Trial Discussion weekend Thread #24

[Suthrnqt]

<modsnip>

That's a long term relationship. What else was the context?

Context of domestic violence? Context of dementia? Context of they hated each other?

Or do you see that as a random argument between couples that escalated to murder?

:facepalm:

 

[Linda7NJ]

http://elitedaily.com/news/world/man-kills-teen-girlfriend-photos-male-strippers/

Here ya go. They were dating for FOUR months... IMO the case is strikingly similar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[shane13]

Do we know who took OP to the hospital to get the blood tests done?

Brigadier General Gérard Labuschagne PhD (head of SAPS Inv Psy Unit) was with him acc. to OP's testimony. !!

 

[minor4th]

http://elitedaily.com/news/world/man-kills-teen-girlfriend-photos-male-strippers/

Here ya go. They were dating for FOUR months... IMO the case is strikingly similar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And prior to killing her, he had threatened to kill her 15 times with a hammer and there was domestic violence, including choking, during their relationship

See, if Nel had some other circumstantial evidence like that it would be much easier to draw the inferences necessary for premeditation - but he has none of that.

 

[BritsKate]

<modsnip>

That's a long term relationship. What else was the context?

Context of domestic violence? Context of dementia? Context of they hated each other?

Or do you see that as a random argument between couples that escalated to murder?

Many would argue murder of a significant other the height of intimate partner violence but I'm not certain I understand what it is you're asking?

Many IPV (or DV) murders occur when the victim is leaving but certainly not all. What triggers those, and other murders, are a mixed bag. Lori Hacking was murdered because Mark was going to be exposed as a prolific liar and to his own mind a failure. Laci Rocha, Rachel Souza and their babies were murdered by men who didn't want to be tied down with a family. Michelle Young, and her unborn child, were murdered by Jason so he could pursue an affair with one of her friends. In each and every one of the cases I referenced there were absolutely no claims of previous physical violence. With the exception of Michelle Young, who had only just been told by a counselor she was in an emotionally abusive relationship because she couldn't see the signs herself, there weren't even any allegations of any form of abuse.

 

[G.bng]

respectfully snipped

Even so, he probably was given a choice and told of all the consequence of failing to be a good witness and refused to run away from the responsibility. The very fact that he's in the witness box and allowed himself to be cross examined for so many days on end without his helpers shows that he's taken responsibility for his actions. Action speak louder than words. And it is uncharitable (and really quite foolish) for Nel to have suggested otherwise.

Sorry, but you are incorrect. OP is not testifying because he wants to, as he claimed, waiting a year to give his version out of respect for Reeva. Indeed, OP has NO option but to testify and Roux or Oldwadge said as much when they told the press "It's not IF OP testifies, it's when" (u/c mine)

The appeal judgement for the De Olivier case shows why OP had to testify if he wanted to try to save his own skin (link:http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/1993/62.html):

In the circumstances there was prima facie proof that the appellant could not have entertained an honest belief that he was entitled to act in private defence. The appellant failed to testify as to his state of mind and to refute this prima facie proof. His silence must weigh heavily against him. As was said by Schreiner J in R v Mohr 1944 T P D at 108:

"It is not easy for a Court to come to a conclusion favourable to the accused as to his state of mind unless he has himself given evidence on the subject."
​

The appellant's failure to testify therefore resulted in the prima facie proof that he did not entertain an honest belief that he was entitled to act in private defence becoming conclusive proof of that fact. The appellant's defence of putative private defence was therefore correctly rejected by the trial Court.

I would suggest you may like to also read up on the case "S v Mdunge", in which Mdunge shot his very pregnant wife through the bathroom door as it was opening thinking she was a burglar. He collaborated fully with the police and made a plea bargain for CH. He got an 8 years suspended sentence. OP wants no less than an acquittal after his reckless deed and has refused to talk until now and imo if he could have avoided taking the stand he would have done so. On the other had he co-operated fully with the police and told his full story and plea bargained CH instead of lawyering up, then we probably wouldn't be here today and Reeva's family would have been able to move on and find the peace they deserve after the brutal and avoidable killing of their only daughter by OP.

 

[fox1lady]

http://elitedaily.com/news/world/man-kills-teen-girlfriend-photos-male-strippers/

Here ya go. They were dating for FOUR months... IMO the case is strikingly similar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow that guy is wacky!!! It just goes to show what jealousy can do though

 

[Val1]

It was testified by an expert witness. As far as I know, both sides agree that the shots were fired before the door was broken down.

bbm - Broken down and dented are two different things, imo. Dented could account for bang sounds, broken down is easily explained.. I think even OP testified that he pried and then pulled the panels out, which certainly would not have made a loud enough sound to carry far, other than perhaps the one panel that looks like it may have dented that metal plate on the tub.

I believe the first set of sounds were from him scaring the heck out of RS after breaking through the bedroom door where she'd gone to pack to leave after an argument and then with the bat and possibly the air rifle. The second set were when he deliberately shot and killed her through the toilet door(I'm still of the opinion that he may have locked her in there himself to keep her from leaving, no evidence as yet showing a blood splattered key), it would have taken less than a minute to pop those panels out once he wedged the bat in that initial crack, breaking the door down would have been to simply to try and cover his tracks after the fact.

 

[weeeva]

He imagined this noise because the door was locked. Maybe he heard it too often who knows. But then he has no credibility so I discount everything he says.

Yes that is what I said. He imagined, or should I say he said he imagined the door opening.

 

[Linda7NJ]

So show me one that relates to our case.



Random argument leading to murder---out of the blue.

I did.

Short term relationship
Jealousy
Short temper
Felt entitled
Coddled
Controlling.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jilly]

Sorry, but you are incorrect. OP is not testifying because he wants to, as he claimed, waiting a year to give his version out of respect for Reeva. Indeed, OP has NO option but to testify and Roux or Oldwadge said as much when they told the press "It's not IF OP testifies, it's when" (u/c mine)

The appeal judgement for the De Olivier case shows why OP had to testify if he wanted to try to save his own skin (link:http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/1993/62.html):



I would suggest you may like to also read up on the case "S v Mdunge", in which Mdunge shot his very pregnant wife through the bathroom door as it was opening thinking she was a burglar. He collaborated fully with the police and made a plea bargain for CH. He got an 8 years suspended sentence. OP wants no less than an acquittal after his reckless deed and has refused to talk until now and imo if he could have avoided taking the stand he would have done so. On the other had he co-operated fully with the police and told his full story and plea bargained CH instead of lawyering up, then we probably wouldn't be here today and Reeva's family would have been able to move on and find the peace they deserve after the brutal and avoidable killing of their only daughter by OP.

Very interesting. Thank you. Unfortunately the link doesn't work.

Also, Reeva has a sister.

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

 

[molly333]

Many would argue murder of a significant other the height of intimate partner violence but I'm not certain I understand what it is you're asking?

Many IPV (or DV) murders occur when the victim is leaving but certainly not all. What triggers those, and other murders, are a mixed bag. Lori Hacking was murdered because Mark was going to be exposed as a prolific liar and to his own mind a failure. Laci Rocha, Rachel Souza and their babies were murdered by men who didn't want to be tied down with a family. Michelle Young, and her unborn child, were murdered by Jason so he could pursue an affair with one of her friends. In each and every one of the cases I referenced there were absolutely no claims of previous physical violence. With the exception of Michelle Young, who had only just been told by a counselor she was in an emotionally abusive relationship because she couldn't see the signs herself, there weren't even any allegations of any form of abuse.

They all have a context. Even if there are no claims of domestic violence, there is clearly domestic violence.

Context: Mark Hacking lying to wife about his entire life. Context: Lori has just found out and will expose and/or leave him.

You think that's not long term domestic abuse?


I'm looking for:

Context: see you soon baba baby booboo *advertiser censored* Context: shot dead 3 times over.

 

[Emz73]

Give me an example--between a man and a woman who are in relationship with each other.

Not sure of stats but twice a week in the UK.. and yes over nothing!!! DV is about control. Peas not being cooked, looked at a bloke, didn't tidy up, didn't shut the curtains, saw an ex boyfriend, looked at them the wrong way, didn't want sex, challenged them on their behaviour......anything. when they own a gun to threaten with even easier.

 

[fox1lady]

"If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." this pretty much got OJ off the hook in his trial when his defence lawyers did the "glove test".

What one thing, if anything will save OP do you think?

 

[clearskies1]

Sorry, but you are incorrect. OP is not testifying because he wants to, as he claimed, waiting a year to give his version out of respect for Reeva. Indeed, OP has NO option but to testify and Roux or Oldwadge said as much when they told the press "It's not IF OP testifies, it's when" (u/c mine)

The appeal judgement for the De Olivier case shows why OP had to testify if he wanted to try to save his own skin (link:http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/1993/62.html):



I would suggest you may like to also read up on the case "S v Mdunge", in which Mdunge shot his very pregnant wife through the bathroom door as it was opening thinking she was a burglar. He collaborated fully with the police and made a plea bargain for CH. He got an 8 years suspended sentence. OP wants no less than an acquittal after his reckless deed and has refused to talk until now and imo if he could have avoided taking the stand he would have done so. On the other had he co-operated fully with the police and told his full story and plea bargained CH instead of lawyering up, then we probably wouldn't be here today and Reeva's family would have been able to move on and find the peace they deserve after the brutal and avoidable killing of their only daughter by OP.

Further on this point, had he not taken the stand I don't think his bail affidavit or detailed plea would have been accepted as evidence since there was no opportunity for the state to CE those statements. If that's the case, had he not taken the stand the only evidence to support his claim of [accidental?] self-defense would be his statement to Stander that he thought Reeva was a burglar.

MOO

 

[molly333]

Phil Spector.

Long history of being reckless and inappropriate with a fire arm.
Entitled
Spoiled
Liar
Ever changing stories
Refused to take responsibility




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Phil Spector is getting close. But, he had a history of threatening women [and men] with guns.

He also said some incriminating things to people [like his driver] if I recall.

This was his first date with this woman. There was no relationship.

Specifically: why did the Jury find him guilty? On what evidence?

 

[BritsKate]

For every one of those you've cited a motive.

No motive suggested as yet, from the PT, for Oscar . .

I stated a motive because I believed, perhaps incorrectly, that's what was being asked. The State is under no obligation to suggest a motive but I believe they have introduced an argument to serve as the 'reason' Oscar deliberately murdered Reeva. They do have to prove intent. Obviously, it's disputed whether or not the State has done so to everyone's satisfaction or this would be a really boring thread.

The question then is whether the accused had the requisite intention to kill another person. Intention must not be confused with motive. The person’s motive is the reason why he acted in the manner he did and is usually thought of as irrelevant for determining guilt. Motive can explain why an accused formed the intention to kill another person, but is separate from that intention.

http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/oscar-pistorius-criminal-law-101/

 

[fox1lady]

Must get some sleep... goodnight all

Before I go though, I'm now thinking that OP asked Reeva how her meeting with the ex boyfriend went and Reeva "told a funny story about him" which OP really didn't like and then an argument occurred... the rest is history! Goodnight

 

[jay-jay]

One of the witnesses, Mr. Johnson, was surprised when he heard the next day that what he had heard the night before was, as he put it, "a domestic violence situation."

The reason he was surprised is because he heard the man calling for help, too. He had thought it was a home invasion.

He heard the man and woman calling for help, one right after the other. He thought that maybe they were tied up by home invaders.

Now, if Reeva is sincerely shouting 'help' to the neighborhood [he heard the woman first] and Oscar mimics her to confuse the neighbors, how diabolical is that?

I don't think he mimicked her to confuse the neighbours .. I think OP was mimicking Reeva's cries for help by saying 'help, help, help' in a mocking voice.

By the way, I agree with pretty much everything you say about the night in question .. all apart from the bit where you say that Reeva was going to tell him it was over that night, after taking a Valentine's gift with her which she said to OP not to open until the next day .. that just doesn't make any sense to me that she would do that. It just seems more likely, to me, that she was excited about Valentine's Day (having spent time and thought putting together that gift for him) and was disappointed that he had nothing for her .. she may even have been so excited about Valentine's Day that she woke up early in the morning (1am-ish) to give him her neatly wrapped box only to find that he didn't have anything to give her in return .. and an argument broke out before he even opened it, due to her being upset and him not understanding why she was upset. Valentines Day is one of the biggest days for domestic abuse, so it's hardly a stretch of the imagination to think that something like this happened and which started an argument that just escalated out of control .. because it wouldn't just have been about the gift (or lack of), that would just have been the start of it, then everything else would've then come up from all the previous rows, all piling up one on top of the other until it finally exploded.

 

[Harmony 2]

1) "Maybe go see him and come through when your done", does the word maybe come across as someone who is keen for that meeting to take place?, to me personally and from past experience it comes across as him not being keen but making an effort to fight his jealous urge's, maybe i'm wrong but that's how i read it because i find it difficult to believe that a man who had a problem with her touching another man's arm would be o.k with her meeting her long term ex.

2) Again personal experience with a jealous partner, sometimes you think you have avoided an "episode" and the you notice that look on there face and know what's coming, sometimes it's the same day as the trigger event, sometimes it's day's later.

IMO i think the meeting with the ex is a likely trigger point for what happened that night, that's been my feeling all along, but i stress it's JMO.

Reeva's own words seem to indicate that he was possessive and insecure:

“Every 5 seconds I hear how u dated another chick,” she wrote. “You really have dated a lot of people yet you get upset if I mention ONE funny story that happened with a long term boyfriend.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...-murder-trial-article-1.1731960#ixzz2ynwobukg