Trial Discussion Thread #11 weekend thread

[G.bng]

Well I read it. The numerous deceased were not all unarmed. Some were and they were all attacking as a group in two separate groups - the first group had bottles and the second group had a knife in addition to the fact that they outnumbered the victim/shooter. Some of them sustained wounds to their backs or sides because they turned as the victim fired his shotgun in self defense after the groups initiated their attacks. All of these gang members that were initially described as victims before I read the article were actually assailants with intent to cause defendant great bodily harm, so the law was applied correctly!

I cannot see a ANYTHING in that case that is even REMOTELY similar to what OP did, so I cannot see it helping OP or being indicative in any way to what the outcome of the OP trial will be. I wish that I hadn't spent the time and energy reading it.

I read the first shootings the same way as you; the appeal court found all were assailants and therefore that the appellant shot in self defence (I am not sure I believe the shooter though!), but I think you have misread the second group. The appeal court upheld all three murder convictions handed down by the first court for the men the appellant shot at the house and the way I see it it does have some bearing on this case. The knife was for peeling potatoes which the victim was doing at the time the appellant arrived and the dog never attacked, nor did any of the others. The appeal court noted: "On the facts the appellant could not reasonably have believed that his life was in danger when he shot Hassan, Jacobs and Gouws. The convictions [murder] in respect of 5, 6 and 7, must, therefore, stand.

From that it appears OP should need more than just a belief, however genuine it was to him, to successfully claim imminent danger and reasonability to use deadly force against an unseen aggressor.

 

[Rumpole]

Maybe it's important because Burger testified that she heard a woman screaming in terror, reaching a crescondo, just before she heard four gunshots that went:

Bang...... bang bang bang.

The pause after the first shot would have allowed RS's body to fall while she screamed in agony, giving OP notice it was RS behind the toilet door. He kept shooting knowing his first shot hit her. The forensic evidence matches exactly with the witness testimony.

Woman screaming in terror. Gunshots. Silence.

OP is shooter + RS was woman screaming = OPG

From the evidence...

Almost certainly Burger missed hearing the shots. The time that she heard "bangs" coincides with Stipp hearing a SECOND set of bangs. Almost certainly cricket bat on door. By the time Burger(s) woke up Reeva was dead and certainly not screaming in agony or anything else

What she has convinced herself (and her husband) to be women's screams etc must be...OP High pitched screams/shouts.....

Followed by Desperate bashing with cricket bat to get through toilet door.

And Burger did not hear the ensuing drama and phone calls and cops etc... from a quarter of a mile away.

 

[MeeBee]

In what parallel universe is it "too much of a possibility" that:

1. A man can shoot a woman dead in his house, then
2. The same man would exactly replicate the sounds of that gun attack on the woman 30 seconds later, AND
3. All the witnesses heard the replicated sounds of the attack and killing, not the actual attack.

Seriously, do you really think that's a reasonable alibi?

I will no longer respond to sarcasm, condescension, or straw man arguments after this, so from now on, if you want me to interact with you, please consider talking to me like an adult.

But as for points 2 and 3: what exactly are you talking about?

 

[G.bng]

what about the screaming....he stated they went to bed at 10:00 and slept.....but yet he changed that to he had just spoken to Reeva. And the undigested food in her putting last bite around 1:00 a.m.

4 different witnesses testified under oath they heard screams.....from a woman.

Let us not forget that immediately following the shooting answered a call from security and told them "everything is fine"........also....wth did he run upstairs for after Reeva died at the bottom of his staircase?


just curious

Well spotted the detail about OP claiming bed at 10 but at 3:00am, “Shortly before that, I spoke to Reeva who was next to me in bed,”. A new addition to his bail statement which brought me to think how convenient for answering one of the million dollar questions everyone asks, i.e. why didn't OP check the bed ? by adding this extra detail he sort of answers it !

I find what he says in respect of his mobility contradictory also, the following all from his account before he puts on his prosthetics:

Although I did not have my prosthetic legs on I have mobility on my stumps.

I felt trapped as my bedroom door was locked and I have limited mobility on my stumps.

I rushed back into the bedroom and opened the sliding door exiting onto the balcony and screamed for help.

 

[G.bng]

Yes, there is no hard and fast rule but if a defendant holds a genuine belief of imminent harm - whether reasonable or not, if it's at least possibly true - then that bumps it from intentional murder to culpable homicide at most.

It was also a charge for attempted murder which requires a specific intent to kill a person (unlawfully) and an attempt to do so. I don't think there's such a thing as attempted culpable homicide, so it would be proper to dismiss that charge.

The other counts were reduced from murder to culpable homicide because it was "reasonably possibly true" that the defendant mistakenly believed he was still subject to imminent harm.

I understand what you are saying but I you have me wrong. I can't agree that if a defendant holds a genuine belief of imminent harm that is "at least possibly true" it will suffice to get the charge bumped down to CH. As I said in previous post, the way I read SA law, "genuine belief" and "imminent threat" have to be more than just a whim of the beholder.

Imo much more relevant to this case from the link are the 3 the nutter shot at the house for which he was handed 3 murder convictions by the first court with the appeal court upholding all three on the basis that he could not have reasonably thought his life was in danger. How could OP reasonably feel his life was in danger if he didn't even see an intruder, a knife or a gun? IMO even if OP did believe an intruder was behind the door he had several reasonable options available before shooting blind at a door. JMO

 

[Feynman]

Was OP's eyes shut while taking the two fans in one by one and puttin them somewhere in the bedroom? Curtains and blinds and all that stuff were open then and he was roaming on his stumps just near the bed ? I'm pretty sure there was lightning in the garden /streets and so inside the bedroom that he could very well see her . The pros team should have tested that.. JMO

He could see her (or notice she was not there) IF HE HAD BEEN LOOKING FOR HER. But why, arguing from the point of view of the DT, should he have been doing that?

 

[Trooper]

There's a little more to it. The criminal charges were dropped and the civil settlement had to do with OP's defamation suit against the person who made the accusations and tried to have him prosecuted. If you read about the events, it was a sketchy case to begin with and I got the impression that it was a young girl trying to get money out of a celebrity over an incident that she caused.

this is a misrepresentation of that Civil case against Pistorious..

the sequence is

Oscar was arrested for assault... this took place at a party when he slammed the door on the already broken leg of a girl , her leg was in plaster at the time, when she went back to retrieve her keys and handbag.. Oscar had got all bent out of shape over some remark with a girl, he then proceeded to throw everyone out who was a friend of hers.. Cassidy was one of her friends, so she was thrown out, but had to get the keys to her car.. ..

Oscar is then arrested for assault. She didn't arrest him, she didn't call the police, the police were called by some neighbor..

the assault case is consequently dropped..

but Oscar, all full it, SUES Cassidy for millions on the ground that he lost sponsorship due to the arrest. had lost fees for appearances, etc. due to her complaint to the police. Which he knows she has no hope of paying, its merely to shut her up.

Cassidy, a brave girl . in the face of this , COUNTERSUES Oscar..

and there it remained, neither giving in Until just before he is on trial for murder. When he settles the case.


which leaves me with the deep impression that he is a vindictive little creep, intent on buying his way out of trouble he causes.

 

[whiterum]

Roux is actually confirming that the witnesses did in fact hear a woman scream by claiming it was OP. Was he Victor / Victoria that night when these independent witnesses also heard a male voice intermingled with the female voice, also a male voice shouting for help. I am sure with practice anyone could demonstrate a scream knowing the dire consequences if the Judge concludes that RS screamed during the attack since that alone sinks his affidavit.

Roux's claim is ludicrous and in IMO no way is 'My Lady' going to fall for that lame excuse.

 

[gajonka]

He could see her (or notice she was not there) IF HE HAD BEEN LOOKING FOR HER. But why, arguing from the point of view of the DT, should he have been doing that?

********
Worldwide, headlines offer the following postulate:

Prosecution's Case Is Weak in Oscar Pistorius Trial ( source H-Post )

While I can agree the structure is a bit off - and an argument can be made - especially since they have no testimony from third parties like Warren (the ex) and Myers (the bff) who can offer some color on the mechanics of the relationship- good or bad.

What do you think?? Who's behind the door where the remaining witnesses rest?

I hope this does not turn into a Roux-Ha-Ha.

Grrr...-. G

 

[lilli]

Hi All
I have been reading the posts since the trial started but not commenting and finding this really interesting and informative. Thank you all. So first post is a question and please forgive me if this has recently been dealt with. Didn't Oscar change his statements re the bathroom window. The BH statement differed from the trial statement I thought? First statement he said the bathroom window was open. Second statement he said he heard the bathroom window sliding open after he brought the fans in? Grabbed his gun etc then. Maybe I have got it wrong - just thought that's what I remembered reading a few threads ago. Wouldn't that make a big difference in terms of his behaviour and actions? So two different stories? Anyone know?

 

[Trooper]

Roux is actually confirming that the witnesses did in fact hear a woman scream by claiming it was OP. Was he Victor / Victoria that night when these independent witnesses also heard a male voice intermingled with the female voice, also a male voice shouting for help. I am sure with practice anyone could demonstrate a scream knowing the dire consequences if the Judge concludes that RS screamed during the attack since that alone sinks his affidavit.

Roux's claim is ludicrous and in IMO no way is 'My Lady' going to fall for that lame excuse.

Its going to be a big suspension of logic for the judge to believe that Mrs Burger not only mistook 4 sounds when she is supposed to have only heard 2..

then she is supposed to have mistaken those 4 sounds, ( now compressed into 2 sounds,) as cricket bat sounds when she stated it was gunfire.

but at the same time, she then has to mistake a woman screaming when she is supposed to hear Oscar screaming.

these are 3 crucial mistakes made by the one witness, according to the theory.

I just don't see Judge Masipa adhering to the supposed theory and discarding the witness testimony.

Don't think she is going to discard her husbands testimony either.

 

[gajonka]

I'll finish this....the cricket bat sounds of OP breaking down the door to retrieve a dead Reeva that he shot and killed before finding out who he was shooting at....as in waiting for a reply when he claims he yelled "Reeva, call the police".

Hypothetical​

After Reeva DK's his request for sex- he continues his I-pad *advertiser censored* pursuit...and elevates argument. At some point- both OP and RS held the cricket bat... the order of which I cannot confirm. The four shots... telling...

This could go with OP getting off. Prosecution needs to get it together- and fast.

Optimal Epilogue​

The following witnesses yield parallel substance forthcoming to the court: further evidence building upon the relentless hyper jealous way of OP, as seen with Reeva's " random" coffee with Warren a day before V-Day. He calls 2x. Most likely finds out about it later that night... and then RAGE. Additional evidence perhaps confirming Reeva's intent to break... Additional evidence yielding obsessive OP... behaviors.

The good news is we WILL learn about this relationship... question will be what it'll be,,, time to wait... and see.

Love ya,

.G

 

[gajonka]

Its going to be a big suspension of logic for the judge to believe that Mrs Burger not only mistook 4 sounds when she is supposed to have only heard 2..

then she is supposed to have mistaken those 4 sounds, ( now compressed into 2 sounds,) as cricket bat sounds when she stated it was gunfire.

but at the same time, she then has to mistake a woman screaming when she is supposed to hear Oscar screaming.

these are 3 crucial mistakes made by the one witness, according to the theory.

I just don't see Judge Masipa adhering to the supposed theory and discarding the witness testimony.

Don't think she is going to discard her husbands testimony either.

B U L L S E Y E ! Agree - and feel the Burger's evidence is straight and strong. Lots of time consumed by both of them. Roux rattled.

Re: Bathroom Window- I believe it would have to be open in order for Burgers to hear the key exchange.

 

[Trooper]

If Roux cannot eliminate and completely erase that scream with reliable witness, with at least as many as the prosecution has that have testified to that event, that Reeva didn't scream after the first shot, then Oscar is , and cannot be anything other than what the Judicial Dept. of the Republic of South Africa says he is.

This is what Roux's one and only job description consists of. Erase that scream from the shooting. Nothing else. Not the missing watch, not the number of photos of Oscar taken by the police, not the stumps on, or stumps off , not the fans, not the old enemy of Oscar, W.O. Botha, not whether she ate or when, not what he thought or what he said, not who rang who or when .

I don't believe he can. Fact is mighty hard to erase.

 

[gajonka]

If Roux cannot eliminate and completely erase that scream with reliable witness, with at least as many as the prosecution has that have testified to that event, that Reeva didn't scream after the first shot, then Oscar is , and cannot be anything other than what the Judicial Dept. of the Republic of South Africa says he is.

This is what Roux's one and only job description consists of. Erase that scream from the shooting. Nothing else. Not the missing watch, not the number of photos of Oscar taken by the police, not the stumps on, or stumps off , not the fans, not the old enemy of Oscar, W.O. Botha, not whether she ate or when, not what he thought or what he said, not who rang who or when .

I don't believe he can. Fact is mighty hard to erase.

Keep going... so Roux tries to morph the screams as being OP only - high pitch Oscar. So let's say he cannot do this... what then? Are you saying that he will be convicted?? Give us what you got... do you think if Roux fails with managing the aforementioned that yes, case closed, OP in Can-Can? Hit us with it straight... I can't tell if you think it's sufficient... (ty)

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

He could see her (or notice she was not there) IF HE HAD BEEN LOOKING FOR HER. But why, arguing from the point of view of the DT, should he have been doing that?

He didn't have to look for her .. he had the visibility a few seconds ago ,and the bed was in front of him , not in another room and I am pretty sure when one's partner is not in bed in the middle of the night during a panic and alert moment a person just notices that ..JMO of course.

 

[gajonka]

If Roux cannot eliminate and completely erase that scream with reliable witness, with at least as many as the prosecution has that have testified to that event, that Reeva didn't scream after the first shot, then Oscar is , and cannot be anything other than what the Judicial Dept. of the Republic of South Africa says he is.

This is what Roux's one and only job description consists of. Erase that scream from the shooting. Nothing else. Not the missing watch, not the number of photos of Oscar taken by the police, not the stumps on, or stumps off , not the fans, not the old enemy of Oscar, W.O. Botha, not whether she ate or when, not what he thought or what he said, not who rang who or when .

I don't believe he can. Fact is mighty hard to erase.

I hope you are right... and I also hope the judge is aware of the historical evidence that speaks to the following:

The percentage chance of an intruder stepping into a bathroom, flicking a light on, and using the toilet (maybe, maybe not, but direction of fire lends itself to OP perceiving this), .. in a LOO that is connected to the room where the owners are "sleeping"... that the percentage chances of this event actually taking place.. or that it would even EVER occur... that this is an extremely rare, remotely bizarre, and hard to believe scenario. If the judge can see through the bullsh^&t and reflect upon this fact- then we will be okay.

.G

 

[minor4th]

I understand what you are saying but I you have me wrong. I can't agree that if a defendant holds a genuine belief of imminent harm that is "at least possibly true" it will suffice to get the charge bumped down to CH. As I said in previous post, the way I read SA law, "genuine belief" and "imminent threat" have to be more than just a whim of the beholder.

Imo much more relevant to this case from the link are the 3 the nutter shot at the house for which he was handed 3 murder convictions by the first court with the appeal court upholding all three on the basis that he could not have reasonably thought his life was in danger. How could OP reasonably feel his life was in danger if he didn't even see an intruder, a knife or a gun? IMO even if OP did believe an intruder was behind the door he had several reasonable options available before shooting blind at a door. JMO

Yes, they have to be more than just a whim - they have to be "reasonably possibly true" ...as I said.

It is at least reasonably possibly true that Oscar thought there was an intruder in the bathroom. It doesn't matter if that belief was reasonable or justified; it only matters if it is possibly true, and in this case it is. So if he really thought there was an intruder and that it was necessary to protect himself, then we're talking about culpable homicide and not murder.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

From the evidence...

Almost certainly Burger missed hearing the shots. The time that she heard "bangs" coincides with Stipp hearing a SECOND set of bangs. Almost certainly cricket bat on door. By the time Burger(s) woke up Reeva was dead and certainly not screaming in agony or anything else

What she has convinced herself (and her husband) to be women's screams etc must be...OP High pitched screams/shouts.....

Followed by Desperate bashing with cricket bat to get through toilet door.

And Burger did not hear the ensuing drama and phone calls and cops etc... from a quarter of a mile away.

Just trying to catch up here .
I thought that the door had only been hit by the cricket bat a couple of times and that the bat could not be swung as quickly to replicate the sound of gunshots ? Has that been discredited now ?
Also another thing to note is Mrs Burgers musical ability .musicians ears are well used to picking tone and tempo .

Think I need to go back and read through stipp's testimony again.

 

[shane13]

Does anyone recall just when in her testimony she opined--when Roux queried (perhaps regretfully in hindsight)--that OP was "mocking" [mimicking] Reeva when he screamed right after she screamed for "help.".

TIA.