Trial Discussion Thread #13 - 14.03.25, Day 15

[Viper]

The murder charge is the easy one. It's the murder with intent that could do with clarification.

Have a look at the possible sentencing options for this case. There is not simply a murder charge. This is why the state didn't elect for a plain and simple murder charge.

:deadhorse:

He is charged with Murder. The Premeditation is an addition, an enhancement. If the judges find him guilty of Premeditated Murder he will likely be sentenced to more than the 25 year mandatory minimum sentence that is applied to Murder alone.

 

[K.T]

Neighbors:
I tend to believe the neighbors, so far, who have nothing to gain and more to lose telling the court what they heard. With Dr Johan and Anette Stipps they testified what they saw too, and it was against the statement of a famous, previously idolized athlete - that takes a type of courage. Dr Johan and Anette Stipp can be seen as heroic on the night, he rushed into armed “family murder” situation and Anette supported her husband’s choice, going herself outside on balconies to ascertain danger.

Howdunnit

I’m still curious about:
- The broken other parts of the tile, bedroom door and especially the broken panel of the bath leads you to think a serious altercation happened that night. Even the broken window on the ground floor (sorry I haven’t seen a picture of that) needs to be explained. Also you’ve all talked about the jeans too. Breaking that bath panel seems like an aggressive move. Remember I said Pistorius punched a big door in anger with his fist hard enough to break it before.

- The dogs

- Justin Divaris
Lots of celebrities, in their bubble worlds, have enablers and protective entourage. These can be transactional relationships with long histories that possibly contain knowledge, or have supported times, that could be held over others. It’s interesting to look at how central a role (BFF business best friend) Divaris holds. He facilitated firearm procurer Sean Nels for Pistorius’ gun collection and he introduced Steenkamp to Pistorius. Maybe Pistorius was jealous of him, when he accused Steenkamp of “flirting” (with Sam’s partner Divaris?) that made her leave her party earlier.
And, of course, Divaris was number four on the special dial list a person calls the night you kill your girlfriend. He wasn’t presumably helpful for the prosecution. He already quoted in interviews about how Steenkamp wished to “marry” Pistorius after three months. Oh.
I wonder if anyone will play the Kato Kaelin to OJ Simpson role.

MOO

 

[Trooper]

Have a look at the possible sentencing options for this case. There is not simply a murder charge. This is why the state didn't elect for a plain and simple murder charge.

:deadhorse:

you don't know that to be the case until he is sentenced..


once he is convicted, the trial moves into another stage altogether, with submissions from interested parties, and then , you will be informed of his sentence. . at that sentencing procedure, all the factors of the crime will be considered. premeditation, unusual cruelty, ( he gets an extra whack for pleading not guilty if he is indeed found guilty ) . malicious or vindictive action. etc etc..

this can all be accessed.. go and do that, and then get back to me.

 

[JuneBug67]

and I appreciate your view. .

and in a way, you could scrape in there with the claim about the few impulsive moments. In some cultures. that could cover the first shot.

but Oscar moves out of that category with his 2nd, 3rd and 4th shot.. unequivocally, and categorically..

and to add to Oscars dilemma.. the STate of South Africa is claiming he knew who he was firing at. that takes it out of the accidental impulsive, and puts it into him choosing a target and firing that weapon at that target .

Again I'm not trying to excuse or justify Oscar's actions. An innocent person was killed and therefore by definition those actions were reckless and wrong. That is not in contention and I'm fairly certain he will be imprisoned.

What is in contention is whether or not he targeted Reeva, and that is all my arguments are meant to address. I don't know, and it surprises me based on the current available evidence that others are so sure.

 

[nastasya]

A complete innocent was violently and needlessly killed. I don't think anybody's argument is that Oscar made any by-the-book choices that night. Most of my points are simply in support of the idea that it really, really could have happened the way Oscar described. It's not ludicrous or outlandish or completely lacking sense. Just a few impulsive, frightened moments in the dark, and it really could have happened that way. The armchair snark and eye rolling at the possibility that makes up a lot of the content here is not very useful thinking IMO.

If any ONE of the 5 witnesses heard Reeva's voice talking or screaming before she was shot then it really, really, really could NOT have happened the way the killer described the events.

And yes, it is totally ludicrous and lacking sense to share a bedroom with somebody, leave the room, return, hear a person in the bathroom, then immediately grab a gun and blast four shots into the toilet stall.

That's the definition of ludicrous and lacking sense.

 

[steveml]

He is charged with Murder. The Premeditation is an addition, an enhancement. If the judges find him guilty of Premeditated Murder he will likely be sentenced to more than the 25 year mandatory minimum sentence that is applied to Murder alone.

I'm aware of that.

Presuming OP has done what you believe he has done, and not what he claims, please explain the specific actions that OP would need to do to distinguish murder from the higher charge?

Perhaps you know. I've asked trooper but... ?

 

[nastasya]

Perhaps you can explain the specific actions that OP would need to do to increase the charge from murder then?

Here's how:

• OP was in the bedroom.
• The victim was two passages away in the bathroom, inside a locked toilet stall.
• OP went and got his gun.
• OP went down passage one towards the victim.
• OP went down passage two towards the victim.
• OP heard the victim inside the toilet stall.
• OP fired his gun, hitting the victim in the hip.
• The victim fell down.
• OP fired a second shot that missed.
• OP fired a third shot, hitting the victim in the arm.
• OP fired a fourth shot, hitting the victim in the head, killing her.

None of OP's actions were accidental. OP was not defending himself from any threats, let alone imminent threats to his life. OP aimed his gun at the victim four times, including three times after wounding her in the hip, and continued firing until the head shot.

 

[DebinGA]

If OP's bullet into the air out of DF's sunroof had come down and killed someone, would that be premeditated or even culpable murder? No imo, because he didn't intend to hit anyone and wouldn't have foreseen his bullet would kill someone. If there's a murder due to stupidity charge, that would fit.

Re killing RS, imo OP passes the "intent" standard because he absolutely could "foresee" what the results would be of shooting 4 TBs into the closed cubicle containing the mythical intruder/s.

 

[Trooper]

I'm aware of that.

Presuming OP has done what you believe he has done, and not what he claims, please explain the specific actions that OP would need to do to distinguish murder from the higher charge?

Perhaps you know. I've asked trooper but... ?

its 3 weeks into the trial. its difficult to understand how anyone could have endured this whole shindig without understanding its basic premise..

its been explained to you. I tried to use small words, but legality isn't exactly over flowing with them.

there is no explanation that you are prepared to consider, except your own, and that's ok. I can only hope that as this trial goes on you may garner some sort of comprehension as to what you are watching and hearing. I wish you good luck.

 

[Trooper]

KT!.. I like your posts very much.. .much to chew on.


Justin Divaris ------> Mr Everywhere.. hopefully, he will be a hostile witness coming up.

 

[Viper]

I'm aware of that.

Presuming OP has done what you believe he has done, and not what he claims, please explain the specific actions that OP would need to do to distinguish murder from the higher charge?

Perhaps you know. I've asked trooper but... ?

He can't. There is nothing he can do. There is evidence of a fight between them, his breaking the bedroom door to get at her, the woman's screams that he claims he made, and his girlfriend is found dead, shot three times behind a locked door in his toilet stall. He admits that he wanted (intended) to kill, and that he did kill.

 

[JuneBug67]

If any ONE of the 5 witnesses heard Reeva's voice talking or screaming before she was shot then it really, really, really could NOT have happened the way the killer described the events.

And yes, it is totally ludicrous and lacking sense to share a bedroom with somebody, leave the room, return, hear a person in the bathroom, then immediately grab a gun and blast four shots into the toilet stall.

That's the definition of ludicrous and lacking sense.

Yes, if it is proved that witnesses heard a female screaming or talking after the 3:00ish noises and preceding the 3:17 noises that the state believes were gunshots it cannot have happened the way Oscar claimed, and he will be guilty of the premeditated murder of Reeva Steenkamp. But we all know that will be challenged by the defense and there are logical reasons to wait, not least of which is the fact that the state has not yet accounted for the first set of noises. It is in fact the defense that has the broad explanation that accounts for both sets of noises. I need to hear their explanation before I dismiss the possibility that Oscar made a terrible, tragic mistake.

None of us were in Oscar's head that night. It is not ludicrous to make the tragic mistake of being sure of something you shouldn't have been. He had just left Reeva moments before and it is absolutely possible that his mind just locked on her being in bed as fact. We know he feared noises at night in the past, and we know he reacted to previous situations by getting up and getting his gun and in at least one case approaching in the washing machine incident. There is evidence he is impulsive, particularly since his boating accident and the head injury. He is hot head with guns. This is not an impossible, ludicrous story. Not for this man, in that place. It's possible. Hopefully we will find out soon if it is probable or not.

 

[steveml]

If any ONE of the 5 witnesses heard Reeva's voice talking or screaming before she was shot then it really, really, really could NOT have happened the way the killer described the events.

And yes, it is totally ludicrous and lacking sense to share a bedroom with somebody, leave the room, return, hear a person in the bathroom, then immediately grab a gun and blast four shots into the toilet stall.

That's the definition of ludicrous and lacking sense.

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'.

 

[steveml]

He can't. There is nothing he can do. There is evidence of a fight between them, his breaking the bedroom door to get at her, the woman's screams that he claims he made, and his girlfriend is found dead, shot three times behind a locked door in his toilet stall. He admits that he wanted (intended) to kill, and that he did kill.

Sorry, I've not made myself clear after re-reading my question. I can see what you think I'm asking but it's not. No worries. I'll find the answer from somewhere.

 

[nastasya]

Again I'm not trying to excuse or justify Oscar's actions. An innocent person was killed and therefore by definition those actions were reckless and wrong. That is not in contention and I'm fairly certain he will be imprisoned.

What is in contention is whether or not he targeted Reeva, and that is all my arguments are meant to address. I don't know, and it surprises me based on the current available evidence that others are so sure.

The name of the person he killed is not relevant.

Imagine this scenario. Suppose a diabolical killer plots to kill his ex girlfriend. He sneaks over to her house, slips in the back door, goes to her bedroom, and shoots her in her sleep four times.

Only the killer didn't know his ex girlfriend was out of town and it was her sister sleeping in the bed.

Does that make the killer guilty of a lesser crime?

 

[screecher]

So it's resorted to playing off one red-top against another. Oh dear.

The sort of sarcastic stuff you're coming out with since the prosecution finished is exactly what you expect kids to do on twitter. This started off sensible.
:notgood:

:noooo: What I am trying to do, besides giving my opinion, is to correct incomplete, misleading, selective, and plain and simple incorrect information that sometimes come on board via the info in your posts.

I'm pretty sure the majority of posters here appreciate it.

 

[steveml]

The name of the person he killed is not relevant.

Imagine this scenario. Suppose a diabolical killer plots to kill his ex girlfriend. He sneaks over to her house, slips in the back door, goes to her bedroom, and shoots her in her sleep four times.

Only the killer didn't know his ex girlfriend was out of town and it was her sister sleeping in the bed.

Does that make the killer guilty of a lesser crime?

He obviously targeted the ex-girlfriend because he wasn't meant to be there, and had no reason to be, Totally different. Case closed.

 

[minor4th]

Thanks. That's a description of transferred intent under English law, however nobody seems to be entirely sure if this is interpreted the same in SA.

It'd be good if someone could get hold of a SA lawyer's take on it.

Transferred intent is a concept that is pretty universally accepted in modern jurisprudence. However, it is not exactly as stated in the post.

An example of transferred intent would be a bankrobber who shoots to kill the bank teller, but misses and instead hits a bystander and causes his death. The killer's murderous intent is transferred from his intended victim to his actual victim.

If Oscar believed that he was lawfully defending himself from imminent harm, then he lacks the requisite intent for murder, so there is no murderous intent to to transfer to the mistaken victim.

 

[Gryffindor]

Hmm, but wasn't it still pitch black in the bedroom until he got the bat(his third trip I believe, assuming you believe his version) so how would he know she wasn't there, hiding from whoever had been firing the gun because if she thought there was an intruder it could have been him/her coming into the bedroom, unless the light was already on and OP could see the empty bed...




However, if it was me and my husband had gone running after someone and there'd been shots fired, not knowing who had shot who, I'd have at least escaped through the patio doors by then if I couldn't get through the bedroom door and I'd be screaming bloody murder for someone to help us.

It was 2 or 3 blood spots / on the duvet x

 

[minor4th]

The murder charge is the easy one. It's the murder with intent that could do with clarification.

Just to be clear - the only possibilities are murder or culpable homicide. The charge of "murder" requires a malicious intent to kill without justification. Culpable homicide is everything else.

"Murder" includes premeditated/ intentional killing. It could also include murder with transferred intent and some forms of reckless murder. "Culpable homicide" would include what we call manslaughter or second degree murder or heat of passion or provocation or mistaken self defense.