Trial Discussion Thread #29

[molly333]

Read it again carefully.

It is confusingly put but the testimony that the bat strike preceded the gun shots only referred on one mark on the door.

There was nothing said that the bat didn't hit the door elsewhere prior to the gunshots.

You mean that the gunshot happened before the bat strike.

But in another place he says all the gunshots happened at the same time.

 

[Cherwell]

Then to my mind, the prosecutor has to prove he killed Reeva Steenkamp with intent, not some imaginary burglar

There's no evidence of premeditation to kill Reeva.

Unless he can prove the screams are hers, and so far, he can't.

John 11.35

 

[Really?]

I think I missed something. Why did he need to testify that he carried the gun around with him? How did that bolster his case?

someone said on here and I agree......he could not say he put the gun down until he knew it was Reeva and not an intruder still possibly armed and alive.

 

[Hatfield]

I believe you. That site I found said it was much louder than an airplane engine at takeoff.

I wonder how police do it.

PS He didn't say ears were ringing because of head injury. He said that particular head injury would explain Oscar's performance on the stand AND his actions the night of the 14th.

Its really a good question of which I know the answer. Here is the thing. When your life is on the line you would shoot the handgun without ear protection and just suffer the consequences of the blast to the ears.

When policeman and anybody else target practices at the gun range, we always use ear protection. Most of the time those little foam plugs or those fancy headsets you see on TV.

But when life is on the line, you dont have time and you will just shoot and suffer the consequences of your ears hurting and ringing.

Again I know this from personal experience of seeing a rattle snake near my house in the country and I did not want to try to go back in the house for my ear plugs so I just shot the snake. In emergency situations, you do what you have to do. That snake could have gotten in the house from where he was so I wanted to be sure he was not around anymore. When they get near the walls of my house I try to take them out. If they are away from the house I leave them be because they help reduce mice problems and stuff.

But my dog has been bit before and I dont want to be bit so if they get right near my house I try to take out the poisonous ones.

 

[nastasya]

Then to my mind, the prosecutor has to prove he killed Reeva Steenkamp with intent, not some imaginary burglar

There's no evidence of premeditation to kill Reeva.

Unless he can prove the screams are hers, and so far, he can't.

So think about this logically.

A hit man kills the wrong victim. Does he then get culpable homicide instead of murder with intent?

OP admitted he killed Reeva. That's not in question.

The burden of proof shifted to the defense to show who putting 3 bullets into Reeva was not a crime.

The prosecution showed OP's many versions to be internally inconsistent with one another, therefore nullifying OP's "proof" that it was ok to kill his girlfriend when she got up to pee.

 

[asanque]

But in another place he says all the gunshots happened at the same time.

The gunshots did happen at the same time.

However, other bat strikes could have preceded the gunshots (the sounds heard by the Stipps).

The mark that the witness testified about was one strike with the bat after the gunshot.

I.e. bat strikes first, gun shots later, bat strikes again to break panel

Again fitting all the evidence presented by the witnesses

Edit: Although my theory is the earlier loud bangs could have been bat strikes or doors slamming

 

[Clutchbag]

http://htmlimg1.scribdassets.com/6nav90m20w35290g/images/2-5f34c81e0e.jpg

bbm - Like I said, "the accused did unlawfully and intentionally kill a person, to wit," then it names the "person" he killed who in this case is RS.

That is what it says at the top, but look at page 3, point 5

http://www.pod702.co.za/Eyewitnessnews/docs/130819pistoriusindictment.pdf

Why would that be in there at all?

 

[molly333]

The gunshots did happen at the same time.

However, other bat strikes could have preceded the gunshots (the sounds heard by the Stipps).

The mark that the witness testified about was one strike with the bat after the gunshot.

I.e. bat strikes first, gun shots later, bat strikes again to break panel

Again fitting all the evidence presented by the witnesses

Edit: Although my theory is the earlier loud bangs could have been bat strikes or doors slamming

But, then what did the witnesses hear?

Witnesses heard two sets of gunshots. [Stipps]

 

[Cherwell]

You mean that the gunshot happened before the bat strike.

But in another place he says all the gunshots happened at the same time.

Have they said anywhere that all the bat strikes happened at the same time?

Remember, the bat was also used to prise the panel out of the door. This was not necessarily at the same time as the door was hit.

 

[Really?]

I can go dig up the witness statements again, but I'm not going to do it right now.

but of course

 

[molly333]

So think about this logically.

A hit man kills the wrong victim. Does he then get culpable homicide instead of murder with intent?

OP admitted he killed Reeva. That's not in question.

The burden of proof shifted to the defense to show who putting 3 bullets into Reeva was not a crime.

The prosecution showed OP's many versions to be internally inconsistent with one another, therefore nullifying OP's "proof" that it was ok to kill his girlfriend when she got up to pee.

It has to be thought about legally.

Let's ask Minor4th.

 

[asanque]

But, then what did the witnesses hear?

Witnesses heard two sets of gunshots. [Stipps]

All 5 witnesses heard screaming and gunshots.

3 of 5 witnesses only heard screaming followed by gunshots.

Only 2 of the 5 witnesses heard the initial loud banging (Stipps)

The Stipps were the closest and could have confused the initial banging for gunshots.

A door slamming or cricket bat hitting the door would be softer than gunshots (Edit: As OP's own witness Dixon testified to) and may not have been heard by the other ear witnesses that were further away.

 

[asanque]

It has to be thought about legally.

Let's ask Minor4th.

Instead of asking a US attorney who is not qualified in South African law, why don't you instead take the word of a criminal law professor in South Africa?

http://criminallawza.net/

Let me know if you want me to walk you through it.

 

[Hatfield]

All 5 witnesses heard screaming and gunshots.

3 of 5 witnesses only heard screaming followed by gunshots.

Only 2 of the 5 witnesses heard the initial loud banging (Stipps)

The Stipps were the closest and could have confused the initial banging for gunshots.

A door slamming or cricket bat hitting the door would be softer than gunshots and may not have been heard by the other ear witnesses that were further away.

Good Points

Gun louder noise than bat no matter how hard he swung

The 3 of the 5 prove to me that they heard scream before being shot. If those people could be questioned to ask them if OP screaming sounds like what they heard or was it someone else. If someone else then it had to be her. And before being shot.

 

[turaj]

All I can say is you know a defendant is going down when he sits on a stand and in between sobs blames his attorney repeatedly for mistakes in the case. Gerri Nel often said Mr. Roux would not have forgotten that if you told him etc. It made OP look even worse. By building up the defense attorney Nel very cleverly pointed out how totally confused and caught up in his own lies OP is. All a total fabrication after completely losing it with Reeva.

 

[dianebowen]

The states expert only said the crack through Hole D came last.

He said it would be scientifically impossible to determine if the bat strikes happened before or after the gun shots.

Nel clarified this point on re-direct. The state's expert testified that it was hypothetically impossible the bat hits were intended to scare Reeva.

This isn't that complicated.

Did you mean to say "hypothetically possible" that the at hits were inteneded to scare Reeva?

 

[molly333]

That is what it says at the top, but look at page 3, point 5

http://www.pod702.co.za/Eyewitnessnews/docs/130819pistoriusindictment.pdf

Why would that be in there at all?

Good point.

I'll have to ask Minor4th.

 

[Hatfield]

It has to be thought about legally.

Let's ask Minor4th.

Another analogy is if 2 people rob a store. 1 guy goes in and kills the store owner. The driver is still charged with murder even if he did not know person 1 was going to kill anybody.

Not quite the same but I think it is same sort of thing. He is still culpable because he intended to shoot whoever was behind the door. It was a purposeful action.

 

[BritsKate]

Then to my mind, the prosecutor has to prove he killed Reeva Steenkamp with intent, not some imaginary burglar



There's no evidence of premeditation to kill Reeva.



Unless he can prove the screams are hers, and so far, he can't.

South Africa law is such that if it can be shown Oscar intended to kill an intruder, the killing of Reeva Steenkamp is murder. For that matter, it also allows that even if Oscar didn't intend to kill anyone, if he acted in such a reckless manner that he could have foreseen that shooting 4 highly lethal bullets into an enclosed space could have led to killing someone, its also murder.

The very fact that those were Reeva's screams can be inferred as fact because the State's case hasn't been refuted. Contested, but not refuted. In order to refute that those weren't indeed Reeva's screams they will have to show what Oscar was doing for so long before he states he broke down the door or explain why he was screaming for approximately 12 minutes before he states himself he fired.

Its up to the defence to show why Reeva's killing was lawful by proving putative self-defence which in turn makes intent moot. Oscar simply stating he was afraid and then contradicting his own defence isn't enough in my opinion.

And please define premeditation in accordance specifically to SA law because many of us are curious to their exact definition as well. TIA

Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

 

[asanque]

Good point.

I'll have to ask Minor4th.

Even Minor4th has conceded that OP is guilty of culpable homicide.

His/Her only issue is the likely sentence OP will receive.

Culpable homicide is not in dispute.

The court is never going to believe 'involuntary action' and 4 shots fired 'accidentally' through the door.

This leaves OP with his original defence of 'self defence' that is backed up by nothing more than hearing noises of a 'supposed' intruder.

Thus, the charge of murder is what remains.

Edit: Link to Minor4th conceding OP is guilty of culpable homicide
Trial Discussion Thread #27 - 14.04.16, Day 26 - Page 63 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Second Edit: For some reason, I thought minor4th was a guy. But someone can confirm and I will correct the terminology.