Trial Discussion Thread #31

[wb180]

I know it is a source of "amusement" to refer to "Oscar screaming like a woman"

The issue really is though, can people Mis-interpret a Man's high pitched anguished cries as sounding like a woman screaming. There is a subtle difference.

People can, for instance, mistake a cat's cries for a human baby. Nobody would claim that the cat in question sounded exactly like a baby.... it is a case of Mis-perception, and illusion, which is quite common. We all make mistakes in what we interpret from what we see and hear. That is the basis of optical illusions, in the extreme case, or just common, everyday mistakes.

"To err is human"

Yes its an amusement because it is a suggestion with nothing to back it up. Why don't they say it was aliens on TV who screamed it then. That can be an optical illusion too! It is plausible!

 

[Nausicaa]

The thing is - for purposes of a trial, if the defense and prosecution "agree that x" then that really is the end of the matter. When both sides make those stipulations, they are accepted as uncontested matters, and there is no issue for the trier of fact to decide.

Sure, they might both be mistaken, but the stipulations operate as established facts for purposes of the trial.

I am under the impression that the primary scope of this forum is to investigate the circumstances of Reeva's death, while predicting the outcome of the trial is secondary.

 

[Rumpole]

So it is not ideal because they are so far away but they are credible witnesses so cannot dismiss what they say. I really don't see the desperation of PT. All I see is they found some credible witnesses that showed them what happened that night and build their case based on such evidence. I am happy to call PT crap if they were that (right know the only crap evidence PT provided would be the police testimony).

As for second point, did the other neighbors say they didn't hear it because they were awake and they didn't hear any screaming or what was the real testimony?

So let's go with ONE then - you can't dismiss what they say as they are credible. So now, the ball is on DT's court to dismiss this testimony. I am waiting for their witnesses to come and dismiss it because OP screaming like a woman is weak weak weak.

It seems like common sense to me that a closer witness would be a better ear witness. I don't understand your problem. If the State could have found close neighbors I imagine they would have preferred them to somebody 180 meters away. And I am sure they would have preferred witnesses who were questioned by police soon after the event, rather than weeks later after all the news and hype etc had been broadcast? Common sense? But they are better than nothing. (at a pinch)

The State chose to not call the other neighbors, so I have no idea what their full testimony might have been. Roux went through some names and stated in court that they had said in sworn statement that they DID NOT hear a woman scream. Nel made no objection. I guess their testimony would NOT have helped to Prosecution or else Nel would have called them?

 

[crasshopper]

I know it is a source of "amusement" to refer to "Oscar screaming like a woman"

My problem is not really that OP can't scream like a woman but more that


1) It didn't happen the night in question
2) He claims Reeva never screamed at all and
3) A man screaming like a woman does not sound like a woman screaming in terror.

If OP's voice went up 2 octaves whilst screaming like a woman I'll bet you Reeva's went up 4...jmho

 

[Cape Town Crim.]

Good morning Cape Town Crim. Could you answer a question - am I right in thinking that in order to avoid being found guilty of murder, the judge will have to believe that OP was justified in his fears when he fired those bullets. In other words, no matter who was on the other side of the door, if he cannot reasonably explain why he did what he did then he will be found guilty. It seems to me that a lot of emphasis is placed on whether or not he knew it was RS, and of course the reason for that is obvious, but it seems the shooting to kill of the 'intruder' takes something of a backseat in all the debate. Thanks in advance.

The identity of the person behind the door is in fact irrelevant for all intents and purposes. The words: unlawful and intentional are the only words relevant.

It was an unlawful and intentional 'kill'. If it happened to be an intruder - the original charge would still be murder.

Hope this helps. I will look for a few more. This was written shortly after the bail hearing way back - and it explain the various elements of the crime etc. Note the paragraph on 'Dolus Eventualis' - IMHO, this is the minimum OP can count on - and it's still murder.

http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/oscar-pistorius-criminal-law-101/

 

[Rumpole]

My problem is not really that OP can't scream like a woman but more that


1) It didn't happen the night in question
2) He claims Reeva never screamed at all and
3) A man screaming like a woman does not sound like a woman screaming in terror.

If OP's voice went up 2 octaves whilst screaming like a woman I'll bet you Reeva's went up 4...jmho

Yes.

But the issue is NOT if OP (or any man) can "impersonate a woman screaming". It has more to do with the person hearing than the person making the sound. Can a person make a mistake in interpreting a sound coming over some distance from an enclosed bathroom? The answer is.... YES! People make mistakes in what they perceive all the time.

 

[crasshopper]

The State chose to not call the other neighbors, so I have no idea what their full testimony might have been.

Quite possibly that they were sound asleep until woken up by police sirens.
&
The Stipp's lived clise enough for me.

 

[Jake18]

My problem is not really that OP can't scream like a woman but more that


1) It didn't happen the night in question
2) He claims Reeva never screamed at all and
3) A man screaming like a woman does not sound like a woman screaming in terror.

If OP's voice went up 2 octaves whilst screaming like a woman I'll bet you Reeva's went up 4...jmho

That's what I have a problem with too- I'm not convinced a normal male could actually scream in falsetto for a prolonged period without their voice cracking and thus making it clear that they were a man. I'm sure the DT will have hunted for an audiologist to say exactly that though.

 

[Jake18]

Quite possibly that they were sound asleep until woken up by police sirens.
&
The Stipp's lived clise enough for me.

And a lot will depend on whose windows were open.

 

[Rumpole]

Quite possibly that they were sound asleep until woken up by police sirens.
&
The Stipp's lived clise enough for me.

Quite possibly. Though they must have had something to say, else Nel woul not have had them on his witness list...... or are you suggesting that Nel was playing games... sticking names on his list just to stop people testifying for the defense?
I'll say again... the Stipps were GREAT witnesses (for the defense)
OP NEEDS people who heard BOTH sets of bangs, and he needs people who can confirm what he said about crying out AFTER the shots.

 

[patCee]

If the bats were first, for me this would indicate he attempted to get at RS, or to scare her, and would also create the build up to shooting her. I also think this would indicate intent towards RS, not an intruder, and support OP's guilt of PM .

The bats, even one strike, could have been at any time, but the witness' are giving an approx. time.
The shots, due to the seriousness of the injuries inflicted, particularly to the head, would have to be at approx 3.17 because they have to fit, again approximately, with the time Baba and Stander arrived at 3.25, and enable OP time to open the door before carrying RS down the stairs. The shots also need to fit with the medical evidence as to time of death.

I'm not uncomfortable with the time frame re the things OP had to do. He'd have been on an adrenaline rush that would have aided his actions.

 

[jay-jay]

About arm's length for OP? Arm locked, in gun shooting stance.

He wasn't hiding from an alleged intruder. He was VERY close to that door.

That was something else I thought odd about what OP said was that he claimed his arm was bent/kept at the side of his body .. I can't really see him shooting like that when he is (I would imagine) more used to the body position we saw in the zombie video .. i.e. both arms, arms straight out and locked .. and again, the recoil from that gun if he didn't use both hands/have arms locked I think would've resulted in shots all over the place instead of such 'good' grouping (even though OP made a smirking remark about them not being such a good grouping :facepalm: )

 

[Val1]

Aimee was allowed upstairs to get some clothes for her brother. She asked the police if she could take one of his watches in doing this. They granted permission. Should she not have gathered some clothes for OP? I just don't understand why people get so upset about this.

From what I've ever seen of police procedure when they are booking a suspect that is then spending time in jail/prison, they are not allowed to wear their own clothes while incarcerated... so unless SA can't afford prisoner garb why would OP need a change of clothes other than what would be provided for his stay while in jail? I could see after the crime scene has been processed and after he had been granted bail, but certainly no reason to need them, and most certainly not a watch or two, on the day of arrest imo.

 

[Rumpole]

I think a "two stage" bat attack on the door is REALLY stretching credibility.

What was presented in court was bat blows after the gunshots.

We DO have the clear evidence of two sets of loud bangs and two events known to cause loud bangs. I do not see the Judge considering bat blows in two tranches... I really don't. And such a hypothesis would be pure speculation. That is NOT the stuff of "Beyond reasonable doubt"

 

[wb180]

It seems like common sense to me that a closer witness would be a better ear witness. I don't understand your problem. If the State could have found close neighbors I imagine they would have preferred them to somebody 180 meters away. And I am sure they would have preferred witnesses who were questioned by police soon after the event, rather than weeks later after all the news and hype etc had been broadcast? Common sense? But they are better than nothing. (at a pinch)

The State chose to not call the other neighbors, so I have no idea what their full testimony might have been. Roux went through some names and stated in court that they had said in sworn statement that they DID NOT hear a woman scream. Nel made no objection. I guess their testimony would NOT have helped to Prosecution or else Nel would have called them?

Yes common sense to me is that closer witness would be a better ear witness.
Like someone said, there can be lots of reasons why they DID NOT hear a woman scream.

If someone was killed in an alleyway and 1 witness saw it and 100 people walked by.

Those 100 people can write a statement saying they didn't see someone killed. That doesn't mean anything to me unless it actually contradicts their other witnesses statements.

 

[Val1]

Quite possibly that they were sound asleep until woken up by police sirens.
&
The Stipp's lived clise enough for me.

I would imagine that being such a hot night that most of the neighbours in such an affluent neigbourhood, would have all their doors and windows closed and their air conditioners on. That the Stipp's didn't was quite likely due to Mrs.Stipp already being sick, air conditioners aren't the best thing if suffering from flu/cough.

 

[zwiebel]

Has the OP trial caused everyone to get hyper alert in SA or something, or is it always like this? This poor runner missed his marathon because he got hit on the head during training. He's an attorney, so the case isn't likely to go away quietly.....

It's a bit of a coincidence that the case involves a runner and an officer named LeRoux.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2014/04/22/cape-town-runner-assaulted-in-alleged-racial-attack

 

[jay-jay]

Hi, Carmelita. This is what I know. And I could be wrong.

The state has presented its evidence (but not its case). The defense has tested the state's evidence by cross examination. Now the defense is presenting its evidence and the state is testing.

SA law requires the state to give all its evidence to the defense before the trial. But the defense is not required by law to disclose all its evidence to the state before the trial. I understand from Cape Town Crim's posts that if the defense presents new evidence then the state will be allowed to reopen its case to address the defense's new evidence.

Once the evidential phase is finished both parties will have some time to prepare to present (meaning: explain/stipulate/lay out) their cases to the judge and argue their cases based on the evidence presented during the trial.

Does that make sense?

Found a link that gives a bit of information on this.
http://www.ipt.co.za/pdf/Criminal_justice_book.pdf

ETA: I should have said: The state has presented its evidence (but not its whole case). Because I use the word "case" here to include all phases of the trial: the presentation and testing of evidence as well as the phase where each party gets to tell the judge what they think happened and then argue why they are right.

:goodpost: .. and add to that, not everything has been shown to us in court and has been passed directly to the judge .. she has, in her stack of papers, things like the photo of the jeans outside and also at least one WhatsApp message that was passed directly to her (possibly more?) I think .. I can't be sure .. that she might also already have things like the NetCare recording (if indeed there was one) .. but, I think we have to take it that the judge, the PT and the DT, has a whole lot more information than was presented in court, and possibly things that we have not been made party too ... yet.

 

[patCee]

That was something else I thought odd about what OP said was that he claimed his arm was bent/kept at the side of his body .. I can't really see him shooting like that when he is (I would imagine) more used to the body position we saw in the zombie video .. i.e. both arms, arms straight out and locked .. and again, the recoil from that gun if he didn't use both hands/have arms locked I think would've resulted in shots all over the place instead of such 'good' grouping (even though OP made a smirking remark about them not being such a good grouping :facepalm: )

IIRC OP said that his arm was bent making his way along the passage towards the bathroom, not the actual shooting, but you are right, it would have been odd.

 

[lithgow1]

The identity of the person behind the door is in fact irrelevant for all intents and purposes. The words: unlawful and intentional are the only words relevant.

It was an unlawful and intentional 'kill'. If it happened to be an intruder - the original charge would still be murder.

Hope this helps. I will look for a few more. This was written shortly after the bail hearing way back - and it explain the various elements of the crime etc. Note the paragraph on 'Dolus Eventualis' - IMHO, this is the minimum OP can count on - and it's still murder.

http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/oscar-pistorius-criminal-law-101/

Thanks very much - interesting and informative article. Going by it, it would seem that his DT has a big job ahead of them in order to avoid the murder conviction. I can't see how the circumstances will meet putative self-defense given that nothing happened in the moments before the shooting to have made Pistorius genuinely and reasonably fear that his life was in imminent danger.