Trial Discussion Thread #11 weekend thread

[LemonMousse]

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.

So next week could be very interesting then?

 

[minor4th]

So next week could be very interesting then?

Could be!

 

[minor4th]

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.

Cite me the law because I'd be interested to see exactly what the law says that you have apparently read and understood.

 

[Viper]

Cite me the law because I'd be interested to see exactly what the law says that you have apparently read and understood.

I can only discuss it with you because as you know I am not on a computer. I have followed this thread for a long time, I do remember that early on, perhaps 2-3 months after the killing a member posted a small library of material and I think he even inserted a title, perhaps "South African Law" or something to that effect. So using a search function here it should (hopefully) not be too hard to find if someone would venture to try.

 

[Onlyamum]

Just a thought... They may not have been able to access the texts/chats from OP's phone, but Reva's phone would have exactly the same converations.... could they be bringing this into the mix next week?

 

[LemonMousse]

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.

Maybe I'm being simplistic, but let's suppose that all the circumstances are identical but when OP bashed down the door he did find an intruder - a dead one.

Would a court find that his actions were lawful? He presumably would be defending himself by saying that he believed he was preempting a possible/ probable attack on him.

According to the details in the link below, this would not be considered justification for his actions. Preemptive strikes are not permissible - the attack on you either has to be in progress or very imminent.

That someone is simply in your house is not enough. Even an armed person is not necessarily enough.

Could OP demonstrate that all other avenues to save himself and Reeva were not available to him and he HAD to shoot? I really, really doubt it. There was a panic alarm he didn't hit and there was a door he failed to go through. He didn't even attempt a non-murderous way of peacefully getting him and Reeva out of there.

I think his own admissions are enough to see him convicted of culpable homicide.

IMO, obviously.

http://www.issafrica.org/uploads/CQNO8DUPLESSIS.PDF

 

[steveml]

Maybe I'm being simplistic, but let's suppose that all the circumstances are identical but when OP bashed down the door he did find an intruder - a dead one.

Would a court find that his actions were lawful? He presumably would be defending himself by saying that he believed he was preempting a possible/ probable attack on him.

According to the details in the link below, this would not be considered justification for his actions. Preemptive strikes are not permissible - the attack on you either has to be in progress or very imminent.

That someone is simply in your house is not enough. Even an armed person is not necessarily enough.

Could OP demonstrate that all other avenues to save himself and Reeva were not available to him and he HAD to shoot? I really, really doubt it. There was a panic alarm he didn't hit and there was a door he failed to go through. He didn't even attempt a non-murderous way of peacefully getting him and Reeva out of there.

I think his own admissions are enough to see him convicted of culpable homicide.

IMO, obviously.

http://www.issafrica.org/uploads/CQNO8DUPLESSIS.PDF

Thanks. I've seen that report before, and yes it does seem that there would have to be an extreme exceptional circumstance for OP to have any kind of defense for his actions. Beyond the realms of what I've seen in this case so far anyhow. The only factor I can see defense using in mitigation is OP's disability.

 

[dgfred]

We seem to have quite a few reasons as to why OP could be guilty or innocent of premeditated murder. Nel is going to be expected to summarise and re-create a picture as best he can of the events leading up to, during and after the premeditated murder. I've not got a clear story yet - has anybody else?

It will be speculation for the most part as far as before and during.

OP knows... but likely will not tell.

 

[dgfred]

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.

That is exactly the law I heard of when the case first came up.

I thought they were only going to be fighting 'degrees' of murder/killing.

 

[Interested Bystander]

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.

I think Nel will probably tie OP up in knots and this will cause him to make mistakes and OP may well say something that incriminates himself but we will have to wait and see. Only my opinion.

Regardless of this, OP has admitted killing someone, unseen, by firing 4 shots and in SA Law that clearly is murder. I am really unsure how anybody can alter that unless OP claims the balance of his mind was disturbed.

 

[steveml]

I'm trying to think of the case as a whole, and once we remove the celebrity aspect, and media circus elements, there is nothing too extraordinary about this case which would take it out of normal SA law and sentencing procedures.

The only defense plea for consideration appears to be that the accused was on stumps at the time. Although this may allow for some thought regarding mobility/vulnerability I'm not sure it offers much leeway for the defense to expect exceptions to the law.

 

[MeeBee]

I think Nel will probably tie OP up in knots and this will cause him to make mistakes and OP may well say something that incriminates himself but we will have to wait and see. Only my opinion.

Regardless of this, OP has admitted killing someone, unseen, by firing 4 shots and in SA Law that clearly is murder. I am really unsure how anybody can alter that unless OP claims the balance of his mind was disturbed.

I'm not sure what his way around this is either, if the law is indeed written the way it's being said it is. And I have read comments from SA lawyers and comments sections from residents of SA that have me pretty convinced that this is how the law works there.

 

[steveml]

I think Nel will probably tie OP up in knots and this will cause him to make mistakes and OP may well say something that incriminates himself but we will have to wait and see. Only my opinion.

Regardless of this, OP has admitted killing someone, unseen, by firing 4 shots and in SA Law that clearly is murder. I am really unsure how anybody can alter that unless OP claims the balance of his mind was disturbed.

It really does become risky for the defense. I too can see OP doing himself more harm than good if he takes the stand. As OP has maintained his innocence, and maintained that this was a tragic mistake, I'd guess the general consensus is that he should take the stand. I'd be bitterly disappointed if I were Reeva's family and this didn't happen.

 

[Viper]

Maybe I'm being simplistic, but let's suppose that all the circumstances are identical but when OP bashed down the door he did find an intruder - a dead one.

Would a court find that his actions were lawful? He presumably would be defending himself by saying that he believed he was preempting a possible/ probable attack on him.

According to the details in the link below, this would not be considered justification for his actions. Preemptive strikes are not permissible - the attack on you either has to be in progress or very imminent.

That someone is simply in your house is not enough. Even an armed person is not necessarily enough.

Could OP demonstrate that all other avenues to save himself and Reeva were not available to him and he HAD to shoot? I really, really doubt it. There was a panic alarm he didn't hit and there was a door he failed to go through. He didn't even attempt a non-murderous way of peacefully getting him and Reeva out of there.

I think his own admissions are enough to see him convicted of culpable homicide.

IMO, obviously.

http://www.issafrica.org/uploads/CQNO8DUPLESSIS.PDF

Thanks for posting that! You should now understand there are significant difference in SA Law, a human life is valuable even if that human being is a thief that is in your living room stealing your tv, and it is unlawful (murder, not culpable homicide) to kill anyone without imminent visual confirmation of a threat to your or others lives.

If you recall the exam that OP took regarding these scenarios, he was taking a class(s) to get a firearm permit. Those questions are there because they relate to the law regarding murder and if he had acted in accordance with the law he would not have killed Reeva, or even the intruder behind the water closet door.

 

[steveml]

Just a thought... They may not have been able to access the texts/chats from OP's phone, but Reva's phone would have exactly the same converations.... could they be bringing this into the mix next week?

It's certainly possible, but only if there's something useful to the case. I'm inclined to think that most of the really useful prosecution evidence has already been forthcoming, but Nel could still have something big up his sleeve.

 

[LemonMousse]

It's incredibly odd that if OP felt so very vulnerable on his stumps, to the degree that he was willing to shoot someone dead, that he didn't just put his legs on. They were right there by the bed and would have taken about a second to put on.

Surely in moments of intense vulnerability you take whatever small steps you can to reduce your vulnerability. Your life might depend on it.

And he can hardly claim he'd have been just as vulnerable with his legs on because they are prosthetics given that he managed to carry a 9 stone woman down a staircase wearing them.

So, he walked past his awake girlfriend without alerting her to the danger
He walked past a panic alarm that could have had help there in minutes
He walked past a door that he could have unlocked and been through in a matter of seconds
He walked past the legs that could have made him feel and be less vulnerable

I don't find this even slightly plausible, on any level. I know that panic can make you behave strangely - but not that strangely. Fleeing danger is instinctive, it's a biological imperative that's there to try and save your life. Fighting is the most dangerous thing you can do, so it's only attempted when there are no other options. None of these things are conscious - you don't choose your options, you don't have time. Your subconscious chooses for you, and your body fills with adrenaline to give you enough energy to get the hell out of there.

I can't see that any of OP's actions that night are consistent with true panic. They are far more consistent with angry confrontation.

 

[steveml]

It's incredibly odd that if OP felt so very vulnerable on his stumps, to the degree that he was willing to shoot someone dead, that he didn't just put his legs on. They were right there by the bed and would have taken about a second to put on.

Surely in moments of intense vulnerability you take whatever small steps you can to reduce your vulnerability. Your life might depend on it.

And he can hardly claim he'd have been just as vulnerable with his legs on because they are prosthetics given that he managed to carry a 9 stone woman down a staircase wearing them.

So, he walked past his awake girlfriend without alerting her to the danger
He walked past a panic alarm that could have had help there in minutes
He walked past a door that he could have unlocked and been through in a matter of seconds
He walked past the legs that could have made him feel and be less vulnerable

I don't find this even slightly plausible, on any level. I know that panic can make you behave strangely - but not that strangely. Fleeing danger is instinctive, it's a biological imperative that's there to try and save your life. Fighting is the most dangerous thing you can do, so it's only attempted when there are no other options. None of these things are conscious - you don't choose your options, you don't have time. Your subconscious chooses for you, and your body fills with adrenaline to give you enough energy to get the hell out of there.

I can't see that any of OP's actions that night are consistent with true panic. They are far more consistent with angry confrontation.

I agree. The speed in which OP can fit his prosthesis cannot be used as a major problem for OP, and I'd go as far as to say that OP is probably one of the most mobile of all people on stumps.

He has a conditioned athlete's body, and a big part of his life has centred around strength, movement, balance etc. which will undoubtedly aid him greatly whether on stumps, prosthesis or blades.

 

[Viper]

Well the defense witness testimony was something that I at first thought I would not be much interested in because it will be lies and leading by Roux, but now I think watching that circus act might actually be very entertaining! I've never made popcorn at 2:30 in the morning to watch tv, but I think I will and have a beer or two as well! Can't wait! :drumroll:

 

[nastasya]

There's not a lot sounds wrong with that. On the basis of the points above, what do you think happened that day? I'm presuming a disagreement between Reeva and Oscar is involved.

We seem to have quite a few reasons as to why OP could be guilty or innocent of premeditated murder. Nel is going to be expected to summarise and re-create a picture as best he can of the events leading up to, during and after the premeditated murder. I've not got a clear story yet - has anybody else?

Here's the big picture:

1. Witnesses testified they were awakened in the middle of the night and heard a man and woman's voices, with the woman screaming building to a climax, followed immediately by gunshots, then silence.

2. OP's story that they heard him screaming like a woman, then the cricket bat does not explain what witnessed described hearing. OP said he went to the deck and screamed, put on his legs, kicked the door, then went and got the bat, then went back in the bathroom and hit the door.

That would put at least 30 seconds to a minute, minimum, between OP opening the bedroom door to the deck and screaming like a woman for help, and him hitting the bathroom door with the bat.

NOBODY testified to hearing screaming, then a long pause of silence, then loud bangs. They heard terrified screaming, reaching a crescendo that ended with the loud bangs.



OP's story is fatally flawed. It requires that:

• Witnesses did not hear a woman at any time.
• OP left the bedroom and went on the deck at the precise moment RS left the bed.
• OP closed the door to the deck seconds before he killed RS, and then re-opened it seconds after he killed RS to scream like a woman.
• Witnesses were mistaken that sound was gunshots.
• Witnesses were mistaken they heard a woman.
• Witnesses were mistaken that loud bangs came immediately after the screaming.

Therefore, what happened was RS and OP had a conflict that ended with RS in the toilet stall and OP shooting her through the door. Everything else is speculation.

 

[james83]

Thing for me is even if it was true(and it isn't) that Oscar mistook Reeva for an intruder, i don't buy all the fear and panic nonsense, i would say he reacted like a man who was relishing the opportunity to have an excuse to fire his gun at someone.
His actions were not fearful action's.