Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #63 ~ the appeal~

[Deleted member 102539]

Yes it wasn't a great idea because it would be strange for 2 people in the same house to argue on the phone. Not an entirely silly idea if it wasn't them though.

I find the idea still okay.
If Reeva had locked herself (there are more rooms than only the wc to lock herself) and if OP wanted to speak with her, then he - the phone savvy/-addicted alltime-caller - perhaps tried to speak to her on phone. Btw he knows very well to handle a dispute via phone! Reeva perhaps had her phone available and had an angry conversation with OP, she much more loud than him (and in another room, closer to the witnesses). Just because they both were in the same house she had not to make a break. There are reasons enough why she could have spoken to him not face to face (if she had herself locked, maybe in the guest's room).

 

[Deleted member 102539]

RE BIB3 - I think you're confusing what OP thought was happening with what actually happened on his version. Reeva was in the bathroom or toilet all the time during OP shouting prior to the shots so she wouldn't have heard him whisper before the shouting (even if that happened). All she'd have heard was sudden shouting about an intruder and 'call the police'. In those circumstances, yes, she might have called out but then again I'd have probably decided the lock myself in the toilet as she did and listen carefully to try to work out what was going on.

It would only have taken 40 seconds (?), 1 minute (?) for him to make his way into the bathroom and then shoot. It's really not a long time.

bbm

If you read only this sentence then you have to realize how very sad it is. You can't understand: why that shootout??? NOT as a mistake or an accident, that's clear.

 

[Marfa Lights]

Does this work ?

<SNIPPED>
[/B] The law on dolus indeterminatus and error in objecto is clear. Nominal/name identity is irrelevant – for that very reason it cannot help the accused if he thought that it was B behind the door; nor can it help an accused who argues that he thought that it was not C. The identity of whoever was behind the door remains irrelevant – and the indictment did not need to remind the judge that it is not relevant. Finally, there is no reason to ignore this clear law (that nominal/name identity is irrelevant) just because the scenario triggers the rules relating to both error in objecto and putative private defence. There appears to be nothing to save us from the inevitable conclusion that Masipa made errors of law and errors of logic"

http://criminallawza.net/2014/09/28...ustify-judge-masipas-errors-revised-expanded/

Excellent! That could not make it any more clear!

 

[Mr Fossil]

I have just listened to Mrs Stipps testimony in which she clearly states the first set of sounds was 03.02 as indicated by her radio/clock which she knew was 3 or 4 minutes fast. Therefore the estimated time of the first noises must be 02.58 to 02.59. The second set of sounds she registers at 03.17. That is a full 15 minutes (by her clock). If those of you who believe the first sounds were when OP killed RS, WHAT was he doing for the following 20 minutes until his first call to Stander at 03.19. If, as he claims, the second noises at 3.15’ish were him breaking the door down it would mean he left Reeva dying in the “locked” toilet without attempting to get any help for a full 15 minutes. Is that what you really believe?

May I just correct the above BIB. Mrs Stipp states that she wakes feeling fluish at 03:02 by her clock radio which is 3-4 minutes fast, not that this is the time of the first set of sounds.

She doesn't give a time for how long she was "lying in my bed contemplating whether I should do something about it, drink some water or just see if it passes".

Under cross-examination by Oldwage she is at pains to correct his impression that there were 15 minutes between the first and second set of sounds when he incorrectly assigns the 03:02 time to the first sounds. Something which he initially doesn't appear to want to hear.

KO: Very well. That gives us 15 minutes from the time that you say that you heard the first shots, you went onto ...
AS: The time that I woke up coughing was 2 ...
KO: One moment. I won’t interrupt you and I expect the same courtesy.

KO: So that gives us from the time immediately prior to you hearing the first shots and going out on the small balcony, large balcony, coming back – 15 minutes. Do you agree?
AS: I agree that’s the time from when I woke up coughing. So until I heard the second set ...
KO: Yes, I accept that.

Although she doesn't have precise times for the durations of how long she was in bed before hearing the first sounds, the moments before hearing a woman screaming or the time at the smaller balcony, she does suggest to Oldwage she is "not quite sure but it could have been at least 10 minutes" that she was on the larger balcony with her husband trying to work out what was happening and discussing what they should do.

AS: What I said right from the beginning, I did not have a watch so the only two times that I've got in my head is 3:02 and 3:17, and between those two times were the events that happened as I explained them to the court.

This includes an initial unspecified period lying in bed.

 

[Marfa Lights]

THIS JUDGMENT IS A MESS NO MATTER HOW YOU LOOK AT IT...

Still reviewing Masipa's judgment for clarity and it appears more flawed every time I try to analyze it.

1. Re: Does PPD automatically exclude Dolus? Erroneous killing is still UNLAWFUL CONDUCT even though successful PPD claim "may well" exclude Dolus (BBM)

On page 3326 Masipa cites S v Adair Oliveira 1993 (2) SACR 59(A) at 63 and 64 regarding the difference in lawful conduct under Private Defense and how that same conduct becomes UNLAWFUL under Putative Private Defense:

"In putative private defence it is not lawfulness that is in issue but culpability...If any accused honestly believes his life or property is 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 on the precise circumstances) exclude dolus in which case the liability for the persons death based on intention will also be excluded. At worst for
him, he can then be convicted of culpable homicide.&#8221;

2. Re: Intent
Pages 3326-3327
"In murder the form of culpability required intention, the test to determine intention is subjective. In the present case the accused is the only person who can say what his state of mind was at the time he fired the shots that killed the deceased.
The accused has not admitted that he had the intention to shoot and kill the deceased or any other person for that matter. On the contrary, he stated that he had no intention to shoot and kill the deceased. The court is however entitled to look at the evidence as a whole and the circumstances of the case to determine the presence or absence of intention at the time of the incident.

In the present case, on his own version the accused suspected that an intruder had entered his house through the bathroom window. His version was that he genuinely, though erroneously, believed that his life and that of the deceased was in danger.
There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that this belief was not honestly entertained. <SNIPPED> There is no doubt that when the accused fired shots through the toilet door, he acted unlawfully. There was no intruder. In fact, the person behind the door was the deceased and she was dead."

3. Re: the Question of Dolus eventualis
Continued on page 3327 she immediately goes on to address Dolus eventualis--

"I now deal with dolus eventualis or legal intent. The question is:
1. Did the accused subjectively foresee that it could be the deceased behind the toilet door and
2. Notwithstanding the foresight did he then fire the shots, thereby reconciling himself to the possibility that it could be the deceased in the toilet.
The evidence before this court does not support the state&#8217;s contention that this could be a case of dolus eventualis. On the contrary the evidence shows that from the onset the accused believed that, at the time he fired shots into the toilet door, the deceased was in the bedroom while the intruders were in the toilet."

4. Re: Her rationale for excluding Dolus

Page 3328-3329 "The question is: Did the accused foresee the possibility of the resultant death, yet persisted in his deed reckless whether death ensued or not? In the circumstances of this case the answer has to be no.
How could the accused reasonably have foreseen that the shots he fired would kill the deceased? Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door, let alone the deceased, as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time. To find otherwise would be tantamount to saying that the accused&#8217;s reaction after he realised that he had shot the deceased was faked; that he was play acting merely to delude the onlookers at the time. Doctor Stipp, an independent witness who was at the accused&#8217;s house minutes after the incident had occurred, stated that the accused looked genuinely distraught, as he prayed to God and as he pleaded with him to help save the deceased. There was nothing to gainsay that observation and this court has not been given any reason to reject it and we accept it as true and reliable. It follows that the accused&#8217;s erroneous belief that his life was in danger excludes dolus. The accused therefore cannot be found guilty of murder dolus eventualis. That however, is not the end of the matter, as culpable homicide is a competent verdict."

So there it is... in all its absurdity.

She gives no legitimate rationale however for her statement: "Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door". Only that after realizing the consequences of his actions he cried, he prayed to God= Not Guilty

I think this is the question most of us would like to answer (or re-phrase) for her: "How could the accused reasonably have foreseen that the shots he fired would kill the deceased?"

 

[lithgow1]

You are right that it seems an absurd mess. I cut the bit below out of your post. What evidence, other than the words of a man charged with murder who she has already said was a poor and evasive witness? Should read `the defendant`s evidence claims that ...` rather than shows as it shows nothing unless you believe him.


On the contrary the evidence shows that from the onset the accused believed that, at the time he fired shots into the toilet door, the deceased was in the bedroom while the intruders were in the toilet.

 

[GR_Turner]

Not really. Just demonstrating what a liar he is. If his testimony was true RS would have answered him. Had it been my OH I would not have been left without an indication of what was happening and why I needed to call the police. Much like OP shouting "call the police", it really depends whether you believe his lies and whether you think he mistakenly thought RS was still in the bedroom. It just didn't happen.

He was shouting at the intruder to get out and to her to call the police. Wouldn't it have been obvious what was happening and why she needed to call the police?

 

[GR_Turner]

BIB - when did OP say he shouted about an intruder? He said he whispered/ said in a low tone to call the police... but I don't recall him using the word 'intruder' while he was recounting what he was shouting that night.

I meant that he was yelling at an intruder to get out and for her to call the police. As I just said above, it would have been obvious what was happening.

 

[GR_Turner]

I find the idea still okay.
If Reeva had locked herself (there are more rooms than only the wc to lock herself) and if OP wanted to speak with her, then he - the phone savvy/-addicted alltime-caller - perhaps tried to speak to her on phone. Btw he knows very well to handle a dispute via phone! Reeva perhaps had her phone available and had an angry conversation with OP, she much more loud than him (and in another room, closer to the witnesses). Just because they both were in the same house she had not to make a break. There are reasons enough why she could have spoken to him not face to face (if she had herself locked, maybe in the guest's room).

I thought you had decided against this theory . Anyway, they didn't use their phones at that time.

 

[lithgow1]

He was shouting at the intruder to get out and to her to call the police. Wouldn't it have been obvious what was happening and why she needed to call the police?

Not at all obvious. If I was on the toilet at 3 am and heard my partner start screaming `Get the f#$% out of my house` I wouldn`t have a clue what was happening and would shout out `What the f#$% is going on?`. You could argue that logic might suggest something along those lines to her but since OP supposedly knew what was going on and used little to no logic that night then it is unfair to claim that she would have been able to infer what the situation was.

 

[Marfa Lights]

He was shouting at the intruder to get out and to her to call the police. Wouldn't it have been obvious what was happening and why she needed to call the police?

Remind me, why do you think she never called the police since she had her phone with her in the toilet cubicle?

 

[Colin de France]

Remind me, why do you think she never called the police since she had her phone with her in the toilet cubicle?

.....well now there are three possible versions to this shooting it's even more confusing........i'm pretty sure she was in that WC with the phone, for the moment there is no proof that she used it or tried to use it but one thing is sure it certainly feels right and may well be the reason why it was so important to have it wiped .........the reason for trying to bash down the WC door in the first place .......

 

[GR_Turner]

Not at all obvious. If I was on the toilet at 3 am and heard my partner start screaming `Get the f#$% out of my house` I wouldn`t have a clue what was happening and would shout out `What the f#$% is going on?`. You could argue that logic might suggest something along those lines to her but since OP supposedly knew what was going on and used little to no logic that night then it is unfair to claim that she would have been able to infer what the situation was.

I think it'd be obvious particularly if your partner was asking you to call the police as well. Clearly they wouldn't do that unless it was an emergency. It depends on the country you're in as well though - SA is quite a dangerous country and Reeva had hidden from a home invasion on a previous occasion so it would make sense to do the same on this occasion.

 

[GR_Turner]

Remind me, why do you think she never called the police since she had her phone with her in the toilet cubicle?

I don't believe you've ever asked me this, Marfa. I think the phone was probably outside the cubicle and she went out into the bathroom to get it and shut the toilet door quickly going back in again, which is the slamming that OP heard. He was nearly in the bathroom at this point so there wasn't much time between that and the shots. I think when he went quiet she leaned against the door to listen, which is why she was standing right up against the door and why it's possible that the door, slightly loose in the frame, might have creaked. Sadly, I do think this makes sense.

 

[lithgow1]

I think it'd be obvious particularly if your partner was asking you to call the police as well. Clearly they wouldn't do that unless it was an emergency. It depends on the country you're in as well though - SA is quite a dangerous country and Reeva had hidden from a home invasion on a previous occasion so it would make sense to do the same on this occasion.

So she calls the police and they say `What is your emergency?` and she responds with .....?

Is there any proof that you know of for the previous home invasion she hid from other than Pistorius` testimony?

 

[Colin de France]

I don't believe you've ever asked me this, Marfa. I think the phone was probably outside the cubicle and she went out into the bathroom to get it and shut the toilet door quickly going back in again, which is the slamming that OP heard. He was nearly in the bathroom at this point so there wasn't much time between that and the shots. I think when he went quiet she leaned against the door to listen, which is why she was standing right up against the door and why it's possible that the door, slightly loose in the frame, might have creaked. Sadly, I do think this makes sense.

..............no you're right off track........he had already tried to get into the WC with the bat to get to the phone because he was scared to death what she was going to tell the world.....he blew a fuse at not being able to get in and fired on the door thinking that she was to the right........

 

[lithgow1]

I don't believe you've ever asked me this, Marfa. I think the phone was probably outside the cubicle and she went out into the bathroom to get it and shut the toilet door quickly going back in again, which is the slamming that OP heard. He was nearly in the bathroom at this point so there wasn't much time between that and the shots. I think when he went quiet she leaned against the door to listen, which is why she was standing right up against the door and why it's possible that the door, slightly loose in the frame, might have creaked. Sadly, I do think this makes sense.

So she walks to the toilet, presumably using the phone to light her way, and then puts it down outside the cubicle? Why on earth would she do that and not keep it in her hand? BTW, he did`nt go quiet after he reached the bathroom. On his evidence he says he did as he got to the bathroom and then starts screaming again after he has looked into it. So there he is, a few metres from her, screaming, and she says not a word? Total BS.

PS IIRC the light in the toilet was broken. So she uses her phone to get to the bathroom and when she reaches it takes the time to open a window but doesn`t bother to turn on the light? And then goes into the toilet and leaves the phone outside on the floor. Doesn`t sound logical at all.

 

[aftermath]

So she calls the police and they say `What is your emergency?` and she responds with .....?

Is there any proof that you know of for the previous home invasion she hid from other than Pistorius` testimony?

http://mobile.news.com.au/world/ree...1-burglary-uncle/story-fndir2ev-1226596151273

A little bit here on the earlier experience of a break in.

 

[Colin de France]

I don't believe you've ever asked me this, Marfa. I think the phone was probably outside the cubicle and she went out into the bathroom to get it and shut the toilet door quickly going back in again, which is the slamming that OP heard. He was nearly in the bathroom at this point so there wasn't much time between that and the shots. I think when he went quiet she leaned against the door to listen, which is why she was standing right up against the door and why it's possible that the door, slightly loose in the frame, might have creaked. Sadly, I do think this makes sense.

....and you said you never speculate...............there's always a first time ....a good way to test out idea's.......

 

[Colin de France]

........he knew there was dumb dumb bullets in the gun so he fired on the door with the first bullet thinking that it would do better than the bat......that the door would fall apart, except at that distance it didn't work...hence the three shots in the same place and that didn't work either........not having heard the screams after the first shot and not being able to hear either that it was a scream of pain unlike those of before the shooting............