Trial Discussion Thread #13 - 14.03.25, Day 15

[Really?]

I think also there is an element of 'auto-pilot' in high stress situations. You revert to personality/experience. It would be instinctive for Oscar as a celebrity athlete to have situations 'managed', and Stander's role at the estate was concerned with that. That's why I wasn't surprised by the comments about 'hoping it didn't get out into the media' or whatever. At first glance it seems cold and crass, but both the words and actions may have tumbled out in what was an incredibly unusual and terrible situation.

BBM..... wishful thinking....:floorlaugh:

 

[Feynman]

And amazingly, the states own witness, Mr Baba, went past OPs house at 2.20am and all was quiet, no loud argument on the go that had kept van der merwe awake for an hour...the states witnesses contradicting each other!

That's not a contradiction. Van Der Merwe did not claim there was continuous non-stop loud voices for an entire hour.

 

[JuneBug67]

He wasn't facing anyone.

He was safely on the other side of a closed door with a weapon.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And in his mind, seemingly firmly on guns a lot of the time, maybe he thought he was facing an armed intruder behind a door as capable of firing at him as he was of firing at them. So we really can't know how safe he perceived himself to be, if his story is true.

 

[steveml]

Not disappointing in the least!

State presented a substantial prima facie case:

• Victim
• Admitted killer
• Witnesses who heard woman screaming before shots.

Those three items prove intent to murder.

This forces the defendant to testify. Prosecution will save all those incriminating facts that you mentioned for cross-examination.

I see. I hope so. Thank you

From what I'm aware there's one exception to this:

He could testify, take the stand and say nothing. Simply by exercising his right to remain silent.

I doubt that he will though, and hope he doesn't.

 

[JuneBug67]

BBM..... wishful thinking....:floorlaugh:

LOL. I know. There was enough irrationality to go around that night. I guess that was kind of my point.

 

[Feynman]

The netcare call is irrelevant. What's relevant is the killer's call to Stander. It is inexplicable the killer would call his friend first. To try to explain this, the killer said he called Stander to call an ambulance.

If somebody suffered a potentially fatal accident in my home, I would call 911 first. I wouldn't be calling a friend at 3:20 am and telling the friend to call the ambulance, then calling the ambulance anyway.

This part of the killer's story, like so many others, is completely illogical and nonsensical.

Stander is not just a friend; he's also the Silverwoods Estate manager.

 

[Really?]

Yes but he has pleaded "not guilty" to the charge put to him as premeditated murder. If the state can't prove he intentionally killed Reeva (and knew it was her in the bathroom), and the defence does manage to make a good case of he truly did think his life was in danger and he was trying to protect himself and Reeva, he could very well walk, as the documented cases of this nature I have pointed out before have proved. At most, he could get a suspended with his gun licenses being revoked.

Besides the fact, the states case was Reeva died at 3.17 from a shot to the head, we now know this is not possible.

I'm sorry but.....I think in terms of SA , premeditation is knowing you are shooting to kill....an individual, some body.....not knowing who, what, when or why they are there.......not just thinking....but knowing the intruder is there to harm.:moo:

 

[steveml]

So, legally speaking, I do believe the State has presented a prima facie case for murder and even intentional/premeditated murder.

That is - if you take all of their evidence as true and indulge every possible inference in favor of the prosecution, then they have provided evidence to establish all of the elements of murder.

Surely you're not suggesting that the accused has an entitlement to defend, where's the justice in that?

And here's me thinking the case was all done and dusted. :wink:

 

[steveml]

I'm sorry but.....I think in terms of SA , premeditation is knowing you are shooting to kill....an individual, some body.....not knowing who, what, when or why they are there.......not just thinking....but knowing the intruder is there to harm.:moo:

They may well see it that way. It's a real grey area at the moment.
SA operate quite different to many other countries regarding this charge - even some international lawyers commenting on the case are not entirely sure.

 

[Really?]

So in SA there can be no mitigating circumstances? Is that a fact? I honestly don't know.

:dunno:

 

[JuneBug67]

I don't disagree with you JuneBug. I don't live in SA so can't speak to that. I do believe you.

What I'm saying is regarding to OP, IF he lived in fear and felt so damned vulnerable why not hire guards??? Why not use an outside and inside alarm system? Especially considering he had female overnight guests and feared for their safety too?

I would hope the majority of people in SA and elsewhere could/would see through his manipulations and excuses.

I'm not in SA either. Just sort of incorporating what those who are have shared with us here. My impression is that people in SA have to reconcile normal life with vigilance against a certain type of threat by crime. So while they may have to take precautions - Oscar habitually locked his bedroom door for example I think - and may have had an alarm system for all we know (do we know?) - they still have to live their lives. Sometimes I would guess that probably means open windows or balcony doors in oppressive heat, and not necessarily having personal guards etc. etc. Even with an alarm system, which he may have had, a noise in one's home in the night could scare somebody. All security systems from alarms to dogs can be bypassed.

 

[nastasya]

If it's true that one ear witness mistook Oscar's screaming as the screams of a woman, then it stands to reason that 5 witnesses would make the same mistake.

So you actually believe it's reasonable that:

1. The killer shot and killed Reeva,
2. The killer replicated the sounds of a woman being attacked and shot,
3. All 5 witnesses heard the replicated sounds of woman being attacked,
4. None of the 5 witnesses heard the actual sounds of the attack.

Seriously?

 

[sorrell skye]

That's not a contradiction. Van Der Merwe did not claim there was continuous non-stop loud voices for an entire hour.

I agree.

To my recollection, Mrs. van der Merwe was awakened by what she perceived to be an argument shortly before 2:00 a.m (1:56 a.m. or so?). She was annoyed because she & her son had to get up early in the morning because her son had exams. She put her pillow over head to block out the noise and went back to sleep. I don't think she testified that she heard a non-stop argument for an hour.

When security passed by @ 2:20, it was quiet. It's completely plausible that whatever argument had been occurring had momentarily subsided at that particular time (as arguments often do), before picking up again if it hasn't been resolved.

I refuse to discount Mrs. van der Merwe's testimony at this point. An hour or so later Reeva was dead.

If the argument was coming from OP's house, the inference is apparent (to me).

Unless the Defense produces credible, unbiased witnesses who testify that it was them, and not OP and Reeva arguing, then I believe the sounds of the loud argument came from OP's house.

 

[minor4th]

I am sorry but I totally disagree with this and do not think it is a true representation of the facts. Loud crying and screaming in fear of your life are two entirely different things in any case.



How is it supported by states evidence?



Why state things as fact when they are actually just the defence position?



That particular witness was not talking about screaming, she said she heard someone crying and carrying on. Her husband said it was OP. This was after all the shots and proves nothing about any of the witnesses being mistaken about hearing a woman's terrified screams before the gun shots. To me it fits well with events since it could very easily have been Oscar Pistorius, either crying for Reeva or for himself as it dawned on him exactly the damage he had done. I believe he shot her in a temper - when the red mist had gone I can quite believe that he would have been distraught.



When OP's legal team ran the 'tests' with screaming at least one of the ear witnesses clearly identified the fact that the screams were a man screaming at a low and high register rather than a woman.

Well I think it is unclear what is meant by "loud crying" but that is the only loud sounds Merwe heard so I'm making the reasonable inference that is was the same loud female sounds the other witnesses heard

How else do you explain that?

Fact remains she mistook Oscars distressed voice for that of a woman - so it's a reasonable inference that the other witnesses did too.

You are of course welcome to disagree but that is how I see it

 

[nastasya]

ETA: We already know that one witness mistook Oscar's "loud crying" for a woman...

Why are you intentionally misstating the facts?

 

[Really?]

He excelled on an Olympic running track with purpose designed prostheses. Not remotely relevant to standing on a few inches of bone below his knees in the middle of the night facing what he may have believed was an intruder.

.............with a 9mm gun loaded with black talon bullets....I bet he was scared.

 

[minor4th]

I agree.



To my recollection, Mrs. van der Merwe was awakened by what she perceived to be an argument shortly before 2:00 a.m (1:56 a.m. or so?). She was annoyed because she & her son had to get up early in the morning because her son had exams. She put her pillow over head to block out the noise and went back to sleep. I don't think she testified that she heard a non-stop argument for an hour.



When security passed by @ 2:20, it was quiet. It's completely plausible that whatever argument had been occurring had momentarily subsided at that particular time (as arguments often do), before picking up again if it hasn't been resolved.



I refuse to discount Mrs. van der Merwe's testimony at this point. An hour or so later Reeva was dead.



If the argument was coming from OP's house, the inference is apparent (to me).



Unless the Defense produces credible, unbiased witnesses who testify that it was them, and not OP and Reeva arguing, then I believe the sounds of the loud argument came from OP's house.

There's no inference to be made that the female talking came from Oscars house when she specifically said she had no idea where those sounds were coming from. She didn't even know the direction they were coming from

Really the only inference to be drawn is that it may have been coming from Oscars house or it may have been coming from anywhere else.

 

[lisasalinger]

I agree.

To my recollection, Mrs. van der Merwe was awakened by what she perceived to be an argument shortly before 2:00 a.m (1:56 a.m. or so?). She was annoyed because she & her son had to get up early in the morning because her son had exams. She put her pillow over head to block out the noise and went back to sleep. I don't think she testified that she heard a non-stop argument for an hour.

When security passed by @ 2:20, it was quiet. It's completely plausible that whatever argument had been occurring had momentarily subsided at that particular time (as arguments often do), before picking up again if it hasn't been resolved.

I refuse to discount Mrs. van der Merwe's testimony at this point. An hour or so later Reeva was dead.

If the argument was coming from OP's house, the inference is apparent (to me).

Unless the Defense produces credible, unbiased witnesses who testify that it was them, and not OP and Reeva arguing, then I believe the sounds of the loud argument came from OP's house.

She did specifically say it was not consistent arguing for an hour. It was intermittent arguing for approximately an hour.

And yes, Reeva was dead not long after that.

Any and all pieces need to at least be considered.

 

[nastasya]

And in his mind, seemingly firmly on guns a lot of the time, maybe he thought he was facing an armed intruder behind a door as capable of firing at him as he was of firing at them. So we really can't know how safe he perceived himself to be, if his story is true.

We do know that the killer claims he left the safety of the bedroom holding a 9 mm fully loaded with black talon bullets and put himself squarely in front of that toilet door. The killer claims in his own affidavit he increased his level of potential danger.

 

[Cherwell]

And in his mind, seemingly firmly on guns a lot of the time, maybe he thought he was facing an armed intruder behind a door as capable of firing at him as he was of firing at them. So we really can't know how safe he perceived himself to be, if his story is true.

So if there was really a possibility that there was someone in the toilet who might shoot at him, why wasn't he standing in the passage where he could use the wall to shield himself?