Trial Discussion Thread #25 - 14.04.14, Day 22

[patCee]

With regard to CH and a possible future conviction/sentancing, the following addresses OP's disability. Not sure though whether the same applies to premeditation.

It is worth noting that our law is only prepared to take account of the immediate external circumstances of an accused – and to hypothetically place the reasonable person in these circumstances. Our law has steadfastly refused to take account of any subjective factors peculiar to an accused, including any disability that the accused suffers with. This has been controversial, but it has been a line from which our courts have not wavered. If the reasonable person would not have made the mistake Pistorius claims to have made, even if the court accepts that Pistorius made this mistake, he may be convicted of culpable homicide.

http://criminallawza.net/2014/03/03/the-pistorius-defence/

It is notable that the word REASONABLE crops up all over the legal aspects of this case. Applying the word to OP's testimony indicates he is digging himself a big hole.

 

[minor4th]

I have a different interpretation. IMO he is saying he never intended to shoot anyone b/c it takes all of the blame off of him. He doesn't even want to admit to shooting the intruder. But he has to, b/c obviously he shot the gun and even shot and killed someone. There is no way he can get out of it. If you put a dot on Reeva's body as the event, and then you draw a square around the event, Oscar is placing himself on the edge of that square somewhere. He is placing himself as far away from the dot, the event, as he possibly can.

This is not about "different terminology." This is about Oscar's refusal to take responsibility for anything whatsover.

IMO his testimony regardin the restaurant shooting was very, very bad for him. It showed me that he will in no way take responsibility for anything. It showed me that he will try to deny something happening even when there is evidence clearly against his version.

I have NO DOUBT that if someone else were in the room with Reeva and Oscar that night, that Oscar would put the complete and entire blame on that other person. He would say, the other person shot the gun. The other person killed Reeva. It would be Oscar's word vs. the other guy's word, just like the restaurant incident. He would put compete and entire blame on the other person.

JMO.

Well, in a sense I agree with his refusal to take responsibility or that it sounds like that, but I think the reason he is doing this is to avoid the "hot" words - like "intent" and "deliberate" - but I think he is describing the same thing.

I do not think Oscar is blaming the shooting on anyone. He clearly said today that it is his fault.

 

[TipDog]

BBM - Very well-reasoned thoughts they are too. I don't quite understand why some people are still clinging onto old news... like they were in a deeply loving relationship. There were no signs of this being a normal healthy and loving relationship. Reeva was the giver, OP was the taker - and that imbalance is often seen in abusive relationships. I wonder whether he got mad at Reeva for eating food in front of him, when perhaps he was still hungry but having to stick to a diet? From what we've seen of OP, blatantly eating food in front of him when he couldn't eat would surely be a sign of disrespect! And he hasn't mentioned the late night snack Reeva had at all.

Thank you. I'm trying to watch this trial with an open mind, but it's definitely challenging.


BIB

I believe he denied any knowledge of it or said didn't hear her if she had gotten up for a snack. (can't remember exactly how he said it)

This means she got out of bed at 1am to unlock the bedroom door with a key and remove the cricket bat out from under the doorknob (my assumption), walk downstairs, make herself a snack, eat it, come back up, lock the bedroom door with a key and position the cricket bat back under the doorknob (my assumption), and slip back under the duvet next to OP - all of this was done without him waking up because he didn't hear her do any of this.

However, upon retrieving (two) fans from (just inside) the balcony, he somehow hears the window in the bathroom sliding open (and then slamming against the wood frame) and is certain it's an intruder coming to kill him. But never did he hear RS get up that night at all.

Reeva was one very quiet individual, I must say.

 

[Carmelita]

I know that I am I the minority but I see big flaws in Nels, “conclusions” about certain aspects that people see as victories for the prosecution.

Oscar could have knocked the duvet on the floor when he climbed on the bed, Oscar is correct that it is not a tight grouping of shots, Reeva’s pants were inside out, hardly consistent with the way they would be found if she were putting them on her body, Reeva could have gone downstairs for a midnight snack with Oscar unaware, Oscars explanation that he would have tripped over Reeva if she were on the floor is clearly a plausible explanation, Oscar's not remembering things sequentially or exactly and being confused by Nel is not unusual in a situation like this.

I also think that Oscar portrays the distraught man to the point of almost appearing to be incoherent. He vacillates between saying he shot the gun because he believed an intruder was in the bathroom and he and Reeva were in imminent danger to saying he involuntarily pulled the trigger because he was in such a heightened state of fear. Yet seconds before he pulled the trigger he considered the danger of a ricocheting bullet.

At this point Oscar’s defense is that he was semi rational, in fear for his life and Reeva’s life until the moment he rounded the corner, heard a noise in the toilet and suddenly fired his gun 4 times without thinking.

Not an impossible scenario, but it certainly is not a likely scenario. Does it stretch all rational and reasonable lines of credibility? In my mind yes it does. All that said it still doesn’t mean that it is not a true rendering of the events of the early morning.

 

[aa9511]

I just have to wonder why did Oscar even take the stand?

Roux must have known his client would implode, knowing his ways with having to deal with him all this time preparing for the case.

I can't help but to conclude that it must have been Oscar who insisted on testifying.

 

[minor4th]

I think it is a huge STRETCH to be evoking DV type stuff.

The situation here is two independent people with their own lives and own homes. NOBODY was trapped in the classical DV scenario.

4 short lived Tiffs over 1700 texts is so insignificant as to be really a sign on desperation if that is ALL the State could find to indicate "violence" It is plain silly to draw any conclusion at all about Op being abusive even verbally, and no evidence at all of actual face to face verbal abuse, let alone physical violence.

Just as an aside: When people rush to label minor things such as this as "abuse" they detract from REAL instances of DV. People (usually women) who are battered and eventually some killed. DV is NOT an issue in this case and to evoke that is a travesty in itself.

Parsing out the word " loving" in my post... that I did only include in brackets is not significant to what I say.

Nel can make an issue of a word or a phrase "not making sense" but the Big Fat elephant of a thing that does NOT make sense is a boyfriend deciding to INTENTIONALLY shooting his girlfriend at 3:00 AM... It is Nel's job to explain WHY and HOW such an unlikely event occurred.

Yes, I agree with this! There is no evidence this was an abusive relationship (physically abusive, as in domestic VIOLENCE").

This morning before trial started I was listening to legal commentary and an interview with a DV expert and her thoughts on this relationship. The interviewer clearly wanted the DV expert to say that there were signs of abuse and that this was an abusive relationship, but she did NOT. Instead she said that it's important to be careful not to label Oscar as an abuser. She further said that Reeva herself says that 90% of the time OP makes her happy and 10% of the time she is uncomfortable and scared of his reaction. Her explanation was that this was a feeling that Reeva developed over time and it indicates that this was not a healthy relationship where both people feel accepted or loved unconditionally, but it's not an indication of an abusive relationship. With that I completely agree.

 

[anagrammy]

I need to correct myself on something I said yesterday about culpable homicide and putative self defense. Having listened to a couple of SA legal experts this morning, apparently OP could actually be acquitted even if he erroneously shot and killed Reeva believing he was lawfully shooting in self defense.

Once it is decided that it's reasonably possibly true that he genuinely believed there was an armed intruder in the bathroom/toilet, then that takes away the intent necessary for murder (intent). But then the inquiry is whether, given that belief, he acted reasonably - if he acted reasonably, then he is acquitted. If he did not act reasonably, then he is negligent and has committed culpable homicide.

BIB - my question about this is whether the standard of "reasonable" is rigidly interpreted as what a cautious, prudent person would do under the same belief. Or, can it be interpreted as what this particular defendant always does, based on his past history of behavior.

Can Oscar Pistorius be excused for killing Reeva because he is an established wacko who shoots his gun at every opportunity; therefore, in HIS case, shooting the door is just his personality--thoughtless and reckless. No premeditated murder, he's just a dangerous idiot?

 

[Goforgold]

Heard where her screams were coming from, she wasn't up against the door anymore.

ETA: Or saw her because of breaking the door first before he shot.

I thought he couldn't hear anything in the bathroom after the first shot because of the ringing in the ears it would cause?

 

[patCee]

I just have to wonder why did Oscar even take the stand?

Roux must have known his client would implode, knowing his ways with having to deal with him all this time preparing for the case.

I can't help but to conclude that it must have been Oscar who insisted on testifying.

A member of OP's legal team was quoted in an earlier thread that "they had no choice". I think due to OP claiming he was defending himself from an intruder, and that he was the only person who could evidence that.

 

[aa9511]

Yes, I agree with this! There is no evidence this was an abusive relationship (physically abusive, as in domestic VIOLENCE").

This morning before trial started I was listening to legal commentary and an interview with a DV expert and her thoughts on this relationship. The interviewer clearly wanted the DV expert to say that there were signs of abuse and that this was an abusive relationship, but she did NOT. Instead she said that it's important to be careful not to label Oscar as an abuser. She further said that Reeva herself says that 90% of the time OP makes her happy and 10% of the time she is uncomfortable and scared of his reaction. Her explanation was that this was a feeling that Reeva developed over time and it indicates that this was not a healthy relationship where both people feel accepted or loved unconditionally, but it's not an indication of an abusive relationship. With that I completely agree.

IMO, it doesn't really make a difference to me whether it was an abusive or even a happy or healthy relationship.

Any two people can have an argument/fight sometime.

The problem for Oscar is that on this particular night, it was a combination of him reaching his limit temper-wise, and having a gun close by, and just not being able to control himself.

It doesn't matter to me why it happened to be on this night and with Reeva.

If he had ever killed anyone before, he would either be in jail or else be extremely cautious that he doesn't do it again. Point being, Reeva would still be alive and he would have never shot her in the first place.

JMO.

 

[minor4th]

BIB - my question about this is whether the standard of "reasonable" is rigidly interpreted as what a cautious, prudent person would do under the same belief. Or, can it be interpreted as what this particular defendant always does, based on his past history of behavior.

Can Oscar Pistorius be excused for killing Reeva because he is an established wacko who shoots his gun at every opportunity; therefore, in HIS case, shooting the door is just his personality--thoughtless and reckless. No premeditated murder, he's just a dangerous idiot?

The "reasonable person" test usually compares a person similarly situated and under similar circumstances as the accused.

So, if the reasonable person under the same conditions would have shot through the door, then he can be acquitted. If he overreacted, compared to what any reasonable person would do in that situation, then he is negligent and guilty.

To answer your specific question, I do not think the "reasonable person" test allows for unreasonable personality quirks and such. If he was paranoid about his safety to an unreasonable degree, then it's unreasonable - and negligent.

 

[fox1lady]

WHY???
The manner of his questioning. He is repeatedly saying things are impossible when in my opinion they are not impossible. One example, he was trying to trip OP up about the duvet. Was the duvet on the bed when he returned to the bedroom or not. Now lets be honest here, if someone has just shot 4 bullets through a door possibly killing someone, whether that shooting was premeditated, done is self defence or in a jealous rage, is it impossible that they would notice whether or not a duvet was on a bed or not? I think even the judge is fed up with him now. Please try to excuse my impatience. I don't know if OP is guilty of premeditated murder or not, but Nel's manner of questioning is damaging OP's chance of a fair trial. Fortunately it is not a jury trial and the judge and her assessors will ensure that a fair trial ensues. I know I will be shot down in flames for my view. So be it.

Don't you think the Judge or Roux would have stopped Nel if his questioning was out of order??? He's doing a fantastic job at trying to get to the truth IMO

 

[Goforgold]

That is correct - no mention of speaking to Reeva, or Reeva speaking to him in the bail application.
But he did mention it in the plea explanation.

Thank you. I remember exactly the last conversation I had with my daughter before she went out and didn't come home again. I remember it still, 14 years after !!

 

[weeeva]

Completely agree. Especially the last line.

I do hope that Roux and the Judge follow up on Nel taunting and demanding that OP never mentioned toilet door slamming earlier today. Because OP most certainly DID. Nel was WRONG. I wish OP had accepted the CHALLENGE that Nel offered.. to check today's record.

A LOT of what Nel claims as confusing (Does not make sense) actually does make sense. It is only Nel for whom it does not make sense.

I am disappointed that it seems to be the norm for defense counsel to just let badgering and false accusations go without objection.

Yes I agree with you. Nel seems to forget what the question was when OP asks him to repeat it. He (Nel) is getting himself tied up in knots, and this results in OP getting tied up in knots. And of course this is fodder for Nel to accuse OP of tailoring his story to fit. I can't believe this is allowed to happen in a court of law. I know Nel has a hard job to do but he is way of course. An example of this is when OP said he went to CHECK the balcony. Nel jumped on this thinking he had trapped OP, when it was clearly a slip of the tongue by OP. What would it matter if OP checked the balcony? I wish I had a better memory for the details, I am not as on the ball as I used to be.

 

[Ranchgirl]

Do not believe Reeva's death is the result of DV, but I think OP should be held accountable for his actions which went way beyond what a reasonable person would do in a similar situation. Given that in SA his disability is not a factor, I am leaning towards some kind of manslaughter...do not know what that would be referred to in SA. Obviously he is an irresponsible gun owner.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[minor4th]

IMO, it doesn't really make a difference to me whether it was an abusive or even a happy or healthy relationship.

Any two people can have an argument/fight sometime.

The problem for Oscar is that on this particular night, it was a combination of him reaching his limit temper-wise, and having a gun close by, and just not being able to control himself.

It doesn't matter to me why it happened to be on this night and with Reeva.

If he had ever killed anyone before, he would either be in jail or else be extremely cautious that he doesn't do it again. Point being, Reeva would still be alive and he would have never shot her in the first place.

JMO.

The problem is, without some history of violence or threats, you can't make a rational leap to the conclusion that on that night he lost his temper and couldn't control himself so reached for his gun and killed Reeva. There's no context for that.

 

[Rumpole]

Then maybe you should contact Judge Masipa and tell her to throw the case out for lack of evidence, as she can, or if not contact Roux and tell him to immediately put forward a "No case to answer" (I believe he can do that at any time after the State rests its case) because it appears you must know more about SA law and protocol than both of them do... ;-)

Seriously. If you follow trials out of your comfort zone you should try to stop looking at it the US way and start understanding that other countries may do it a different way and not because there justice any less valid than that of the US... just different!

And easy peasy it has been for Nel to get OP to already admit to culpable homicide, and it just maybe he also has got him admit to murder depending on what inferences the judge can take.

I have commented already that SA system is "different". I still have high hopes that it might be BETTER, given some of the Jury trials recently and interviews with the Jurors.

I think this case as presented would be a travesty of Justice IF it was being presented to a Jury. The redeeming aspect is that it will be decided by a Judge who I hope will not be swayed by Nel's histrionics.

Even with this "different" SA system, I do still wonder WHY Roux is not objecting more. I guess it has to be accepted that Nel's style is to be nasty and antagonistic and repetitive. He Badgers the witness until he utters a word out of place, and then Puffs up his feathers to announce "I gotcha.. doesn't make sense!!"

But surely Nel has to be truthful in what he puts? He was finally reprimanded yesterday, but he has put things inaccurately time and time again.. naturally OP gets confused.
For example... Several times Nel misrepresented what his own witnesses testimony was then used that to bash OP and to claim OP's version did not make sense. The Stipps for instance gave testimony of the first bangs (gunshots) and what happened after... they said nothing about events before that time.. and yet Nel said their evidence about the light on (after the shots) somehow made OP's evidence in regards Reeva going to the toilet not make sense? Reeva going to the toilet happened before the time period the Stipps testified to.

Personally I am finding the ONLY person in court who is not making sense is Nel. And he seems to be doing it repeatedly, and I suspect intentionally to badger the witness with FALSE information.

 

[TrueDetective]

Will do tmow I think.

Shane, as someone who I feel shares many of my own views, I would also be very interested to learn more of your thoughts.

I would also be very intrigued to discover more of the background to the whole "this one runs deep" idea as I'm not fully convinced of this and would like more to chew on!

Thanks

 

[Carmelita]

Does anyone know if Nell can request the recording that Oscar mentioned of Oscar screaming like a woman since Oscar brought it up?

Second question. In the US judicial system, at a bench trial or a jury trial the evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the defendant, does anyone know if that is the standard in SA also?

 

[TrueDetective]

....has there been testimony yet if he got the key while it was in the lock on the other side? Or from the floor as I've heard mentioned? (could his arms reach down and get the key...hmmmm. )

He said in his EIC that he reached over the broken door to get the key and unlock the door. I am pretty sure that this part of the story will be x-examined tomorrow.