Trial Discussion Thread #34 - 14.05.06 Day 27

[MeeBee]

Just an example: OP during his cross examination stated that he crouched. He also stated that he held his firearm in a specific manner.

Up until he had stated those words, the state had no idea as to what he would be stating.

The state 'could' apply to re-open their case and recall Capt Mangena to the stand in order to question him about OP's firing position once again - as the state have only NOW heard, via OP's own forked tongue what that position actually was.

Capt Mangena got terribly excited whilst OP was describing to the court 'how he stood and how he was holding his firearm'.

I'm not saying the state will do the above - but I'm trying to give you an example of 'evidence that will be NEW for the state - that they could try and refute if they applied to re-open their case'.

The evidence the psychologist for the DT gives, will most certainly be grounds for re-opening the state's case. Of that there is no doubt. The state will be afforded the opportunity to call their psychologists once this door has been opened by the defense.

Oh, for sure about the psychologist. Never seemed fair to me that the prosecution couldn't rebut a psychologist's findings, among other things.

 

[shane13]

It was fascinating to see today, OP looking at the witnesses in contradistinction to yesterday--whereby he virtaullly never tuurned his head to observe the 2 Standers...

 

[BritsKate]

Me neither but I like to think about how she will see the totality of all this and what she might think about it. Given that a lot seems to come down to interpretations of what is 'genuine' and 'reasonable' it's about all I, as a layperson, can do. Wouldn't be much interest for me if I didn't follow it on that basis and try to pick up a bit of knowledge along the way, about both the law and human nature in all its permutations.

I think it gets forgotten easily here that this case will only be decided on its totality, like any other case, circumstantial or not.

I also think it gets misinterpreted that the reasonable person test does not literally translate to: Did Oscar Pistorius reasonably believe there was an intruder? There are many factors weighed to determine it, some subjective and others objective. Ultimately, the more objective factors, the more the defendant should have foreseen the consequences of his actions. So Oscar's vulnerability, or lack of, will be weighed but so too will him shooting 4 hollow point bullets into a closed door.

JMO

 

[MeeBee]

I think it gets forgotten easily here that this case will only be decided on its totality, like any other case, circumstantial or not.

I also think it gets misinterpreted that the reasonable person test does not literally translate to: Did Oscar Pistorius reasonably believe there was an intruder? There are many factors weighed to determine it, some subjective and others objective. Ultimately, the more objective factors, the more the defendant should have foreseen the consequences of his actions. So Oscar's vulnerability, or lack of, will be weighed but so too will him shooting 4 hollow point bullets into a closed door.

JMO

The reasonable person test is did OP behave as a reasonable person that night? That is what the law says. From what I've read, that is decided at the judge's discretion. There are many interpretations of that law and many examples of different results given in similar cases.

 

[liesbeth]

Well, it sounds like it would be similar to a rebuttal in that the state will have a chance to rebut any new evidence introduced by the DT. I didn't even know that could happen here. That will be something to see. Maybe the case really will go until the 16th!

I hope it does. Does that mean I'm evil?

 

[Cape Town Crim.]

It was fascinating to see today, OP looking at the witnesses in contradistinction to yesterday--whereby he virtaullly never tuurned his head to observe the 2 Standers...

Howdy Shane.

Not sure if you noticed, but I found it rather telling.... the little smirk OP provided whilst Mike was on the stand.

It was a legit smirk, which then dissolved into the 'poor me I'm a broken man' quivering lip Blue steel expression as soon as he seemed to remember where he was.......and that the camera's 'might' pick him up.

I wasn't able to watch all of yesterday and today's testimony, but I did stumble upon the smirk.

 

[lithgow1]

Just an example: OP during his cross examination stated that he crouched. He also stated that he held his firearm in a specific manner.

Up until he had stated those words, the state had no idea as to what he would be stating.

The state 'could' apply to re-open their case and recall Capt Mangena to the stand in order to question him about OP's firing position once again - as the state have only NOW heard, via OP's own forked tongue what that position actually was.

Capt Mangena got terribly excited whilst OP was describing to the court 'how he stood and how he was holding his firearm'.

I'm not saying the state will do the above - but I'm trying to give you an example of 'evidence that will be NEW for the state - that they could try and refute if they applied to re-open their case'.

The evidence the psychologist for the DT gives, will most certainly be grounds for re-opening the state's case. Of that there is no doubt. The state will be afforded the opportunity to call their psychologists once this door has been opened by the defense.

I like the way you talk CTC!

The two things I heard mentioned were photos on the day of the sunroof incident and a phone in the kitchen - the one on the charger I guess (?).

But a couple of people on that panel mentioned their surprise as to where is Volmerans (sp), the defence's ballistic guy. Conspicuous in his absence was what they said, so that's interesting in light of what you said. Both were very surprised actually about the no shows thus far of both him and the audio person, esp given the damaged testimony of Dixon.

 

[shane13]

Howdy Shane.

Not sure if you noticed, but I found it rather telling.... the little smirk OP provided whilst Mike was on the stand.

It was a legit smirk, which then dissolved into the 'poor me I'm a broken man' quivering lip Blue steel expression as soon as he seemed to remember where he was.......and that the camera's 'might' pick him up.

I wasn't able to watch all of yesterday and today's testimony, but I did stumble upon the smirk.

Missed that, Cape.
Do you recall when?

 

[JudgeJudi]

You sure you are not confused there too... Mrs Stipp heard the helps after the second set of noises ? I was sure she heard them in between the volleys she heard ???!!!

You're right G.bng.

"Anette Stipp, the wife of Dr Johan Stipp who earlier gave evidence in the trial, said she was woken at around 3am by the sound of gunshots.

She said her husband also woke and then went towards their balcony which faced the Pistorius house.

She says she initially told him to come back because they didn't know where the shots had come from.

But then the pair went outside to investigate further.

Mrs Stipp said she heard a woman's "terrified screaming", before what she believed was more gunshots, then nothing more.

She said she could also distinguish a man's voice "crying" in between.

She would not accept suggestions the screams could have been made be a female"

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/oscar-pistorius-murder-trial-five-3278891

 

[Interested Bystander]

Yeah I don't know about this one. The article said he said under his breath as he was walking by. So whatever he said, it was aimed at no one in particular. And it was to himself and she's the only one who heard it...

Gonna wait for more on this one...

Sorry, but he is hardly going to shout it out loud is he. If he said what has been reported, as he was passing her, whether it was under his breath is irrelevant. If it was audible it was offensive.

 

[Viper]

So today was another blockbuster day for OPs "Dream Team" then. Is that the consensus?

 

[Cape Town Crim.]

Missed that, Cape.
Do you recall when?

During Gerrie's cross of Mike.

Sorry I can't give you a specific time - as soon as I have an hour to spare I will go and search for it. The camera was focused on OP and he looked in the direction of Mike on the stand and he smirked, in a similar manner as to when Darryn Fresco was on the stand.

He was feeling incredibly chuffed with Mike's testimony - not that it helped him. I believe it was Mike's comments re: the police that made OP feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

 

[Interested Bystander]

next up possibiltiy of state reopening case!

http://whoopwhoop.tv/pistoriusradio.htm

this has just been suggested

Milady will be pleased lol.

 

[liesbeth]

The reasonable person test is did OP behave as a reasonable person that night? That is what the law says. From what I've read, that is decided at the judge's discretion. There are many interpretations of that law and many examples of different results given in similar cases.

http://www.tarservices.co.za/South-African-Law/

"A reasonable man" is not the same as "the average man." For one thing a reasonable man is always reasonable where an average man can sometimes be unreasonable.

Halfway down the page:

“A reasonable man”

The reasonable man standard is by no means democratic in its scope; it is, contrary to popular conception, intentionally distinct from that of the "average person," who is not necessarily guaranteed to always be reasonable.

The reasonable person will weigh all of the following factors before acting:

1. the foreseeable risk of harm his actions create versus the utility of his actions;

2. the extent of the risk so created;

3. the likelihood such risk will actually cause harm to others;

4. any alternatives of lesser risk, and the costs of those alternatives.

Taking such actions requires the reasonable person to be appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded. Such a person might do something extraordinary in certain circumstances, but whatever that person does or thinks, it is always reasonable.

The test for a reasonable person is an objective test. It does not consider the individual circumstances.​

So first the judge will put herself in OP's shoes and ask herself if he could have honestly believed he was shooting at an intruder. (Subjective test = she puts herself in his shoes.)

If she thinks he made an honest mistake she will then ask herself if he behaved like the reasonable man mentioned above. (Objective test = she looks at evidence, etc.)

 

[shane13]

Sorry, but he is hardly going to shout it out loud is he. If he said what has been reported, as he was passing her, whether it was under his breath is irrelevant. If it was audible it was offensive.

This will go nowhere IB.
OP will say something like, "They misheard my mumbling. I did not say, "How do you sleep at night.' I said, "do you weep at night like I do."

Just gets the ratings increased, but this will go nowhere IMO.

Of course if he did say what is alleged, it may more of my unique schadenfreude/sadism hypothesis.

 

[Duchy]

I understand the danger and not driving at night. What I don't understand, is .....my husband wouldn't allow me... .
Thankfully, those words have never left my mouth and never will. JMO

I agree. Makes me mad. What about all the poor defenceless single women with no husbands to to turn to for guidance about what is good for them and what isn't:facepalm:

 

[Duchy]

Doesn't seem odd to me.

:waitasec:

Lol it's not odd. What is odd is Oscar not saying same to Reeva:facepalm:

 

[patCee]

http://www.tarservices.co.za/South-African-Law/

"A reasonable man" is not the same as "the average man." For one thing a reasonable man is always reasonable where an average man can sometimes be unreasonable.

Halfway down the page:

“A reasonable man”

The reasonable man standard is by no means democratic in its scope; it is, contrary to popular conception, intentionally distinct from that of the "average person," who is not necessarily guaranteed to always be reasonable.

The reasonable person will weigh all of the following factors before acting:

1. the foreseeable risk of harm his actions create versus the utility of his actions;

2. the extent of the risk so created;

3. the likelihood such risk will actually cause harm to others;

4. any alternatives of lesser risk, and the costs of those alternatives.

Taking such actions requires the reasonable person to be appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded. Such a person might do something extraordinary in certain circumstances, but whatever that person does or thinks, it is always reasonable.

The test for a reasonable person is an objective test. It does not consider the individual circumstances.​

So first the judge will put herself in OP's shoes and ask herself if he could have honestly believed he was shooting at an intruder. (Subjective test = she puts herself in his shoes.)

If she thinks he made an honest mistake she will then ask herself if he behaved like the reasonable man mentioned above. (Objective test = she looks at evidence, etc.)

This, and the rest of the article may be of some interest too,

The answer to this is that our law has, until now, only been prepared to take into account the immediate external
circumstances of the accused, and has not been prepared to attribute to the reasonable person any disorders, disabilities, or deficiencies on the part of an accused person (S v Ngubane 1985 AD). Quite the opposite, our law has instead attributed to the reasonable person the skill and knowledge that is required to perform the task or activity that the accused was engaged in. Thus, the conduct of an accused who performs a surgical operation from which the victim dies, will be compared to the conduct of a reasonable surgeon. The conduct of an accused who uses a firearm will be compared to that of a reasonable firearm owner.

http://criminallawza.net/2014/05/04/one-may-intentionally-kill-another-human-being/

 

[Viper]

Sorry, but he is hardly going to shout it out loud is he. If he said what has been reported, as he was passing her, whether it was under his breath is irrelevant. If it was audible it was offensive.

I cannot find the original post. Please, what did he say and to whom? TIA

 

[BritsKate]

I cannot find the original post. Please, what did he say and to whom? TIA

Oscar Pistorius has allegedly whispered “How do you sleep at night?” to a close friend of Reeva Steenkamp’s in court.

http://www.citypress.co.za/news/oscar-pistorius-reevas-friend-sleep-night/