Trial Discussion weekend Thread #24

[Trooper]

I confess that I haven't read every word pertaining to the event. However, based on what is known/claimed:

A man who is very unstable on his stumps, responds to a perceived threat by choosing to risk moving across a slippery floor to confront a supposed intruder, who is presumably able-bodied and armed. He tells the woman he is so keen to protect to call the police.

Why not get down behind the bed with Reeva and protect them both with his great marksmanship? The intruder won't even know that they are there.

From behind the bed, Reeva can call security? They will surely get there much faster than the police. By the time police get there, all would have been played out.

Also, why does an affluent person who presumably moves around on his stumps at home have a floor that is too slippery to move around on safely?

BBM and has done so , without any mentioned injury for 6 years... ..

 

[AlwaysShocked]

To explain a couple of things people have asked about:

Oscar switching sides in the bed: First of all, rather than using right and left sides, which at times seems to get mixed up, I will use "window side" and "bathroom side" of bed. Oscar usually slept on the window side. But he had an injured right shoulder. He said that he could not lay on that side. So he switched sides in the bed that night so he could be laying on his left side, facing Reeva. Said he did not want to sleep with his back to her.

Turning the alarm off: He said he turned the alarm off before leaving the bedroom to go downstairs to unlock the front door. Nel asked (words to this effect) "And you remember doing that? Turning the alarm off?" His answer was "Well, I must have. I always turn it off before I leave the bedroom." So then Nel went on to ask him why he is testifying that he did something when he obviously does not really remember doing it, that he is just "reconstructing it". So that's how things got going between the two of them on this issue. Nels pointed out that testimony needs to be what he actually remembers doing, not what he thinks he must have done, etc. etc. And that's where Oscar finally ended up saying that he had testified incorrectly.

ETA: And yes, this would be the alarm system that did not go off when the sliding door the the patio was open, nor did it go off when the bathroom window was opened. Nor - if one believed OP's reasoning, did it go off when burglars climbed his wall, entered his yard, crossed his yard, placed a ladder up against the side of his house, climbed the ladder, and climbed through the bathroom window.

Said burgler was really lickety-split in things, too. From the time Oscar "heard" the bathroom window opening to getting his gun to coming down the hallway into the bathroom and assuming a firing stance - how many seconds? Because in that same time, the "burgler" had to have entered the bathroom through the window into that bathtub, climbed out of the bathtub and gotten into the toilet area and closed the door behind him.

I assume the police looked for any footprints or other signs of a burgler having been in that bathtub.

 

[Patagonia]

Under SA law you are only allowed to shoot in self defense if you believe yourself to be in mortal danger and you have no way to escape from an attacker.

So my guess is premeditated murder. Premeditated because you had the presence of mind to get the gun, point it and shoot it four times. Once may be an accident, but not four times.

http://www.dutoitattorneys.com/legal-services/criminal-law1/self-defense

No way. Especially since it is Oscar we are talking about. And it would be enough to prove he did it out of fear, which everybody would believe since he could have had no reason to kill her, let alone intentionally

 

[nastasya]

When OP was asked why he advanced towards the danger and not exit through the bedroom door to the rest of the house, his answer was:

"It's my personality not to run away."

He just identified that it was HIS personality that led him to put himself in danger, not the actions of a reasonable person.

This is not complicated. He was not in danger in his room. He got a gun, left his room, put himself in whatever danger he imagined was there, and fired his gun.

Preemptive killing somebody is murder, even in SA, right?

 

[BabaJ]

Did OP deactivate the alarm in a deliberate attempt to stop Reeva alerting security?
He says he deactivated it before he went downstairs to open the door.

"I was not aware of any malfunction of my alarm in 2013," says Pistorius, who says he deactivated it before going downstairs to open the door. Nel seizes on this saying, saying he is changing the evidence as he goes along.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/11/oscar-pistorius-trial-live-11-april

I am just listening to this part again. the issue is that he mentioned in his affidavit that there was work done to his house and some of the beacons were de-activated but he had somebody check afterwards to make sure everything works. Then he started talking about work being done to the house in February 2013 saying that some of the beacons outside could have been removed and therefore, not working. Nel was asking if he checked the alarm that night whether it worked probably, which he did not. Nel also mentioned that he did not say anything about possible 2013 alarm malfunction in his statement. There was a typical wiggling around and then OP said that Roux did not ask him about it etc. etc. Then Nel stated that OP had written down that he turned the alarm off when he went to open the door for Stander (?) but during cross-examination he said he did not remember etc. etc.

 

[Patagonia]

:goodpost: :floorlaugh:

Don't be naughty, lol I didn't mean it in a naughty way

 

[Viper]

I agree. But I think in SA he would get off with suspended sentence. Due to other cases of mistaken identity happening there. And due to Oscar being a national hero.

But this is different, here we have Oscar clearly lying under oath about what happened that night, and his story being full of holes...

First, I believe that my previous humorous reply to your other post may have been misplaced.

BIB. I am aware of three (3) homicides in SA that ended in a sentence of no confinement. In OPs case he is clearly mirroring those 3 cases in his version of events and his defense. Just because OP wants the same outcome, a one in a million chance, does in no way mean that it is likely or even possible. If you research and understand the stark differences between what OP did and what really happened in those other three cases you will likely understand.

What OP did was premeditated murder and he will get nothing less than the mandatory minimum sentence, 25 years. If he did not then it would be very perilous indeed for any woman to go to the toilet when her boyfriend / husband was in the home.

 

[BabaJ]

OP's 'version' about the Tasha's incident is just so ludicrous, that it's worth reading again to see just how ludicrous it is.


"The gun went off by itself?" Nel asked.

Pistorius was adamant: "I know that my finger was not on the trigger."

An incredulous Nel went on: "We have you in possession of the gun, a shot went off, but you didn't discharge the gun?... I'm putting it to you, you fired that gun. There is no other way. You are lying."

Pistorius replied: "I respect Mr Nel's comment, but "I didn't pull the trigger on that firearm. I didn't pull the trigger. I didn't have time to think."

This is unbelievable, isn't it?:banghead:

 

[Patagonia]

Pistorius replied: "I respect Mr Nel's comment, but "I didn't pull the trigger on that firearm. I didn't pull the trigger. I didn't have time to think."

He said ''I didn't have time to think'' when speaking about the Tasha's incident, also? :facepalm:

Damn it, Baba, I really tried to have an open mind but you've made it too difficult.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

Here's an article about an unpleasant encounter a woman had with Oscar in 2011:

"Oscar Pistorius - Hero or Hooligan?
03 November 2011, 12:44


Oscar and those around him like to paint him as a hero. An athlete who should be regarded as a positive role-model. Someone who should be emulated.

But what and who is the real Oscar? Is he a hero or is the truth that he is closer to a hooligan than we are usually led to believe? We have seen glimpses of the "non-hero" a number of times in the press. The boating accident and stories of drunkenness associated with the incident. The girl and the purported assault – again with stories of associated alcohol abuse. All of these stories have been rapidly, even vehemently denied. Nothing should tarnish the hero image."

.......

"There are a number of questions that have been left in our minds as a result of our unfortunate encounter with Oscar. Firstly, if he is such a ‘hero’ why was his default position one of extreme profanity, arrogance and disregard – even contempt - for others. Secondly, why did he believe being drunk excused his disgusting behaviour. Finally and I believe probably the most serious indictment against him from my perspective was related to why he felt the need to be abusive to women. The attack on us was without any provocation whatsoever. Not that I believe that provocation ever serves to excuse abusive behaviour but it does sometimes allow us to explain its occurence."

http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Oscar-Pistorius-Hero-or-Hooligan-20111103

 

[Patagonia]

First, I believe that my previous humorous reply to your other post may have been misplaced.

BIB. I am aware of three (3) homicides in SA that ended in a sentence of no confinement. In OPs case he is clearly mirroring those 3 cases in his version of events and his defense. Just because OP wants the same outcome, a one in a million chance, does in no way mean that it is likely or even possible. If you research and understand the stark differences between what OP did and what really happened in those other three cases you will likely understand.

I only know of a man who shot through a window into his own car and killed his daughter (who was in his car), but heard there were others. No charges were brought in this case, although clearly no danger/self defense, etc.

And since Oscar was a well loved national hero, I believe he would get of with culpable homicide and suspended sentence, but I may be wrong of course, it's just my opinion

What OP did was premeditated murder and he will get nothing less than the mandatory minimum sentence, 25 years. If he did not then it would be very perilous indeed for any woman to go to the toilet when her boyfriend / husband was in the home.

I wouldn't bet on it...

 

[Trooper]

Nel has edged Oscar up to the point where he is firing in the bathroom.... the Screaming Woman has been introduced to Oscar, and to no ones surprise, Oscar has stated he didn't hear her..

Its now coming up to the time where Oscar has to demonstrate to the courts satisfaction that it was indeed he, and not Reeva who did some of the screaming heard that night.. to lay to rest whether the witnesses heard , as they testified , a woman screaming with the descriptors of 'blood curdling' ' terrified, terrified', 'painfilled','frightened, fearful'...

His defence relies categorically on this fact.. its been presented as the defence to the entire argument.. that Oscar, and only Oscar uttered each and every sound, scream, cry, call, wail, shout, yell, and argumentary sound .

At this point in Oscars story, ( he is firing thru the door ) the last word Reeva ever spoke , the last sound she uttered on this earth, was, and its a late entry into the race, ' can't you sleep, baba'.... he now remembers this a year on. ..and this is now at least some 150 or 200 seconds ago....

He's bought the fans in, adjusted the curtains, thrown the jeans over the led light, heard the 'sound', grabbed his gun, whispered to Reeva, shouted to the intruder, shouted to Reeva, got himself on wobbly and unstable surfaces to the bathroom, fired the gun..

Now he has to replicate the same sounds the witnesses testified to , right here, at this point.. never mind the argumentative sounds mrs VD Merwe heard 40 minutes or so previously. its right here, at this precise point in time, where Oscar has to replicate screams of himself, and screams of Reeva, and also, mingled screams of both him and Reeva..

any takers he can do it??

 

[Patagonia]

First, I believe that my previous humorous reply to your other post may have been misplaced.

Why, lol?

I really did get the feeling that SA, due to its many horrific crimes done by the intruders, is much more lenient in cases like this (hypothetical one), and views/treats them a little differently, than maybe some other countries.

 

[nastasya]

And since Oscar was a well loved national hero...

He's turning into a national embarrassment.

Just a guess, but I would think that the judge is going to err on the side of a harsh sentence. If not, SA legal system will look like a joke. Every time somebody kills somebody they'll claim the gun shot itself.

 

[Linda7NJ]

When OP was asked why he advanced towards the danger and not exit through the bedroom door to the rest of the house, his answer was:



"It's my personality not to run away."



He just identified that it was HIS personality that led him to put himself in danger, not the actions of a reasonable person.



This is not complicated. He was not in danger in his room. He got a gun, left his room, put himself in whatever danger he imagined was there, and fired his gun.



Preemptive killing somebody is murder, even in SA, right?

It certainly is to me.

I will never be convinced he was in fear or that he did not know that it was her in that bathroom.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Viper]

I only know of a man who shot through a window into his own car and killed his daughter (who was in his car), but heard there were others. No charges were brought in this case, although clearly no danger/self defense, etc.

And since Oscar was a well loved national hero, I believe he would get of with culpable homicide and suspended sentence, but I may be wrong of course, it's just my opinion



I wouldn't bet on it...

Why do you believe that a national hero will certainly get special treatment from the court? The SA courts have convicted much more powerful and influential men. OP is just a man. A SA man. He had a gun and he murdered his girlfriend, that is not particularly special.

 

[IfIMay]

Nel has edged Oscar up to the point where he is firing in the bathroom.... the Screaming Woman has been introduced to Oscar, and to no ones surprise, Oscar has stated he didn't hear her..

Its now coming up to the time where Oscar has to demonstrate to the courts satisfaction that it was indeed he, and not Reeva who did some of the screaming heard that night.. to lay to rest whether the witnesses heard , as they testified , a woman screaming with the descriptors of 'blood curdling' ' terrified, terrified', 'painfilled','frightened, fearful'...

His defence relies categorically on this fact.. its been presented as the defence to the entire argument.. that Oscar, and only Oscar uttered each and every sound, scream, cry, call, wail, shout, yell, and argumentary sound .

At this point in Oscars story, ( he is firing thru the door ) the last word Reeva ever spoke , the last sound she uttered on this earth, was, and its a late entry into the race, ' can't you sleep, baba'.... he now remembers this a year on. ..and this is now at least some 150 or 200 seconds ago....

He's bought the fans in, adjusted the curtains, thrown the jeans over the led light, heard the 'sound', grabbed his gun, whispered to Reeva, shouted to the intruder, shouted to Reeva, got himself on wobbly and unstable surfaces to the bathroom, fired the gun..

Now he has to replicate the same sounds the witnesses testified to , right here, at this point.. never mind the argumentative sounds mrs VD Merwe heard 40 minutes or so previously. its right here, at this precise point in time, where Oscar has to replicate screams of himself, and screams of Reeva, and also, mingled screams of both him and Reeva..

any takers he can do it??

BBM

No. He says definitely (as only Oscar can do) that she DID NOT scream. Never mind that he's been deafened by firing his precious gun. He says she DID NOT scream.

And I don't think he will try. He will have to rely on his word. There is no way he CAN recreate Reeva's scream of terror.. any attempt would seal his fate.

 

[Trooper]

Why, lol?

I really did get the feeling that SA, due to its many horrific crimes done by the intruders, is much more lenient in cases like this (hypothetical one), and views/treats them a little differently, than maybe some other countries.

in the particular cases you cite.. 2 pleaded guilty, and threw themselves on the mercy of the court, on the other, the man and the daughter, no prosecution was pursued due to so many mitigating circumstances..

Oscar has pleaded Not Guilty. which changes the parameters unequivocally.

 

[Patagonia]

At this point in Oscars story, ( he is firing thru the door ) the last word Reeva ever spoke , the last sound she uttered on this earth, was, and its a late entry into the race, ' can't you sleep, baba'.... he now remembers this a year on. ..and this is now at least some 150 or 200 seconds ago....

YES! No mention of this in his Affidavit! How come?!?

Granted, Affi's are not meant to be detailed, but hey - this is VERY important. Whether Reeva was awake or not is not some unimportant detail, and is definitely not something you would leave out of your Affidavit and simply not mention!

 

[katydid23]

I am just listening to this part again. the issue is that he mentioned in his affidavit that there was work done to his house and some of the beacons were de-activated but he had somebody check afterwards to make sure everything works. Then he started talking about work being done to the house in February 2013 saying that some of the beacons outside could have been removed and therefore, not working. Nel was asking if he checked the alarm that night whether it worked probably, which he did not. Nel also mentioned that he did not say anything about possible 2013 alarm malfunction in his statement. There was a typical wiggling around and then OP said that Roux did not ask him about it etc. etc. Then Nel stated that OP had written down that he turned the alarm off when he went to open the door for Stander (?) but during cross-examination he said he did not remember etc. etc.

Which is mind boggling. Why turn off the alarm? Why not run downstairs and let it go off, so it would bring some more help to him?