Trial Discussion weekend Thread #24

[jassy writer]

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?

According to Oscar's own testimony it took him just three hits to break down that door.

Which is more likely - three hits in a few seconds, or three hits in fifteen plus minutes?

 

[Whiteorchids]

Oscar repeatedly lied!!
http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1755052

 

[Suthrnqt]

Was the alarm deactivated before or after 'the intruder' supposedly came through the window? At this point, I am having a hard time keeping up with all the versions and who supplied each version.

 

[Feynman]

excerpted quote

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.

The intruder can shoot anywhere he wants and you think somehow that's a fair comparison? The intruder doesn't know anything except he was able to make it through a window. Somehow, he knows to take sanctuary in the toilet, which he is able to identify in the few microseconds and photons available. He doesn't know the layout, he doesn't know where an armed gunman might be. OP does - he knows the layout, and knows exactly where the armed intruder is (if he is armed). It is clear to me that OP has decided to execute the person(s) behind the toilet door, even if we believe his extraordinary version of events. Isn't that murder?

 

[soozieqtips]

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

BBM - I thought that OP still had to be under immediate threat, like seeing the intruder come towards him in order to claim self defence. Since the 'intruder' was behind a door and OP was aiming a gun at that door, OP was under no immediate threat. He passed the competency test for gun ownership so he knew he wasn't entitled to shoot under the circumstances he was in that night. Can't be self defence against a closed door.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

~snipped~

Did he really do that??

Edit: just seen a follow up post which confirms it was someone from the gallery, not OP.

I could swear to have seen, but another FM said, it was out of the gallery. I'm still kind of safe and have done a video-search, unfortunately without success so far ... :smile:

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Could it be, OP had shot Reeva around 3pm, then somehow broke the door (hits with bat may have been much earlier) and thought about "intruder" as a solution to his giant problem, then fired 3 shots more out of the window around 3.16pm?

The cartridges OP may have picked up.

I don't know, whether police had searched the area, ie on the neighbours ground?

 

[BabaJ]

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.

Oh, you could not have said it any better!

 

[04009margaret]

Hi all, can't wait for court to start today. Will we get the answers to the questions we all have or will our heads be left spinning again at the end of the day LOL. I'm having so much trouble getting OP's story straight in my head, it's the little things that he keeps changing in his version, that do my head in. For my own benefit I have spent the last 2 days doing a transcript of his evidence from the discussion of the door on Thursday. I've completed all of Thursday's testimony from that point & I'm currently working on Fridays. It's a long & tedious process with lots of frustrating interruptions throughout. I may pop my head into the forum during court today, but if I'm MIA you know where I am LOL

 

[beach]

If you very experienced legal professionals are kind of confused, can you imagine how the rest of us feel?

Yes! Absolutely I understand the confusion! This is the first international trial that I have followed this closely and it has been frustrating. I'm spoiled to being able to look things up swiftly, research case law, know authorities, etc...

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

Sure. I don't always share my theories, mainly because of perceived bias but I think it would be okay in this case. (I moderate fairly, never from my own POV, so ! ) I think we need a Theory Thread anyway. I believe it would be very helpful and interesting, especially in this case. I don't want to do it tonight since court will resume in a little over an hour and these insane hours (2:30a - 8:00a my time) are aging me at the speed of light. lol Tomorrow I will open one so you guys be getting your thoughts together & jotting down your theories. Save them in a word doc and you can copy & paste them in the new thread.

 

[Really?]

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.

no disrespect intended.....most here think not only did he foresee killing Reeva.....but he did see Reeva when he shot that last blast through her head.

 

[crasshopper]

The family of Reeva Steenkamp is lashing out at Oscar Pistorius after he spent three days testifying through tears about his slain girlfriend.


“He is trying to convince the court that they were really close and that he cared for her,” Steenkamp’s sister, Simone, told London’s The Mail on Sunday.
“It’s not true. He is a disgusting liar.”

...

In between sobs, Pistorius stuck to his story that he accidentally blew away his stunning model girlfriend through a bathroom door after mistaking her for a burglar.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...sgusting-liar-article-1.1754804#ixzz2yq3Ntsai

 

[minor4th]

Ok, for those interested in the law and its appliction in SA, here's a reading list of cases that will give you some pretty good information about murder, culpable homicide, self defense, putative self defense, and dolus

S. v. Jonkers 2006:

There were formerly technical rules about the duty to retreat before using force or at least fatal force. This is now simply a factor to be taken into account in deciding whether it was necessary to use force, and whether the force was reasonable. If the only reasonable course is to retreat, then it would appear that to stand and fight must be to use unreasonable force. There is, however, no rule of law that a person attacked is bound to run away if he can.

When the test of reasonableness and the conduct of the hypothetical reasonable man is applied, the Court must put itself in the position of the accused at the time of the attack. If the State does not discharge this onus, the acused must be acquitted. On the other hand, if the State dischares the said onus, that is not the end of the matter and the second leg of the enquiry must be proceeded with. The second leg of the enquiry is then whether the State has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did not genuinely believe that he was acting in self-defence and that he was not (sic) exceeding the bounds of self-defence. Here the test is purely subjective and the reasonableness or otherwise of such belief, whether or not it is based on or amounts to a mistake of fact or law or both, is only relevant as one of the factors in the determination whether or not the accused held the aforesaid genuine belief. (See Burchell and Hunt (op cit at 164 – 81 and 330 – 2); S v De Blom, 1977 (3) SA 513 (A).) ….


If the State discharges the onus to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused held no such genuine belief, then the accused must be convicted of the charge of murder. If the said onus is not discharged, then the accused cannot be convicted of murder requiring mens rea in the form of dolus, but can be convicted of a crime not requiring dolus but merely culpa, such as culpable homicide."

S. v. Mawaba 2002:

Murder conviction overturned even though accused kept stabbing the deceased even after the deceased no longer posed a threat. Appeals court acquitted him of murder and culpable homicide.

S v. Mophatlane 2005

The test for private defence is objective -“ would a reasonable man in the position of the accused have acted in the same way (S v Ntuli 1975 (1) SA 429 (A) at 436E). In putative private defence it is not lawfulness that is in issue but culpability. If an accused honestly believes his life or property to be in danger, but objectively viewed they are not, the defensive steps he takes cannot constitute private defence. If in those circumstances he kills someone his conduct is unlawful. His erroneous belief that his life or property was in danger may well (depending upon the precise circumstances) exclude dolus in which case liability for the person's death based on intention will also be excluded; at worst for him he can then be convicted of culpable homicide.

S v. Crossberg 2007

This is a very lengthy opinion with a lengthy dissenting opinion, but it thoroughly goes through various cases dealing with culpable homicide and appropriate sentencing.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

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.

Perhaps not on stumps and described by mistake?????????????

 

[kaos]

Yes! Absolutely I understand the confusion! This is the first international trial that I have followed this closely and it has been frustrating. I'm spoiled to being able to look things up swiftly, research case law, know authorities, etc...



Sure. I don't always share my theories, mainly because of perceived bias but I think it would be okay in this case. (I moderate fairly, never from my own POV, so ! ) I think we need a Theory Thread anyway. I believe it would be very helpful and interesting, especially in this case. I don't want to do it tonight since court will resume in a little over an hour and these insane hours (2:30a - 8:00a my time) are aging me at the speed of light. lol Tomorrow I will open one so you guys be getting your thoughts together & jotting down your theories. Save them in a word doc and you can copy & paste them in the new thread.

Are bizarre ones allowed?

 

[beach]

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)

Excellent point! Excellent!

 

[minor4th]

no disrespect intended.....most here think not only did he foresee killing Reeva.....but he did see Reeva when he shot that last blast through her head.

I understand, and that's certainly possible - I just don't think the state has provided evidence of that yet.

 

[minor4th]

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.

I agree with this. Both very good at their jobs, and that does make for a very exciting trial to watch.

 

[Really?]

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

I think the fact that her ashes are scattered some where.....and that he shot her 3 times.......intention is a given.

 

[katydid23]

Sure she can. His defense is, heat of the moment, he feared for his life and Reeva's life, he went immediately went into fight mode, he did not make a choice to not put on his prosthetics he simply acted out of instinct. If pressed at all (if he admits to "making a choice") which I doubt he will do, he could say that he thought that the risk of the time lost putting on his prosthetics outweighed the risk of facing the "intruder" without them.

BBM

This is a huge issue for me. It took less than a minute for him to put on his legs. He was safely locked in the bedroom and had a loaded automatic weapon, a phone to call for help and a panic button on his alarm. He had no need to run out into that dark hallway on his stumps, towards unknown danger. I can't get past that part of his story.