Trial Discussion Thread #23 - 14.04.11, Day 21

[Carol70]

If it was me shooting an intruder to protect my loved ones I will go to prison with a clear conscious that I did what I needed to do to protect them. At all costs.

Me too and everyone else I know says the same. Protect first, ask questions later. I sleep with a machete next to my bed, I would not hesitate to use it and hopefully, never have to.

 

[BritsKate]

Jays us, don't know what this means and what the implications are, if anything.


http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/O...ed-to-probe-Oscars-cross-examination-20140411

Much ado about nothing. Allegations are made against prosecutors globally. Until and unless the matter is taken up by the Bar Association - or SA's equivalent - I don't think there's a lot for Nel to concern himself with. He's already been falsely arrested trying to do his job in another case.

That's something else for our new to trial members - either side you're on, in any case - the work that prosecutors do is a tough one with few perks. They're generally not very well paid at all compared to their defence counterparts; they are forced to prove their case sometimes using much more limited resources (of course the opposite could be argued for poor defendants too) and there is a very valid, very real threat of retribution. It isn't unheard of for a prosecutor to receive threats, be attacked, and sometimes even murdered. And that's just in America. I shudder to think of Italian prosecutors and the Mafia or Latin American prosecutors and drug cartels.

MOO

 

[Carol70]

Right guys, I'm off to drink copious amounts of beer. Enjoy the evening and hope everyone who has been doing the night shifts with us gets some rest

 

[04009margaret]

I doubt that complaint will go anywhere. The Judge hasn't needed to intervene too much over the past week

Gerrie Nel deserves a badge of honor quite frankly. He's faced tougher hurdles than this before, try getting dragged out of your home by 20 officers in front of your wife & children, just because your the prosecutor fighting corruption to start with.
http://mg.co.za/article/2014-02-20-pistorius-prosecutor-nel-has-integrity-beyond-reproach

 

[asanque]

That's something else for our new to trial members - either side you're on, in any case - the work that prosecutors do is a tough one with few perks. They're generally not very well paid at all compared to their defence counterparts; they are forced to prove their case sometimes using much more limited resources (of course the opposite could be argued for poor defendants too) and there is a very valid, very real threat of retribution. It isn't unheard of for a prosecutor to receive threats, be attacked, and sometimes even murdered. And that's just in America. I shudder to think of Italian prosecutors and the Mafia or Latin American prosecutors and drug cartels.

MOO

Reminds me of the famous speech from 'The Practice'

"There are heroes in this world. They’re called district attorneys. They don’t get to have clients – people who smile at them at the end of the trial; who look them in the eye and say thank you. Nobody’s there to appreciate the district attorney because we work for the state. And our gratitude comes only from knowing there’s a tide out there. A tide the size of a tsunami coming out of a bottomless cesspool. A tide called crime which if left unchecked will rob every American of his freedom. A tide which strips individuals of the privilege of being able to walk down a dark street or to take $20 out of an ATM machine without fear of being mugged. All Congress does is talk. It’s the district attorney who grabs his sword, who digs into the trenches and fights the fight; who dogs justice day after day after day without thanks; without so much as a simple pat on the back. But we do it. We do it. We do it because we are the crusaders. The last frontier of American justice. Knowing that if a man cannot feel safe, he can never, never, feel free."

 

[zwiebel]

Right guys, I'm off to drink copious amounts of beer. Enjoy the evening and hope everyone who has been doing the night shifts with us gets some rest

Here you go, a special from Germany for you. I'm told it's nice (I can't drink beer without becoming a burping machine).

 

[zwiebel]

I couldn't get straight today - Nel asked and asked about the home security. OP gave a lot of info, especially about what builders did to the sensors before in 2010, when he had to get them tested, and what builders MIGHT have done to them that week. But did he say there was any part of the alarm he knew wasn't working that night?

All I can work out is he said he set it, and then deactivated it out of habit when he left the bedroom. Maybe I missed something.

Also, he said he didn't run out of the bedroom door as he was afraid he'd slip on tiles. Are there tiles outside the bedroom door?

 

[Hope4More]

I'm very late to the party, but with all due respect his version of events is one of the most ridiculous I've ever heard. What self-respecting burglar has the smarts to break through the extreme outer gates of that community and then into an house with multiple security systems, only to immediately trap himself inside a locked toilet with no escape route? Seriously?

Pistorious, IMO, knew it was Reeva . They argued, he became very threatening, she ran for safety into the bathroom, locked the door, wouldn't come out. That pissed him off even more and he went for the gun. It wasn't premeditated in the sense he asked her there to shoot her. He knew his guns, though, he knew what kind of ammo he had loaded, he knew how little room there was behind the locked door, he heard her scream after the first shot, yet he fired 3 more.

Who does that? Someone who is trigger happy, has absolutely no self control, filled with rage, and best case, has such a grandious sense of entitlement that he feels justified in lashing out at anyone who doesn't defer to him.

I feel sad for Reeva that she didn't have the self respect to walk away the first time he mocked her or instructed her how to behave.

As for June...wow! She exemplifies honesty and integrity and flat out class.

 

[crasshopper]

Mr Nel challenged the double-amputee sprinter repeatedly as to why Reeva Steenkamp failed to scream when she was shot four times.
Mr Nel, one of South Africa's top attorneys, said it was beyond belief that 29-year-old law graduate and model Miss Steenkamp would have remained silent in the tiny cubicle with an armed Pistorius shouting and screaming in the adjoining bathroom.
Mr Nel later followed up with his central accusation - that the couple had an argument and Steenkamp fled to the toilet pursued by Pistorius, who then shot her through the closed wooden door.

Pistorius was challenged repeatedly as to why Reeva Steenkamp failed to scream when she was shot four times
'You knew that Reeva went behind the door and you shot at her,' Mr Nel said. 'You shot at her knowing she was behind the door.'

Pistorius denied the accusation, before the court adjourned until Monday morning.
...

Mr Nel said that if that were the case, she would not have stood up against the door. She would have retreated away from it. And she would have responded to Pistorius, the chief prosecutor said.
'I don't think anybody could say where she would have stood,' Pistorius replied.
Pistorius says he shouted at what he thought was an intruder in his house and also at Miss Steenkamp to call the police.
Mr Nel said that if that were the case, she would not have stood up against the door. She would have retreated away from it. And she would have responded to Pistorius, the chief prosecutor said.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...accused-tailoring-evidence.html#ixzz2yaohhyjK


:clap: Finally! (I can't watch or listen to the live feed)

 

[steveml]

.. and yet the weird thing, I find, is that the main and only eye witness to the killing is the accused himself, and he is able to sit there right the way throughout all of the trial hearing all of the witness statements, seeing all the crime scene photos, etc, etc, etc, .. and making notes all the time!

That's correct, but he is the accused, with a presumption of innocence until conviction, so it's probably a fair concession to allow.

Even after all that he could have decided not to give evidence and say nothing.

I'm not sure of OP's full intentions regarding the making of notes.
He obviously wants to prove that he didn't intentionally kill Reeva, although whether this is purely to achieve a lesser sentence or involves his own way of ensuring the full truth comes out is anyone's guess. It could be a combination of both.

Reeva's mother said she just wanted to know the truth, and I don't think she's interested in the moving of fans, on the balcony or off the balcony etc etc.
She probably just wants an answer to the question 'did you intentionally kill my daughter, and if so, what happened?'

 

[crasshopper]

Oscar hears sounds of moving wood in the pitch black but not a wimper from the woman he shot 4 times....incredible.

 

[steveml]

I couldn't get straight today - Nel asked and asked about the home security. OP gave a lot of info, especially about what builders did to the sensors before in 2010, when he had to get them tested, and what builders MIGHT have done to them that week. But did he say there was any part of the alarm he knew wasn't working that night?

All I can work out is he said he set it, and then deactivated it out of habit when he left the bedroom. Maybe I missed something.

Also, he said he didn't run out of the bedroom door as he was afraid he'd slip on tiles. Are there tiles outside the bedroom door?

I didn't get the alarm conversation either.

OP didn't seem to say too much about it and his explanations were quite vague.
I was a bit surprised that they hadn't obtained more info. about the alarm. When Nel said 'I haven't seen your alarm' or words to that effect, I thought it was going to all get a bit muddy.
The PT would have probably made more progress if they'd inspected the alarm system more thoroughly before that line of questioning IMO.

It ended up with two guys both not really understanding what each other was talking about.

 

[katydid23]

Oscar's right. The State have changed their case and proposals within it numerous times. Is the State actually tailoring its case as per evidence, witnesses and statements???

Why wouldn't the state tailor their case to the evidence? That is ALL they have to go on. Unlike OP, they were not there to witness the truth. OP is the only one who knows all the details. So the state has to try and figure it out based upons witnesses and forensics.

 

[emmavoberry]

Two glaring trouble spots in OP's current testimony under Nels' CE:

1. Screaming post-shooting
Does one usually scream after one finishes shooting at a suspected intruder? I am reminded of George Zimmerman who claimed HE screamed after shooting Trayvon Martin to death.

Aside from claiming to have screamed after finishing up shooting the person one perceives as a lethal threat in such cases when a scream has been documented and one must claim it as one's own to show one was in fear of one's life, I have not encountered in real life (or film) the shoot-to-kill the threat with post-"having done so" screaming.

The person who fires a gun at a disarmed person, receiving no fire in return or further threat, does not need to scream. True, in OP"s case, he can not see whether or not his threat is armed. However, after shooting four times, OP hears no further movement, receives no verbal threat.

I can think of only two conditions to occasion screaming post-shooting: if one realized one shot the wrong person or if one's gun accidentally went off, then screaming in horror at one's mistake makes sense.

Also, if one started one's scream out of fear of the impending threat against oneself and then reflexively continued to scream before one could ascertain that one had vanquished the threat, screaming makes sense.

None of the above would apply to that moment in which OP claims he screamed. It seems that he, once again, has tailored his account to fit his story. Screams were heard, most likely Reeva's, so he contends, conveniently, that he screamed after shooting through the bathroom door four times, paving the way for the judge to consider that witnesses hearing a woman's screams heard a man's, not Reeva's then, but his.

2. What triggered (sorry) shooting.
He claims to have begun shooting once he was at the bathroom door because of hearing sounds that indicated to him the imagined intruder was going to attack him. Movement noises, noises that portended the imminent bursting forth of a lethally dangerous person triggered his shooting.

I don't find this explanation for shooting (as opposed to just arming himself) a convincing rationale. First, what sort of noise could Reeva have made that would sound like a person about to bust out of the stall?

Second, even if such a noise or any evidence of such an intention had been manifest, how can OP claim inherent in it is a lethal threat?

It is one thing to shoot a person advancing at you with obvious lethal intent, but another to claim the sound of a movement from behind a door is proof of such a threat.

And even if we chalk OP's reaction up to an interpretive leap based on noise or on some visual sign of motion to escape from hiding, after the first shot, what did he hear or see to confirm the need for three more? In reality, what could Reeva have been doing to cause a reasonable person to believe an imagined intruder was about to burst forth and injure or kill him (thereby rendering him no longer able to protect Reeva, meaning she would be tied up etc.)? And since he is still armed, he has a second chance to fire still more shots.

The link below contains the report of his testimony in regard to these two points, post-shooting screaming and rationale to begin shooting.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eva-Steenkamp-accused-tailoring-evidence.html

 

[katydid23]

Truth be told, if it was indeed an intruder, I have no doubt he would have been hailed a hero!

True. But I cannot lose sight of the extreme recklessness of his irresponsible behavior. He hears a slight noise, and instantly assumes it is an intruder? And never bothers to spend the 1 or 2 seconds necessary to confirm Reeva's whereabouts?

And when asked why he thought it could be an intruder, since he had an alarm and lived in gated community, he tells us that he never checked to see if his alarm system was working, and never checked to put the ladders away, etc. Again, irresponsible behavior on his own part, which led to her death. If he was so 'paranoid' then why was he so lax in his security?

 

[Hope4More]

PS...Pistorius "loved" Reeva? So much he sobs and vomits incessantly while on the stand? What a crock. Mocking and demeaning and trying to control another soul isn't love. Neither is it decent, respectful, or an indication of anything other than insecure and ugly contempt.

 

[steveml]

The number of shots don't seem to tell us that much. If we accept that the 4 shots fired is excessive, which I think most of us are in agreement with, then we need to be able to ascertain what result would occur if he shot in rage, as opposed to him shooting in blind panic. I think the 4 shots could easily apply to either situation.

 

[steveml]

True. But I cannot lose sight of the extreme recklessness of his irresponsible behavior. He hears a slight noise, and instantly assumes it is an intruder? And never bothers to spend the 1 or 2 seconds necessary to confirm Reeva's whereabouts?

And when asked why he thought it could be an intruder, since he had an alarm and lived in gated community, he tells us that he never checked to see if his alarm system was working, and never checked to put the ladders away, etc. Again, irresponsible behavior on his own part, which led to her death. If he was so 'paranoid' then why was he so lax in his security?

Indeed. It's very difficult to see this as anything less than irresponsible and reckless.

This is where the question of 'what a reasonable person would do' comes into play. Will Judge Masipa base her interpretation of a reasonable person and take into account that OP was on his stumps, thereby making allowance for his fear? She could interpret it exactly the opposite way, and believe that OP's vulnerability on stumps was all the more reason to get himself and Reeva out of there sharpish.

 

[DebinGA]

What do y'all think of OP's "I didn't have time to think" (before firing) excuse today? Seems to me OP had lots of time to think from the time he dropped the jeans on the floor to the time he fired the first shot.

 

[emmavoberry]

The police steal things because police can not be trusted and are in collusion against him. That's the point Oscar makes in offering this as previous crime he experienced in Silverwood as this goes to police tampering with evidence in their case against him for the murder of Reeva Steenkamp. Sad voice or no, he's on his game today.