Trial Discussion Thread #11 weekend thread

[Viper]

This judge has sentenced a convicted rapist (3 counts) to 258 years, this lady is tough on crimes against women. I believe she used consecutive sentencing to get to that.

I know many believe or hope that OP just walks with a huge payment to Reeva's family, or maybe gets 5 years of something, but has anyone ever looked at the opposite? If the state does prove the premeditation enhancement OP is in trouble!

 

[Gbtaketwo]

I'm trying to think of the case as a whole, and once we remove the celebrity aspect, and media circus elements, there is nothing too extraordinary about this case which would take it out of normal SA law and sentencing procedures.

The only defense plea for consideration appears to be that the accused was on stumps at the time. Although this may allow for some thought regarding mobility/vulnerability I'm not sure it offers much leeway for the defense to expect exceptions to the law.

I agree and hope that not much consideration is given for his disability here because if he felt that vulnerable surely he would not have sought confrontation but would have tried to remove himself and his supposed loved one from where he thought the danger was as well as pressing the panic alarm which was very close to him and his loved one .

 

[Morag]

It's actually incorrect to say that OP didn't check to ascertain Reeva's whereabouts. He screamed, (more or less), "Call the cops, there's an intruder in the house." When she said nothing (because she didn't want to alert the intruder as to where she was), he assumed that she was busily calling. Had she said, "Oscar, it's me, I'm in the loo", that would have been the end of the panic.
Two huge misunderstandings... Each of them thought they were protecting themselves.

And as to the confusion about who heard what at 3am, well, I have occasionally been awakened by a loud noise (usually some car slamming into the boulders in front of my house), I can't always determine in my groggy state what exactly it was that I heard. Expecting people who are awakened in the middle of the night to be perfectly sure of what they have heard is probably unreasonable.

And speaking of (un)reasonable, this case is full of reasonable doubt.

 

[Viper]

It's actually incorrect to say that OP didn't check to ascertain Reeva's whereabouts. He screamed, (more or less), "Call the cops, there's an intruder in the house." When she said nothing (because she didn't want to alert the intruder as to where she was), he assumed that she was busily calling. Had she said, "Oscar, it's me, I'm in the loo", that would have been the end of the panic.
Two huge misunderstandings... Each of them thought they were potecting themselves.

And as to the confusion about who heard what at 3am, well, I have occasionally been awakened by a loud noise (usually some car slamming into the boulders in front of my house), I can't always determine in my groggy state what exactly it was that I heard. Expecting people who are awakened in the middle of the night to be perfectly sure of what they have heard is probably unreasonable.

And speaking of (un)reasonable, this case is full of reasonable doubt.

Regarding the doubt that you mention, seems the defense is making a big stack, so they seem to believe or else they would not be doing it. However Roux's scatter gun approach does not appear very helpful, it can have huge pitfalls if the judge has the same ears as I do.

 

[Really?]

It's up to the judge to decide whether Oscar was negligent or reckless or whether he acted reasonably under the circumstances (believing there was a burglar and believing lethal force was necessary to protect his physical safety).

But the judge has to have some kind of evidence - so if the State doesn't offer any evidence of negligence of recklessness, I guess she could just rely on Oscar's own statement and admissions to make that determination.

Whether behavior is reckless or negligent is a fact issue and not a legal issue - i.e. it has to be determined on a case by case basis considering the totality of all of the circumstances. As far as I know, there is no law that says every time a person shoots through a door, it's negligent or reckless and therefore culpable homicide.

I am a bit foggy right now,,,....but....I do believe OP acted with premed in that he shot to kill.....bam !.......(.bang.........bangbangbang)


He did not know his life was in danger.......he may have thought it was.......but it was his duty to find out first....yell that you arm armed to the hilt....let them wiggle their way out of the toilet window.

Surely he knew the law....he took the test....he knew all the right answers to pass and get a legal firearm.....(the bullets however were not)

Neighbors heard screams.....shots......Reeva ended up shot......and therefore she screamed.

 

[LemonMousse]

It's actually incorrect to say that OP didn't check to ascertain Reeva's whereabouts. He screamed, (more or less), "Call the cops, there's an intruder in the house." When she said nothing (because she didn't want to alert the intruder as to where she was), he assumed that she was busily calling. Had she said, "Oscar, it's me, I'm in the loo", that would have been the end of the panic.
Two huge misunderstandings... Each of them thought they were potecting themselves.

And as to the confusion about who heard what at 3am, well, I have occasionally been awakened by a loud noise (usually some car slamming into the boulders in front of my house), I can't always determine in my groggy state what exactly it was that I heard. Expecting people who are awakened in the middle of the night to be perfectly sure of what they have heard is probably unreasonable.

And speaking of (un)reasonable, this case is full of reasonable doubt.

Screaming "Call the cops" is not checking the whereabouts of your girlfriend. He was half-way down the passage when he claims to have "screamed" this. The time to have checked her whereabouts is when he's actually in the same room with her standing bedside the bed she's in. The point is, by far and away the most likely cause of a noise in your en-suite bathroom is the person sharing it with you - but he was so overwhelmed with fear that he couldn't even manage a quick glance in her direction?

If he was screaming to "check her whereabouts" why didn't he wait for a reply?

I think it's quite unreasonable to expect that three separate people were so groggy that they all made exactly the same mistake and all came to exactly the same wrong conclusion. And all managed to mistake a man's screams for a woman's.

 

[Lyra500]

Roux says he can prove that OP screams like a woman, and we are all eargerly awaiting that evidence!

Yup, the old "I can scream in falsetto and do a duet with myself in two different voices at the same time" defense! Works every time! Sarcasm

I've got that image of pistorius practising his girly scream in the mirror again.

I've got this image of OP in the recording studio or wherever they claim to have made the recording with Roux saying to him

"I put it to you that you are facing a minimum of 25 years in jail unless you can scream like a woman"

Surely most men faced with the prospect of life in prison could make a fairly good attempt at a falsetto scream? I really do fail to see what this promised 'proof' is actually logically meant to prove.

Even if OP can scream like a woman, it does not follow that he normally screams like a woman OR that he DID scream like a woman on the night in question.

 

[minor4th]

Maybe I'm being simplistic, but let's suppose that all the circumstances are identical but when OP bashed down the door he did find an intruder - a dead one.

Would a court find that his actions were lawful? He presumably would be defending himself by saying that he believed he was preempting a possible/ probable attack on him.

According to the details in the link below, this would not be considered justification for his actions. Preemptive strikes are not permissible - the attack on you either has to be in progress or very imminent.

That someone is simply in your house is not enough. Even an armed person is not necessarily enough.

Could OP demonstrate that all other avenues to save himself and Reeva were not available to him and he HAD to shoot? I really, really doubt it. There was a panic alarm he didn't hit and there was a door he failed to go through. He didn't even attempt a non-murderous way of peacefully getting him and Reeva out of there.

I think his own admissions are enough to see him convicted of culpable homicide.

IMO, obviously.

http://www.issafrica.org/uploads/CQNO8DUPLESSIS.PDF

I think his own admissions are enough for a conviction of culpable homicide. If he does not testify, then the case for culpable homicide is even stronger.

If he testifies, then I think there is a chance that he could be acquitted if he can persuade the judge that he really did believe that an intruder was in the bathroom and he feared an immediate physical attack. Even if she accepts his version of mistakenly believing there was a burglar, there is still the question of whether his reaction was reasonable, given his mistaken belief. On that I have no idea what the judge will find - I think a lot will depend on how credible his testimony and his description of the circumstances that led to his fears and his use of lethal force.

I've been reading up a little on SA self defense and justification, and here's an article that explains it a little bit:

Killer rugby star Rudi ‘Vleis’ Visagie’s case may aid Oscar Pistorius in defence


I have also read some caselaw, and there are varying opinions about when homicide is justified by self- defense (or "putative self defense"). As I suspected, it is not black and white, but it is a subjective weighing of the circumstances. So it will come down to the discretion of the judge.

I've also found that in SA, cases get reversed pretty regularly - it is not like the appellate system we have in the US.

 

[LemonMousse]

I think his own admissions are enough for a conviction of culpable homicide. If he does not testify, then the case for culpable homicide is even stronger.

If he testifies, then I think there is a chance that he could be acquitted if he can persuade the judge that he really did believe that an intruder was in the bathroom and he feared an immediate physical attack. Even if she accepts his version of mistakenly believing there was a burglar, there is still the question of whether his reaction was reasonable, given his mistaken belief. On that I have no idea what the judge will find - I think a lot will depend on how credible his testimony and his description of the circumstances that led to his fears and his use of lethal force.

I've been reading up a little on SA self defense and justification, and here's an article that explains it a little bit:

Killer rugby star Rudi ‘Vleis’ Visagie’s case may aid Oscar Pistorius in defence


I have also read some caselaw, and there are varying opinions about when homicide is justified by self- defense (or "putative self defense"). As I suspected, it is not black and white, but it is a subjective weighing of the circumstances. So it will come down to the discretion of the judge.

I've also found that in SA, cases get reversed pretty regularly - it is not like the appellate system we have in the US.

Yes, that all makes sense.

 

[Lyra500]

It's actually incorrect to say that OP didn't check to ascertain Reeva's whereabouts. He screamed, (more or less), "Call the cops, there's an intruder in the house." When she said nothing (because she didn't want to alert the intruder as to where she was), he assumed that she was busily calling. Had she said, "Oscar, it's me, I'm in the loo", that would have been the end of the panic.
Two huge misunderstandings... Each of them thought they were potecting themselves.

And as to the confusion about who heard what at 3am, well, I have occasionally been awakened by a loud noise (usually some car slamming into the boulders in front of my house), I can't always determine in my groggy state what exactly it was that I heard. Expecting people who are awakened in the middle of the night to be perfectly sure of what they have heard is probably unreasonable.

And speaking of (un)reasonable, this case is full of reasonable doubt.

I think it is incorrect to state that he definitely did check her whereabouts because the 'facts' that are quoted above are from the affidavit of an accused murderer. An affidavit which many many people feel may well include untruths. Why do they keep getting quoted as fact? How can anyone claim with certainty that they are the account of what really happened? Surely the court case will decide whether the judge believes they are true or not.

 

[Viper]

I think his own admissions are enough for a conviction of culpable homicide. If he does not testify, then the case for culpable homicide is even stronger.

If he testifies, then I think there is a chance that he could be acquitted if he can persuade the judge that he really did believe that an intruder was in the bathroom and he feared an immediate physical attack. Even if she accepts his version of mistakenly believing there was a burglar, there is still the question of whether his reaction was reasonable, given his mistaken belief. On that I have no idea what the judge will find - I think a lot will depend on how credible his testimony and his description of the circumstances that led to his fears and his use of lethal force.

I've been reading up a little on SA self defense and justification, and here's an article that explains it a little bit:

Killer rugby star Rudi ‘Vleis’ Visagie’s case may aid Oscar Pistorius in defence


I have also read some caselaw, and there are varying opinions about when homicide is justified by self- defense (or "putative self defense"). As I suspected, it is not black and white, but it is a subjective weighing of the circumstances. So it will come down to the discretion of the judge.

I've also found that in SA, cases get reversed pretty regularly - it is not like the appellate system we have in the US.

Please share the opinions that you read, would love to see them!

The one case that you linked is a tragedy and an anomoly, it was significantly different from what Pistorius did and I am not aware of another like it, it was exceptional.

For the forum:

A retired man woke in the early morning to see his truck being stolen. There had been numerous reports of car theft in his neighborhood prior to that night. He woke his wife and told her at the same time grabbed his gun and then shot one bullet aimed at the back if the thief's head, killing her. The thief turned out to be his daughter, who never left the house that early but did that day to go and help set up a birthday party. The father was initially charge with murder, remember the SA laws about taking a life are very strict! Investigators also could not rule out that he intentionally wanted to murder his child. It was not until later that the NPA learned that the mans wife was a witness and confirmed that he thought it was a thief and yet it was really his greatly loved daughter. The State took the unprecedented step of withdrawing the charge because of the mans pain and anguish were much harsher than any prison term.

OPs affidavit is a cut and paste job of this one very exceptional case. Good luck with that in front of an experience judge! :smile:

 

[steveml]

I've also found that in SA, cases get reversed pretty regularly - it is not like the appellate system we have in the US.

That's very true. I remember reading somewhere that one of the main reasons for this is that the Supreme Court of Appeal is inclined to err on the side of caution towards the accused, generally because they operate a trial by judge system. i.e. the burden to ensure a correct decision from an individual judge is perceived to be greater than that of a jury system.

 

[katydid23]

It's actually incorrect to say that OP didn't check to ascertain Reeva's whereabouts. He screamed, (more or less), "Call the cops, there's an intruder in the house." When she said nothing (because she didn't want to alert the intruder as to where she was), he assumed that she was busily calling. Had she said, "Oscar, it's me, I'm in the loo", that would have been the end of the panic.
Two huge misunderstandings... Each of them thought they were protecting themselves.

And as to the confusion about who heard what at 3am, well, I have occasionally been awakened by a loud noise (usually some car slamming into the boulders in front of my house), I can't always determine in my groggy state what exactly it was that I heard. Expecting people who are awakened in the middle of the night to be perfectly sure of what they have heard is probably unreasonable.

And speaking of (un)reasonable, this case is full of reasonable doubt.

BBM
Yelling orders at someone who does not answer back, is NOT checking on someone's whereabouts. He was within a few feet of where she supposedly was laying down. There is no excuse for not verifying where she was, BEFORE he began shooting, imo.


And, he was not groggy from being awakened in the middle of the night. He was up, and moving 2 fans from the balcony and into the bedroom. And had a conversation with Reeva already. So he was not groggy and half asleep.

:moo:

 

[steveml]

Please share the opinions that you read, would love to see them!

The one case that you linked is a tragedy and an anomoly, it was significantly different from what Pistorius did and I am not aware of another like it, it was exceptional.

For the forum:

A retired man woke in the early morning to see his truck being stolen. There had been numerous reports of car theft in his neighborhood prior to that night. He woke his wife and told her at the same time grabbed his gun and then shot one bullet aimed at the back if the thief's head, killing her. The thief turned out to be his daughter, who never left the house that early but did that day to go and help set up a birthday party. The father was initially charge with murder, remember the SA laws about taking a life are very strict! Investigators also could not rule out that he intentionally wanted to murder his child. It was not until later that the NPA learned that the mans wife was a witness and confirmed that he thought it was a thief and yet it was really his greatly loved daughter. The State took the unprecedented step of withdrawing the charge because of the mans pain and anguish were much harsher than any prison term.

OPs affidavit is a cut and paste job of this one very exceptional case. Good luck with that in front of an experience judge! :smile:

The case above is a tragedy but it is significantly different from the Pistorius case. There are no issues of alleged intrusion, no questions regarding victim screams, no suggestions that the accused was vulnerable. All these issues and many more are going to come into play when the defense team begin. The only similarity I can find between the two cases is the fact that an innocent person was killed. I can see what you mean as to how the charge would have still stuck if the state hadn't offered leniency though.

 

[weeeva]

It really does become risky for the defense. I too can see OP doing himself more harm than good if he takes the stand. As OP has maintained his innocence, and maintained that this was a tragic mistake, I'd guess the general consensus is that he should take the stand. I'd be bitterly disappointed if I were Reeva's family and this didn't happen.

OP's lawyers will have him well warned to behave himself if/when he takes the stand. When his friend was testifying about the incident in the car, OP's sneering gave away a lot about his character. Even though he knew the whole thing was being televised and his whole future depended on this trial, he still could not control his negative emotions towards his friend, probably ex-friend now.

 

[Feynman]

Funny, to me anyway:

He's innocent ... because:
1) He screams like a woman but yells like a man
2) All the neighbors are confused about hearing screams before the shooting
3) As a gentleman he did the right thing in letting his girlfriend sleep helplessly when he was convinced an intruder was just a few feet away
4) His guard dogs didn't bark because they didn't want to wake the neighbors
5) They really weren't arguing an hour before the shooting, even though neighbors reported hearing it.
6) He's really not 'that" reckless with guns ... hey, accidents happen!
7) It's absolutely normal to shoot 4 shots into a closed door not knowing who is behind it
8) Intruders really do climb a ladder into a second story window with guard dogs in the yard and then hide in the toilet.
9) It's normal not to open your valentines day present on valentine's day
10) Calling your lawyer is truly more important that rushing your girlfriend who you have just accidentally shot to the hospital.

Regarding 5) Let's remember only one neighbor, Van Der Merwe, heard anything resembling an argument. She never used the term "argument" IIRC. She did say "I woke up around 1:56 in the morning. I heard sounds ... it seems like ... somebody was involved in a fight ... and these people are talking in loud voices." That's at the very beginning of her testimony. In the rest she talks about "a loud voice" (of a woman).

 

[Viper]

Regarding 5) Let's remember only one neighbor, Van Der Merwe, heard anything resembling an argument. She never used the term "argument" IIRC. She did say "I woke up around 1:56 in the morning. I heard sounds ... it seems like ... somebody was involved in a fight ... and these people are talking in loud voices." That's at the very beginning of her testimony. In the rest she talks about "a loud voice" (of a woman).

I just posted it because it made me laugh when I read it, posted so others could get a laugh too. I am really not arguing all of those points in minute detail at the moment, it is just something that I found on the Internet. :smile:

 

[zwiebel]

I'm way behind. Has this been linked? OP's house is sealed bids only, estate agent wasn't allowed to take photos or run a listing, and bids end March 21st. OP's legal costs are £5000 a day.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Reeva-Steenkamp-raise-money-legal-bills.html

Frankly, I will be surprised if residents or owners of the estate don't club together to buy it and demolish it. Otherwise, it may be purchased by a ghoul who sets up regular house tours or something.

 

[steveml]

I think it is incorrect to state that he definitely did check her whereabouts because the 'facts' that are quoted above are from the affidavit of an accused murderer. An affidavit which many many people feel may well include untruths. Why do they keep getting quoted as fact? How can anyone claim with certainty that they are the account of what really happened? Surely the court case will decide whether the judge believes they are true or not.

That's true. There are very few facts in this case, this was stated at the beginning by Nel when he said that the case will be based mostly on circumstantial evidence. It's always the major stumbling block when there's only one witness, the accused. Everything that's posted on a forum you can presume as 'IMO', I know it doesn't always come across like this - I'm just as guilty as the next person with my wording on occasion.

 

[zwiebel]

His lawyer said buyer needs to have cash. I put it to you, prompt payment of attorney fees is always appreciated.