Trial Discussion Thread #13 - 14.03.25, Day 15

[nastasya]

It's still not cut and dried at all though.

There is only one person, Estelle Van De Merwe, who heard any talking before Reeva was shot. She is the only one who can suggest an argument took place.

Her testimony isn't what you could really call 'watertight'

'I heard people talking in loud voices, as if they were arguing'.

'I could not hear what language they were speaking'

After tests were done in OP's bedroom of a man and woman screaming as loud as they can, Esteele Van De Merwe said 'I could not hear anything'.

There are four witnesses in addition to Van der Merwe. All were 100% adamant they heard a woman's voice at approximately the hour OP shot and killed Reeva.

It's very clear.

Even with no witnesses, OP's own affidavit describes premeditated murder. Five witnesses hearing a woman's voice followed by gunshots confirms what happened. The defense that OP replicated the very sounds of the murder is a unique defense, but not even close to reasonable. What's next? The hologram defense where a defendant claims he produced a holographic image of the exact crime which is what all the eye-witnesses saw?

If it wasn't so tragic it would be laughable.

 

[minor4th]

Whatever the outcome of this trial, I think it will be an important judicial decision in SA law. From what I can determine, there is no case that has proceeded through to a verdict where the defendant actually believed (although mistakenly) that he was acting in self defense and that it was necessary to prevent an immediate risk of harm.

It clearly falls within the gambit of "culpable homicide" on its face, but in all the cases I've read of mistaken identity or putative self defense, either the defendant didn't testify or there was clear evidence that the defendant was lying and it could be determined that he did not in fact believe he was being imminently threatened.

The only case that is really similar is the case in which the man accidentally shot his daughter thinking it was a robber. But in that case, the state declined to indict the man.

 

[Viper]

Yes, to suggest that you must see the would-be attacker in every instance would lead to absurd results. You could never shoot a masked intruder because you could not definitively determine that it is a stranger and not your brother. You could not defend yourself if a would-be attacker is obscured by darkness or shadows.

The two examples do show a person, not just a noise and a belief that a murderer was behind a door. I appreciate your bringing this to the conversation as it is the defense Roux will be working on to tailor the witnesses and evidence that we will begin to see tomorrow. Frankly it is ridiculous to look at a photo of the door and see that as presenting a viable example of an intruder.

My reading of SA case law suggests its like the UK, in that its an objective test first - were the circumstances such that its reasonable to suppose the defendant feared for his safety.. Followed by the subjective test - Did he fear for his safety and was his use of force proportionate?

Whatever offense he is found guilty of the sentence will be stiff: because there is nothing extraordinary about a house guest using the bathroom. Not the sort of extraordinary event which could reasonably give rise to such a mistaken belief.

And not a proportionate use of force in any event.

 

[TorisMom003]

In order for OP's version of events that early morning to make sense to me he is going to have to explain why he:
1. failed to use one of the many phones in his room to call police and/or security when he heard a noise
2. failed to activate the alarm that would notify security immediately of a problem in his home
3. failed to put on his legs, take Reeva, unlock the bedroom door and go to safety
4. waited more than 10 mins before attempting to break down toilet door after realizing Reeva was not in the bed AFTER he shot 4 times through the toilet room door
5. did not have Reeva already in the car and heading out to the hospital when Stander, his daughter, Dr Stipp and the security guards all arrived at the house.

OP is going to have to give reasonable reasons as to why he behaved the way he did. OP and not just his defense is going to have to explain things.

What is the point of living in a gated community with 24 hour security and panic buttons if one refuses to use the security and panic buttons that one is paying for? What was the point of telling security that everything is fine when clearly everything was NOT fine unless of course OP did what he intended to do which was to kill Reeva?

The defense has a lot that is going to have to be explained.

MOO

 

[james83]

i have issue's here
3:21:11 Oscar ends call with netcare who he says told him to bring her in
3:26 Dr Johan Stipp arrives at Oscar's to find Oscar rendering assistance to Reeva at the foot of the stairs.
So why didn't Oscar do as netcare told him?, he say's after the netcare call he ran downstairs and opened his front door, so why did he not put Reeva in his car and go?.
Strangely 54 seconds after the call to netcare, Oscar answers the phone call from Pieter Baba and tells him "everything is fine"?.
What exactly was he doing when he should have been taking Reeva to hospital?, answering the phone to baba shouldn't have been high on his list of priorities.

 

[TorisMom003]

i have issue's here
3:21:11 Oscar ends call with netcare who he says told him to bring her in
3:26 Dr Johan Stipp arrives at Oscar's to find Oscar rendering assistance to Reeva at the foot of the stairs.
So why didn't Oscar do as netcare told him?, he say's after the netcare call he ran downstairs and opened his front door, so why did he not put Reeva in his car and go?.
Strangely 54 seconds after the call to netcare, Oscar answers the phone call from Pieter Baba and tells him "everything is fine"?.
What exactly was he doing when he should have been taking Reeva to hospital?, answering the phone to baba shouldn't have been high on his list of priorities.

Waiting for Reeva to die?

 

[patCee]

This SA case may be what Minor was referring to as far as to what the accused perceived:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_v_De_Oliveira

Anyway, the facts are what they are and perception of a threat cannot be entirely created in ones mind, as is the case with OP; for putative self defense to work OP has to have seen more than a door in a dark bathroom. He would have had to have actually seen a person, a person doing something.

Interesting blog here that discusses putative defence; culpable homicide v murder; motive v intention, in SA.

http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/oscar-pistorius-criminal-law-101/

Sorry if it's already been posted.
OOPS..sorry Minor4th, I need to be a bit quicker I think.

 

[james83]

Waiting for Reeva to die?

You really do have to wonder don't you?.

 

[minor4th]

The two examples do show a person, not just a noise and a belief that a murderer was behind a door. I appreciate your bringing this to the conversation as it is the defense Roux will be working on to tailor the witnesses and evidence that we will begin to see tomorrow. Frankly it is ridiculous to look at a photo of the door and see that as presenting a viable example of an intruder.

My reading of SA case law suggests its like the UK, in that its an objective test first - were the circumstances such that its reasonable to suppose the defendant feared for his safety.. Followed by the subjective test - Did he fear for his safety and was his use of force proportionate?

Whatever offense he is found guilty of the sentence will be stiff: because there is nothing extraordinary about a house guest using the bathroom. Not the sort of extraordinary event which could reasonably give rise to such a mistaken belief.

And not a proportionate use of force in any event.

I disagree. But proportionate use of force is not a factor at all because there is no claim of self defense.

 

[TorisMom003]

You really do have to wonder don't you?.

Is there really any other reasonable reason to not get medical help immediately?

There is another big question for me as well. In OP's bail statement he said that he ran downstairs and opened the front door in order to take Reeva to the hospital. So why did he not also open the car door so that he could put her in the car? And if he did do that, then why is not in his statement?

 

[lisasalinger]

i have issue's here
3:21:11 Oscar ends call with netcare who he says told him to bring her in
3:26 Dr Johan Stipp arrives at Oscar's to find Oscar rendering assistance to Reeva at the foot of the stairs.
So why didn't Oscar do as netcare told him?, he say's after the netcare call he ran downstairs and opened his front door, so why did he not put Reeva in his car and go?.
Strangely 54 seconds after the call to netcare, Oscar answers the phone call from Pieter Baba and tells him "everything is fine"?.
What exactly was he doing when he should have been taking Reeva to hospital?, answering the phone to baba shouldn't have been high on his list of priorities.

My opinion, he opened the door for Stander to get in. Not so he could exit the house with Reeva.

If Stander takes the stand, Nel's cross of him will be interesting too

 

[minor4th]

My opinion, he opened the door for Stander to get in. Not so he could exit the house with Reeva.

If Stander takes the stand, Nel's cross of him will be interesting too

That's what I think too - he went and unlocked the front door to allow Stander in and the paramedics that he asked Stander to call.

 

[Interested Bystander]

The principle to remember is that if you have the belief that this person would injure you or someone close to you and even possibly kill you as a result of this attack, you may use any and all means to defend yourself.

http://www.dutoitattorneys.com/legal-services/criminal-law1/self-defense

I think one of the assessors is from dutoit.

 

[Canadian4]

Is OP taking the stand tomorrow for sure or just expected to? I am really curious about how he will do. Keep it together or theatrics.

 

[patCee]

Probably not directly relevant in this but case could the laws re cultural background apply here regarding disability, or OP's statement that he had previously been a victim of crime be considered mitigation.

The site below looks at the law re 'cultural background' mainly to do with beliefs re 'witchcraft'. Interesting read but a bit heavy in legal jargon.

http://www.isrcl.org/Papers/Carstens.pdf

 

[Insp.Dots]

Before I catch up, can I just ask the UK guys what their view of Filming trials is from watching this one unfold?
I can't help thinking if they had done 'exactly' the same here with the same errors, that some would be shouting 'unfair , miscarriage, trial by media etc etc... It's starting to feel like Hollywood doing some kind of reality tv film...except sadly someone has actually died.

I personally struggle with this case that witnesses can sit at home the weeks before they take the stand and watch all the evidence, other witnesses...I know they are not supposed do but let's be honest, surely most do that.
All that said, I am loving watching it, though I genuinely hope that Justice is done.


sent via my kindle

 

[Cherwell]

First of all, the competency test gave broad and very obvious examples to clarify OP's understanding of the law of self defense.

There was no example given of a burglar has entered your house and is 12 feet away and the only thing that separates you is a wooden door, and you cannot get yourself and your girlfriend out of your locked bedroom while you are on stumps before the burglar starts shooting.

BIB

This is the third time you've stated that he couldn't leave the bedroom.
I've already asked you twice why you think that would have been a problem, but you haven't explained your reasoning.
I'm asking a third time. Why do you insist that leaving the room was not an option>?

 

[patCee]

Personally I do not like the idea of televised trials. Too many personal details about individuals involved e.g. in this trial details of condoms, internal views of the home, family members being observed in their grief etc. I'm sure it provides good entertainment at the school gates in the mornings. Not for me I have to say.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Just because there is a photo of the duvet in a heap does not mean that was its first resting place after the shooting. The scene could have been tainted by Oscar himself long before LE went up there. Any of those after shock photos of the scene are suspect to me...where the holster was, where 1 or 2 fans were, location of the cricket bat, location of the phones...all could have been moved or tampered with ahead of the investigation!

:sweep:

Yes I agree and was pretty sure it had been moved from where it might have been I was more interested in how the blood got on it and what type of blood mark it was.
But have since been thinking ,if it had any relevance at all it would have been raised in more detail by Nel when the forensic guy was on the other stand but then why enter it to evidence ? Or are all crime scene photo's entered into evidence just In case the prosecution wants to refer to them during closing arguments or cross examination?
Clearly with all the problems at the start of the police case with Bortha? there will be many areas that the defence will be able to challenge and it also helps to hide any deliberate tampering that may have gone on in this case.
I think it could have been Mr stipp's that stated that OP went upstairs while he was attempting to render first aid to Reeva which he found odd ?

 

[Viper]

In the image at the link the TC door is shown as it was found. The entire center of the door was removed. Please look at the photo. It is not just a portion of the upper panels it is all of them top to bottom, or are my eyes deceiving me?

http://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/bathroom-window.png

Why would he do that?