Trial Discussion Thread #11 weekend thread

[soozieqtips]

Because he murdered his girlfriend and was kind of busy with that new legal matter; also because his suit was a frivolous one filed to further harass yet another young woman. Such a jerk!

BBM - How can you say that?? He's an even-tempered cool-thinking law-abiding gun-conscious safety-conscious... oh, wait.

 

[Insp.Dots]

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.

Not sure about the watch either but it was Carl Pistorius who went to the safe with OPs lawyer to witness with Police. There were medals, ammo and memory sticks but not sure what else. There is a photo somewhere.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

What is it with OP and doors?

:trainwreck:

Talking of doors did you read anywhere about her car being unlocked and a door open other than the screen shot I posted from this website last year ?

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

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

 

[steveml]

The term "premeditated" is continually being bandied as if part of the State's murder charge against OP when from my reading of the charging doc "premeditation" doesn't figure anywhere.

That's correct. If you read the posts from the beginning, you'll see I've already covered this. We're aware that it's in name only to allow a higher sentencing option, but we're continuing to use the term because it's also fairly universally understood, being that many posters on the forum are from different countries.

 

[steveml]

Talking of doors did you read anywhere about her car being unlocked and a door open other than the screen shot I posted from this website last year ?

Not more doors...noooooo.

Seriously though, I've heard very little talk of Reeva's car. I've only really heard other vehicles mentioned in the trial.

 

[nastasya]

I think it's quite unreasonable to expect that three separate people were so groggy that they all made exactly the same mistake and all came to exactly the same wrong conclusion. And all managed to mistake a man's screams for a woman's.

There's one more incredibly unreasonable part about this that only somebody who was an abject OP apologist would believe possible.

• The moment OP killed RS there was zero probability that somehow something in his neighborhood would replicate the sounds of a woman being attacked and shot to death in the exact same manner that OP killed RS.
• Not only were those sounds replicated, according to OP, it was OP himself who replicated the sounds of a woman being attacked and shot to death!!!
  

In his despair over shooting to death his beloved RS, immediately after he does it, he goes out and himself makes noises that sound EXACTLY like a woman being attacked and shot to death!!!

Can anybody seriously believe this?

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Thanks I see some relevance.



The home owner is NOT charged.

The home owner did NOT run away, though he had ample opportunity to do so.

The home owner did NOT need to wait to be sure if the perp(s) had guns and an evil look of intent to do him bodily harm. (they actually had no guns).

Wow
Whilst I am surprised no charges were brought in this case I wonder if it was because of the fact that it was 3 on to one so to speak .

Reading this I think I am just glad that I live in a place where gun crime is relatively small.
A lot hangs on the final prosecution evidence and defence witnesses .

 

[Viper]

I forgot about this.

Cassidy Taylor-Memmory, 24, claims 27-year-old Pistorius punched a door so hard it fell on her leg following an argument with his then-girlfriend in 2009.

After a four-year-long legal battle, Pistorius's attorney has confirmed that the two parties have struck a deal over legal fees, however, according to Ms Taylor-Memmory, Pistorius has not apologised for the incident.

Ms Taylor-Memmory described Pistorious's behaviour as aggressive and unreasonable, and said that it took her by surprise.

Pistorius has also dropped the 2.2million Rand (£122,093) counter claim, in which he accused blogger Taylor-Memmory of making up the assault.

I wonder why he dropped the claim.

You argue a good case for the prosecution, but that is not what Nel is arguing. I think he SHOULD have argued along those lines from the outset. He would not have needed the (dubious) burger evidence at all (which took up a large chunk of week 1).
Unless what you say (or similar) is put to the Judge how can she consider it?
If that is the prosecution case then they have to present it and give the defense an opportunity to respond.

But you see Nel and all of the court officials are South African, they know the SA law and so does Nel, he does not need to open his case by explaining the law. Nel at the bail hearing had no in investigative reports to use, when ask by the magistrate why he believed it was premeditated Nel said, "Because he shot four times at a person behind a door! His intention was to kill!"

And BTW that magistrate upheld the pre med charge without and forensics.

Anyway I am sure he will have similar words in his closing.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

It would be very scary if he wasn't at least convicted with culpable homicide .
We can't just go round shooting people through closed doors when we could have taken other evasive action rather than go and seek out and confront someone who posed no threat perceived or otherwise .

I hate to say this, but I have a bad feeling about the outcome here.

 

[G.bng]

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?

Unless I have the wrong document there is no reference whatsoever to "premeditated murder" in the State's charging affidavit and imo the addition of "premeditation" is an interpretation by the media for their own commercial reasons. The State's charging document merely notes, "unlawfully" and "intentionally" killing a person, namely Reeva. From my reading of SA criminal law "premeditated" murder does not exist as in the anglophile law systems and the judge's decision will have to be based in the first place on whether OP could lawfully shoot at a perceived intruder taking into account all of the circumstances; whether when OP shot he intended to kill the perceived intruder or whether he should have known that shooting blind 4 times through the door into a confined space would likely kill a perceived intruder; and to complete the circle, whether it was lawful for OP to intend to kill a perceived intruder, i.e. was his life in danger. JMO

 

[james83]

Thanks I see some relevance.



The home owner is NOT charged.

The home owner did NOT run away, though he had ample opportunity to do so.

The home owner did NOT need to wait to be sure if the perp(s) had guns and an evil look of intent to do him bodily harm. (they actually had no guns).

yes but
"The gang had with them a blowtorch, hammers, pickaxes and rope".
There is no comparison there what so ever.
These were real people with weapons.

 

[Insp.Dots]

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?

I agree not proven as yet. But I think by his own statements has pretty much admitted culpable homicide. IMO

 

[soozieqtips]

Mrs Steenkamp had to hear her daughter was dead from Botha at 5am, almost two hours after OP had killed Reeva. Apparently, Aimee taking a watch, and the lawyer and OP's brother retrieving a memory stick from the safe took precedence over informing Reeva's mother what had happened. This is the same family that Uncle Arnold claimed were just as heartbroken about losing Reeva as Reeva's own family were. Yet almost two hours passed and no one even thought about telling Mrs Steenkamp. Actions always speak louder than words.

 

[steveml]

Thanks I see some relevance.



The home owner is NOT charged.

The home owner did NOT run away, though he had ample opportunity to do so.

The home owner did NOT need to wait to be sure if the perp(s) had guns and an evil look of intent to do him bodily harm. (they actually had no guns).

Yep. Was going to quote from the page, but thought you'd have no trouble spotting it.

:worms:

 

[G.bng]

Thanks I see some relevance.



The home owner is NOT charged.

The home owner did NOT run away, though he had ample opportunity to do so.

The home owner did NOT need to wait to be sure if the perp(s) had guns and an evil look of intent to do him bodily harm. (they actually had no guns).

And the home owner DID see the intruders !

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

Now that we know that OP made his friend take the blame when he allegedly accidentally shot the gun in the restaurant (lied and covered) and his affidavit full of discrepancies imo (lies and covers ) I am throwing out there maybe his previous washing machine tweet was also a cover of another shooting incident in the estate (could be thru his bedroom door) and then to the neighbors he just fabricated that intruder theory.. A washing machine sound is familiar to everyone I guess and that happened in daylight .. just makes me wonder..:scared:

 

[Gbtaketwo]

I hate to say this, but I have a bad feeling about the outcome here.

Sadly so do I . I just can't buy his story of accidentally shooting her but without something more concrete in evidence he may get the benefit of the doubt under the old reasonable doubt basis which I is how justice is supposed to operate . I suppose it is not right to think anyone could be locked up for life if there is a slim chance they are innocent .
In this case though it is not in dispute that he shot her so I am hoping for the culpable homicide at worst whilst accepting he could walk from all charges .

 

[Rumpole]

yes but
"The gang had with them a blowtorch, hammers, pickaxes and rope".
There is no comparison there what so ever.
These were real people with weapons.

It's not clear that the home owner who was not charged knew what they had.
In same way OP did not know what his (imaginary) intruder had by way of weapons.

And OP did hear (though not see) an intruder.(in his genuine belief)

IMO an intruder in your home, especially if you have wife and/or kids there, is "weapon enough" in themselves, even carrying nothing. Still a threat to life.

 

[soozieqtips]

Now that we know that OP made his friend take the blame when he allegedly accidentally shot the gun in the restaurant (lied and covered) and his affidavit full of discrepancies imo (lies and covers ) I am throwing out there maybe his previous washing machine twit was also a cover of another shooting incident in the estate (could be thru his bedroom door) and then to the neighbors he just fabricated that intruder theory.. A washing machine sound is familiar to everyone I guess and that happened in daylight .. just makes me wonder..:scared:

His tweet.

"Nothing like getting home to hear the washing machine on and thinking its an intruder to go into full combat recon mode into the pantry! waa."

He made a joke of it!!! How come he wasn't 'overcome with fear and terror' when he realised there might be an intruder in the house? His tweet makes light of the event. I find that really really odd considering the second he heard a noise in the toilet, he was completely 'overcome with fear and terror'.