Trial Discussion Thread #15

[minor4th]

Sooo, the world is wondering, what did OP plan to give RS(his beloved) for Valentine's since they apparently were unable to even spit the words out to each other in text messages?

He's probably like a lot of guys and would have picked up flowers or something on Valentine's day

 

[minor4th]

So your advice as a verified attorney is to never own up to a possible reading comprehension/attention problem and let the chips fall where they may? Dang.

My advice would be to never lie in a sworn statement.

 

[BabaJ]

IIRC, there was testimony that they expand when hitting soft, wet target, like flesh?

Yes, this is what somebody answered several posts back, I have to go back to the ballistic witness. I do not think it is that simple, there is some info on Wikipedia with the same brief explanation but there is a limited discussion on Facebook on that topic including the bullets going through "hollow" vs "hard core" door, etc. I was just surprised that the bullet holes in the door did not indicate any expansion.

https://www.facebook.com/Justice4ReevaSteenkamp/posts/593295097415730?stream_ref=10on Facebook on that topic:

 

[screecher]

First thanks for replying. However, if we start from the word fabricate as defined the by the Oxford Dictionary:



I really don't mean to "misconstrue" you, but unfortunately I just cannot agree that your use of fabricate does not have an accusatory and judgemental sense, in the same way as when you use it again here in this post:



or when you repeat,



both of which imo cleasly indicate you believe Mrs Stipp was deceitful, the first because that is exactly what "fabricate" means, the second, because as you say the detail was "plain(ly) not part of Mrs Stipp’s memory" you leave no option for her to have included it by mistake so that the only inference I am able to take is that you mean Mrs Stipp purposefully set out to deceive. Damning accusations without any evidence.

Witnesses very often do not coincide on details such as how many shots, screams, lights, etc., and can often recall insignificant details directly after an event with very important ones only coming back to them months later and by chance. It is reasonable to think they can also mistakenly include details they heard as their own, and that it could take quite an effort to sort it all out. Memory is not an exact science and plays tricks on us all. We have all mixed up our memories of an event with those of others, only to later realise the error with, "Ooops, tell a lie... it wasn't X but Y" without any intent, need, motive or reason to lie whatsoever. I "recall" events as a child that I clarify with, "I am not sure if I remember it or if I was told it by my mum, dad, brother, etc."

Now it may be you are using the words incorrectly, but by asserting Mrs Stipp "fabricated" or added a detail "plain(ly) not part of her memory" you deny her the same benefit of the doubt, that, you quite rightly expect for OP. Even if inadvertently, or unconsciously, you can I am sure see how it could smell of hypocrisy to be seeming to uphold one person’s rights while trashing another's.

And what proof is there that Mrs Stipp (and I could include here Burger, Johnson, Mr Stipp, the police, experts, etc.) "fabricated" or affirmed what she knew was "plain(ly)" untrue and that it was not an unwitting mistake which she quickly rectified? I am sure you agree that OP demonstrably has 15-25 years of reasons to lie, but, while Mrs Stipp may have many reasons we could "fabricate" and conjecture about, she has no motive we can affirm as a certainty in the same way. IMO, without hard evidence in contra, independent witnesses deserve an even higher presumption of innocence by a judge or jury than an accused with a life to defend (the prosecution by its very nature can't "presume" innocence otherwise they would not prosecute in the first place), so imo without evidence to the contrary, all witnesses should be presumed to be testifying as best they can, with errors, mistakes and contradictions, simply trying to fulfil their civic duty in the search for truth and justice, trying to help a court decide, after weighing up all the evidence, not just Mrs Stipps, whether or not a murder was committed so that if the judge determines it was then a person who could pose a threat to someone else’s daughter, yours, Mrs Stipp’s or mine, can be contained where they no longer can pose a threat to anyone, at least not for a time.

I have lived most of my life in Spain under a bench system and, as I am sure is the same in SA, (and even the same here in the UK with police, prosecutors, judges and juries, and insurance claim investigators), it is a known fact judges give much more weight to independent witnesses than to those close to an accused such as family, friends (or enemies!), business associates, etc., precisely because wherever there is an interest the likelihood of a hidden agenda is significantly enhanced, whether to favour or prejudice an accused.

So, what do you think could be Mrs Stipp’s hidden agenda for her to lie under oath and try to pervert the course of her nation’s search for truth and justice in respect of OP? And do you doubt OP likely has motives to lie, (even if he did kill Reeva by mistake which under SA law may not save him), contrary to those very same reasons?

An excellent post. Thank you!

 

[Val1]

The point is you cannot know for certain from those messages that this was an abusive relationship. It might have been - but you can't know from those messages. The examples I gave above are extreme examples, but that was the point - if you saw extreme messages like that, you could conclude it is an abusive relationship just from reading one or two messages, but there is no such clarity in these messages.

That doesn't mean anyone doesn't understand the dynamics of an abusive relationship or the warning signs or red flags. That doesn't mean anyone is discounting the gravity of emotional abuse. In fact, it doesn't even mean that anyone has concluded for sure that Oscar is not abusive.

It just means you cannot come to a certain conclusion based on those few messages.

So the fact that OP actually killed RS doesn't count towards the tally of unhappy messages... I'm still wondering if he'd read or seen a preview or home video on RS's phone or ipad(if it was indeed hers) of the scene on Tropika Island where she kissed the guy that she was so worried he'd be angry about....

 

[minor4th]

Ok, to settle this about Mrs. Stipp - let's say that the police captain Mike Van Ardt just typed up a statement that he wanted Mrs. Stipp to sign based on the statement that her husband had given. And she signed it under oath without even reading it - or she read it but didn't notice that it said that she saw a shady bathroom figure.

Then she later read it and saw that she had sworn to something that was not true and corrected it.

What that suggests is that the police prepared witness statements in their own words and based on their own theory of the case and not based on what witnesses actually saw and heard.

To be honest, that is exactly what I think happened, and Mrs. Stipp got caught because she just went ahead and signed whatever the police put in front of her without checking it for accuracy.

I think the whole investigation was handled inappropriately from start to finish. It was done with the bail hearing and initial arrest and PR in mind and not with any forethought beyond that. I think the police investigators did pressure witnesses or even gently persuade them that things happened a certain way or that maybe there were two people screaming etc etc.

So I'll give all the witnesses the benefit of the doubt and say that they are all credible and good upstanding people who would not intentionally lie. Instead they were exploited by overly zealous police who had it out for OP and wanted to hang him high, even if they didn't have the evidence to prove their case.

 

[minor4th]

They also take being respected in their own courtroom quite seriously.... and not having some lawyer try to faff the evidence to make a witness change their testimony.

Don't know if you noticed but it's not like Roux has been overruled a lot or reprimanded by the judge. Roux is doing his job as he's supposed to do. He is testing witnesses reliability, and in some cases he has revealed problems with their reliability.

 

[minor4th]

So the fact that OP actually killed RS doesn't count towards the tally of unhappy messages... I'm still wondering if he'd read or seen a preview or home video on RS's phone or ipad(if it was indeed hers) of the scene on Tropika Island where she kissed the guy that she was so worried he'd be angry about....

The fact that he killed Reeva has not been linked to those messages in any way. If he mistook her for an intruder, then the messages have no relevance at all. If it turns out that the state somehow proves that he intentionally killed Reeva - then those messages might be interesting in hindsight. But they don't tell us anything on their own.

 

[Viper]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/04/glamour-relationship-abuse_n_857472.html

"94 percent cited emotional abuse. "Emotional abuse almost always escalates to physical violence," says Diane Lass, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist."

Add a gun fanatic to this picture and you very likely will end up with someone being murdered.

Quote from your link:

"94 percent cited emotional abuse. "Emotional abuse almost always escalates to physical violence," says Diane Lass, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist at the Family Justice Center in San Diego."

It was very nice of you to research this and provide a link. It is so much better to discuss a topic when factual information is in hand.

But in my experience doing kind things like this is a waste of time if you are having the conversation with someone that is not going to open your link. It is a waste of time sharing information with them because they really are not interested in your thoughts or truth.

JMO

 

[minor4th]

Has there been any evidence - or even any rumors - that Oscar has ever acted violently or physically harmed anyone in a jealous rage?

 

[Viper]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/04/glamour-relationship-abuse_n_857472.html

"94 percent cited emotional abuse. "Emotional abuse almost always escalates to physical violence," says Diane Lass, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist."

Add a gun fanatic to this picture and you very likely will end up with someone being murdered.

So the fact that OP actually killed RS doesn't count towards the tally of unhappy messages... I'm still wondering if he'd read or seen a preview or home video on RS's phone or ipad(if it was indeed hers) of the scene on Tropika Island where she kissed the guy that she was so worried he'd be angry about....

BIB. Oh no! It certainly does. The trouble is the question was incorrect. Some were asserting that 99.99% of the men who are abusive, verbally or physically, to their partners do not kill them. The logical question, given that OP has killed his partner, is how many men that have killed their partners later were found to be verbally or physically abusive to them.

JMO

 

[Bazinga]

They also take being respected in their own courtroom quite seriously.... and not having some lawyer try to faff the evidence to make a witness change their testimony.

Well she admitted that she voluntarily signed it after reading it - she wasn't under duress or forced to sign it, knowing it contains false statements about what she saw.

That's deliberate, that's intentional and that's deceptive.

And you can believe whatever you want, but the fact that a crucial ear/eye witness is willing to swear to a false statement impeaches their testimony. Judges take this oath thing pretty seriously.

Hi everyone,
Have been following this trial and all the interesting posts and speculation. It is the circumstantial nature of much of the case that makes it interesting. I wanted to add to the discussion about mrs Stipp. As I understand it - she wasn't well, she had a terrible experience of hearing what sounded like a "family murder" and how frightening for her that her brave husband to set out in the night to try to help. He then returns later, with blood on him to say a man killed his girlfriend (or words to that effect). I think it is very "human" to confuse a part of the information when making a statement, what YOU saw, heard etc rather than what you thought or what your husband said he saw... This wife and mother must have been traumatised by the night and days that followed. I wouldn't call changing your statement about the sight of a man in the bathroom a lie but a clarification. I also understand how she would feel defensive on the stand. I can't see anything about the Stipps other than a couple who were unfortunate to live nearby and witness the killing and a brave doctor who willingly risked his life to go and offer his expert help to someone in distress. I would say most people would not take that risk and I understand why! I don't think either deserve to have their motives questioned. That doesn't seem fair.

 

[Gryffindor]

Has there been any evidence - or even any rumors - that Oscar has ever acted violently or physically harmed anyone in a jealous rage?

Not necessarily jealous rage. Temper, anger, frustration, being in his eyes "disobeyed" , inability to control a person as he wishes . . . . any number of these qualities could have led to her death . . . . or otherwise . . .

 

[Val1]

Ok, to settle this about Mrs. Stipp - let's say that the police captain Mike Van Ardt just typed up a statement that he wanted Mrs. Stipp to sign based on the statement that her husband had given. And she signed it under oath without even reading it - or she read it but didn't notice that it said that she saw a shady bathroom figure.

Then she later read it and saw that she had sworn to something that was not true and corrected it.

What that suggests is that the police prepared witness statements in their own words and based on their own theory of the case and not based on what witnesses actually saw and heard.

To be honest, that is exactly what I think happened, and Mrs. Stipp got caught because she just went ahead and signed whatever the police put in front of her without checking it for accuracy.

I think the whole investigation was handled inappropriately from start to finish. It was done with the bail hearing and initial arrest and PR in mind and not with any forethought beyond that. I think the police investigators did pressure witnesses or even gently persuade them that things happened a certain way or that maybe there were two people screaming etc etc.

So I'll give all the witnesses the benefit of the doubt and say that they are all credible and good upstanding people who would not intentionally lie. Instead they were exploited by overly zealous police who had it out for OP and wanted to hang him high, even if they didn't have the evidence to prove their case.

So what's OP's excuse for changing his story to include two fans as opposed to one and apparently even been able to plug one in in the pitch darkness of the bedroom, then was able to hear the bathroom window sliding open but noone entering through it or locking themselves into the toilet room, made his way around to the other side of the bed to get his firearm from under the same bed where he claims he thought RS was still sleeping, all without noticing his beloved that he swore he was protecting wasn't even there? Just how bad is his eyesight? Maybe he should never have been able to get a gun license at all eh?

 

[curiousjo]

Whats OP excuse for not stating anything about a very loud argument that lasted for an hour from 2-3 am? ..... Oh yes, they went to bed at 10 pm - they were in love..... fabricated fairy tale. I think he left out a major event that night!

 

[Gryffindor]

One segment which has stood out glaringly to me, regarding the type of traits Oscar possesses, is when he stated/warned a POLICE OFFICER, "you touched my gun, your fingerprints are on it now, if anything happens" (roughly worded from memory) I find his conniving, threatening, manipulative & austere, premeditated actions wholly scary . . .

 

[Gavel Rash]

'I felt vulnerable because my bedroom door was locked' I know these are not the exact words Oscar used, but I have a big problem with this sentence.

Firstly his bedroom door was locked by who? by Oscar himself.... with a key that he either left hanging from back of bedroom door, or do we believe he locked bedroom door from inside for safety...and then took key out (if that is one of the other key(s) on this lot)... down to toilet door, where he then placed it on inside of door so that a user may have privacy? So why didn't he just unlock the door and lock burglar in?

So does it figure then he would have taken key from toilet door to let himself out to carry her downstairs? He didn't as we know a key was still in toilet door, then where was the key that opened bedroom door again? He said he went downstairs to open door for Stander so did he use the keys dangling from his bedroom door? And if he did, then why didnt he use same keys to get out of the room away from the danger he percieved himself and Reeva were in? Or did we get any info as to how he opened said bedroom door in order to carry Reeva, as all doors in Oscars house are keyed both sides not with a self locking internal latch.

So his fear of being locked in his bedroom has no substance.

 

[minor4th]

Not necessarily jealous rage. Temper, anger, frustration, being in his eyes "disobeyed" , inability to control a person as he wishes . . . . any number of these qualities could have led to her death . . . . or otherwise . . .

Right, so no evidence that he's ever been violent?

So if we're going to talk about risk factors for domestic homicide, let's talk about all of the risk factors.

Has he committed physical abuse or threatened to harm a girlfriend or family member? Nope.

Has his abuse involved choking an intimate partner? Nope.

Any history of emotional abuse escalating to physical abuse? Nope.

What about past threats of suicide? Nope.

What about a history of harming or threatening to harm pets or children to get his way? Nope.

What about controlling a partner's financial resources in order to ensure her dependence on him? Nope.

Did he recently become unemployed, suffer a death in the family or any significant loss? Nope.

Was he having severe financial problems? Nope.

Did they live together or recently separate? Nope.

Any history of stalking behaviors towards an intimate partner? Nope.

Ever forced or pressured a partner into sexual activities when they were not willing? Nope.

Any history with Reeva or any other girlfriend of prohibiting them from having friends or relationships with family? Nope.

A history of controlling where his partner goes and whom she sees and associates with? Nope.

Substance addiction? Nope.

Does he have access to guns? Yes.​

The only risk factor we can identify in Oscar Pistorius is that he has access to guns. That is predictive of exactly NOTHING.

ETA: And here's a link for anyone who cares to read more about the subject of risk assessment for domestic homicide http://www.dangerassessment.net/upl...ality_Risk_Assessment_Instrument-Campbell.pdf

 

[G.bng]

Scarry, perhaps reckless, perhaps criminal even.

But NOT the same as shooting knowing Reeva was behind the door.

It does have to be considered in context. A double amputee arguably feeling VERY vulnerable when it comes to any confrontation with a intruder, South Africa where home invasion, rape, torture and murder are common enough to be considered by everybody, 3 AM. Pitch darkness. All somewhat mitigating circumstances.
Yes it would be a tragedy if it had turned out to be the neighbor's cat too :cat:
But a mistake, an accident.

IF it had been an intruder dead... I would imagine no charges would have been laid. So in that context, if OP was absolutely convinced in his own mind (as a reasonable person might well be) then he did no more that if he had shot an actual intruder.

Methinks you may find it useful to forget US law when interpreting this case as even in the UK it is likely charges would have been bought against OP, while in the the US it would likely have been a basic self defence with not even an arrest.

In SA the constitution arising after apartheid not surprisingly enshrined a strict concept of "right to life" holding the life of even a thief to be more precious than property, (nothing remotely similar to the US you'll probably say!). From the guide "When Can I fire" published by the "Institute of Security Studies" of South Africa, a few paragraphs explain OP's problem, the asterisked (*) note being imo his best hope for culpable homicide, i.e. that due to his "disability" the judge views him with more leniency. If not, well, what can I say, OP didn't even see a burglar let alone a gun so the judge will be hard pushed to find an immediate threat as there needs to be for OP to make use deadly force. And if OP lied about being variously robbed and threatened, (Nel seems intent on pushing him for details and dates), and considering he lived in a very secure 24/7 patrolled estate, fitted with panic button and the works, and left windows open, ladders below, had dogs that didn't guard, an unprepared broken pane on the ground floor, and, my o my, didn't even have burglar bars fitted to the bathroom window as he so expressly pointed out in his statement for some strange reason considering that he didn't have them fitted to any other windows either, it may be that even his "disability" won't help the judge to see him that favourably! :

ISS - When Can I Fire
"It is important to remember that before you can act in self-defence, the attack against you should have commenced, or at least be imminent. For example, if the thief pulls out a firearm and aims in your direction, then you would be justified in using lethal force to protect your life. However, you cannot shoot the unsuspecting thief on the premise that if you confront him, he would place your life in danger. The pre-emptive strike principle is not applicable in private defence cases."

Consider another set of circumstances. You wake up one night and discover that an intruder has broken into your living room. The thief is armed with a firearm and is sneaking through the house, gathering valuable items as he proceeds. You know that if he is startled he might shoot you or your family. Can you lawfully shoot him? Do you have to take your family and flee from your home? Do you have to wait for him to attack you or your family? Unlike the scenario with the car thief, this time the intruder is in your home. However, the same legal principles apply. You cannot use lethal force to prevent him from walking out with your TV. Instead, you or your family would have to be in immediate danger. It could be argued that the mere fact that the intruder is in your home is sufficient threat to justify your using lethal force against him. Again, each case could be judged separately, but the legally safe option* would be to avoid using lethal force until you have no other option. Rather avoid confronting intruders. It could save your life and keep you out of jail.

*When judging whether or not the defence was reasonable in the circumstances, the court will avoid assuming the role of an armchair critic and will take the traumatic and emergency nature of the incident into account

 

[curiousjo]

'I felt vulnerable because my bedroom door was locked' I know these are not the exact words Oscar used, but I have a big problem with this sentence.

Firstly his bedroom door was locked by who? by Oscar himself.... with a key that he either left hanging from back of bedroom door, or do we believe he locked bedroom door from inside for safety...and then took key out (if that is one of the other key(s) on this lot)... down to toilet door, where he then placed it on inside of door so that a user may have privacy? So why didn't he just unlock the door and lock burglar in?

So does it figure then he would have taken key from toilet door to let himself out to carry her downstairs? He didn't as we know a key was still in toilet door, then where was the key that opened bedroom door again? He said he went downstairs to open door for Stander so did he use the keys dangling from his bedroom door? And if he did, then why didnt he use same keys to get out of the room away from the danger he percieved himself and Reeva were in? Or did we get any info as to how he opened said bedroom door in order to carry Reeva, as all doors in Oscars house are keyed both sides not with a self locking internal latch.

So his fear of being locked in his bedroom has no substance.

======
Very clever! The key(s) will be the undoing of OP story.... and neighbors.