Trial Discussion Thread #10 - 14.03.19, Day 13

[nastasya]

I am not sure that the state has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was premeditated murder, yet. But they have shown that he was reckless and irresponsible and his actions resulted in her untimely death. So I think he is doing some time, in the end.

OP's own affidavit describes premeditated murder:

1. OP is standing in front of bedroom door that exits the house onto the deck.
2. OP hears a window open in another room.
3. OP gets a gun.
4. OP moves out of room that has 2 doors from which he could exit.
5. OP moves through hallway towards person in bathroom.
6. OP walks into center of bathroom in vulnerable position.
7. OP does not see intruder. OP hears person making sounds in toilet.
8. OP sprays four black talon bullets through toilet door.

That entire sequence of events is, by law, the definition of premeditated murder.

It wasn't an accident. He didn't accidentally discharge the gun four times. He didn't intentionally discharge the gun four times not knowing there was a person in his line of fire.

OP intentionally left a room where he was safe, and from which he could have exited, entered into a second room, and intentionally fired a gun four times at somebody who wasn't threatening him in any way.

Saying, "I thought the person I killed might threaten me..." is not a valid legal defense. If it were, every husband in the world would have legal grounds to shoot his wife whenever she used the bathroom.

 

[zwiebel]

I didn't catch a shot, but the picture I saw flashed up in court of the ladder looked like a 3 part extending ladder to me, which I think would reach the bathroom window. It was just laying flat in the garden though, not propped against the wall.

I wonder if that ladder would have been visible to OP when he was on the balcony bringing the fans in?

 

[nastasya]

I think she does though. The burden of proof is on the state. If they fail to make their case then you must give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant and accept their version as "true" whether you believe it or not.

That's not accurate. The state has a prima facie case.

1. dead body.
2. admitted killer.
3. killer's admitted actions show his intent was to kill.

The burden of proof now falls on the defense to show that the killer's actions were not a violation of SA law. It's not up to the state to prove the defendant's life wasn't threatened.

Use common sense.

If saw a guy walking down the street and put his hand in his coat pocket I can't just shoot him because I feared he was reaching for a gun.

In any case where the killer is not in dispute, and the means by which the killing took place is not in dispute, the burden of proof shifts to the defense. Otherwise you could simply kill your spouse when he came through the front door after work.

 

[BritsKate]

What are the sentencing guidelines for premeditated murder? For premeditated murder, the mandatory sentence in South Africa is a life sentence, which in practice is 25 years unless someone can prove extraordinary circumstances.

What would the sentence be if Pistorius were convicted of the lesser charge of culpable homicide?
If Pistorius is convicted of culpable homicide, no minimum sentencing legislation would be triggered. "Courts are able to exercise their complete and ordinary discretion," Grant said.
This means, theoretically, Pistorius could get a non-custodial sentence if convicted of culpable homicide. Grant said there had been examples of people killing a loved one accidentally where they had avoided jail.
If, however, the court took a view that Pistorius had been grossly negligent, Grant said, he would guess the runner could be jailed for up to 15 years.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/22/world/africa/pistorius-legal-q-and-a/

 

[steveml]

The second thing was about if Reeva was instead a four year old daughter that we would think it was a simple tragedy. This is not really true either. As a member of WS and reading numerous cases of children being murdered by their parents one knows that a case must be looked at completely before saying "oh dear, what a tragic accident". With the same conditions that occurred being there for either Reeva OR a child, it points to intentional killing, IMO.

MOO

We shouldn't accept that it's a simple tragedy, that is quite correct. The point I was making was to highlight that many people do initially form an opinion which is led by emotion rather than logic and reason. Which I believe is true.

 

[zwiebel]

O/T but it involves southern Africa: 3 private security guards have just been charged with manslaughter over the death of an Angolan man on a plane full of people in 2010 at Heathrow. Prosecutors had previously declined to bring charges.

UK/Angola-Guards chrged over death of man on plane - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[Interested Bystander]

I didn't catch a shot, but the picture I saw flashed up in court of the ladder looked like a 3 part extending ladder to me, which I think would reach the bathroom window. It was just laying flat in the garden though, not propped against the wall.

I wonder if that ladder would have been visible to OP when he was on the balcony bringing the fans in?

I appreciate you are only considering whether he saw the ladder but can you imagine the noise that would have been created putting the ladder together and leaning it against the bathroom wall of the house. If he can hear a window being slid open, he would have thought his "castle" was being stormed. LOL

 

[Viper]

What are the sentencing guidelines for premeditated murder? For premeditated murder, the mandatory sentence in South Africa is a life sentence, which in practice is 25 years unless someone can prove extraordinary circumstances.

What would the sentence be if Pistorius were convicted of the lesser charge of culpable homicide?
If Pistorius is convicted of culpable homicide, no minimum sentencing legislation would be triggered. "Courts are able to exercise their complete and ordinary discretion," Grant said.
This means, theoretically, Pistorius could get a non-custodial sentence if convicted of culpable homicide. Grant said there had been examples of people killing a loved one accidentally where they had avoided jail.
If, however, the court took a view that Pistorius had been grossly negligent, Grant said, he would guess the runner could be jailed for up to 15 years.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/22/world/africa/pistorius-legal-q-and-a/

BBM. There is only one example that I am aware of. A man awoke to see his pickup truck leaving his property, believing that it was being stolen he fired a single shot at the driver's head, striking her and killing her. It turned out to be his daughter, she was sneaking out. The NPA belabored at filing charges but eventually decided not to because the man obviously was suffering at the loss of his daughter. That should key everyone in as to all of the "we were deeply in love" nonsense in OP bail affidavit, his lawyers are no doubt aware of the case.

The other similar case, that people that would prefer that OP get something less than the mandatory minimum for murder, involved a retired athlete (perhaps a boxer) who found himself on the roadside at night being robbed by an on duty poice officer. A struggle ensued and the man beat the cop with his fists to defend himself, and this is as other officers watched. The bad cop dies (hours or days) later from his injuries. The athlete was charged with Culpable Homicide because he was trying to defend himself, he had no INTENTION to kill the cop. He plead guilty and receive no jail time, he did have to pay some money to the cop's widow. This case too is included in Roux's defense case for OP; because that is what they are saying essentially: it was an accident, and we want no jail time too.

The above are the only cases even remotely similar to what OP is trying for that I am aware of. If others have more cases, please share them.

Culpable Homicide is an interesting thing to many people that are following the trial, especially those that catch updates from the talking heads on the major networks; BTW, I'm not knocking them I catch them too. But they play to a broad audience of people worldwide that have split views of OP's guilt or innocence and so the story is more interesting if you throw in the mention of different scenarios, much more dramatic! He could get off! But not likely, IMO

 

[steveml]

Can you imagine the noise that would have been created putting the ladder together and leaning it against the house. If he can hear a window being slid open, he would have thought his "castle" was being stormed. LOL

I can almost picture it. Full combat mode, camouflage gear - the works!

:hills:

 

[Dmacky]

I didn't catch a shot, but the picture I saw flashed up in court of the ladder looked like a 3 part extending ladder to me, which I think would reach the bathroom window. It was just laying flat in the garden though, not propped against the wall.

I wonder if that ladder would have been visible to OP when he was on the balcony bringing the fans in?

BBM
Hi zwiebel :wave:
How do we even know for sure the "bringing in of the fans" even really happened? That came from Oscars mouth. It could just be a "reason" he used to be up and out of bed, when he heard a noise...just a thought.

 

[Interested Bystander]

What are the sentencing guidelines for premeditated murder? For premeditated murder, the mandatory sentence in South Africa is a life sentence, which in practice is 25 years unless someone can prove extraordinary circumstances.

What would the sentence be if Pistorius were convicted of the lesser charge of culpable homicide?
If Pistorius is convicted of culpable homicide, no minimum sentencing legislation would be triggered. "Courts are able to exercise their complete and ordinary discretion," Grant said.
This means, theoretically, Pistorius could get a non-custodial sentence if convicted of culpable homicide. Grant said there had been examples of people killing a loved one accidentally where they had avoided jail.
If, however, the court took a view that Pistorius had been grossly negligent, Grant said, he would guess the runner could be jailed for up to 15 years.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/22/world/africa/pistorius-legal-q-and-a/

There is also the intermediate charge of murder. Do you know what he would get for that?

 

[weeeva]

BBM - The judge simply has to decide what a 'reasonable' person would be expected to do under the same circumstances. If she feels that a reasonable person, one who has experience of guns and is 'qualified' and trusted to own guns, by correctly answering all the questions on the questionnaire - then she may believe that OP did not act in a reasonable way, and that because the bullets he used were designed to kill (which OP knew when he shot at the door), that the killing was intentional.

By the way, do you own guns? If not, then you wouldn't be expected to act in the same way as someone who does own guns and who is fully aware of when they're allowed to use them.

OP had other ways of protecting himself, but chose to kill. No warning shots, nothing. He just killed. At the end of the day, the judge has to decide whether his actions were reasonable, given the circumstances - or whether they were unreasonable. I'm leaning towards her thinking 'unreasonable'.

No I don't own a gun. Thankfully I live in a country where practically no one owns a gun. I am looking at it from the point of view that OP is telling the truth. I don't necessarily believe that he is, I am just keeping an open mind as I would if I sat on a jury. It is one thing filling in a questionnaire correctly to obtain a gun license and another how that person will behave with that gun in real life situations. Any one can fill in a form correctly provided they have the intelligence to do so. I am not arguing that he should walk away a free man, my argument is whether or not he is telling the truth. If the verdict is that he is telling the truth I trust the judge will pass the sentence for that crime. OP has not done himself any favours by pleading not guilty to the other gun crimes he is charged with, whether this will have a negative outcome remains to be seen.

 

[BritsKate]

There is also the intermediate charge of murder. Do you know what he would get for that?

AFAIK, there's a 15 year maximum sentence for murder without intent.

 

[steveml]

No I don't own a gun. Thankfully I live in a country where practically no one owns a gun. I am looking at it from the point of view that OP is telling the truth. I don't necessarily believe that he is, I am just keeping an open mind as I would if I sat on a jury. It is one thing filling in a questionnaire correctly to obtain a gun license and another how that person will behave with that gun in real life situations. Any one can fill in a form correctly provided they have the intelligence to do so. I am not arguing that he should walk away a free man, my argument is whether or not he is telling the truth. If the verdict is that he is telling the truth I trust the judge will pass the sentence for that crime. OP has not done himself any favours by pleading not guilty to the other gun crimes he is charged with, whether this will have a negative outcome remains to be seen.

As the evidence stands, and I'm sure there's a fair bit more to come yet, I have little doubt that there will be a murder verdict of some sort. The crux for me is whether Nel can reach a murder verdict with premeditation, effectively allowing the judge to hand out a life sentence.

 

[soozieqtips]

BBM
Hi zwiebel :wave:
How do we even know for sure the "bringing in of the fans" even really happened? That came from Oscars mouth. It could just be a "reason" he used to be up and out of bed, when he heard a noise...just a thought.

Good point. We don't know he brought in the fans when he said he did. He could have shot Reeva (deliberately) and then bought in the fans later (maybe when he was shouting 'help help' or whatever from the balcony) so it would support his story of bringing them in at exactly the same nano second that Reeva decided to get up and go to the toilet. Some people are automatically suspicious of anything that doesn't support OP's story, but we know he's happy for others to take the rap for him, so his moral compass is weak, and we know his first thought was to ring his estate manager instead of the police or an ambulance. Seems like he wanted some time to construct a story, and calling the police immediately would have given him less time. Judging by the story full of holes that he did eventually come up with, I suspect he needed a lot more time!

 

[Interested Bystander]

No I don't own a gun. Thankfully I live in a country where practically no one owns a gun. I am looking at it from the point of view that OP is telling the truth. I don't necessarily believe that he is, I am just keeping an open mind as I would if I sat on a jury. It is one thing filling in a questionnaire correctly to obtain a gun license and another how that person will behave with that gun in real life situations. Any one can fill in a form correctly provided they have the intelligence to do so. I am not arguing that he should walk away a free man, my argument is whether or not he is telling the truth. If the verdict is that he is telling the truth I trust the judge will pass the sentence for that crime. OP has not done himself any favours by pleading not guilty to the other gun crimes he is charged with, whether this will have a negative outcome remains to be seen.

Well it does seem he has a propensity to lie. I, therefore, find it quite difficult to believe his story. Already, residents have heard a woman screaming. The pathologist states that she ate at around 1am as there was still food in her stomach. OP said they went to bed at 10pm and went to sleep and only awoke at 3am. He leaves his windows unbarred, his bedroom patio doors open and yet says he is paranoid about his safety!! He shot 4 times, so he was intent on committing a murder - this was not an accident.

 

[Viper]

Good point. We don't know he brought in the fans when he said he did. He could have shot Reeva (deliberately) and then bought in the fans later (maybe when he was shouting 'help help' or whatever from the balcony) so it would support his story of bringing them in at exactly the same nano second that Reeva decided to get up and go to the toilet. Some people are automatically suspicious of anything that doesn't support OP's story, but we know he's happy for others to take the rap for him, so his moral compass is weak, and we know his first thought was to ring his estate manager instead of the police or an ambulance. Seems like he wanted some time to construct a story, and calling the police immediately would have given him less time. Judging by the story full of holes that he did eventually come up with, I suspect he needed a lot more time!

Time yes more time. AFAIK OP did not tell the police his story that night, he told Stipp he though he had a monstrous heavily armed intruder on his hands and he dealt with him accordingly / just sarcasm, sorry! He and his team, which included forensics and pathology experts had IIRC 5 days to create his fantasy accident. It is interesting that if you remove a single element of what he said that relates to why he got out if bed and why he overlooked Reeva, his story falls completely apart. The fans for example, he had to go outside to get them that made him awake alert and outside away from Reeva - the silly fans were never outside, he just needs a reason for being up and away. The ladders, well they were laying flat on the ground and were not tall enough to reach the window anyway, but a team walking through the crime scene would incorporate that in to the story. It was too dark to see Reeva, that's because he closed the door on that very hot night and the curtains and whatever else so that it was pitch black, again nice detail. I could go on.

 

[steveml]

No I don't own a gun. Thankfully I live in a country where practically no one owns a gun. I am looking at it from the point of view that OP is telling the truth. I don't necessarily believe that he is, I am just keeping an open mind as I would if I sat on a jury. It is one thing filling in a questionnaire correctly to obtain a gun license and another how that person will behave with that gun in real life situations. Any one can fill in a form correctly provided they have the intelligence to do so. I am not arguing that he should walk away a free man, my argument is whether or not he is telling the truth. If the verdict is that he is telling the truth I trust the judge will pass the sentence for that crime. OP has not done himself any favours by pleading not guilty to the other gun crimes he is charged with, whether this will have a negative outcome remains to be seen.

Well it does seem he has a propensity to lie. I, therefore, find it quite difficult to believe his story. Already, residents have heard a woman screaming. The pathologist states that she ate at around 1am as there was still food in her stomach. OP said they went to bed at 10pm and went to sleep and only awoke at 3am. He leaves his windows unbarred, his bedroom patio doors open and yet says he is paranoid about his safety!! He shot 4 times, so he was intent on committing a murder - this was not an accident.

There are a few things there that don't quite fit regarding OP's alleged paranoia, I agree. The one thing I wouldn't place a lot of weight on is the time of food consumption. This is notoriously one of the hardest things to calculate, as any pathologist would agree. Stomach contents are more useful during an autopsy to see if there are any toxins in there, and to identify the last food ingested, if any. To even get within hours of a good estimate the exact size of the meal, liquid consumption, stress levels, rate of digestion and possible medication interaction needs to be known. It's an inexact science. Pathologists will offer a time if pushed, but they are never happy about this. This problem is accepted by both prosecution and defense attorneys, and occurs quite regularly. This is why they never spend too much time arguing the point.

 

[Cherwell]

We don't know he brought in the fans when he said he did. He could have shot Reeva (deliberately) and then bought in the fans later (maybe when he was shouting 'help help' or whatever from the balcony) so it would support his story of bringing them in at exactly the same nano second that Reeva decided to get up and go to the toilet.

It is interesting that if you remove a single element of what he said that relates to why he got out if bed and why he overlooked Reeva, his story falls completely apart. The fans for example, he had to go outside to get them that made him awake alert and outside away from Reeva - the silly fans were never outside, he just needs a reason for being up and away.

I agree, we don't know that the fans were ever outside. Why should they be? It was a hot night and the a/c wasn't working, so it makes sense that they would have been in use inside the house.

 

[soozieqtips]

Time yes more time. AFAIK OP did not tell the police his story that night, he told Stipp he though he had a monstrous heavily armed intruder on his hands and he dealt with him accordingly / just sarcasm, sorry! He and his team, which included forensics and pathology experts had IIRC 5 days to create his fantasy accident. It is interesting that if you remove a single element of what he said that relates to why he got out if bed and why he overlooked Reeva, his story falls completely apart. The fans for example, he had to go outside to get them that made him awake alert and outside away from Reeva - the silly fans were never outside, he just needs a reason for being up and away. The ladders, well they were laying flat on the ground and were not tall enough to reach the window anyway, but a team walking through the crime scene would incorporate that in to the story. It was too dark to see Reeva, that's because he closed the door on that very hot night and the curtains and whatever else so that it was pitch black, again nice detail. I could go on.

He should have stated what happened immediately, and not been allowed several days to get his rubbish story together. Yep. He needed a reason to be outside so that he didn't see or hear Reeva allegedly go to the toilet. I feel that his celebrity status has thrown some people off guard, and they don't want to believe he's capable of killing someone in a fit of anger. But if he'd been Mr Nobody down the street, he wouldn't be afforded the same support.