Trial Discussion Thread #36 - 14.05.09 Day 29

[Carmelita]

On top of that, why phone Stander for help lifting Reeva when Frank is downstairs in his room off the kitchen?
IMHO he called Stander for a different reason, one we can only speculate about.

I think this is a cultural difference. Frank is a servant. Neither side has called him as a witness for cultural reasons which most of us would not agree with. JMO

 

[james83]

But that is not the essence of what he said. He said that although he was in extreme fear he was deliberate in his advance toward the toilet it is only when he was very near the toilet and heard a noise that he interpreted as an aggressive intruder opening the door to the loo does he claim that he completely stopped "thinking" and shot on an instinctual self preservation level to protect himself and Reeva.

And being aware of the possible shower ricochet, was he thinking at that point?.

 

[james83]

I think this is a cultural difference. Frank is a servant. Neither side has called him as a witness for cultural reasons which most of us would not agree with. JMO

Could you explain these cultural reasons more clearly please?.

 

[Carmelita]

Agreed. I didn't particularly want to see that image, but I do feel that some people need to keep being reminded of exactly how serious this crime was and it wasn't just some kind of sad accident .. it was *horrific* .. no other words for it, and nobody but *nobody* should have to die in such sheer fear and pain as the way that Reeva did, yet to me it seems as though some are just treating this in the same way you would if someone just tripped over and happened to die as a result of that accident.

I agree with you jay jay. I understand the horrific and brutal death of Reeva is the most important part of this case. I don’t understand all the :floorlaugh: about Oscar’s not firing the gun. I honestly don’t, how can anyone when they know that Reeva’s body was torn apart, that she was brutally killed when Oscar fired that gun (regardless of what Oscar claims) :floorlaugh: about anything Oscar said about pulling or not pulling the trigger.

Even if you think Oscar is a flat out cold blooded murder who knocked the panel out of the bathroom door so he could take better aim at his prey I still think the :floorlaugh: about the moment the shots were fired is grossly misguided.

It baffles my mind.

 

[Suthrnqt]

I think this is a cultural difference. Frank is a servant. Neither side has called him as a witness for cultural reasons which most of us would not agree with. JMO

BBM

That is such an ugly word. I believe Frank was his caretaker. Can you plz explain what cultural differences keep Frank from testifying? TIA

 

[lithgow1]

But that is not the essence of what he said. He said that although he was in extreme fear he was deliberate in his advance toward the toilet it is only when he was very near the toilet and heard a noise that he interpreted as an aggressive intruder opening the door to the loo does he claim that he completely stopped "thinking" and shot on an instinctual self preservation level to protect himself and Reeva.

I enjoy our debating Carmelita but I think once again you are showing a bias towards the accused as shown by the last part of your post - 'to protect himself and Reeva'. That is HIS version and if it is your's as well then you are buying his words without critically examining them in any depth IMO. If you look at his actions that night they suggest that had there been intruders it is quite possible that he would have ended up dead and she would have been in the bedroom still not knowing what the hell was going on and at their mercy. But then again, I think his story is a crock anyway.

 

[Carmelita]

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

You have already asked me this and I have have already answered it.

The condensed answer "yes".

 

[BarnacleZA]

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!

1) If some aspects are not fully relevant, it is better to not go into too much detail. I also believe that the state cannot prove a link between all of these aspects, beyond reasonable doubt.

2) Roux himself was unclear on many aspects, as I believe the defence waited for the full state version to see what they had, before they finalised their own reports / version. It was mostly a way to test witnesses. So he used every possibility that could have been available for questioning.

3) The management of the scene was not ideal, but the extent of the changes was limited, so that it would not have a material effect in the outcome. Hmmm... The watch... All the policemen were searched afterwards... Did they search the family???

4) Bat first or second is still unanswered. The time-line does not add up in the defence version from shooting to death....

5) I also have questions about arterial spurts, but imagine that it could be simulated by pressure on the body itself while the deceased is being carried...

 

[lithgow1]

I didn't say that murder is ambiguous.

I don't agree with your opinion as to what judge Masipa's options are. I don't believe anyone here is qualified to surmise SA law with 100% certainty. Law is more complicated than a three month study of it on the internet can possibly reveal.

Extreme situations can be considered in rendering a verdict, a man on his stumps may be considered an extreme situation. No one here knows what the judge and here assessors will use or dismiss in their assessment of this case.

Have you seen the video of the judge speaking on this issue (or close to it)? I wouldn't expect you to accept the views of South African law posted here, though I happen to think that BritsKate is correct, but perhaps a local judge would be more convincing to you.

Bongani -on inadmissible evidence defence expert - YouTube

 

[Bazinga]

haha...please don't concern yourself with my loved ones. I guaranty I will get my kid to the ER faster than the ambulance would arrive. Probably by a good ten minutes. Depends on where one lives, I suppose, but I'm not wasting 15 minutes calling 911 and waiting for the EMT's if I have a choice and can manage to drive myself.

Common sense would tell you that if the waiting time for an ambulance is longer than it would take you to get to the ER yourself, don't waste the time. Seems pretty simple to me

In an emergency, driving your child to hospital yourself can be dangerous, cause further injury or harm and cause significant delay in first aid care.
Moving an injured person can and does cause further harm.
It is quite likely you would be unable to safely secure your injured child in the car properly (restrained in a car seat).
Driving at a speed or while distressed due to the situation greatly increases the risk of an accident, danger to you, your child and others on the road.
While driving you are unable to administer first aid including maintaining breathing or airway.
I'd urge everyone, particularly parents of children to complete a good first aid course including CPR.
In an emergency call for an ambulance. While ambulance is on the way the person on the phone will support and advise you in immediate care for your loved one.
If they tell you to drive yourself then of course do that as safely as you can.

The term common sense gets used often to describe anything but.

Look at the following examples.
Emergency - child is burnt by boiling water, or child is having an asthma attack and breathing difficulty or child has a neck/head injury in a fall. In any of these examples you would do more harm by putting child in a car rather than calling emergency services, receiving advice on phone and administering immediate first aid.
Nothing "Ha Ha" about it. It's not a race to get to a hospital ER it's a race for your child to receive life saving first aid!

 

[Carmelita]

What's with the Oscar speak?

So you don't believe Oscar knew he was going to kill someone but then it is a reasonable assumption that firing 4 bullets a small toilet would very likely kill someone.

Given OSCAR pulled trigger, your two statements MUST mean Oscar should know if he started shooting he will kill someone.

Unless the gun shot itself or he was mentally insane at the time. If that's ur argument then fine.

No I do not think that he was legally insane at the moment of the shooting, that is a very specific legal defense here in the US.

No I do not think the gun fired itself.

Oscar was either in a blind rage or blind panic in the seconds that he fired the gun I don't necessarily believe that he knew in that moment that he would be reigning death on someone.

If you asked Oscar a week before the event if firing 4 shots from his 9mm into his toilet would kill someone I believe he would have said yes it would without a doubt kill the person in the toilet.

 

[DebinGA]

This will probably sound dumb, but what the heck ... Try to imagine Reeva somewhat facing the wc door and the first bullet hitting and demolishing her right hip bone, would she have twisted to her left as Wolmarans demonstrated or to her right as I think I would have? Or not twisted at all, but immediately fell or was propelled back onto mag rack?

 

[BritsKate]

I didn't say that murder is ambiguous.



I don't agree with your opinion as to what judge Masipa's options are. I don't believe anyone here is qualified to surmise SA law with 100% certainty. Law is more complicated than a three month study of it on the internet can possibly reveal.



Extreme situations can be considered in rendering a verdict, a man on his stumps may be considered an extreme situation. No one here knows what the judge and here assessors will use or dismiss in their assessment of this case.

If I'm mistaken about my interpretation of South African law, I would appreciate a link that refutes what I've posted. What I stated earlier isn't opinion, its the actual law and the way in which reaching a determination for innocence or guilt actually occurs when the charges are what they are.

I never stated Masipa doesn't have any latitude either, by the way, but neither does she have the 'free reign' your post seems to imply. I'd also appreciate a link, if you're able, to show that South African disabled defendants have the law interpreted differently by a judge in order to reach a determination in their cases. Not that judges conceivably can but that they actually have.

TIA for correcting me. I've informally studied law for quite a few years, as its a passion, and greatly appreciate being told when I'm wrong so I can better educate myself..

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

 

[patCee]

I had a dream about the trial last night. lol. In my dream Nel was explaining the pros version saying that there was an argument before the shots and explained a very probable reason for the argument with putting kind of evidence in detail. I remember being shocked and saying Yessss.. He killed her because of that!!
I'm struggling for a few hours :tantrum:but unfortunately can't remember what that motive /subject was ?? maybe I should give a break reading here lol :floorlaugh:

Snap! so did I. Not about the trial though, but myself and family were in a hotel in SA. One of us went out walking and I was worrying about it because of the crime. :floorlaugh:

 

[Interested Bystander]

Here is a case where the "murderer" was granted bail whilst waiting for appeal though he was in jail to start with for a short period. There may have been some extenuating circumstances for granting the appeal, ie loss of evidence by the police but this guy admitted to shooting at 5 people and killing one. It makes for an interesting read. I am really hoping this does not happen in the OP case. As the op trial is such a public trial there would be a huge backlash if he is found guilty he is allowed to stay out of prison on bail awaiting the outcome of his appeal.


http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/2008/13.html

 

[Carmelita]

He also said he didn't shoot into the shower because he didn't want the ricochet to hit him. He was thinking .....and knew who he was shooting. jmo

I've already commented on this, Oscar was deliberate although in terror until he heard a noise in the toilet (when he was very close to the toilet) and he began shooting. I am simply stating what his version of that morning is, which is different than posters on here are claiming his version has been stated as.

I don't know how many times I can restate his version. Folks can listen to it or read a transcript for themselves.

 

[Fairynuff]

That is interesting because I met a woman yesterday at Starbucks. She ws speaking with a SA accent so I began talking to her about the trial. LOL

Anyhow, she had been closely following it because she had recently lived in Pretoria. I asked her what she thought had happened. She said a similar scenario to yours. She thought they argued and RS went to another room to sleep. And possibly he did accidentally think intruder. OR perhaps he was angry and snapped.

I asked her why RS would stay and sleep in another room--why wouldn't she just leave. And this lady reminded me that a woman all alone would not want to go driving around Pretoria late at night. She said it is just not done if one can help it. So if RS became scared of him that night, she would call the police before leaving on her own, perhaps.

no sorry not buying the RS may have slept in another room story. if she had then she would have no need to use the en suite bathroom as there would have been another accessible bathroom, perhaps in the passage way.

 

[BritsKate]

Have you seen the video of the judge speaking on this issue (or close to it)? I wouldn't expect you to accept the views of South African law posted here, though I happen to think that BritsKate is correct, but perhaps a local judge would be more convincing to you.

Bongani -on inadmissible evidence defence expert - YouTube

I get bonus points for saying it first though, right? :biggrin: Thanks for reposting, lithgow, I very much appreciate Greenland's take. I have immense respect for judges and well-seasoned lawyers who make the law 'accessible' and easily understood for ordinary folks like myself.


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

 

[Carmelita]

And being aware of the possible shower ricochet, was he thinking at that point?.

Yes by his account he was. Again it is only Oscar's claim that after he heard the noise in the toilet which he perceived as an intruder opening the door does Oscar claim that he acted without thinking.

 

[lithgow1]

It is for the judge to decide whether or not Oscar's version is credible or not given the contradictory and exculpatory evidence and testimony.

It is statements like "all the evidence points to the contrary" that make me think that some peoples opinions have been soundly pirated by confirmation bias.

So can you tell me, and others, what evidence (other than OP's words) points to it having been a genuine case of mistaken identity. The evidence (screams, crime scene photos, ballistics, stomach contents) all point towards his guilt so I'm interested in precisely which evidence points you in the other direction. We've now had about ten defence witnesses - which of those have provided evidence about the events before the shooting that make you believe Pistorius' version and why was that? Thanks as always.