Trial Discussion Thread #29

[minor4th]

I've only got to the second witness so I haven't heard testimony relating to two sets of sounds yet. I understand the general argument though.

What I would say so far is that the fact she was awake for the entire period and only heard one set of loud bangs indicates a large distinction between the gunshots and bat strikes with regards to loudness

There is the caveat that Roux managed to discover that she was physically shocked after hearing the 'bangs' and this might cause some doubt as to her mental ability to register things. She denied she was incapacitated in any way though, only weak. Does Mr Van Der Merwe testify? I would be interested to hear how many sets of bangs he heard.

Basically her testimony makes me worry further about the admissability of defence comparison tests in which both sets of sounds appeared to be of similar loudness.

Revisit this when you have heard the witnesses who heard two set of sounds.

Mr Van Der Merwe has not testified. Unclear whether the defense will call him or not. I was a bit surprised that he was not called by the state but I'm not sure that he heard any bangs or if it was just his wife who heard that.

 

[Viper]

I think that for the state to prove premeditated murder it must prove some form of planning, but more importantly, they must prove that their version is the only reasonable version that explains the events.

Ugh, the last few pages have not been rivoting to me so I have just read a few posts on each page. But people seem to be placing the wrong emphasis on "Premditation" IMO. OP is charged with Murder, the Premeditated Murder is an enhancement that if he is found guilty of may/will increase his sentence. Also, premeditated seems to mean he wanted Reeva to die from his actions that night, not that he formulated some grand or even simplistic plan.

The State has laid out the case that there was an argument between OP and Reeva, she fled to the WC and locked herself in, OP decided to fire four bullets at her knowing full well that she was likely to be killed, and Reeva was killed as a result. So yes, I do believe that the Sate has proven that OP committed Premeditated Murder. And no, I do not believe that OPs testimony and the weak expert testimony and the weak defense cross examination of the witnesses has even so much as given quality lip service to his defense of putative self defense.

 

[minor4th]

James Grant still hasn't changed his view. There was nothing in the redirect to determine Oscars position. So you are disagreeing with him. Oscar still has never said I shot an intruder on purpose because my life was in danger but I'm sorry about that as I didn't realise the law.

Yes, there was plenty in redirect to determine Oscar's meaning, and he certainly did say he shot towards the door because he was afraid the person in there was about to attack him.

How do you know he hasn't changed his view though?

 

[Mr Ron]

Revisit this when you have heard the witnesses who heard two set of sounds.

Mr Van Der Merwe has not testified. Unclear whether the defense will call him or not. I was a bit surprised that he was not called by the state but I'm not sure that he heard any bangs or if it was just his wife who heard that.

I'm also surprised in that case. He definitely heard the shots because it was he who clarified what his wife heard. I will definitely revisit this after later testimony.

Ok, thanks for that clarification. Still - she heard 4 bangs around 3:00. To me that suggests that she heard the gunshots.

I cannot disagree. Around 03.00 might include 10 past, but the nearer three the more likely in my opinion.

 

[BritsKate]

IMO a SA judge would assume as any rational person would assume that an intruder entered a home with ill intent. An ill intended intruder inside a small cubicle is a clear and imminent danger.

That's not necessarily true though or the very clear distinction in the law wouldn't exist.

The evidence at hand would be that the intruder was fleeing - shooting someone when they're fleeing is directly at odds with self-defence, much less putative self-defence. Legally, what the intruder intended prior to fleeing is irrelevant except in terms of potential mitigation, if any.

South Africa's self-defence laws are crystal clear for very sound reason - they don't leave a lot of room for interpretation.

(And just so you know...an unseen, 'ill intended intruder' does not represent a clear and imminent danger by SA law which is precisely why Oscar is claiming putative self-defence instead. The belief his life was so in danger he was forced to defend himself...when he never intended to shoot.)

JMO and FWIW

 

[Carmelita]

Surely van der merwe must have heard the 2nd sound's due to her saying after the sound's there was complete silence?, from what i can gather it seem's that she was awoken by the sound's, so wouldn't have heard the screaming that occurred before the 2nd sound's.
If she was woken by the first sound's she would have surely heard the first scream that the Stipp's heard?.

And that is why eyewitness testimony is the least reliable of all testimony. 5 different witnesses will give 5 different versions of the same event. It is more normal than not for eyewitness testimony to be conflicting.

 

[james83]

Revisit this when you have heard the witnesses who heard two set of sounds.

Mr Van Der Merwe has not testified. Unclear whether the defense will call him or not. I was a bit surprised that he was not called by the state but I'm not sure that he heard any bangs or if it was just his wife who heard that.

On hearing the “shots”, Van der Merwe turned her husband, who told her that the noises were gunshots.

 

[Hatfield]

BIB 1

I think it had more to do with vanity, quite honestly. After all, the one person who decides his fate could see his body language.

BIB 2

Adrenaline. He may have puked later once that left his body. Or not. I felt his extreme puking in court had more to do with nerves and confrontation with his own psyche. No one is all evil, just as no one is a pure saint. I do think some of his remorse is genuine. I'm not in the camp that believes this was an execution or well thought out murder. I've maintained all along that I believe it was fueled by rage and he snapped while holding his gun.

IMO
I think he was fake-puking. I didnt see any propellant during the main puking episodes. I saw someone gagging on purpose with no liquid coming out and his head deep in the can so nobody could tell the wiser.

If he did throw up for real, I will be surprised.

 

[Emz73]

Yes, there was plenty in redirect to determine Oscar's meaning, and he certainly did say he shot towards the door because he was afraid the person in there was about to attack him.

How do you know he hasn't changed his view though?

Because I asked him. Oscars defence is still unclear. That's the problem.

 

[DebinGA]

The shots placement, following Reeva's falling body as she moved, shows OP wasn't just pointing at the door or aiming in the general direction of the door when he fired. Someone truly panicked and incapable of thinking wouldn't have shot with such accuracy. The bathroom light being ON was a huge help though.

 

[Feynman]

That is not evidence that OP doesn't follow the rules.

Which rules? IIRC, various gun experts have chimed in that OP's firing at someone behind closed doors violated the rules covered in the exam OP passed.

 

[Greater Than]

I think that for the state to prove premeditated murder it must prove some form of planning, but more importantly, they must prove that their version is the only reasonable version that explains the events.

Premeditation does not rely on a certain length of time. It can occur in a matter of moments.

Getting a 9mm pistol from under the bed, walking down a passageway (past the bedroom door which is an escape route) INTO the room of perceived danger, aiming, and firing not one, not two, not three, but FOUR rounds of black talon bullets through a closed toilet door = premeditated murder.

 

[TipDog]

IMO
I think he was fake-puking. I didnt see any propellant during the main puking episodes. I saw someone gagging on purpose with no liquid coming out and his head deep in the can so nobody could tell the wiser.

If he did throw up for real, I will be surprised.

Maybe. But I don't think it impossible that he was actually puking for real. He is fighting for his life, after all. And he faces a very grim future. All of that is influencing his emotions, I'm sure.

 

[Carmelita]

Not if facing an experienced shooter pointing a gun with ammo that could stop an elephant.

But we are not talking about the reality of the situation, we are talking about Oscar's perceived reality at the moment and the possible threat that an intruder posed in his mind.

Oscar if he believed that there was an intruder in his bathroom had every right to believe that he and Reeva were in danger. When he heard someone move in the bathroom he could have justly thought that it was a kill or be killed situation.

Now did Oscar, even if his version of events is true, act within reason, no, not in my opinion.

 

[liesbeth]

Exactly right IMO

And the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty?

 

[minor4th]

Which rules? IIRC, various gun experts have chimed in that OP's firing at someone behind closed doors violated the rules covered in the exam OP passed.

That exact scenario was not presented in the competency exam. The exam did have Oscar that it's necessary to identify you target. However, the exam was not a complete treatment of the law and does not cover putative self defense; it simply gave a few rather obvious scenarios and asked whether it was lawful to shoot in self defense. Oscar is not claiming self defense.

 

[minor4th]

And the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty?

Correct!

 

[turaj]

Nope, you can use whatever currency you wish. If a home is a multi million dollar property it should be *worth that same value wherever you are.

OP's home isn't a multi-million dollar property. It's worth about 277K GBP approx. 465K USD.

*ETA, perhaps worth the same value is misleading. The point being made is that it was indicated that OP's property is a 'multi-million dollar' property.

I'M the one who started this multi million $$ myth and I stand seriously corrected; however my point was/is that OP had a high quality home by SA standards with extensive security which would be reasonable given his high profile career. I also stand by my impression that he really used that fear and security (or lack thereof) as part of his defense. It fell far short of what would be needed to justify the results.

 

[minor4th]

The shots placement, following Reeva's falling body as she moved, shows OP wasn't just pointing at the door or aiming in the general direction of the door when he fired. Someone truly panicked and incapable of thinking wouldn't have shot with such accuracy. The bathroom light being ON was a huge help though.

I don't really get how Oscar could be specifically placing shots as Reeva fell (or as the intruder fell, as Oscar says he believed it was an intruder).

He shot 4 times and they are all rather low and pretty close together. It does not look like aiming at a specific part of the body.

 

[TipDog]

Premeditation does not rely on a certain length of time. It can occur in a matter of moments.

Getting a 9mm pistol from under the bed, walking down a passageway (past the bedroom door which is an escape route) INTO the room of perceived danger, aiming, and firing not one, not two, not three, but FOUR rounds of black talon bullets through a closed toilet door = premeditated murder.

Well, it definitely would in America. It's premeditated murder if you pick up a gun and aim it at someone deliberately and the darn thing fires all by itself and kills the person. Just pointing that gun deliberately = PM. But that's here, not there.