Trial Discussion weekend Thread #24

[minor4th]

I'm getting confused, now.

So are you saying no matter what he will be convicted of CH because he made a mistake and took an innocent person's [Reeva] life?

I really don't see how he can escape a culpable homicide conviction. The reasonableness of his actions and his perceptions would play a role in his sentencing though. That's why a culpable homicide conviction has the possibility of being sentenced to no jail time.

 

[beach]

I'm getting confused, now.

So are you saying no matter what he will be convicted of CH because he made a mistake and took an innocent person's [Reeva] life?

That is my understanding of what is needed to prove culpable homicide.

(I envision that to be parallel to a US charge of aggravated manslaughter but not 100% sure if that is on target either.)

 

[kaos]

I didn't think Nel's cross was going to be so long considering how short his case was but OP seems to have a distance to go if we've only just got to the shooting.

 

[asanque]

Here is my summary of why OP's story cannot be true (based on his own testimony):

1. He didn't notice Reeva pick up her mobile, roll off the bed on the left hand side despite being less than a metre away and knowing she was awake.

2. The room was pitch black yet Reeva did not turn on any lights (bedroom or bathroom) on the way to the toilet (and also knowing OP was awake).

3. OP couldn't hear Reeva get off the bed (due to the fans) but could hear a sound at the bathroom window approximately 30m away

4. As Reeva's bladder was already empty, there was no reason for her to go to the toilet, and lock herself in.

5. Alternatively, Reeva had to go and use the toilet in less than a few minutes (in pitch black) and use the toilet before OP screamed.

6. OP acknowledging have other reasonable alternatives to escape the 'intruder' yet going in with gun raised anyway

7. OP's gun 'accidentally' discharging '4' times without any intent to harm the intruder

8. OP's version that the police substantially tampered with the crime scene in numerous illogical ways for no apparent reason.

None of it is even remotely possible of being true.

Similar to how the gun just 'accidentally' discharged in Tasha's restaurant despite his finger not being on the trigger.

Edit: My personal view is that he is going to cop substantial jail time (even for simple culpable homicide).
Whilst the case hasn't finished yet, at this stage, my verdict is murder.

Second Edit: For those of you wondering about motive, I'm sure Nels will address it before he finishes his cross examination of OP.
In short, the couple got into a big fight and as a consequence of that fight, OP intentionally shot her after she refused to leave the toilet.

 

[kittychi]

No evidence thus far.

There never will be. Even if they found liquor bottles out and open, that isn't evidence either.

I am saying that if he was in a blind, angry rage, alcohol could have fueled it. If you look at other dramas in his life, alcohol is involved or present.

There is obviously a lot we will never know.

 

[vansleuths]

Yes, something is up with this. I think Nell is going to cover the post-shooting phone calls in his cross exam on Monday morning. If a recording does exist, you'd think he'd at least use it then.

JMO

And that's the thing, the PT cannot present the Netcare call if they have it because their time to present evidence is over.

If they try and present it now, the DT will argue it's another case of ambush, similar to the watermelon video

 

[molly333]

I really don't see how he can escape a culpable homicide conviction. The reasonableness of his actions and his perceptions would play a role in his sentencing though. That's why a culpable homicide conviction has the possibility of being sentenced to no jail time.

Oh, ok. So what he's really fighting for now is the Judge's grace on jail time.

Although it seems to me that if he did think he was shooting an intruder who was threatening him, and it was reasonable for him to think that, he should be acquitted. But, if that's the law...

Question: What if that had really been an intruder? Would that be self defense?

I wonder if felons can own guns in SA.

 

[minor4th]

That is my understanding of what is needed to prove culpable homicide.

(I envision that to be parallel to a US charge of aggravated manslaughter but not 100% sure if that is on target either.)

If this had happened in the US, there is a possibility of complete acquittal - that's where the reasonableness would come in. But my understanding is in SA, the objective reasonableness test doesn't come in play at all during guilt/innocence but only is taken into account in sentencing.

 

[kaos]

Here is my summary of why OP's story cannot be true (based on his own testimony):

1. He didn't notice Reeva pick up her mobile, roll off the bed on the left hand side despite being less than a metre away and knowing she was awake.

2. The room was pitch black yet Reeva did not turn on any lights (bedroom or bathroom) on the way to the toilet (and also knowing OP was awake).

3. OP couldn't hear Reeva get off the bed (due to the fans) but could hear a sound at the bathroom window approximately 30m away

4. As Reeva's bladder was already empty, there was no reason for her to go to the toilet, and lock herself in.

5. Alternatively, Reeva had to go and use the toilet in less than a few minutes (in pitch black) and use the toilet before OP screamed.

6. OP's gun 'accidentally' discharging '4' times without any intent to harm the intruder

7. OP's version that the police substantially tampered with the crime scene in numerous illogical ways for no apparent reason.

None of it is even remotely possible of being true.

Similar to how the gun just 'accidentally' discharged in Tasha's restaurant despite his finger not being on the trigger.

Is the bathroom 30m away?

I was thinking about why Reeva would possibly go to the toilet and also have her shorts and t-shirt on and was thinking maybe she was menstruating but I guess that would have been brought up at autopsy.

Has it even been asked whether they were sexually active that night too or is that going to be considered a no go area for both defece and prosecution?

 

[clearskies1]

I didn't think Nel's cross was going to be so long considering how short his case was but OP seems to have a distance to go if we've only just got to the shooting.

Yes, and it feels like the prosecution's case has gotten stronger with OP's testimony.
JMO.

 

[minor4th]

Oh, ok. So what he's really fighting for now is the Judge's grace on jail time.

Although it seems to me that if he did think he was shooting an intruder who was threatening him, and it was reasonable for him to think that, he should be acquitted. But, if that's the law...

I wonder if felons can own guns in SA.

IMO, yes - I think he knows he'll be convicted of culpable homicide and probably some of the other charges and it's really going to come down to sentencing. (Assuming Nel doesn't end up proving that the whole thing is a fabrication).

Like I said above, in the US he might be acquitted but in SA it's more subjective when it comes to guilt/innocence.

 

[molly333]

If this had happened in the US, there is a possibility of complete acquittal - that's where the reasonableness would come in. But my understanding is in SA, the objective reasonableness test doesn't come in play at all during guilt/innocence but only it taken into account in sentencing.

Oh that's why I got it wrong. I was thinking of US law. It makes so much more sense.

I'm going to kiss the ground I'm standing on now.

 

[minor4th]

Oh, ok. So what he's really fighting for now is the Judge's grace on jail time.

Although it seems to me that if he did think he was shooting an intruder who was threatening him, and it was reasonable for him to think that, he should be acquitted. But, if that's the law...

Question: What if that had really been an intruder? Would that be self defense?

I wonder if felons can own guns in SA.

Yes, if it had really been an armed intruder, it would be self defense and he would not be convicted of anything.

 

[kittychi]

If he believed he was shooting an intruder, why did he break down the door ...why hit it with the cricket bat?
Why wouldn't he think she ran outside? He didn't run outside calling her name. Did he go outside and even look?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Excellent point! How did he know she wasn't downstairs or outside calling police?.

:waitasec:

 

[asanque]

Is the bathroom 30m away?

I was thinking about why Reeva would possibly go to the toilet and also have her shorts and t-shirt on and was thinking maybe she was menstruating but I guess that would have been brought up at autopsy.

Has it even been asked whether they were sexually active that night too or is that going to be considered a no go area for both defece and prosecution?

30 m is my best guess
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WswWzltE4s

 

[clearskies1]

And that's the thing, the PT cannot present the Netcare call if they have it because their time to present evidence is over.

If they try and present it now, the DT will argue it's another case of ambush, similar to the watermelon video

Don't know if that's true. If there is a recording, the PT almost certainly disclosed it to the DT already. Think PT can use it to impeach OP's testimony on cross-exam, or use it in their rebuttal case.

 

[molly333]

IMO, yes - I think he knows he'll be convicted of culpable homicide and probably some of the other charges and it's really going to come down to sentencing. (Assuming Nel doesn't end up proving that the whole thing is a fabrication).

Like I said above, in the US he might be acquitted but in SA it's more subjective when it comes to guilt/innocence.

Sheesh no wonder he's crying nonstop on the stand.

 

[Rumpole]

I didn't think Nel's cross was going to be so long considering how short his case was but OP seems to have a distance to go if we've only just got to the shooting.

I seems to me the SA system is quite different.

This cross examination of Op is VERY critical to the State. Having "rested" their own case in chief they are still able to make a case by refuting OP's testimony and by presenting more of their own version while doing so.

I am not sure that we KNOW exactly what the State case is (in fine detail) it would seem unfair if that is never spelled out and the Defence given a chance to respond? But maybe we will not see a clear "State version" untill closing arguments? Strange to say the least.

Anyway.... this cross of OP is critical and so Nel is understandably going on for a while. It also is not what I am used to, that questioning (from both sides) can be so slow and repetitive. Same question asked more that just a few times. I long for the judge to rule "asked and answered"

I think once Nel has finished there will need to be some minor damage control from Roux to clarify details that OP is not explaining well and that Nel is seizing on to take issue with. Things that Nel says "do not make sense".. but in fact do make sense. I am sure Roux will clarify.

Then the World is Roux's oyster. It is the State "sequence of events" that "makes no sense".. based on their own witnesses testimony. The sequence of events is pretty clear and obvious if you look at the State witness testimony as a gestalt. It is well supported by what hard evidence there is.. such as times on phone records.

 

[asanque]

Yes, if it had really been an armed intruder, it would be self defense and he would not be convicted of anything.

Only if he saw it was an armed intruder and believed his life was in danger.

The difference is that OP saw a toilet door (containing an unarmed helpless woman).

Why would an armed intruder want to slam the toilet door (to disclose location) and hide?

 

[minor4th]

Only if he saw it was an armed intruder and believed his life was in danger.

The difference is that OP saw a toilet door (containing an unarmed helpless woman).

Why would an armed intruder want to slam the toilet door (to disclose location) and hide?

If there was actually an armed intruder in the toilet, and Oscar shot him dead before the intruder could come out and shoot him and Reeva - that is self defense. In other words, he accurately perceived the threat and defended himself against it.

Are you suggesting that if he shot an armed intruder in his bathroom that it would be murder simply because he didn't see the gun before he shot? I don't think that's the case.