Trial Discussion Thread #34 - 14.05.06 Day 27

[crasshopper]

I think someone has mentioned this but it's worth repeating in relation to the last couple of days. It's my understanding I can't quote people from other forums (and rightly so) so I'm going to paraphrase:

According to a Professor James Grant, the Standers' evidence relating to Pistorius' state of anguish is inadmissable because it is 'evidence of a previous consistent statement'. Apparantly, had Nel cross-examined on this it would have become admissable so he didn't, leaving it to the judge to 'ignore them'. Any legal minds know much about this aspect? TIA

Just added - the other poster has further clarified by saying that Roux was likely wanting Nel to cross-examine on this to make it admissable but he didn't take the bait, leaving Roux in the lurch both in terms of admitting the evidence and having no other witnesses lined up. Was also suggested that this whole issue was why Nel and M'lady wanted to see each other post-proceedings.

That was a great video, btw. Thank you for the link.

 

[Cymbaline]

Absolutely, but is there any doubt that he'll have a gun at hand whenever he's in a place he can't be seen? A gun is some sort of equalizer that compensates for his "little man" syndrome, and he feels naked and helpless without it .. in my totally unqualified to opine opinion.

But Oscar puts a cricket bat against his door at night or did he do this at the child's home?

 

[Cherwell]

i too wonder about this.. Can he appeal all the charges??? Surely he will at least get done for the restaurant gun incident and at very least ch.. So can he walk on appeal to both.. I was hoping he would get jailed for at least the gun charge then appeal the homicide

I'm hoping Cape Town Crim will be able to shed some light on this.

In England & Wales, there needs to be specific grounds for appeal; people can't just automatically appeal to have another go at getting the verdict they want, IYSWIM. I don't know what grounds would be required in SA.

 

[Lochlynsmom]

According to OP's friend's story, at Christmas his young son was confronted in the middle of the night by a gun-toting OP who'd mistaken him for an intruder. OP must have thought later about the ramifications if he'd shot him, i.e. thinking through various scenarios, excuses, etc.

This is why paranoid people should not own guns. This was not the first time he went looking for a target to shoot :hills:

It's mind boggling to me that he now wants to use that as an excuse. He knew the laws and now he needs to accept responsibility for his actions.

 

[Ncl1968]

But Oscar puts a cricket bat against his door at night or did he do this at the child's home?

I believe your correct he did this at home... As the live in handy Frank slept downstairs he also turned on the alarm with his key fob, does that mean Frank can't move as the alarm would go off???

 

[Cymbaline]

I went on his twitter to see where he was on Christmas. He found a house to buy on Christmas Eve. Awwwww.

Another day of house hunting behind me.. Also played with a tiger and gymed like a beast! What did you all get up too today? 7:57am - 23 Dec 2012

https://mobile.twitter.com/OscarPistorius/status/282877624236269570


Found a place in Joburg! Looking forward to moving back in the new year. Will still be in Italy for 5months/yr but happy as can be! 8:04am - 24 Dec 2012

https://mobile.twitter.com/OscarPistorius/status/283241854693171201

 

[DebinGA]

But Oscar puts a cricket bat against his door at night or did he do this at the child's home?

This incident where he confronted a child in the night gun in hand was in OP's home iirc. Is it possible OP is so deranged he'd do that in someone else's home? Maybe.

 

[lithgow1]

This is an interesting interview with Kelly Phelps the day after the shooting and is apparantly what got her the CNN gig. It's very balanced so don't know what changed but to me it suggets Pistorius is on very shaky grounds when you consider the factors needed for a successful private defence.

Kelly Phelps from the UCT law faculty talk to us about self- defence (15.2.2013) - YouTube

 

[Val1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cymbaline View Post
I know!! OP never said a word about the guy while he was testifying.

His silence will not be lost on the judge....

bbm - Was he silent? Iirc OP had told the police that he and RS were the only two in the house.... I believe that was in OP's testimony as well as VR's. I know some don't think highly of this paper, but I'm too lazy atm to go searching for the relevant video link.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-trial-recap-updates-3391035

8:56 am

He said that there were two officers dressed in civilian clothing.

Colonel van Rensburg introduced himself but at that point he was unable to speak: "I was sitting on the floor crying."

Some time passed and a police officer asked him to stay in the kitchen.

He told them that nobody else was in the house.

 

[Cymbaline]

This is an interesting interview with Kelly Phelps the day after the shooting and is apparantly what got her the CNN gig. It's very balanced so don't know what changed but to me it suggets Pistorius is on very shaky grounds when you consider the factors needed for a successful private defence.

Kelly Phelps from the UCT law faculty talk to us about self- defence (15.2.2013) - YouTube

2:11

:jail:

 

[Mr Fossil]

Quote: Gunshots/bangs & screams reported to security on 14th Feb

1:56am - Mrs. van der Merwe (very loud woman's voice over an hour)

3:00am (approx) - Mrs. van der Merwe (gunshots/bangs)
3:00am (shortly after)- Security guard on bike. (gunshots)
3:00am (approx) - Mrs. Burger (gunshots)
3:00am (approx) - Mr. Johnson (gunshots)
3:04am - Dr. Stipp. (gunshots)
3:04am - Mrs. Stipp (gunshots)
3:16am (before) - Mr Nhlengethwa (gunshots)
-----------
Can someone add the time that Dr Stripp heard 2nd round gun shots

I don't think this is correct. Michelle Burger is woken just after 3am by a woman's terrible screams, yelling for help. She hears a man screaming for help three times. Her husband calls the wrong security at 03:16 (for 58 seconds) to report the screaming. She then hears 4 shots. He hears 4, 5 or 6 gunshots. In other words, they both only hear one set of bangs / shots and both testify this is after the phone call e.g. at 03:17 (if the call time is given correctly). I think they don't hear any bangs at 3am, just screaming. I also think 'just after 3am' could easily be 03:05 or any reasonable time before the call.

 

[BritsKate]

Even if Frank did say he didn't hear anything, which has been reported; several ear witnesses who didn't hear gun shots and who arrived at Oscar's home after the event have given their account on the stand.

This "I see nothing" Sargent (Frank) Schultz was present the entire time, albeit, supposedly asleep. Even if he wasn't there, he could possibly testify as to what Reeva and Oscar were like at home behind closed doors in the days/weeks leading up to the murder v. unintentional and now purported by Oscar, accidental killing of Miss Steenkamp . He did after all have a room off the kitchen.

This case is bizarre. Gripping yet bizarre.

RBBM

Only, he quite possibly couldn't. Not for the State's case in chief at least. There are a ton of subtle rules in place regarding evidence - just one of which precludes the State from leading with character evidence. There are some who believe this is the 'real' reason behind the firearm charges - it was a way of getting in *some* limited (much needed) character evidence because it specifically related to those charges.

Now...by putting Oscar on the stand and testifying basically what a good god-fearing man he is, the defence have opened the door for the State to pursue character evidence full on if they apply to reopen their case.

 

[Hope4More]

According to OP's friend's story, at Christmas his young son was confronted in the middle of the night by a gun-toting OP who'd mistaken him for an intruder. OP must have thought later about the ramifications if he'd shot him, i.e. thinking through various scenarios, excuses, etc.

Interesting. I read that story and think instead....yep, add one more instance in which he FEARED AN INTRUDER in the middle of the night, rational or not.

Katy, I live in a US city ranked in the top 10 for murders and violent crime. There have been 3 or 4 daylight home invasions in my immediate neighborhood within the past 6 months. But...neither my husband or myself owns a gun . My hubby is ex hard core military. He knows how to shoot , but doesn't want to have a gun in the house. Neither of us is paranoid about crime. Unlike him, I refuse to lock every door in the house, day or night, because I refuse to live in fear.
Given where we live and the immediate crime threat my decision to not lock doors is irrational.

And there is my point. People are inconsistent and are irrational often enough. That OP had balcony doors open and hadn't fixed the alarm doesn't mean he wasn't paranoid. His long track record of fearing the worse with no basis is plenty indicative of how OP behaved in the middle of the night when he heard a noise he couldn't account for. Perhaps he was all the MORE paranoid exactly because he knew the alarm system wasn't 100% .

As for OP within a few minutes being capable of thinking up the intruder story within minutes because of that encounter. Nah. Whatever else he is, OP is not a sociopath. Take a look at Jodi Arias or Melissa DeVault or Casey Anthony or Scott Peterson if you want to see how sociopaths react after the fact about their victims. OP was in such distress one of his neighbors had to walk away from the scene. His distress was real and extreme, whatever you believe about what was causing it. If you've ever expsrienced such extreme emotion you know that it is impossible to be thinking at the same time, much less calculating.

JMO

 

[lithgow1]

2:11

:jail:

Yes, I think it is going to be difficult to explain a) how the noise of wood moving is indicative of an 'imminent attack' and b) the response is necessary in the circumstances in that there is no alternative and that the response is reasonable. To me he fails on both those which I guess is where all the 'Oscar's subjective view' stuff comes into play. Interesting too though how CTC said that the state will be able to counter any defence psych testimony with testimony of their own. I've said before I am dreading the psych testimony but am now thinking it will be interesting.

 

[steveml]

Overnight I have been giving thought to why the witness testimony sometimes seems confusing to me when put together with other witnesses that I feel are honest and upstanding people .
I then remembered a UK programme that i watched as a child called "the generation game "
To win prizes people would have to watch general household items go past on a conveyor belt afterwards they would be allowed to keep all the items they could remember.
Often people would remember the first 3 or 4 items in the exact order that they had been shown and would then take time to remember the other items in no particular order.
Then there were other people that would as they were watching the items pick out the items that they liked and wanted so would remember those first .
Thinking of this game and the witness testimony has helped me to see things a little more clearly so I am now less doubtful of someone's testimony if an odd thing is out of cinque .
So if someone's says they heard help help help before gun shots but everyone else heard it after the gunshots it still means I can take their testimony as a whole and not discount it out of hand because of one small thing .
Also the same applies with Mrs Stipp's and the figure at the window IMO

That's a really novel way of looking at the concept of remembering things.

There's a lot of truth in it, and it's quite common to remember aspects of a situation and to be unsure about the order in which they were occurred.

...I really hope I don't see a cuddly toy on one of the PT's crime scene photo's, as that may just freak me out :wink:

 

[steveml]

I've just done a quick 'at a glance' table showing witnesses testimony regarding the scream/talking/crying/help sounds. Feel free to use this for reference or modify as required.

I've erred on the side of caution and included a tick against Estelle Van der Merwe for both Reeva and OP's crying sounds, as she thought it was Reeva but her husband told her it was OP.

 

[sleuth-d-]

Quoting myself and continuing with the same thought.

OP calls Stander...

Stander answers the call from bed. Stander agrees to immediately drive to OP's house.
Standers daughter "Carice" is awake because she heard screams. Stander takes his daughter with him to OP's house. OP knows Stander lives 3 minutes away. OP's next call is to netcare. But he oddly doesn't remember what he said all he remembers is that netcare said to bring Reeva to the hospital. I believe that call was 66 seconds. I don't think he ever spoke to anyone at netcare. I think he was waiting to be connected and he hung up because he could see the Silver Woods Country Estate security car start driving away from Dr Stipps house and driving to OP's house. Who does OP call next? Security. OP doesn't remember why but it must have been because he needed help lifting Reeva. You know because netcare allegedly told OP to take Reeva to the hospital.
I think OP called security because they were driving toward his house and Stander wasn't there yet to stop them.

OP doesn't say anything to security and the call ends.

Next is an incoming call from security. OP answers and tells security that everything is fine.

Then, his live in gardener "Frank" magically appears outside and is in the street with security when Stander and Carice arrive.

OP is suddenly able pick Reeva up and carry her downstairs.


(Carice Stander recently got married and is now Carice Viljoen)

Roux: Okay, you say you arrived and saw Frank the gardener and a person there.
by Sky News court reporter 2:41 AM yesterday

Viljoen: Yes.by Sky News court reporter 2:41 AM yesterday

Roux: What car did you drive?
by Sky News court reporter 2:41 AM yesterday

Viljoen: A mini, a silver mini.
by Sky News court reporter 2:41 AM yesterday


Viljoen: We asked what is going on, they said they don't know. I remember as we approached the house the door was slightly open. I remember I just touched the door and it opened.
by Sky News court reporter 2:42 AM yesterday

Viljoen: I remember the first thing I saw was Oscar carrying Reeva. I came into the door and he was there on the landing coming down.
by Sky News court reporter 2:42 AM yesterday

Viljoen: I proceeded to enter the house and he came down. You could see he was walking very fast. He just wanted to get her to the hospital.
by Sky News court reporter 2:43 AM yesterday

Transcript on page 8
http://news.sky.com/story/1255199/oscar-pistorius-trial-day-26-court-transcript



JMO

carise is one brave* girl.
3am. based on JUST hearing helphelphelp from 200 metres, and JUST her father's one line call from oscar which mentions shooting reeva, she gets dressed, drives over in her silver mini, [what colour was reeva's mini?], and then... walks up to a slightly open front door and walks inside the house first.

wouldn't it have been safer to let the two security guards take a look first?



*reckless? or did she know a little more when she reached the door?

 

[aoibhinn]

i think it is fair to say the stipps view was partially obstructed by trees. dr stipp described how the trees covered part of the bathroom window.

looking at the two attachments, i doubt they could see the bedroom balcony [because of the trees].

interesting how directly adversarial the two properties are... op and stipp.

This is true from a line of sight point of view. I was thinking more in terms of acoustics when I posted that. What they heard as opposed to what they saw. I should have been more clear. Additionally, windows were open in both properties, which would have decreased the potential of sound decay over that short distance.

 

[Lochlynsmom]

Interesting. I read that story and think instead....yep, add one more instance in which he FEARED AN INTRUDER in the middle of the night, rational or not.

Katy, I live in a US city ranked in the top 10 for murders and violent crime. There have been 3 or 4 daylight home invasions in my immediate neighborhood within the past 6 months. But...neither my husband or myself owns a gun . My hubby is ex hard core military. He knows how to shoot , but doesn't want to have a gun in the house. Neither of us is paranoid about crime. Unlike him, I refuse to lock every door in the house, day or night, because I refuse to live in fear.
Given where we live and the immediate crime threat my decision to not lock doors is irrational.

And there is my point. People are inconsistent and are irrational often enough. That OP had balcony doors open and hadn't fixed the alarm doesn't mean he wasn't paranoid. His long track record of fearing the worse with no basis is plenty indicative of how OP behaved in the middle of the night when he heard a noise he couldn't account for. Perhaps he was all the MORE paranoid exactly because he knew the alarm system wasn't 100% .

As for OP within a few minutes being capable of thinking up the intruder story within minutes because of that encounter. Nah. Whatever else he is, OP is not a sociopath. Take a look at Jodi Arias or Melissa DeVault or Casey Anthony or Scott Peterson if you want to see how sociopaths react after the fact about their victims. OP was in such distress one of his neighbors had to walk away from the scene. His distress was real and extreme, whatever you believe about what was causing it. If you've ever expsrienced such extreme emotion you know that it is impossible to be thinking at the same time, much less calculating.

JMO

Paranoia does not absolve him from his actions, he knew the laws and is now facing the consequence of his actions.
Do you honestly believe that he would admit "we had a fight so I shot her"???

 

[lithgow1]

Just a few points re your post above Hope4More (apologies as I've not figured out the snipping stuff):

OP didn't seem to know how well his alarm system was functioning and if any or no sensors had been moved - someone so nervous would make a point of knowing IMO

Having a broken window and sleeping with balcony doors open does not indicate a paranoid person IMO

It's entirely feasible he could have come up with the intruder theory whilst in a freaked out state of mind because of just having deliberately killed her IMO. I have once been in an extreme situation (much less than this admittedly) where I thought a friend had just been seriously injured or even killed and was a mix of freaking out while at the same time doing practical things. Plus 'I thought it was an intruder' is hardly a novel defence - see Ann Woodward, written about by Truman Capote and Dominick Dunne.

Finally, where do you live and have you got a big screen TV?

If you have time, have a look at that video I just linked re self-defence etc - it's interesting and though we are likely to come away from it with different interpretations at least we'll both know it's South Africa's law regarding this.