General Discussion Thread #2

[21merc7]

the statement of Oscars was prepared and worded by his lawyers, they were at this stage only using it for purposes of the bail hearing,

I am sure they will flesh out more details of the night as time goes on in preparation for trial,

and it seems they were initially not getting together that evening but plans were changed and they decided to spend the night together, so Oscar may or may not have bought her a gift, if he was not expecting to see her he my have been intending to get a gift later (if he had not previously bought her one)

then again maybe he did not intend to buy her a present as Valentines day was not something he celebrated,

Yes Affidavit was lawyer prepared. Completely agree once I finally read it yesterday.
!
Thank you for bringing up men and gifts. I am not a man, but have a lot of male friends throughout my life. Only one of them has ever bought a gift in advance for a GF or wife. He was a true romantic though.

The others wait until that day, other than Christmas Eve shopping. That is the only holiday that gets a few hours advance purchase.

One of them refuses to celebrate what he calls "HallMark Holidays". Don't know how his GF feels about it.

 

[Carol70]

the statement of Oscars was prepared and worded by his lawyers, they were at this stage only using it for purposes of the bail hearing,

I am sure they will flesh out more details of the night as time goes on in preparation for trial,

and it seems they were initially not getting together that evening but plans were changed and they decided to spend the night together, so Oscar may or may not have bought her a gift, if he was not expecting to see her he my have been intending to get a gift later (if he had not previously bought her one)

then again maybe he did not intend to buy her a present as Valentines day was not something he celebrated,

Admittedly, his statement is very well put together and I don't believe that they would have added anything at all, that they couldn't back up in court, hence my reason for being defensive.

I will add that there was an article shortly after the shooting. It was comments by a person who worked in a shop stating they had seen Reeva just the previous day before, how happy she was and she was collecting her valentines gift for Oscar ( photo frame and picture of the two of them together). Could this have been the reason it was included in the statement?? That the gift was mentioned in the papers and that she was happy and in love?

 

[Estelle]

http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/oscar-pistorius-criminal-law-101/

Great article about OP case and the law.

Comments on that article which i agree with:

I’m a candidate attorney who enjoys litigation very much. From what I’ve been reading in the media is that the defence, atleast at this stage, is arguing that Oscar didn’t have “intention” to kill Reeva (whether this translates to admitting to having intention to kill the “burglar” is another issue which I intend dealing with hereinunder). Mr. Roux’s line of argument is this: the state is arguing that Oscar fired shots, thus had intent to kill, therefore he committed murder. But, Mr Roux further argues, intent [to kill burglar] can’t be transferred to Reeva. With all due respect to Mr. Roux it is my humbly submission that he’s line of argument is misplaced and thus wrong. If the media info is anything to go by it seems as if Oscar admits all the elements except that of intention [because he thought that he was shooting a burglar]. It is further my submission that case law has clarified that the mere fact that Oscar (X) thought that he was killing the Burglar (Y) when infact he was killing Reeva (Z) does not mean he didn’t have intention. The mere fact that he admits to having an intention to kill the burglar means he (subjectively) foresaw that his shooting at the burglar might kill the burglar (which turned out to be Reeva).

Pierre De Vos

cinga, yes if I am not mistaken the so called error in objecto case, in which X intends to kill Y but kills Z who he believes to be Y, X has intention to kill. If Pistporius had intention to kill intruder but kills Reeva who he believe to be intruder, then he is guilty of the murder

I’ll once again clarify my point the defence’s case is that Oscar did not have intention because he did not have intention to kill Reeva [but had intention to kill the burglar although it later came out that, with the benefit of hindsight, the victim was infact Reeva]. The question therefore is this “does the mere fact that Oscar thought he was killing a burglar mean he lacks intention to kill”[Reeva]? I humbly submit that the answer is No. I further submit that one need not know the identity of his victim in order to have intention. The crucial question to ask is whether or not he (Oscar) had intention to kill? [Whether the burglar or Reeva, its immaterial. In this matter he admits he had (intention to kill the burglar)].

 

[Mrs G Norris]

^^ totally agree!!! He intended to kill and did kill a human .. Misidentification is a lame excuse and frankly also unlikely. Intention to kill REEVA is to be avoided for the social implications for him I believe and of course he'll get more sympathy from the burglar story than the lovers quarrel story.

 

[joe jones]

you don't sound defensive to me, I am in agreement with your posts, I am on the fence as to what I think his culpability is, but I am off the fence as to he deliberately killed her,

as to the gift nobody knew what was in it as according to Oscar Reeva had asked him to not open it until the next day, but I do think his lawyers included it in statement to show that Reeva had bought Oscar a Valentines gift to show she was in love and looking forward to celebrating Valentines with Oscar

 

[joe jones]

where In Oscars statement does it say he intended to kill the burglar

 

[21merc7]

you don't sound defensive to me, I am in agreement with your posts, I am on the fence as to what I think his culpability is, but I am off the fence as to he deliberately killed her,

as to the gift nobody knew what was in it as according to Oscar Reeva had asked him to not open it until the next day, but I do think his lawyers included it in statement to show that Reeva had bought Oscar a Valentines gift to show she was in love and looking forward to celebrating Valentines with Oscar

I agree. Defense also lost the idea of crime of passion with that Affidavit, although they have no intention for it get that far anyhow.

 

[21merc7]

where In Oscars statement does it say he intended to kill the burglar

It does not directly say that.

I think 4 shots in a tiny cubical implies it, so the prosecution will state.

It did say he was trying to protect Reeva, and, obviously, himself.

 

[natsound]

So if the bullet trajectory reveals OP was standing on legs, does this blow his entire defense to bits? What do you think? It certainly would reveal he lied in his affidavit.

 

[Estelle]

Yes Affidavit was lawyer prepared. Completely agree once I finally read it yesterday.
!
Thank you for bringing up men and gifts. I am not a man, but have a lot of male friends throughout my life. Only one of them has ever bought a gift in advance for a GF or wife. He was a true romantic though.

The others wait until that day, other than Christmas Eve shopping. That is the only holiday that gets a few hours advance purchase.

One of them refuses to celebrate what he calls "HallMark Holidays". Don't know how his GF feels about it.

In Australia where I live on Valentine's day, it was on the news that the men buy the women gifts - not necessarily the other way around. The usual gifts are a bunch of red roses or a single rose, chocolates, champagne and/or a romantic evening out at an upscale restaurant or the male cooks a dinner at home. Men here also give or send cards. But it is the male who usually does the giving more than the women do.

 

[21merc7]

NPR is now telling me you can shop for tennis shoes and jeans at 2 a.m. there! Okay, that is just asking to be robbed in my mind.

 

[joe jones]

It does not directly say that.

I think 4 shots in a tiny cubical implies it, so the prosecution will state.

It did say he was trying to protect Reeva, and, obviously, himself.

but intent will be one of the major factors, and although by his actions it would be reasonable to assume one or more bullet could have hit somebody who was in toilet it may not have killed them, and if you did not intend to kill you were shooting to protect yourself but never formed the intent to kill then that moots the intent argument,

as intent is not just actions but one has to form the intent to kill, even if that intent was formed seconds before you shoot, state has to prove Oscar formed the intent to kill in his mind, they can't just infer it from his actions

 

[21merc7]

In Australia where I live on Valentine's day, it was on the news that the men buy the women gifts - not necessarily the other way around. The usual gifts are a bunch of red roses or a single rose, chocolates, champagne and/or a romantic evening out at an upscale restaurant or the male cooks a dinner at home. Men here also give or send cards. But it is the male who usually does the giving more than the women do.

Used to be the same here. Now the women buy gifts too, maybe because the younger generation knows that may be the only gift exchange happening now? IDK, but women now buy gifts and cards here too.

Never understood the chocolate with all the young men saying they did not want a plump GF or wife. HA, double standards aside.

 

[21merc7]

but intent will be one of the major factors, and although by his actions it would be reasonable to assume one or more bullet could have hit somebody who was in toilet it may not have killed them, and if you did not intend to kill you were shooting to protect yourself but never formed the intent to kill then that moots the intent argument,

as intent is not just actions but one has to form the intent to kill, even if that intent was formed seconds before you shoot, state has to prove Oscar formed the intent to kill in his mind, they can't just infer it from his actions

Exactly! Prosecution must prove intent.

I thought it foolish to charge in that manner immediately, but I don't know the rules and laws of SA. They may have had to charge immediately, and cannot upgrade later if evidence shows the need.

 

[cityslick]

I'm gonna need more proof that they had some sort of lovers quarrel than using info from unverified stories in tabloid newspapers/magazines. I'm also going to need more than some ex-girlfriends mother to tell me that he's this controlling person. Nothing posted last night or this morning provides any sort of evidence that they had any sort of argument, that any sort of fight took place beforehand.

If the argument is that he intentionally tried to kill whoever was behind the door, I'll agree with that due to the number of shots fired. But saying that does not discredit his story. I'm not really sure why there are those that are so convinced he purposely wanted to kill Reeva when there is nothing that lends itself to that. I think the problem with cases like this is everyone always puts what they would do in certain situation and then decides if they wouldn't have done that, the accused is automatically judged. An example of this, he never checked on Reeva so they must of had a lovers quarrel, even though there is nothing suggesting there was one. He took supplements so they must of had an argument over 'performance', despite the fact no one knows exactly why he was taking the supplements, what the side effects where and how that translates to them having an argument about sex.

If he intended to kill her, I'm not sure why he would of rushed to break the door down and the call security to get an ambulance immedietely. If it was such a preplanned thing, I would think he would wait a little bit to sort out his story. The reports also indicate his reactions to when the EMT arrived and she was pronounced dead. If he was in such a rage when he shot her and you think not a whole lot of time had past from the breaking down the door, to bringing her downstairs to EMT arriving, that's an incredible acting job to turn full on emotion to her dying in that moment.

 

[joe jones]

So if the bullet trajectory reveals OP was standing on legs, does this blow his entire defense to bits? What do you think? It certainly would reveal he lied in his affidavit.

the opinion of bullet trajectory came from Botha, his evidence has pretty much been totally discredited,

ballistics reports, bullet trajectory evidence is still being tested,

I am sure state and defence will have experts who interpret the evidence in a light most favourable to there case

so we do not know yet

 

[cityslick]

So if the bullet trajectory reveals OP was standing on legs, does this blow his entire defense to bits? What do you think? It certainly would reveal he lied in his affidavit.

Yes. Anything like that would kill his story. Him putting in his affidavit that he shot without the legs puts him in a confined area to where the bullets can go.

If he really did shoot with his legs on, why wouldn't he put that in the affidavit or just leave it out?

 

[natsound]

but intent will be one of the major factors, and although by his actions it would be reasonable to assume one or more bullet could have hit somebody who was in toilet it may not have killed them, and if you did not intend to kill you were shooting to protect yourself but never formed the intent to kill then that moots the intent argument,

as intent is not just actions but one has to form the intent to kill, even if that intent was formed seconds before you shoot, state has to prove Oscar formed the intent to kill in his mind, they can't just infer it from his actions[/QUOT

How can they prove the intent to kill in his mind? They can't read his mind. They will have to look at actions/circumstances/physical evidence.

 

[joe jones]

Yes. Anything like that would kill his story. Him putting in his affidavit that he shot without the legs puts him in a confined area to where the bullets can go.

If he really did shoot with his legs on, why wouldn't he put that in the affidavit or just leave it out?

if he had time to put his legs on then he would have had more time in the bedroom and would surely have then seen Reeva was not in bed, his version is that he grabbed his gun and went to bathroom,

by the time his statement is prepared his team of lawyers and forensic experts had been in his house I think and everything they put in his statement could be backed up by there experts,

so I think legs on or off will come down to a battle of the experts

 

[cityslick]

I'm surprised more folks are not bothered by the fact that it was the defense that found the bullet casing in the toilet and was missed by the cops. Apparently (when Nair was ripping Botha) a whole lot more was missed/not followed up on. This investigation from the outset is already dirty. How can anyone take what the investigation had produced (especially the witnesses) with serious credibility?