Trial Discussion Thread #15

[Rumpole]

BBM:
I disagree......he didn't know what was behind that door.....what if his dog climbed the ladder...my cat even?....sheeesh. ......trigger happy should have shouted something more than " get out of my house"....oooooo scarey.

Scarry, perhaps reckless, perhaps criminal even.

But NOT the same as shooting knowing Reeva was behind the door.

It does have to be considered in context. A double amputee arguably feeling VERY vulnerable when it comes to any confrontation with a intruder, South Africa where home invasion, rape, torture and murder are common enough to be considered by everybody, 3 AM. Pitch darkness. All somewhat mitigating circumstances.
Yes it would be a tragedy if it had turned out to be the neighbor's cat too :cat:
But a mistake, an accident.

IF it had been an intruder dead... I would imagine no charges would have been laid. So in that context, if OP was absolutely convinced in his own mind (as a reasonable person might well be) then he did no more that if he had shot an actual intruder.

 

[minor4th]

If she hadn't corrected it, you wouldn't be any the wiser, would you? I think it highlights her honesty, rather than the reverse.

I am not going to engage any further with you on this.

If she hadn't corrected it she's still be a liar. Correcting it doesn't make it any less true that she lied in the sworn statement.

I'm sorry, but a person cannot mistakenly say they saw a person when they didn't. That can't be attributed to bad memory or carelessness - that is an affirmative assertion of what she saw, and it was a lie.

 

[Duchy]

Exactly, and this is why it is intriguing me as to why the key ever ended up on the floor. Why would it? Reeva wouldn't have needed to take it out of the door herself, had she either gone for a pee and locked the door, or if she had fled there for safety. In neither scenario would she need to take the key out of the keyhole on the inside of the door. So how did it end up on the floor? (if it really ever did?)

I just assumed that all the bashing/kicking or whatever of the loo door loosened the key from the lock so it fell out.

 

[screecher]

Just pure curiosity and probably stupid question :blushing: , which was probably discussed - it is said that the black talon bullets open up when hitting human flesh and break into pieces when hitting a bone. So if fired through a door or any other material don't they open up before hitting the body?

BBM

They begin to 'open up' with first pass (door), complete with mechanism when entering target. Reeva.

 

[Val1]

Roux was responding directly to the states expert witness. He's not spoken yet.

Are you saying he's going to open RS's valentine gift to OP and say tada! see I told you they were in love because she likely signed her card "with love"?

 

[soozieqtips]

That's a different question -I thought you were asking what he motive was.

I can certainly tell you why I say she lied. It's because she admitted it on the stand when she acknowledged that she signed her first sworn statement saying she saw a figure in the lighted window when had not seen such a thing.

My apologies. I didn't realise she had admitted deliberately intending to deceive anyone. I was under the impression that she admitted her statement had been incorrect (not deliberately deceptive) and that she had corrected it soon after.

 

[jay-jay]

There are indeed a list of symptoms, if you will, which characterise these abusers and in Reeva's limited messages, Oscar conveyed and displayed every one!!

Yup.

Funnily enough, I'd attempted to lock myself for protection in a (tiny) bathroom too . . . . .

I don't think I ever did that, probably just as well really ..! .. but, I do remember him once saying to me during a fight one night (one of those types that went on all night long and which carried on all around the house) that he had got me "cornered like a frightened animal" at one particular point.

Oh and eventually you feel like breathing in front of them is "rocking the boat" :-\

Yep, walking on eggshells .. continually, trying to not say the wrong thing .. just like Reeva: "I do everything to make you happy and to not say anything to rock the boat with u. You do everything to throw tantrums in front of people."

I'm just wondering if those who say they've not seen anything untoward in the messages have actually read the whole of those messages? I can't see how anyone can read them and not think there was a very bad and real problem going on there.

 

[jay-jay]

We have very little fact in this case. We do however know one fact. If someone is abusive towards someone else in a relationship, there is a good chance they will continue to do so with future partners.
However, the facts tell us that 99.99% (and however many more) of these people, will not go on to eventually intentionally shoot their partners.

I'm not really sure where you get that figure from? In England and Wales, three women every two weeks are killed at the hand of their partner/former partner (doesn't matter if they are shot or not, that part is not relevant in the overall statistics of women being killed by a violent partner .. it's the fact that those women are killed by whatever means)

 

[Rumpole]

I really think you're going to be disappointed if you're expecting all these major sensations to come out in cross. :no:

I am sure one side or other is going to be VERY disappointed.

My hope for this trial is that the Judge will "get it"... I fear Juries often don't despite jury instructions and the Judge's briefing on applicable law. I have high hopes for a system with Judges deciding.

She will (I hope) be viewing all that is presented in the context of "Presumed innocent" and so (I hope) will be seeing things as I do

Viewed from the perspective of "Presumed Guilty" and so denying facts that do not fit with "guilty", and speculating with no proof should be right out!!

 

[steveml]

If Judge Masipa feels that Mrs Stipp has lost some credibility because of adding something nonexistent to her statement, she may just be more willing to add more weight to her husband's statement. Which makes quite a large difference :-

Johan Stipp: Went onto to balcony heard what sounded like female screaming

Mrs Stipp: I heard a lady screaming, terrified screaming

 

[minor4th]

Are you saying he's going to open RS's valentine gift to OP and say tada! see I told you they were in love because she likely signed her card "with love"?

Why not?

 

[curiousjo]

Anyone saying the neighbor witnesses lied is absurd.

-->They all called security at the same time with the same story! 3:17 am!! Most didn't even know each other. They heard an argument, woman screaming, man yelling for help and the gun shots!<--

In regards to the doctors wife- she is extremely honest to correct her statement. And the other woman who added a descriptive "blood curdling" to the screams she heard- good for her! At least they are concerned neighbors who did the right thing by calling security, rather than just rolling over in bed and remaining silent. Thank goodness there are good, caring, honest people out there!

 

[Really?]

So sorry, but 3 messages that some consider "emotionally abusive" does not tend to show that Oscar premeditated killing Reeva.

And this is why I brought up Alyce LaViolette the other day - after MeeBee brought this to my attention - making broad conclusions about this relationship as abusive based on three texts is exactly what ALV was trying to do to Travis. She looked at a few cherry picked text messages and concluded that he was abusive, and I'll bet most of you thought she was completely absurd for such a suggestion.

ha...JA...anyway back to oscar....His message to Reeva, explaining himself at the party....he puts all the blame on her. She was talking to a guy !!..OP approached and she "did not introduce OP" at first.........then by god he watched as she touched another man's arm...adding to his outrage she did not follow him back to their table...but instead carried on conversing to this other guy.....he must have looked like Milton the Monster ready to blow his stack.

 

[Viper]

Nice story.. pure speculation. Can never be proved one way or the other..... NEXT!

Beg your pardon? You asked for speculation.

 

[minor4th]

My apologies. I didn't realise she had admitted deliberately intending to deceive anyone. I was under the impression that she admitted her statement had been incorrect (not deliberately deceptive) and that she had corrected it soon after.

Well she admitted that she voluntarily signed it after reading it - she wasn't under duress or forced to sign it, knowing it contains false statements about what she saw.

That's deliberate, that's intentional and that's deceptive.

And you can believe whatever you want, but the fact that a crucial ear/eye witness is willing to swear to a false statement impeaches their testimony. Judges take this oath thing pretty seriously.

 

[jay-jay]

Wait ....what 4th one?

Roux stated it was 4 'messages' and Moller corrected him by saying it was 4 conversations comprising a number of messages per conversation.

The four 'sets' of messages are here: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/24/world/oscar-pistorius-trial-whatsapp-messages/ (scroll down past the video for the transcriptions)

The other one, which was passed directly to Judge Masipa, because it was about Reeva (perhaps too personal and intimate to read out in court? I don't know?) .. was in addition to those other four.

 

[Gryffindor]

Originally Posted by*steveml*

We have very little fact in this case. We do however know one fact. If someone is abusive towards someone else in a relationship, there is a good chance they will continue to do so with future partners.*
However, the facts tell us that 99.99% (and however many more) of these people, will not go on to eventually intentionally shoot their partners.

Won't go on to kill them, as they can't, as they've got out, otherwise the reality of figures/stats would be very different :-\

 

[soozieqtips]

Well she admitted that she voluntarily signed it after reading it - she wasn't under duress or forced to sign it, knowing it contains false statements about what she saw.

That's deliberate, that's intentional and that's deceptive.

And you can believe whatever you want, but the fact that a crucial ear/eye witness is willing to swear to a false statement impeaches their testimony. Judges take this oath thing pretty seriously.

BBM - I'm sure they do, and I'm sure they also acknowledge that when a witness voluntarily admits to being mistaken, it shows integrity, not deception. Nothing more to add to this.

 

[G.bng]

I think the case will "come down to" the State NOT being able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that OP did not genuinely believe there was an intruder, leaving a situation where the Judge has to consider OP's actions in the context of OP firing at an intruder.
Nel has barely, if at all, addressed the issues surrounding OP firing at what he thought was an intruder, and so Nel has not yet made much of a case at all. I would suggest that as things stand OP should be acquitted, but from what I read, under the SA system, Nel still has a chance to make some sort of a case during cross examination of defense witnesses, even though the State has rested it's case. He does though (IMO) need to put down his cup of tea, and get up on his hind legs and start making some sort of a case.
:scared:

IMO Nel doesn't need to do anything more than he has about the burglar, and albeit probably not in the case of a home intruder, in the US you have "transferred intent" too so there could also be cases where if shooting unlawfully and killing another by accident an accused could be found guilty too.

In any case, in a bench system the judge is obliged to strictly follow the laws and only when not covered and there is no jurisprudence to use as guidance either will a judge be able to resort to a new interpretation. IMBW, but from how I see it Masipa will be reasoning as if ticking boxes, i.e. was it unlawful for OP to shoot an intruder ?(IDK for sure but it appears under SA law and the constitution it was: no gun, no imminent threat, other options to avert danger, etc.); if yes to the previous, is there evidence OP "intended" to kill the intruder ? (I reckon 4 shots into the door of a reduced area, knowing someone is inside will summarily deal with that); if yes, was OP's a "reasonable response" in all of the circumstances ? (imo this one may be where OP may be given a little leeway); if no, would it be "reasonable" for OP to know that shooting through a door could possibly, and yes it is "possibly", result in death ? (again I reckon shooting 4 times through the door of a reduced area knowing someone was inside should deal with that one super quick too). There are more conundrums the judge will have to pose herself I am sure but as I see it this would be the basic idea. JMO

 

[minor4th]

BBM - I'm sure they do, and I'm sure they also acknowledge that when a witness voluntarily admits to being mistaken, it shows integrity, not deception. Nothing more to add to this.

I completely disagree that admitting to lying under oath shows integrity