Trial Discussion Thread #40

[katydid23]

Just a final one for the day, before I face the rain and go for a run. Argghhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

This is an example of a finding: "The accused was ultimately examined by four experts as envisaged by section 79(1)(b) of the CPA, including a clinical psychologist. The panel unanimously concluded both that he was able to follow proceedings so as to make a proper defence and that, at the time of the commission of the offence, he was able to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act in question and to act in accordance with such appreciation."

Now importantly for us, the words: "unanimously concluded that both that he was ABLE TO FOLLOW PROCEEDINGS SO AS TO MAKE A PROPER DEFENCE......."

This the reason that Gerrie kept on 'erring' purposefully in order to get a reaction from Oscar, confirming that he was well aware of what was happening, and what was being asked. Oscar's testimony and cross (record) will be available to the panel. Oscar showed with all intent that he was following every sentence like a rock star........

M'lady also made sure she got this on record.

They thought they would be ensuring the record reflected the truth for an appeal....but yet here we are right now.

I'm starting to think that Gerrie is delighted the diminished responsibility etc came up at this stage. Saving time (years in fact) for sure.

Yet he will probably still apply for leave to appeal conviction and sentence on grounds that will blow us all away.

Have a great evening / afternoon / morning all.

BBM

WOW. I hadn't thought of that. Very good point. Thank you so much. It puts things together rather well. :wave:

 

[Hope4More]

Why do you think he is not guilty of murder when all the circumstances and evidence would suggest he is? I can only say I think he intended to murder Reeva but feel on much more solid ground in saying he intended to kill the intruder in the toilet. He grabbed and cocked his gun and went and shot four times through the door of the tiny room he knew they were in. How is that not murder when it was done by someone thinking clearly enough to not fire a warning shot because the ricochet would have been dangerous?

I think you are on far more solid ground too that OP shot to kill an intruder, not Reeva. And your point about clear thinking because of richochet awareness is a good one.

I just don't agree that he necessarily shot to kill. I think his shooting demonstrated a reckless disregard for life, no matter if he was afraid or not. But looking at his past I can absolutely believe he shot in rage at an intruder with the same disregard he showed in the car, on his boat, and in the restaurant.

 

[soozieqtips]

1. It most certainly does not mean that murderers are not guilty until convicted. They are guilty when they intentionally kill a non-aggressor.

~snipped~

Hopefully it won't be too long before that crazed murderer is off the streets and away from the innocent public.

 

[katydid23]

Thank you , keyword here is : no evidence she tried to call , hence Nel not attacking that angle as motive for OP to shoot.

And that is because the phone was not recovered in the toilet , correct?

The phone was recovered in the toilet, but who knows who put it there. was it Reeva or OP himself. He might have thrown it in there himself in a staging move.

Also, I have a possible scenario. I have wondered if Reeva went in there and locked herself in, after arguing with OP. She might have had it in there and threatened to call police. But she probably wouldn't have wanted to actually call them at that time. She surely had no idea he was going to get his loaded weapon. She probably thought he would cool down and they could talk things through. Too late for that, once she made the threat though. :moo:

 

[lithgow1]

I think you are on far more solid ground too that OP shot to kill an intruder, not Reeva. And your point about clear thinking because of richochet awareness is a good one.

I just don't agree that he necessarily shot to kill. I think his shooting demonstrated a reckless disregard for life, no matter if he was afraid or not. But looking at his past I can absolutely believe he shot in rage at an intruder with the same disregard he showed in the car, on his boat, and in the restaurant.

I can't see how he could not have shot to kill. He fired four times, knowing his ammunition, knowing the size of the cubicle, knowing he was just a metre or two away and we all know the end results of those shots - three out of four hit and all caused likely fatal injuries. He can't have not known.

I forgot to add to the 'warning shot' bit before that the reason the ricochet was dangerous was because he may have injured himself. He knew exactly what those bullets were designed to do H4M.

 

[Hope4More]

But he is guilty of murdering Reeva by pumping 4 BT bullets into her. He has admitted he killed her. So what is he innocent of??

He's guilty of killing her. He's not been found guilty of murdering her; he is innocent of murder until proven otherwise.

 

[Suthrnqt]

He's guilty of killing her. He's not been found guilty of murdering her; he is innocent of murder until proven otherwise.

Semantics. Ok, he's guilty of killing Reeva by pumping 4 BT bullets into her. He has admitted he killed her. What is he innocent of?
Is that better? :banghead:

 

[soozieqtips]

He's guilty of killing her. He's not been found guilty of murdering her;
he is innocent of murder until proven otherwise.

No. He is presumed innocent. Big difference.

 

[katydid23]

Absolutely. Before concluding that he was a murderer too you would wait for him to commit a murder...

And he was 'lucky' that this was the first time. Imo, he could have killed someone when he drunkenly rammed the boat into the dock...or when he sped unsafely through the streets in fast cars, or when he discharged the gun in Tashas and through the sunroof, etc etc.

 

[Hope4More]

I can't see how he could not have shot to kill. He fired four times, knowing his ammunition, knowing the size of the cubicle, knowing he was just a metre or two away and we all know the end results of those shots - three out of four hit and all caused likely fatal injuries. He can't have not known.

I forgot to add to the 'warning shot' bit before that the reason the ricochet was dangerous was because he may have injured himself. He knew exactly what those bullets would do H4G.

I really do understand what you are saying. There little doubt that if OP was standing calmly in that bathroom with that gun and that ammo with no sense of being threatened, then took the time to aim 4 shots, calculating where best to shoot, then yes, a reasonable conclusion is that he shot to kill.

That scenario hasn't been proven; it comes down to his state of mind. Yes I think its possible that he shot 4 times in blind rage/fear without considering or planning the consequences.

 

[Hope4More]

Have to put down my sparring gloves and go hug and play with my son...

 

[TorisMom003]

I think the angle and placement of the shots prove that OP was definately aiming where he thought/knew Reeva was in the toilet room. I also believe that OP sunk himself when he claimed to have been holding the gun only with his right hand while his left hand was being used to balance himself with the wall. Anyone that has seen that watermelon shooting video can see the amount of kick back that particular gun produces. IMO there is no way that OP was on his stumps, holding the gun with one hand, and fired those shots where they were fired.

MOO

 

[lithgow1]

Have to put down my sparring gloves and go hug and play with my son...

No worries. We'll meet again. Have a nice time with your son.

 

[TorisMom003]

OP also claimed that he was very concerned with an intruder being on the ladder still outside the bathroom window, that his eyes were going back and forth from the window to the toilet room door however he kept his gun pointed/aimed at the door. Yet after firing four times into the toilet room door he never bothered to check out the bathroom window to see if there was an intruder on the ladder or not before he retreated to the bedroom.

Now, IF (and I dont' believe it is) his story is true, then wouldn't he have been in the same position he was originally in had there been an intruder on the ladder? What would he have done if an intruder came into the bedroom while his back was turned to that hallway when he was looking for Reeva? Why wouldn't he check to make sure that no one was on the ladder?

Perhaps OP should have thought about his "version/s" a little bit more and then he could have come up with some answers to the many unanswered questions that people (and more than likely the judge as well) have.

MOO

 

[Ncl1968]

Any thoughts on the medical outcome..
My thoughts are that he will be given a clean bill of health regarding his state of mind at the time of the offense he will come across as a spoiled rich kid who has an unhealthy interest in guns and ammunition
I think his temper will also slip during the tests
So he will be seen to have all the necessary facilities to determine right from wrong and will be sentenced according

 

[44ALLAN]

Lest we forget in all the 'mist and mud'................

Youtube Day 11 Part 1 March 17 2014.
18.20 onwards and testimony of firearms service provider.

snippet
"Always treat a firearm as if it's loaded".

OP signed all the forms...........................

 

[Cherwell]

What i can say , quite strongly , is that he must be on some sort of muscle-relaxant medications . There's so often little involvement in his facial expressions that not even the best coaching can do. Thing is with micro-expressions... they act from a sub-concious level , they are very hard to control/conceal/feign. It can be done but a huge amount of training and understanding of emotions must be involved.
From what i have seen so far , he face has been like stone even in difficult moments...moments one would expect to see something.

It's the basilisk glare that he sometimes turns on people. I find it chilling.

:snake:

 

[TessaG]

I also suspect that she knew that court and how she could get in by that other door and she wanted to avoid Roux and his team. Also she probably knew that she would have to reveal a few things when Nel cross-examined her as she was not going to lie.

OF course! She would know her way around that building and the routine of summoning witnesses.
Only just back tonight and its wine o'clock and something off Sky+ for me now. (UK)
I'll watch the good Doctor's testimony again tomorrow.

Will catch up on the other post you mentioned, too.
See you in the morning.

 

[lithgow1]

Just found and started to watch this. Not sure if it's been posted before/yet.

Oscar Pistorius Sent For Psychiatric Tests - Day 32 - YouTube

 

[Hatfield]

Havent been able to follow much lately. Did I hear this right on the news that OP is being forced to go for 30 day assessment but he can do it as outpatient?