the house and/or by then the doors and windows were closed muffling the sound, or they were still asleep, had the stereo up, etc.) and we haven't heard evidence about yet other than the photo of the other door with another gun close by, anymore than the 2 marks from the bat can be made out to be more than the evidence shows, no matter how much the defense wants there to be.

There is definitely bias on both sides I get that, but unless you or I were there, all we can do is try to make sense of what the judge has been presented with as evidence and hope it goes the way we would prefer and preface our comments with imo....

There were only 4 shots fired.

Not disputed by the State.

 

[katydid23]

I can't be sure. I'm not sure. And if I'm not sure then I must give the benefit of the doubt to Oscar.

I get that this is a forum and people are free to post what they feel and to fill in the blanks for themselves. I've been there. But when most of the arguments are "why didn't he do this or that? Wouldn't he have done this? His story is dumb," that's not enough to convince me, personally of someone's guilt. There's very little in the way of fact there. It's more a gut feeling. If I'm going to condemn someone I better make very sure I am confident in their guilt. He could be guilty. But he might not be.

But he is guilty of shooting through a door, sight unseen, with the intent to kill whomever was on the other side. That is manslaughter at the very least.

 

[Trooper]

I am not sure of the research done on the number of burglers who make STRAIGHT for the toilet in your home before burglarizing it.

don't know if anyone has even done an indepth research on it..or even a shallow one.

maybe burglers don't admit to it. out of embarrassment..

maybe even the homeowners don't admit to it.. in the cause of modesty.. just don't know..

 

[MeeBee]

But he is guilty of shooting through a door, sight unseen, with the intent to kill whomever was on the other side. That is manslaughter at the very least.

I actually added to my post that I would convict him of manslaughter before you posted this. I'm not disagreeing there. I meant guilty of premeditation.

 

[MeeBee]

I am not sure of the research done on the number of burglers who make STRAIGHT for the toilet in your home before burglarizing it.

don't know if anyone has even done an indepth research on it..or even a shallow one.

maybe burglers don't admit to it. out of embarrassment..

maybe even the homeowners don't admit to it.. in the cause of modesty.. just don't know..

Well, there wasn't actually a burglar in this case so the point is moot.

 

[nastasya]

Yes, it is.

And that is the question, isn't it. How can anyone say for sure he didn't?

They can say for sure OP knew it wasn't an intruder because four witnesses testified they heard a woman screaming in terror, as if she was about to be killed.

 

[Val1]

I posted the videos where the State's witness, in response to questioning by both the prosecution and defense, said the gunshots were before the cricket bat.

Is the State's witness right or wrong? I don't know, but the evidence is that the gunshots were before the cricket bat striking the door and it's transcribed for all to see with the accompanying videos if you don't want to take my word for it.

So yes, make your own determination.

Yes the police guy said in his opinion they did, but did not rule out that the bat hits were likely just hard enough to scare the occupant and not to actually break down the door since there were only two marks that fit with the marks on the bat.

As to why anyone would want to scare someone that they had already shot to death, I'm pretty sure any "intruder" noises would have stopped by then, I dunno... and if OP wasn't really trying to break down the door with the bat in his version, as evidenced by only hitting it twice, then the lie is that he was trying to rescue the person that he had shot, at least not until security called him letting him know that someone had heard the commotion and by gawd he better come up with a plan, fast!

 

[MeeBee]

They can say for sure OP knew it wasn't an intruder because four witnesses testified they heard a woman screaming in terror, as if she was about to be killed.

This does give pause. But the point has already been made that it could have been Oscar screaming, especially if the first set of shots Stipp heard were gunshots. One witness already said she had mistaken Oscar's cries for a woman. More doubt for me.

 

[Rumpole]

If the Judge finds "manslaughter" she will first have to agree that OP did not KNOW Reeva was behind the door. And then consider OP's actions as if he were indeed of the belief that an intruder was behind the door.

The State have not argued that case at all. Maybe they will next week?

To do that they will first have to concede themselves that there is DOUBT that OP shot knowing Reeva was in the toilet.



ETA
If the State do not present that as part of their case.. (and the defense don't raise it)...the Judge can not consider it's merits.

 

[Trooper]

I suppose some burglars are well mannered enough to 'go' before they set out to burgle, .. possibly some get a bit overcome by the excitement of it all and piddle on the floor.. maybe some break in specifically to use a strange toilet... the fetishists , who are part time burglars.. who would go far as to climb a rickety ladder and squeeze thru a window in the hunt for an attractive toilet..

then there are the women burglars.. the would be more prone , I would think. to need to 'go', wherever.. front yard, your toilet, mine, theirs.. and then, there are the pregnant women burglars, who probably spend a lot of time in strange toilets in the quest for articles not their own.. ...


maybe I have been burgled by a toilet obsessed felon.. I don't know. they must have been well trained. .. I haven't noticed any strange shredded paper or. other stuff.

 

[nastasya]

Like I have posted before, OP has a well documented history of irrational fear and paranoia. Sam Taylor said she had been woken a couple times by oscar because he heard a noise and thought it was an intruder. He almost shot his washing machine. It's not really surprising that something like this happened to a man with such a hair trigger and one that spooks so easily. It was a long time coming. I'm not excusing him. But I think that makes it quite possible that he believed there was an intruder.

Why didn't he wake Reeva? Well, I went through this before as well. It was different this time. There was actually a person in the bathroom the scenario he'd been fearing in his mind was happening and he went into full on panic mode. He wasn't thinking rationally at all. In his mind Reeva is still in bed. He perhaps didn't check her for those two reasons. Saying he didn't do what one thought he should or would do in this situation is not proof that his story is untruthful. It's speculation. You still can't say for certain that he didn't believe there was an intruder in the house. Saying so is just plain biased.

The state does not have to prove that OP's version is not true. That would be a ridiculous.

Second, Reeva wasn't in bed. She was in the bathroom screaming. Four witnesses testified to this. Therefore we can say for certain one of two things:

1. Either all four witnesses misheard the sounds of a terrified screaming, and both a man and a woman's voices being heard, or
2. OP heard Reeva screaming too, which means he murdered her and made up the intruder story because there is nothing else he could possibly say to justify following RS down the hallway, into the bathroom, and shooting four times through the toilet door.

The state has a prima facie case. Dead body. Shooter. Premeditation because he followed her into the bathroom and shot her through the toilet door four times.

The defense now has the burden of proof to show why OP's actions were not illegal.

 

[MeeBee]

If the Judge finds "manslaughter" she will first have to agree that OP did not KNOW Reeva was behind the door. And then consider OP's actions as if he were indeed of the belief that an intruder was behind the door.

The State have not argued that case at all. Maybe they will next week?

To do that they will first have to concede themselves that there is DOUBT that OP shot knowing Reeva was in the toilet.

If the judge says he is not guilty of premeditated murder, then she will be essentially saying, I believe your story, you thought it was an intruder. And will rule accordingly. The state may not be hitting that point yet, or as hard, yet. But he could still be found guilty of culpable homicide.

 

[MeeBee]

The state does not have to prove that OP's version is not true. That would be a ridiculous.

Second, Reeva wasn't in bed. She was in the bathroom screaming. Four witnesses testified to this. Therefore we can say for certain one of two things:

1. Either all four witnesses misheard the sounds of a terrified screaming, and both a man and a woman's voices being heard, or
2. OP heard Reeva screaming too, which means he murdered her and made up the intruder story because there is nothing else he could possibly say to justify following RS down the hallway, into the bathroom, and shooting four times through the toilet door.

The state has a prima facie case. Dead body. Shooter. Premeditation because he followed her into the bathroom and shot her through the toilet door four times.

The defense now has the burden of proof to show why OP's actions were not illegal.

I didn't say that in my post at all. I don't know where you're getting that from.

No, Reeva was not in bed, she was in the bathroom. Whether or not she was screaming is still in dispute, I think. Again that's not what I was saying. What I addressing was why Oscar didn't make an attempt to wake her when he heard someone in the bathroom. Obviously, if he had, he would have seen she was not in end and Reeva would probably still be alive. You're a bit off topic.

What the witnesses heard is also in dispute. I believe the defense has done a good job of establishing reasonable doubt in that it could have been Oscar's screams they heard and had mistaken for a woman.

 

[minor4th]

Yes the police guy said in his opinion they did, but did not rule out that the bat hits were likely just hard enough to scare the occupant and not to actually break down the door since there were only two marks that fit with the marks on the bat.

As to why anyone would want to scare someone that they had already shot to death, I'm pretty sure any "intruder" noises would have stopped by then, I dunno... and if OP wasn't really trying to break down the door with the bat in his version, as evidenced by only hitting it twice, then the lie is that he was trying to rescue the person that he had shot, at least not until security called him letting him know that someone had heard the commotion and by gawd he better come up with a plan, fast!

The bat broke through the door, or at least caused it to splinter and created enough room for it to be pried apart with his hands or pried open with the cricket bat.

I didn't hear any evidence that the hits from the cricket bat were only superficial.

The police witness did not say anything at all about a cricket bat being used to scare someone. He said he couldnt determine when the alleged kick mark was made and when prodded speculated that the door could be kicked to scare someone.

 

[minor4th]

Well, there wasn't actually a burglar in this case so the point is moot.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect a person in the middle of the night, hearing a sound they believe to be an intruder - to pause and research how many burglaries have been through a bathroom window.

 

[MeeBee]

I don't think it's reasonable to expect a person in the middle of the night, hearing a sound they believe to be an intruder - to pause and research how many burglaries have been through a bathroom window.

Exactly. I don't either. If I think I hear someone in my closed toilet room and think it's an intruder, I'm not going to think, "the toilet room? That's odd. What sort of burglar sneaks in through the toilet room? How embarrassing for him."