Trial Discussion weekend Thread #24

[shane13]

Any sure convictions at this P.I.T.?

As a quick summary, I will leave out the killing of Reeva, except that again it would seem at lest CH charge seems proven even from just the BH affi. But still I will leave that out.

Now if Dad, H.P. refused to say .38 ammo was his, and OP had no license, this seems like a sure conviction, yes?

Next the shooting thru the sunroof. It is 2 against 1.
Probably for most defendants, a guilty verdict would be rendered, but let's say that judge will say no objective evidence or proof. So IMO OP will be ruled innocent here.

The Tasha "immaculate" shooting. One would think here that there are too many witnesses at the table, and OP has now admitted to holding the gun when it miraculously went off "by itself." Judges should not buy "accident" or such so easily. So I would think there is a good chance she will rule against OP here... But I would not wager on it for various reasons.

 

[patCee]

An article about RS sister's feelings. In the future the family plan to open a refuge and support service for women suffering domestic violence.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-horror-smirking-Bladerunner-face-court.html

 

[BritsKate]

Wow, thanks for the reply!
I might miss several points in my story and plz pardon me for that
Actually I come up with the story only to express my worry that -
Should OP kill Reeva in this kind of setting, say, neither intentional premeditated murder (as by GN) nor unfortunate mistaking self-protection (as by OP) but rather an intricate meld of the two, would GN be pushing too hard in his current fashion?

I'm not sure I'm understanding so correct me if I'm wrong. Oscar's version is he never meant to shoot, or kill, anyone at all. It happened too quickly for him to even entertain the intent of killing someone. The State's version is he acted with intent to kill someone and even if that someone wasn't Reeva the intent was still there - so it's still murder.

Premeditation is seriously murky is SA law - I've seen that it can consist of seconds before the crime, at the time of the crime, that the amount of wounds could be argued for it - but I've also read that premeditation is held to a higher standard in SA than in the US. But for a killing to be a murder there has to be intent - even if only transferred intent - and the only way to really refute such intent is to prove putative self-defence...which Oscar is attempting. If he's successful, he can't be found guilty of murder but could still be found guilty of culpable homicide - which is akin to manslaughter or negligent homicide in other jurisdictions.

The law is black and white. There can't be a melding of murder and culpable homicide but there certainly can be for sentencing. Premeditation would guarantee a longer sentence - proven putative self-defence would secure a shorter sentence, if any at all. So no...I don't think Gerrie Nel is pushing too hard - he's trying to prove his highest charge to reach the maximum punishment under the law.

HTH

 

[steveml]

Any sure convictions at this P.I.T.?

As a quick summary, I will leave out the killing of Reeva, except that again it would seem at lest CH charge seems proven even from just the BH affi. But still I will leave that out.

Now if Dad, H.P. refused to say .38 ammo was his, and OP had no license, this seems like a sure conviction, yes?

Next the shooting thru the sunroof. It is 2 against 1.
Probably for most defendants, a guilty verdict would be rendered, but let's say that judge will say no objective evidence or proof. So IMO OP will be ruled innocent here.

The Tasha "immaculate" shooting. One would think here that there are too many witnesses at the table, and OP has now admitted to holding the gun when it miraculously went off "by itself." Judges should not buy "accident" or such so easily. So I would think there is a good chance she will rule against OP here... But I would not wager on it for various reasons.

That's where I'm at. The sunroof incident is the only one which is a bit 50/50 for me.

 

[truantotter]

Bit rude. I'm sure you meant welcome but we may have covered that possibility.

Two questions at the end were good ones though.



Did you know 100% Reeva wasn't behind the door?

OP. No I couldn't be 100% sure she wasn't behind the door.

Then can you admit she could of been behind the door?....

Or something like that

,

Thanks!
I should have just said "how about asking the following question ..."

 

[Emz73]

Particular fairy tales and fictitious creations "of guilt" massively exonerate even Oscar's occasional outlandish interpretations. LOL.

???? Not sure what any of this means.

 

[44ALLAN]

Well actually, you are ignoring the testimony from the state pathologist that the first shot hit Reeva on the hip allowing her time to scream.

Exactly........then the pause while she fell with a shattered hip..before the next 3 'angled' shots to her head while he was looking at her through the gap in the door....that he had smashed through with the cricket bat..............BEFORE any shots.
The angle of the shots says it all to me.............panic/split second/no balance on my stumps/I heard 'wood moving/ !!!!.....( the door was locked after the shooting so he couldn't have heard that fgs because the door didn't move so that is a downright lie !) no time to think before I discharged my weapon 4 times........yeah rite mate..........all lies IMO.

Just joined to say that lol.
Hi all

 

[soozieqtips]

I have to miss the whole of Monday's testimony :frown:

Anyone have any ideas how much longer Nel could cross OP for? He's only taken him through to the shooting so far and there's all the stuff after. Could he be on the stand another week??

Also, I wonder how many times "I didn't think" will crop up. I'm guessing at least a dozen.

 

[truantotter]

I'm not sure I'm understanding so correct me if I'm wrong. Oscar's version is he never meant to shoot, or kill, anyone at all. It happened too quickly for him to even entertain the intent of killing someone. The State's version is he acted with intent to kill someone and even if that someone wasn't Reeva the intent was still there - so it's still murder.



Premeditation is seriously murky is SA law - I've seen that it can consist of seconds before the crime, at the time of the crime, that the amount of wounds could be argued for it - but I've also read that premeditation is held to a higher standard in SA than in the US. But for a killing to be a murder there has to be intent - even if only transferred intent - and the only way to really refute such intent is to prove putative self-defence...which Oscar is attempting. If he's successful, he can't be found guilty of murder but could still be found guilty of culpable homicide - which is akin to manslaughter or negligent homicide in other jurisdictions.



The law is black and white. There can't be a melding of murder and culpable homicide but there certainly can be for sentencing. Premeditation would guarantee a longer sentence - proven putative self-defence would secure a shorter sentence, if any at all. So no...I don't think Gerrie Nel is pushing too hard - he's trying to prove his highest charge to reach the maximum punishment under the law.



HTH

Thanks BritsKate!
I'm now in a situation where I found something wrong in my previous thinking but have not yet established a new one ...
I need to go sleep now. Good night!

 

[Rumpole]

You are wrong.
It's not beyond ALL doubt. It's beyond a reasonable one. Huge difference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

beyond a reasonable "one" what?

I have no idea what you are arguing or why?

The State have to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.

They have not done that IMO.. They have not actually laid out a comprehensive version of events.

Nel has stated for the record several times that the State contends that the shots were at 3:17.

THAT in itself is impossible and so without hearing their complete version, there is more than "doubt". Their case is nonsense.

Beyond that.. their own witnesses disagree on significant points. That in itself is "doubt" about their own version from within. Their case comes with doubt built in. It is a joke really.

 

[Lyra500]

Except--how does a dead woman scream? She was dead at 3am.

And, OP could not say he heard her scream or else he's shooting his screaming girlfriend.

Do you have a link for the assertion that everyone is agreed that she died at 3am? That was not my understanding.

 

[Emz73]

Wow, thanks for the reply!
I might miss several points in my story and plz pardon me for that
Actually I come up with the story only to express my worry that -
Should OP kill Reeva in this kind of setting, say, neither intentional premeditated murder (as by GN) nor unfortunate mistaking self-protection (as by OP) but rather an intricate meld of the two, would GN be pushing too hard in his current fashion?

Yes I think it was an accident, temper, rage thing but he knew she was in there. I don't think he wanted to kill her but just scare her. If his story is real then he should be locked up for being a completely deluded irresponsible twat.

 

[BritsKate]

I have to miss the whole of Monday's testimony :frown:

Anyone have any ideas how much longer Nel could cross OP for? He's only taken through to the shooting so far and there's all the stuff after. Could he be on the stand another week??

Also, I wonder how many times "I didn't think" will crop up. I'm guessing at least a dozen.

Yeah, well, my protest replete with picket sign to ban school holidays didn't impress the head teacher so I'm likely to miss the next two weeks! So, there, nanana boo boo, I beat you, baba! :blowkiss:

I think at least a couple more days if not longer. Oscar is the gift that just keeps giving.

 

[Emz73]

Yep, it did didn't it.

I have seen on twitter where those tweets came from and the correspondence. There is a troll on twitter who claims to be a friend of Oscar who hated reeva. I would hardly make up my mind from them. Its twitter after all.

 

[Gryffindor]

Steve/ Rumpole

As part of the State's "argument" catalyst, what do you reckon they'll suggest the argument was about? They've zilch evidence so far presented.

 

[soozieqtips]

Yeah, well, my protest replete with picket sign to ban school holidays didn't impress the head teacher so I'm likely to miss the next two weeks! So, there, nanana boo boo, I beat you, baba! :blowkiss:

I think at least a couple more days if not longer.
Oscar is the gift that just keeps giving.

He really is, isn't he? I have no internet at work (sucks!) but your situation is way worse! Will you be able to watch the trial after work on one of the websites that shows it? I'm going to try and do that. I can't miss Nel!!! I think he's terrific at leading OP down a blind path and then cleverly trapping him into his own lies. He must have known Roux would have given him scripted answers, so his method of questioning is really effective because OP is having to go back and forth without being able to focus on anything in sequence, which no doubt makes it harder for him to remember his lines.

 

[kaos]

Wildabouttrial have good archive video of it.

 

[sorrell skye]

Particular fairy tales and fictitious creations "of guilt" massively exonerate even Oscar's occasional outlandish interpretations. LOL.

BBM

Exonerate means to: absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, or to prove that someone is not guilty of a crime.

How do anyone's theories of guilt prove that OP is not guilty?

 

[BritsKate]

He really is, isn't he? I have no internet at work (sucks!) but your situation is way worse! Will you be able to watch the trial after work on one of the websites that shows it? I'm going to try and do that. I can't miss Nel!!! I think he's terrific at leading OP down a blind path and then cleverly trapping him into his own lies. He must have known Roux would have given him scripted answers, so his method of questioning is really effective because OP is having to go back and forth without being able to focus on anything in sequence, which no doubt makes it harder for him to remember his lines.

Either that or bribe Zwiebel with crumpets now through Shrien Dewani's trial.

 

[DebinGA]

The part of the fairy tale where OP says that Reeva told him to come to the bathroom with her to brush his teeth, he says he went and did that on his stumps, on the tile. I think he put that part in to imply he casually moves around all over the place on his stumps without worry. But then he later says he can't move around freely on his stumps, too unstable and also too dangerous on tile. Those two statements conflict with each other. Just more OP bs. If you look at it the "brushing his teeth" fabrication seems to go to try to answer why he would go after an intruder in his bathroom on his stumps.

*OP said (I don't remember w/Roux or Nel), "I can barely stand on my stumps, much less wield a bat."
...........................................................................................................
* Medical study about mobility of leg amputees:
http://jbjs.org/article.aspx?articleid=17545

"The results demonstrated that in amputees there is an increased dependence on vision for maintenance of the erect posture. Postural sway in patients with below-the-knee amputations was found to be significantly greater than that in those with above-the-knee amputations. Postural sway increased with age; but the visual dependence for the control of postural sway was independent of age."
...........................................................................................................
OP no doubt had balance issues on his stumps due to his below-the-knee-amputations, but maintaining his balance was dependent on "vision"... in other words being able to see where he was going. No way would OP willingly navigate in the dark without turning on a light, especially to reposition fans, etc. And the light was on in the bathroom, just as the Stipps said, when he took aim and fired his gun at the cubicle door.