Trial Discussion Thread #10 - 14.03.19, Day 13

[katydid23]

excerpted quote:
In my opinion, it's not common sense to say "I would do X', therefore if OP claims to have not done X, then he is lying. OP is not you. You would do the above, which is admirable. OP may not be so admirable. In fact, he appears to be, at a minimum, a gun-crazy, irrational, paranoid, easily frightened scaredy-cat prone to engaging in all kinds of bizarre (and non-common-sensical) actions.

However, the legal issue rests upon what a REASONABLE person would do. So it is valid to discuss what a reasonable reaction would be to such a crisis. Is it REASONABLE to assume that a noise in the toilet is an intruder, without first looking to see if your partner is still in bed next to you?

 

[katydid23]

Yes, that is true but the burden is on the State to PROVE he knew it was Reeva. He says he thought it was an intruder. As I have stated it's a 50/50 as far as I am concerned... but OP remains innocent until proven guilty. What is there in the State's case that proves beyond reasonable doubt that OP shot at the door knowing Reeva was behind it?

I would say NOTHING.

I would say they are getting very close by proving the first shot was to the hip. That means that Reeva was probably the one screaming during that time, between the shots. And he would have known after the first 'accidental' shot that he was mistaken.

 

[Rumpole]

However, the legal issue rests upon what a REASONABLE person would do. So it is valid to discuss what a reasonable reaction would be to such a crisis. Is it REASONABLE to assume that a noise in the toilet is an intruder, without first looking to see if your partner is still in bed next to you?

Yes the State may well argue that it was not reasonable for OP to assume an intruder. But FIRST they have to concede that that is what he did. At the moment they are proposing that he is lying and never assumed that at all. I have made this point before... I think the premeditated Murder is an over-charge and a gamble since the State can not argue that OP's assumption was unreasonable so long as they are denying he made that assumption at all.
I think they would have had a strong case arguing "manslaughter" (or the SA equivalent) from the outset. Charging Murder was a gamble.... one that they may regret.

 

[anagrammy]

BBM: During the night in a quiet gated community, this screaming had to be very alarming to hear.

IMO Oscar was grasping at straws when he put that affi together (I'm sure with Roux's help), knowing that the windows were open and neighbors very likely heard Reeva screaming.

I am taken back to OJ Simpson's body language and the look on his face when he heard the "Not Guilty" verdict. It was a look of non-belief, a look of "I can't believe I got away with it." (We remember there was rampant LE ineptness in that case!)

If OP somehow gets away with the intentional killing of Reeva Steenkamp, or gets a suspended sentence or some such, I have a feeling we would see a similar reaction from him!


Just MOO!

I recently saw an interview with Johnny Cochran who said OJ knew ahead of time-- the defense team all did--the verdict was leaked.

 

[katydid23]

Yes the State may well argue that it was not reasonable for OP to assume an intruder. But FIRST they have to concede that that is what he did. At the moment they are proposing that he is lying and never assumed that at all. I have made this point before... I think the premeditated Murder is an over-charge and a gamble since the State can not argue that OP's assumption was unreasonable so long as they are denying he made that assumption at all.
I think they would have had a strong case arguing "manslaughter" (or the SA equivalent) from the outset. Charging Murder was a gamble.... one that they may regret.

Well, can't the judge eventually rule that it is reckless manslaughter, or the SA equivalent,even if she does not agree to Premeditated Murder?

 

[Rumpole]

I would say they are getting very close by proving the first shot was to the hip. That means that Reeva was probably the one screaming during that time, between the shots. And he would have known after the first 'accidental' shot that he was mistaken.

I think at best there will remain at least some doubt as to the order of the shots. Roux will assure that. I actually go along with hip shot first. But I don't think it was an isolated shot... I think OP fired a volley there was not several seconds even. The whole volley would take a second? maybe 2? Reeva may well have screamed after hip shot but we can't know that for sure... but there would not have been time to react and "cancel" the rest of the volley.. and OP may well have not heard a scream with the loud gun bang(s) close to his ears in a small bathroom.

 

[Rumpole]

Well, can't the judge eventually rule that it is reckless manslaughter, or the SA equivalent,even if she does not agree to Premeditated Murder?

Anything is possible. I for one don't know the details of SA law... except it is administered slowly with lots of tea breaks.

But.... if the State do not get around to conceding that OP did think there was an intruder and then arguing why that was reckless, I don't see how the Judge can even consider that point?

 

[lisasalinger]

BBM.

I listened to Stipp's testimony very carefully because I found it fascinating.

I recall Stipp said he first attempted to call Silverwoods security (no answer) and then something he referred to as "10111" (no ring, just a strange tone), before finally getting through to Silverwoods security on the second attempt. Perhaps 10111 is a police number, I don't know, but he didn't get through. He did speak to Baba who (according to Baba's testimony) later called police as directed by Stander.

According to Stipp, a while after leaving OP's house, at 4:17am, he received a call from Stander informing him to expect a call from OP's lawyer. Stipp said he assumed Stander would've directed police to him for a statement, but he was surprised to find he was not contacted by police that day at all. The following day (2/15?), Stipp went to the security manager to ask for the number of whoever was managing the police investigation so he could inform them he'd been on the scene and give them a statement. Police then went to Stipp's office to take a statement.

BBM

Good post!

Van Rensburg testified that he spoke with Clarice Stander on-site and nowhere in his testimony did he mention that she said anything about Dr. Stipp being there.

It doesn't seem likely to me that she just forgot to mention that a doctor had been there earlier! It seems more like a deliberate omission to me.

 

[*Indigo*]

Media saying new blood spatter & ballistics evidence backs up op's story and is a dramatic blow to prosecution's case which is why Nel asked for adjournment.
What do people think? is this true or just media spin?
surely Nel knew ahead of time the evidence that would be presented?
I find it so depressing that op might walk - it will be a travesty of justice.

 

[Rumpole]

Media saying new blood spatter & ballistics evidence backs up op's story and is a dramatic blow to prosecution's case which is why Nel asked for adjournment.
What do people think? is this true or just media spin?
surely Nel knew ahead of time the evidence that would be presented?
I find it so depressing that op might walk - it will be a travesty of justice.

I think Nel should have, and in fact did, know exactly what his own witnesses were going to testify to.

I think it is a travesty that Nel is allowed to rework his case having seen clues as to the defense case via cross examination. That is NOT the way things are supposed to go. The prosecution are supposed to present a case... then the Defense respond to that. The Prosecution DO get a chance to rebut after that... which is already a huge advantage. IANAL but it would make sense to me if this fiasco by Nel is a ground for appeal?

Nel has had a year to prepare a case... I think he likely took too many tea breaks during that time.

 

[katydid23]

I think Nel should have, and in fact did, know exactly what his own witnesses were going to testify to.

I think it is a travesty that Nel is allowed to rework his case having seen clues as to the defense case via cross examination. That is NOT the way things are supposed to go. The prosecution are supposed to present a case... then the Defense respond to that. The Prosecution DO get a chance to rebut after that... which is already a huge advantage. IANAL but it would make sense to me if this fiasco by Nel is not a ground for appeal?

Nel has had a year to prepare a case... I think he likely took too many tea breaks during that time.

Why shouldn't he be allowed to rework his case?

Oscar is the ONLY ONE who knows the entire truth of that tragic night. Nels can only speculate, based upon what is left forensically and what Oscar tells him, much of which is untrue. So after he gets wind of what Roux and company is going to put to the judge, why shouldn't the state be able to try and refute it?

Nel is not the enemy. He is trying to bring justice for the victim in this case. She was slaughtered that night, viciously and irresponsibly slaughtered, in a toilet. I think Nel should be given every legal opportunity to speak for her at this time.

 

[Rumpole]

Why shouldn't he be allowed to rework his case?

Oscar is the ONLY ONE who knows the entire truth of that tragic night. Nels can only speculate, based upon what is left forensically and what Oscar tells him, much of which is untrue. So after he gets wind of what Roux and company is going to put to the judge, why shouldn't the state be able to try and refute it?

Nel is not the enemy. He is trying to bring justice for the victim in this case. She was slaughtered that night, viciously and irresponsibly slaughtered, in a toilet. I think Nel should be given every legal opportunity to speak for her at this time.

He is not allowed to rework his case because it is cheating.

At most he can be on the ball and think on his feet as things proceed... but not taking 4 and a half days out having seen clues as to the defense. He is of course free to use the second half of the afternoon each day... to work late at night and weekends already.

 

[katydid23]

I do not consider it cheating. He is taking on a huge task for the National Justice System. It is not a cricket game, with rules about cheating. It is about discovering the truth. It takes time to organize witnesses and evidence. Why not ask for the time needed to do it correctly?

 

[soozieqtips]

So you accept that he believed there was an intruder and that he did not intentionally and with premeditation chase Reeva down and shoot her in the toilet?

No. I don't accept he believed there was an intruder. Where did I imply that? What I said was that on two previous occasions when he thought there was an intruder, he woke up his guest (Sam Taylor) to alert her before going off with his gun. On the night of the shooting, when he apparently also thought there was an intruder, he didn't bother to wake Reeva up (like he did with Sam). He just shot and killed her. How did you interpret my post to mean I thought OP believed there was an intruder that night?

 

[katydid23]

Anything is possible. I for one don't know the details of SA law... except it is administered slowly with lots of tea breaks.

But.... if the State do not get around to conceding that OP did think there was an intruder and then arguing why that was reckless, I don't see how the Judge can even consider that point?

The state does not have to concede anything about OP believing there was an intruder. All they have to say, during the closing, is EVEN IF he did hear noises in the toilet, his actions were reckless, irresponsible and resulted in a brutal death.

 

[Rumpole]

The state does not have to concede anything about OP believing there was an intruder. All they have to say, during the closing, is EVEN IF he did hear noises in the toilet, his actions were reckless, irresponsible and resulted in a brutal death.

The law does not work like that

"Even if" "a bob each way" ... uncertainty generally.... is what is known in the trade as "doubt"... reasonable if you you concede it yourself.

And.. as I say, if they want to argue "even if" then they have already conceded doubt about their own lead argument.

And... they have not done that yet. They obviously DO have to concede that they are at least unsure about what they have argued for the last two and a half weeks... and I can not see them doing that, and arguing the alternative at this late stage. I think they blew it.

Maybe THAT is why Nel wants a Time Out. To agonize over abandoning the case they have presented so far, and try and salvage something by arguing the case that OP was reckless in his reaction to an intruder.

 

[katydid23]

The law does not work like that

"Even if" "a bob each way" ... uncertainty generally.... is what is known in the trade as "doubt"... reasonable if you you concede it yourself.

And.. as I say, if they want to argue "even if" then they have already conceded doubt about their own lead argument.

And... they have not done that yet. They obviously DO have to concede that they are at least unsure about what they have argued for the last week and a half... and I can not see them doing that and arguing the alternative at this late stage. I think they blew it.

Maybe THAT is why Nel wants a Time Out. To agonize over abandoning the case they have presented so far, and try and salvage something by arguing the case that OP was reckless in his reaction to an intruder.

My father was an excellent defense attorney. I followed his cases for years. In my experience, the trials often do work that way. You can argue that you believe it happened ONE WAY, but even if you believe the defendants version, they are still culpable. there is nothing wrong with that legal stance.

And in fact, Nel has done a bit of that already. Didnt that witness, who gave OP his gun license test, testify thAt he was given instructions concerning intruders in the home? I think that goes exactly to our discussion of this point.

In my opinion, the state is going to cover all of their bases. I think they are going to say THIS is what we think happened. But even if we accept OP at his word, then that version makes him guilty as well.:moo:

I don't think you can accuse them of blowing it, since the judge will be given several charges to choose from. She still has the option to find him guilty of the lesser charges.

 

[Danta]

Reeva was slaughtered, intentionally or not. Her body was destroyed, hip, head and arms. Her arm injuries are very important to be considered. Her arm arteries were damaged and shot.

The arterial spurts covering two floors of OP house are evidence that her head wound did not end her life that minute, her heart was still beating as she was laying in the bathroom. She laid there while he left and got his prosthesis on. She then was carried down the down the stairs. The blood spatter evidence presented at the the trial show the arterial spurts were recorded while she was being carried down the stairs. His testimony gives evidence, that when she was moved from upstairs to downstairs her heart was still beating. Your heart beating, is what pulses out the arterial bleeding, this is evidence Reeva was still alive. She was brought down the stairs with her arteries spurting blood. Her head wound did not kill her. If arterial spurts registered across the living room in the arc like pattern stated in the evidence presented, she was living. These arterial spurts were from her arm injury as testified.

When a person looses arterial blood they bleed to death in several minutes. How did Reeva survive through the door bashing, the prosthesis putting on, and getting carried down the stairs. This time line does not work. Let’s think about it. She has two minutes to live with arterial bleeding from her arm. OP putting on his prosthesis and beating a door down, running up and down the hall, traveling the stairs,I think this goes beyond the two minutes.

How does this affect the timeline?

 

[MeeBee]

My father was an excellent defense attorney. I followed his cases for years. In my experience, the trials often do work that way. You can argue that you believe it happened ONE WAY, but even if you believe the defendants version, they are still culpable. there is nothing wrong with that legal stance.

And in fact, Nel has done a bit of that already. Didnt that witness, who gave OP his gun license test, testify thAt he was given instructions concerning intruders in the home? I think that goes exactly to our discussion of this point.

In my opinion, the state is going to cover all of their bases. I think they are going to say THIS is what we think happened. But even if we accept OP at his word, then that version makes him guilty as well.:moo:

I don't think you can accuse them of blowing it, since the judge will be given several charges to choose from. She still has the option to find him guilty of the lesser charges.

Yes, in my experience, this is how trials work. Both sides do this. They either start out arguing for all points, covering all possibilities, or they will realize that their case may not be as solid and argue for another point or a lesser charge. That's what they are for. It's not conceding to being incorrect. It's, as you say, covering all the bases. It's saying, okay, if you feel we didn't prove our case then, by default, you believe the defendant and we feel the defendant should still be held accountable for his actions. Even IF he did mistake his girlfriend for an intruder, he still behaved in a recklessly murderous manner and should be found guilty of culpable homicide. There is nothing wrong with what Nel is doing, assuming he is retooling, though we don't actually know why he asked for the extended break. I don't think he is changing his strategies, I think they were always going to take this tack.

 

[kittychi]

But, but, but ... the state agrees that he was on his stumps when he fired the shots. So that is true, and not a fabrication to invoke the "vulnerable" defense. But now some are suggesting that he was on his stumps when he subsequently broke through the door with the bat, and I'm asking what would be the purpose of lying about that? I can see no way that can benefit OP's account at all, and it would be a risky thing to lie about if he was trying to come up with a story that would fit in with whatever crime scene evidence would be collected.

My conclusion - there's really nothing to suggest that OP remained on his stumps while breaking down the door and no reason to think he fabricated this part (other than Vermuelen's sketchy demonstration and attempt to hide photos depicting the cricket bat hitting the higher mark on the door)

IMO He could be lying about that IF he hit the door FIRST with the bat before he shot the gun.