Trial Discussion weekend Thread #24

[Whiteorchids]

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.

It was chaos as trying to cover-up OPs mess at Reevas expense. Anyone innocent would have dialed 911 emergency.

 

[minor4th]

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?

In that situation, yeah they might but they would likely charge him with only with culpable homicide. But the scenario I'm talking about is an intruder who is actually armed and has his weapon out.

 

[kaos]

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.

I agree it was about hypotheticals but they gave a very clear understanding of when he's allowed by law to shoot. He doesn't know the 'intruder' is armed so there was no justification whatsoever for him to fire without any warning.

BIB In that scenario no, I don't think the police would charge the person with murder as there is intent on the part of the person with the AK in their hands to kill.

A little twist on your scenario though - is it justifiable if the AK is a replica and couldn't have fired at all?

 

[minor4th]

[/B]

I agree it was about hypotheticals but they gave a very clear understanding of when he's allowed by law to shoot. He doesn't know the 'intruder' is armed so there was no justification whatsoever for him to fire without any warning.

BIB In that scenario no, I don't think the police would charge the person with murder as there is intent on the part of the person with the AK in their hands to kill.

A little twist on your scenario though - is it justifiable if the AK is a replica and couldn't have fired at all?

Thanks for your reply. I'm done arguing about this also.

 

[kaos]

Thanks for your reply. I'm done arguing about this also.

I didn't realise I was arguing.

 

[Val1]

Still wondering what evidence supports your theory that Reeva broke up with OP that night, causing the fight and subsequent murder. Did she tell someone in advance that she was going to bring a gift, break up with OP and stay over afterward?

Fact: She did call a family member earlier in the evening saying she was too tired to drive home, thus her decision to sleep over. There was no distress in her words and tone of voice in that call

bbm - Alright, I must have missed somewhere that she had actually spoken in an sms .... do you have a link for that? GM's father said in an interview:

http://www.citypress.co.za/news/i-could-have-saved-reeva/

The last time Cecil and Desi heard from Reeva was late on Wednesday night, just hours before her death.

“I’ve got this thing with all three children (Reeva, and his daughters, Kim and Gina), if they don’t come home at night, they must text me. Then Reeva sent the (SMS) message: ‘Hi guys, I’m too tired. It’s too far to drive. I’m sleeping at Oscar’s tonight. See you tomorrow.’

“Tomorrow never dawned for her . . . I have nightmares at night thinking how frightened she must have been. Can you imagine how terrified she was?

“That was the last SMS from her phone, probably about ten, ten thirty – the time they usually SMS.”

 

[Apollo]

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.

Oh, so now the phantom intruder has an automatic weapon---this gets better all the time.

OP did not have to stand directly in front of the door and be a target for the phantom armed intruder with an automatic weapon. He could have stood to the side of the door, shouted at the 'intruder' and waited for some sort of response. The 'intruder' would not have known where OP was standing but OP knew for certain exactly where the confined intruder was. Huge advantage.

 

[Rumpole]

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).

There is a possibility of a scream after first shot (in the 4 seconds or less)... but VERY unlikely.. would be VERY brief, if at all, and so little more than a squeak... masked by gunshots.

And you have ignored the main points. All the "scream" testimony relates to the time AFTER the gunshots. It was NOT REEVA.
There were only two couples who the State could find out of potentially hundreds (and one of those couples was at the limit of a range to hear much of anything, let alone detail. They came forward only AFTER the case had been in the news. I would give their testimony little weight at all.. it indicates desperation by the State to find ANY old witness to screams), and they are all testifying to what they heard (screams) after Reeva was dead.
This is the evidence presented by the State's own ear witnesses and expert witnesses.

 

[Suthrnqt]

Oh, so now the phantom intruder has an automatic weapon---this gets better all the time.

OP did not have to stand directly in front of the door and be a target for the phantom armed intruder with an automatic weapon. He could have stood to the side of the door, shouted at the 'intruder' and waited for some sort of response. The 'intruder' would not have known where OP was standing but OP knew for certain exactly where the confined intruder was. Huge advantage.

He could have gone out the bedroom door, he could have called security, he could have hit the panic button, he could have made sure Reeva was out of harm's way, but he chose to go towards the danger. His actions on that night speak louder (pun intended) than his words.

 

[kaos]

Oh, so now the phantom intruder has an automatic weapon---this gets better all the time.

OP did not have to stand directly in front of the door and be a target for the phantom armed intruder with an automatic weapon. He could have stood to the side of the door, shouted at the 'intruder' and waited for some sort of response. The 'intruder' would not have known where OP was standing but OP knew for certain exactly where the confined intruder was. Huge advantage.

IIRC he said in his testimony that he knelt down at one point so that also indicates an intent to either shield himself and/or to take up a firing position.

 

[beach]

If you guys will induldge me for a minute -

I think where some of what is perceived as disagreement comes in between posters with differing opinions. Minor4th is an attorney. I am an ABA certified paralegal with 22 years in the field. I don't know for a fact but my impression is that I find Oscar far less credible than Minor does. :angel: HOWEVER, we both know that what really matters in the end is the law. I hope Minor doesn't mind me disclosing but I messaged Minor for links regarding the laws, rules and statutes defining things like premeditation, intent, etc... In the U.S. we have books (x too many lol), Westlaw, LexisNexis that we use as often as a chef would reach for a recipe book. We haven't been able to access those type things we rely on (and probably won't be able to).

But we can agree that it all boils down to being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he is guilty of each and every charge. Judge Marsipa will consider different components presented as evidence, give it appropriate weight as determined by her and then make the decision whether it is beyond a reasonable doubt in the Court's opinion.

I cannot stand Oscar Pistorius for a number of reasons. I've kept up with him over the years post London Olympics, I didn't care for him before Reeva's death. However, I agree that the State has probably not met the threshold yet to get a conviction that it was premeditated. I think Nel's very close and it may happen yet, but from my limited understanding of SA law, I think there is still room for reasonable doubt.

I hope my point wasn't completely lost here. I don't feel like I expressed what I was trying to convey well. I personally believe he deserves to be convicted of premediated murder (if I'm understanding the SA legal definition correctly) however, that is based on my feelings and personal theory. I have no idea what Judge Masipa is thinking. I know it's not legally necessary to prove motive but frankly, it would help if Judge Masipa could answer that for herself. IMO, Nel has to do more for her to feel comfortable with that.

 

[Mystymiss]

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.

How would you know if it was a burglar, intruder, guest or family member behind the closed door? You know what they say about when you assume?

If you plan to use deadly force you better know who's there.

If it was me! and I could not escape with my guest or family member I would then retreat to the closes bedroom with my guest or family member in tow put myself against a wall and aim my gun at the entrance way of the room. I would be ready to shoot once I determined it was an unknown intruder! If you are going to shoot you better be sure of the target. If you own a gun you better be sure.

 

[jassy writer]

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

The timing above has not been proven. I wrote a post on this earlier. It is a pity that the people who defend OP's version and stick so rigidly to their view of the timing, do not read posts that contradict their version.

Based on my assessment of the timing, there was about 15 minutes between the first and the second set of "bangs". Then there was about five minutes between the second set of bangs and OP's first phone call.

What was he doing for 15 minutes running around and screaming and not managing to get the door open? This absolutely does not make sense to me. If he was unable to get the door open, it makes reasonable sense that he would have called for help during this time and not afterwards.

However if you look at the first set of bangs as being part of the argument, then the gunshots 15 minutes later make sense, and 5 minutes would be more than enough time for OP to force open the door and make his first call. A more logical timeline if you ask me, especially seeing witnesses were clearer about the second set of bangs (heard by more people).

 

[asanque]

There is a possibility of a scream after first shot (in the 4 seconds or less)... but VERY unlikely.. would be VERY brief, if at all, and so little more than a squeak... masked by gunshots.

And you have ignored the main points. All the "scream" testimony relates to the time AFTER the gunshots. It was NOT REEVA.
There were only two couples who the State could find out of potentially hundreds (and one of those couples was at the limit of a range to hear much of anything, let alone detail. They came forward only AFTER the case had been in the news. I would give their testimony little weight at all.. it indicates desperation by the State to find ANY old witness to screams), and they are all testifying to what they heard (screams) after Reeva was dead.
This is the evidence presented by the State's own ear witnesses and expert witnesses.

Again you make the assumption that the loud noises heard at 3:00 a.m. (heard by 2 witnesses) were gunshots.

If you are going to say 5 independent witnesses aren't enough (because there could be hundreds??), I disagree strongly.

I contend it was definitely Reeva and so do the witnesses.

 

[beach]

I meant to add in my previous post -

I've been very, very impressed with both Nel and Roux. Their strategies, skills, knowledge, .... They're both top-notch and, in my opinion, very evenly matched as far as presenting their best cases.

 

[Suthrnqt]

If you guys will induldge me for a minute -

I think where some of what is perceived as disagreement comes in between posters with differing opinions. Minor4th is an attorney. I am an ABA certified paralegal with 22 years in the field. I don't know for a fact but my impression is that I find Oscar far less credible than Minor does. :angel: HOWEVER, we both know that what really matters in the end is the law. I hope Minor doesn't mind me disclosing but I messaged Minor for links regarding the laws, rules and statutes defining things like premeditation, intent, etc... In the U.S. we have books (x too many lol), Westlaw, LexisNexis that we use as often as a chef would reach for a recipe book. We haven't been able to access those type things we rely on (and probably won't be able to).

But we can agree that it all boils down to being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he is guilty of each and every charge. Judge Marsipa will consider different components presented as evidence, give it appropriate weight as determined by her and then make the decision whether it is beyond a reasonable doubt in the Court's opinion.

I cannot stand Oscar Pistorius for a number of reasons. I've kept up with him over the years post London Olympics, I didn't care for him before Reeva's death. However, I agree that the State has probably not met the threshold yet to get a conviction that it was premeditated. I think Nel's very close and it may happen yet, but from my limited understanding of SA law, I think there is still room for reasonable doubt.

I hope my point wasn't completely lost here. I don't feel like I expressed what I was trying to convey well. I personally believe he deserves to be convicted of premediated murder (if I'm understanding the SA legal definition correctly) however, that is based on my feelings and personal theory. I have no idea what Judge Masipa is thinking. I know it's not legally necessary to prove motive but frankly, it would help if Judge Masipa could answer that for herself. IMO, Nel has to do more for her to feel comfortable with that.

If you very experienced legal professionals are kind of confused, can you imagine how the rest of us feel? I understand what you are trying to say, though. I appreciate you being honest about your views. Is there anyway you would consider sharing your personal theory? TIA

 

[kaos]

I meant to add in my previous post -

I've been very, very impressed with both Nel and Roux. Their strategies, skills, knowledge, .... They're both top-notch and, in my opinion, very evenly matched as far as presenting their best cases.

Can't say I was impressed with the case he presented to the court but now I think he has a few things up his sleeve that were always intended for CE and I'm impressed that he's giving OP a hard time. It can't have been easy figuring whether to soft talk him because of his celebrity/role model status or choosing to be hard so we get a better insight into OP's character and thereby possibly alienating the public (although I realise it's the judge he's addressing).

 

[Rumpole]

The timing above has not been proven. I wrote a post on this earlier. It is a pity that the people who defend OP's version and stick so rigidly to their view of the timing, do not read posts that contradict their version.

Based on my assessment of the timing, there was about 15 minutes between the first and the second set of "bangs". Then there was about five minutes between the second set of bangs and OP's first phone call.

What was he doing for 15 minutes running around and screaming and not managing to get the door open? This absolutely does not make sense to me. If he was unable to get the door open, it makes reasonable sense that he would have called for help during this time and not afterwards.

However if you look at the first set of bangs as being part of the argument, then the gunshots 15 minutes later make sense, and 5 minutes would be more than enough time for OP to force open the door and make his first call. A more logical timeline if you ask me, especially seeing witnesses were clearer about the second set of bangs (heard by more people).

I have presented the times that have been testified to during the STATE case?

The claim that there was "5 minutes" for Op to do all that must have been done after the shots. (regardless of whose version) is simply wrong.

The second bangs that Nel has stated categorically to be time of gunshots were just after 3:17. OP's first call was 3:19

There is no 5 minutes between?

There are two events KNOWN FOR SURE to have made loud bangs. Two sets of loud bangs heard by State's nearest and best witnesses. State Expert clear that cricket bat was AFTER shots.

I really can not see how anybody can reasonably continue to question the sequence of events. And the times of those events as fixed by phone records, or the range of time testified to by witnesses.

Nel is having to Force an unlikely (impossible) interpretation on the facts his own witnesses have testified to... solely to force "woman screaming" into the narrative.

 

[soozieqtips]

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.

BBM - except the 'intruder' has no way of knowing where OP is standing, so he would be shooting blindly. OP knows the 'intruder' is behind the toilet door in a small confined space. Who's got the definite advantage here? Not the 'intruder' trapped in a small space.

 

[asanque]

I have presented the times that have been testified to during the STATE case?

The claim that there was "5 minutes" for Op to do all that must have been done after the shots. (regardless of whose version)

The second bangs that Nel has stated categorically to be time of gunshots were just after 3:17. OP's first call was 3:19

There is no 5 minutes between?

Which can be explained if he called Stander PRIOR to getting Reeva out of the toilet (as he knew he shot her).

It may also explain the garbled Netcare call as he would not have enough information as to the extent of Reeva's injury (perhaps explaining why they asked him to bring her in - rather than send an ambulance)