Oscar Pistorius Defense

[homegirl]

I think the gun charges were added after the Bail Hearing.

Here is a link indicating when the charges were added.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ce-two-added-gun-charges-at-murder-trial.html

Thanks for the correction IB. There goes that theory. I am going to edit my post to reflect my error. I guess we will keep wondering why he did not just admit the obvious.

 

[james83]

If you take the DT at their word, then the 'screaming woman' that the witnesses heard was supposedly OP. Now I can believe that a man, upon finding his lover dead, at his own hands, accidentally, could conceivably wail like a woman, and be in pure distress.

HOWEVER, that is not what they are saying, technically. They are saying that he screamed like a woman, BEFORE batting open the toilet door. But once he actually saw her body, no more screaming. :doh:

That makes no sense to me at all. And why the big gap of time before he actually entered the room to try and save her? Did he jist wail and cry for 15 minutes before actually getting to her body and before calling for medical help?

I cannot believe that version. I could believe he cried out in anguish upon seeing her dead on the toilet floor. But that is not what they are putting to us.

Yep, we are supposed to believe he ran around screaming in a fashion that was perceived by 4 people to be a woman under attack/fearful for her life with the odd male tone thrown in, and upon getting the door open he makes virtually no noise and phone's a friend :floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[homegirl]

From your post I assume there were no photos of that toilet window.

I have been trying since hearing some of the ear witness testimony to find out whether that toilet window was open and how that would affect the sound of Reeva screams heard outside.

What would the sound difference have been if she had started screaming or yelling in the bedroom, during the the "fight" that reportedly started hours before the shooting (with windows open or closed?) vs the last sound reported of Reeva screaming (even after the head shot) in the toilet, as reported by Ms Burger.

How would the screaming and different reports of screaming, a woman's voice, a man's voice, and both, have been affected by the balcony door being open or closed and that toilet window being open or closed during the last several hours before and during the shooting?

I don't even know if the sliding bathroom window was open or closed because it could have been opened after the shooting.

Has that house been tested for sound with all windows opened and closed, and then in the positions OP claims they were in during the shooting?

Police photographer Van Staden took photos of the WC as found. The window can be seen in a couple of the photos shown in court. It appeared to me that the window was closed. He also photographed that window from the outside and it appeared closed from that vantage point also. Maybe Lisa has some screenshots on her blog showing it. It would be shown during Vanstadens testimony, or maybe Van Rensburg's.

 

[Tink]

BBM - when Nel asked OP why he didn't scream after he'd discovered what he'd done - OP said something like "Why would I scream"? - and then went on to say something even stranger, that he'd been "saddened" by what he'd seen. Saddened????? He'd just shot his 'beloved' to death, and he was saddened? He wasn't horrified, or going out of his mind with pain - he was saddened!!

That speaks volumes to me. He wasn't horrified because he knew what he was doing. He was sad when he saw her because this beautiful woman was gone, but probably also felt justified because she made him angry at her, so he felt nothing more.

Tink

 

[Gbtaketwo]

The open panel of the bathroom window was the one nearest the WC door. Both Stipps saw some light, dimmer than the brighter bathroom light, in the WC. OP had damaged the door enough before the final shots to allow some of the bathroom light to filter into the WC imo. This also enabled Reeva's screams to be heard.

I wondered about the ambient light and am torn between it being Reeva's phone or from a crack in the door ,more likely the crack in the door though .
Also I may be wrong but I thought Dr Stipp's only saw the light on in the bathroom and no light on in the toilet but Mrs Stipp's did stick to the fact that there was light in the toilet as well as the bathroom . The defence referred to Dr Stipps testimony whilst cross examining Mrs Stipp's but she was very firm on this point.

 

[lithgow1]

BBM - when Nel asked OP why he didn't scream after he'd discovered what he'd done - OP said something like "Why would I scream"? - and then went on to say something even stranger, that he'd been "saddened" by what he'd seen. Saddened????? He'd just shot his 'beloved' to death, and he was saddened? He wasn't horrified, or going out of his mind with pain - he was saddened!!

I also was a bit 'What?' at that choice of word. As you say, 'saddened' is so inappropriate a word for such an 'incident'. How about 'horrified'?

I was also scoffing at him for stopping screaming at that moment and a friend said 'Well that could be a natural reaction - it's possible you'd be struck dumb by the enormity of what you've just done.'. Then I told her how he said 'What would be the point?' and 'I broke down ... and just started to cry' and she thought for a little while and then said 'He's full of sh ..t'.

 

[mister happy]

^^Wow, I didn't know Pastorius said he was "saddened" after seeing what he had done! Inappropriate is an understatement. I mean, you might feel saddened if you left the butter out, but not if you accidentally blew the love of your life away. You would be devastated to say the least.

 

[PPKik]

I also was a bit 'What?' at that choice of word. As you say, 'saddened' is so inappropriate word for such an 'incident'. How about 'horrified'?

I was also scoffing at him for stopping screaming at that moment and a friend said 'Well that could be a natural reaction - it's possible you'd be struck dumb by the enormity of what you've just done.'. Then I told her how he said 'What would be the point?' and 'I broke down ... and just started to cry' and she thought for a little while and then said 'He's full of sh ..t'.

I totally agree. "Agog" is a good word. I was stunned at his use of the word "saddened" in that context.

I thought either he has a horrible or very limited vocabulary (Is English his first language? Could that explain?), or he is so full of sh-t that he doesn't even know how to approximate a "normal" reaction of abject horror.

 

[PPKik]

^^Wow, I didn't know Pastorius said he was "saddened" after seeing what he had done! Inappropriate is an understatement. I mean, you might feel saddened if you left the butter out, but not if you accidentally blew the love of your life away. You would be devastated to say the least.

BBM

I should not be laughing, but your "saddened if you left the butter out". . . just struck me as a perfect reaction to his reaction.

 

[mister happy]

Yes PPKiK, it's all so bizarre, and at times laughable. BUT you brought up a good question: Is English his first language? If it isn't, he may not have full command of his words.

 

[shane13]

It seems that Op did not say "Why would I scream?"

“Why would you not scream then?” Nel added. “It’s the first time you know she’s in the toilet. Why did you not scream then?”

“I don’t know what the purpose would be of screaming,” Pistorius replied. “I was overcome with sadness, I was crying.”

BIB is what he said. Maybe stranger. Of course, in Oscar-Speak, things are clear. He stopped the danger to himself--attempt by Reeva to call the police, or shooting an intruder in his story. So why would he need to scream then?
Oscar-Speak. [Classes taught at the better Unis.]

Plus--here's the kicker IMO. He is giving away, that since she stopped screaming, he no longer needs to scream. Get it?


http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/pi...us-why-did-you-not-scream-seeing-reeva-n80526

 

[lisasalinger]

Police photographer Van Staden took photos of the WC as found. The window can be seen in a couple of the photos shown in court. It appeared to me that the window was closed. He also photographed that window from the outside and it appeared closed from that vantage point also. Maybe Lisa has some screenshots on her blog showing it. It would be shown during Vanstadens testimony, or maybe Van Rensburg's.

I'm pretty sure it was closed too. I haven't been able to find a good close up yet, I just have the following...

The first pic shows the window from outside during the day. It appears as if it's open, but then take a look at the window at night. The frame looks exactly the same.

Also, in the last pic, you can see that the blinds are all the way down. I'm guessing that is how they found them. If she had opened the window, she likely would have raised the blinds.

 

[PPKik]

In trying to find out what OP's real first and most used language is, I found this page. I am looking for something that may explain his inexplicable use of the word "saddened," or phrase, "overcome with sadness," when discovering he had shot Reeva, not find an excuse for it.


"But when we consider what this really tells us about our country, the answer actually lies in language.

"There was simply no question that this trial would be heard in any language other than English. Right from the very beginning, it was simply assumed by everyone that English it would be. And so it was proven. And yet, no one actually acting in this trial has English as their first language. Judge Masipa doesn’t; both Roux and Gerrie Nel seem to speak Afrikaans as a first language. And yet English it is.

It is a strange quirk of our country that very few people have English as their first language, but it is fast removing Afrikaans from our courtrooms. This means that very few people will be tried in the language that speaks to their heart. And while the proceedings are interpreted, we all know that that can come with associated problems. Involving paranoid schizophrenia, sign language, and booing."


http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opin...e-language-apartheid-it-reveals/#.U179PuhX-uY

 

[liesbeth]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/12/shapiro-pistorius-and-south-african-law/

Here is a very interesting article about the burden of proof on Oscar Pistorius by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, a legal analyst for The Washington Times.

This is not a direct quote from the page but my summary of the article.

Shapiro says that even if Oscar Pistorius is acquitted of murder he could still be found guilty of “culpable homicide” under South African law. Shapiro mentions that Pistorius is charged with premeditated, deliberate murder and that this could mean a possibly mandatory life sentence (up to 25 years unless there are mitigating circumstances) for Pistorius.

I'd like to explain that in South Africa premeditation is not seen as a seperate type of murder charge (as in first or second degree murder) but as an aggravating factor to the charge of murder. Premeditation falls under "Section 51 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997" which prescribes mandatory minimum sentences for, among other crimes, premeditated murder.

In his article Shapiro explains putative self defense as follows: Pistorius claims the killing was done mistakenly in self-defense because he erroneously believed an intruder was in his home when he fired four shots through a locked bathroom door.

Shapiro then says that in South Africa self-defense is “ground of justification” (an "affirmative defense"). This means that the defendant admits to the act of killing but not the crime of murder because he or she lacked the required intent. Shapiro notes that this type of defense could be risky because the defendant must actually admit to the act.

"In U.S. criminal cases, where a defendant pleads not guilty and asserts self-defense, the prosecution would still retain the burden of proof to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but the “burden of production” would shift to the defendant," says Shapiro.

So Pistorius has to prove by "a preponderance of the evidence" that he or she had a “reasonable belief” his or her life was in danger.

Usually this means the defendant must prove that the victim threatened them, but this is not the case in the Pistorious trial. The issue here is OP's mistaken belief that an intruder invaded his home.

Shapiro then explains that OP must convince Judge Masipa that he made an honest mistake in believing that he was firing at an intruder. This is a subjective test where the judge will decide if he personally believed he was firing at an intruder.

If the judge believes him and he is acquitted of murder, Pistorius must now overcome a higher burden. The objective test of convincing the judge that his mistake was reasonable — one that a reasonable man would also make. If Pistorius fails to prove that his mistake was reasonable, he faces a possible “culpable homicide,” conviction, which is the equivalent of manslaughter under U.S. law.

 

[liesbeth]

In trying to find out what OP's real first and most used language is, I found this page. I am looking for something that may explain his inexplicable use of the word "saddened," or phrase, "overcome with sadness," when discovering he had shot Reeva, not find an excuse for it.


"But when we consider what this really tells us about our country, the answer actually lies in language.

"There was simply no question that this trial would be heard in any language other than English. Right from the very beginning, it was simply assumed by everyone that English it would be. And so it was proven. And yet, no one actually acting in this trial has English as their first language. Judge Masipa doesn’t; both Roux and Gerrie Nel seem to speak Afrikaans as a first language. And yet English it is.

It is a strange quirk of our country that very few people have English as their first language, but it is fast removing Afrikaans from our courtrooms. This means that very few people will be tried in the language that speaks to their heart. And while the proceedings are interpreted, we all know that that can come with associated problems. Involving paranoid schizophrenia, sign language, and booing."


http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opin...e-language-apartheid-it-reveals/#.U179PuhX-uY

Oscar Pistorius can speak Afrikaans, but he is a native English speaker. In fact the trial is in English precisely because Oscar Pistorius is English speaking.

Right at the beginning, on the first day before Burger gave testimony, the judge put it on record. She asked Nel if the defendant was English speaking and Nel confirmed that he was.

 

[nastasya]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/12/shapiro-pistorius-and-south-african-law/

Here is a very interesting article about the burden of proof on Oscar Pistorius by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, a legal analyst for The Washington Times.

This is not a direct quote from the page but my summary of the article.

Shapiro says that even if Oscar Pistorius is acquitted of murder he could still be found guilty of “culpable homicide” under South African law. Shapiro mentions that Pistorius is charged with premeditated, deliberate murder and that this could mean a possibly mandatory life sentence (up to 25 years unless there are mitigating circumstances) for Pistorius.

I'd like to explain that in South Africa premeditation is not seen as a seperate type of murder charge (as in first or second degree murder) but as an aggravating factor to the charge of murder. Premeditation falls under "Section 51 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997" which prescribes mandatory minimum sentences for, among other crimes, premeditated murder.

In his article Shapiro explains putative self defense as follows: Pistorius claims the killing was done mistakenly in self-defense because he erroneously believed an intruder was in his home when he fired four shots through a locked bathroom door.

Shapiro then says that in South Africa self-defense is “ground of justification” (an "affirmative defense"). This means that the defendant admits to the act of killing but not the crime of murder because he or she lacked the required intent. Shapiro notes that this type of defense could be risky because the defendant must actually admit to the act.

"In U.S. criminal cases, where a defendant pleads not guilty and asserts self-defense, the prosecution would still retain the burden of proof to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but the “burden of production” would shift to the defendant," says Shapiro.

So Pistorius has to prove by "a preponderance of the evidence" that he or she had a “reasonable belief” his or her life was in danger.

Usually this means the defendant must prove that the victim threatened them, but this is not the case in the Pistorious trial. The issue here is OP's mistaken belief that an intruder invaded his home.

Shapiro then explains that OP must convince Judge Masipa that he made an honest mistake in believing that he was firing at an intruder. This is a subjective test where the judge will decide if he personally believed he was firing at an intruder.

If the judge believes him and he is acquitted of murder, Pistorius must now overcome a higher burden. The objective test of convincing the judge that his mistake was reasonable — one that a reasonable man would also make. If Pistorius fails to prove that his mistake was reasonable, he faces a possible “culpable homicide,” conviction, which is the equivalent of manslaughter under U.S. law.

The problem with this entire defense is two-fold.

1) According to his version, OP put his own life in danger by being the aggressor in the confrontation. The "intruder" cannot be blamed for OP chasing after him and standing in front of the door.

2) OP denies he shot the "intruder" in self-defense now. He abandoned his claim that he shot in self-defense.

 

[Greater Than]

If you take the DT at their word, then the 'screaming woman' that the witnesses heard was supposedly OP. Now I can believe that a man, upon finding his lover dead, at his own hands, accidentally, could conceivably wail like a woman, and be in pure distress.

HOWEVER, that is not what they are saying, technically. They are saying that he screamed like a woman, BEFORE batting open the toilet door. But once he actually saw her body, no more screaming. :doh:

That makes no sense to me at all. And why the big gap of time before he actually entered the room to try and save her? Did he jist wail and cry for 15 minutes before actually getting to her body and before calling for medical help?

I cannot believe that version. I could believe he cried out in anguish upon seeing her dead on the toilet floor. But that is not what they are putting to us.

We're to believe he was screaming like a woman -- BLOOD CURDLING SCREAMS -- because he was filled with horror and fear, yet he was in "full combat mode."

And as you said, horror and fear driven woman-like screams during the act, but upon seeing it was actually his girlfriend he just shot to death -- NOTHING. Can anything possibly be more horrific than discovering you misidentified your own girlfriend for an intruder?

And how about all the retching and vomiting at trial when the wounds were merely described? He didn't do any of that when he viewed them up close and personal in the toilet cubicle, or when he saw her blood and brain matter splattered all over the place, or when he carried her downstairs and stuck his fingers in her mouth.

Ridiculous.

 

[nastasya]

I don't think that there it is any testimony in which there was ever a pause long enough between gun shots for Oscar to break the panel out of the door and locate Reeva's position, for that to be a forensic possibility Oscar would have had to broken the panel out assessed Reeva's position moved back to the area from which he fired the other shot(s) and shoot through the door hitting Reeva in the head.

I don't think Nel will argue that as a possible scenario.

OP testified that the first cricket bat hit to the door broke a piece of the door through which he could see Reeva.

I believe that was screwed up when he admitted this. If she was dead on the floor it contradicts his previous statement that he didn't look through the door, and didn't see her until he bent over and picked up the key.

He said the first bat hit enabled him to see Reeva. Look at the angle of the shots, and where she was on the toilet. The only place he could be standing and see her was aligned exactly with the small break in the upper part of the door from the first bat hit.

First shot hit her hip. Next three were right at her head.

 

[Viper]

We're to believe he was screaming like a woman -- BLOOD CURDLING SCREAMS -- because he was filled with horror and fear, yet he was in "full combat mode."

And as you said, horror and fear driven woman-like screams during the act, but upon seeing it was actually his girlfriend he just shot to death -- NOTHING. Can anything possibly be more horrific than discovering you misidentified your own girlfriend for an intruder?

And how about all the retching and vomiting at trial when the wounds were merely described? He didn't do any of that when he viewed them up close and personal in the toilet cubicle, or when he saw her blood and brain matter splattered all over the place, or when he carried her downstairs and stuck his fingers in her mouth.

Ridiculous.

BIB. You mean what Reeva, with a perforating gunshot wound to her head with her brain tissue clinging to her hair, looked like? The same as in the photo that I have attached?

 

[DebinGA]

I.
Also I may be wrong but I thought Dr Stipp's only saw the light on in the bathroom and no light on in the toilet but Mrs Stipp's did stick to the fact that there was light in the toilet as well as the bathroom . .

RSBM for relevance ... Yes, I think you're right about Dr. Stipp not seeing light in the WC.