Trial Discussion Thread #7 weekend thread

[AlwaysShocked]

FWIW if it helps to pin down the time of arrival of the estate manager and his daughter the lawyer, Mr. Baba the guard got the "I heard gunshots" call from the doctor while he was at the guard's gate. He and another guard then drove to the doctor's house where the doctor was out on his deck. Baba presumably got out of the truck and spoke to the doctor, asking from what direction the sounds had come. Doctor pointed to OP's house.

Baba and other guard then drove towards OP's house and when they arrived the estate manager and daughter were getting out of their vehicle(s). He talked about the looks on their faces and that they headed quickly straight to OP's front door without stopping for any greetings.

 

[wishIknewmore]

"Why does not seeing Reeva in bed immediately lead to the conclusion that it was her he shot? He'd just blasted out the toilet door - did he expect her to be meekly sitting in bed? She'd have hidden or tried to run away, but Oscar doesn't check this out he just sees she's not in bed and it "dawns" on him. She WOULDN'T have been sitting in bed through all that - so why did he think she would be?"


This is a very good point!

Very good point!!! He didn't check to see if she was hiding in a cupboard or under the bed. (Not sure what's realistic in this case but you know what I mean.) If sticking to the intruder story, why wouldn't he think "Does the intruder(s) have Reeva?" If he thought it to truly be an intruder, then would he have let his guard down. One intruder might be down but what if there's more than one? You certainly don't' go opening more doors to the outside. How about checking your bedroom door to see if its locked or if Reeva had gotten out? I also don't buy that he would down his gun to beat open a door if he really thought there was even a chance of an intruder because he could still be in danger.

 

[sorrell skye]

On a previous thread, someone mentioned the inappropriate usage of the word "mortified" in OP's bail hearing affidavit. I can't remember who pointed that out - but I want to say that ITA!

I am absolutely mortified by the events and the devastating loss of my beloved Reeva.

http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2013/02/19/copy-of-oscar-pistorius-affidavit-click-to-read/

Mortified means to feel embarrassed, ashamed, or humiliated.

Perhaps OP misused the word without understanding its meaning, or perhaps that is exactly how he felt when he chose to use that particular word in his affidavit.

One would think that even if OP was ignorant of the word's definition & correct usage, someone on his legal team would have advised him to choose another word, since his attorneys are educated people and likely assisted him as he wrote his affidavit and/or proofread it afterward.

Personally, I think the correct usage of the word 'mortified' is common knowledge.

 

[Feynman]

I can't find anything in his affidavit that indicates which side he was sleeping. Have I missed it?

OP's plakkies were on the left hand side of the bed as you look at it. RS' bag was also on this side. Ex girlfriend said he always slept on RHS, pres as you look at the bed.

Whichever side he slept, he had to walk past the bed from the balcony to get to the bathroom. Surely it's inconceivable that he wouldn't have noticed or checked if RS was in bed?

If he feels so vulnerable without his prosthetics on, why go into a potentially dangerous situation without them? Why not stop and put them on first?

If he's so paranoid about security, it makes no sense that he left a window unsecured overnight.

And what about the damn dogs below the bathroom window???

Sorry, not the affidavit, but the bail hearing:

"Botha said the holster for the 9 mm pistol was found under the left side of the bed, the side on which Steenkamp slept. He also implied it would have been impossible for Pistorius to get the gun without checking to see if Steenkamp was there. Roux later argued that Pistorius had suffered an injury to his right shoulder and wore a "medical patch" the night of the killing which forced him to sleep on the left side of the bed."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/pistorius-arrives-2nd-day-bail-hearing

You write "inconceivable". Not really. OP has brought in the fans, closed the curtains and all that, and is now blind as a bat because it's pitch black. Suddenly he hears a sound from the bathroom. He's semi-crazed with terror <modsnip>. Next thought from our hero: Get the gun! He goes around to other side of the bed, without checking the bed for Reeva; he's not in his right mind. The reptilian part of his brain is in control: GET. GUN. NOW. Not inconceivable at all.

 

[Val1]

This is one of the reasons I wondered if there was a divide in the police force over how aggressively to pursue OP at the early stages. Although I believe I read that the murder charges had been reinstated earlier in February even before the incident - but the prosecution only learned of this fact during the bail hearing.

ETA: I just found this article:



http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/21/oscar-pistorius-hilton-botha-attempted-murder

I'd like to see the affidavit or w/e showing the notarized date these charges were actually re-instituted because if you read the news articles on it, it seems more likely that they had been renewed on the 14th, same day as OP killed RS(and quickly called everyone he knew to get his ducks in a row...).

I've searched and searched and can't find a single news story from before the bail hearing about it which seems kind of odd since it seems to have had such an impact on the case but there sure were alot of them after....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/hilton-botha-oscar-pistorius-investigator-murder-charge_n_2730295.html

Malila said police had learned Wednesday, the same day that Botha appeared in court to oppose Pistorius' bail application, that the charges against Botha and the two others had been reinstated by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

 

[Feynman]

Well, he had one day. The bail hearing was on the 15th, but it remains that he did not have to come up with the story on the spot like I had originally thought.

No, the bail hearing was held Feb 19-22 2013.

 

[Feynman]

Got a problem with Burger's testimony.

She said she heard a woman screaming, then a man shouting for help three times, then gun shots.

If OP intended to kill RS, why is he shouting for help before he shoots her? This supports his account, which is that he shouted for help after firing the shots. So did Burger really hear the cricket bat, not the gun shots?

However, OP's story rests on there being no screams from RS at any point. So we're then back to the idea that Burger heard OP screaming, not RS.

None of this makes any sense to me.

Well Burger and husband don't have OP "shouting" for help. They hear a woman screaming for help, then a man saying "help help help" in a relatively subdued manner, then more female screaming. Burger was questioned by Roux on this, and she suggested perhaps it was mockery on OP's part.

 

[nastasya]

Got a problem with Burger's testimony.

She said she heard a woman screaming, then a man shouting for help three times, then gun shots.

If OP intended to kill RS, why is he shouting for help before he shoots her? This supports his account, which is that he shouted for help after firing the shots. So did Burger really hear the cricket bat, not the gun shots?

However, OP's story rests on there being no screams from RS at any point. So we're then back to the idea that Burger heard OP screaming, not RS.

None of this makes any sense to me.

Burger's testimony that she heard a woman screaming, and then escalating into a blood-curdling climax followed by gunshots, then silence, does not support OP's account.


Burger said the woman's voice shouted for help, then the man's voice shouted for help.

Why would OP do this? Here's your possible answer:

RS screamed for help. Multiple witnesses heard this. Maybe she was already beaten or shot. OP had to cover her screams. He screams "help, help, help" out the door then closes the door and pulls the blinds so he could say if anybody heard RS scream it was really him screaming.

If OP were bringing in the fans because he was hot it would make no sense to close the doors. What does make sense about closing the doors and pulling the blinds is that he didn't want anybody to see or hear what was going on in his bedroom. To use OP's own words, RS was trapped in the bedroom. She was found dead behind a locked bathroom door.

According to OP only after he saw she wasn't in bed, but before he knew she was behind the toilet door, did he open the outside door again and scream for help.

Use common sense.

What are the chances that 4 witnesses heard sounds that they thought were a woman in an argument and possibly being attacked, and gunshots, but they were mistaken about what they heard AND the exact event they thought they heard actually did happen a few minutes prior to the sounds they heard.

According to OP all four witnesses mis-identified OP's sounds as the sounds of a woman screaming and gunshots being fired just minutes after a woman was killed in his bathroom by gunshots.

It's inconceivable that OP killed a woman with 4 gunshots then he himself replicated the sounds of a woman in an argument being killed by 4 gunshots.

OP then asks the court to believe that the witnesses didn't hear the actual killing, but instead heard him replicating the sounds of the killing a few moments after the actual killing.

The problem isn't with Burger's ear-witness account, or with the other 3 witnesses who heard a woman screaming. The problem is with OP's lame attempt to justify why he shot four times, killing a woman locked behind his toilet door.

 

[nastasya]

His phone call to Stander at 3:19, he asked Stander to call ambulance. Probably had Stander on speed dial so this was the quickest way to get help. He called Netcare at 3:20.

I'm not saying Oscar is innocent though, but your suggestion does not indicate that he is guilty.

OP admitted to killing RS without any provocation. That's a prima facie case that he is guilty of some crime. It is illegal to kill somebody in SA.

The burden now shifts to OP to show that his actions were justified. Not calling the police or an ambulance first, and instead calling Stander does nothing to support OP's case that the killing was justified. Instead it supports the prosecution's case that OP's intent was to kill when he fired 4 shots through the bathroom door.

 

[Estelle]

Even if he does have a personality disorder (and I'm not saying he does or does not), if he knows right from wrong (which he surely does), then any other personality disorder or quirk is not a defense, IMO. He knew enough to try and hide what really happened. He knew enough to call in supportive people to assist him, and get his lawyer on the phone right away.

I think he's been coddled, spoiled, and finally treated like royalty because of his athletic accomplishments. He's immature and trigger-happy. But none of those things can or should absolve him of murder.

IMO he has never been disciplined in his whole life.

 

[nastasya]

Yes, that sounds reasonable for us to say that now after the fact, but if someone is in a blind panic they don't behave in a reasonable manner.

It's not reasonable for somebody to invite a guest to his house, lay down to sleep with the guest, then go into a "blind panic" when he hears somebody in his bathroom, especially after he just went outside and dragged in a couple of fans.

A reasonable person would consider that the noise in the bathroom was being made by the person he had shared his home with, and that perhaps that person was awakened by the noise of him getting the fans and decided to pee in the middle of the night.

A reasonable adult knows that people often get up to pee in the middle of the night. There is nothing reasonable about OP going into a blind panic because the woman he was sleeping with decided to go pee. Surely in all his years of living he's had the experience of a woman getting up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom.

 

[minor4th]

OP admitted to killing RS without any provocation. That's a prima facie case that he is guilty of some crime. It is illegal to kill somebody in SA.

The burden now shifts to OP to show that his actions were justified. Not calling the police or an ambulance first, and instead calling Stander does nothing to support OP's case that the killing was justified. Instead it supports the prosecution's case that OP's intent was to kill when he fired 4 shots through the bathroom door.

He didn't admit to killing anyone without provocation. He admits he killed Reeva, mistaking her for a burglar. Yes, I agree that he had intent to kill when he fired the 4 shots, but the burden remains on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either he knew it wasn't a burglar or that his mistake and subsequent actions were not reasonable.

 

[nastasya]

He didn't admit to killing anyone without provocation. He admits he killed Reeva, mistaking her for a burglar. Yes, I agree that he had intent to kill when he fired the 4 shots, but the burden remains on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either he knew it wasn't a burglar or that his mistake and subsequent actions were not reasonable.

The state has a prima facie case for murder with intent:

• RS was unlawfully killed, she did nothing to threaten OP's life,
• OP admitted killing RS,
• OP had time to get a gun, walk down a hallway, aim, and fire four shots into a closed and locked toilet door

.
These are the facts presented by OP.

There is absolutely zero claim of being provoked or threatened, or that his life was endangered by anybody or anything other than his own imagination. He claimed he shot RS through a locked toilet door knowing that a few minutes before she was in bed with him.

Homicide by imagination is illegal, even in South Africa.

This is a prima facie murder with intent. If a man walked onto a bus and shot the driver it wouldn't be up to the state to prove he feared the driver was going to kill him. At that point in a prima facie case the burden shifts to the defendant.

The state has a dead body, an admitted gunman, and no provocation. This is a text book prima facie case.

The defense now has the burden to rebut the prima facie evidence.

• The defense cannot rebut RS was shot by OP.
• The defense cannot rebut that OP fired shots through a closed door and was never threatened.

Therefore, OP now has the burden to present evidence and show that his actions were either reasonably in self-defense, or we not done with the intent to kill.

If this were not the case, anybody could murder anybody they feel like killing. The state could never prove a person wasn't in fear when he committed the murder.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1598

http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/prima-facie-term.html

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.co...efense-case/what-does-a-prima-facie-case-mean

http://evidencejournalist.weebly.com/1/post/2012/12/what-does-a-prima-facie-case-mean.html

 

[minor4th]

The state has a prima facie case for murder with intent:

• RS was unlawfully killed, she did nothing to threaten OP's life,
• OP admitted killing RS,
• OP had time to get a gun, walk down a hallway, aim, and fire four shots into a closed and locked toilet door

.
These are the facts presented by OP.

There is absolutely zero claim of being provoked or threatened, or that his life was endangered by anybody or anything other than his own imagination. He claimed he shot RS through a locked toilet door knowing that a few minutes before she was in bed with him.

Homicide by imagination is illegal, even in South Africa.

This is a prima facie murder with intent. If a man walked onto a bus and shot the driver it wouldn't be up to the state to prove he feared the driver was going to kill him. At that point in a prima facie case the burden shifts to the defendant.

The state has a dead body, an admitted gunman, and no provocation. This is a text book prima facie case.

The defense now has the burden to rebut the prima facie evidence.

• The defense cannot rebut RS was shot by OP.
• The defense cannot rebut that OP fired shots through a closed door and was never threatened.

Therefore, OP now has the burden to present evidence and show that his actions were either reasonably in self-defense, or we not done with the intent to kill.

If this were not the case, anybody could murder anybody they feel like killing. The state could never prove a person wasn't in fear when he committed the murder.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1598

http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/prima-facie-term.html

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.co...efense-case/what-does-a-prima-facie-case-mean

http://evidencejournalist.weebly.com/1/post/2012/12/what-does-a-prima-facie-case-mean.html

It doesn't matter if there was actually an intruder or not. What matters if his fear was real and if his actions were reasonable.

 

[Feynman]

It's not reasonable for somebody to invite a guest to his house, lay down to sleep with the guest, then go into a "blind panic" when he hears somebody in his bathroom, especially after he just went outside and dragged in a couple of fans.

A reasonable person would consider that the noise in the bathroom was being made by the person he had shared his home with, and that perhaps that person was awakened by the noise of him getting the fans and decided to pee in the middle of the night.

A reasonable adult knows that people often get up to pee in the middle of the night. There is nothing reasonable about OP going into a blind panic because the woman he was sleeping with decided to go pee. Surely in all his years of living he's had the experience of a woman getting up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom.

Well, this line of thought may play right into Roux's hands. He has not argued OP is "reasonable". He may want the judge to think OP is a loose cannon, literally. If OP is a gun-crazy, paranoid, scream-like-a-woman, easily scared nutbag, then perhaps there is reasonable doubt he is guilty of anything "premeditated".

 

[Estelle]

FWIW if it helps to pin down the time of arrival of the estate manager and his daughter the lawyer, Mr. Baba the guard got the "I heard gunshots" call from the doctor while he was at the guard's gate. He and another guard then drove to the doctor's house where the doctor was out on his deck. Baba presumably got out of the truck and spoke to the doctor, asking from what direction the sounds had come. Doctor pointed to OP's house.

Baba and other guard then drove towards OP's house and when they arrived the estate manager and daughter were getting out of their vehicle(s). He talked about the looks on their faces and that they headed quickly straight to OP's front door without stopping for any greetings.

Had the Standers heard the gunshots?

 

[nastasya]

Well, this line of thought may play right into Roux's hands. He has not argued OP is "reasonable". He may want the judge to think OP is a loose cannon, literally. If OP is a gun-crazy, paranoid, scream-like-a-woman, easily scared nutbag, then perhaps there is reasonable doubt he is guilty of anything "premeditated".

The standard is based on a reasonable person, not whether or not OP is reasonable.

Roux is trying to make the case that a reasonable person would have done exactly what OP did - upon hearing somebody in the bathroom grab a gun and shoot through the toilet door before identifying whether his bed mate was still in bed.

Clearly, it is not a reasonable response for OP to grab a gun, go into his bathroom, and shoot four times through a closed toilet door moments after getting out of a bed where he was sleeping with somebody in the same bedroom.

And specifically for OP, his claim that being on his stumps made him feel more vulnerable makes the story even less reasonable. If he felt vulnerable on his stumps it would have been more reasonable to put on his prosthetic legs before going into the bathroom with the gun. It would have been more reasonable to wake RS to warn her of an intruder in the bathroom.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

I don't know what the requirements are in SA for a "justifiable homicide" case. Is being in fear enough? I thought your own life has to be in danger in some way?

I find this issue to be most confusing! Because like was said in another post, anytime someone wanted to kill someone, they could just shoot them through a door and say "I thought it was a burgler". And that sure doesn't make sense.

 

[sorrell skye]

Dr David Klatzow, a forensic scientist who has worked on some of the country's highest profile cases, said that he believed Mr Pistorius had already presented a "prima facie case of culpable homicide" in his bail statement, but said that prosecutors had decided to "play for higher stakes" with a murder charge.

"Our law is very clear on about when you may or may not kill an intruder.

In order to fire a gun, your life or someone else's life must be in imminent danger," he said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...rder-trial-will-be-forensic-battleground.html

Shooting an unidentified, unseen person through a door does not meet the legal requirement quoted & bolded in the above article.

 

[beach]

Opening the new trial discussion thread a few minutes earlier than usual so let's move on over please.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=238248


I'll be locking this one up in 5 minutes. Thanks everyone!