Trial Discussion Thread #34 - 14.05.06 Day 27

[G.bng]

roux, receiving daily fees in the thousands, can't organise a cab to get a witness to the court in good time. wtf

I don't believe the press about things like that as they so love to embellish. From reading up on the SA general Bar and Jo'burg Bar, in SA, it appears advocates (barristers here in the UK) like Roux get the same fee and just as in the UK they are not permitted to contract or charge their services directly with a client so they are briefed (instructed) by a client's attorney (UK solicitor not the same as a US attorney) and bill the attorney who passes this on to a client as an expense. Same for a taxi cab for the witness which would be organised and paid for by OP's attorney and not by his advocate Roux.

 

[MeeBee]

If she finds OP's version true, she will give him murder? What?

Murder requires intent. Even if Oscar intended to kill an intruder it doesn't automatically mean he committed murder because the law allows someone to kill in order to save their own life. This is where Oscar's defence comes into play. If Masipa finds he did intend to kill Reeva, it's murder, dolus directus. If Masipa finds he did intend to kill an intruder, it's murder but the necessary intent can be absolved IF she believes Oscar's claim of putative self-defence, which means he will be acquitted of the murder charge. And of course, if he is acquitted of murder, he could still be convicted of CH.

There is some question here though as SA law explicitly states a putative self-defence claim cannot be used if an intruder is killed by the defendant while in the midst of fleeing. Considering Oscar shot into a closed door immediately after screaming at the 'intruder' to get out, it's possible his self-defence claim will be nullified as a result - we just don't know since this is the first case in SA in which a defendant did not have interaction with a perceived aggressor.

Yes, I know. My first sentence was regarding the running meme: I.e. The belief among many on this board that if Masipa rejects the state's version and accepts OP's then she will still give him murder, regardless. Obviously, as you say, that's not true.

 

[Cher352]

They are back.

 

[Giles]

We're back!

 

[zwiebel]

Here we go...

 

[G.bng]

No, Dr Stipp only heard the help, help, help after the last bangs. His wife, however, heard them between the two sets of bangs. The Burgers also heard the help, help, help in between the two sets of bangs.

I think Dr Stipp just misplaced the yelling for help

Can you give me a link or at least roughly at what time in the long testimony does Stipp say this ?

 

[zwiebel]

The next witness is again someone whose name I did not catch. Mrs R??

 

[Freya1977]

The fact is for Oscar's story to be true, out of the all the witness's we've heard from the Stipps have to be the only one's who actually heard gunshot's. LOL.

Yep!!

 

[lithgow1]

Well, I'm the case she may consider that he was on his stumps, was vulnerable, had a sort of PTSD from previous incidents, etc. that's why I say it will be a bit subjective. She can reject that stuff or consider it.

True, and she may also consider that he went into a situation where his touted vulnerability could have cost him, and RS, dearly, was armed so maybe not quite as vulnerable as he wants to paint, if how he acted when he came face to face with a toilet door was reasonable and so on.

As for the PTSD wouldn't that come after he shot and killed someone?

 

[zwiebel]

The Judge didn't catch her name either! It's Reeka?

 

[zwiebel]

She lives at 285 Bushway, Silverwoods. So next door to the Ns?

Her husband is Kenny.

 

[MeeBee]

True, and she may also consider that he went into a situation where his touted vulnerability could have cost him, and RS, dearly, was armed so maybe not quite as vulnerable as he wants to paint, if how he acted when he came face to face with a toilet door was reasonable and so on.

As for the PTSD wouldn't that come after he shot and killed someone?

OP testified he's been a victim of crime before and the DT seems to be implying this left him overly afraid and possibly affected his decision making.

 

[zwiebel]

R: I met the accused once. He came to our house to welcome us. We were not in so we went to his house next day and he invited us in for coffee but we didn't have time.....I have an honours degree. I'm a psychologist.

 

[zwiebel]

R: We went to bed around 10 o'clock.

ROUX: Some event caused you to wake up?

R: Come again?.......I heard a man crying, it was a cry of pain. I woke my husband, he said he heard it but thought it was a dream.

 

[lithgow1]

OP testified he's been a victim of crime before and the DT seems to be implying this left him overly afraid and possibly affected his decision making.

IIRC there is little to no evidence to back that testimony up. For example, would you think it reasonable to not remember who you called after someone shot at you while you were driving at night if that is one of the incidents you are referring to.

 

[Cherwell]

Here's a good image of the houses. Hope I've managed to attach it OK.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-where-he-shot-Reeva-to-cover-legal-fees.html

 

[G.bng]

that's just not true. SA law is very straightforward, it may be difficult for Americans, but only Americans a bit slow on the uptake. SA law is as clear as a bell, and follows in a linear fashion , based on sound principles..

Personally, being based a lot on English Common Law as it is, I don't see it is straight forward. More straight forward are Roman law countries where most things are written into law and there is little room for precedents. Those do, as you say, "follow in a linear fashion", but where is the linear fashion here where a lot of reasoning and interpretation is tasked to the judge as it would be to a jury ?

 

[Interested Bystander]

It is interesting that apparently ultra- cautious, even paranoid OP left his balcony doors open at night, yet on the same estate the N's were locking their interior doors at night, and just peeping through curtains from unlit rooms at suspicious noise.

It shows very different perceptions of safety, and different reactions to perceived threats too.

I wonder whether historically he has had a problem with being burgled, attacked or similar and is overly cautious.

 

[MeeBee]

IIRC there is little to no evidence to back that testimony up. For example, would you think it reasonable to not remember who you called after someone shot at you while you were driving at night if that is one of the incidents you are referring to.

Not saying that's not true. I'm just stating what the defense is claiming. The judge will have to decide if she buys it.

 

[zwiebel]

R: The dogs were barking as well and I was panicking. We were all frightened.

R: The crying was very loud and very, very close.

Roux keeps asking about the pitch and witness keeps repeating 'very loud'.