Trial Discussion Thread #10 - 14.03.19, Day 13

[sorrell skye]

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..

BBM

OP's claim that he thought an "intruder or intruders" was in his upstairs toilet is ludicrous, as far as I'm concerned.

I could envision a home invader being in the downstairs lounge or garage.

In his toilet??? Of all places.

OP's claim is ridiculous to the point of absurdity, IMO.

 

[Rumpole]

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.

He might be, but...

The Judge is not an investigator of the facts of the matter. She is there to rule on the case the State presents, and of course any defense reply (they do not have to reply at all).
At the moment all the State is presenting is that OP shot the door knowing that Reeva had taken refuge there following a loud argument.
IF they also in effect say "And even if that is not true then OP was reckless in shooting at the door thinking an intruder was there" and present evidence in regards that, then they have already conceded doubt that they themselves have. I don't think the State can present a "multiple choice" They have to argue what they say they KNOW happened, beyond reasonable doubt.
I have already said that the State over charged. They could argue a good case for some sort of manslaughter (in effect of an imagined intruder), but to persist with arguing MURDER they have to stick with proving that OP is lying and that he shot the door KNOWING Reeva was behind it because she has fled there during an argument.

 

[Val1]

There were only 4 shots fired.

Not disputed by the State.

Imo that's only because that's all they have proven so far were most definitely aimed at RS. We still have next week to see if that other pictoral evidence produces anything that will render the bat controversy null and void, by showing that there is evidence of other gunshots in the house that although not lethal and perhaps not even aimed directly at RS(I have my suspicions about this too, seems rather odd that a door that has a broken corner because it was obviously locked into the floor when someone tried to force it open, also has a gunshot through it), they could have been heard outside the home.

Anyway, this is my opinion and how I see the facts that have been presented so far. We'll see what next week holds but I'm not holding my breath, I firmly believe OP knew RS was in that room when he opened fire on it.

 

[sorrell skye]

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

I disagree that it's a moot point.

OP himself has made his alleged fear of an intruder hiding in his upstairs toilet the main point front & center.

 

[minor4th]

BBM

OP's claim that he thought an "intruder or intruders" was in his upstairs toilet is ludicrous, as far as I'm concerned.

I could envision a home invader being in the downstairs lounge or garage.

In his toilet??? Of all places.

OP's claim is ridiculous to the point of absurdity, IMO.

But a ludicrous belief should be expected from someone who has shown a history of having ludicrous beliefs - like Pistorius.

BTW - in the case of actual burglars trying to enter a home, I really don't think they discriminate about which room they enter. I think they enter through the most accessible point. Like an open window with no burglar bars - whether it be the bathroom, living room, garage, etc.

 

[Val1]

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."

You people must've had horrible dreams of the bogeyman growing up....

 

[sorrell skye]

But a ludicrous belief should be expected from someone who has shown a history of having ludicrous beliefs - like Pistorius.

BTW - in the case of actual burglars trying to enter a home, I really don't think they discriminate about which room enter. I think they enter through the most accessible point. Like an open window with no burglar bars - whether it be the bathroom, living room, garage, etc.

Why would a burglar enter through a bathroom window and then immediately hide in a toilet closet?

I think the purpose of breaking into homes is to burglarize them - and not to use the loo.

OP's alleged fear of a robber hiding in his toilet closet beggars belief, IMO.

 

[minor4th]

Why would a burglar enter through a bathroom window and then hide in a toilet closet?

I think the purpose of breaking into homes is to burglarize them - and not to use the loo.

If a burglar breaks in a bathroom, that's where he enters - no one said OP thought a burglar was "hiding" in the toilet room. According to him, he believed the intruder was just entering his home and he shot before the intruder could leave the toilet and shoot him first.

P.S. - for clarification - do you believe that Oscar never thought he heard an intruder, but instead waited for Reeva to use the toilet and then grabbed his gun and shot her because he wanted her dead?

 

[MeeBee]

BBM

OP's claim that he thought an "intruder or intruders" was in his upstairs toilet is ludicrous, as far as I'm concerned.

I could envision a home invader being in the downstairs lounge or garage.

In his toilet??? Of all places.

OP's claim is ridiculous to the point of absurdity, IMO.

Again, who, in a state of panic upon hearing a person in their bathroom would have the presence of mind to reflect on the silliness of it and re-collect themselves? Yes, it's absurd. But OP is pretty, absurd, isn't he? He'd thought in the past that he heard an intruder in his toilet and laundry room. Apparently, since those incidences, he's never got it in his head that it's a stupid notion, since he kept on making that assumption when he heard noises.

Also, I don't find it THAT crazy. If this had been an intruder, I'm sure he would not be the first burglar in the history of the world to go in through the upstairs toilet.

 

[MeeBee]

You people must've had horrible dreams of the bogeyman growing up....

I don't know what that means but I did actually. I had awful terrors. I'm still scared of the dark now as an adult. Thanks for bringing up painful memories for me though...

 

[sorrell skye]

If a burglar breaks in a bathroom, that's where he enters - no one said OP thought a burglar was "hiding" in the toilet room. According to him, he believed the intruder was just entering his home and he shot before the intruder could leave the toilet and shoot him first.

BBM

Not true.

In his BH affidavit, OP himself said the following:

I noticed that the bathroom window was open. I realised that the intruder/s was/were in the toilet because the toilet door was closed and I did not see anyone in the bathroom. I heard movement inside the toilet. The toilet is inside the bathroom and has a separate door.

http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2013/02/19/copy-of-oscar-pistorius-affidavit-click-to-read/

Sounds to me like he would have everyone believe that he thought the burglar had entered through the bathroom window & was hiding in his toilet.

The bathroom window was open. The toilet window was closed & too small for a burglar to crawl through.

As I stated before: ludicrous.

 

[emirates1957]

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.

I have said it before and I will say it again, your posts are bright, witty, super intelligent, simply brilliant a pleasure to ponder over.

 

[MeeBee]

BBM

Not true.

In his BH affidavit, OP himself said the following:

I noticed that the bathroom window was open. I realised that the intruder/s was/were in the toilet because the toilet door was closed and I did not see anyone in the bathroom. I heard movement inside the toilet. The toilet is inside the bathroom and has a separate door.

http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2013/02/19/copy-of-oscar-pistorius-affidavit-click-to-read/

Sounds to me like he would have everyone believe that he thought the burglar was hiding in his toilet.

The bathroom window was open. The toilet window was closed & too small for a burglar to crawl through.

I don't think you can make a determination either way from that statement.

 

[minor4th]

BBM

Not true.

In his BH affidavit, OP himself said the following:

I noticed that the bathroom window was open. I realised that the intruder/s was/were in the toilet because the toilet door was closed and I did not see anyone in the bathroom. I heard movement inside the toilet. The toilet is inside the bathroom and has a separate door.

http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2013/02/19/copy-of-oscar-pistorius-affidavit-click-to-read/

Sounds to me like he would have everyone believe that he thought the burglar had entered through the bathroom window & was hiding in his toilet.

The bathroom window was open. The toilet window was closed & too small for a burglar to crawl through.

I don't read that as him saying he thought the burglar was hiding in the toilet - only that he thought that's where the burglar was.

 

[Rumpole]

And... this discussion we are having about whether it is reasonable for OP to imagine an intruder in the toilet etc is all moot as far as the trial is concerned (so far). Like I say.... the State are not presenting any argument about this one way or the other, and so it is NOT something the Judge will consider... as things stand. As far as the State's case goes (so far) there was no intruder. Not even one that OP imagined. They are just arguing the facts around OP chasing Reeva into the toilet and shooting her.

 

[MeeBee]

Can anyone tell me - is Oscar also being charged with culpable homicide or does SA have what we call lesser includeds for the judge to consider?

 

[minor4th]

Can anyone tell me - is Oscar also being charged with culpable homicide or does SA have what we call lesser includeds for the judge to consider?

I read that his murder charge also includes the lesser offense of culpable homicide, so I think that is definitely something the judge can consider.

 

[Rumpole]

Can anyone tell me - is Oscar also being charged with culpable homicide or does SA have what we call lesser includeds for the judge to consider?

I thought that there were lesser included charges, but I see alternatives to firearms charges, and not the main charge?

COUNT 1
MURDER – READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 51(1) OF ACT 105 OF 1977:

Full Indictment-4 Counts-107 Witnesses
http://www.scribd.com/embeds/185695...=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true

 

[sorrell skye]

If a burglar breaks in a bathroom, that's where he enters - no one said OP thought a burglar was "hiding" in the toilet room. According to him, he believed the intruder was just entering his home and he shot before the intruder could leave the toilet and shoot him first.

P.S. - for clarification - do you believe that Oscar never thought he heard an intruder, but instead waited for Reeva to use the toilet and then grabbed his gun and shot her because he wanted her dead?

BBM

Responding to your post again, in order to address your P.S. which wasn't in your post when I previously replied.

No, I don't believe OP heard an 'intruder'. Nor do I believe that he waited until Reeva got up to use the toilet, grabbed his gun, and shot her because he wanted her dead.

Based on witness testimony, I believe there was an argument that escalated (on OP's part) into a dangerous rage. I believe Reeva, in fear for her safety and/or life, fled into the toilet cubicle (because the main bedroom door was locked and she had nowhere else to run), locked the toilet door, and was gunned down by OP.

I believe he only stopped firing after the 4th gunshot because the 4th bullet penetrated & exited her skull, at which time Reeva's terrified screams subsided and he believed she was dead.

I believe that if the 4th bullet had not totally incapacitated her (killed her), he would have kept firing until Reeva stopped screaming (was dead) or until OP ran out of bullets.

As I've stated in previous posts, I think OP is using his past fear of phantom intruders to cover for what I think was his rage killing of Reeva.

 

[Dr Mattus]

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.

But is it culpable homicide? I thought culpable homicide was where you acted negligently and involuntarily caused a death (like drinking and driving, or hunting with Dick Cheney - I kid).

But if you unload 4 hollow tips into a person who poses no rationale threat to you beyond being in your toilet, is that not murder? Would it not be murder if it was not Reeva behind the door?