Trial Discussion Thread #34 - 14.05.06 Day 27

[Hope4More]

I agree with most points except the latter. Premeditation can be formed in an instant, and in the US the prosecutors often emphasize that point. I don't think 3 of the 4 shots or ll 4 shots hit Reeva the purported intruder without conscious aiming. For all of OP's enthusiasm for the gun range, shooting watermelons and through the roof gun "wartime" flashbacks or other triggers weren't in play. He shot to kill or maim imo and that is premeditation.

he might not be convicted but that is my :cow:

I'm very familiar with what constitutes premeditation in the US, less so in SA. I agree its most likely that OP shot to harm or maim. Whatever his level of fear or anger was , I don't think that trumped his great familiarity with guns.

I don't think he knew Reeva was in there. I do think he felt justified in seriously harming the intruder he thought was there. I don't believe he formed the intent to kill as he shot, but do think he should be held fully accountable for his reckless disregard of the life of whoever was behind that door.

 

[Mr Fossil]

The other relevant measurements are the height of the bullet holes (again from Mangena's testimony in metric, courtesy of Juror13 - thank you Lisa, your blog is incredibly useful)

The door was reassembled and the same exact screws that originally held the door in place were used to reattach the door. Measurements were then taken. The heights of the bullet holes from the floor are as follows:

A was 93.5cm
B was 104.3cm
C was 99.4cm
D was 97.3cm

Inside the toilet room, the mark E represents a bullet that directly impacted the wall and ricocheted to the other wall at mark F. This bullet did not directly hit Reeva.

E was 89cm from the floor
F was 87.5cm from the floor

 

[DebinGA]

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/woman-hit-in-home-by-mystery-bullet-1.1461223#.U2pwhihbcdU

The link describes an inciden in Jan. 2013 that Wollie Wolmarans, the DT ballistics expert, weighed in on. A woman was inside her home and was injured by a bullet coming through her roof. Wolmarans said the bullet must have been shot from a height and not by someone outside shooting into the air. I hope Nel asks Wollie if OP could have injured an innocent person outside at the time OP shot through DF's sunroof.

 

[Hope4More]

OK. Just another thought then I'll leave you alone - so by this version, she never screamed so the Stipps misheard and they did in fact hear OP, nor did she utter any words? I can picture her staying in the toilet and not coming out, but if she was the peacemaker type as you say I can't see her not trying to calm him down by speaking to him - whether in pleading, cajoling, stern or whatever tones. It's just another aspect that doesn't ring true to me.

First, I think things happened very quickly. And, taking at face how Reeva felt during OP's raging outbursts (her emails to him) I think its entirely possible that she was very afraid of him in those moments...that is not peacemaking time. Or, again, that she thought an intruder was nearby.

As for ear witnesses. I'm sure they all believe they heard what they say they heard. I also know that ear witness testimony is inherently problematic. If I was an Atty I sure wouldn't want any important part of my case to rest upon such evidence.

Again about my neighborhood. We not infrequently hear loud bangs in the middle of the night here. There is no way I could reliably identify which of those bangs are gunshots (pretty common) versus a generator or transformer blowing up versus a truck or car backfire or some commotion in a nearby house. Even awake I couldn't do so, much less woken up in the middle of the night.

Screams? Acoustics are weird. I've heard screaming I thought was coming from a child but when I moved to another part of our (large) house realized it was a very PO'd adult who had lost it. Etc. Etc.

Not worthless evidence necessarily, IMO, but not very strong either. JMO.

 

[Lyra500]

Had yet to see that photo, wow! No wonder everyone keeps referring to it. I thought it was a 'plate' the size of a light switch plate.

NOT good ...

Has OP ever been asked for or given a credible explanation for the significant damage to the bath panel?

 

[james83]

Barry Bateman ‏@barrybateman 3 mins
#OscarTrial it’s understood an anaesthetist will testify on gastric emptying, followed by forensic expert Wollie Wolmarans. BB
Expand Reply Retweet Favourite More

 

[crasshopper]

I'm very familiar with what constitutes premeditation in the US, less so in SA. I agree its most likely that OP shot to harm or maim. Whatever his level of fear or anger was , I don't think that trumped his great familiarity with guns.

I don't think he knew Reeva was in there. I do think he felt justified in seriously harming the intruder he thought was there. I don't believe he formed the intent to kill as he shot, but do think he should be held fully accountable for his reckless disregard of the life of whoever was behind that door.

I can understand your position and conclusions, thank you for clarifying further.

 

[BritsKate]

I'm not caught up on this thread but just wanted to add that I think some may also confuse premeditation with intent. I know I certainly did for quite awhile because SA intent is very similar to American premeditation, if using the definition of "specific intent to commit a crime, for a period of time, however short, before the actual crime".

In South Africa, murder requires intent to be proven. Simply meaning, Oscar intended to a) kill Reeva; b) kill an intruder or c) Oscar was able to, or should have been able to, foresee the consequences of his actions and proceeded anyway. A is murder. B is murder, until and unless an affirmative defence is proven which 'absolves' the defendant of intent. If the judge believes Oscar's defence, she will move onto C. C opens the door to the reasonable person test, where the subjective reasonable person is tested against objective factors, like shooting 4 times through a closed door. The more objective factors, the more the defendant should have foreseen the consequences. If the reasonable person test shows Oscar should have foreseen his actions could result in someone's death, and he proceeded anyway, he could still be convicted even if it was never his explicit intent to commit murder.

If acquitted of murder, the judge will look to culpable homicide. Akin to negligent or reckless homicide, voluntary manslaughter, etc. Again, the reasonable person test is applied to reach a determination.


IANAL, but this is my understanding of SA law.

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

 

[Lyra500]

Here we have OP saying he was a vulnerable, disabled guy, trapped in his bedroom. But there was actually a male employee right downstairs. Surprises the heck out of me that he didn't call Frank's cell and warn him about the intruders, and ask for some back up.

And why would OP call an old man who lived blocks away, for help lifting Reeva? He had Frank, his man servant, already on the premises. That blows my mind that Nel hasn't questioned the DT about that.

It really is odd and there is more to it than we have heard yet. imo

Wouldn't Frank be the perfect witness for Roux to dispel the rumors that OP and RS were arguing loudly that night? Why wasn't he put up there to debunk that?

This makes me suspect that Frank did indeed hear the whole thing but is too frightened to testify because he knows he will never work again and he knows how many friends in high places OP has (or should I being saying 'had' given the direction of travel?)

He has therefore taken the only way out he can think of which is to claim he slept through the whole thing.

Given he was awake and fully dressed outside the house before Carice and Papa Stander arrived, it seems highly unlikely slept through and heard nothing.

 

[Lyra500]

Agree totally.
The fact of the matter is he was standing outside when the Stander's arrived which makes him a vital witness, the fact that he was standing there means something or someone woke him up.
It Lead's me to come to the conclusion that Frank is not prepared to get involved because he is not willing to lie on the stand about what he heard.
It's obvious that if Oscar was telling the truth this man would have felt it his duty to testify, can anyone dispute that?.

Agree with this interpretation - does not want to lie but too scared to tell the truth..

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

I'm betting shane13 has something to say about Frank....

I've missed this week's testimonies and hope to watch them tonight but I could follow a bit from yr posts so thank you all for being here :seeya:

This Frank guy.. the 24 hr care-taker whatever it is.. I would think he would be there after the first shots to take care .. If not now then when ? :tantrum:

And how on earth if he didn't hear the shots and noone called him , he suddenly happened to appear at that door in the middle of the night? :banghead:

 

[TorisMom003]

Has OP ever been asked for or given a credible explanation for the significant damage to the bath panel?

Not to my knowledge.

 

[BritsKate]

Barry Bateman ‏@barrybateman 3 mins
#OscarTrial it’s understood an anaesthetist will testify on gastric emptying, followed by forensic expert Wollie Wolmarans. BB
Expand Reply Retweet Favourite More

Good. Hit home that Reeva couldn't possibly have eaten so late which reminds us Oscar somehow KNOWS she couldn't have gone downstairs while he was sleeping. But she managed to poof! into the loo while he was awake without him ever noticing.

All to disprove an argument occurring even though it leads to such a quandary. Methinks the defence is a lot more concerned about premeditation than some believe.


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

 

[Hope4More]

Who's been uncivil? Openly commenting on others isn't exactly "civil" either. If you have a problem with a post or poster, why not just report it?

Back on topic, rage still isn't a good reason to fire four shots through a door, regardless of who's behind it. He went to get his gun and used it. If it had just happened to be on him it would be easier to buy. I don't doubt Oscar regretted it the second it was over and would have done anything for Reeva to not be dead right now.

I have reported uncivil posts to mods and encourage others to do the same. I love a good argument.....when the focus is on disagreement about interpretation of evidence or whatnot. Ridiculing others' points or the persons posting them is anathema to me. There are thousands of websites to hang out on if someone wants to make it personal or just vent. This ain't one of them.

Personally I feel zero emotion about this case, and never have felt any. As some other long term members have said, for me it just isn't all that absorbing or interesting. As much as anything I'm here to play devil's advocate. And no, I don't mean that literally.

 

[Giles]

Has OP ever been asked for or given a credible explanation for the significant damage to the bath panel?

No, Oscar was never asked about this or said anything about it. I imagine Nel didn't ask him about it because he could have dismissed it as happening at an earlier date. Far better to leave it as an unanswered question in the judge's mind. It's probably the same with the jeans found outside. Who knows what Oscar would have said about these? But, he had 15 months to figure out a plausible explanation, so probably best to leave it unanswered.

I'm sure Gerrie will weave this into his closing narrative as signs of a struggle, intimidation or something untoward happening before the shots were fired.

 

[Viper]

Barry Bateman ‏@barrybateman 3 mins
#OscarTrial it’s understood an anaesthetist will testify on gastric emptying, followed by forensic expert Wollie Wolmarans. BB
Expand Reply Retweet Favourite More

Nel was obviously well prepared for Professor Botha. Why would Roux believe that doing the same thing a second time will yield a different result? OTOH. The DT must be very worried about that argument at 2:00AM!

 

[lithgow1]

I'm not caught up on this thread but just wanted to add that I think some may also confuse premeditation with intent. I know I certainly did for quite awhile because SA intent is very similar to American premeditation, if using the definition of "specific intent to commit a crime, for a period of time, however short, before the actual crime".

In South Africa, murder requires intent to be proven. Simply meaning, Oscar intended to a) kill Reeva; b) kill an intruder or c) Oscar was able to, or should have been able to, foresee the consequences of his actions and proceeded anyway. A is murder. B is murder, until and unless an affirmative defence is proven which 'absolves' the defendant of intent. If the judge believes Oscar's defence, she will move onto C. C opens the door to the reasonable person test, where the subjective reasonable person is tested against objective factors, like shooting 4 times through a closed door. The more objective factors, the more the defendant should have foreseen the consequences. If the reasonable person test shows Oscar should have foreseen his actions could result in someone's death, and he proceeded anyway, he could still be convicted even if it was never his explicit intent to commit murder.

If acquitted of murder, the judge will look to culpable homicide. Akin to negligent or reckless homicide, voluntary manslaughter, etc. Again, the reasonable person test is applied to reach a determination.



IANAL, but this is my understanding of SA law.

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

But won't the anaethesist's testimony be geared towards defending OP's version - he or she will testify on the possibility that she did eat around 7pm? Otherwise I don't see why they would call one - though it does suggest the stomach contents has them concerned.

Can you or anyone see how they'll be done with the rest of the defence witnesses by Tuesday arvo? You'd think Nel will want to spend much more time than he did with the last few so it makes me wonder how they'll fit them in then they'd still need to do something with the audio (bat vs shots and screams - distance, pitch etc) and the psych stuff.

Responded to wrong post of your's BritsKate and now don't know how to fix that. But I'm sure you'll work out which I was referring to.

 

[crowmarsh]

Am I right that the only court day sister aimee has missed during the trial was the day when cs admitted that she and sister aimee "stole" reevas handbag

 

[crowmarsh]

It was not an exhaustive list to quote oscar on the stand poster didnot realise she had to name every murderer

 

[Val1]

I have Annette Stipp awaking, coughing, at 03:02 on her clock radio, and then hearing what sounded like 3 shots. Her clock is 3 or 4 minutes fast, so that puts the time at say 02:59.

Dr Stipp is the same time as above for the first loud bangs.

Annette Stipp comes in from teh balcony at 03:17 on her clock radio and hears 3 more shots. So that's around 03:14.

Dr Stipp hears the same after trying to call 10111 (no time) but before calling Baba at 03:15:51.

Except that Mrs.Stipp also said she stayed in bed for awhile after her coughing fit and it was only after she'd decided to get up for a drink that she heard the first set of bangs. In my mind, that could easily have taken another five minutes after she first noted the time, seeing as she was sick and it was very early in the morning.

Unfortunately Mr.Stipp didn't note the time when he was actually awoken by the bangs and his wife asking what they were. He did say that it took only "moments"(that horribly vague description that all the witnesses made some reference too that is making our timeline of events so much more difficult) between the first set of "bangs" and the second set during which he had went out on the balconies to try to tell where the bangs and the subsequent screams were coming from and to try and make the call to security which his wife ended up having to get the number for, iirc.

I believe that's also why they were uncertain as to the exact number of "bangs" they heard, they were distracted by trying to get through to security and moving in and out of their house between balconies, although Mr.Stander had said that Dr.Stipp had told him 4+4 shortly after getting to OP's.