Trial Discussion Thread #48

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
A nice article about Judge Masipa and some of her background. She is very impressive

nytimes.com/2014/08/07/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-judge.html

(Sorry if this has already been posted)
 
soozieqtips said:
Does anyone have any idea how long closing arguments will go on for? An hour? All day? I can't wait to see Nel in action tying everything together for the first time!!!
Click to expand...

I just read an article that the arguments will last two days (Thurs and Fri).

Anyone know if prosecution or defense goes first?
 
minor4th said:
A nice article about Judge Masipa and some of her background. She is very impressive

nytimes.com/2014/08/07/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-judge.html

(Sorry if this has already been posted)
Click to expand...

Hey Minor4th. Thanks for the link to the good read. Great to see you here. Don't forget to set your alarm for trial start or just don't go to bed at all.:happydance:

I love this quote:
"Whoever thought that one day a black woman would be standing judge over a white boy? said Nomavenda Methiane, 68......"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/07/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-judge.html?_r=0
 
pandax81 said:
all jmho

What is OP’s defence?

In substance, his evidence is involuntary action. This eventually became clear. It was repeated over many sessions, and was consistent and never contradicted. In retrospect, his defence actually did not change from the start of the trial and appears quite deliberate.

Summary & Intepretation of his evidence:

He heard a noise
He perceived it as the toilet door opening
He thought an intruder was coming out to attack him
This caused an involuntary fear response
In this response, he was not in control of his actions
In this response, he was not able to think
In this response, he was aware of his actions and can remember them
In this response, he fired the shots
He did not want to fire, he did not mean to fire, he did not intend to fire

His evidence of the trial:

Plea Explanation
The discharging of my firearm was precipitated by a noise in the toilet which I, in my fearful state, knowing I was on my stumps, unable to run away or properly defend myself physically believed to be the intruder or intruders coming out of the toilet to attack Reeva and me.

Evidence in Chief 8 April
I heard a noise from inside the toilet, what I perceived to be somebody coming out of the toilet. Before I knew it id fired 4 shots at the door

Nel 9 April
You referred to the incident in plea explanation as an accident. What was the accident?
-The accident was I discharged my firearm in the belief that an intruder was coming out to attack me
Was the discharge accidental?
-The discharge was accidental * I believed that somebody was coming out. I believed the noise I heard inside the toilet was somebody coming out to attack me or take my life
Do you know what an accidental discharge is?
-My understanding is that I didn't intend to discharge my firearm
Oh, then you do.
So you never intended to shoot the intruders?
-I never intended to shoot anyone. I got a fright from a noise that I heard inside the toilet. I perceived it to be somebody coming out to attack me. That's what I believed.
You never purposefully fired shots into the door.
-No I didn't.

Nel 11 apr
- I didn't mean to pull the trigger, in that sense it was an accident
I don't want us to get confused later on. You say I never meant to pull the trigger
- That's correct my lady
- The noise from the bathroom made me pull the trigger
- I can remember pulling the trigger
- I didn't intend to shoot


Nel 14 April
-I discharged the firearm my lady
-Because I thought someone was coming out to attack me
-I didn't want to shoot the person coming out
-I didn't have time to think of what I wanted to do
-I was terrified
You were thinking every step of the way, but on this critical instant you didn't think
-yes
Isn't your defence that you thought you were in danger and wanted to shoot the person that put you in danger?
-No
Is it your defence that you fired at the attacker?
- No
Or at the perceived attacker?
- I fired at the door
Is it your defence that you fired at the perceived attacker?
- No that's not my defence
Then what is your defence?
- My defence is as I've said I heard a noise and I didn't have time to interpret it and I fired my firearm out of fear
Out of fear, by accident....because I don't understand your defence, you can't have two. You understand that?
- I understand that
The way I understand your defence is that you acted in putative self defence. You perceived an attack, you fired at the attacker, to kill him or to ward off the attack. That's not true am I right?
- I didn't fire to kill anyone
Or to ward off an attack?
- I didn't have time to think. I heard this noise and I thought it was somebody coming out to attack me so I fired my firearm
Your defence has now changed sir from putative self defence to involuntary action, is that what you're telling me?
- I don't understand the law, I can tell what is asked, and reply as what I thought
I wouldn't say I understand the law but that is what I hear that your defence is not one of PSD any more, we can forget that. It's now I don't know why I fired
- I’m not saying I don't know why I fired, I've given the reason to why I fired, I thought somebody was coming out to attack me
But you didn't fire at that person
- I fired in the direction I thought the attack was coming from

Break

- I didn't think
- My firearm was pointed at the door
- I didn't intend to fire my gun
- My firearm was pointed at the door, when I heard the noise I fired
You didn't intend to fire your gun, your gun just went off
- No my gun didn't just go off, I didn't intend to fire but I did fire, it didn't just go off
Is it like the glock did it just go off or did you pull the trigger
- I pulled the trigger
Why
- Because I perceived danger to be coming out to attack me
Did you fire at the danger
- I fired where my firearm was pointed where I perceived the danger to be that's correct


Why did the evidence appear so confusing at the time?

Because it was. OP deliberately didn’t offer the explanation explicitly and deliberately kept it ‘hidden’. Only by thorough cross-examination was it eventually teased out. Why this was the case is open to speculation. His bail application also strongly implied, but did not say explicitly, intent and putative self defence. There came further confusion because the question “why” he fired is ambiguous - OP answered as to what caused him to fire, the question and answer could equally be interpreted as his intent and purpose of firing. Further confusion can come from the word ‘accidentally’ - OP did explicitly define it as meaning just unintentional, but commonly it is also understood to mean ‘without good cause and/or purpose’.

Is there any clue that this is now the court’s understanding of OP’s evidence?

Yes, a big clue. During Dr Vorster’s evidence, she said OP told him after the trial in her meeting that he fired at the noise. This was immediately seized on by Nel as an important contradiction and shift away from his testimony that he fired at the door. Judge Masipa nodded in strong agreement and was the most animated I saw her throughout the whole trial. If OP thought the noise was the door - as he said, then what does it matter? It matters because firing at the door is something a passive observer can witness and remember., it is consistent with involuntary action. But firing at the noise goes further, how can one know he fired at the noise not just the door - it requires thinking and intent, it is inconsistent with involuntary action.

What might this mean for the arguments and judgement?

I don't see how putative private defence can be successfully argued, as this requires intent.
I think involuntary action of this nature cannot reasonably possibly be true, especially as Scholtz and Derman did not offer it as an explanation.
This leaves OP with nowhere to go - neither the court nor his legal team can make up a defence for him.
The prima facie case is strong enough to convict of murder.
If I have time later tonight, I will cite SA case law to support this.
Click to expand...

This is really well written and I just wanted to say thank you for taking the time and effort to do this....

In regards to the BIB, I do remember seeing this myself. Would you by chance have a link to a YouTube video with the time segment so that we can review this again?
 
AJ_DS said:
I agree with your analysis… Here is what I believe Nel will argue :

1. As per his version, OP consciously and deliberately decided to confront one or more possibly armed intruders in pitch darkness, on his stumps with a ready-to-fire handgun pointed in front of him… stating that the discharging of that gun was an involuntary and unforeseen result is unreasonable… in that scenario, the discharging of the gun was the most probable, reasonable and foreseeable outcome.

2. Involuntary action could explain 1 gunshot, possibly 2… but NEVER 4. The whole premise behind OP's involuntary action is that he reacted instinctively to a startle stimulus : the sound of wood moving… i.e. 1 stimulus = 1 gunshot… but OP had to squeeze and release that trigger 4 times, thus rendering the involuntary action unreasonable. When factoring the delay and change in trajectory between shot 1 and shots 2-3-4, the involuntary action Defence is beyond unreasonable.

3. The grouping of the shots is far too small to be the result of an involuntary action… OP had to aim and readjust his aim to compensate for recoil between shots… the action cannot be partly involuntary and partly deliberate… the grouping demonstrates deliberate and the only thing proffering involuntary is OP.

4. As per his version, OP stated that he backed away from the toilet door, retreated towards the bathroom entrance as he discharged his gun : this was done to reinforce OP's fright and explain the shell casing found in the passageway… IMPOSSIBLE… this was contradicted by ballistic experts Mangena and Wolmarans… OP had to be in front of the bathroom sink to achieve the acute angle with the toilet door… thus OP had to move forward and to the right to fire shots 2-3-4… which also corroborates witness testimony of the pause between gunshot 1 and 2-3-4… pausing, repositioning oneself closer to the danger, and firing 3 additional shots clearly demonstrates a deliberate action, not an involuntary one.
Click to expand...

During the trial, I don't believe I saw anyone mention just how many bullets were in OP's gun. Did anyone catch this or was this never brought up?
 
jilly said:
Who goes first with their argument?
Click to expand...

The prosecution goes first, defence follows and the prosecution then gets a rebuttal. Masipa will also be afforded the opportunity to ask questions which will hopefully give some indication as to which way she is leaning.

Can't wait to hear her line of questioning and how the defence waffles....so Mr. Pistorius, where was the expert evidence that shows that you scream like a woman when under stress?
 
Cherwell said:
Do we know for sure whom he met that day? or do we just have his version?
Click to expand...

Good point. We only have his version and his texts with Reeva referencing it, but he was definitely in a meeting of some sort that didn't go well.

Sherbert said:
I take your point, Greater Than, but I feel it is likely that the lawyers and financial advisers were working closely together, especially given that OP had a substantial loss of earnings Counterclaim which would have needed to be supported by evidence from his accountants.

It is possible that the meeting took place at the offices of his financial advisers with lawyers present, particularly if the financial advisers called the meeting because they were concerned about the implications of the imminent hearing on sponsorships, etc.

And, of course, if OP were describing his day to the police, it would have been more pragmatic from his perspective to describe his meeting as a financial meeting, to avoid awkward questions.

It is the timing of the meeting that seems to link with the assault case, but, of course, it could be just coincidence.
Click to expand...

I hear what you're saying, I'm just not convinced it was regarding the 3 year old lawsuit. After the incident he released a media statement denying the allegations, so it was already public knowledge. This wasn't a case he was trying to quickly throw money at to make it go away. They were playing hard ball with each other. She filed a suit against him, and he filed a counter suit for loss of income because of his malicious public arrest. As we know, they did finally settle in February, but I feel that was strictly because it now needed to go away immediately since he was facing a murder trial. Before he had killed Reeva, I don't think that was the plan. I think he was fully ready to fight it in court. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...accused-assault-slammed-broke-door-party.html

What I do think his meeting with his financial planner could have been about is the back taxes he owed. I can only find information regarding this since his arrest, which states after he disclosed his asserts at the bail hearing, Sars went after him. But I highly suspect they were already well aware that he had been evading his taxes and that could have been the subject of his meeting. http://www.citypress.co.za/news/sars-slaps-oscar-with-a-penalty/

What Reeva texted just doesn't add up to me for it to be regarding the lawsuit.
RS to OP – It’s a difficult thing to try to console you baba because it’s a ****** thing and you’re a nice guy. I guess these things happen and we can just hope they work out for the best. You are an amazing person with so many blessings and you are more than cared for. Your health and future monetary blessings far outweigh this hurdle I can promise u that.
http://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/oscar-trial-day-17-oscar/
Click to expand...

"I guess these things happen".... lawsuits and/or the other party rejecting an offer isn't something I think would be referred to so matter-of-factly. But if he had forgotten (intentionally or by accident) to pay his taxes, that I could see her saying, "these things happen." I don't know. I could be way off base. But a meeting regarding the lawsuit just doesn't sound right to me. MOO
 
Hazy said:
I posted before that OP's message ' just finishing at Ryan' referred to a place maybe and not a person.

I found a Ryan W Viljoen at Ryan W Viljoen Attorneys.... Seems to be a lawyer, possibly financial, based in Sandton. Not a lot of info to be found to be fair.

This could be a total shot in the dark lol
Click to expand...

At 6:00 OP testifies that he met with Ryan after his meeting with his financial adviser.
At 31:20 OP identifies him as the estate agent brokering the purchase of his new home.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=cMMdyuXfFUg

I think this may be him: http://www.property24.com/estate-agents/old-century-21-sandton/ryan-chatten/100348
 
Just checking start time - 9.30am SA time? Just under 2 hours from now?
 
SIDE NOTE: recent update re Carl Pistorius' - states he is still in I.C.U. and is still on a ventilator.
Link: http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/gauteng/carl-pistorius-still-in-icu-1.1731688

Spokesperson for the Pistorius family again fails to mention any update on the other driver. You'd think since they're paying for a PR person, this PR rep would at least mention the other driver's status (seems cold to not acknowledge the other badly injured driver and his recovery status).
 
Greater Than said:
At 6:00 OP testifies that he met with Ryan after his meeting with his financial adviser.
At 31:20 OP identifies him as the estate agent brokering the purchase of his new home.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=cMMdyuXfFUg

I think this may be him: http://www.property24.com/estate-agents/old-century-21-sandton/ryan-chatten/100348
Click to expand...

I think you solved this reoccurring question.

I noticed that the house for sale that's linked on his real estate page looks like the patio where some of the pictures from the "10th Anniversary/Birthday Party" was held. Perhaps the reason anniversary party for Real Estate co held there was because it was a property they had on the market & having party there insured people viewing this property, allowing them to take a 2nd look, etc. Makes sense.
(Hopefully this link was an older one and this house isn't still on the market in 2014.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 165 more.
Total: 4,523 (members: 166, guests: 4,357)

Online statistics

Members online
166
Guests online
4,357
Total visitors
4,523
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,600
Messages
17,971,606
Members
228,839
Latest member
Shimona
Back
Top