Trial Discussion weekend Thread #24

[beach]

Are bizarre ones allowed?

I'm kinda scared to answer this. lol


I think bizarre is kinda like beauty - lies in the eye of the beholder.

As long as it's based on the evidence as one interprets it, it should be okay.

 

[minor4th]

excerpted quote
The intruder can shoot anywhere he wants and you think somehow that's a fair comparison? The intruder doesn't know anything except he was able to make it through a window. Somehow, he knows to take sanctuary in the toilet, which he is able to identify in the few microseconds and photons available. He doesn't know the layout, he doesn't know where an armed gunman might be. OP does - he knows the layout, and knows exactly where the armed intruder is (if he is armed). It is clear to me that OP has decided to execute the person(s) behind the toilet door, even if we believe his extraordinary version of events. Isn't that murder?

What's with all this sympathy for armed burglars who are ready to shoot and kill Oscar and Reeva?

Yes, I agree that OP's intention was to shoot what he thought was an intruder in the toilet, and certainly he knew that firing 4 shots in that small space would likely result in death. No, that's not murder because there was no intruder and he thought he was acting in self defense.

So if he really believed he and Reeva were about to be shot before they could safely escape, then the most he can be convicted of is culpable homicide.

 

[Rumpole]

Which can be explained if he called Stander PRIOR to getting Reeva out of the toilet (as he knew he shot her).

It may also explain the garbled Netcare call as he would not have enough information as to the extent of Reeva's injury (perhaps explaining why they asked him to bring her in - rather than send an ambulance)

No it can't? It was not just one call then time to do a bunch of stuff. It was 3 calls and then going to open door and carrying body etc... as well as all the other stuff... It makes even LESS sense that he phoned before even finding out if the shots had hit Reeva, if she was perhaps only passed out etc.. he OBVIOUSLY bashed his way into the toilet before starting the calls and all that followed.
The twisting and squirming to fit/deny facts and invent complicated explanations for simple facts just to fit "Guilty" in itself indicates a very weak case.

As I have explained before there are certain MINIMUM things that had to be done after the shots and before phone call at 3:19/ Shots at 3:17 makes those things impossible... it's not true.
Shots after 3:17... some time to do that and recover, so likely close to 3:18 when Op had to go to bedroom, put on his prostheses, get the bat, (go on balcony and scream in his version, but I'll put that to one side), go back to bathroom, kick door, bash door with bat 2 or 3 (or more) times. Even though the bat bashing would have been frantic... it made no sound????? Prise open the door, get key and unlock, react to the horror he saw, lift, drag stagger with Reeva's body to bathroom, try and assist, phone call at 3:19
With just over a minute... that is impossible.

And as a bonus... you have 3 loud bangs that Stipps both said were gunshots at 3:00 - 3:10. Estelle van der Merwe heard the same...... not bat, obviously since they were before what the State says were shots... and not explained at all by the State. It seems they are just ignoring those loud bangs?

The shots were at 3:00-3:10... the cricket bat was at 3:17

 

[soozieqtips]

Hi beach - will there be a new thread for today's testimony?

 

[kaos]

Perhaps not on stumps and described by mistake?????????????

Good point. I suspect that he probably can kneel as the stumps are well below knee level but what his balance would be like when kneeling is a good question as when an able bodied person is kneeling, the feet keep you propped up.

 

[beach]

Hi beach - will there be a new thread for today's testimony?

Yep. I've already got it ready. I'll unlock about 20 min before trial resumes.

 

[asanque]

Ok, for those interested in the law and its appliction in SA, here's a reading list of cases that will give you some pretty good information about murder, culpable homicide, self defense, putative self defense, and dolus

<Snip> Good case law citation

My attempt to simplify the matters at hand.

My interpretation of the case law provided is that culpable homicide appear to be a given (based on S v Mophatlane 2005).

Reason: A judge may buy an accidental discharge of a weapon, but not '4' accidental discharges. In addition, no objective person could believe that OP did not have other alternatives nor was his life in imminent danger.

So we move onto murder.

There is no need to consider self defence in any form as the whole thing comes down to the credibility of OP's story.

If the story can be established as being false, then simply by knowing Reeva was in the toilet, it must be murder.

The prosecution has already begun to poke holes in OP's story (many of which I have summarised here: Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Trial Discussion weekend Thread #24)

The key is establishing that the story is false beyond reasonable doubt.

We all know OP is a liar and a scoundrel but does that make him a murderer?

We have also only heard the prosecution case and this has not been balanced by hearing the entire defence case.

The prosecution theory has difficulties but I believe the Defence case has more holes (so far).

The prosecution has to really nail OP in cross-examination this week as OP's case will only get stronger from here (based on Defence witnesses).

TLDR:
OP is already clearly guilty of all the minor firearm offences and culpable homicide

 

[kaos]

Ok, for those interested in the law and its appliction in SA, here's a reading list of cases that will give you some pretty good information about murder, culpable homicide, self defense, putative self defense, and dolus

S. v. Jonkers 2006:




S. v. Mawaba 2002:

Murder conviction overturned even though accused kept stabbing the deceased even after the deceased no longer posed a threat. Appeals court acquitted him of murder and culpable homicide.

S v. Mophatlane 2005



S v. Crossberg 2007

This is a very lengthy opinion with a lengthy dissenting opinion, but it thoroughly goes through various cases dealing with culpable homicide and appropriate sentencing.

The first one says "running away while being attacked" which doesn't apply to OP as there wasn't anybody attacking him. I'm not saying it doesn't apply to the case, just not OP in particular.

What's with all this sympathy for armed burglars who are ready to shoot and kill Oscar and Reeva?

Yes, I agree that OP's intention was to shoot what he thought was an intruder in the toilet, and certainly he knew that firing 4 shots in that small space would likely result in death. No, that's not murder because there was no intruder and he thought he was acting in self defense.

So if he really believed he and Reeva were about to be shot before they could safely escape, then the most he can be convicted of is culpable homicide.

I don't have any sympathy for any armed burglar who gets killed by the homeowner but you're coming at it from a viewpoint of OP being truthful and honest so believe he did think an intruder was there. I'm not inclined to believe him and merely putting my point of view as a lay person as to how I see his intention to kill whoever was behind that door. I'm not convinced he knew it was Reeva but I'm not dismissing it either. I was fully expecting his own words to maybe make me change my mind but so far they're just implicating him further.

P.S. And I don't believe that just because you're an attorney that people can't challenge your perception in the same way as every other forum member can be. You're just better at seeing it more dispassionately than most and I guess that's why your particular viewpoint is being challenged so much.

PPS. I also think your posts are great and that you can at least concede when you think either the DT or PT are not doing well.

 

[asanque]

No it can't? It was not just one call then time to do a bunch of stuff. It was 3 calls and then going to open door and carrying body etc... as well as all the other stuff... It makes even LESS sense that he phoned before even finding out if the shots had hit Reeva, if she was perhaps only passed out etc.. he OBVIOUSLY bashed his way into the toilet before starting the calls and all that followed.
The twisting and squirming to fit/deny facts and invent complicated explanations for simple facts just to fit "Guilty" in itself indicates a very weak case.

As I have explained before there are certain MINIMUM things that had to be done after the shots and before phone call at 3:19/ Shots at 3:17 makes those things impossible... it's not true.
Shots after 3:17... some time to do that and recover, so likely close to 3:18 when Op had to go to bedroom, put on his prostheses, get the bat, (go on balcony and scream in his version, but I'll put that to one side), go back to bathroom, kick door, bash door with bat 2 or 3 (or more) times. Even though the bat bashing would have been frantic... it made no sound????? Prise open the door, get key and unlock, react to the horror he saw, lift, drag stagger with Reeva's body to bathroom, try and assist, phone call at 3:19
With just over a minute... that is impossible.

And as a bonus... you have 3 loud bangs that Stipps both said were gunshots at 3:00 - 3:10... not bat, obviously since they were before what the State says were shots... and not explained at all by the State. It seems they are just ignoring those loud bangs?

The shots were at 3:00-3:10... the cricket bat was at 3:17

None of what you said clearly has to happen before the initial call.
If Reeva was screaming and then stopped after 4 gunshots, he could very well have immediately called Stander.

I still fail to see why bashing a door with a cricket bat would be heard from someone over 100m away.

I'd say that the loud noises at 3:00 to 3:10 were in fact doors being slammed (which explains the damage to the bedroom door). These were only heard by 2 of the 5 witnesses (which would mean they were softer than gunshots).

Notwithstanding the above, it is clear that the points you raise are the weakest part of the prosecution story. That is why I contend the call had to take place prior to the door being broken.

 

[Val1]

The downstairs window being broken is not proof that Oscar was not hyper vigilant about his safety. He was well armed, the house was alarmed and the bedroom door was fortified. The window not being attended to would only weaken Oscar’s defense if there were not so much else pointing to his concerns about his personal safety, and not so many other tangible safety nets in place.

The condition of the window may be a defect in his verifiable diligence to personal safety but it certainly doesn’t nullify it.

Since I don't have direct experience with built in alarm systems, can someone verify how an alarm system could work with a broken window, open door and window? Aren't those the very things an alarm system is supposed to trigger over?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I'm kinda scared to answer this. lol


I think bizarre is kinda like beauty - lies in the eye of the beholder.

As long as it's based on the evidence as one interprets it, it should be okay.

Brainstorming, that's what we need!

 

[mister happy]

When will the trial resume?

 

[Mr Fossil]

The judge has all that info in evidence, handily pointed out during Moller's testimony, and I believe Nel still has the opportunity to bring that out in OP's cross since it was stated under his direct from Roux at around 33:50.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMMdyuXfFUg

Interesting (and well found!). From what OP is saying, it sounds like she texted much earlier than the 22:00-22:30 time frame that Cecil Myers mentioned in his newspaper interview (e.g. http://www.citypress.co.za/news/i-could-have-saved-reeva/). I wonder how OP knew / knows about the text.

 

[Whiteorchids]

Since I don't have direct experience with built in alarm systems, can someone verify how an alarm system could work with a broken window, open door and window? Aren't those the very things an alarm system is supposed to trigger over?

I have an alarm. You can bypass certain zones in order to arm it. There is also a panic button. Why didn't he push it? Very simple. It's very loud. It would have scared off intruders and neighbors would have heard it.

 

[Freya1977]

When will the trial resume?

In 35 minutes - half past the hour. Rushing home to tune in!

 

[minor4th]

The first one says "running away while being attacked" which doesn't apply to OP as there wasn't anybody attacking him. I'm not saying it doesn't apply to the case, just not OP in particular.



I don't have any sympathy for any armed burglar who gets killed by the homeowner but you're coming it from a viewpoint of OP being truthful and honest so believe he did think an intruder was there. I'm not inclined to believe him and merely putting my point of view as a lay person as to how I see his intention to kill whoever was behind that door. I'm not convinced he knew it was Reeva but I'm not dismissing it either. I was fully expecting his own words to maybe make me change my mind but so far they're just implicating him further.

P.S. And I don't believe that just because you're an attorney that people can't challenge your perception in the same way as every other forum member can be. You're just better at seeing it more dispassionately than most and I guess that's why your particular viewpoint is being challenged so much.

I was dealing with a hypothetical that there really was an armed intruder in the toilet and whether it would be self defense. Kind of a tangential discussion and not really related to the facts of this case (obviously, there was no intruder)

I have no problem with anyone challenging my perception - my frustration was trying to explain aspects of the law that are complex in a relatively short post on the forum. The thing is, it really is complex and there are tons of nuances and exceptions and different applications - so when someone makes a declaration that it's illegal to shoot through a door without actually seeing the gun - based on OP's answers on his firearm competency test - it's difficult to explain that it is not that simple, and that the competency test is not a complete explanation of the law of self defense.

That's why I just decided to stop "arguing" about it - there were posts that seemed to me like they weren't interested in learning about the law, but were instead only trying to argue that I'm wrong. It's easier to just let it go than to continue going into lengthy explanations that no one is interested in reading.

 

[Rumpole]

None of what you said clearly has to happen before the initial call.
If Reeva was screaming and then stopped after 4 gunshots, he could very well have immediately called Stander.

I still fail to see why bashing a door with a baseball bat would be heard from someone over 100m away.

I'd say that the loud noises at 3:00 to 3:10 were in fact doors being slammed (which explains the damage to the bedroom door). These were only heard by 2 of the 5 witnesses (which would mean they were softer than gunshots).

Notwithstanding the above, it is clear that the points you raise are the weakest part of the prosecution story. That is why I contend the call had to take place prior to the door being broken.

What you propose is... unlikely... to say the least.

How likely is it that OP would have started calls before he even knew if Reeva had simply paased out, was injured but only superficially etc. He DID NOT just call Stander, he also called security, and Netcare ( and likely described Reevas wounds.. that remains to be verified). He STILL had to do a lot of stuff. As I outlined.. put on legs, bash door etc etc etc etc as well as now carrying body etc before Stander arrived... still impossible.

Interesting that you are prepared to believe that doors can be slammed (not even raised or mentioned in evidence, just a speculation that doors were slammed) in rapid succession and be loud enough to fool the three witnesses (one with military experience) that it sounded exactly like gunshots... yet you wont concede that a bat being swung at a door in a frenzy (testified to and not in question that it did happen) can make a sound anything like a gunshot. You insted propose the bat hitting the door was so quiet as to have been not heard by close neighbors.

I think that makes my point about presumption of guilt effecting perception and analysis of the evidence

 

[Val1]

It's not a question of whether he should have foreseen killing Reeva by shooting through the bathroom door (when he believed there was an intruder) - the question is whether he DID foresee such a possibility and decided to go ahead and shoot anyway.

Isn't that what the zombie/brains video was all about, that he did know what his gun and ammo was capable of?

 

[K.T]

As a reminder, these are the 13 points the state is relying on to prove murder (intent/premeditation);

THE STATE&#8217;S 13 FACTS:

snipped for brevity - see article for 13 points

[/I]

Note: That link from Minor are the 13 facts obtained (supposed and how were they obtained?) "from a response to an application by the defence team for further particulars." Published by Barry Bateman 2 months ago:

Here's the link and with a bit more information:
http://ewn.co.za/2014/02/21/State-to-rely-on-13-facts-in-Oscar-Pistorius-trial


- Now that the trial has really started we can presumably add a more POINTS

 

[asanque]

For anyone following juror13, Day 20 is now up!

http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/