Trial Discussion weekend Thread #24

[asanque]

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.

Please explain why the state scenario is not viable

1. 3:00 a.m. (2 witnesses heard loud bangs whilst the other 3 didn't)
These bangs could have been doors being slammed and explains why the other 3 didn't hear the sounds.

2. 3:00-3:16 a.m. - Loud screaming from a woman (and also a man according to witnesses)

3. 3:17 a.m. - fatal gunshots

4. 3:19 a.m. - OP called Stander to help him

5. 3:21 a.m. - OP called Netcare (giving poor details and being allegedly told that he should 'take her into the hospital')

6. 3:23 a.m. - OP thinks about calling security and changes his mind

7. 3:24 a.m. - Security calls OP who says 'everything is fine'

8. 3:24 a.m. - 3:45 a.m. - OP puts on prosthetics, breaks down the weakened door and gets Reeva out

9. 3:45 a.m. - Standers, Dr. Stipp and Baba arrive just as OP is on top of the stairs carrying Reeva

 

[asanque]

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.

There was no imminent threat of harm and thus it would not be self defence.

This is backed up by the fact he had no knowledge that the intruder even had a gun before he shot.

Self defence is based on a proportional response.

So it could well be murder, but would likely be a lesser charge.

My key point is that self defence would then not constitute a complete defence.

Edit: Link provided re: self defence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense

 

[Peliman]

Intent to defend oneself is not intent to murder.

You're assuming she didn't yell, scream or cry out because of timeline. I on the other hand think the evidence of 4 witnesses testifying they heard her and a male voice, mixed voices male and female.

I believe OP knew it was her before he fired the first shot. From the point he knew she was behind that door it becomes dolus directus.

We'll eventually hear what the judge decides.

 

[minor4th]

There was no imminent threat of harm and thus it would not be self defence.

This is backed up by the fact he had no knowledge that the intruder even had a gun before he shot.

Self defence is based on a proportional response.

So it could well be murder, but would likely be a lesser charge.

My key point is that self defence would then not constitute a complete defence.

Well, I disagree. I think if he shot an armed intruder in the toilet, he would not be convicted or even charged. You don't have to wait until the bad guy tries to kill you before you defend yourself.

 

[Apollo]

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.

Are you suggesting that anytime someone hears a door slam in their house they should assume it's an intuder, who's armed no less, and assume they are there to harm you and everyone in the house? Therefore, you should get a gun and shoot at the door x4?

My dog pushed the door to the bedroom open once and when he lied down behind the door, it caused the door to close. I heard the door close but it never crossed my mind to get my gun and start shooting at the door because there must have been an armed intruder in my house, at the ready to do harm to me.

 

[asanque]

Well, I disagree. I think if he shot an armed intruder in the toilet, he would not be convicted or even charged. You don't have to wait until the bad guy tries to kill you before you defend yourself.

Without even seeing a gun?

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/lethalforce.html

['If he isn't trying to kill you right now, you aren't justified to use lethal force.

It doesn't matter if he is standing there screaming and threatening to kill you, or if has said that he is going to come back and get you or -- in many states -- has just pointed a gun at you, demanded your wallet and is now running away -- those are not considered "immediate threat of death or grave bodily injury." Because he isn't trying to kill you at that exact moment.

Not understanding the meaning of this term will put you in prison for murder. At the very least it will endanger everything you own to litigation....and, odds are, you will lose if you pulled the trigger at the wrong time.

In theory, someone standing across the room waving a knife threatening to kill you isn't offering you an immediate threat. Which means that you cannot legally shoot him. On the other hand, when he starts charging across the room, then you are in immediate and immanent danger of death or previous bodily harm. The reason being is that a knife is a close range weapon and by rushing at you, he is now capable of harming you. Now granted his brandishing the weapon in a threatening manner is in and of itself a crime, but not enough to warrant shooting him.']

 

[Val1]

I know, I'm clutching at straws. Something must have made OP flip enough to shoot her though

She did make reference in the whatsapp messages that she couldn't be with anyone dishonest, perhaps she'd discovered that he'd been lying about "his" new McLaren which was just revealed as a borrowed demo from his friend's dealership, most probably didn't appreciate OP wanting her to lie for him about the assault in January and who knows what else?

Or like I speculated about earlier, maybe she accidentally kicked him and gave him a bloody nose while doing her yoga, he had made a specific reference to her doing yoga while he was surfing just before they supposedly went to bed(iirc though, nothing was discovered on the ipads after the *advertiser censored* earlier in the evening unless the judge has that under wraps).

The other thing that comes to mind for me, perhaps when he synced his ipad to his phone he wiped her ipad clean, including her speech, pics, everything? I know that would upset me royally and make me want to leave, if only so I could try to rewrite the speech in time for the presentation.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Oscar_Pistorius/Pistorius-lied-to-the-media-Report-20140413
http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/

Lead story in the SA Sunday Times today (title: Oscar IS a liar)

 

[kaos]

Regardless of whether he's convicted or not, it's been interesting so far and I honestly thought it was going to be straight forward. The state make their case, the defence make their's, a little CE, summing up and then to the judge. OP's testimony however has made it intriguing and will surely be cited by lawyers for years to come of why they don't want their clients taking the stand.

 

[sorrell skye]

In OP's BAS he stated that he called Stander to have him call for an ambulance, then he himself called Netcare. In his testimony OP stated that he called Stander to get him to come and help OP because he could not carry Reeva downstairs on his own to take her to the hospital. Now phone records show that OP's phone was used to call Stander and then Netcare. So how did OP know that Netcare was going to tell him to bring Reeva to the hospital instead of waiting for an ambulance?

Good catch! I agree 100%.

It seems that OP was putting the cart before the horse, doesn't it?

If OP had asked Stander to call for an ambulance, I'm still mystified that Stander had not done so. As we know, Dr. Stipp is the one who finally called for an ambulance, after finding out from Stander that no one had called.

If OP had asked Stander to call Netcare, why did OP immediately call them after his call to Stander? It makes no sense.

Pretty much everything OP says defies logic and reasoning, IMO.

I wonder if Stander will testify. I'm very interested in what he has to say.

 

[kaos]

Well, I disagree. I think if he shot an armed intruder in the toilet, he would not be convicted or even charged. You don't have to wait until the bad guy tries to kill you before you defend yourself.

According to the gun license he's not supposed to shoot unless he can see the target.

 

[Rumpole]

Please explain why the state scenario is not viable

1. 3:00 a.m. (2 witnesses heard loud bangs whilst the other 3 didn't)
These bangs could have been doors being slammed and explains why the other 3 didn't hear the sounds.

2. 3:00-3:16 a.m. - Loud screaming from a woman (and also a man according to witnesses)

3. 3:17 a.m. - fatal gunshots

4. 3:19 a.m. - OP called Stander to help him

5. 3:21 a.m. - OP called Netcare (giving poor details and being allegedly told that he should 'take her into the hospital')

6. 3:23 a.m. - OP thinks about calling security and changes his mind

7. 3:24 a.m. - Security calls OP who says 'everything is fine'

8. 3:24 a.m. - 3:45 a.m. - OP puts on prosthetics, breaks down the weakened door and gets Reeva out

9. 3:45 a.m. - Standers, Dr. Stipp and Baba arrive just as OP is on top of the stairs carrying Reeva

That lot "does not make sense" and so is not true.

The 3:00 time is vague.. could be 3:10... but I accept that the first bangs were somewhere there. bangs described by all 3 CLOSE witnesses. One with experience with guns, Dr Stipp, sure they were gunshots. (I agree)

Then comes the screams and voices.

Estelle van der Merwe heard crying not scream and concedes it was Oscar (on husbands advice)
The Stipps hear screams and assume its a woman
The Burger/Johnson are at a distance and hear screams they assume is a woman. Burger's testimony has "evolved" to add descriptive adjectives such a "Blood curdling"
It is clear to me the gunshots were at the 3:00 (ish) time and the cricket bat was at 3:17.
3:17 for gunshots is impossible as I have explained many times.

With gunshots at 3:00 (ish) the State's own experts testified there would be no screams or loud sound from Reeva, and so the "women's screams were logically OP... who has testified to screaming at that time.

Note. The State has only managed to find 4 witnesses out of potentially hundreds? If you include a radius at the distance of the Burgers, that mention "woman screaming". In fact just two couples... and a couple are NOT 2 totally independent witnesses.. and so the State have two perceptions of Woman screams. A mis-perception is NOT unusual at all.. even if everybody hears the same mis-perception. And here we have just two couples mis interpreting the screams as being a woman. The simple fact is the State's own expert witnesses (and the time of events) prove that the 2 couples who heard a woman scream were mistaken in their perception that the screams were those of a woman.

The gunshots were at 3:00 (ish) time and cricket bat was at 3:17. I do not see any valid way to refute that

 

[beach]

Without even seeing a gun?
Are you really a verified attorney?

I assure you that Minor4th is a verified attorney. We require licenses and, frankly, we verify attorneys via several ways. They're probably the easiest professionals to verify.

 

[minor4th]

Are you suggesting that anytime someone hears a door slam in their house they should assume it's an intuder, who's armed no less, and assume they are there to harm you and everyone in the house? Therefore, you should get a gun and shoot at the door x4?

My dog pushed the door to the bedroom open once and when he lied down behind the door, it caused the door to close. I heard the door close but it never crossed my mind to get my gun and start shooting at the door because there must have been an armed intruder in my house, at the ready to do harm to me.

I think you've missed the point. The scenario that was given was an armed intruder was actually in the toilet, and that's who was shot and killed.

 

[asanque]

I assure you that Minor4th is a verified attorney. We require licenses and, frankly, we verify attorneys via several ways. They're probably the easiest professionals to verify.

Thank you, I retract that comment.

I am a bit surprised though at his non-legalistic interpretation of the right to self-defence.

I am happy to be corrected on this issue.

But the right to shoot an intruder (without being aware that they were armed and later being justified) does not in my view constitute self defence.

 

[minor4th]

According to the gun license he's not supposed to shoot unless he can see the target.

So he has to let the guy shoot him from behind a door or wait for the burglar to storm out shooting before he can defend himself? I do not believe that's correct.

The gun license test was a broad series of hypotheticals - it was not an exact statement of the law and did not describe the exact situation we have here.

Just think about it logically - if someone shot an intruder through a door, and that intruder actually was armed and had his AK in his hands, like he was about to shoot -do you really think the police would charge the person with murder? That's really kind of absurd.

 

[asanque]

That lot "does not make sense" and so is not true.

The 3:00 time is vague.. could be 3:10... but I accept that the first bangs were somewhere there. bangs described by all 3 CLOSE witnesses. One with experience with guns, Dr Stipp, sure they were gunshots. (I agree)

Then comes the screams and voices.

Estelle van der Merwe heard crying not scream and concedes it was Oscar (on husbands advice)
The Stipps hear screams and assume its a woman
The Burger/Johnson are at a distance and hear screams they assume is a woman. Burger's testimony has "evolved" to add descriptive adjectives such a "Blood curdling"
It is clear to me the gunshots were at the 3:00 (ish) time and the cricket bat was at 3:17.
3:17 for gunshots is impossible as I have explained many times.

With gunshots at 3:00 (ish) the State's own experts testified there would be no screams or loud sound from Reeva, and so the "women's screams were logically OP... who has testified to screaming at that time.

Note. The State has only managed to find 5 witnesses out of potentially hundreds? If you include a radius at the distance of the Burgers, that mention "woman screaming". In fact just two couples... and a couple are NOT 2 totally independent witnesses.. and so the State have two perceptions of Woman screams. A mis-perception is NOT unusual at all.. even if everybody hears the same mis-perception. And here we have just two couples mis interpreting the screams as being a woman. The simple fact is the State's own expert witnesses (and the time of events) prove that the 2 couples who heard a woman scream were mistaken in their perception that the screams were those of a woman.

The gunshots were at 3:00 (ish) time and cricket bat was at 3:17. I do not see any valid way to refute that

There appear to be some factual inaccuracies in your statements.

The State has put forward the proposition that the first bullet hit Reeva on the hip, and would have given her time to scream.

Each of the witnesses that heard screaming clearly testified that it was a woman who screamed (and in some cases both a man and woman screaming).

 

[Apollo]

I think you've missed the point. The scenario that was given was an armed intruder was actually in the toilet, and that's who was shot and killed.

And I would submit to you that unless this phantom armed intruder threatened OP either by word or action, OP was not justified in shooting and killing.

 

[asanque]

So he has to let the guy shoot him from behind a door or wait for the burglar to storm out shooting before he can defend himself? I do not believe that's correct.

The gun license test was a broad series of hypotheticals - it was not an exact statement of the law and did not describe the exact situation we have here.

Just think about it logically - if someone shot an intruder through a door, and that intruder actually was armed and had his AK in his hands, like he was about to shoot -do you really think the police would charge the person with murder? That's really kind of absurd.

Thinking about it logically -if someone shot an intruder through a door, and that intruder was not actually armed and did not have an AK in his/her hands, do you really think the police would not charge the person with murder?

 

[Val1]

Could be.

You think--he puts her down and that is the last straw and she says, that's it, I'm going home, don't call me again?

But, she didn't intend to stay with him that night. He manipulated her into it.

First dinner, which she didn't intend to cook. And, then something else, which caused her to stay beyond the time when she could drive home safely.

And, it looks to me like she didn't intend being with him the next night either[present the day before, intending to go home, saying to family see you tomorrow].

They were both in town. Why wouldn't she go out to dinner with him on V-day? Unless, she had already decided, it is over?

Or had already made other plans, she was doing a presentation that day, was there a dinner afterwards? Then there was her tweet to an invite to which she had replied

I'm there like a bear!!! Yayyyy!!!! X

.

RS was her own person and unless OP and her had already made plans for one of her favourite days, you can bet she made her own.

 

[minor4th]

And I would submit to you that unless this phantom armed intruder threatened OP either by word or action, OP was not justified in shooting and killing.

Then he dies because he perceives the threat but doesn't have visual confirmation before the bad guy pops off several shots from his automatic weapon.

I don't think that is the law.