Trial Discussion Thread #29

[Feynman]

Yes you can transfer intent for premeditation but you can't transfer it from an innocent person to an armed burglar (if it's a genuine belief) - that's why it's putative self defense.

OK I don't quite follow that. Let me ask you this question: Can Masipa find OP not quilty of the state's version of events but still find him guilty of the intentional and unlawful killing of a person? (The latter to my mind is murder, not culpable homicide, but that's just an amateur's understanding.)

 

[steveml]

Neither do I.

The moot point is OP's apparent desire for wanting her to survive. She was already dead.

No worries. We did have previous suggestions that OP tried to ensure Reeva was dead by blocking her airway, rather than attempting to clear it.

In this circumstance the point regarding Dr Stipp would be quite important.

 

[minor4th]

I said bat strikes, i wouldn't expect them to fire a gun there but they could have at least tested the bat strikes there.

Oh, sorry I mistook your post. Well, if they can't do the gunshots there then the bat strikes can't be done there either for purposes of comparing the sounds.

I think the main sound witness has yet to testify though, so there may be more sound tests and sound comparisons that we have yet to hear.

 

[minor4th]

OK I don't quite follow that. Let me ask you this question: Can Masipa find OP not quilty of the state's version of events but still find him guilty of the intentional and unlawful killing of a person? (The latter to my mind is murder, not culpable homicide, but that's just an amateur's understanding.)

Masipa could find that Oscar did not believe there was an intruder in the house and therefore did not mistakenly believe he was shooting an intruder. Then she can find him guilty of murder with intent, but not necessarily premeditated murder.

If she finds that it's reasonably possibly true that Oscar believed he was shooting at an armed intruder and believed that he was about to be attacked, then she cannot find him guilty of murder at all because Oscar lacked the intent necessary for murder. (If one believes one is using lethal force to prevent imminent harm to themselves, then one believes he is acting lawfully in self defense). Murder requires that the shooter have an intention to kill another person and knows that the killing is unlawful.

 

[steveml]

I personally think all the speculating Nel did during CE is how he got OP to rattle on and on, potentially damaging OP's credibility. I believe speculating in court is one of his many strategies in these types of cases.

I agree, as a strategy he has to speculate with the accused and witnesses, as there are very few facts established.
I'm referring to the many unanswered questions that are going to be left for Judge Masipa's speculation.
From a prosecutors stance, if Judge Masipa has to err on the side of caution, this may well benefit the accused.

 

[Cherwell]

Let us not forget that we were reminded in previous threads that Reeva was "the most beautiful woman he'd ever met" and "Reeva was gorgeous", ergo OP couldn't have meant to kill her.

1. Reeva gave OP a Valentine's Day card, saying she loved him

2. Reeva was the "most beautiful woman he'd ever met"

3. Reeva was "gorgeous"

Try as I might, I cannot understand why these would be among the reasons why OP could not have intentionally killed Reeva.

Women who express love toward their intimate partners are murdered by their intimate partners every day worldwide.

As Tina Turner would say "What's love got to do with it?"

Beautiful women, gorgeous women are murdered by their intimate partners every day worldwide.

I fail to understand the assertion that because Reeva was beautiful and gorgeous that OP could not have intentionally shot & killed her. It makes no sense to me whatsoever, regardless of how it's framed.

If Reeva had been average looking or homely, would that make it more plausible that OP had intentionally killed her? Is that the implication? If so, I find that idea disturbing, to say the least.

If not, what difference does it make whether or not she was beautiful or gorgeous?

I found an absolute doozy of a quote from one of his mates:

Race horse trainer Mike Azzie, a close friend of Oscar Pistorius, said he warned the Paralympian to “settle down with a plain Jane like his mother as the Barbie dolls would get him into trouble, but he didn’t listen”.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/oscar-is-a-gentle-guy-says-friend-1.1471752

 

[james83]

Oh, sorry I mistook your post. Well, if they can't do the gunshots there then the bat strikes can't be done there either for purposes of comparing the sounds.

I think the main sound witness has yet to testify though, so there may be more sound tests and sound comparisons that we have yet to hear.

But i don't see the need to compare, If the test was done in the bathroom with the window open at 3am and recorded close to the house's of those who only heard one set of sound's and it sound's convincing, that is far superior to hitting a door in the middle of a field.
There are may things you could hit in the middle of a field that would sound similar to a gunshot, trouble is we are dealing with a door being hit in a bathroom.

 

[MeeBee]

I don't know why there are so many comments about "continual" screaming for 10 or 15 minutes. Dr Stipp said the "woman" screamed 2 or 3 times.

Thank you. So many times the comment has been made that the screaming was "continuous" yet I don't remember testimony to that effect, at all.

 

[liesbeth]

Yes you can transfer intent for premeditation but you can't transfer it from an innocent person to an armed burglar (if it's a genuine belief) - that's why it's putative self defense.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/185695401/Full-document-–-Oscar-Pistorius-indictment

Oscar Pistorius Indictment

Page 6, paragraph 5.

"The accused said to witnesses on the scene that he thought she was an intruder. Even then the accused shot with the direct intention to kill a person. An error in persona will not affect the intention to kill a human being."

 

[sorrell skye]

I was responding to the posts saying....there are "always a few supporters of murderers on these threads," and to posts lamenting.." how can anyone be a supporter of this murderer? "

Not for the first time or for just this trial I've also seen the majority turn on the minority posters who don't agree with them. IMO that is poor form.

Semantics? Not really. I could care less whether or not my opinion or any one else's conforms to a group think, and I care even less what anyone chooses to label my opinions.

I do care when minority opinions are attacked or dismissed with emotionally charged and/ or logically irrelevant rhetoric. Hence my objection to terms such as "sides" and " supporters."

I agree that no one should characterize anyone's doubt of OP's guilt as being a "supporter" of OP or being a "supporter" of a murderer.

Vice versa, I don't agree that anyone who believes that OP is guilty should be negatively characterized as participating in "groupthink".

Groupthink occurs in the absence of critical analysis of opposing viewpoints, suppression of dissenting opinions, and isolation of outside influences. Those of us who believe that OP is guilty have engaged in thoughtful, reasoned, and well informed debate with those who have not yet decided guilt or innocence.

Has the debate been challenging? Without a doubt - as it should be, regardless of one's position. Have there been critical analyses of opposing viewpoints? You betcha. Has there been suppression of dissenting opinions? No - WS TOS prohibits this. Has there been isolation of outside influences? Absolutely not - in fact, the opposite is true.

Until a verdict is delivered, OP is still the "accused". If he's convicted of murder, he will then, legally speaking, be a murderer.

I don't enjoy reading posts that label those who doubt the State's case as being "OP supporters". I've been in the minority on another case, so I know how it feels to go against the grain.

On the other hand, I also don't enjoy reading posts that label those who believe OP is guilty as "conforming to groupthink".

Individually, I think we each have our own threshold to reach before we are each satisfied that a case has been proven. One's individual threshold may or may not adhere to the legal definition of beyond a reasonable doubt, but I truly believe that most of us here are striving to seek the truth and are hoping that justice for Reeva is served.

 

[minor4th]

But i don't see the need to compare, If the test was done in the bathroom with the window open at 3am and recorded close to the house's of those who only heard one set of sound's and it sound's convincing, that is far superior to hitting a door in the middle of a field.
There are may things you could hit in the middle of a field that would sound similar to a gunshot, trouble is we are dealing with a door being hit in a bathroom.

Well, there may still be such a test of cricket bat sounds - I don't know. But the comparison is definitely necessary to show that the sounds are loud enough and similar enough at a distance that someone could legitimately believe them both to be gunshots.

There's no evidence of anything else making sounds that would sound similar to a gunshot so the comparison test in the field is definitely relevant.

 

[liesbeth]

Thank you. So many times the comment has been made that the screaming was "continuous" yet I don't remember testimony to that effect, at all.

From Mrs. Burger's cross examination by Roux.

Roux asked: "Was there continuous screaming?"

She replied: "The screaming, it went very fast. I didn't expect that that evening."

Mr Roux said sharply: "What is it that you say to me by mentioning that?"

Ms Burger replied: "I didn't sit there with a stopwatch and take down the timing of each shot, or write when she shouted.

http://news.sky.com/story/1219982/oscar-neighbour-heard-blood-curdling-screams

 

[minor4th]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/185695401/Full-document-–-Oscar-Pistorius-indictment

Oscar Pistorius Indictment

Page 6, paragraph 5.

"The accused said to witnesses on the scene that he thought she was an intruder. Even then the accused shot with the direct intention to kill a person. An error in persona will not affect the intention to kill a human being."

Ok, just because Nel wants to argue that intending to shoot and kill an armed intruder is the same as intending to shoot Reeva, that does not make it true. That is a fallacious argument and will not be the basis for a murder conviction.

Note Nel also refers to Oscar shooting "a helpless unarmed intruder" or words to that effect, but it's Oscar's testimony that he believed it was an intruder who was about to attack him. Nel would have us believe that a totally innocent and well-meaning person snuck in to Oscar's upstairs bathroom merely for the purpose of trespassing and nothing else. That's absurd on its face.

 

[BritsKate]

I think it is unbearably obvious that Oscar is not an emotionally well person. I believe he presents traits of narcissism and that he is incapable of accepting his humanity. I have offered reasons for my opinions in many previous posts. If event’s happened similar to what Oscar has stated I can see him trying to keep his delicate psyche in balance by making himself sound less culpable to an accidental (though reckless)shooting.

I personally believe that Oscar is not very smart nor do I think he is emotionally sound, I don’t think he would have lasted this long if he were not relaying the events of that morning to the best of his ability.

So do I think the entire integrity of his testimony is compromised by inconsistencies or outright untruths such as his finger was not on the trigger of a gun that went off? The short answer is nope.

And how much, if any, weight to give his testimony will be determined by the judge. She may decide some of his testimony was truthful despite being caught in an obvious falsehood or that enough wasn't that she cannot rely on his 'version' of events for that night at all.

Only time will tell.

 

[canny]

I should say that it is not the being called an Oscar supporter I object to, think of me what you will, as long as I am comfortable in my own skin I am good. What I find objectionable is that to call me an Oscar supporter means that one is misunderstanding my posts so there is not any true discourse or rational conversation going on.

My only question to you is have you watched OP's week long cross examination by Nel on the net or TV? Whether his testimony is gospel or not he has been charged by the state for premeditated murder. In his defense he took the stand to save his life as he claims, in the process he spun himself into an cobweb of lies, and refused to adhere to Nels warning on numerous occasions that he was committing perjury that was harming his own interest and future. Not once did any of his attorneys stand up and raise objections to Nel's cross examination.They were shell shocked and were helpless in watching OP dig his own grave.You may raise questions about his so called mental capacity to digest the fact that he killed Reeva as you put it in an accident, but the truth is that now even God can't save him.

We have amongst us an attorney who's an prolific poster,she could educate us all on the consequences for an accused charged with premeditated murder perjuring himself on the stand for one whole week.

 

[Viper]

But i don't see the need to compare, If the test was done in the bathroom with the window open at 3am and recorded close to the house's of those who only heard one set of sound's and it sound's convincing, that is far superior to hitting a door in the middle of a field.
There are may things you could hit in the middle of a field that would sound similar to a gunshot, trouble is we are dealing with a door being hit in a bathroom.

Roux really liked the YouTube video a lot! So he had Dixon recreate the YouTube video. There is no reason why Roux could not have had the bat strikes and the gunshots recreated in the murder house; it had been released by the appellate judge almost a year ago, and the gun could have been safely fired by an expert in to a receptical commonly used for that purpose. So why not perform a recreation of all of that stuff in the murder house? IMO. Because the results were already plain to see, already known, as we have the witness testimony from the actual crime.

The arguing and screaming test that Roux did at the home seem to have been a dud.

 

[liesbeth]

Ok, just because Nel wants to argue that intending to shoot and kill an armed intruder is the same as intending to shoot Reeva, that does not make it true. That is a fallacious argument and will not be the basis for a murder conviction.

Note Nel also refers to Oscar shooting "a helpless unarmed intruder" or words to that effect, but it's Oscar's testimony that he believed it was an intruder who was about to attack him. Nel would have us believe that a totally innocent and well-meaning person snuck in to Oscar's upstairs bathroom merely for the purpose of trespassing and nothing else. That's absurd on its face.

It is not an argument. It is S.A. law.

Oscar is going for putative self defense (defence) and now he has to prove his state of mind on that night to the judge. That's why he had to testify.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_criminal_law
Do a search on this page for putative or De Oliveira

 

[TipDog]

My only question to you is have you watched OP's week long cross examination by Nel on the net or TV? Whether his testimony is gospel or not he has been charged by the state for premeditated murder. In his defense he took the stand to save his life as he claims, in the process he spun himself into an cobweb of lies, and refused to adhere to Nels warning on numerous occasions that he was committing perjury that was harming his own interest and future. Not once did any of his attorneys stand up and raise objections to Nel's cross examination.They were shell shocked and were helpless in watching OP dig his own grave.You may raise questions about his so called mental capacity to digest the fact that he killed Reeva as you put it in an accident, but the truth is that now even God can't save him.

We have amongst us an attorney who's an prolific poster,she could educate us all on the consequences for an accused charged with premeditated murder perjuring himself on the stand for one whole week.

Who? And will she please do so? Being a layperson myself, I'd really love to hear her thoughts.

 

[james83]

Well, there may still be such a test of cricket bat sounds - I don't know. But the comparison is definitely necessary to show that the sounds are loud enough and similar enough at a distance that someone could legitimately believe them both to be gunshots.

There's no evidence of anything else making sounds that would sound similar to a gunshot so the comparison test in the field is definitely relevant.

I disagree, i think it's totally irrelevant due to the fact that Oscar's toilet is not in the middle of a field, those sounds would be much less distinguishable in that bathroom then they would in the middle of a field.
Also where is the test of the sound of a bat going through the door?.

 

[minor4th]

From Mrs. Burger's cross examination by Roux.

http://news.sky.com/story/1219982/oscar-neighbour-heard-blood-curdling-screams

Yes, that does not describe continuous screaming