Trial Discussion Thread #10 - 14.03.19, Day 13

[soozieqtips]

He claims that he did believe that he was in imminent danger, as he believed an intruder was in the toilet and was coming out to attack him and Reeva.

Whether that is a reasonable belief is up to the judge to decide, considering the entirety of the situation and surrounding circumstances, etc.

You're missing the point of the gun laws. The laws are there to protect innocent people from being killed. OP's 'belief' that an intruder was in the toilet and about to come out and attack him was NOT good enough reason, nor lawful reason, to shoot without being in immediate danger. If everyone was allowed to say 'But I thought I was going to be attacked' to get off a murder charge, what would be the point of the gun laws in the first place? You cannot alter the fact that whatever OP claims he believed - it remains that he was not in any immediate danger. He knew the gun laws and he chose to break them. And of course he's going to claim he believed there was an intruder. Otherwise he knows he's going down for murder. His 'belief' didn't give him a legal right to shoot and kill an unseen 'intruder'. That's a fact.

 

[Really?]

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?

:waitasec:

:notgood: < OP :goodpost: :skip: :gavel: :jail:



Thank you thank you thank you

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I am kind of working my way to a theory that Reeva locked him out of the bedroom, he tried to break down the door, then ran and fetched spare keys when that failed. As he opened that door, I think it was her screaming 'Help' from the balcony.

Then I think she just made it to the toilet before OP got to her - maybe she even knocked him down, as he might have been off balance on his stumps, with his legs locked in the bedroom with Reeva.

At the locked toilet door, a furious OP realized there was no spare key for that one (many people wouldn't keep a spare for a door where the key is never supposed to be removed). He bashed it with the cricket bat (and the tub, in pure temper) and woke Dr Stipp up. OP was on his stumps at that time.

Perhaps there was a verbal threat to use the gun now.
Then he sighted Reeva through a sliver of a crack in the door, she began the bloodcurdling screams that woke everyone in the neighborhood, and then shot her through the door, until she stopped screaming. Bang...bang bang bang. OP was on his stumps at that time.

OP rushed to put on his prostetics.
Then OP conducted a final blow with the cricket bat (1 diff. mark on the door) and afterwards he pushed in the panels with his strong, bare hands, reached in for the key on the floor, checked Reeva was dead and obstructed her airway if she wasn't... and then began the staging. Which I haven't worked out yet and think was improvised, to say the least.

Zwiebel, on a trial basis I have added your idea with mine. Thanks!

 

[Val1]

My bad. :doh:

Instead of "two sets of noises" I should have typed "two sets of "loud bangs" so that it was clear to everyone reading.
There were many types of noises if you want to be pedantic.
BOTH sets of "bangs" sounded exactly like like gunshots to a man with firearms experience (Stipp). There were only 4 shots fired and so one set of "bangs" is almost certainly cricket bat strikes on toilet door (which sound like gunshots when heard some distance away after reverberating inside the bathroom, the house, and out across some distance to Stipp (and the burgers) ... unless some third possibility is suggested for a set of bangs that sound exactly like gunshots? We KNOW there were bat strikes on door... to go looking for a third explanation for bangs that sound like gunshots would suggest an an attempt to deny reality. We all have to modify our opinions to suit facts as they come to light. That is the normal mental process to reconcile and eliminate Cognitive Dissonance. To cling to opinions and deny facts is delusion.

There is that mysterious hole in the bedroom door, as well as the broken corner where someone obviously tried quite hard to open it while it was locked....

Re the sets of sounds between 3:08 and 3:17, I still firmly believe he used the bat first trying to open the toilet door to possibly get his cell phone back while taunting her and mimicking her cries for help and when that didn't work to get the door opened beyond that small splinter he got really angry and grabbed his gun.

After the first shot when he'd obviously hit her I have a suspicion that he then changed his position slightly and fired from the angle he did because he could see approximately where RS was through the splintered area, plus the wall helped steady his aim. Heaven knows he just had to shut her up before the neighbours called the police again... He may even have had some kind of subconcious thought process going on where he actually thought he could explain it all away to his buddy Stander and he would help take care of it but then that darn nosy neighbour actually came over and interfered.:/

As for how the panels came out, like that one police guy showed us, he just had to wedged the bat(maybe even the top of his prosthesis because it was thinner) into the splinter until he could get his hand far enough in to just pull the rest out once the first one was loose. Yes, I believe he did it all on his stumps, ergo no footprints, but then decided to put his prosthesis' on to carry her down the stairs if only to give him better traction on the steps.

 

[steveml]

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?

I agree. This adjournment is for the benefit of both sides to establish more information for the benefit of justice. The reason we can conclude this is that agreement was made between both Nel and Roux before the motion was suggested to the judge. There is absolutely no way that Roux would offer an advantage to the state at this stage of the case if it didn't suit both parties.

 

[soozieqtips]

No they didn't all hear gun shots. They all heard a set of sounds around 3:17, but only Stipp heard the gunshots at 3:10 - ish.

I hate to belabor this but the doctors two written statements on 2-15-13 and 3-18-13 never mentioned hearing male and female intermingled screams. His statements only describe one voice screaming, and he thought is was a female.

Only now a year later, after much media exposure and knowing the State's theory has he come up with this new version of both man and woman screaming intermingled.

Are you seriously suggesting Dr Stipp is a liar? I thought you said you hadn't yet made up your mind about OP's guilt or innocence, but you've made your mind up that anyone who challenges his version of events is a deliberate liar who's changed their version of events to line up with the State's theory? In that case, what about the one fan becoming two fans and the conversation OP had with Reeva shortly before he killed her that he left out of his affidavit? Surely he must be a liar too since he's also changed his version of events. You say 'all we have is OP's version of what happened that night' - but he has more than one version. Which of his versions are you basing your theories on? And since it's fact that he's changed his version of events, how is it that you don't view it with the same cynicism that you view any other witness whose accounts have changed?

 

[Viper]

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.

Good morning! I'm just skimming this newest page and it appears that some feel that Nel has dropped the ball or has cheated or something. If anyone is up for it would you please give me a brief clue about this - so that I don't have to do an exhaustive search to find the beginning of what brought on this speculation (I know I'm lazy!)

 

[steveml]

You're missing the point of the gun laws. The laws are there to protect innocent people from being killed. OP's 'belief' that an intruder was in the toilet and about to come out and attack him was NOT good enough reason, nor lawful reason, to shoot without being in immediate danger. If everyone was allowed to say 'But I thought I was going to be attacked' to get off a murder charge, what would be the point of the gun laws in the first place? You cannot alter the fact that whatever OP claims he believed - it remains that he was not in any immediate danger. He knew the gun laws and he chose to break them. And of course he's going to claim he believed there was an intruder. Otherwise he knows he's going down for murder. His 'belief' didn't give him a legal right to shoot and kill an unseen 'intruder'. That's a fact.

That's correct. I'm not sure anybody has disputed the lawful reasoning regarding the shooting, whether there was an intruder or not. It's clear that OP will be charged for the shooting, those facts are accepted without the need for any witnesses. The problem is that there is no guarantee that the judge will deem this premeditated murder. The state are building the case to to show that it was OP's intention to shoot and kill Reeva. This way the judge will have little cause to believe that reasonable doubt should be applied to the accused.

 

[Viper]

There is that mysterious hole in the bedroom door, as well as the broken corner where someone obviously tried quite hard to open it while it was locked....

Re the sets of sounds between 3:08 and 3:17, I still firmly believe he used the bat first trying to open the toilet door to possibly get his cell phone back while taunting her and mimicking her cries for help and when that didn't work to get the door opened beyond that small splinter he got really angry and grabbed his gun.

After the first shot when he'd obviously hit her I have a suspicion that he then changed his position slightly and fired from the angle he did because he could see approximately where RS was through the splintered area, plus the wall helped steady his aim. Heaven knows he just had to shut her up before the neighbours called the police again... He may even have had some kind of subconcious thought process going on where he actually thought he could explain it all away to his buddy Stander and he would help take care of it but then that darn nosy neighbour actually came over and interfered.:/

As for how the panels came out, like that one police guy showed us, he just had to wedged the bat(maybe even the top of his prosthesis because it was thinner) into the splinter until he could get his hand far enough in to just pull the rest out once the first one was loose. Yes, I believe he did it all on his stumps, ergo no footprints, but then decided to put his prosthesis' on to carry her down the stairs if only to give him better traction on the steps.

Nice post, thanks! Nel did mention that the bat hitting the door could have been to scare Reeva before OP escalated things and went for his gun. Since there are only 2-3 rather minor marks on the door caused by the bat strikes I agree with Nel. The damage to the prosthesis is likely from kicking the tub plate after the shooting IMO. Finally, the decibel levels of firing a handgun are so high that IMO OP would have entered the bathroom, had whatever exchange with Reeva, targeted her by the sound if her voice and fired the first round aiming for a shot to the center mass but he was low and hit her hip. He would have been, for a short moment, not able to hear so he moved closer to the door to listen and with her now screaming in pain he targeted her voice and fired the remaining three rounds in quick succession. IMO during that 1-1.5 seconds of firing he heard nothing, he was deafened by the sounds of his own gunshots and probably had trouble hearing for sometime after that as well.

Just my opinions folks.

 

[steveml]

Are you seriously suggesting Dr Stipp is a liar? I thought you said you hadn't yet made up your mind about OP's guilt or innocence, but you've made your mind up that anyone who challenges his version of events is a deliberate liar who's changed their version of events to line up with the State's theory? In that case, what about the one fan becoming two fans and the conversation OP had with Reeva shortly before he killed her that he left out of his affidavit? Surely he must be a liar too since he's also changed his version of events. You say 'all we have is OP's version of what happened that night' - but he has more than one version. Which of his versions are you basing your theories on? And since it's fact that he's changed his version of events, how is it that you don't view it with the same cynicism that you view any other witness whose accounts have changed?

I'm not sure the question of lying is correct here. You have to look at every piece of evidence and test it. The suggestion of the two corresponding voices was rather vaguely put across in the witness testimony. Nobody is suggesting that a witness is lying, however it can be suggested that what somebody thought they heard a long time ago can be influenced once you become aware of more information prior to the case.

I've just seen exactly the same thing in a high profile case in the UK. A witness gave evidence of something they thought they saw, and although part of her statement was correct, there was a piece of information she absolutely could not have known at the time of the incident. There had been intense media information prior to the case which had influenced her statement - before this she wasn't so sure - now she was certain. This is not lying per se, it's recalling events differently because of other influences. It happens regularly, especially with high profile cases.

 

[soozieqtips]

I'm not sure the question of lying is correct here. You have to look at every piece of evidence and test it. The suggestion of the two corresponding voices was rather vaguely put across in the witness testimony. Nobody is suggesting that a witness is lying, however it can be suggested that what somebody thought they heard a long time ago can be influenced once you become aware of more information prior to the case.

I've just seen exactly the same thing in a high profile case in the UK. A witness gave evidence of something they thought they saw, and although part of her statement was correct, there was a piece of information she absolutely could not have known at the time of the incident. There had been media intense media information prior to the case which had influenced her statement - before this she wasn't so sure - now she was certain. This is not lying per se, it's recalling events differently because of other influences. It happens regularly, especially with high profile cases.

Thanks. I just feel that some posts are openly cynical of witness accounts that have changed, and yet completely believing of OP's account, which has also changed. If there is no bias, then the same weight should be added to any account that has changed, not just the state witnesses accounts.

 

[steveml]

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?

Good point regarding the tea breaks :smile:

We hear a lot how there are huge backlogs in SA courts as they are under-resourced. A bit more organisation in the courtroom, hide the tea, and before you know it the system will be twice as efficient.

 

[Viper]

You're missing the point of the gun laws. The laws are there to protect innocent people from being killed. OP's 'belief' that an intruder was in the toilet and about to come out and attack him was NOT good enough reason, nor lawful reason, to shoot without being in immediate danger. If everyone was allowed to say 'But I thought I was going to be attacked' to get off a murder charge, what would be the point of the gun laws in the first place? You cannot alter the fact that whatever OP claims he believed - it remains that he was not in any immediate danger. He knew the gun laws and he chose to break them. And of course he's going to claim he believed there was an intruder. Otherwise he knows he's going down for murder. His 'belief' didn't give him a legal right to shoot and kill an unseen 'intruder'. That's a fact.

You are quite right about SA Law related to murder. In the old days a man could kill another man (usually a black man) who happened to walk up his driveway if the shooter felt at all threatened, and a man could kill a starving homeless man that he found stealing food from his refrigerator if the shooter felt threatened. The value of a human life is greatly appreciated in SA and that appreciation is reflected in the strict gun and murder laws. They have mandatory minimum sentences as well. What OP did is in fact murder by SA law, there is no getting around that. It doesn't matter that he wanted to kill an intruder, a bad person, what matters is that he wanted (intended) to kill a human being who presented no threat at all to OP. What if it had been a fan of OP that had snuck, a hungry child wanting to steal food, or for that matter an unarmed man wanting to steal a tv? Those people's live have value and OP cannot kill them unless they actually do threaten to seriously harm him or he sees them with a weapon and the threaded him. In this case he was not threaten by anyone. The fact that he can afford this expensive defense and is seeking "special" treatment from the court because he feels his case is "special" means nothing in the eyes of the law. He did what thousands of men do each year, he committed a domestic violence homicide. This case is so basic, I guess it is the fact that it is the great Oscar Pistorius that is making it seem something that it is not.

Just my humble opinions.

 

[Viper]

I'm not sure the question of lying is correct here. You have to look at every piece of evidence and test it. The suggestion of the two corresponding voices was rather vaguely put across in the witness testimony. Nobody is suggesting that a witness is lying, however it can be suggested that what somebody thought they heard a long time ago can be influenced once you become aware of more information prior to the case.

I've just seen exactly the same thing in a high profile case in the UK. A witness gave evidence of something they thought they saw, and although part of her statement was correct, there was a piece of information she absolutely could not have known at the time of the incident. There had been intense media information prior to the case which had influenced her statement - before this she wasn't so sure - now she was certain. This is not lying per se, it's recalling events differently because of other influences. It happens regularly, especially with high profile cases.

IIRC that is why most police in the US have implemented a policy regarding taking officer statements after they have been involved in a shooting, they are now having the officer(s) take a break of 2-5 days (I can't recall specifically) before they give their statements to allow them to fully recollect all if the details of the experience.

 

[steveml]

Thanks. I just feel that some posts are openly cynical of witness accounts that have changed, and yet completely believing of OP's account, which has also changed. If there is no bias, then the same weight should be added to any account that has changed, not just the state witnesses accounts.

That's a fair comment. It's essential that both sides evidence are tested with the same scrutiny. A point that is often over-looked is that it can sometimes appear that a person is pulling the prosecution evidence apart because they agree with the accused, when in fact what's happening is they are simply challenging the evidence. This is exactly what Nel will be doing this weekend. He'll be looking at what's been said by himself and the witnesses, and standing in the shoes of the defense.

The defense are going to attempt to put reasonable doubt into absolutely everything they can. If we believe the prosecutions story, it has to stand up to scrutiny. It's good that people highlight every possibility that OP's story is believable, because that forces us to look for clues to make our case stronger.

 

[steveml]

IIRC that is why most police in the US have implemented a policy regarding taking officer statements after they have been involved in a shooting, they are now having the officer(s) take a break of 2-5 days (I can't recall specifically) before they give their statements to allow them to fully recollect all if the details of the experience.

Exactly. The case I refer to is one where UK police officers were given a similar statement break. Ironically, the prosecution suggested that allowing this break was detrimental to his client because the police would have had time to forget important events at the crime scene.

There are some you just can't win :shakehead:

 

[steveml]

You are quite right about SA Law related to murder. In the old days a man could kill another man (usually a black man) who happened to walk up his driveway if the shooter felt at all threatened, and a man could kill a starving homeless man that he found stealing food from his refrigerator if the shooter felt threatened. The value of a human life is greatly appreciated in SA and that appreciation is reflected in the strict gun and murder laws. They have mandatory minimum sentences as well. What OP did is in fact murder by SA law, there is no getting around that. It doesn't matter that he wanted to kill an intruder, a bad person, what matters is that he wanted (intended) to kill a human being who presented no threat at all to OP. What if it had been a fan of OP that had snuck, a hungry child wanting to steal food, or for that matter an unarmed man wanting to steal a tv? Those people's live have value and OP cannot kill them unless they actually do threaten to seriously harm him or he sees them with a weapon and the threaded him. In this case he was not threaten by anyone. The fact that he can afford this expensive defense and is seeking "special" treatment from the court because he feels his case is "special" means nothing in the eyes of the law. He did what thousands of men do each year, he committed a domestic violence homicide. This case is so basic, I guess it is the fact that it is the great Oscar Pistorius that is making it seem something that it is not.

Just my humble opinions.

Valid points. This is exactly why the case is being tested - to show that it was domestic violence. If we substituted Reeva for a 4-year old daughter staying in the same room and exactly the same scenario occurred, we wouldn't be suggesting domestic violence, we'd be claiming it was a tragic misunderstanding. This is basically OP's plea. I don't agree with him, however the law doesn't allow for us to just think that it was domestic violence.

 

[kittychi]

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.

Agreed. IMO if OP walks, his life will be hell anyways, but justice for Reeva Steenkamp hangs in the balance and should be manifest.

 

[sorrell skye]

You're missing the point of the gun laws. The laws are there to protect innocent people from being killed. OP's 'belief' that an intruder was in the toilet and about to come out and attack him was NOT good enough reason, nor lawful reason, to shoot without being in immediate danger. If everyone was allowed to say 'But I thought I was going to be attacked' to get off a murder charge, what would be the point of the gun laws in the first place? You cannot alter the fact that whatever OP claims he believed - it remains that he was not in any immediate danger. He knew the gun laws and he chose to break them. And of course he's going to claim he believed there was an intruder. Otherwise he knows he's going down for murder. His 'belief' didn't give him a legal right to shoot and kill an unseen 'intruder'. That's a fact.

:goodpost:

Well said! I agree 100%

 

[Viper]

Valid points. This is exactly why the case is being tested - to show that it was domestic violence. If we substituted Reeva for a 4-year old daughter staying in the same room and exactly the same scenario occurred, we wouldn't be suggesting domestic violence, we'd be claiming it was a tragic misunderstanding. This is basically OP's plea. I don't agree with him, however the law doesn't allow for us to just think that it was domestic violence.

Oh I have got to stop using American terminology related to this discussion! OP is not charged with DVH, so that is truly not a part of the conversation. As I have come to understand SA Law it is very similar to UK Law and less similar to US Law, so it is important to embrace a different set of rules, different perspectives than those we have in the US.

Your example of a child is tragic and I am aware of that happening here in the US and once in SA, but it was a single shot fired, not four. Tragic misunderstandings don't involve firing four shots with admitted intent to kill with three of them hitting and killing the victim; that was the chief argument by Nel at the bail hearing before the investigation had really started to gather speed.

My previous post details murder. If folks are looking for this case to be a case of culpable homicide, they can look at what that is. It does not involve an intent to kill, it is a killing that was unintentional; for example as a result if an automobile accident (very common). But here OP admits that he wanted to kill a person, an intruder, and he admits that he did kill a person, Reeva. For example: if I see a man and want to kill that man, and then I aim my gun at him and I fire to kill him but the bullet misses and kills the woman beside him, I am still guilty of murder; I wanted to kill, I took action to kill, and I killed. OP's actions with intent to kill a person is defined as murder as I understand it, so it would be an error to call what he did culpable homicide. What he did by intending to kill a person that he did not identify and who had in no way threatened OP is by definition murder, and he knew that, he answered the questions related to that correctly when applying for his firearm license.

The drama is very interesting, we will see very soon!

Just my opinion folks...