Trial Discussion Thread #14 - 14.03.28, Day 16

[Gbtaketwo]

6. Security called OP after reports of gunshots and he said "everything is fine"

7. He has a history of domestic violence

8. Witnesses heard Reeva screaming before the gunshots.

^^ Forgot to add those and there was one more that I can't remember now.
These are the alleged facts that the state relies on to circumstantially prove intent and premeditation.

Of all of those things mentioned, the only one that has not been disproven is the screaming the witnesses heard before the sounds they identified as gunshots. But there has been enough doubt cast on that because of two sets of "shots" that it is barely even a possibility at this point.

Thoughts?

Surprised at how bad that is
I haven't read the bail documents ,only snippets . Don't suppose you could add a link or point me in the right direction ?
TIA

 

[shane13]

Especially considering that the State were the ones who found out that it existed... it's not like the Defense realized they had it and turned it over. The State figured it out. As to how they approached the Defense about this and what unfolded after that, I'm really not sure. But somehow, the Defense turned it over to them on Feb 26.

Please provide a link for what you are claiming here. Because--going back to the bail hearing--what you are claiming appears to be the complete opposite to the truth as far as what was revealed during the bail hearing.

Botha and Nel both said that when Roux brought up the 5th phone the day before at the BH, it was the first they found out about its very existence.

 

[Mystymiss]

If I shoot an intruder in my home, the 1st call I should make would be to?

A: My property Association
B: My Friends
C: My Mortgage Lenders
D: My neighbors
E: My lawyer
F: Police

Please help me pick the correct answer!

 

[shane13]

The police had taken the other phones from the crime- scene but that particular phone was still in the hands of the DT at the Bail Hearing. The DT had not handed it over to the police and IMO this should be looked on as removing vital evidence from a suspected murder scene.

Whiterum:
If you could find my posts at the beginining of this thread where I asked if anyone watched Tuesday's court session a the beginning. Becuase I did and it had Nel stipulating about the 5th phone and there was the admission that it was taken from the crime scene (a serious crime in itself) and that DT had it and if I heard right, Nel said they did not receive it from DT till Feb 30 2013.

And I furthermore said it has been excised from the videos at it was at the very beginning of the day's court proceedings and is not on Session 1 in any videos. On all videos, session 1 starts with everyone standing and judge walks in etc. but session 1 for Tuesday starts with the witness testifying aready. They took out at least several minutes.
Please find my earlier posts, Whiterum--as you and I have dealt with this for a year now.

 

[steveml]

There appears to be a wide scope of differing medical opinions when determining time of death through stomach contents.

I think that one of the less common factors in this case is that normally the contents of the stomach would be used in evidence to establish a time of death, i.e. in instances where a body is found with no witnesses. The stomach contents, putrefaction and many other factors would be used together to try and obtain a reasonable estimated time of death.

In this particular case we know the time of death, and are trying to work backwards to establish the time of the last meal, to then ascertain the time she may have gone to bed. I personally think that the accuracy involved here is far too broad to be tied down within a couple of hours.

http://www.relentlessdefense.com/forensics/autopsy/

Stomach Contents: Estimating the time of death by examining the stomach contents is not, because of the variability in the digestion process, regarded as a very reliable method for estimating the time of death by knowledgeable forensic experts. Criminal defense attorneys should be prepared to vigorously challenge 'time of death' estimates based on the digested remains of the deceased’s last meal.

 

[minor4th]

Surprised at how bad that is
I haven't read the bail documents ,only snippets . Don't suppose you could add a link or point me in the right direction ?
TIA

I am looking for the link to the document

 

[Val1]

I'd want to ask him details regarding OP's telephone call, his demeanour and details regarding what he saw at the scene.

As OP's frame of mind is going to be crucial to this case, I think I'd rather have first stab at negating any potential bias/friendship between him and OP. As things stand, defense have the choice to do nothing, or have first go at grooming the correct answers from him.

It's just a preference really, but I think first eye-witness on the scene is generally perceived to be quite an important witness.

Unless there's evidence that the first witness may have assisted the defendant to the detriment of the case, ie is pro defense.

 

[Val1]

I do now recall Reggie but not the others. I wonder whether the Americans will be on the list.

How many witnesses do you think the DT are going to have, fewer or more than PT and I wonder who they will call from the Prosecution Witnesses, no doubt poor old Botha. I hope someone has given him some help on how to deal with Roux.

Maybe Botha can ask for a green bucket and start rocking and covering his ears... it certainly helped OP distract everyone from the evidence that was being shown at those times.

 

[Val1]

Add to that the phone that somebody from Oscar's camp took away from the scene very discretely. Please Roux, don't ask me to believe that was an accident.

Per the phone records, the phone was shut off sometime after 4am (after the Pete Van Zyl calls) and from then on, everything went to voicemail. No outgoing calls. This was the primary phone he used that night! According to pinging, it was taken away from the scene around 8am on February 14. Somebody took it! That was intentional.

The only reason they discovered that this phone existed was because Moller found the phone number during the course of his investigation. Again, I really hope they don't ask us to believe that a family member or defense member had it in their pocket somewhere and forgot about it, as a big oops. No way. They were hiding it.

But Oscar did graciously leave his other phone, the one he hadn't made outgoing calls on after 3:40pm or so.

This whole phone thing is an enormous red flag.

Really makes me wonder if it was his phone that he went to get when he ran back upstairs (when Stander and Stipp went outside that morning)

Especially since it had to have been covered in RS's blood by then.

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

Why did OP stop after the fourth shot ?? He suggests he heard no voice / scream from inside ? What if he had missed all the shots ? How did he know at that point that the alleged intruder was incapacitated and there was no danger ???

Or did he go on shooting screaming Reeva until she was silenced after the last shot to the head !

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Maybe Botha can ask for a green bucket and start rocking and covering his ears... it certainly helped OP distract everyone from the evidence that was being shown at those times.

This is a serious subject and not one that I that lightly but ......
LOL

 

[minor4th]

Surprised at how bad that is
I haven't read the bail documents ,only snippets . Don't suppose you could add a link or point me in the right direction ?
TIA

Here is the Indictment

Here is the Charge Sheet and Response to Bail Application

Here is the Bill of Further Particulars

 

[Cherwell]

Whiterum:
If you could find my posts at the beginining of this thread where I asked if anyone watched Tuesday's court session a the beginning. Becuase I did and it had Nel stipulating about the 5th phone and there was the admission that it was taken from the crime scene (a serious crime in itself) and that DT had it and if I heard right, Nel said they did not receive it from DT till Feb 30 2013.

Well, that can't be right

 

[MeeBee]

So let's look at the States initial reasoning for filing intentional murder charges as opposed to the lesser offense of culpable homicide:

1. Oscar was on his prosthetics when he fired the shots through the bathroom door

2. Three phones were in the bathroom and they're going to show that Reeva was in some kind of distress and evidence if a big fight leading up to the shooting

3. Oscar was watching when he should have been watching his girlfriend do yoga

4. A bunch of neighbors heard Reeva and Oscar in a loud fight for an hour or so immediately preceding the shooting

5. Oscar never called security or an ambulance (indicating he was trying to cover it up)

Now that we've seen what we've seen which of those justifications still exist? None. Not a single one.

I'm also thinking the issue is really what the iPad history and Roux's argument that it could have been Reeva (which is ridiculous) because she likes looking at cars is about and not anything super incriminating to Oscar. That was always my read on it. So if that's all they have...

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Why did OP stop after the forth shot ?? He suggests he heard no voice / scream from inside ? What if he had missed all the shots ? How did he know at that point that the alleged intruder was incapacitized and there was no danger ???

Or did he go on shooting screaming Reeva until she was silenced after the last shot to the head !

That is a really good point one which the DT must have spotted first
Because He had that issue covered in his statement ..... can't remember the exact wording but something along the lines I backed away slowly and shouted to Reeva to call the police ,words to that effect keeping his aim as he went back .
But ..... why didn't he just back out of the bedroom like that in the beginning ......

 

[minor4th]

You know just as well as I that cases are very fluid things until the accused sits in the dock and witnesses are sworn in. I can list a whole lot of cases where the prosecutor or defense made larger than life claims, pretrial, never to be uttered in front of judge or jury.

As far as justification goes, dolus eventualis still exists as much as it did the day Reeva was murdered. Did Oscar foresee the possibility that shooting 4 bullets into a locked cubicle door, without so much as a warning shot, could result in someone's death and did he proceed anyway?

JMO


http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/oscar-pistorius-criminal-law-101/

Hey, I'm just reporting what the State has said its case it, and no its not fluid like that where the state can change its case and theory mid-trial. They don't have a case for pre-meditation or intentional killing.

As far as dolus eventualis - For one thing, that basis of intent is very rarely used. I don't think even comes into play in this case because Oscar is not claiming that he didn't intend to kill someone. He's claiming he didn't intend to kill Reeva and that he believed he was acting lawfully by defending his life against the bad guy in the bathroom. The question is not whether he foresaw the possibility of killing someone behind the door, it's whether he foresaw the possibility of killing Reeva by shooting at what he thought was an intruder in the bathroom.

Since Oscar will presumably testify, he can explain that he did not foresee any possibility of shooting and killing Reeva when he was shooting through the door at what he thought was a burglar while he believed Reeva was in bed. There goes dolus eventualis

 

[foxbluff]

Why did OP stop after the fourth shot ?? He suggests he heard no voice / scream from inside ? What if he had missed all the shots ? How did he know at that point that the alleged intruder was incapacitated and there was no danger ???

Or did he go on shooting screaming Reeva until she was silenced after the last shot to the head !

BBM - Bingo!!!!!! (IMHO, of course...)

 

[minor4th]

I'm also thinking the issue is really what the iPad history and Roux's argument that it could have been Reeva (which is ridiculous) because she likes looking at cars and not anything super incriminating to Oscar. That was always my read on it. So if that's all they have...

Yep, he has raised that possibility for sure

 

[Val1]

Evidence to Support OP's Story:

Contrary to popular opinion, when OP went out on the deck and returned to the bedroom, the outside door being opened would NOT have made it easier to see Reeva in bed from the ambient outside lighting.

Here's why...

I did this very thing last night. My bed is directly facing the deck. I looked outside for maybe 3 seconds, then turned to get into bed. Much to my surprise the entire bed area was totally blacked out in my vision. My spouse was in bed but totally invisible to my vision, which had adjusted to the dim, outdoor ambient lighting. I had no way of seeing if my spouse was in bed or not. Zero visibility.

Weird, huh?

Of course if I would have heard somebody using the bathroom in that moment I would have reasonably inferred my spouse got up to pee when I wasn't paying attention.

Basically what OP is claiming pure stupidity as a reasonable defense. I guess that's why the standard is "reasonable person" and not "total idiot" or "maniacal lunatic" when the judge subjectively reaches a decision about OP's decision to kill somebody using the toilet.

Just wondering, how long did your blindness last?

OP claims after coming in with two fans which he apparently was able to place without incident, close the sliding doors, blinds and curtains, then was able to make his way to the other side of the bed to get his gun from under the bed that RS was supposedly sleeping in though he later says he'd just spoken to her moments before(apparently all done as quietly and invisibly as a ninja as it didn't even make RS question what he was doing which should have made him question why she didn't), then proceeded down the passageway to the bathroom when he saw the window was indeed open and somehow equated that to mean he had someone hellbent on killing him and RS hidden in the toilet room ... and then decided that he would loudly warn this someone to get out of his house and for RS to call the police ... seconds before he opened fire on the closed door until he could no longer hear anything but still felt the need to yell once more at RS to call the police before he went to check on her....

I'd laugh if it hadn't killed someone.

 

[Gbtaketwo]

Yep, he has raised that possibility for sure

I wonder if this is the main reason for the defence having Reeva at the right side of the bed . When the scene looks more like she would have been on the left both iPads were found at the right hand side of the bed and DT were keen to have on record there is no proof who was using them at the time .
I can't help but there is more that Mel was hoping to bring out in cross exam of OP failing that closing arguments ?
Bearing in mind Reeva had stayed the night before she would have likely known where to place her slippers the second night .
Obviously that is assuming that Reeva ever got into bed that night . I can't buy into her wearing those clothes all day ,then doing a yoga session and leaving them on to go to bed to sleep or otherwise .
If it is all about the iPad use or content then my guess is it should be something more than a bit of . I am not into that but lots are so what could it be ?
Hopefully it won't be an anti climax .