Trial Discussion Thread #29

[whiterum]

Why? What would it add to their case. It has been proven OP has an issue being truthful.

Yes indeed, lies straight from the horses mouth are the most telling of all the other evidence put together.

 

[Chelly]

The gunshots did happen at the same time.

However, other bat strikes could have preceded the gunshots (the sounds heard by the Stipps).

The mark that the witness testified about was one strike with the bat after the gunshot.

I.e. bat strikes first, gun shots later, bat strikes again to break panel

Again fitting all the evidence presented by the witnesses

Edit: Although my theory is the earlier loud bangs could have been bat strikes or doors slamming

For what it is worth, I have been following from the beginning and agree with your logic and theory.

 

[molly333]

Instead of asking a US attorney who is not qualified in South African law, why don't you instead take the word of a criminal law professor in South Africa?

http://criminallawza.net/

Let me know if you want me to walk you through it.

You are entitled (justified) in law to intentionally lawfully (such as, in self-defence) kill another human being. There is no criminal liability for doing so. Whether you are under attack and entitled to act in self defence is judged objectively, on the facts.

Pistorius is not making this claim. He accepts he acted unlawfully – he was not entitled to shoot at anyone that night.
In addition, you will be excused on a murder charge for unintentionally unlawfully killing another human being. This is a mental state defence – it denies the required guilty mental state.

For murder, you must intend to unlawfully kill. If you are mistaken, and genuinely believe you are acting lawfully (such as in private-defence (the technical name for the defence under which self-defence is located)), whereas you are not acting lawfully, you cannot be convicted of murder because you don’t intend to act unlawfully. To escape a conviction of culpable homicide this mistake must be reasonable – one which the reasonable person may make. But on a murder charge, it is enough, for an acquittal, if the accused was subjectively mistaken.

 

[Val1]

If the State's expert says even one bullet was fired before the bat strikes, and the State's expert says all bullets were fired at the same time, then all bullets were fired before the bat strikes.

Since you won't even take the full evidence(and not just the sound bites) as fact, perhaps Dixon said it best, "It is difficult to get belief in those who will not listen because it is not what they want to hear."

 

[BritsKate]

Instead of asking a US attorney who is not qualified in South African law, why don't you instead take the word of a criminal law professor in South Africa?



http://criminallawza.net/



Let me know if you want me to walk you through it.

And Minor themselves, to their credit, have often conceded they don't know SA law and are 'learning with the rest of us'.


Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[canny]

IMO the head injury had nothing to do with the ringing in his ears. I know from personal experience of having shot a handgun off without ear protection. Mine is not even as powerful as his 9mm as mine is only a 380 and the sound was incredible and I was outside.

When inside a closed in place if you are shooting a 9mm i can guarantee that your ears would be ringing even without head injury.

People do not realize how loud a handgun is without ear protection. Especially inside a room.

ETA-Here is another fact to help people if you are ever around others shooting weapons. You want to stay behind the muzzle. Anyone who is in front of the horizontal line of the muzzle even if off to the side will get an incredible loud noise. If you are behind that horizontal line of the muzzle it helps to lessen the noise. Anyone in front of that horizontal line will experience a much louder noise.

But no matter where you are located if you are close enough like being the shooter it is incredibly loud shooting handguns. Especially inside a room. Multiply it by many times louder inside a room

Head injury or Ears ringing or whatever but i will quote a few sentences from OP's sworn affidavit ..that is making my ears ring now!

I fired shots at the toilet door and shouted to Reeva to phone the police. She did not respond and I moved backwards out of the bathroom, keeping my eyes on the bathroom entrance. Everything was pitch dark in the bedroom and I was still too scared to switch on a light. Reeva was not responding.

If his ears where really ringing, how could he immediately shout out to Reeva to phone the police?

I rushed back into the bedroom and opened the sliding door exiting onto the balcony and screamed for help.

A man suffering from sudden loud protracted ringing in his ears due to firing four shots from his powerful handgun in an confined small room, will he be able to maintain his balance and stand on his feet, leave alone be able to shout at the top of his voice immediately, then run around all over his house, open his baloney and scream out for help three times?

 

[nastasya]

I"m having trouble understanding OP's explanation...

How odd is it that in OP's versions neighbors who thought they heard a woman getting murdered were absolutely 100% wrong. They didn't hear a woman being murdered on or about 3:17.

But that just 10 minutes before they heard what they thought was a woman being murdered, a woman was actually shot to death.

Not only were they wrong about hearing the woman being murdered, they were wrong that they heard her being shot to death.

And just 10 minutes earlier, the woman who they didn't actually hear being murdered was not only murdered, she was killed in the exact manner they thought they heard, by gunshots.

And not were the witnesses wrong about hearing a woman being murdered, and the woman being shot to death, they were wrong about the number of shots they heard.

But the woman who was actually shot to death was fired on 4 times, just like the number of shots the neighbors thought they heard, but were mistaken about.

And not only were the neighbors wrong about hearing 4 shots they thought were gunshots that killed a woman, they were wrong about the timing of those shots. They thought they heard bang.... bang bang bang but they were wrong about those bangs, in that pattern, being gunshots.

But the woman who was actually killed just 10 minutes earlier in the exact location from where the neighbors misheard the sounds of a woman being murdered, a woman being shot at 4 times, and the sounds being bang... bang bang bang was actually killed by the gun shots in that exact sequence... bang.... bang bang bang.

And how odd is it that the person who killed his story made substantial material changes to his versions of what happened, that he emulated the sounds of the woman being shot, and that the evidence police found on the scene proved his version could not have happened?

How odd is it that the person who could go to prison for life for the intentionally murder of Reeva Steenkamp would have different versions of the same night, forget to remember key elements of the story, know the the victim didn't get up to eat while he was sleeping, not call for police or an ambulance, and have the police move a fan, duvet, and jeans to the exact position that would show his version of events could not possibly have happened?

Seriously?

To not think OP is a lying murderer, what do you have to believe? That all of the above facts of the case coincidentally aligned to frame OP?

Now look at the attached photos.

OP himself testified that the first hit to the door broke out a small piece through which he could see Reeva.

Now look at the gunshots. The first shot that hit Reeva was aimed in one direction. Reeva fell.

The next three shots, according to OP, were fired spontaneously and without purpose, and yet all three were aimed in the exact direction of Reeva's head after she had fallen to the floor.

I put it to you, this was an execution, not an accident.

 

[turaj]

Another analogy is if 2 people rob a store. 1 guy goes in and kills the store owner. The driver is still charged with murder even if he did not know person 1 was going to kill anybody.

Not quite the same but I think it is same sort of thing. He is still culpable because he intended to shoot whoever was behind the door. It was a purposeful action.

Purposeful for sure and I think what takes it way beyond an impulse or "mistake" is the pause and then three more shots. I think Nel will hammer that on closing. Also it is beyond the scope to think Reeva did not cry out when she was hit...he heard her and kept firing. End of story for me.

 

[asanque]

You are entitled (justified) in law to intentionally lawfully (such as, in self-defence) kill another human being. There is no criminal liability for doing so. Whether you are under attack and entitled to act in self defence is judged objectively, on the facts.

Pistorius is not making this claim. He accepts he acted unlawfully – he was not entitled to shoot at anyone that night.
In addition, you will be excused on a murder charge for unintentionally unlawfully killing another human being. This is a mental state defence – it denies the required guilty mental state.

For murder, you must intend to unlawfully kill. If you are mistaken, and genuinely believe you are acting lawfully (such as in private-defence (the technical name for the defence under which self-defence is located)), whereas you are not acting lawfully, you cannot be convicted of murder because you don’t intend to act unlawfully. To escape a conviction of culpable homicide this mistake must be reasonable – one which the reasonable person may make. But on a murder charge, it is enough, for an acquittal, if the accused was subjectively mistaken.

Which is why we are trying to determine whether OP's account is true or the ear witnesses.

The prosecution case is that OP knew she was in there, heard her screaming and intentionally shot her (proved beyond reasonable doubt).

The judge will need to determine whether OP's version is true (given the numerous holes) and after that determine whether he acted in self-defence (although he seemingly changed his defence to involuntary action).

 

[Hatfield]

Head injury or Ears ringing or whatever but i will quote a few sentences from OP's sworn affidavit ..that is making my ears ring now!



If his ears where really ringing, how could he immediately shout out to Reeva to phone the police?



A man suffering from sudden loud protracted ringing in his ears due to firing four shots from his powerful handgun in an confined small room, will he be able to maintain his balance and stand on his feet, leave alone be able to shout at the top of his voice immediately, then run around all over his house, open his baloney and scream out for help three times?

I agree especially with the middle part. He could not hear well enough to know if she responded. So he is lying when he said she did not respond. He would not know if she responded.

For the last part, he may be able to be able to scream even without hearing himself because we all know we could scream by just the actions of doing it but I agree with you his story just doesnt make any sense.

 

[luvmygarden]

I should have said their case in chief is over.

Remember, the burden of proof is on the Prosecution.

The Defense doesn't have to prove anything.

Prosecutor has the burden of proof and he didn't prove pre-meditation.

His case is over.

I am confused. So that means when Prosecution rests basically the judge can Rule without hearing the cross of the Defense witnesses by Prosecution because their case is over and they have not proven their case??

 

[BlueShoe]

someone said on here and I agree......he could not say he put the gun down until he knew it was Reeva and not an intruder still possibly armed and alive.

Thank you. That makes sense. But only if he thought there might be multiple intruders, since it seems like he was certain the one in the toilet was no longer a threat, since he turned his back on the door and walked away.

 

[Chelly]

I mean it might be some flavor of culpable homicide [the Judge can find him guilty of this and give him no jail time] but I don't feel it is premeditated murder of Reeva.

What is YOUR definition of "premeditated murder of Reeva"? Sorry to take so long asking. I thought for sure someone else would ask the question.

 

[TipDog]

I saw the pic....it was on the screen at some point in a testimony. How else did we see it?.....the fact we saw it is because it has a number attached to it. It is in evidence.moo (I didn't mean this to be sound snarkish, sorry.)

I believe the handsome Mr. Nel is saving the best and truest 'version' for his grande finale. yup.moo:blushing:

I could be way, way off with this, but Nel did ask OP pointedly if those jeans [on the duvet] belonged to him. And then later (I think even on a separate day of CE), there was that bizarre exchange between him and OP about RS taking those jeans [that were on the duvet] off to leave in which OP even said that it made no sense that she would take off her clothes to put his clothes on to leave. So...

I have a hunch that Nel is not a "what you see is what you get" kind of guy. And I think, in fact, those jeans [that were on the duvet] were not Reeva's but OP's (which I think several members on here were questioning as well). And if so, Nel is going to bring that back up again in closing. It isn't outside the realm of possibility that Nel may know the make and size of those jeans [pictured on the duvet] and that that they are men's, not women's. And considering that the jeans on the ground outside the house were photographed and included in supporting evidence, I imagine there is relevance to them that Nel just has not yet revealed.

But this is all just a hunch.

 

[asanque]

I am confused. So that means when Prosecution rests basically the judge can Rule without hearing the cross of the Defense witnesses by Prosecution because their case is over??

The judge can definitely throw the case out after hearing the prosecution rest if they feel there is no case to answer.

However, in reality the judge did not throw the case out. So anybody saying that the PT didn't prove pre-meditation is spinning opinion rather than fact.

 

[soozieqtips]

I"m having trouble understanding OP's explanation...

How odd is it that in OP's versions neighbors who thought they heard a woman getting murdered were absolutely 100% wrong. They didn't hear a woman being murdered on or about 3:17.

But that just 10 minutes before they heard what they thought was a woman being murdered, a woman was actually shot to death.

Not only were they wrong about hearing the woman being murdered, they were wrong that they heard her being shot to death.

And just 10 minutes earlier, the woman who they didn't actually hear being murdered was not only murdered, she was killed in the exact manner they thought they heard, by gunshots.

And not were the witnesses wrong about hearing a woman being murdered, and the woman being shot to death, they were wrong about the number of shots they heard.

But the woman who was actually shot to death was fired on 4 times, just like the number of shots the neighbors thought they heard, but were mistaken about.

And not only were the neighbors wrong about hearing 4 shots they thought were gunshots that killed a woman, they were wrong about the timing of those shots. They thought they heard bang.... bang bang bang but they were wrong about those bangs being gunshots.

But the woman who was actually killed just 10 minutes earlier in the exact location from where the neighbors misheard the sounds of a woman being murdered, a woman being shot at 4 times, and the sounds being bang... bang bang bang was actually killed by the gun shots in that exact sequence... bang.... bang bang bang.

And how odd is it that the person who killed his story made substantial material changes to his versions of what happened, that he emulated the sounds of the woman being shot, and that the evidence police found on the scene proved his version could not have happened?

How odd is it that the person who could go to prison for life for the intentionally murder of Reeva Steenkamp would have different versions of the same night, forget to remember key elements of the story, know the the victim didn't get up to eat while he was sleeping, not call for police or an ambulance, and have the police move a fan, duvet, and jeans to the exact position that would show his version of events could not possibly have happened?

Seriously?

To not think OP is a lying murderer, what do you have to believe? That all of the above facts of the case coincidentally aligned to frame OP?

Now look at the attached photos.

OP himself testified that the first hit to the door broke out a small piece through which he could see Reeva.

Now look at the gunshots. The first shot that hit Reeva was aimed in one direction. Reeva fell.

The next three shots, according to OP, were fired spontaneously and without purpose, and yet all three were aimed in the exact direction of Reeva's head after she had fallen to the floor.

I put it to you, this was an execution, not an accident.

BBM - How odd is it? I put it to you... that it is so improbable, it could not possibly reasonably be true... am I right? :smile:

GREAT post by the way. Love how you tell it like it is. As you often say "It's not complicated".

 

[molly333]

Another analogy is if 2 people rob a store. 1 guy goes in and kills the store owner. The driver is still charged with murder even if he did not know person 1 was going to kill anybody.

Not quite the same but I think it is same sort of thing. He is still culpable because he intended to shoot whoever was behind the door. It was a purposeful action.

Well but this is a self defense case.

 

[TipDog]

South Africa law is such that if it can be shown Oscar intended to kill an intruder, the killing of Reeva Steenkamp is murder. For that matter, it also allows that even if Oscar didn't intend to kill anyone, if he acted in such a reckless manner that he could have foreseen that shooting 4 highly lethal bullets into an enclosed space could have led to killing someone, its also murder.

The very fact that those were Reeva's screams can be inferred as fact because the State's case hasn't been refuted. Contested, but not refuted. In order to refute that those weren't indeed Reeva's screams they will have to show what Oscar was doing for so long before he states he broke down the door or explain why he was screaming for approximately 12 minutes before he states himself he fired.

Its up to the defence to show why Reeva's killing was lawful by proving putative self-defence which in turn makes intent moot. Oscar simply stating he was afraid and then contradicting his own defence isn't enough in my opinion.

And please define premeditation in accordance specifically to SA law because many of us are curious to their exact definition as well. TIA

Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

No, it's not enough. And I'm going to counter Molly's argument by stating that the Defense has not proven OP acted in self-defense.

 

[molly333]

What is YOUR definition of "premeditated murder of Reeva"? Sorry to take so long asking. I thought for sure someone else would ask the question.

My definition would be that he intended to kill Reeva. I don't think that's been proven.

 

[asanque]

Well but this is a self defense case.

If you are going for self defence, you normally need to show you are in imminent threat of harm.

On OP's own version, he walked towards danger, admitted he had other reasonable options, yelled at the 'intruder' to get out (Edit: Rather than pointing out he was armed), and shot 4 times at the first sound (without any sign of being in danger).

That is not self defence.