Trial Discussion Thread #11 weekend thread

[MeeBee]

Just curious, after killing his girlfriend OP was concerned about securing a memory card containing offshore bank account data from a safe, and a box of wristwatches; his mind was apparently not very emotional or upset or regretful of killing the love of his life for very long, was it?

I don't know anything about the bank data so I can't comment. As for the watches...I don't know. The whole thing with the watches is weird, I agree, so I don't know what to make of it. I'm still not quite sure what is going on with them.

 

[Rumpole]

Right...so where were we?

Still some more prosecution witnesses to hear yet, all of the defense evidence still to come. If OP decides take the stand there is talk that it's likely he'll not want camera coverage of himself (i.e. audio only, similar to a few of the witnesses we've previously heard). Some of us have the case sewn up already, some of us are on the fence, and some like me have fell off it a few times throughout this trial, but got back up again.

:detective:

Having heard the State's case and evidence. I don't think they have proved beyond reasonable doubt that OP's claim that he thought there was an intruder is a lie, and that he fired at the toilet door knowing that Reeva was in there.
So I think the judge will have to consider the evidence on the basis that OP DID think that there was an intruder in the toilet. Being sure in his mind that there was an intruder in the toilet, was it reckless (or worse) to have fired 4 shots at the door? Many would say "YES" without much hesitation, but OP's actions will be viewed in the context of the circumstances of this particular event.
His defense will likely be that he was in fear for his life and his gf's life. This is South Africa where home invasion, torture, rape and murder are not unknown. People do live in fear to some extent. In gated communities, with bars on windows, alarms and fences etc and armed guards patrolling at night. Many people do legally own a gun for self defense (that is...own a gun for killing intruders, should the need arise). OP is a paraplegic and so likely grew up feeling somewhat vulnerable (psychological state different from the norm). He is in fact vulnerable to some extent especially while not wearing his prostheses. Less able to fight or flee. He may also argue that retreat and fleeing would have amounted to abandoning Reeva to the "intruder". In a panicked state he fired. Did he have actual intent to KILL the intruder? If it is accepted that OP had a genuine belief that there was an intruder, the Judge will have to decide if that was what a reasonable person might believe in the circumstances. She also has to evaluate OP's reaction to that belief, which was to fire at the toilet door thinking that an intruder was behind it.
I don't think that Nel has given her much "assistance" in deciding these matters. Maybe he will (finally) with his last few witnesses?
I imagine that Roux will be putting a lot before the Judge to sway her decisions

 

[steveml]

Just curious, after killing his girlfriend OP was concerned about securing a memory card containing offshore bank account data from a safe, and a box of wristwatches; his mind was apparently not very emotional or upset or regretful of killing the love of his life for very long, was it?

I don't know anything about the bank data so I can't comment. As for the watches...I don't know. The whole thing with the watches is weird, I agree, so I don't know what to make of it. I'm still not quite sure what is going on with them.

We can only establish facts about the watch when we know who requested it. Did Op's sister take it of her own accord or did OP request it?

I'd like to know more about the safe contents. OP didn't go in the safe as far as I can recall, but his relatives clearly knew what was in there.

 

[steveml]

Having heard the State's case and evidence. I don't think they have proved beyond reasonable doubt that OP's claim that he thought there was an intruder is a lie, and that he fired at the toilet door knowing that Reeva was in there.
So I think the judge will have to consider the evidence on the basis that OP DID think that there was an intruder in the toilet. Being sure in his mind that there was an intruder in the toilet, was it reckless (or worse) to have fired 4 shots at the door? Many would say "YES" without much hesitation, but OP's actions will be viewed in the context of the circumstances of this particular event.
His defense will likely be that he was in fear for his life and his gf's life. This is South Africa where home invasion, torture, rape and murder are not unknown. People do live in fear to some extent. In gated communities, with bars on windows, alarms and fences etc and armed guards patrolling at night. Many people do legally own a gun for self defense (that is...own a gun for killing intruders, should the need arise). OP is a paraplegic and so likely grew up feeling somewhat vulnerable (psychological state different from the norm). He is in fact vulnerable to some extent especially while not wearing his prostheses. Less able to flee. He may also argue that retreat and fleeing would have amounted to abandoning Reeva to the "intruder". In a panicked state he fired. Did he have actual intent to KILL the intruder? If it is accepted that OP had a genuine belief that there was an intruder, the Judge will have to decide if that was what a reasonable person might believe in the circumstances. She also has to evaluate OP's reaction to that belief, which was to fire at the toilet door thinking that an intruder was behind it.
I don't think that Nel has given her much "assistance" in deciding these matters. Maybe he will (finally) with his last few witnesses?
I imagine that Roux will be putting a lot before the Judge to sway her decisions

Good post. I'm still hoping that the last few witnesses may have some vital information, as without this I'm not sure the judge has enough certainty, there are so many probables involved. I was really expecting Nel to ramp things up a bit before the adjournment, but it turned out to be a bit of a damp squib in my view.

 

[Viper]

Having heard the State's case and evidence. I don't think they have proved beyond reasonable doubt that OP's claim that he thought there was an intruder is a lie, and that he fired at the toilet door knowing that Reeva was in there.
So I think the judge will have to consider the evidence on the basis that OP DID think that there was an intruder in the toilet. Being sure in his mind that there was an intruder in the toilet, was it reckless (or worse) to have fired 4 shots at the door? Many would say "YES" without much hesitation, but OP's actions will be viewed in the context of the circumstances of this particular event.
His defense will likely be that he was in fear for his life and his gf's life. This is South Africa where home invasion, torture, rape and murder are not unknown. People do live in fear to some extent. In gated communities, with bars on windows, alarms and fences etc and armed guards patrolling at night. Many people do legally own a gun for self defense (that is...own a gun for killing intruders, should the need arise). OP is a paraplegic and so likely grew up feeling somewhat vulnerable (psychological state different from the norm). He is in fact vulnerable to some extent especially while not wearing his prostheses. Less able to flee. He may also argue that retreat and fleeing would have amounted to abandoning Reeva to the "intruder". In a panicked state he fired. Did he have actual intent to KILL the intruder? If it is accepted that OP had a genuine belief that there was an intruder, the Judge will have to decide if that was what a reasonable person might believe in the circumstances. She also has to evaluate OP's reaction to that belief, which was to fire at the toilet door thinking that an intruder was behind it.
I don't think that Nel has given her much "assistance" in deciding these matters. Maybe he will (finally) with his last few witnesses?
I imagine that Roux will be putting a lot before the Judge to sway her decisions

Wow! That is an almost complete account of what every person that wants this guy to get special treatment is mushing up in their heads. Respectfully, I didn't see any point in there that matches up to reality, as I see it. So we are miles apart on everything.

I can really only address one statement at at time, but I suspect you knew that.

BIB That is your opinion. But even if it were a fact it would not matter. Even if the neighbors had heard no arguing and no screaming tat night OP has admitted to intent to murder and he has admitted to murder. You may think they filed premeditated murder just because they don't have a clue about the law and such. The facts of the investigation are what determined the charge. If the facts were different the state would have filed a different charge or no charges at all.

 

[Rumpole]

Good post. I'm still hoping that the last few witnesses may have some vital information, as without this I'm not sure the judge has enough certainty, there are so many probables involved. I was really expecting Nel to ramp things up a bit before the adjournment, but it turned out to be a bit of a damp squib in my view.

IMO I don't think the State HAVE sufficient evidence to discredit OP's claim that he thought there was an intruder. At the risk of "sounding like a cracked record" I think they should have from the outset argued the case accepting that OP THOUGHT he was firing at an intruder. The State have spent 2 and a half weeks (excluding late starts, early tea breaks and early day ends) trying to prove Beyond Reasonable doubt something that they can not prove at all. They knew what evidence they had. We have seen that it largely supports OP's version of events.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Having heard the State's case and evidence. I don't think they have proved beyond reasonable doubt that OP's claim that he thought there was an intruder is a lie, and that he fired at the toilet door knowing that Reeva was in there.
So I think the judge will have to consider the evidence on the basis that OP DID think that there was an intruder in the toilet. Being sure in his mind that there was an intruder in the toilet, was it reckless (or worse) to have fired 4 shots at the door? Many would say "YES" without much hesitation, but OP's actions will be viewed in the context of the circumstances of this particular event.
His defense will likely be that he was in fear for his life and his gf's life. This is South Africa where home invasion, torture, rape and murder are not unknown. People do live in fear to some extent. In gated communities, with bars on windows, alarms and fences etc and armed guards patrolling at night. Many people do legally own a gun for self defense (that is...own a gun for killing intruders, should the need arise). OP is a paraplegic and so likely grew up feeling somewhat vulnerable (psychological state different from the norm). He is in fact vulnerable to some extent especially while not wearing his prostheses. Less able to flee. He may also argue that retreat and fleeing would have amounted to abandoning Reeva to the "intruder". In a panicked state he fired. Did he have actual intent to KILL the intruder? If it is accepted that OP had a genuine belief that there was an intruder, the Judge will have to decide if that was what a reasonable person might believe in the circumstances. She also has to evaluate OP's reaction to that belief, which was to fire at the toilet door thinking that an intruder was behind it.
I don't think that Nel has given her much "assistance" in deciding these matters. Maybe he will (finally) with his last few witnesses?
I imagine that Roux will be putting a lot before the Judge to sway her decisions



Incredibly wreckless to fire 4 shots through a closed door at a supposed intruder. In fact in SA Law you are not allowed to fire at an unseen target no matter what you may be feeling.

If he was in fear of his and Reeva's life surely the easiest option was to leave the house by the bedroom door. Remember he also had emergency buttons that would summon the guards but he chose not to use them.

He lives on one of the most secure estates in Pretoria, possibly in SA. No incidences of trouble in the last 2-3 years and then it was only the theft of something, if I remember correctly, by a domestic worker on the estate. He leaves his bedroom sliding doors open at night and happily goes to sleep, he leaves his unbarred bathroom window open, he has a broken window downstairs that he has failed to have mended.

He keeps his legs by his bed and it takes him a few seconds to put them on. There is a video on You Tube which shows how quickly he does this. If I can find it I will post it. There is no strapping; he just slips his legs into them and is immediately mobile. Reeva is immediately mobile so why would he be worried about her being in danger. If he had not locked the door she would have been able to escape immediately. Begs the question why he locked the door.


I repeat why did he not don his legs, take Reeva by the hand and leave the house? (This is going to be a hard question for him to answer). Leaving the house immediately, IMO, would be normal. To chase down danger is NOT normal, leaving one's girlfriend alone (if one believes his story) and then shoot blindly at an unknown person.

 

[minor4th]

So if the state had concluded after just the evidence we've seen so far - have they met their burden of proof on either premeditated murder or culpable homicide? Meaning - the judge could convict him on the charges without hearing or considering any more evidence ....

IMO at this point they have not met their burden of proof on either count.

At most, the state has established a prima facie case for premeditated murder. That means they've alleged facts that would constitute murder if all of those facts were taken as true. But they have not proved those allegations to a point that excludes all other reasonable possibilities -- and some have only come in the form of speculation.

They also have not met their burden of proof on culpable homicide yet either, and I'm not sure they've even laid out a prima facie case. They have really not addressed the possibility that Oscar believed there was an intruder (however reasonable or unreasonable that belief may be). So far it seems they have only addressed their scenario that the killing was premeditated and he intentionally and purposely killed Reeva.

Thoughts?

 

[steveml]

Just to clarify, SA law does not recognise a charge called 'premeditated murder', premeditation is being used here as an argument in aggravation of sentence. It's being used as it offers the judge the opportunity to pass a longer sentence. I'm not entirely sure if the same tests to prove premeditation will be applied in SA as per other countries.

 

[Rumpole]

If he was in fear of his and Reeva's life surely the easiest option was to leave the house by the bedroom door. Remember he also had emergency buttons that would summon the guards but he chose not to use them.

He lives on one of the most secure estates in Pretoria, possibly in SA. No incidences of trouble in the last 2-3 years and then it was only the theft of something, if I remember correctly, by a domestic worker on the estate. He leaves his bedroom sliding doors open at night and happily goes to sleep, he leaves his unbarred bathroom window open, he has a broken window downstairs that he has failed to have mended.

He keeps his legs by his bed and it takes him a few seconds to put them on. There is a video on You Tube which shows how quickly he does this. If I can find it I will post it. There is no strapping; he just slips his legs into them and is immediately mobile. Reeva is immediately mobile so why would he be worried about her being in danger. If he had not locked the door she would have been able to escape immediately. Begs the question why he locked the door.

Incredibly wreckless to fire 4 shots through a closed door at a supposed intruder. In fact in SA Law you are not allowed to fire at an unseen target no matter what you may be feeling.

I repeat why did he not don his legs, take Reeva by the hand and leave the house? (This is going to be a hard question for him to answer). Leaving the house immediately, IMO, would be normal NOT to chase down danger, leaving one's girlfriend alone (if one believes his story) and shoot blindly at an unknown person.

YOU make very good points.

My point is that Nel has not made such points, nor even addressed the issues.

Nel is arguing that OP attacked Reeva in the course of an argument, chased her and trapped her in the toilet and shot her intentionally through the door. He does not have the evidence to prove that beyond reasonable doubt... but he has persisted with it to the exclusion of arguing the scenario where OP thinks there is an intuder. Nel CAN'T argue that because he will not concede that OP thought there was an intruder.

The Judge will be deliberating on what is put before her. She should NOT be speculating for herself. (as we can and do... posting at WS)

 

[Viper]

IMO I don't think the State HAVE sufficient evidence to discredit OP's claim that he thought there was an intruder. At the risk of "sounding like a cracked record" I think they should have from the outset argued the case accepting that OP THOUGHT he was firing at an intruder. The State have spent 2 and a half weeks (excluding late starts, early tea breaks and early day ends) trying to prove Beyond Reasonable doubt something that they can not prove at all. They knew what evidence they had. We have seen that it largely supports OP's version of events.

We all love to discuss details, small and large. But many are forgetting the law and the severity of what Pistorius did, he murdered in the eyes of SA Law.

An analogy:
You get pulled over for running a stop sign. You had never driven that road before so you didn't know there was a stop sign and a tree was overshadowing it to boot. So it wasn't your fault. The officer is t buying your story and tells you it was your reponsibility to be always looking for stop signs, you could have caused a serious accident with another driver! You get a ticket. You fight it in court. You tell the judge what happened, the officer testifies. The judge looks down from the bench and says, "I'm sorry but you have admitted to breaking the law, you admit that you did run the stop sigh, you are guilty and you must pay."

That is exactly what is happened and will happen with Pistorius.

 

[Interested Bystander]

YOU make very good points.

My point is that Nel has not made such points, nor even addressed the issues.

The Judge will be deliberating on what is put before her. She should NOT be speculating for herself. (as we can and do... posting at WS)

Nel has, as yet, not had the opportunity to make these points. These can only be asked of OP himself. I am sure you will hear Nel, if he gets the opportunity to quizz OP, ask all these questions and more. Until we hear what OP has to say it is, IMO, impossible to form an opinion of what the judge may find, regardless of what any of us feel may or could have happened.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Right...so where were we?

Still some more prosecution witnesses to hear yet, all of the defense evidence still to come. If OP decides take the stand there is talk that it's likely he'll not want camera coverage of himself (i.e. audio only, similar to a few of the witnesses we've previously heard). Some of us have the case sewn up already, some of us are on the fence, and some like me have fell off it a few times throughout this trial, but got back up again.

:detective:

I am still pondering over his written statement about the noise of someone being in the toilet We know she had a virtually empty bladder so must have been to the toilet since going to bed at allegedly 10pm . Assuming it had happened how he describes Reeva had redressed and flushed ,but not exited the toilet . so if we are to believe his version to be correct he must have shot through the door whilst the cistern was refilling which makes his version seem all the more implausible and irresponsible . A natural reaction to a flushing toilet has got to be that someone has been using the toilet ?
Remember he was not woken by anything suspicious as he had got up deliberately to bring the fans in and close the doors ,so would have been a little more alert by that time than if he had just woken . That been the case how come he wasn't alert enough to figure it could be Reeva using the toilet . She must have responded to him when he shouted out for her to call the police ?
The sound of a flushing toilet is not something that should sound like movement of an intruder.

 

[minor4th]

Just to clarify, SA law does not recognise a charge called 'premeditated murder', premeditation is being used here as an argument in aggravation of sentence. It's being used as it offers the judge the opportunity to pass a longer sentence. I'm not entirely sure if the same tests to prove premeditation will be applied in SA as per other countries.

I think the charge is just "murder" - however, when Nel was reading and explaining the State's case, he did say that Oscar killed Reeva with premeditation. But yes, I think you're right that the use of "premeditation" is an enhancement that affects sentencing.

 

[LemonMousse]

So if the state had concluded after just the evidence we've seen so far - have they met their burden of proof on either premeditated murder or culpable homicide? Meaning - the judge could convict him on the charges without hearing or considering any more evidence ....

IMO at this point they have not met their burden of proof or met their burden on either count.

At most, the state has established a prima facie case for premeditated murder. That means they've alleged facts that would constitute murder if all of those facts were taken as true. But they have not proved those allegations to a point that excludes all other reasonable possibilities -- and some have only come in the form of speculation.

They also have not met their burden of proof on culpable homicide yet either, and I'm not sure they've even laid out a prima facie case. They have really not addressed the possibility that Oscar believed there was an intruder (however reasonable or unreasonable that belief may be). So far it seems they have only addressed their scenario that the killing was premeditated and he intentionally and purposely killed Reeva.

Thoughts?

Premeditated - definitely not.

Culpable homicide? Just had a quick check on Wiki and in SA it means "the unlawful negligent killing of a human being". This is without question, isn't it?

He ignored the law with regard to lethal force in similar situations, and he ignored the law with respect to proper handling of a firearm. Surely this is "negligent" to say the least?

 

[minor4th]

Nel has, as yet, not had the opportunity to make these points. These can only be asked of OP himself. I am sure you will hear Nel, if he gets the opportunity to quizz OP, ask all these questions and more. Until we hear what OP has to say it is, IMO, impossible to form an opinion of what the judge may find, regardless of what any of us feel may or could have happened.

But Nel cannot rely on cross examination of defense witnesses to prove his case - he's got to do it in his case-in-chief, and if he fails to accomplish that then the charges should be dismissed or a judgment of acquittal entered.

I do agree that there's really no way to form an opinion about what the judge finds - especially since we have not heard the entirety of the State's case. I'm really curious to see who these next witnesses will be. Typically the prosecution's saves a very important witness for last - so the best may be yet to come.

 

[LemonMousse]

Minor - how does a lawyer usually determine the order of their witnesses? Is there a particular strategy generally?

 

[minor4th]

Premeditated - definitely not.

Culpable homicide? Just had a quick check on Wiki and in SA it means "the unlawful negligent killing of a human being". This is without question, isn't it?

He ignored the law with regard to lethal force in similar situations, and he ignored the law with respect to proper handling of a firearm. Surely this is "negligent" to say the least?

It's up to the judge to decide whether Oscar was negligent or reckless or whether he acted reasonably under the circumstances (believing there was a burglar and believing lethal force was necessary to protect his physical safety).

But the judge has to have some kind of evidence - so if the State doesn't offer any evidence of negligence of recklessness, I guess she could just rely on Oscar's own statement and admissions to make that determination.

Whether behavior is reckless or negligent is a fact issue and not a legal issue - i.e. it has to be determined on a case by case basis considering the totality of all of the circumstances. As far as I know, there is no law that says every time a person shoots through a door, it's negligent or reckless and therefore culpable homicide.

 

[minor4th]

Minor - how does a lawyer usually determine the order of their witnesses? Is there a particular strategy generally?

If there are a lot of witnesses, like in this case, then typically put on strong witnesses at the beginning, and especially witnesses whose testimony can kind of set the theme of the case. Then technical type evidence and experts and conclude with strong witness, either expert or fact witness who drives home the theory of the case again.

 

[Viper]

It's up to the judge to decide whether Oscar was negligent or reckless or whether he acted reasonably under the circumstances (believing there was a burglar and believing lethal force was necessary to protect his physical safety).

But the judge has to have some kind of evidence - so if the State doesn't offer any evidence of negligence of recklessness, I guess she could just rely on Oscar's own statement and admissions to make that determination.

Whether behavior is reckless or negligent is a fact issue and not a legal issue - i.e. it has to be determined on a case by case basis considering the totality of all of the circumstances. As far as I know, there is no law that says every time a person shoots through a door, it's negligent or reckless and therefore culpable homicide.

BIB True but also extremely misleading because the SA law is very specific about when a person is permitted to use deadly force that results in the death of a human being. Many here refuse to read those laws and accept that what OP did is in direct violation if the law, hence his acts are definitely murder. It would have been murder even if he had killed an armed intruder that was hiding in his water closet! He is being tried under SA Law, not Los Angeles, CA! :facepalm:

If anyone has a single case reference from SA where someone killed a housemate and was found guilty of ANYTHING other than murder, please post the information.