Trial Discussion Thread #14 - 14.03.28, Day 16

[james83]

One thing that concerns me slightly is that prosecution did not call Johan Stander to the stand.

As he was the first person on the scene, he would normally be quite crucial as a witness. I would therefore presume he wasn't useful to the prosecution.

Any thoughts?

Whatever happened that night his testimony is going to be pro Oscar, therefore it makes more sense for Nel to try and tie him up in knots as a defence witness.

 

[steveml]

I'm a little surprised that they can't continue with one assessor. Seeing as there is no "reserve" assessor, you might think that was the point of having two assessors.

Yep, it would be good for us, though I guess it's a constitutional/fairness issue that everybody has the same right to trial by a Judge and two assessors.

 

[G.bng]

This thing about the bedroom door, and the key, and him stating "I felt trapped as my bedroom door was locked " is something which keeps cropping up and which I find really confusing.

The main reason for that being that there is no bedroom door to the bathroom area, so it's not a door between those areas which could've been bothering him because there isn't a door there anyway .. it must've been the door which led straight out from the bedroom to the landing (the bathroom and toilet was within the bedroom area, down a short corridor .. with no doors).

I don't understand a number of things here .. firstly, if you say he carries the key with him, then why not just head directly for the bedroom door (gun in hand for protection), unlock it and then proceed out onto the landing, down the stairs and out of the house .. and get yourself completely out of the way of danger. But why does he even carry the key on him? Why isn't it just in the bedroom door all the time in the first place? (unless he had deliberately locked Reeva in .. i.e. in the whole bedroom/ensuite bathroom area).

Ponder no more about OP carrying the bedroom door key because silly me kept forgetting there was no door between bedroom and bathroom (it's as plain as daylight on the floorplan which I've looked at umpteen times) and imagined OP had locked himself out of the bedroom which was why he felt trapped! I was planting a hypothetical about him carrying the key according to my mistaken scenario. I do agree though that it was more logical for him to grab Reeva and go downstairs and out than what he did.

 

[Really?]

Evidence to Support OP's Story:

Contrary to popular opinion, when OP went out on the deck and returned to the bedroom, the outside door being opened would NOT have made it easier to see Reeva in bed from the ambient outside lighting.

Here's why...

I did this very thing last night. My bed is directly facing the deck. I looked outside for maybe 3 seconds, then turned to get into bed. Much to my surprise the entire bed area was totally blacked out in my vision. My spouse was in bed but totally invisible to my vision, which had adjusted to the dim, outdoor ambient lighting. I had no way of seeing if my spouse was in bed or not. Zero visibility.

Weird, huh?

Of course if I would have heard somebody using the bathroom in that moment I would have reasonably inferred my spouse got up to pee when I wasn't paying attention.

Basically what OP is claiming pure stupidity as a reasonable defense. I guess that's why the standard is "reasonable person" and not "total idiot" or "maniacal lunatic" when the judge subjectively reaches a decision about OP's decision to kill somebody using the toilet.

ha....I typed out a scenario called "day dreaming" in which I believed everything OP said.....I got through one paragraph and deleted it......LOL....no way could I get past his additions to his affidavit claiming he just spoke with to ( you know, so we know she was awake)....then it went onto add a second fan to give Reeva more time to have gotten up to go to the toilet......

I got that far and.....deleted it....it made no sense.

 

[steveml]

Whatever happened that night his testimony is going to be pro Oscar, therefore it makes more sense for Nel to try and tie him up in knots as a defence witness.

He'll do that no doubt if he takes the stand, it's just that the ball's in the Defenses court to decide at this stage.

Knowing that he may be pro-OP, Roux can get some good light thrown on his client and also direct his questioning with a view to what he expects Nel to ask on cross-examination.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Evidence to Support OP's Story:

Contrary to popular opinion, when OP went out on the deck and returned to the bedroom, the outside door being opened would NOT have made it easier to see Reeva in bed from the ambient outside lighting.

Here's why...

I did this very thing last night. My bed is directly facing the deck. I looked outside for maybe 3 seconds, then turned to get into bed. Much to my surprise the entire bed area was totally blacked out in my vision. My spouse was in bed but totally invisible to my vision, which had adjusted to the dim, outdoor ambient lighting. I had no way of seeing if my spouse was in bed or not. Zero visibility.

Weird, huh?

Of course if I would have heard somebody using the bathroom in that moment I would have reasonably inferred my spouse got up to pee when I wasn't paying attention.

Basically what OP is claiming pure stupidity as a reasonable defense. I guess that's why the standard is "reasonable person" and not "total idiot" or "maniacal lunatic" when the judge subjectively reaches a decision about OP's decision to kill somebody using the toilet.

Oscar parked one of the fans (the small one) fairly near a wall and then went out again and collected the large fan. If he could not see he would never have been able to place the small fan accurately and then go out and retrieve the large fan and park that too. He has to be lying. I suspect the lights were on as they were heard arguing (not something one does in the dark) and the fans were already inside but somehow I expect him to repeat it all again. Stipp saw lights on. Did he only see them on in the bathroom or from the balcony too?

 

[steveml]

Oscar parked one of the fans (the small one) fairly near a wall and then went out again and collected the large fan. If he could not see he would never have been able to place the small fan accurately and then go out and retrieve the large fan and park that too. He has to be lying. I suspect the lights were on as they were heard arguing (not something one does in the dark) and the fans were already inside but somehow I expect him to repeat it all again. Stipp saw lights on. Did he only see them on in the bathroom or from the balcony too?

I think he said that 'all lights were on', and didn't specify which so it would cover that possibility. Just thinking from memory now.

 

[Feynman]

I'm pretty sure that was OP's reason given for bringing the fans in from the balcony. (I've actually been wondering why on earth anyone would have fans on the balcony .. but maybe that comes from me living in the UK with UK weather, it's probably what they do in SA!)

One possibility is the fans were outside to blow the cooler air into the bedroom. As the night progresses, it can actually get a little too cool inside from this (even in the summer). You bring the fans in at that point. I do this all the time in the summer.

 

[steveml]

One possibility is the fans were outside to blow the cooler air into the bedroom. As the night progresses, it can actually get a little too cool inside from this. You bring the fans at that point.

Thanks. It's so true that us from the UK really struggle with this concept, apart from maybe a couple of times a year.

:coldcase:

 

[Viper]

Wow, yes I most definitely did get the bit about the bedroom door wrong! Thanks for the correction. I imagined OP had meant "trapped" in the passage between the bathroom and a locked bedroom door... I found it really strange to sleep with a bedroom door locked bedroom not least in case of fire, as well as to have a key lock on the toilet door, who am I to judge anyone's strange habits, and when someone commented here that even toilet doors had key locks in SA I just took it to be normal for there. Thanks again... must read more carefully, must read more carefully, must read mo...

Everyone may be getting bedroom door wrong. The bedroom door had been smashed open from the outside prior to the murder, so it was no longer locked. There is no way OP was locked inside the bedroom! :smile:

 

[Val1]

Yes the food issue seems a big problem for the DT
The defence pathologist is being paid the come up with a solution 9.30pm to 3.15 am is a big amount of time to try and sweep under the carpet .
Will be watching that with interest .

The other aspect of this could be the volume of urine, though how much the average healthy woman would produce in what sounds like a heat wave, after having exercised just before bed and only evidence of a bit of lettuce and dairy in her stomach would largely depend on how much liquid she would have consumed as well I would think. Was there any evidence showing that RS had perhaps drank a litre or so of anything to replace what her body would likely have been expelling in perspiration and still have an excess to need to use the washroom in the middle of the night?

Speaking only for myself, I never needed the washroom during the night (other than just after intimate relations:blushing in my younger years, only after having children did my body ever need to and certainly not in the heat of summer.

Having said all that, certainly evidence either on the toilet room floor or her underclothes would show whether any loss occurred other than in the toilet bowl.

 

[delilah]

I'm still confused as to how/why/when the duvet was moved from the bed to the floor, near the balcony doors. Can anyone help?

 

[minor4th]

So let's look at the States initial reasoning for filing intentional murder charges as opposed to the lesser offense of culpable homicide:

1. Oscar was on his prosthetics when he fired the shots through the bathroom door

2. Three phones were in the bathroom and they're going to show that Reeva was in some kind of distress and evidence if a big fight leading up to the shooting

3. Oscar was watching *advertiser censored* when he should have been watching his girlfriend do yoga

4. A bunch of neighbors heard Reeva and Oscar in a loud fight for an hour or so immediately preceding the shooting

5. Oscar never called security or an ambulance (indicating he was trying to cover it up)

Now that we've seen what we've seen which of those justifications still exist? None. Not a single one.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Evidence to Support OP's Story:

Contrary to popular opinion, when OP went out on the deck and returned to the bedroom, the outside door being opened would NOT have made it easier to see Reeva in bed from the ambient outside lighting.

Here's why...

I did this very thing last night. My bed is directly facing the deck. I looked outside for maybe 3 seconds, then turned to get into bed. Much to my surprise the entire bed area was totally blacked out in my vision. My spouse was in bed but totally invisible to my vision, which had adjusted to the dim, outdoor ambient lighting. I had no way of seeing if my spouse was in bed or not. Zero visibility.

Weird, huh?

Of course if I would have heard somebody using the bathroom in that moment I would have reasonably inferred my spouse got up to pee when I wasn't paying attention.

Basically what OP is claiming pure stupidity as a reasonable defense. I guess that's why the standard is "reasonable person" and not "total idiot" or "maniacal lunatic" when the judge subjectively reaches a decision about OP's decision to kill somebody using the toilet.

No doubt the defence will also say what you have said about the light in the bedroom and I totally believe what you are saying about your light test.
The only reason I think someone had some light in the room was because his bedroom is very clinical ,white walls , cream carpet and the duvet and sheets white as well . His balcony has light tiles and the walls are all painted white all this light does create bounce . It can of course vary just like sound travels differently .Reeva was in a black vest so I feel it is very likely in that environment she would be seen . I don't have a closed mind on this and will look at what the defence has to say . They will maybe have done some tests .
The closeness of the bed and the size of the balcony still makes his version questionable for the point of view of noise and time it would take Reeva to walk to the toilet .
This terrible event has my mind running overtime

 

[delilah]

If Roux is going to argue that the head shot was the first shot, how will he explain the injury to the webbing between RS' fingers?

Mangena demonstrated how he concluded the injury was caused - because RS had her hands covering her head at the time of the head shot, adopting a defensive position. Why would she be slumped or sitting on the magazine rack, or maybe he'll claim the toilet, with her hands holding her head when no shots had been fired and she wouldn't have thought she was in danger?

 

[Gbtaketwo]

I'm still confused as to how/why/when the duvet was moved from the bed to the floor, near the balcony doors. Can anyone help?

I am confused about everything
The duvet could have been moved from where ever it was at the time of the shooting or it could have been there all along .we can't know .

 

[delilah]

If Roux is going to argue that the head shot was the first shot, how will he explain the injury to the webbing between RS' fingers?

Mangena demonstrated how he concluded the injury was caused - because RS had her hands covering her head at the time of the head shot, adopting a defensive position. Why would she be slumped or sitting on the magazine rack, or maybe he'll claim the toilet, with her hands holding her head when no shots had been fired and she wouldn't have thought she was in danger?

And with the toilet seat up, and her pants on.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Thanks. It's so true that us from the UK really struggle with this concept, apart from maybe a couple of times a year.

:coldcase:

I second that :floorlaugh:

 

[minor4th]

So let's look at the States initial reasoning for filing intentional murder charges as opposed to the lesser offense of culpable homicide:

1. Oscar was on his prosthetics when he fired the shots through the bathroom door

2. Three phones were in the bathroom and they're going to show that Reeva was in some kind of distress and evidence if a big fight leading up to the shooting

3. Oscar was watching *advertiser censored* when he should have been watching his girlfriend do yoga

4. A bunch of neighbors heard Reeva and Oscar in a loud fight for an hour or so immediately preceding the shooting

5. Oscar never called security or an ambulance (indicating he was trying to cover it up)

Now that we've seen what we've seen which of those justifications still exist? None. Not a single one.

6. Security called OP after reports of gunshots and he said "everything is fine"

7. He has a history of domestic violence

8. Witnesses heard Reeva screaming before the gunshots.

^^ Forgot to add those and there was one more that I can't remember now.
These are the alleged facts that the state relies on to circumstantially prove intent and premeditation.

Of all of those things mentioned, the only one that has not been disproven is the screaming the witnesses heard before the sounds they identified as gunshots. But there has been enough doubt cast on that because of two sets of "shots" that it is barely even a possibility at this point.

Thoughts?

 

[BritsKate]

So let's look at the States initial reasoning for filing intentional murder charges as opposed to the lesser offense of culpable homicide:

1. Oscar was on his prosthetics when he fired the shots through the bathroom door

2. Three phones were in the bathroom and they're going to show that Reeva was in some kind of distress and evidence if a big fight leading up to the shooting

3. Oscar was watching *advertiser censored* when he should have been watching his girlfriend do yoga

4. A bunch of neighbors heard Reeva and Oscar in a loud fight for an hour or so immediately preceding the shooting

5. Oscar never called security or an ambulance (indicating he was trying to cover it up)

Now that we've seen what we've seen which of those justifications still exist? None. Not a single one.

You know just as well as I that cases are very fluid things until the accused sits in the dock and witnesses are sworn in. I can list a whole lot of cases where the prosecutor or defense made larger than life claims, pretrial, never to be uttered in front of judge or jury.

As far as justification goes, dolus eventualis still exists as much as it did the day Reeva was murdered. Did Oscar foresee the possibility that shooting 4 bullets into a locked cubicle door, without so much as a warning shot, could result in someone's death and did he proceed anyway?

JMO

The state can prove the direct intention by proving that the accused actually meant to kill the deceased. Evidence that the accused and the victim were involved in a stormy argument before the killing or that the accused had previously threatened the life of the victim could be important.

The state can also prove intention via the concept of dolus eventualis. This form of intention exists where the state can prove that while the accused might not have meant to kill the victim, he nevertheless foresaw the possibility and nevertheless proceeded with his actions. “Jub Jub” Maarohanye and his co-accused Themba Tshabalala were convicted of murder on the basis of dolus eventualis as the court found that they foresaw that their reckless driving in a built up area might lead to the killing on innocent bystanders.

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