Trial Discussion Thread #29

[DebinGA]

What happens in court when a crime reenactment video is shown? Who answers questions about it, the videographer? What can s/he say beyond, "I just went by the info Roux provided"?

 

[james83]

But, then what did the witnesses hear?

Witnesses heard two sets of gunshots. [Stipps]

so are you presuming they misheard for the 2nd set of sound's?, if so why?.

 

[Val1]

Quite. For me, the line beetween lawful self defence / killing and murder is unclear here from the OP / defence team perspective.

IS it legally self defence to shoot at an invisible target in a small room without knowing who they are, without knowing if they are armed, without knowing you are in danger? But knowing (as in beleif) there is a human in there? i think not but Im not a lawyer. Sorry, Im sure this has been answered before, just hard to get my head round it.

Then we have the I was defending myself but there was no intention to shoot, just to put myself between the threat and Reeva, the noise/fear/panic/desire to protect made him pull the trigger...somewhat accidentally as well.

Wouldnt it set a precedent for others killing their partners and saying I thought it was an intruder?

Oh well the judge knows the law and I cant see him walking out scot free of all charges. Does he have mitigating circumstances? Will she give a suspended sentence and ban him from owning guns?
hmmmmm

Give this a read, it may help clear up the confusion. The other articles on the left are interesting too if you want more legal mumbo jumbo.

http://criminallawza.net/2014/04/13/pistoriuss-new-defence/

 

[Carmelita]

I think that view possibly shows a misunderstanding of the requirements for judging what is or is not beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, because OP has claimed he can scream like a woman and has introduced additional screaming into his version of events those who choose to take his word for everything now claim that it cannot be proved that it was Reeva screaming.

I think the legal opinion which has been linked to by another FM is very interesting in this regard (Big thanks to Emz73). It describes two ways of thinking of separate bits of evidence:

1. As a chain where each pieces of evidence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
2. As a rope made up of various strands of evidence which should be looked at as a whole to determine whether reasonable or not

The article goes on to provide this really helpful excerpt (which is the way I had been considering things):


So the real question should be:

"what are the chances that all those people who heard screaming and gunshots at around 3.17am are wrong?"

"What are the chances that all of those unlikely things in OP's testimony happening at the same time?

• Op shutting the curtains and being unable to see
• OP coincidentally having put the jeans over the LED so he could not see
• OP neglecting to ask Reeva if she had heard the noise
• the wondow sliding open just as OP was in the bedroom in time to hear it
• The police managing to mess up the crime scene in just the way that happened to raise questions about OP's claims

I could go on - in fact perhaps that is what we should do - create a list of all of the unlikely things which have to be in place to make OP's version viable.

I do not believe anyone is taking Oscar’s word for everything. I think and I will simply copy and paste here; a few posters that believe that the legal burden of proof, without a reasonable doubt, of premeditated murder has not been demonstrated through evidence or by the prosecution as of yet it really is that simple.


By the way, one can rationally argue that the judge in a legal proceeding is not bound by the philosophical poise of Occam’s razor, more so a judge is not. A judge is bound to lawfully consider the evidence in a light most favorable to a defendant, a judge is also bound to look beyond a reasonable doubt; this is exactly when the antithesis of Occam’s razor would be reasonable. To give weight to a more complex possible reality than the perceived simple one that is the subjective consensus of the mass of onlookers is the judge’s duty.

I don't know how the judge will rule or what her looking glass will be beyond the hard evidence.

 

[molly333]

Fair enough, but it's not going well so far, if you ask me.


And how do you figure CH is only a "maybe" in this case?

Let's say all the facts are the same but Oscar is a ten year old boy whose parents aren't home.

He thinks it is a burglar and shoots to protect himself and his babysitter.

But it turns out it is the babysitter he shoots.

Would you still have these judgments of premeditated murder and so forth?

 

[BritsKate]

What happens in court when a crime reenactment video is shown? Who answers questions about it, the videographer? What can s/he say beyond, "I just went by the info Roux provided"?

In this case, its likely to be the janitor who mopped the floor the 3rd Tuesday after the filming of the reconstruction.

Just kidding...sort of.


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

 

[Lochlynsmom]

Let's say all the facts are the same but Oscar is a ten year old boy whose parents aren't home.

He thinks it is a burglar and shoots to protect himself and his babysitter.

But it turns out it is the babysitter he shoots.

Would you still have these judgments of premeditated murder and so forth?

Terrible analogy on so many levels...

 

[Clutchbag]

Give this a read, it may help clear up the confusion. The other articles on the left are interesting too if you want more legal mumbo jumbo.

http://criminallawza.net/2014/04/13/pistoriuss-new-defence/

thank you!!

 

[molly333]

so are you presuming they misheard for the 2nd set of sound's?, if so why?.

No. I think they heard two sets--one guns, one bats.

But you have to prove the bats were first if you are going to prove that was Reeva screaming, and I don't believe the prosecution has proven this.

 

[HauntsForHope]

Kicking, striking, shooting, screaming... what a horrifically violent way to die.


"Reeva Steenkamp posted a haunting final picture on her Instagram account in protest against the gang rape of a South African teenager.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-...r-pistoriuss-girlfriend-1709722#ixzz2zG8mlmSB

 

[molly333]

Terrible analogy on so many levels...

I'm not sure it is.

I kind of think that was the level Oscar was operating at.

 

[wb180]

Let's say all the facts are the same but Oscar is a ten year old boy whose parents aren't home.

He thinks it is a burglar and shoots to protect himself and his babysitter.

But it turns out it is the babysitter he shoots.

Would you still have these judgments of premeditated murder and so forth?

Yes. If there is no element of self defense.

 

[Clutchbag]

Kicking, striking, shooting, screaming... what a horrifically violent way to die.

and with your head in a toilet bowl!!! Her parents hearts must havebeen mashed

 

[BritsKate]

Let's say all the facts are the same but Oscar is a ten year old boy whose parents aren't home.



He thinks it is a burglar and shoots to protect himself and his babysitter.



Would you still have these judgments of premeditated murder and so forth?

With all due respect why do we have to place Oscar in a role as someone who wouldn't even be considered criminally responsible just to get to this not being an intentional homicide by SA law?

Anyone else see a problem with this hypothetical or is it just me?

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

 

[DebinGA]

What other witnesses might Roux call? I believe he claimed he'd produce a test showing OP screams like a woman. I think there are 2 gun experts set to testify. What can they say that would help OP? Maybe a mental health person to explain OP's paranoia? Other guesses?

 

[wb180]

I do not believe anyone is taking Oscar’s word for everything. I think and I will simply copy and paste here; a few posters that believe that the legal burden of proof, without a reasonable doubt, of premeditated murder has not been demonstrated through evidence or by the prosecution as of yet it really is that simple.


By the way, one can rationally argue that the judge in a legal proceeding is not bound by the philosophical poise of Occam’s razor, more so a judge is not. A judge is bound to lawfully consider the evidence in a light most favorable to a defendant, a judge is also bound to look beyond a reasonable doubt; this is exactly when the antithesis of Occam’s razor would be reasonable. To give weight to a more complex possible reality than the perceived simple one that is the subjective consensus of the mass of onlookers is the judge’s duty.

I don't know how the judge will rule or what her looking glass will be beyond the hard evidence.

If people think premeditated murder is not even established, why do we even care about OP self defense argument then.

Premeditated murder was already established with circumstantial evidence (his character) and him shooting four times at the intruder. He was arguing self defense until changed it to accident.

 

[sorrell skye]

There are people here who have not provided a single reason that explains why they think he's innocent. Their posts mostly consist of "I'll take what OP says as the truth" for example - and when asked to explain why he's lied so much on the stand, they do not explain a thing. They just move on and continue claiming OP is telling the truth. Just because you personally haven't seen any OP supporters here, does not mean there aren't any. There are. Quite a few.

Agreed, Soozie.

Conversely, many of us who believe OP is guilty have provided reasonable explanations based on SA law, forensic evidence, testimony, logic, common sense, as well as citing excerpts (with links) from scientific sources in an effort to inform ourselves & others regarding various aspects of this case (e.g. ballistic sound waves, decibel acoustics, instantaneous rigor & hypoxic jaw clenching, memory formation, etc.).

Additionally, there is a big difference between reasonable doubt and unreasonable doubt, IMO. The State is not required to prove beyond an unreasonable doubt or beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[TipDog]

I do not believe anyone is taking Oscar’s word for everything. I think and I will simply copy and paste here; a few posters that believe that the legal burden of proof, without a reasonable doubt, of premeditated murder has not been demonstrated through evidence or by the prosecution as of yet it really is that simple.


By the way, one can rationally argue that the judge in a legal proceeding is not bound by the philosophical poise of Occam’s razor, more so a judge is not. A judge is bound to lawfully consider the evidence in a light most favorable to a defendant, a judge is also bound to look beyond a reasonable doubt; this is exactly when the antithesis of Occam’s razor would be reasonable. To give weight to a more complex possible reality than the perceived simple one that is the subjective consensus of the mass of onlookers is the judge’s duty.

I don't know how the judge will rule or what her looking glass will be beyond the hard evidence.

The evidence doesn't fit OP's version and isn't favorable to his defense. And his only explanation for that has been the assertion that police moved evidence and contaminated the crime scene (which he'd already contaminated). At this point, I think it's safe to state that the defense is so far removed from the Occam's Razor principle that the judge's looking glass will be well beyond the evidence provided.

 

[molly333]

With all due respect why do we have to place Oscar in a role as someone who wouldn't even be considered criminally responsible just to get to this not being an intentional homicide by SA law?

Anyone else see a problem with this hypothetical or is it just me?

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

Because we may have those elements now:

1) high crime rate in SA
2) disabled celebrity
3) possible brain damage from head wound [yet to see]
4) propensity towards feeling vulnerable, paranoid, and afraid

 

[soozieqtips]

Let's say all the facts are the same but Oscar is a ten year old boy whose parents aren't home.

He thinks it is a burglar and shoots to protect himself and his babysitter.

But it turns out it is the babysitter he shoots.

Would you still have these judgments of premeditated murder and so forth?

OP is an adult. Why use a child in the example? Apples and oranges.