Trial Discussion Thread #10 - 14.03.19, Day 13

[zwiebel]

I think everyone was in a state of such high anticipation about the blood splatter evidence, expecting some great revelation, that when Nel just seemed to skim the subject people thought he had lost his way. I did at first.

Now I think he was just interested in the only info of value that was found - that (according to state) Reeva was hit in the hip, fell, and then shot in the head. In theory this leaves time for her to scream and also, in a way, puts to rest some of Roux's attempts to discredit investigators.

I recall Roux concentrating on the magazine rack being moved away from the toilet in one photo and how it was contamination etc. But that actually showed the rack in a place that was not helpful to the state's version at all, as Reeva couldn't have fallen on it there.

So I don't think the blood spatter evidence was too disappointing. I think the state just worked with the little they had which sadly wasn't that much. I do wish wish wish there had been more detailed, minute examination/charting of the wood splinters. I think they could have revealed much more about the bat/shots sequence. Tiny splinters laying under an undisturbed spot of Reeva's blood, for example.

Sadly, the splinters seem to be the very things that were lost, misplaced, moved and largely ignored by the photographer.

 

[Cherwell]

According to Stipp, a while after leaving OP's house, at 4:17am, he received a call from Stander informing him to expect a call from OP's lawyer. Stipp said he assumed Stander would've directed police to him for a statement, but he was surprised to find he was not contacted by police that day at all. The following day (2/15?), Stipp went to the security manager to ask for the number of whoever was managing the police investigation so he could inform them he'd been on the scene and give them a statement. Police then went to Stipp's office to take a statement.

Is it known whether Dr Stipp ever received a call from OP's lawyer?

 

[Cherwell]

Quite a few people here seem to be talking as though the prosecution case has been concluded. It hasn't. There are more witnesses to come.

He is not allowed to rework his case because it is cheating.

At most he can be on the ball and think on his feet as things proceed... but not taking 4 and a half days out having seen clues as to the defense. He is of course free to use the second half of the afternoon each day... to work late at night and weekends already.

You speak as if the court would otherwise have been sitting for those four days. They have in fact adjourned for only ONE day. Friday is a public holiday and then there is the weekend.

 

[james83]

Alex Crawford ‏@AlexCrawfordSky 15 mins
#OscarPistorius OP has announced he's selling his Silverwoods Estate house in order to fund his 'increasing legal costs' m/f
:boohoo::boohoo::boohoo::boohoo:

Not because of the horrific memories of shooting Reeva then?.

 

[Onlyamum]

So this appeared today on Oscar's website

http://oscarpistorius.com/sale-of-silverwoods-home-to-be-expedited/

They are saying the trial is taking longer than expected (courtesty of Mr Roux I think) and that he has never been back to the house since the event (thought that was a condition of his bail anyway?)

 

[weeeva]

Believability is not based entirely upon emotion, imo. I am basing it upon common sense. If I hear scary noises in the middle of the night, the FIRST thing I do is check where my husband and kids are, to make sure it is not them making the noise. That is basic common sense, not emotion based.

And IF I accidentally began shooting one of my family members, I assume they would begin screaming out in pain and fear, and would not be totally silent, as OP would like us to believe. Again, common sense, not emotionally based, imo.

I don't have to believe with certainty that they fought loudly that night, to believe he is lying when he gives us that ridiculous story of phantom intruders.It could have happened differently. Maybe she went to use the bathroom and he grabbed her cell, to see who was texting her? And he saw something that angered him and went after her?

Looking at it from the point of view that OP did believe an intruder was in his house, I can understand how events unfolded.
When under severe stress or in a panic situation people do not always behave in a rational manner. Some people may freeze, some flee and some fight. In his mind he'd left Reeva moments before in bed. Within moments of him being up he heard sounds, he panicked and in his mind Reeva was still where she was moments earlier, in bed. Does everybody analyse their every word and deed when in a potentially life threatening situation? I don't think so.
I have been trying to think of a motive that would make OP kill his girlfriend deliberately. The most obvious would be, as you say, he caught Reeva texting or phoning another man. We don't know yet who's phone was found in the bathroom. Was Reeva hiding in the toilet texting/phoning, or did OP believe wrongly that this was happening? Jealousy is a powerful emotion.
I hope the prosecution brings this up on Monday. If they don't, then it would appear that this was not the case at all.
Also, in the past when OP had family or friends staying overnight and he heard someone moving about outside his own bedroom, I think he would have stopped to think that it could be his guest, and would have been more careful with his gun. But if he believed the only other person in the house was in the same room as him in bed, then he would react differently because the situation is different.

 

[james83]

I honestly think the only 2 decisions possible in this case should be pre meditated murder or murder.
The fact is there were 2 people in a house and one shot the other 4 times, how can a court take into account an imaginary person, it would set a very dangerous precedent imo.

 

[Viper]

I honestly think the only 2 decisions possible in this case should be pre meditated murder or murder.
The fact is there were 2 people in a house and one shot the other 4 times, how can a court take into account an imaginary person, it would set a very dangerous precedent imo.

Indeed! But on the bright side, the number of new petitions for divorce would plummet.

 

[TorisMom003]

While reading through the thread I noticed two posts that I felt needed to be responded to.

The first one has to do with Burger being the one that stated that the gun shots were bang..............bangbangbang and that no one else testified to that. This is untrue. The ballistics expert testified that based on the bullet trajectory and where Reeva was shot at, that the gunshots had to be just as Burger described. Reeva was standing when the first bullet hit her (in the hip) and had to have time to fall down before the other three shots occurred.

The second thing was about if Reeva was instead a four year old daughter that we would think it was a simple tragedy. This is not really true either. As a member of WS and reading numerous cases of children being murdered by their parents one knows that a case must be looked at completely before saying "oh dear, what a tragic accident". With the same conditions that occurred being there for either Reeva OR a child, it points to intentional killing, IMO.

MOO

 

[curiousjo]

RS was awake - the neighbors heard them arguing for an hour! He went to the bedside to get his gun. That is when he would have noticed she wasn't there. That is when he would have told her that he was concerned with intruder. Neighbors hear intermixed male and woman fighting, woman's blood cursing scream - gun shots - then woman has stopped screaming. OP story doesn't add up...

 

[TorisMom003]

For someone so concerned about the security issues of his home, why did OP "sleep" for 5 hours with the patio sliding doors open at night? Sorry but that doesn't make sense and tells me that he is lying about either being asleep at all that night or being afraid of intruders coming into his home.

 

[steveml]

I honestly think the only 2 decisions possible in this case should be pre meditated murder or murder.
The fact is there were 2 people in a house and one shot the other 4 times, how can a court take into account an imaginary person, it would set a very dangerous precedent imo.

SA law doesn't actually recognise a charge of premeditated murder, unlike many other countries, so there is no defined sentence term. To allow the possibility of a longer sentence than could be given for murder, Nel is claiming the accused committed murder (in it's normal sense) and is arguing the case that the murder was also premeditated. It does sound a bit like semantics but the big difference is that it gives the judge an option to impose a longer sentence than would normally be available for murder (which does not have a mandatory life sentence).

 

[Harmony 2]

Folks, we have a thread dedicated to "Sounds"

Sounds - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

I am going to move the pertinent posts to that thread... so if you are looking for a post regarding sounds and noises look there.

 

[BritsKate]

The lawyers talking in Minor4th's link a page back summed it up: a trial isn't about what's true, it's about what can be proven. Everyone, even the judge, could be certain that he knew it was Reeva, but if there's any doubt, then it hasn't been proven. Frustrating, but I know that if I'm ever on trial for a very serious offence, I want to make damn sure they prove their case against me. OP has the same right.

I don't believe him, and I do think the first witnesses were very credible and I believe that it's more likely than not that they heard Reeva screaming. Even one scream from her is enough to prove that his story is a fairytale.

RSBM

Even one scream from her meets the legal definition of premeditation in South Africa.

In fact, “premeditation” in South African law simply means “intentional,” meaning that the person that killed meant to do it at the time, and thus that intent can be formed almost instantaneously and need not have been carefully considered beforehand. The other charge, culpable homicide, applies to negligent killings.

http://newyorkcriminaldefenseblawg.com/tag/south-africa/

 

[Cherwell]

RS was awake - the neighbors heard them arguing for an hour! He went to the bedside to get his gun. That is when he would have noticed she wasn't there. That is when he would have told her that he was concerned with intruder. Neighbors hear intermixed male and woman fighting, woman's blood cursing scream - gun shots - then woman has stopped screaming. OP story doesn't add up...

Yes - argument or no argument, by his own testimony he had just spoken to her, so I find it utterly unbelievable that he wouldn't have done so again at that point. And in such circumstances one would want to speak quietly or whisper, so that means getting close to the other person.

I disagree about the running around in a frenzy, that is not a normal reaction at all, you would be doing anything to get that door open, he didn't know for sure if Reeva was in the toilet at that stage, she could have been hiding or gone downstairs, the only thing he should have logically been shouting before he knows for sure it was her in there was her name over and over, put yourself in the position he claims he was in, shot an intruder through a door then can't account for your partner, i guarantee anyone in the scenario would have been yelling there partner's name over and over whilst getting the door open.

That is a very good point! Surely he would have been shouting her name immediately after the shooting.

 

[weeeva]

I think she has the duty to decide whether it was reasonable to assume it was an intruder in the bathroom, when he had not yet looked to see if his girlfriend was in bed. I think it is unreasonable to assume there is an intruder in your home, if you have not yet checked on the other occupants whereabouts.

I do not believe that she has to accept his version, that he believed it to be an intruder, if there were no other corroborating facts to support that. The dogs were not barking, the ladder was not tall enough, it was a gated community, the bathroom window was very small, etc etc. And he had not checked to see if it was his girlfriend that was using the toilet.

I do not think that a person who truly believes there is an intruder in their home uses a check list (while in a state of panic) to tick off reasons why it may not be an intruder. I would never think along the lines of "The dogs did not bark so it can't be an intruder". "The ladders are too short so it can't be an intruder". I would have trouble thinking at all in that situation. If he had left Reeva in bed just moments before hand and did not see or hear her getting up, in his mind he did not need to check her whereabouts. Of course he still broke the law even if his version is true.

 

[LemonMousse]

Folks, we have a thread dedicated to "Sounds"

Sounds - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

I am going to move the pertinent posts to that thread... so if you are looking for a post regarding sounds and noises look there.

Oops, sorry. X-post. My last one probably belongs in the sound thread.

 

[nastasya]

Believability is not based entirely upon emotion, imo. I am basing it upon common sense. If I hear scary noises in the middle of the night, the FIRST thing I do is check where my husband and kids are, to make sure it is not them making the noise. That is basic common sense, not emotion based.

And IF I accidentally began shooting one of my family members, I assume they would begin screaming out in pain and fear, and would not be totally silent, as OP would like us to believe. Again, common sense, not emotionally based, imo.

I don't have to believe with certainty that they fought loudly that night, to believe he is lying when he gives us that ridiculous story of phantom intruders.It could have happened differently. Maybe she went to use the bathroom and he grabbed her cell, to see who was texting her? And he saw something that angered him and went after her?[/QUOTE]

Looking at it from the point of view that OP did believe an intruder was in his house, I can understand how events unfolded.
When under severe stress or in a panic situation people do not always behave in a rational manner. Some people may freeze, some flee and some fight. In his mind he'd left Reeva moments before in bed. Within moments of him being up he heard sounds, he panicked and in his mind Reeva was still where she was moments earlier, in bed. Does everybody analyse their every word and deed when in a potentially life threatening situation? I don't think so.
I have been trying to think of a motive that would make OP kill his girlfriend deliberately. The most obvious would be, as you say, he caught Reeva texting or phoning another man. We don't know yet who's phone was found in the bathroom. Was Reeva hiding in the toilet texting/phoning, or did OP believe wrongly that this was happening? Jealousy is a powerful emotion.
I hope the prosecution brings this up on Monday. If they don't, then it would appear that this was not the case at all.
Also, in the past when OP had family or friends staying overnight and he heard someone moving about outside his own bedroom, I think he would have stopped to think that it could be his guest, and would have been more careful with his gun. But if he believed the only other person in the house was in the same room as him in bed, then he would react differently because the situation is different.

Your recounting of OP's version of events makes OP seem even more ridiculous.

1. OP is sleeping in a bed with Reeva.
2. OP gets up, makes noise bringing in fans from deck.
3. OP hears window slide open in bathroom after he brings in the fans.

What is the cause of panic?

If OP was bringing in fans because it was a hot night, wouldn't the person he's sleeping with opening a window be an expected, not unexpected event?

 

[jassy writer]

Regarding the state's decision to go for premeditated murder, it is usual in SA law (as far as I know) for prosecution to push for the maximum as they can't go back later and change their charge from culpable homicide to murder. So they have to start by charging him with the max. Then it is up to the judge's discretion whether or not to uphold the charge or to impose a lesser sentence for a lesser charge. If premeditated murder is not proven it does not mean he cannot be found guilty of murder or culpable homicide - he can. But it would not work the other way round if the state started out with a lesser charge.

 

[soozieqtips]

I do not think that a person who truly believes there is an intruder in their home uses a check list (while in a state of panic) to tick off reasons why it may not be an intruder. I would never think along the lines of "The dogs did not bark so it can't be an intruder". "The ladders are too short so it can't be an intruder". I would have trouble thinking at all in that situation. If he had left Reeva in bed just moments before hand and did not see or hear her getting up, in his mind he did not need to check her whereabouts. Of course he still broke the law even if his version is true.

BBM - The judge simply has to decide what a 'reasonable' person would be expected to do under the same circumstances. If she feels that a reasonable person, one who has experience of guns and is 'qualified' and trusted to own guns, by correctly answering all the questions on the questionnaire - then she may believe that OP did not act in a reasonable way, and that because the bullets he used were designed to kill (which OP knew when he shot at the door), that the killing was intentional.

By the way, do you own guns? If not, then you wouldn't be expected to act in the same way as someone who does own guns and who is fully aware of when they're allowed to use them.

OP had other ways of protecting himself, but chose to kill. No warning shots, nothing. He just killed. At the end of the day, the judge has to decide whether his actions were reasonable, given the circumstances - or whether they were unreasonable. I'm leaning towards her thinking 'unreasonable'.