Trial Discussion weekend Thread #24

[Val1]

Do we not think it strange that this SMS text message wasn't identified in any of the detailed call logs presented for any of the phones, given the time that is was apparently sent? An earlier unidentified SMS is recorded as being received on Reeva's phone.

The judge has all that info in evidence, handily pointed out during Moller's testimony, and I believe Nel still has the opportunity to bring that out in OP's cross since it was stated under his direct from Roux at around 33:50.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMMdyuXfFUg

 

[Rumpole]

I'm sorry if this has already been brought up or discussed... there is far too much to read to find out...

My DH and I were discussing the fact that the bathroom door was locked... when you are going to the bathroom in the middle of the night... with your significant other in the bedroom... most people don't lock the door.... they may not even close the door... unless they don't want to wake their partner by making noise... most people would just close the door and go...

The fact that the door was locked... seems to indicate to us that she was purposely trying to keep him out of the bathroom... going along with the notion that they had been arguing.

It is plausible that they could have been arguing through the door and he was trying to get in to confront her... explaining why the door had been beaten in... when he was unsuccessful he may have lost his temper and shot her through the door.

Has anyone brought up this subject in trial?

I did mention this before... easily lost in the river of posts

As OP described the details remembering the point in time where he headed toward the bathroom, he was shouting and screaming that there was an intruder etc. He heard the toilet door shut. I think it would be very likely that Reeva was alerted to intruder(s) and so shut the toilet door, turned the key to lock it, and then stood keeping very very quiet, hiding from the intruder, listening at the door.

Also the State case (relayed by door/bat guy) is that the door was "bashed in" after the shots.

 

[shane13]

He was not taken to hospital for toxicology until late morning or early afternoon on the 14th. Many hours after Reeva was killed.

I don't have an explicit link, all I could find was this:http://bigstory.ap.org/article/pistorius-involved-shooting-home-woman-dead-0

'Hours later after undergoing police questioning, Pistorius left a police station accompanied by officers. He looked down as photographers snapped pictures, the hood on his gray workout jacket pulled up, covering most of his face.'

He had come from an afternoon party. I have always thought alcohol was a catalyst in his actions, it is the only thing that makes sense to me that he would so quickly and irrationally go off into a rage.

I would chalk it up again to police ineptness that a blood alcohol test was not done immediately.

What else could police do?

They can't force him to take medical tests until they arrest him. And upon arrest supposedly that was the first place they took him to.

Unless you are saying they did not arrest him for many hours after the crime, which obviously would then yield lower results, than if he had been arrested sooner. And maybe they deliberately let many hours go by before arresting him for this purpose?? Could be.

This could be a valid point, and I have tried to find the definite time he was arrested and taken out of his iome. Still the zero level seems to have relevance.

Anyne know exactly when he was taken out of his home under arrest?
And anyone know how long it takes for alcohol to metabolize or be excreted completely from the body?

 

[beach]

It's not a question of whether he should have foreseen killing Reeva by shooting through the bathroom door (when he believed there was an intruder) - the question is whether he DID foresee such a possibility and decided to go ahead and shoot anyway.

This is the thing for me -

In order for me to buy any version of Oscar's stories I'd first have to be willing to believe that Oscar believed an intruder climbed a ladder, gained entry to the 2nd floor master bathroom from a sliding window, then chose to immediately lock himself into a toilet closet. WHY? As Nel pointed out, intruders don't break in and lock themselves in a toilet closet. It doesn't pass the sniff test.

But I digress....let's assume Oscar is being honest & really thought it was an intruder for whatever reason that locked himself in the toilet closet. He admitted that there was another option - he & Reeva could have escaped out of the bedroom. MAJOR admission, legally speaking. Instead Oscar chose to arm himself with a firearm loaded with black talon exploding bullets and approach the door. He STILL could've opted to fire that weapon into the ceiling, out the open window, (wherever there wasn't such immediate imminent danger to a life) he then could have chosen to warn the intruder not to move or he would shoot through the door. Oscar would have had that intruder trapped. He knew what that weapon loaded with black talon bullets would do. He had no reason to be afraid. He could've called the cops while he had the "intruder" trapped in the toilet closet.

That's just one example of so many.... Oscar's history of trouble with others, his history of irresponsible, reckless handling of firearms, the fact that had been exposed to firearms since he was a very young and very well aware of their danger... I'll stop here because I could go on and on and on...

 

[BabaJ]

It's not a question of whether he should have foreseen killing Reeva by shooting through the bathroom door (when he believed there was an intruder) - the question is whether he DID foresee such a possibility and decided to go ahead and shoot anyway.

This is exactly what I am struggling with. As a layman I feel that he should have foreseen as a "reasonable man" (if I wanted to believe his version of events)
1. Reeva being in the bathroom
2. Killing whoever was in the bathroom

If we assume for the sake of the argument that he did not foresee the above, I wonder whether it would not be a dangerous precedent to let him get away with for example second degree or accidental death. Any women or disadvantaged man could then use the same line of defence.

 

[wb180]

I know that I'm just making a false hood. I really don't think he called Netcare!

But if he did I want to hear it from Netcare 911. Can't keep up with his many \stories!

I so want to hear what he said with Netcare as well because I don't know why Netcare would tell him to drive to hospital when he is covered in blood with the victim who has multiple gunshot wounds to various parts of the body?

 

[TorisMom003]

I did mention this before... easily lost in the river of posts

As OP described the details remembering the point in time where he headed toward the bathroom, he was shouting and screaming that there was an intruder etc. He heard the toilet door shut. I think it would be very likely that Reeva was alerted to intruder(s) and so shut the toilet door, turned the key to lock it, and then stood keeping very very quiet, hiding from the intruder, listening at the door.

Incorrect. According to OP he never said to anyone, out loud or in any other way, that there was an intruder.

What OP has said:
I shouted to Reeva to phone police.
I shouted "get out of my house"
I whispered to Reeva to get down and phone police.
I softly spoke to Reeva to get down and phone police.

OP has NEVER said that he shouted out intruder/s get out of my house. OP has NEVER said the word intruder out loud at all, until he was caught red handed on the stair landing with Reeva in his arms to Stipp and Stander.

 

[Val1]

In trying to figure out the bathroom-window-figure-passing issue, I checked Oscar Pistorius' heights

According to some reports (there is variance):

Pistoruis with his prosthetic legs is 155/6cm = 5'1" or 5' (or 5.11+/- foot)



http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/18/oscar-pistorius-not-wearing-prosthetic-legs-expert

Sorry if this has been addressed, family obligations et al, anyway, I know from my back patio, ground level, I can see my neighbours through their upper bedroom windows(which look pretty similar to OP's bath room window) and the further into the room they are the more of them I can see. Don't forget about the double mirrors in OP's bath room too... and that if OP was doing anything to the toilet room door he would have been pretty close to the sinks and not right under the window by the bathtub.

 

[sorrell skye]

However, the test always remains whether the accused person subjectively foresaw the possibility of the death of the deceased and associated himself therewith.

The accused must have foreseen the possibility of killing Reeva and decided to take the risk anyway. That has not been proved.

Nel's error in personae argument is a creative way of trying to get around the actual laws - but it's not a sound argument and will not be applied in this case.

OP has testified that he knew someone was in the toilet room.

He fired 4 rounds through the toilet door into a confined space where the occupant had little to no possibility of escaping being shot.

OP took and passed the firearms licensing assessment, which included questions & scenarios regarding when it's legal to use deadly force. OP's actions did not meet the legal standard for lawful use of deadly force.

1. He had not identified there was an attacker

2. There was a barrier between him and the perceived threat

3. He had not identified that the alleged attacker was armed with a deadly weapon (knife, gun, etc.)

4. The alleged attacker did not threaten him with bodily harm and/or death

5. The alleged attacker did not approach him with a deadly weapon with the intent to cause him bodily harm and/or death

In addition, I believe he was aware that shooting 4 bullets through the door would likely kill whomever was behind the door, yet he proceeded to shoot anyway.

IMO, dolus directus applies. Intentional murder.

 

[minor4th]

This is the thing for me -

In order for me to buy any version of Oscar's stories I'd first have to be willing to believe that Oscar believed an intruder climbed a ladder, gained entry to the master bathroom from a sliding window, then chose to immediately lock himself into a toilet closet. WHY? As Nel pointed out, intruders don't break in and lock themselves in a toilet closet. It doesn't pass the sniff test.

But I digress....let's assume Oscar is being honest & really thought it was an intruder for whatever reason that locked himself in the toilet closet. He admitted that there was another option - he & Reeva could have escaped out of the bedroom. MAJOR, legally speaking. Instead Oscar chose to arm himself with a firearm loaded with black talon exploding bullets and approach the door. He STILL could've opted to fire that weapon into the ceiling, out the open window, (wherever there wasn't such immediate imminent danger to a life) he then could have chosen to warn the intruder not to move or he would shoot through the door. Oscar would have had that intruder trapped. He knew what that weapon loaded with black talon bullets would do. He had no reason to be afraid. He could've called the cops while he had the "intruder" trapped in the toilet closet.

That's just one example of so many.... Oscar's history of trouble with others, his history of irresponsible, reckless handling of firearms, the fact that had been exposed to firearms since he was a very young and very well aware of their danger... I'll stop here because I could go on and on and on...

Yes, you're right - the judge will have to basically accept his version that the did think there was an intruder in the bathroom and that he thought he was shooting lawfully to defend himself from harm.

The test is whether it's "reasonably possibly true" that OP believed that. That's what Nel is trying to do in this cross examination - cast so much doubt on OP's version that it cannot reasonably be possibly true. He is gaining ground but I do not believe he has gotten there yet.

The fact that he had the intruder "trapped" is really not so relevant because an armed intruder in the toilet cubicle can just as easily shoot through the door as OP did.

 

[Linda7NJ]

No, he would have to intend to kill Reeva, and that has not been proven.

If someone fires four shots from a gun, IMO that's intent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[minor4th]

OP has testified that he knew someone was in the toilet room.

He fired 4 rounds through the toilet door into a confined space where the occupant had little to no possibility of escaping being shot.

OP took and passed the firearms licensing assessment, which included questions & scenarios regarding when it's legal to use deadly force. OP's actions did not meet the legal standard for lawful use of deadly force.

1. He had not identified there was an attacker

2. There was a barrier between him and the perceived threat

3. He had not identified that the alleged attacker was armed with a deadly weapon (knife, gun, etc.)

4. The alleged attacker did not threaten him with bodily harm and/or death

5. The alleged attacker did not approach him with a deadly weapon with the intent to cause him bodily harm and/or death

In addition, I believe he was aware that shooting 4 bullets through the door would likely kill whomever was behind the door, yet he proceeded to shoot anyway.

IMO, dolus directus applies. Intentional murder.

No, it doesn't. He had to have specifically intended to kill Reeva. It's not enough that he knew he was killing what he thought was an armed intruder behind the door.

It is SUBJECTIVE - did Oscar really believe there was an intruder behind the door or did he not? If he did, then that's the end of the discussion about intentional murder of Reeva.

 

[minor4th]

If someone fires four shots from a gun, IMO that's intent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Intent to defend oneself is not intent to murder.

 

[minor4th]

I'm not arguing the law any more. I have read the law, I've read tons of case law and I know how it is applied in South Africa - anyone who disagrees is free to do so.

 

[wb180]

No, it doesn't. He had to have specifically intended to kill Reeva. It's not enough that he knew he was killing what he thought was an armed intruder behind the door.

It is SUBJECTIVE - did Oscar really believe there was an intruder behind the door or did he not? If he did, then that's the end of the discussion about intentional murder of Reeva.

Although it doesn't help PT's case, that's why that 31 second silence was so telling for me.

 

[TorisMom003]

Intent to defend oneself is not intent to murder.

Defend himself against what exactly? A toilet room door? There was no threat. There was no one pointing a gun at him. There was no one pointing a knife at him. There was no one shouting "I'm going to kill you!" at him. OP never gave the "intruder" a chance to do as "he" was instructed, to "get out of my house!". And that's only if one believes the sack of lies that OP is trying to sell on the stand. The numerous lies already told by OP, his many different "versions" of that night, have already eaten away at his credibility. OP has already committed perjury.

MOO

 

[minor4th]

This is exactly what I am struggling with. As a layman I feel that he should have foreseen as a "reasonable man" (if I wanted to believe his version of events)
1. Reeva being in the bathroom
2. Killing whoever was in the bathroom

If we assume for the sake of the argument that he did not foresee the above, I wonder whether it would not be a dangerous precedent to let him get away with for example second degree or accidental death. Any women or disadvantaged man could then use the same line of defence.

South Africa law is a little different - the test is not whether he "should have" foreseen Reeva's death, it's whether he actually did foresee that possibility and decided to shoot anyway.

We're only talking about intentional murder here, not culpable homicide. It wouldn't be setting a dangerous precedent - that is already the law in SA and that is how it has been applied.

It makes sense because there ought to be some differentiation between someone who deliberately and intentionally plans to kill someone compared to a person who acted recklessly but did not have the malicious intent to kill that person. It's the same in the US and everywhere else - there are varying degrees of homicide and varying sentence ranges depending on the intent of the accused and so forth.

 

[TorisMom003]

I'm not arguing the law any more. I have read the law, I've read tons of case law and I know how it is applied in South Africa - anyone who disagrees is free to do so.

Care to explain how this is known? Doesn't one need to practice law in South Africa to know how the law is applied there?

 

[beach]

Yes, you're right - the judge will have to basically accept his version that the did think there was an intruder in the bathroom and that he thought he was shooting lawfully to defend himself from harm.

The test is whether it's "reasonably possibly true" that OP believed that. That's what Nel is trying to do in this cross examination - cast so much doubt on OP's version that it cannot reasonably be possibly true. He is gaining ground but I do not believe he has gotten there yet.

The fact that he had the intruder "trapped" is really not so relevant because an armed intruder in the toilet cubicle can just as easily shoot through the door as OP did.

I hear ya but let's face it, Oscar had a MUCH larger space in which he would not have been a trapped - he could have kept moving around or protected himself much easier than that intruder confined to a 4x4 locked toilet closet.

It's really neither here nor there because I do get your point.


Can you clarify for me because maybe I misunderstood but my understanding is that under SA law it doesn't matter if murdered Reeva specifically, but the fact that he murdered who he says he thought was an intruder before discovering her body - well, the way the law is worded it doesn't matter legally speaking, is that correct? I mean in relation to the charges.

 

[minor4th]

Care to explain how this is known? Doesn't one need to practice law in South Africa to know how the law is applied there?

Look at the last 3 pages - there are several people talking about what the law is and how it's applied, and most of them are not lawyer anywhere, much less SA lawyers.