Trial Discussion Thread #36 - 14.05.09 Day 29

[Viper]

OK maybe. But we have these panels on Channel 199 comprising, supposedly, some sharp legal minds, including a judge with lots of experience, various gun experts and the like, and there's no reason for them to be shy on the "last breaths" issue if/when it occurs to them. But it appears that this potential smoking gun has eluded them so far.

Oh I really do not want to get in to this again. There are some very nice people here that I agree with on nearly every issue but that I disagree with regarding this one issue. In reply to your concerns, it seems that the issue of when Reeva died, specifically when Reeva's heart stopped beating, is an issue that is considered by both the DT and the PT as irrelevant. The fact is that Reeva did die that night as a result of receiving three gunshots from Ozzie. Whether or not she died in the WC or as she was being carried down the stairs means nothing in the grand scheme of things. I do not expect Nel or Roux to broach this with Judge Masipa.

 

[fox1lady]

I am not versed in SA law its nuances or the judges leeway in coming to a decision. I have read quite a bit of the legal definitions and analysis's of CH and PM. I know it is said that "disability" has not been part of the equation of a judgement as of yet in SA, it has also been stated that extreme situations may play a role in a judges decision.

So it is a bit ambiguous.

I was trying to say that the definition that you gave was that of murder, not pre-meditated murder but the lesser charge of murder. If he heard the sound and shot at a perceived aggressive intruder, then it is considered murder as it was behind a locked door with 4 shots. As his defence is putative defense, it could be argued that he was the attacker by going towards the danger when he could quite easily have gone away from the perceived danger. jmo

 

[K.T]

About the position of the shots on the door/Steenkamp - in brief as I'm on the move -there was a good, short interview on Sky with Alex Crawford and a different ballistic expert.

The ballistic expert stated that the tight grouping of the shots showed Pistorius was aiming for a target. I don't have time to find the interview, I might have even posted it before...Will look for it later and edit it into this post if possible.

Anyway, that expert was clear about how extremely damaging it was for Pistorius defense regarding the location and grouping of the shots.

Edit: Here's my original post Trial Discussion Thread #26 - 14.04.15, Day 23 - Page 2 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

I quoted the ballistics expert interviewed. I think the Sky video is removed or perhaps archived but here's part of what he said:

Expert: "It appears the grouping at the end actually become closer. Where, in a panicked situation one would reasonably expect that the rounds would be spread over an area."

"I'm deducing those rounds were aimed and deliberate."

 

[TorisMom003]

For those that believe that the shots fired at the toilet room door happened in a quick manner, please watch the following video. Please take note of how much of a kick back there is with the same gun that was used to shoot Reeva. OP had to aim for each one of those shots in order for them to have hit the door where they did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5VWDIlSMTMc#t=15

Also please note OP's firing stance in the following photo. He is clearly bent down, so IMO, based on this OP could have been wearing his prosthetics when he shot Reeva.

link for photo:
http://blacksportsonline.com/home/2014/02/oscar-pistorius-seen-at-gun-range-video/

MOO

 

[Val1]

1)
I think Nel accepts what the state was able to prove, but like me I think he believes there is even more that can not be proved. He would however accept a large section of Oscar's version, as it would already indicate murder. The purposeful aiming at the door, with another person behind the door, while he was in no immediate danger. While using four well directed shots, with ammunition which is likely to cause serious injuries or death.

2)
No. But this is a personal opinion. It seemed as though he started giving up hope after Dixon. Van Schalkwyk (whose testimony should be inadmissible) was an act of desperation. He seems to be resigned to the fact that he is merely there for damage limitation.

3)
I do not think the scene was substantially compromised. I do however know (I think it was) Motha messed up by handling the pistol. Not that it mattered, because the accused admitted that he used it. As with many high profile cases, however, they did mess up by allowing too many people onto the scene. The control was not what it should have been, but I don't think it had any real influence or will have any real influence later on.

Welcome Now for the nitty gritty and sorry I'm so late, our times are very different..

1)do you believe the reason Nel seems to be ignoring much of what are driving us nuts are because he can't prove they have to do with the OP's state of mind? (jeans outside, whether there was blood on the keys in the toilet door.. or not, indicating they may have been OP's spares... records of the alarm system showing who and when they were turned on or not... whether the evidence in the house supports chicken stir-fry, or a midnight salad and cheese... was the toilet light burned out, electrical components in it fried, switch broken, or the bulb broken... bedroom door bullet/airgun holes... spare room having been used... gawd the list just goes on and on.

2)will Roux offer up all of the things he kept promising the court he would during his cross of the PT witnesses or is that just his style to try and get the witnesses to change their testimony?

3)what do you think of the whole watch missing, sister and lawyer friend of OP "stealing" RS's handbag from the scene... removing other potential evidence as well like the cell phone, possibly items from the safes(thumb drives can hold a lot of evidence), perhaps an unlicensed firearm to match the .38 ammo, garbage with perhaps ripped up notes or chinese takeout containers from that night, the wiping and syncing of the i-pads, etc..?

4)do you agree or disagree that the bat hits probably came first... the trajectory of the bullets indicate that OP must have moved to the right... OP could possibly have tracked the approximate movement/location of RS through the chunk missing from the door at the angle and distance the trajectory shows?

5)blood spatter while moving RS or arterial spatter on the stairway?

Thanks for any answers you feel able to give!

 

[MsMarple]

I'd like to take the oportunity while things are a little quiet to shout out a big THANKS to everyone for sharing your thoughts! I agree with some posts and disagree with others but many have made me consider options different from my own opinions, which keeps my thinking in balance, while others have forced me to think outside of the box.

:tyou:

What a fun way to keep my mind exercised. Y'all are the greatest – I'm happy I joined the forum.

:yourock:

Now back to your regular programming....

 

[JudgeJudi]

What else is Wollie wrong about, in your opinion.

Regarding my use of the image, I disagree with your comment. You were brazen enough to post an image of a paper target that someone shot at while stationary, standing steady on both legs or seated, while having full view of his stationary paper target. And then you attempted to use that as a comparison to OP wabbling on his stumps on a slippery tiled floor, shooting while he was moving from left to right, and holding his gun with just one hand and the other hand bracing his wobbly body on the wall, shooting at Reeva as she fell and he moved from left to right.

If you do not accept my image, post your own that shows something much more comparable than the one that you passed off to the forum; mine was exact![/quote]

Unfortunately Viper we can only thank you once. I'm here to thank you 10 times over for your comments.

 

[kaos]

I was trying to say that the definition that you gave was that of murder, not pre-meditated murder but the lesser charge of murder. If he heard the sound and shot at a perceived aggressive intruder, then it is considered murder as it was behind a locked door with 4 shots. As his defence is putative defense, it could be argued that he was the attacker by going towards the danger when he could quite easily have gone away from the perceived danger. jmo

And not forgetting that even an intruder under SA law has a "right to life"!

OP's reason for not attempting to go out the bedroom door baffles me quite a bit as according to him they were both brushing their teeth in the bathroom at one point and he also mentioned having a shower (when he was viewing *advertiser censored*). I'd assume if Reeva was doing yoga too that she'd have showered too so he risked the bathroom being slippy. Yet he says he wouldn't feel safe on the flooring outside the bedroom which looked like some type of marble or travertine finish but it would have been dry - and why have it in your house at all if you risk slipping on it whenever you don't have your prosthetics on?

My apologies for lack of thanks on loads of posts but it's taken me hours to catch up and it's now 4am in Bonnie Scotland!

 

[sorrell skye]

In the video below, Judge Greenland discusses OP's version in terms of being possibly reasonably true, Bongani Bingwa asks the Judge if the Court weighs OP's version and accept it as an alternative explanation, even if the State's version is more convincing.

Judge Greenland explained that if someone shoots & kills someone, that person must do more than serve up a story that might possibly reasonably be true to escape responsibility of killing someone. He said it's not that simple. He went on to emphasize that OP pulled the trigger 4 times and must convince the Court (Judge Masipa and the two assessors) that the killing was legally excusable.

Judge Greenland said if the Court doesn't believe OP's version, then at worst he'll be found guilty of murder and at the least guilty of culpable homicide.

There's been much discussion in these threads that the entire burden of proof is on the State. According to Judge Greenland's expert opinion, that's not so.

Under the circumstances of this case, since OP is the one who has admitted to shooting & killing Reeva, and since he pulled the trigger 4 times, OP and his Defense have the burden of proving his version (that he mistook Reeva for an intruder, if that's still his defense. OP also claimed he fired accidentally without thinking, so at this point I'm unsure what his actual defense is).

Regardless of what his defense is, OP must do more than merely offer a story that may be possibly reasonably true. He must prove it.

This is what many posters (including myself) have been saying for quite some time. It's good to know that Judge Greenland is in agreement.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFM3d6sA-SY

 

[nastasya]

This is a tight grouping

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct...xmL1Yg2741Q5E0xKmxSKmohQ&ust=1399850122877903

I simply don't see how anyone can see Oscar's shots as a tight grouping. Oscar was feet away his shots are wild not tight.

This is a tight grouping.

 

[toevlugsoord]

I'd like to take the oportunity while things are a little quiet to shout out a big THANKS to everyone for sharing your thoughts! I agree with some posts and disagree with others but many have made me consider options different from my own opinions, which keeps my thinking in balance, while others have forced me to think outside of the box.

:tyou:

What a fun way to keep my mind exercised. Y'all are the greatest – I'm happy I joined the forum.

:yourock:

Now back to your regular programming....

I agree!! I also want to say THANK YOU because without this forum, I would be going crazy with all of these thoughts and questions in my mind and no one to discuss it with. Literally no one I know is following this trial (I live in the Seattle area)!

 

[nastasya]

It was a tiny room, she was almost immediately a stationary target it is not surprising that he hit her with 3 possibly 4 of the bullets.

Of course it's not surprising he hit her. He was aiming at her from a few feet away, and she was screaming for help.

He stopped firing when she stopped screaming. That's why there were exactly 4 shots, not one more than was needed to silence her, not one less.

 

[Val1]

BBM

You're entitled to disagree.

The facts are not hidden. The facts are what Wollie submitted in his final paper, how is anything before that fact? Was the states original claim that OP was on his prostheses the whole time fact? They changed it when they later discovered that it could not be possible. If I'm not mistaken, the state are now saying that their new claim is fact, not the old one.

If you write on a piece of paper that a dog has thee legs, and later realise that it has four, the only fact that can be construed is that your original thought was wrong.

These guys aren't stupid. Wollie's been in court loads of times, and he's being as crafty as any seasoned expert witness would be regarding his notes. Why? Because prosecution advocates such as Nel would attempt to rip his evidence apart with them. It's typical for expert witnesses to be evasive regarding notes and drafts, it's not unusual at all. Mangena wouldn't willingly make his drafts available to a defence advocate, and I don't blame him. You don't step into a shark pit smelling of blood.

I've presumed that most people understood why Ms Burger told the court she had destroyed her original notes. As a prosecution witness Ms Burger would have been advised not to submit these as they conflicted with her later testimony. A defence advocate would tear her apart with these.

I enjoyed the word 'destroyed'. Do you think she burnt them?

Imo holding a PT layman witness up to the same scrutiny as a DT expert witness that had also been a captain on the police force and has testified many times before is kind of clutching at straws... why in the world would a private citizen assume she would need to keep the scrap of paper she may or may not have also scribbled down her grocery list on just because she may or may not have also jotted down anything to do with an event a year before, let alone insinuate without any proof that it was done to obstruct justice?

Heck, I have reams of old notes that the only reason I keep them is because I haven't bothered to check to see if the phone numbers on them are even still in operation, or they may have a password for one of the sites I've visited in the past.. some of them even may or may not have old case numbers from calling the police over vandalized vehicles on my street though I don't think any of my current collection still contain those. I guess I better hope they never catch the perps and I get called as a witness?!

 

[nastasya]

You know I agree with this Ncl, and I have never said that Oscar behaved reasonably I lean pretty much toward culpable homicide. I simply don't believe that the prosecution has dis-proven Oscar's defense.

That said I still will not be shocked if he is given a slap on the wrist.

You do realize the killer in a prima facie case has the burden of proof to show that his killing was justified, right?

 

[alioop]

In the video below, Judge Greenland discusses OP's version in terms of being possibly reasonably true, Bongani Bingwa asks the Judge if the Court weighs OP's version and accept it as an alternative explanation, even if the State's version is more convincing.

Judge Greenland explained that if someone shoots & kills someone, that person must do more than serve up a story that might possibly reasonably be true to escape responsibility of killing someone. He said it's not that simple. He went on to emphasize that OP pulled the trigger 4 times and must convince the Court (Judge Masipa and the two assessors) that the killing was legally excusable.

Judge Greenland said if the Court doesn't believe OP's version, then at worst he'll be found guilty of murder and at the least guilty of culpable homicide.

There's been much discussion in these threads that the entire burden of proof is on the State. According to Judge Greenland's expert opinion, that's not so.

Under the circumstances of this case, since OP is the one who has admitted to shooting & killing Reeva, and since he pulled the trigger 4 times, OP and his Defense have the burden of proving his version (that he mistook Reeva for an intruder, if that's still his defense. OP also claimed he fired accidentally without thinking, so at this point I'm unsure what his actual defense is).

Regardless of what his defense is, OP must do more than merely offer a story that may be possibly reasonably true. He must prove it.

This is what many posters (including myself) have been saying for quite some time. It's good to know that Judge Greenland is in agreement.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFM3d6sA-SY

I agree with this assessment. Whilst the nitty gritty about all the possible facts is very interesting and giving us lots to discuss, I believe the witnesses who heard a woman screaming that ended on the last bang discredit OP's version. If the Judge believes the same, she will convict him of murder knowing it was Reeva behind the door.

 

[DebinGA]

The defense "dream team" included an American company hired to do an animated reenactment, but apparently it couldn't be done with the data provided, i.e. OP's account couldn't be visually reconciled with available evidence contradicting it. The animation might work up until he returned to the bedroom after the shooting, where what he claims he did there isn't possible, based on the police pics which Roux has not yet produced an expert or a Dixon to challenge. Even OP agreed with Nel that the duvet on the floor with the fan's foot on it and the fan blocking the balcony door he says he ran out of to yell for help 3x was "a problem for my version."

 

[JudgeJudi]

I can't understand why he kept repeating "Reeva phone the police" he never once said (according to him) "Reeva have you called the police?", "Are they on their way?", "What did the police say?" If he wanted to let the "intruders" know that there was help on the way surely he would have said something like that. I really don't think he was at any time telling her to call the police, I don't think he was doing all of that running around to break the door down, I don't think he was too scared to turn the lights on... I'm in agreement with Nel, it's so ridiculously implausible, it cannot possibly have happened.

Not only that, he never told Reeva why she should ring the police!!!!!

 

[supernovaNic]

For those that believe that the shots fired at the toilet room door happened in a quick manner, please watch the following video. Please take note of how much of a kick back there is with the same gun that was used to shoot Reeva. OP had to aim for each one of those shots in order for them to have hit the door where they did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5VWDIlSMTMc#t=15

Also please note OP's firing stance in the following photo. He is clearly bent down, so IMO, based on this OP could have been wearing his prosthetics when he shot Reeva.

link for photo:
http://blacksportsonline.com/home/2014/02/oscar-pistorius-seen-at-gun-range-video/

MOO

OMGosh I thought that gray hair spot on his head was recent but it's been there since he was in boarding school (as seen in the video).

 

[Fuskier]

I agree with this assessment. Whilst the nitty gritty about all the possible facts is very interesting and giving us lots to discuss, I believe the witnesses who heard a woman screaming that ended on the last bang discredit OP's version. If the Judge believes the same, she will convict him of murder knowing it was Reeva behind the door.

Hi Alioop,
Nice to see you on the Thread. Captivating case IMO. Agreed the 'woman's blood-curdling screams' before the last 'bangshot' is the most outstanding piece of critical evidence in the murder Trial IMO. :seeya:

 

[Feynman]

I am unsure how many know about the good Judge Christopher Greenland's site on You Tube. Lots of the legal round table discussions together with others. I have found them all very interesting. Many raise issues we cover here. This is the link

http://www.youtube.com/user/chrisng53

Judge is a bit of a media *advertiser censored*, wouldn't you say? I mean that with all due respect.