Trial Discussion Thread #36 - 14.05.09 Day 29

[Carmelita]

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.

Hi lithgow1,

I will put some of my thoughts together on that today or tomorrow. I am about to run off to spend the day with mum

A happy mother's day to all our moms and mums.

 

[Emz73]

I assume that prosecution knew "Frank" was in the home so indeed it is a very sad comment on his worth in SA that "Frank" would not be called. I understand that he is still employed by the Pistorius family and I'll bet he knows and heard everything that night. Come on neighbors from far away hearing sounds...it varies as to what they say the sounds were but they all have vivid memories of terrible sounds that night and there is "Frank" sleeping soundly in his room?

Due to these cultural differences which whether one wants to admit it or not are still very behind the way most of us view society...I think anything can happen in terms of a verdict here. I have not even seen a reasonable case by the defense. If "Frank" can remain sort of untouchable in the case then OP could walk...anything can happen.

Also how in the world could this person being right in the house and apparently there as law enforcement arrives etc. remain such a secret and only this past week come out in testimony??? Is this then an agreement on both sides. Maybe this has been discussed but it all seems so strange to me.
What I am understanding is that due to "Frank" being essentially a slave to the Pistorius family he cannot be expected to recount his activity and memory of that evening when a woman was murdered right in the home he was in? Wow! And both sides are going with this understanding.

The comment was the posters opinion, now it is being seen as fact Frank was a "slave".
I'm pretty he wasn't called because he is seen to be a slave!

Oscar called him brother and he was more of a home help because of disability.
It's more likely he said he heard nothing because he didn't want to be involved or lie on the stand.

 

[JudgeJudi]

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

How loathsome.

 

[04009margaret]

I think I know Barnacle from a while back. Don't worry about it.

How offensive, didn't you pull the same stunt with Capetown Crim for their first posts

 

[turaj]

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

It certainly is an ugly word which says alot about attitudes. I'm not sure what they call their live ins in SA but clearly there is a "loyalty" here to not just OP but to the entire Pistorius family. From the little I have read about this family led at this point by Uncle Arnold...they are powerful in many sectors in SA...a job with this family is a total lifeline for someone like Frank from Malawi. He probably supports many people in his country with what he makes form the Pistorius family. There is no way he will talk ever and so no point in either side calling him. He has been set aside months ago and we are just now learning about him. Given his continued relationship with the family has seems to have protected status...you can't make him talk...but no question he knows about the arguing and movements of people in that home that night. By the way SA is not unique in this type of arrangement it is common in many countries in the world...many times these employees become literally a part of the family and are looked after like a member of the family...it is a prize job for many.

 

[lithgow1]

Is everyone else's posts going first to moderation? My latest one did and hasn't appeared as yet though it was just a few observations and a question.

 

[BritsKate]

I didn't say that you misinterpreted the law. I don't think an informal study of law over several laws means that anyone can state emphatically that they know what the law of another country is without any caveat. I said I don't agree with your interpretation that the judge cannot render a CH verdict.

No, you didn't clarify that's what you disagreed with and had I actually said that, I would disagree with myself.

Here's a recap that hopefully clarifies:
The judge will only consider culpable homicide as a charge IF Oscar is acquitted of the murder charge. It isn't 'either/or'. She first has to determine there was not intent to kill Reeva; there was either no intent to kill an intruder or, if there was, that Oscar's defence has 'absolved' him of intent (meaning proving putative private defence); and lastly, that he couldn't have foreseen the consequences of his actions and in order to determine whether he could reasonably foresee those consequences the reasonable person test would be implemented.

If Oscar is acquitted of murder because intent has not been proven, then they move on to considering culpable homicide. A determination of guilt or innocence for culpable homicide is also reached by implementing the reasonable person test. That test of course is a mixture of subjective factors relevant to a theoretical reasonable person weighed against objective factors relevant to the crime itself (like choice of ammunition). The more objective factors, the law reasons, the more the defendant should have been able to foresee the consequences of his actions and the less likely it is he could be considered to have acted 'reasonably'.

The top charge must be both considered and rejected before contemplating lesser offences, such as culpable homicide. If he is convicted of murder, the culpable homicide charge becomes moot.

ETA: The post I initially responded to seemed to imply that the only possibilities were premeditated murder or culpable homicide. Apologies though, if I'm misinterpreting. You do know, I'm sure, that the State doesn't have to prove premeditation at all in order to secure a murder conviction. The only proof required is establishing intent. The two are very different principles in South African law. Here is the legal definition for intent, also referred to as specific intent:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Specific+Intent

 

[Deleted member 102539]

... and he didn't think.

... and he couldn't sleep before and so went to his private shooting range in the bathroom, to have success as usual when taking a shot to the head, BAM.

 

[Emz73]

How offensive, didn't you pull the same stunt with Capetown Crim for their first posts

Exactly. I said the same yesterday!

 

[Hope4More]

No that is not what I said. He is a servant it doesn't matter what color his skin is. People live in shacks behind estates they are not treated very well it is way to complicated for me to explain in a post. If I have time I will see if I can find a thesis or academic article about the movement from "servant" to "worker" that has been trying to take place in SA.

For anyone who's interested, Google the book " From Servants to Workers." Though it focuses on women the general storyline is there. As one reviewer commented (paraphrasing), " though SA is trying to provide domestic workers some forms of protection and rights, domestics in reality continue to be a surviving relic of apartheid."

 

[turaj]

The comment was the posters opinion, now it is being seen as fact Frank was a "slave".
I'm pretty he wasn't called because he is seen to be a slave!

Oscar called him brother and he was more of a home help because of disability.
It's more likely he said he heard nothing because he didn't want to be involved or lie on the stand.

I would revise my use of the word "slave" to agree with above...call him a million things...right hand man....caretaker... and many more. OP was gone most of the time and Frank no doubt kept things going at home not uncommon for any high profile or wealthy persons in any country...what seems different is the extreme loyalty that evolves as probably is true here...I would like to think that many people so employed would want to speak about what led up to the events that night etc...I mean no doubt Frank knows alot but he is still employed by the family and this is a very prized job in SA. I'm sure he is getting paid very well by uncle Arnold.

 

[Hope4More]

Interesting. Apparently when interviewed by police Stipp told them he employed his own live in "servant." His word. Stipp's wife went with the term " domestic worker" instead.

 

[whiterum]

I thought OP said he was deafened by the sound of the shots?


ETA: in other words, according to OP, he couldnt have been responding to noises at that time, because he said he could not have heard RS if she screamed because his ears were ringing too badly.

Exactly, then directly after the four shots and in this temporarily deafened state he supposedly shouts to Reeva to phone the police and hears no response. His version is crumbling piece by piece and being shown up as a nothing more than a concocted excuse to try and save his own skin.

 

[crowmarsh]

I have heard it mentioned somewhere that OP had a business meeting on the 13th Feb that did not go well for him but cannot find any info to either confirm or deny this. I realise that it is an aside with regard to the crime but does anyone know anymore about this

 

[soozieqtips]

I have heard it mentioned somewhere that OP had a business meeting on the 13th Feb that did not go well for him but cannot find any info to either confirm or deny this. I realise that it is an aside with regard to the crime but does anyone know anymore about this

I think the only information we have is that it was some kind of financial meeting.

No details that I know of. Very vague, a bit like his version/versions.

 

[Viper]

Is everyone else's posts going first to moderation? My latest one did and hasn't appeared as yet though it was just a few observations and a question.

Yes, mine did too. I believe it does that when the post that you were replying to is deleted before you submit your reply.

Yours was to ******** about those last two sentences, I presume. :smile:

 

[JudgeJudi]

<Respectfully snipped>

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???

Here in Oz crime scenes, well certainly in cases such as murders, are all videotaped, as are records of interview. Like all countries, corruption has always been a problem and ours is no exception. However once this practice was adopted all the "loading up" of offenders by police officers, stealing money, jewellery etc dropped right off. It also minimises false allegations of tampering, moving etc etc. Surely this is one practice that could be adopted which wouldn't break the bank.

The two things that do bother me in this case is the way Aimee or Carice was able to remove the handbag and Carice being alone with OP at some stage. And then there's the matter of the phone that disappeared for a couple of weeks. Surely a person who's just admitted shooting and killing someone should have been under supervision the entire time together with anyone else that was either present or subsequently entered the crime scene.

Your thoughts.

 

[sleuth-d-]

I think the general consensus is that he shot where he would hit center mass: the center of a person. The toilet was a small cubicle, so it was likely he would hit someone/something.

Why he shot four times is a question I have had too. I assume he heard Reeva (the intruder) fall. There was a magazine rack that she apparently collapsed onto. Maybe someone here has a theory that's more specific.

looking at the attached image though...

anyone standing at the door would have definitely been hit, and as you say if he heard the mag rack... that would account for the further shots also hitting.

equally, anyone standing at the back wall centre, back wall right, shower side wall, or in the corner to the left of the door would not have been hit at all. considering it is such a small space there were lots of areas that the shots didn't cover.

 

[lithgow1]

Yes, mine did too. I believe it does that when the post that you were replying to is deleted before you submit your reply.

Yours was to ******** about those last two sentences, I presume. :smile:

Thanks Viper. The post itself was no big deal - really just another request for some evidence other than OP's words - so I wondered why it would have gone to moderation. I learned my lesson with our little debate and since then have studiously avoided politics or altering people's names - it's Ms Kelly Phelps from now on for me!

 

[Fuskier]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...bel-tests-ballistics-expert-article-1.1785794

Ballistics expert for Oscar Pistorious' defense: 'It's all speculation' as to what happened to Reeva SteenkampBY BRENDEN NEL , CORKY SIEMASZKO
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Published: Friday, May 9, 2014.

"Wolmarans&#8217; admission appeared to be a blow to Team Pistorius" ... "under cross-examination by Nel, Wolmarans failed to refute much of the earlier testimony from prosecution witness Capt. Christian Mangena, who said Steenkamp was standing when Pistorius&#8217; first shot shattered her hip and caused her to topple on a magazine rack"...