Trial Discussion weekend Thread #24

[Viper]

I believe he was found guilty based on prior bad acts and inconsistencies in his version of events.

It was his gun, and she was dressed with her purse on her arm.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bits in bold: To me, that sounds exactly like what is unfolding in this case... Just replace "she was dressed with her purse on her arm" with, "she was dressed with her suitcase packed." The "prior bad acts" and "inconsistencies in his version of events" can remain unaltered.

 

[minor4th]

I'm sure it's in one of these threads but will somebody please humor me and enlighten me to the how SA legally defines premeditation?

I know what I think and how I feel - I have my own theory - but I want to read the legal definition. I'm not entirely convinced if premeditation has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Having looked into this, SA law does not specifically define premeditation, but the caselaw suggests some amount of planning - a bit different than in the US where premeditation can be formed in moments.

It requires intent for one thing, and some purposeful deliberation and reflection and a decision to kill.

 

[jay-jay]

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.

I just want to add to this that I'm a little confused by how, on the one hand, you seem to be really knowledgeable about how abusive/violent relationships work (i.e. what you've posted upthread about how leaving the relationship is the most dangerous time in that type of relationship, etc) but then in the next breath you say that you can't understand what would cause an argument in which OP would end up killing Reeva .. you seem to be contradicting yourself

 

[Val1]

Was just re-watching Oscar Pistorius Trial: Tuesday 8 April 2014, Session 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMMdyuXfFUg

at around 33:50 and OP says RS text'd her friends before she went shopping for dinner stuff on the 13th telling them she was spending the night.... oh really? This after reviewing all her data stuff that the defense had. Another lie? So who sent the text at 10-10:30pm that her friend's Dad said was sent from her?

 

[minor4th]

Was just re-watching Oscar Pistorius Trial: Tuesday 8 April 2014, Session 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMMdyuXfFUg

at around 33:50 and OP says RS text'd her friends before she went shopping for dinner stuff on the 13th telling them she was spending the night.... oh really? This after reviewing all her data stuff that the defense had. Another lie? So who sent the text at 10-10:30pm that her friend's Dad said was sent from her?

Remind me what the 10:00 -10:30 text said? Was this part of the trial?

 

[DebinGA]

What was odd last week was how OP's "version" changed in one day from "I thought I was about to be attacked, and, therefore, when I heard movement in the cubicle, I fired to defend REEVA...... and myself" to "I was standing there filled with terror, looking back and forth from door to window, and, before I knew what had happened, BAM, BAM, BAM, BAM!"

 

[sorrell skye]

I'm sure it's in one of these threads but will somebody please humor me and enlighten me to the how SA legally defines premeditation?

I know what I think and how I feel - I have my own theory - but I want to read the legal definition. I'm not entirely convinced if premeditation has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The charging document does not include the word premeditation. OP and the media are the ones who have used that word.

Count 1 from the indictment:

The accused did unlawfully and intentionally kill a human being, to wit, Reeva Steenkamp.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/161348107/Oscar-Pistorius-indictment

Sean Rens, a firearms expert and the one who administered OP's firearms license assessment, testified regarding when it is lawful/unlawful to use lethal force.

In order to use lethal force, the following must occur:

1. The attacker must be seen or identified

2. The attacker must have access to the victim (no barriers such as a locked gate, door, etc.)

3. The attacker must be armed with a deadly weapon (knife, gun, etc.)

4. The attacker must express a threat to cause bodily harm or threaten to kill the victim

4. The attacker must approach the victim

OP took the test and passed, so he was aware of the legal standard required in order to use lethal force. The circumstances in which he shot and killed Reeva didn't meet the legal standard outlined above.

I believe this is why he was charged with 'unlawful and intentional killing'.

 

[Gryffindor]

I'm sure it's in one of these threads but will somebody please humor me and enlighten me to the how SA legally defines premeditation?

I know what I think and how I feel - I have my own theory - but I want to read the legal definition. I'm not entirely convinced if premeditation has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...grace-talks-oscar-pistorious-trial-could-pre/

"In South Africa, the site of Pistorius’ trial, the answer could mean the difference between Pistorius spending the rest of his life in prison or getting a lighter sentence. (There’s no death penalty, or juries, in South Africa.)

<modsnip>

Some types of murder that would be considered premeditated in the U.S. would not be considered premeditated in South Africa, said Bob Dekle, a retired assistant state attorney who teaches the prosecution clinic at the University of Florida Levin College of Law.

In South Africa, murder is defined as the unlawful and intentional killing of another person. There are three different forms of intent that come into play when a judge is determining the length of a sentence. (Memorize the Latin terms like we did and you&#8217;ll seem super informed about this case.)

Dolus directus, or direct intent. It was your goal to kill someone.

Dolus eventualis,*or knowing the possible result of your action will kill someone and recklessly going through with it anyway. It&#8217;s akin to second-degree murder, Dekle said.

Dolus indirectus, or indirect intent. When a person&#8217;s death is a substantially certain outcome of your action, such as committing arson and knowing factory workers will die as a result.

The judge could also decide the murder was not intentional and find Pistorius guilty of culpable homicide, or an unlawful negligent killing. In that scenario, Pistorius ought to have foreseen the result of shooting through a door but did not, or he should have known Steenkamp was in the bathroom when shooting through the door, said Marius du Toit, a criminal defense attorney in South Africa who is tracking the case. The court would determine how a reasonable person in Pistorius&#8217; situation would have acted that night and compare it to what he did."

 

[Gryffindor]

Having looked into this, SA law does not specifically define premeditation, but the caselaw suggests some amount of planning - a bit different than in the US where premeditation can be formed in moments.

It requires intent for one thing, and some purposeful deliberation and reflection and a decision to kill.

I've posted a link and relevant transcript, if that's any help, Minor and Beach

 

[beach]

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...grace-talks-oscar-pistorious-trial-could-pre/

"In South Africa, the site of Pistorius’ trial, the answer could mean the difference between Pistorius spending the rest of his life in prison or getting a lighter sentence. (There’s no death penalty, or juries, in South Africa.)

<modsnip>

Some types of murder that would be considered premeditated in the U.S. would not be considered premeditated in South Africa, said Bob Dekle, a retired assistant state attorney who teaches the prosecution clinic at the University of Florida Levin College of Law.

In South Africa, murder is defined as the unlawful and intentional killing of another person. There are three different forms of intent that come into play when a judge is determining the length of a sentence. (Memorize the Latin terms like we did and you’ll seem super informed about this case.)

Dolus directus, or direct intent. It was your goal to kill someone.

Dolus eventualis,*or knowing the possible result of your action will kill someone and recklessly going through with it anyway. It’s akin to second-degree murder, Dekle said.

Dolus indirectus, or indirect intent. When a person’s death is a substantially certain outcome of your action, such as committing arson and knowing factory workers will die as a result.

The judge could also decide the murder was not intentional and find Pistorius guilty of culpable homicide, or an unlawful negligent killing. In that scenario, Pistorius ought to have foreseen the result of shooting through a door but did not, or he should have known Steenkamp was in the bathroom when shooting through the door, said Marius du Toit, a criminal defense attorney in South Africa who is tracking the case. The court would determine how a reasonable person in Pistorius’ situation would have acted that night and compare it to what he did."

Thank you, Gryffindor!

It's a great read and very informative. Sorry I had to snip it to comply with copyright laws.

 

[anagrammy]

I just want to add to this that I'm a little confused by how, on the one hand, you seem to be really knowledgeable about how abusive/violent relationships work (i.e. what you've posted upthread about how leaving the relationship is the most dangerous time in that type of relationship, etc) but then in the next breath you say that you can't understand what would cause an argument in which OP would end up killing Reeva .. you seem to be contradicting yourself

Remember, it is not what really happened that matters, it is what can be proven.

When it comes to motive, she had a lot of reasons to dump him but none of them matter because her texts and behavior cannot be construed as proof that she was ready to dump him.

Two of the possible motives stand out as reasonably possible as being sufficiently severe (in OP's mind, of course) to kill over:

*Garden variety jealousy, the universal trait of the most possessive and controlling men on the planet.

*His reputation or brand, because it is his view that this must be protected at all cost.

If the first lead to a physical altercation splattering blood about the apartment, then Reeva's ability to tell others what happened ADDS the second to the first.

I think it might have been the pairing of these two motives, with previous bad acts in the past, that caused OP to conclude that Reeva must die.

If she were allowed to live, she could/would/might include her relationship with him as one of her anecdotes in her personal DV experience.

And he would be ruined.

 

[Gryffindor]

Beach, LOL, sorry, didn't realise. No probs ;-)

I'd actually just gone back into it, having realised there was irrelevant narrative relating to the U.S.

Was about to chop it so it wasn't as long and cumbersome, so thank you :-D

 

[Apollo]

The charging document does not include the word premeditation. OP and the media are the ones who have used that word.

Count 1 from the indictment:

The accused did unlawfully and intentionally kill a human being, to wit, Reeva Steenkamp.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/161348107/Oscar-Pistorius-indictment

Sean Rens, a firearms expert and the one who administered OP's firearms license assessment, testified regarding when it is lawful/unlawful to use lethal force.

In order to use lethal force, the following must occur:

1. The attacker must be seen or identified

2. The attacker must have access to the victim (no barriers such as a gate, door, etc.)

3. The attacker must be armed with a deadly weapon (knife, gun, etc.)

4. The attacker must express a threat to cause bodily harm or threaten to kill the victim

4. The attacker must approach the victim

OP took the test and passed, so he was aware of the legal standard required in order to use lethal force. The circumstances in which he shot and killed Reeva didn't meet the legal standard outlined above.

I believe this is why he was charged with 'unlawful and intentional killing'.

That was VERY informative. Thank you!

OP retrieved his gun, took it out of the holster, took the safety off, went to the toilet room area, and fired 4 shots though a closed door at whom he thought to be an intuder. The most polite intruder in the history of the world, I might add, since the 'intruder' slammed the door when going into the toilet room to announce to the occupants of the home that he had arrived (who believes that :floorlaugh.
Is there a better word than 'premeditation' to describe what OP did?

 

[minor4th]

As a reminder, these are the 13 points the state is relying on to prove murder (intent/premeditation);

THE STATE&#8217;S 13 FACTS:

1. The state relies on the evidence of a witness. During the early hours of 14 February the witness states to have heard, &#8220;talking like fighting&#8221; and a woman&#8217;s voice constantly talking. The witness formed the impression that the woman was arguing. This stopped after the shots were fired. (Merwe)

2. Two witnesses heard a woman scream before shots were fired. (Johnson and Burger)

3. Another two witnesses heard shots followed by the screams of a woman and then further shots. The screams were extinguished at the same time of the last shots. (Dr. and Mrs. Stipp)

4. Pistorius&#8217;s website activities from the time that he got home is in direct contrast to that of a loving couple spending time together. (phone/ipad data expert)

5. The amount, trajectory and grouping of the shots fired through a locked door can only be inferred to indicate a direct intention to kill the person behind the closed door. (Malenga - ballistics guy)

6. The position and condition of the gun in the bathroom. (Van Rensburg)

7. On his own version, Pistorius armed himself, walked to the bathroom and shot through the closed door without ascertaining who was behind the door or whether or not he was even faced with any danger. (Pistorius)

8. Steenkamp was clothed when she was shot. (Van Rensburg, Van Staden)

9. Steenkamp was standing upright facing the door when she was
shot. (Malenga)

10. Steenkamp had something to eat hours before she was killed. (medical examiner)

11. The presence of the cellphones in the bathroom militates against a version that Steenkamp innocently went to the toilet at the time. (Van Rensburg, Van Staden)

12. The fact and the way in which Pistorius broke down the toilet door. (Vermuelen)

13. Pistorius&#8217;s version &#8220;is not reasonably possibly true and it is our case that if rejected by the court the objective facts will prove the murder with direct intent of the deceased&#8221;. (Pistorius, legal argument)

 

[molly333]

This type of statement from Reeva is one of the reasons why I think she was breaking up with him that night. I don't see her threatening him here--change or else--just coming to the conclusion of the inevitability that their relationship won't work.



&#8220;I&#8217;m scared of u sometimes and how u snap at me and of how you will react to me,&#8221; the doomed bikini model wrote after the South African sprinter embarrassed her at a friend&#8217;s engagement party.

&#8220;I just want to love and be loved. Be happy and make someone SO happy. Maybe we can&#8217;t do that for each other.&#8221;


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...-murder-trial-article-1.1731960#ixzz2yo5NvX8U

 

[jay-jay]

Remember, it is not what really happened that matters, it is what can be proven.

When it comes to motive, she had a lot of reasons to dump him but none of them matter because her texts and behavior cannot be construed as proof that she was ready to dump him.

Two of the possible motives stand out as reasonably possible as being sufficiently severe (in OP's mind, of course) to kill over:

*Garden variety jealousy, the universal trait of the most possessive and controlling men on the planet.

*His reputation or brand, because it is his view that this must be protected at all cost.

If the first lead to a physical altercation splattering blood about the apartment, then Reeva's ability to tell others what happened ADDS the second to the first.

I think it might have been the pairing of these two motives, with previous bad acts in the past, that caused OP to conclude that Reeva must die.

If she were allowed to live, she could/would/might include her relationship with him as one of her anecdotes in her personal DV experience.

And he would be ruined.

I agree with all of that .. it was really molly's posts I was confused about because she appeared to know a substantial amount about domestic violence in her earlier posts, but then went on to say that she didn't know how someone could go from lovely dovey texts messages to bang bang bang within a matter of hours/minutes .. and yet that is one thing that absolutely can and does happen in DV situations, and is why two women a week end up being killed (in the UK).

 

[james83]

Oscar made a huge error by conceding he and Reeva(hypothetical) could have escaped the danger another way.

 

[Viper]

I'm sure it's in one of these threads but will somebody please humor me and enlighten me to the how SA legally defines premeditation?

I know what I think and how I feel - I have my own theory - but I want to read the legal definition. I'm not entirely convinced if premeditation has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hi Beach! I will link to an article that explains how SA looks at the issue of premeditation, and I think you will find it informative. Here is a quote:

"Provincial police spokesman Colonel Vincent Mdunge said in KwaZulu-Natal murders that are premeditated are more prevalent in political killings, love triangles and revenge attacks.

Mdunge gave the example of a person who had stabbed someone more than 20 times.

“If it wasn’t premeditated, the person would have stopped after stabbing the person the first time,” he said.

The State intends arguing that the murder was premeditated, which could increase his sentence should he be found guilty, he said."

Important to note the love triangles and stabbing multiple times. Obviously OP was a jealous man. But shooting four hollow points (black talons) at Reeva while she was trapped in a closet and screaming is overkill and shows premeditation. Mr. Nel presented that to the magistrate at the bail hearing, saying (paraphrasing) that "Pistorius' intention was to kill, he fired four times, he wanted to kill."

Anyway, here is a valuable link:

http://www.iol.co.za/dailynews/opinion/expert-clarifies-premeditated-murder-1.1573253#.U0sRhb-9LTo

 

[james83]

Surely the size of that toilet has to come into play when it comes to intent, it is a shockingly small room, she had no chance, also firing 4 times is a big big problem for O.P.

 

[Chelly]

This type of statement from Reeva is one of the reasons why I think she was breaking up with him that night. I don't see her threatening him here--change or else--just coming to the conclusion of the inevitability that their relationship won't work.



“I’m scared of u sometimes and how u snap at me and of how you will react to me,” the doomed bikini model wrote after the South African sprinter embarrassed her at a friend’s engagement party.

“I just want to love and be loved. Be happy and make someone SO happy. Maybe we can’t do that for each other.”


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...-murder-trial-article-1.1731960#ixzz2yo5NvX8U

Let's say she was breaking up with him that night:
1) why bring valentine gift?
2) why cook dinner?
3) why spend the night?