Trial Discussion Thread #15

[steveml]

When a trial is audio-only, do we still get the sketches and drawings from the court artists to at least give a visual sense of things?

I would imagine so. It's a guess, but I think it'll be just the same as we have seen with witnesses who's faces weren't seen on camera.

 

[MeeBee]

It will be interesting to see how defensive or not OP is (if and when he takes the stand). If he is defensive, I trust those who have been somewhat uncharitable about Mrs Stipp will judge and interpret his defensiveness in the same way. Otherwise that would seem rather unfair.

I absolutely will and I have said so. Even before this trial I have always made note of defensive or hostile witnesses, no matter what side I support, as I feel it hurts their credibility.

 

[Viper]

"Pistorius bedroom door" isn't finding anything recent for me. Can you just tell us your source?

Try: Oscar+Pistorius+affidavit and separately Oscar+Pistorius+plea+explanation

 

[Trooper]

I don't think I will as I don't think you actually care. You just want to belittle me. I'm not gonna play along. Sorry.

good ness me..


:facepalm:

 

[DebinGA]

[FONT=&quot]That's correct.

Prosecutors said they have enough evidence to prove OP killed his girlfriend with direct intention.
The nature of OP's defense isn't to show that he didn't kill Reeva, we already know that, as he's told us so.
[/FONT]

OP's defense is not only that he didn't realize the "intruder" was Reeva, but that no argument, loud talking, or screaming preceded the first shot.

 

[steveml]

It's his constitutional right to plead not guilty to any and all charges, as it is with anyone accused of a crime, regardless of the charge or regardless of the evidence.

I agree with LemonMousse, who posted upthread that the Defense is hoping for a reduced sentence, (or possibly hoping for a verdict on a lesser charge) rather than an acquittal.

I think the state will be sorely dissapointed if the crime is downgraded to a lesser charge of culpable homicide.
OP could even get a non-custodial sentence, as Judge Masipa can use her discretion regarding sentencing.

 

[soozieqtips]

It was intentional because once he opened fire, he knew he would kill whoever was on the other side of the door. The question for the judge (I think) is whether he knew it was Reeva behind the door. If he did, and there had been a row earlier, and she'd tried to leave but ended up locking herself in the toilet out of fear (maybe because OP was advancing towards her) then he killed Reeva deliberately. If he didn't know it was her behind the door, then he killed a stranger... deliberately. I imagine the sentence will be lighter if the judge feels he was going after an intruder rather than hounding Reeva into a locked toilet and shooting her dead. But either way, he shot to kill.

ETA - if the judge believes all the witnesses who heard a woman screaming, and doesn't think they were all mistaken, lying, or conspiring against OP, then she'll do what she needs to do. Add in the fact that OP heard nothing from Reeva, yet could hear a window slide open from another room, well, he must have selective deafness.

 

[sorrell skye]

Good morning Sorrel,

Gavel posted an image of Reeva arriving at the estate gates in her Mini Cooper, the top was black but had thin shoulder straps, so it is not the black t-shirt she was wearing when she was killed, which had wide shoulder straps.

Her clothes were the t-shirt and white Nike shorts. This could be yoga attire. And she was likely wearing something when she went downstairs for a snack.

I do strongly believe that this got physical downstairs or on the way upstairs as Reeva was getting her things to leave; that is why she had to run to the bedroom and lock OP out.

Good morning Viper!

I've seen the crime scene photo of the black tank top, and I've also scrutinized the CCTV image to try to determine if the two tops are the same or different. I must say that they appear to be the same (to me), but it's hard to tell definitively. The straps of the tank top in the CCTV image don't appear to be dramatically thinner than the straps of the tank top in the crime scene pic. Angles of photos can be deceiving - especially when looking at a tank top shoulder strap, which can get bunched up due to the movement of the shoulder (causing the shoulder strap to appear more narrow than it might actually be).

Even if they are different tops, it seems to me that Reeva was dressed and possibly trying to leave OP's house before he shot & killed her.

The damage to the bedroom door is indeed a curious thing. When OP testifies, I expect Nel will ask him to explain how, when, & why that damage occurred.

 

[MeeBee]

It was intentional because once he opened fire, he knew he would kill whoever was on the other side of the door. The question for the judge (I think) is whether he knew it was Reeva behind the door. If he did, and there had been a row earlier, and she'd tried to leave but ended up locking herself in the toilet out of fear (maybe because OP was advancing towards her) then he killed Reeva deliberately. If he didn't know it was her behind the door, then he killed a stranger... deliberately. I imagine the sentence will be lighter if the judge feels he was going after an intruder rather than hounding Reeva into a locked toilet and shooting her dead. But either way, he shot to kill.

I imagine if the judge decides the state hasn't proved their case she will convict OP of something lighter than intentional murder.

 

[steveml]

OP's defense is not only that he didn't realize the "intruder" was Reeva, but that no argument, loud talking, or screaming preceded the first shot.

I agree.

There are many other things to be established yet. Those that you mention are amongst the most important.

 

[MeeBee]

Good morning Viper!

I've seen the crime scene photo of the black tank top, and I've also scrutinized the CCTV image to try to determine if the two tops are the same or different. I must say that they appear to be the same (to me), but it's hard to tell definitively. The straps of the tank top in the CCTV image don't appear to be dramatically thinner than the straps of the tank top in the crime scene pic. Angles of photos can be deceiving - especially when looking at a tank top shoulder strap, which can get bunched up due to the movement of the shoulder (causing the shoulder strap to appear more narrow than it might actually be).

Even if they are different tops, it seems to me that Reeva was dressed and possibly trying to leave OP's house before he shot & killed her.

The damage to the bedroom door is indeed a curious thing. When OP testifies, I expect Nel will ask him to explain how, when, & why that damage occurred.

I agree. The bedroom door still boggles the mind. It will be very interesting to hear OP's explanation if he's asked about it.

 

[jay-jay]

I'm on my mobile phone, so it is very hard to post them when I cannot really read them well to be sure I am giving you the correct documents. But a Google will get them for you easily.

That's what I mean, I did a google but nothing came up in the search results .. I'll have another go at it.

 

[Viper]

It was intentional because once he opened fire, he knew he would kill whoever was on the other side of the door. The question for the judge (I think) is whether he knew it was Reeva behind the door. If he did, and there had been a row earlier, and she'd tried to leave but ended up locking herself in the toilet out of fear (maybe because OP was advancing towards her) then he killed Reeva deliberately. If he didn't know it was her behind the door, then he killed a stranger... deliberately. I imagine the sentence will be lighter if the judge feels he was going after an intruder rather than hounding Reeva into a locked toilet and shooting her dead. But either way, he shot to kill.

Intentionally killing an unidentified unarmed non threatening intruder or intentionally killing Reeva are the same thing, murder. Culpable homicide is not the same, CH is what OP can only dream of getting, but he won't.

 

[Cherwell]

Try: Oscar+Pistorius+affidavit and separately Oscar+Pistorius+plea+explanation

Oh, I see. Sorry, when you said "have you heard the news?" I thought it was something new.

 

[Trooper]

Intentionally killing an unidentified unarmed non threatening intruder or intentionally killing Reeva are the same thing, murder. Culpable homicide is not the same, CH is what OP can only dream of getting, but he won't.

in addition, there isn't any provision in the SA law for Masipa to do so.. she cant drop it as low as culpable homicide from the lofty level of Murder with intent.


ah I bet he dreams of it too.

 

[Cherwell]

Intentionally killing an unidentified unarmed non threatening intruder or intentionally killing Reeva are the same thing, murder. Culpable homicide is not the same, CH is what OP can only dream of getting, but he won't.

This is it. Some people seem to think there are more options, as in the USA with degrees of murder, but there are not. It's similar to the UK where we have murder and manslaughter.

The difference will come in the sentencing.

 

[Lyra500]

Right. How could he plead not guilty if intentional murder is that clear cut, black and white, open and shut? The state is charging him with intentional murder and now they have to prove it. If it's murder regardless, since we know OP is the one who shot Reeva there'd be nothing for the state to prove and nothing for oscar to plead not guilty to.

Surely that is a question for OP and his team.

Many people have pleaded not guilty when the case against them has seemed obvious. That is their right. If they then get found guilty, any mitigation which they might have earned by a guilty plea goes down the pan.

My understanding is that his defence team will try to to show that his statement in which he did not realise Reeva was in the toilet and in which he was in genuine fear of his life (and therefore justified in firing the gun four times) was a believable version of what happened.

If believed, then the judge may find him guilty of culpable homicide and use his fear as a mitigating circumstance thus reducing the length of his sentence. I am not entirely sure how much mitigation is allowed, but have a feeling it can result in something as 'lenient' as a suspended sentence in exceptional cases. So, there is still everything to play for from his point of view and that is why there is a trial.

I am amazed that some (possibly not on this board) are suggesting that if his team can show he did not think it was Reeva he was shooting, then he should walk free.

Regardless of who was behind that door, he went to fetch his gun and then shot to kill - and succeeded. So even going by his own version of events, i believe he acted recklessly enough to warrant a significant custodial sentence.

Given the deeply suspect and bizarre affidavit and the testimony of several witnesses, i lean towards the blazing argument, complete loss of control and deliberate shooting explanation.

It will be very interesting to see how the cross examination of OP goes.

 

[soozieqtips]

I imagine if the judge decides the state hasn't proved their case she will convict OP of something lighter than intentional murder.

Maybe OP will say he simply fired four warning shots and had no idea anyone might have been killed as a result of his actions. In which case, he's a danger to society and should be removed from it while he considers the errors of his ways.

 

[MeeBee]

Maybe OP will say he simply fired four warning shots and had no idea anyone might have been killed as a result of his actions. In which case, he's a danger to society and should be removed from it while he considers the errors of his ways.

Well, it seems that IF Oscar's story is true then he was an accident like this waiting to happen, which is very tragic as this death could have been prevented. My heart breaks for Reeva in that bathroom, being ripped open by those bullets. I do hope he gets the full punishment he's eligible regardless of if he's lying or not. It's just senseless.

If he's lying and he knew it was Reeva, I hope he gets what he deserves and not a day less. Either way, I don't think OP is getting off easy. That's just MO though.

 

[Trooper]

for Oscar to 'get' culpable homicide, the entire constitution of the South African Govt would have to sit in session , debate it, deny it, appeal it, take it in a referendum to the voters, debate it, table it, and then deny it or agree on it and change the statutes..

but not for Oscar... he is being tried under the current and real and promulgated statutes of the criminal code of South Africa now.