Trial Discussion Thread #15

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #581
I do have to disagree with the non escalating violence element of your comments. The fact that the problems they were undoubtedly had in their relationship seem all to have occurred in the prior 4 weeks before her murder.

Agreed .. it is quite clear from those text conversations, which related to certain things that happened in real life, were escalating .. we are talking about just 2 months into a relationship and then all this starts happening on the lead up to her death in the final month of a 3 month relationship.

I found his agreement to her seeing her ex a bit surprising but I guess I found, in my own mind, a reason for this. I agree I have no evidence for the following but I think he may well have been on his best behaviour after the last angry, jealous outburst.

My abusive ex partner was always very accommodating when it came to things like that .. always very accommodating at the time .. but it wasn't until an argument broke out that I ever used to find out what he really thought but never said at the time. I am pretty sure that is what happened here.
 
  • #582
Another interesting article - Was Oscar Pistorius The Boyfriend From Hell?

http://m.timeslive.co.za/local/?articleId=11392409
Thanks Lemon. Very VERY interesting article, and from clinical psychologist Leonard Carr, who has often been called to testify in court as an expert witness. I imagine his opinion will soon be shot down though as it supports what those of who have suffered abuse at one time or another have been saying for so long. Reeva was in an abusive relationship. Since Carr has testified as an expert witness, I wonder how his credibility will be questioned? Seems like he has it spot on to me.

Well worth a read.

Excerpt from the article.

Carr based his comments on a close analysis of a lengthy WhatsApp message Steenkamp sent to Pistorius on January 27 last year and on his response to her.

Carr said the messages between Pistorius and Steenkamp suggested
"a highly controlling relationship".

"He controlled her with jealousy, with isolation. From these [messages] he looks like someone who is unable to really love. He doesn't show any empathy for her; he doesn't show any deep respect for her."

Pistorius was "highly manipulative" and had "an overdeveloped sense of entitlement", said Carr.


http://m.timeslive.co.za/local/?articleId=11392409
 
  • #583
it was only a matter of time,Jay..


next it will be ' she deserved it'...

Yup .. well, actually I have seen that already on some of the comments sections of various online news agencies where they have a comments section at the bottom of their pages. I've noticed a few comments like 'she doesn't seem to be quite the angel you all thought she was', i.e. insinuating she was at fault/deserved it. No-one deserves to be shot and killed, no matter what they've done.
 
  • #584
In South Africa, culpable homicide means "homicide without criminal intent". To support this, OP would have to show that he shot four times into the toilet without intending to commit a crime.

He can ONLY do this by citing mitigating circumstances that show he had good reason to believe that he was acting in self-defence.

His "good reasons" amount to.......I heard a noise in the toilet and forgot to check it wasn't my girlfriend.

Apart from anything else, his actions were pre-emptive which is specifically and clearly prohibited as a justification for self-defence.

He shot to kill. That's premeditated murder. I struggle to see how anybody is managing to doubt that.
 
  • #585
If people think that a ruse of crying may get leniency from the judge or assessors, look at this interview with criminologist who says Pistorius is crying for himself and his lost opportunities, not actually for Steenkamp.

This is not about guilt or innocence, it's just an good analysis from criminologist Liza Grobler about Oscar Pistorius courtroom crying and some general context about the meaning of crying in those incarcerated.

http://www.news24.com/Multimedia/Vi...-for-himself-not-Reeva-criminologist-20140328
 
  • #586
Good morning All! It will take me half a day to catch up, but did you hear the news? OPs bedroom doors were barged though so they could not be securely locked, it would just take a pull on the "locked" doors to open them, no key needed. So he and Reeva could have easily escaped. Oh, and OP lied about that in his Affidavit!

How many years in prison do you think he will get for Premeditated Murder? I'm thinking the judge gives him a break and just goes with the mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years!

:party:

Good heavens! Really?
 
  • #587
  • #588
I think she locked him out of the bedroom, that's why Merwe only heard a one sided argument. Reeva's voice would have carried out through the open balcony doors while OP's didn't. Would also explain the damage to the door - him trying to get in.
 
  • #589
I thought she said she thought it was correct at the time but it was after going thoroughly through it and what had happened that night she realised it was not what she remembered rather what Mr remembered. That is not a lie.

Agreed. It really is not a lie - unless you inhabit 'OP world' where everything he says is Gospel truth and anyone who dares to provide testimony which does not fit with his version of events must be part of a huge devious conspiracy to do him down.
 
  • #590
In the US and the UK, not SA. This point has been made over and over and over.

I don't think anyone quite understands better than anyone else heat premeditation here means. Unless someone here is an SA lawyer then we're just reporting what we think. From what I've seem, premeditation works similarly here in that it's not just, you intended to kill, so guilt. The judge will have to weigh various factors in deciding oscar's fate. Otherwise, I don't really see the point of this trial if he's guilty regardless of the circumstances. That doesn't make sense.
 
  • #591
In South Africa, culpable homicide means "homicide without criminal intent". To support this, OP would have to show that he shot four times into the toilet without intending to commit a crime.

He can ONLY do this by citing mitigating circumstances that show he had good reason to believe that he was acting in self-defence.

His "good reasons" amount to.......I heard a noise in the toilet and forgot to check it wasn't my girlfriend.

Apart from anything else, his actions were pre-emptive which is specifically and clearly prohibited as a justification for self-defence.

He shot to kill. That's premeditated murder. I struggle to see how anybody is managing to doubt that.

I don't doubt he did murder her and could have stopped firing but didn't, which shows intention IMO, but I have a feeling that he might be shown some leniency by the judge with respect to the "reasonableness" factor especially if he puts on his pitiful, sad, broken display that we have grown accustomed to seeing. On Day 1 he was so sure of himself when he entered court but now, as the days tick by, he is beginning to realise just how bad his situation is which has caused him to dissolve/morph into a blubbering wreck.
 
  • #592
Hello,
I just wanted to compare parts of the later March 2014 Plea Explanation next to February 2013 Bail Affidavit, investigate the differences. There are some fascinating changes in tone and wording between the two statements. I’m not going into linguistics in this post but it is great to read. Thanks to the other poster (forgot who) who put up an interesting link to a Pistorius Bail Statement Analysis earlier in the weekend.
Here is link to another example of linguistic Bail Statement Analysis, generally most analysis concludes that there appear to be deceptive areas in the statement.
http://www.linguisticstatementanalysis.com/SOTM/Pistorius.pdf

Comparison of the 2104 Plea Explanation and the relevant parts of the 2013 Bail Affidavit noting the differences.
1.
PE: During the early morning hours of the morning I brought two fans in.
BA: During the early morning hours of 14 February 2013, I woke up, went onto the balcony to bring the fan in and closed the sliding doors, the blinds and the curtains.

Changed to two fans now, instead of one.

2.
PE: I had shortly before spoken to Reeva who was in bed beside me.
BA: ----

No mention on speaking to Reeva in bail affidavit, this is an addition and definitely changes circumstances.

3.
PE: Unbeknownst to me, Reeva had gone to the toilet in the bathroom at the time of the when I had brought in the fans, closed the sliding doors and drew the blinds and the curtains.
BA: ---

No mention in bail statement that the exact time period Pistorius is bringing the one or two fans and drawing the blinds, was when Reeva got up from the bed to go to the toilet. Important to note: Pistorius is now saying she’s awake when he is because he’s just added into his statement that he had just talked to her in bed. She is also, at his ‘fan delivery time, making the room pitch dark time,’ going to use the toilet/going to the bathroom.

4.
PE: I heard the bathroom window sliding open.
BA: I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised that someone was in the bathroom.

Pistorius has now added in that there was a bathroom window sliding-open noise, made by Reeva.

This is odd. He has just said in the newer plea explanation that she was in the toilet and yet she’s now not yet at the toilet but sliding open the window after he’s finished his activities. He has now changed his story to Reeva been spoken to, Reeva sliding the bathroom window open, Reeva going to the toilet to presumably urinate etc. at the time when he was on the balcony/blind excursion.
(Note: I’ll talk further about how the timing of that whole sequence doesn’t seem plausible. Reeva’s on the way to the toilet but she’s not seen by Pistorius, even though he’s moving around with doing many things and he knows think she’s awake because he’s just talked with her. Yet Reeva is not yet even in the toilet but in the pitch dark, perfectly opening a window at the exactly the right time to make him extraordinarily scared and get his gun.)

5.
PE: I believed intruder or intruders had entered the bathroom through the bathroom window, which were not fitted with burglar bars.
I approached the bathroom, armed with my firearm, so as to defend Reeva and I. At the time I believed Reeva was still in bed.

BA: I felt a sense of terror rushing over me. There are no burglar bars across the bathroom window and I knew that contractors who worked at my house had left the ladders outside. Although I did not have my prosthetic legs on I have mobility on my stumps.
I believed that someone had entered my house. I was too scared to switch a light on.
I grabbed my 9mm pistol from underneath my bed. On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police. It was pitch dark in the bedroom and I thought Reeva was in bed.

In the bail affidavit he talks about “screaming words” at the intruder/s “to get out of my house” and for Reeva to phone the police. No mention of this in the shorter plea explanation.

6.
PE: I believed that an intruder or intruders had entered the bathroom through the bathroom window, which was not fitted with burglar bars.
I approached the bathroom, armed with my firearm, so as to defend Reeva and I. At that time I believed Reeva was still in the bed.

BA: I noticed that the bathroom window was open. I realised that the intruder/s was/were in the toilet because the toilet door was closed and I did not see anyone in the bathroom.

In bail affidavit he came to investigate a noise and ‘noticed’ that bathroom window was open. In the later plea explanation it’s quite a different mindset shift in that the very reason he went to the bathroom is now to investigate the sliding window noise made by Reeva. It mean’s saying ‘noticed’ is an incorrect term, he is now ‘confirming’ the window is open.

(According to Pistorius, this is the time Reeva knew there was someone else in the house as in the bail affidavit he said had screamed at them and at her to phone the police. Obviously at no time did she say to him I’m in the toilet/I have no phone/I’m not calling the police/press the panic button)

7.
PE: The discharging of my firearm was precipitated by a noise in the toilet, which I, in my fearful state, knowing that I was on my stumps, unable to run away or properly defend myself physically, believed to be the intruder/s coming out of the toilet to attack Reeva and me.

BA:
I heard movement inside the toilet. The toilet is inside the bathroom and has a separate door.
It filled me with horror and fear of an intruder or intruders being inside the toilet. I thought he or they must have entered through the unprotected window. As I did not have my prosthetic legs on and felt extremely vulnerable, I knew I had to protect Reeva and myself. I believed that when the intruder/s came out of the toilet we would be in grave danger. I felt trapped as my bedroom door was locked and I have limited mobility on my stumps.
I fired shots at the toilet door and shouted to Reeva to phone the police.

No mention in the plea about the bedroom door being locked and that as the reason why he more fearful and in greater danger.


8.
BA: She did not respond and I moved backwards out of the bathroom, keeping my eyes on the bathroom entrance. Everything was pitch dark in the bedroom and I was still too scared to switch on a light. Reeva was not responding...(the bail affidavit continues about other actions on the night, the plea explanation does not.)

Very useful comparison. One other difference I notice is that in the BA he said he was fearful that when the "intruder/s" came out from the toilet he would be attacked, but in the PE he says he panics when he thinks the intruders are "coming" out of the toilet. This could be significant because he has changed a fear for the future into a present one. If he thinks he/they are already emerging from the toilet instead of that they will do so soon, it adds an immediacy to his actions. A clever shift of tense.
 
  • #593
I don't think anyone quite understands better than anyone else heat premeditation here means. Unless someone here is an SA lawyer then we're just reporting what we think. From what I've seem, premeditation works similarly here in that it's not just, you intended to kill, so guilt. The judge will have to weigh various factors in deciding oscar's fate. Otherwise, I don't really see the point of this trial if he's guilty regardless of the circumstances. That doesn't make sense.

BBM

The point of the trial is because OP has pleaded not guilty to the charges (as is his constitutional right), therefore placing the burden on the State to prove the charges.
 
  • #594
I don't doubt he did murder her and could have stopped firing but didn't, which shows intention IMO, but I have a feeling that he might be shown some leniency by the judge with respect to the "reasonableness" factor especially if he puts on his pitiful, sad, broken display that we have grown accustomed to seeing. On Day 1 he was so sure of himself when he entered court but now, as the days tick by, he is beginning to realise just how bad his situation is which has caused him to dissolve/morph into a blubbering wreck.

Maybe.

His vulnerability because of his disability will be taken into account, I'm sure - but only if they can't determine that he knew it was Reeva.

If they are persuaded that he really, truly thought there was an armed intruder in the loo then they'd have to look at whether his actions were justifiable.

I don't think they would be for an able person, so why might they be for Oscar specifically?

He felt vulnerable without his legs, but chose not to put them on which would have taken seconds.

He claimed the bedroom door was locked - it now looks as if it wasn't.

I could be wrong, but I doubt the sobbing and retching will make much difference. Most murderers who are not psychopaths are sorry.

I truly think that he is likely to serve a very heavy prison sentence whatever happens.
 
  • #595
I don't think anyone quite understands better than anyone else heat premeditation here means. Unless someone here is an SA lawyer then we're just reporting what we think. From what I've seem, premeditation works similarly here in that it's not just, you intended to kill, so guilt. The judge will have to weigh various factors in deciding oscar's fate. Otherwise, I don't really see the point of this trial if he's guilty regardless of the circumstances. That doesn't make sense.

there are a lot of posters who are quite savvy as to what premeditation means , where it means it ( that is, under what legal system it is located) ..


there are some posters who cannot grasp what it means in South Africa.


there are plenty of posters who know what it means in their local system.

and then there are those who LIVE under the SAME system as South Africa, which is based on british law.


not seeing the point of this is a bit bewildering 3 weeks into the trial. that I don't understand at all.
 
  • #596
Very useful comparison. One other difference I notice is that in the BA he said he was fearful that when the "intruder/s" came out from the toilet he would be attacked, but in the PE he says he panics when he thinks the intruders are "coming" out of the toilet. This could be significant because he has changed a fear for the future into a present one. If he thinks he/they are already emerging from the toilet instead of that they will do so soon, it adds an immediacy to his actions. A clever shift of tense.

Also added to the BA was that he yelled for the intruder/s to "get out of my house" and "Reeva call the police" or some such thing, then again after he'd shot up the toilet room told Reeva to call the police again but in the PE he never uttered a sound apparently, at least not until he opened fire on the toilet room.
 
  • #597
Very useful comparison. One other difference I notice is that in the BA he said he was fearful that when the "intruder/s" came out from the toilet he would be attacked, but in the PE he says he panics when he thinks the intruders are "coming" out of the toilet. This could be significant because he has changed a fear for the future into a present one. If he thinks he/they are already emerging from the toilet instead of that they will do so soon, it adds an immediacy to his actions. A clever shift of tense.

Oh, that's also very relevant, thank you. I'll add it in if I may?

Actually I was highlghting the most obvious details, I have quite a few more language/linguistic changes that I wanted to add but will try to do that in the timing implausibility post. ;)
 
  • #598
Maybe.

His vulnerability because of his disability will be taken into account, I'm sure - but only if they can't determine that he knew it was Reeva.

If they are persuaded that he really, truly thought there was an armed intruder in the loo then they'd have to look at whether his actions were justifiable.

I don't think they would be for an able person, so why might they be for Oscar specifically?

He felt vulnerable without his legs, but chose not to put them on which would have taken seconds.

He claimed the bedroom door was locked - it now looks as if it wasn't.

I could be wrong, but I doubt the sobbing and retching will make much difference. Most murderers who are not psychopaths are sorry.

I truly think that he is likely to serve a very heavy prison sentence whatever happens.


I hope you are right. I just have this niggling feeling that, probably for all the wrong reasons, he may get a non-life sentence - say 15 years.
 
  • #599
Maybe.

His vulnerability because of his disability will be taken into account, I'm sure - but only if they can't determine that he knew it was Reeva.

If they are persuaded that he really, truly thought there was an armed intruder in the loo then they'd have to look at whether his actions were justifiable.

I don't think they would be for an able person, so why might they be for Oscar specifically?

He felt vulnerable without his legs, but chose not to put them on which would have taken seconds.

He claimed the bedroom door was locked - it now looks as if it wasn't.

I could be wrong, but I doubt the sobbing and retching will make much difference. Most murderers who are not psychopaths are sorry.

I truly think that he is likely to serve a very heavy prison sentence whatever happens.

That's one of the advantages that this trial has by being handled by a judge.
Many actions which could be perceived to influence a jury or attract public sympathy will not be given a second thought by Judge Masipa.
 
  • #600
I don't think anyone quite understands better than anyone else heat premeditation here means. Unless someone here is an SA lawyer then we're just reporting what we think. From what I've seem, premeditation works similarly here in that it's not just, you intended to kill, so guilt. The judge will have to weigh various factors in deciding oscar's fate. Otherwise, I don't really see the point of this trial if he's guilty regardless of the circumstances. That doesn't make sense.

He pleaded not guilty - that's the point of the trial. They are hardly going to say "Not guilty? Don't be silly - of course you are. Off to prison with you", are they?

Nel is a South African lawyer - he explained what was meant by premeditation.

Another one does here. He says:

"Intention can be formed at the instant of committing the crime and does not imply or necessitate any degree of forethought or planning on the part of the accused".

http://www.iol.co.za/dailynews/opinion/expert-clarifies-premeditated-murder-1.1573253#.Uzlotye9KSM
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
131
Guests online
1,471
Total visitors
1,602

Forum statistics

Threads
632,353
Messages
18,625,199
Members
243,107
Latest member
Deserahe
Back
Top