Trial Discussion weekend Thread #24

[Carmelita]

And no I am not kidding about any of my opinions, my thoughts on Oscar or the burden of proof that the prosecution must meet. The fact that Oscar comes across as more than a distasteful man is not evidence of premeditated murder, or even a rage, heat of the moment murder. The case should be decided on the evidence.

 

[Gryffindor]

Baba he's been charged with dolus directus. That's not culpable homicide.

 

[Mystymiss]

So I wonder why they just didn't recall the recording from Netcare and they would have known exactly what was the conversation between OP and Netcare?

Maybe OP asked somebody to call Netcare for him. I'm not going to believe OP called unless I see evidence..

 

[Viper]

I said door. Not doors. His bedroom door had an interior lock. Simple.

BIB. So do 99% of all bedroom doors. But that does not make them, as you described, "fortified." Further I thought the argument was that the doors were handicap accessible; what happened to change the doors from handicap accessible to fortified? And then we have OPs description of the doors: "They are made of solid wood but they are brittle and they swell up from the humidity and get stuck." That description hardly jives with fortified. In fact they sound like a fire hazard to me.

So just having a lock makes the bedroom doors "fortified?" Wait a minute. OP said that to "fortify" the doors he used his cricket bat wedged under them to secure them. Cricket bat wedged under doors equals fortified, I take it.

 

[clearskies1]

So I wonder why they just didn't recall the recording from Netcare and they would have known exactly what was the conversation between OP and Netcare?

Yes, something is up with this. I think Nell is going to cover the post-shooting phone calls in his cross exam on Monday morning. If a recording does exist, you'd think he'd at least use it then.

JMO

 

[BabaJ]

Baba he's been charged with dolus directus. That's not culpable homicide.

I understand that, however, the result of the previous discussions was that he would likely be charged with a lesser charge ie culpable homicide.

 

[kaos]

Yes, something is up with this. I think Nell is going to cover the post-shooting phone calls in his cross exam on Monday morning. If a recording does exist, you'd think he'd at least use it then.

JMO

It does seem pointless to leave it out even if it benefits the defence more than the prosecution as the prosecution case should still be clear what happened and in what order.

 

[Gryffindor]

I understand that, however, the result of the previous discussions was that he would likely be charged with a lesser charge ie culpable homicide.

Indeed. Or be issued with a suspended sentence.

 

[Carmelita]

BIB. So do 99% of all bedroom doors. But that does not make them, as you described, "fortified." Further I thought the argument was that the doors were handicap accessible; what happened to change the doors from handicap accessible to fortified? And then we have OPs description of the doors: "They are made of solid wood but they are brittle and they swell up from the humidity and get stuck." That description hardly jives with fortified. In fact they sound like a fire hazard to me.

So just having a lock makes the bedroom doors "fortified?" Wait a minute. OP said that to "fortify" the doors he used his cricket bat wedged under them to secure them. Cricket bat wedged under doors equals fortified, I take it.

I was not going to mention that Oscar said he fortified his security by using the cricket bat as a wedge but it looks like you already had part of the answer to your question.

 

[BabaJ]

Baba he's been charged with dolus directus. That's not culpable homicide.

Sorry, I did not make it clear, I was referring to post #1479.

 

[BabaJ]

Thanks beach.

 

[TorisMom003]

When the accused can not keep his own version straight while on the stand in his own defense, there is a problem. A huge problem. When that same man has changed his version three times now, there is a problem. The lies on the stand, the constant blaming of others, the change in his version/s is being noticed and noted by the judge. If one is innocent of the charges filed against them, there is no need to lie, to blame others, to change their version/s.

MOO

 

[sorrell skye]

The South African Court of Appeal held that mens rea in the form of dolus eventualis is an elastic concept. It can range from bordering on negligence (culpa) on the one hand to dolus directus on the other. However, the test always remains whether the accused person subjectively foresaw the possibility of the death of the deceased and associated himself therewith.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/D/DolusEventualis.aspx

Mens rea: Latin for "guilty mind"; guilty knowledge or intention to commit a prohibited act.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/M/MensRea.aspx

 

[clearskies1]

It does seem pointless to leave it out even if it benefits the defence more than the prosecution as the prosecution case should still be clear what happened and in what order.

Yes, like the rest of us I'm sure the judge would want/expect to hear it.

JMO

 

[beach]

Indeed. Or be issued with a suspended sentence.

I will be gobsmacked if he walks free and is not sentenced for a substantial amount of time whether he is found guilty of intentionally murdering Reeva or culpable homicide. Plus, aren't there at least 2 separate other reckless firearm charges that have to be ruled on as well?

Oscar would have a much better shot at walking if this were a jury trial. That is one of the things I find fascinating about this trial - neither lawyer has to play to a jury. They don't have to worry about ticking off one juror who can wreck their whole case. That is why Nel is able to come at Oscar so hard. It's just Nel, Oscar and the Judge, Nel has to concern himself about. Judge Masipa is very familiar with both Nel and Roux. She understands strategy and lawyering tactics. She will dismiss all the theatrics & rule on the law though. Hopefully, anyway.

 

[TorisMom003]

I was not going to mention that Oscar said he fortified his security by using the cricket bat as a wedge but it looks like you already had part of the answer to your question.

Actually OP said that he used the cricket bat against the door because it would not close properly, or was it lock properly? So one more thing that wasn't fixed in his home. OP clearly was not as security concerned as he has claimed. Balcony doors left open for at least (if not more) than 5 hours with a ladder on the ground outside. There are no security bars on any of the windows in the house. The "guard dogs" that OP had were more pets that wouldn't bark at unknown people than actual guard dogs. Security sensors that may or may not have been in working order thanks to "construction" of his home, that he never bothered to check on.

No, OP has proven that he is not as concerned with security as he would like for everyone, especially the judge, to believe.

MOO

 

[sorrell skye]

However, the test always remains whether the accused person subjectively foresaw the possibility of the death of the deceased and associated himself therewith.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/D/DolusEventualis.aspx

By OP's own admission during testimony, he knew someone was in the toilet room.

By his own admission, he fired not just 1, but 4 bullets through the toilet door.

By his own admission, he knew the toilet cubicle was a confined space, with little to no room for the person inside to retreat from his hail of bullets.

IMO, he was fully aware that firing 4 bullets through the toilet door would very likely kill whomever was behind the door.

IMO, Dolus directus. Intentional killing.

 

[Really?]

In his last installment, OP claimed he didn't even know he was shooting, much less 4 times.

right.....those darn guns just keep firing all on their own......just like at Tasha's when that magic gun went off in his hand.......hahahhahahahhaha

 

[Gryffindor]

I will be gobsmacked if he walks free and is not sentenced for a substantial amount of time whether he is found guilty of intentionally murdering Reeva or culpable homicide. Plus, aren't there at least 2 separate other reckless firearm charges that have to be ruled on as well?

Oscar would have a much better shot at walking if this were a jury trial. That is one of the things I find fascinating about this trial - neither lawyer has to play to a jury. They don't have to worry about ticking off one juror who can wreck their whole case. That is why Nel is able to come at Oscar so hard. It's just Nel, Oscar and the Judge, Nel has to concern himself about. Judge Masipa is very familiar with both Nel and Roux. She understands strategy and lawyering tactics. She will dismiss all the theatrics & rule on the law though. Hopefully, anyway.

Oh absolutely, I think culpable homicide equates. By SA law and ruling, that fits with evidence so far.

 

[clearskies1]

When the accused can not keep his own version straight while on the stand in his own defense, there is a problem. A huge problem. When that same man has changed his version three times now, there is a problem. The lies on the stand, the constant blaming of others, the change in his version/s is being noticed and noted by the judge. If one is innocent of the charges filed against them, there is no need to lie, to blame others, to change their version/s.

MOO

Yes, in my mind his credibility is nil at this point. Claims Reeva wasn't really scared of him, when that's exactly what she said in her email to him.

JMO.