Do you think the prosecutor proved the case?

Greater Than · Apr 28, 2014

The state's burden is to prove all the elements of the offense (murder) beyond a reasonable doubt and to disprove the defense (putative self defense). It is my understanding of SA law that the state does not necessarily have to prove their version. So even if there is doubt regarding certain elements of the state's version, if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that OP committed the offense, he should be found guilty.

For OP to be able to claim putative self defense, my understanding of SA's law is that the threat of death or great bodily harm must feel so real that any other reasonable person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could only be avoided by using the same deadly force OP used. The threat must also be imminent, meaning there could be no other course of action (like escaping) to avoid the situation. SA's constitution guarantees the right to life. A person can legally take the life of another to save their own, but there must be no other alternative available. Killing should be the last and only resort.

My opinion regarding the defense and the charges:

Not Putative Self Defense
1. No evidence to support rational fear that an intruder would enter his highly secure gated community and/or his highly secure home. Any and all unsecured parts of his home were due to OP's neglect to secure them and indicate that he wasn't fearful of leaving them unsecured.
2. He approached the danger. He had the option to escape via his bedroom door, but he admitted under cross that he wanted to confront the intruder(s). "That's my personality. That's how I am."
3. He made no attempt to ensure it wasn't his guest in the toilet. A reasonable person would first assume it was the houseguest, not an intruder.
4. He demanded that the intruder get out of his house, but did not allow the intruder to do so. He just started firing.
5. He passed the firearm competency test -- he knew it was illegal to fire at an unseen target.

Premeditated
Premeditation does not rely on a certain length of time. OP had sufficient time to reflect and think about what he was about to do before doing it. This was not a quick reaction... He bent down to get his 9mm pistol loaded with black talon bullets from under the bed, removed the holster, released the safety mechanism, slowly walked down the passage, entered the bathroom, and aimed at the door. Every step was under his control.

Murder
1. Ear witness testimony from credible witnesses that there was arguing between a man and a woman.
2. He shot to kill. He fired four rounds of black talon bullets into a small toilet cubicle. He made a conscious and deliberate decision to pull the trigger four separate times.
3. The shots were fired with accuracy and precision.
4. Expert testimony that the victim screamed after at least the first shot. The scream indicated that there was no longer a threat and/or it was mistaken identity of the person behind the door, but he kept firing.
5. He called a friend first, not netcare.

In the interest of justice, OP must be found guilty of premeditated murder.

toevlugsoord · Apr 28, 2014

BritsKate said:
The State has shown:

Reeva could not have lived long enough to make OP's timeline plausible.

Oscar's 'version' changed significantly from earlier statements.

Oscar changed his angle after firing the first shot, which bolsters the testimony of Mangena who in turn strengthens Burger's testimony about a pause between the first two shots.

Saayman testified it would be abnormal not to scream after being shot in the hip. Botha conceded this if there was a pause between shots. This furthers the suggestion it was Reeva screaming as there was a pause indicated by ballistics rods, Reeva's injuries, Burger and Mangena.

The woman's screams became more distressed between the first and second bangs.

Oscar has no history of being a victim of violent crime. Or any at all that can be independently verified.

Previous suspicions of a possible intruder led to him either asking his prior girlfriend if she'd heard anything or going into 'combat mode' at white goods. Neither of which led to anyone or anything being shot, much less killed.

Oscar lived in a highly secure gated community with an extremely low crime rate.

Despite being fearful and paranoid over crime, he neglected to fix a broken window downstairs, left windows unsecured in unoccupied rooms, isn't certain Reeva could activate the alarm unless she had access to a remote, didn't secure ladders he knew were on his property, left his car in the driveway, and slept with balcony doors open.

There is no history, much less a prolific one, to show a record of contacting security or police over perceived suspicious behaviour that would be consistent with someone paranoid over crime.

That Reeva 'felt loved' by a man who got her birthday wrong on the witness stand and had no gift or card for her for Valentine's Day.

He has a history of screaming at women, he mocked and ridiculed Reeva, had a heated argument with her witnessed by others, in public, and Reeva herself expressed fear of him.

He has a history of reckless behaviour and threatening others.

He has contempt for authority figures.

Oscar has labelled or alluded all those who have testified against him as mistaken, liars, corrupt, inept, or vindictive.

Oscar had access to several phones and a panic button (Baba's testimony) yet he decided to confront the intruder rather than reaching out for help from anyone.

Oscar had to bypass the only exit in order to confront the intruder. He literally went out of his way.

At no time did Oscar seek verbal acknowledgement from Reeva or question why she wasn't responding when he whispered, spoke softly, screamed and shouted to call the police.

It's possible the first bangs were the result of the defendant kicking or hitting the toilet door.

Phone a Friend trumps contacting emergency services.

'Everything is fine' when one 'accidentally' shoots his girlfriend and is contacted by security.

Oscar immediately fired at the 'intruder' after screaming - allowing no time for the intruder to escape.

Shot at a closed door without visual or verbal assessment.

No one heard gunshots (or bangs) at the time Oscar estimates he fired.

Oscar saw no point in screaming upon finding Reeva on the floor, after screaming and shouting while breaking down the door.

No witness heard him scream 'Reeva' despite clearly hearing a man yell for help, and a screaming woman, before the gunshots at 3:17.

Oscar has a history of jealousy.

While his direct was fluid and uninterrupted, Oscar's cross was plagued by emotional breakdowns, memory lapses, and inconsistency within his account.

Oscar had the absolute gall to disparage the doctor who left his own home in the middle of the night, to go into a possibly dangerous situation, to save the very woman Oscar is responsible for killing.

Five articulate, intelligent witnesses heard some variation of an altercation which quickly escalated, until the bangs at 3:17, when the woman's final scream fades with the last bang. Then there is silence.

The majority of those witnesses heard both a man yelling and a woman screaming. The man yelling is described as flat and monotone. According to Oscar, this is him, yelling for help after 'accidentally' shooting the girlfriend he loved dead.

Oscar has a history of an extremely reckless, negligent attitude towards firearms.

Oscar testified he never intended to shoot therefore his claim for putative self-defence, which requires intent, may be nullified.

Oscar was extremely concerned with his image and the media's portrayal of him.

Oscar had a financial meeting that left him troubled the morning of February 13th.

Oscar is willing to lie under oath. After stating he would 'try' to tell the truth.

Picked apart, anyone could invent reasonable excuses for everything I've listed. A circumstantial case (and most are) is based on building blocks of evidence. It requires reasoning, inference and considering the culmination of evidence. This is one of the strongest circumstantial cases I've ever seen.

MOO

Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

BBM

This part was interesting for me when Nel asked if he would tell the truth, and he said yes...and Nel rephrased and said something like, "So you won't lie?" but instead of OP saying "No, I won't lie," he repeated he would do his best to the tell the truth (sorry this isn't a quote but the general gist of what he said). Interesting...

Hatfield · Apr 28, 2014

This part is the nail in the coffin for OP to me...

“Mi’Lady as I said I wasn’t meaning to shoot anyone, I went to the bathroom so I could put myself between what I perceived was danger and Reeva, to approach in the time that I did, I didn’t have much time to think..” “Mi’Lady I shot because I at that point that split moment I believed somebody was coming out to attack me.”

IMO,
It is here where OP does himself in. Because if he went to the bathroom to put himself between danger and Reeva then he was grossly mistaken on 2 counts.

1-There was no danger
2-Reeva was not behind him back in bed

OP is trying to claim he was justified in the killing based on what he perceived which was wrong on both counts. Not only that but it gets worse.

He adds that he rushed... "to approach in the time I did I didnt have much time to think".
So now we can add that he rushed so that means he made a rush to POOR judgement.

A responsible gun owner should never make a poor rush to judgement when discharching a weapon. Sure you may have to make a quick decision but your decision had better be good and correct if you fire your weapon. If your are unsure then you never fire your weapon. NEVER.

And the last part of his statement just shows he is trying to talk like his defense laywer coached him. "at the split moment" like in that split moment his life was being threatened. Well, no OP your life was not being threatened at all. And your use of terms during your testimony shows obvious defense laywer coaching of which I am sure the judge will pick up on. She may even conclude he is lying right here.

I dont know SA rules but at a minimum this would be admitted testimony of "manslaughter" here in the US at a minimum.

His own words prove here that he used a very careless and rushed poor judgement that directly resulted in someones death. This is by definition some form of crime similar to manslaughter.

If it were not, then any one of us could start shooting people we hate and just claim "Whooops we made a simple mistake and thought they were out to get us". If the judge picks up and believes he has been lying during testimony, then the crime will be much more than manslaughter.

Hatfield · Apr 28, 2014

Greater Than said:
The state's burden is to prove all the elements of the offense (murder) beyond a reasonable doubt and to disprove the defense (putative self defense). It is my understanding of SA law that the state does not necessarily have to prove their version. So even if there is doubt regarding certain elements of the state's version, if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that OP committed the offense, he should be found guilty.

For OP to be able to claim putative self defense, my understanding of SA's law is that the threat of death or great bodily harm must feel so real that any other reasonable person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could only be avoided by using the same deadly force OP used. The threat must also be imminent, meaning there could be no other course of action (like escaping) to avoid the situation. SA's constitution guarantees the right to life. A person can legally take the life of another to save their own, but there must be no other alternative available. Killing should be the last and only resort.

My opinion regarding the defense and the charges:

Not Putative Self Defense
1. No evidence to support rational fear that an intruder would enter his highly secure gated community and/or his highly secure home. Any and all unsecured parts of his home were due to OP's neglect to secure them and indicate that he wasn't fearful of leaving them unsecured.
2. He approached the danger. He had the option to escape via his bedroom door, but he admitted under cross that he wanted to confront the intruder(s). "That's my personality. That's how I am."
3. He made no attempt to ensure it wasn't his guest in the toilet. A reasonable person would first assume it was the houseguest, not an intruder.
4. He demanded that the intruder get out of his house, but did not allow the intruder to do so. He just started firing.
5. He passed the firearm competency test -- he knew it was illegal to fire at an unseen target.

Premeditated
Premeditation does not rely on a certain length of time. OP had sufficient time to reflect and think about what he was about to do before doing it. This was not a quick reaction... He bent down to get his 9mm pistol loaded with black talon bullets from under the bed, removed the holster, released the safety mechanism, slowly walked down the passage, entered the bathroom, and aimed at the door. Every step was under his control.

Murder
1. Ear witness testimony from credible witnesses that there was arguing between a man and a woman.
2. He shot to kill. He fired four rounds of black talon bullets into a small toilet cubicle. He made a conscious and deliberate decision to pull the trigger four separate times.
3. The shots were fired with accuracy and precision.
4. Expert testimony that the victim screamed after at least the first shot. The scream indicated that there was no longer a threat and/or it was mistaken identity of the person behind the door, but he kept firing.
5. He called a friend first, not netcare.

In the interest of justice, OP must be found guilty of premeditated murder.

I totally agree. You made a good summary of the reasons why the case was proven.

Carmelita · Apr 28, 2014

BritsKate said:
The State has shown:

*Snipped by me in the interest of saving space*
.

The State has shown:

Reeva could not have lived long enough to make OP's timeline plausible.

IMO the state has not proven this.

Oscar's 'version' changed significantly from earlier statements.

Not the core of his statement, Nel tried very hard to misconstrue Oscar’s words such as claiming Oscar said he heard the magazine rack move and that is why he shot into the bathroom.

Oscar changed his angle after firing the first shot, which bolsters the testimony of Mangena who in turn strengthens Burger's testimony about a pause between the first two shots.

Which also bolsters the claim that Oscar shot in a terror filled panic and the kick of the gun effected his normally steady hand.

Saayman testified it would be abnormal not to scream after being shot in the hip. Botha conceded this if there was a pause between shots. This furthers the suggestion it was Reeva screaming as there was a pause indicated by ballistics rods, Reeva's injuries, Burger and Mangena.

Abnormal does not mean it didn’t happen, Reeva could have screamed and Oscar could have been screaming and he would have ringing ears after firing his 9mm in such closed quarters.

The woman's screams became more distressed between the first and second bangs.

I am not sure if you mean the claimed pause in the gunshots or the gunshots and the bat bangs.

Oscar has no history of being a victim of violent crime. Or any at all that can be independently verified.

Oscar also has no history of being violent toward women that has been independently verified.

Previous suspicions of a possible intruder led to him either asking his prior girlfriend if she'd heard anything or going into 'combat mode' at white goods. Neither of which led to anyone or anything being shot, much less killed.

One previous episode Oscar appeared with his 9mm in hand and asked his friend if everything was ok.

Oscar lived in a highly secure gated community with an extremely low crime rate.

Because he was fearful for his own safety.

Despite being fearful and paranoid over crime, he neglected to fix a broken window downstairs, left windows unsecured in unoccupied rooms, isn't certain Reeva could activate the alarm unless she had access to a remote, didn't secure ladders he knew were on his property, left his car in the driveway, and slept with balcony doors open.

All true.

There is no history, much less a prolific one, to show a record of contacting security or police over perceived suspicious behaviour that would be consistent with someone paranoid over crime.

There is a saying when you need the police in seconds they are only minutes away. Not calling security over every little thing does not indicate that he was not security conscious.

That Reeva 'felt loved' by a man who got her birthday wrong on the witness stand and had no gift or card for her for Valentine's Day.
Not sure what this has to do with anything.

I’m not even sure that Reeva really felt loved by Oscar or that the prosecution proved this or why it would be germane to PM.

He has a history of screaming at women, he mocked and ridiculed Reeva, had a heated argument with her witnessed by others, in public, and Reeva herself expressed fear of him.

Yes but he had no verifiable history of violence against women. Screaming and ridiculing her was a terrible thing to do on that we agree.

He has a history of reckless behaviour and threatening others.

Reckless behavior is mot unusual in 26 year old men and even less unusual in world class athletes.

He has contempt for authority figures.

I think contempt is a loaded word and it is only your opinion not a factual statement.

Oscar has labelled or alluded all those who have testified against him as mistaken, liars, corrupt, inept, or vindictive.

An overreach IMO. He has repeatedly stated that his version of the night is true and that conflicting testimony is inaccurate.

Oscar had access to several phones and a panic button (Baba's testimony) yet he decided to confront the intruder rather than reaching out for help from anyone.

True he acted according to his testimony in the way he thought was best due to the perceived threat to him and Reeva.

Oscar had to bypass the only exit in order to confront the intruder. He literally went out of his way.

This is a loaded statement he put himself between the perceived intruder and Reeva he was on his stumps and in his panicked state felt he was taking the most reasonable action.

At no time did Oscar seek verbal acknowledgement from Reeva or question why she wasn't responding when he whispered, spoke softly, screamed and shouted to call the police.

This is true and from the outside looking in and is very damaging and goes toward culpable homicide.

It's possible the first bangs were the result of the defendant kicking or hitting the toilet door.

Anything is possible.

Phone a Friend trumps contacting emergency services.

Many people call a friend before they call for emergency help there is something about human nature that reaches out for the familiar.

'Everything is fine' when one 'accidentally' shoots his girlfriend and is contacted by security.

This IMO goes to Oscar’s credibility and does undercut it, but there can be psychological reasons for his response.

Oscar immediately fired at the 'intruder' after screaming - allowing no time for the intruder to escape.

Oscar claims to have been screaming for quite a bit at this point and believed that after he screamed for the intruder to get the – out that he heard a sound which he thought was the intruder coming out of the toilet and in that “split second” he shot with instinctual fear in an act of self-preservation.

And I need to take a break I am impressed by your list and the wherewithal to write it all out and yor dedication to your beliefs.

nastasya · Apr 28, 2014

Carmelita said:
The prosecution has not argued this perspective. Perhaps they will in the closing argument but I would think that would be considered new evidence as it has not been argued as of yet that the state believes that Oscar could see Reeva while he was shooting her. It is my understanding that the state must produce all of their evidence and then only summate what they have presented in the closing argument, not bring in a totally new theory.

There is no "theory" the prosecution needs to bring in.

Dead body. Admitted killer. He walked to get a gun. Walked towards her. Said to leave the house. She went into the toilet and he killed her as she was retreating.

That's not theory. That's stipulated by the defense.

OP's burden of proof is to show how the sound of a woman using the bathroom is cause for him to reasonably fear his life was in imminent danger, and how shooting somebody behind a toilet door in the middle of the night when he knows he was sharing his room with a guest is a reasonable response to the sound of a woman using the bathroom.

OP has the burden of proof. Not the PT. Why do you think he testified?

nastasya · Apr 28, 2014

Carmelita said:
I have previously commented on this and it was horribly irresponsible. I have stated that I do not think that Oscar is particularly bright, I will even state that not knowing with 100% certainty where your mate is at, if you are going to fire a gun goes beyond stupid.

All that said does not mean that when Oscar fired his gun he did not believe 100% that Reeva was in the bed phoning the police. He was wrong he was irresponsible not to know where she was, I have already stated this.

His being stupid is still not his defense. The defense has replaced the word stupid with terrorized, it is up to the judge how much credence she will give to what she believes a reasonable person would have done and what she believes a reasonable terrified, double amputee on his stumps with a history of being paranoid about his own safety would do.

Terrorized?

Let's get real.

A man on stumps holding a loaded 9 mm Parabellum is nowhere near vulnerable.

Know who the person who was vulnerable?

The person standing behind the toilet door who had the man aiming the gun at her.

To paraphrase Nel, OP's excuse is so beyond stupid, so improbable, that it's impossible to believe it could be true. Nobody is that stupid. Seriously.

Don't believe me? Have you seen any other stories about guys shooting their wives or girlfriends who got up to pee?

Never happens. Why?

wb180 · Apr 28, 2014

Once all the evidence is out, we need a poll which adds to 100% please!

JudgeJudi · Apr 29, 2014

BritsKate said:
The State has shown:

Reeva could not have lived long enough to make OP's timeline plausible.

Oscar's 'version' changed significantly from earlier statements.

Oscar changed his angle after firing the first shot, which bolsters the testimony of Mangena who in turn strengthens Burger's testimony about a pause between the first two shots.

Saayman testified it would be abnormal not to scream after being shot in the hip. Botha conceded this if there was a pause between shots. This furthers the suggestion it was Reeva screaming as there was a pause indicated by ballistics rods, Reeva's injuries, Burger and Mangena.

The woman's screams became more distressed between the first and second bangs.

Oscar has no history of being a victim of violent crime. Or any at all that can be independently verified.

Previous suspicions of a possible intruder led to him either asking his prior girlfriend if she'd heard anything or going into 'combat mode' at white goods. Neither of which led to anyone or anything being shot, much less killed.

Oscar lived in a highly secure gated community with an extremely low crime rate.

Despite being fearful and paranoid over crime, he neglected to fix a broken window downstairs, left windows unsecured in unoccupied rooms, isn't certain Reeva could activate the alarm unless she had access to a remote, didn't secure ladders he knew were on his property, left his car in the driveway, and slept with balcony doors open.

There is no history, much less a prolific one, to show a record of contacting security or police over perceived suspicious behaviour that would be consistent with someone paranoid over crime.

That Reeva 'felt loved' by a man who got her birthday wrong on the witness stand and had no gift or card for her for Valentine's Day.

He has a history of screaming at women, he mocked and ridiculed Reeva, had a heated argument with her witnessed by others, in public, and Reeva herself expressed fear of him.

He has a history of reckless behaviour and threatening others.

He has contempt for authority figures.

Oscar has labelled or alluded all those who have testified against him as mistaken, liars, corrupt, inept, or vindictive.

Oscar had access to several phones and a panic button (Baba's testimony) yet he decided to confront the intruder rather than reaching out for help from anyone.

Oscar had to bypass the only exit in order to confront the intruder. He literally went out of his way.

At no time did Oscar seek verbal acknowledgement from Reeva or question why she wasn't responding when he whispered, spoke softly, screamed and shouted to call the police.

It's possible the first bangs were the result of the defendant kicking or hitting the toilet door.

Phone a Friend trumps contacting emergency services.

'Everything is fine' when one 'accidentally' shoots his girlfriend and is contacted by security.

Oscar immediately fired at the 'intruder' after screaming - allowing no time for the intruder to escape.

Shot at a closed door without visual or verbal assessment.

No one heard gunshots (or bangs) at the time Oscar estimates he fired.

Oscar saw no point in screaming upon finding Reeva on the floor, after screaming and shouting while breaking down the door.

No witness heard him scream 'Reeva' despite clearly hearing a man yell for help, and a screaming woman, before the gunshots at 3:17.

Oscar has a history of jealousy.

While his direct was fluid and uninterrupted, Oscar's cross was plagued by emotional breakdowns, memory lapses, and inconsistency within his account.

Oscar had the absolute gall to disparage the doctor who left his own home in the middle of the night, to go into a possibly dangerous situation, to save the very woman Oscar is responsible for killing.

Five articulate, intelligent witnesses heard some variation of an altercation which quickly escalated, until the bangs at 3:17, when the woman's final scream fades with the last bang. Then there is silence.

The majority of those witnesses heard both a man yelling and a woman screaming. The man yelling is described as flat and monotone. According to Oscar, this is him, yelling for help after 'accidentally' shooting the girlfriend he loved dead.

Oscar has a history of an extremely reckless, negligent attitude towards firearms.

Oscar testified he never intended to shoot therefore his claim for putative self-defence, which requires intent, may be nullified.

Oscar was extremely concerned with his image and the media's portrayal of him.

Oscar had a financial meeting that left him troubled the morning of February 13th.

Oscar is willing to lie under oath. After stating he would 'try' to tell the truth.

Picked apart, anyone could invent reasonable excuses for everything I've listed. A circumstantial case (and most are) is based on building blocks of evidence. It requires reasoning, inference and considering the culmination of evidence. This is one of the strongest circumstantial cases I've ever seen.

MOO

Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

Fantastic summary. Well done.

JudgeJudi · Apr 29, 2014

Greater Than said:
<Respectfully snipped>

Premeditated
Premeditation does not rely on a certain length of time. OP had sufficient time to reflect and think about what he was about to do before doing it. This was not a quick reaction... He bent down to get his 9mm pistol loaded with black talon bullets from under the bed, removed the holster, released the safety mechanism, slowly walked down the passage, entered the bathroom, and aimed at the door. Every step was under his control.

And when asked why he didn't fire a warning shot he said "My Lady, if I shot into the shower, it might have ricocheted and possibly hit me", so he had time to think of this.

Greater Than · Apr 29, 2014

toevlugsoord said:
BBM

I read this a little while ago -- from Mike Azzi, friend of Pistorius:
"Dexter was at the house two weeks before Christmas and recalled how he knocked over a fan and Pistorius became panic-stricken. The athlete immediately grabbed his gun for protection before shouting to check if Dexter was OK. He said: "I can believe Oscar's story is true. I know he was paranoid in that sense because of things that went on."

So it does appear he's reacted/overreacted to noises in his house even when he knows someone is there BUT yes, never had shot anyone as a result until now (if we are to believe his story).

That's irrelevant. His actions are being measured against those of any other reasonable person, not the previous unreasonable actions of Oscar Pistorius.

If he's so paranoid, he should be in therapy and on anti-anxiety medication. It's hardly justification for murder.

liesbeth · Apr 29, 2014

1. Oscar knew Reeva was in the house with him. He never asked her if she was behind the door. It was not reasonable to assume a noise in the toilet is an intruder and not your roommate.

2. Oscar went to bed with open doors knowing there were ladders outside, not knowing if the alarm's outside censors worked. No burglar bars or security door. He did not live like a man afraid of intruders. He was trained to search the house for intruders and did so on two previous occasions. He did not live like a man who is afraid of an intruder.

3. He does not explain why he was suddenly so terrified of a noise in the toilet.

4. I believe the witnesses can distinguish between male and female voices. I believe that the witnesses could hear terror in the female voice. I believe the screams stopped after the last shots. Oscar must have heard the screams too.

5. If he was so distraught and could not think or reason, why did he call Johan Stander and his lawyer daughter first?

jay-jay · Apr 30, 2014

Carmelita said:
Why may I ask of those of you that believe that this was a cold blooded killing would Oscar fire from a somewhat protected position? Why would he not stand right in front of the door and shoot, do you think before he even fired the gun he had his defense planned?

~snipped~

BIB - yes, absolutely .. if he had stood right in front of the door, he wouldn't have been able to use his 'intruder' version as his defence because it would've looked too obvious he was lying.

jay-jay · Apr 30, 2014

Carmelita said:
Could you point me to a time? I just watched the video and I don't remember that Oscar said those conflicting words. If you don't have time I plan on re watching the whole thing when I get a chance as it is very interesting dynamics and I will pay special attention to that part.

Thanks, and thanks for the civil disagreement.

Well, it's been mentioned on here so many times now, I didn't think I would need to post a link but I will try and find it tomorrow (it's v.late here in the UK now). But, I do feel that there is a problem with arriving at a conclusion without having seen all these things .. you ('one') really have to see it all in order to know that we are being spun a tale, and it's become clear that you haven't caught up with all the testimonies yet and don't yet realise some of the glaring inconsistences in his testimony (and affidavits, etc).

Carmelita · Apr 30, 2014

jay-jay said:
Well, it's been mentioned on here so many times now, I didn't think I would need to post a link but I will try and find it tomorrow (it's v.late here in the UK now). But, I do feel that there is a problem with arriving at a conclusion without having seen all these things .. you ('one') really have to see it all in order to know that we are being spun a tale, and it's become clear that you haven't caught up with all the testimonies yet and don't yet realise some of the glaring inconsistences in his testimony (and affidavits, etc).

That could be but so far every damning bit of evidence that has been offered has not been damning in my eyes.

As to arriving at a conclusion, I haven't done that, I have consistently said that the evidence I have seen and read so far does not indicate PM to me. No one has seen all the evidence yet, the defense has 12 witnesses yet to come.

Kimster · Apr 30, 2014

Excuse me while I interrupt for a sec with an off topic post.

We have a new forum where we could use some super sleuthers: Sleuthing Vancouver Cold Cases - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Harmony 2 · May 1, 2014

Harmony2 said:
List 5 facts or pieces of evidence that validate your opinion from the above...

There are a ton of off topic posts and the thread has become a general discussion thread... get back on target about whether the prosecutor proved the case. Please adhere to the direction in the opening post.

Meryl12 · May 3, 2014

OP has not convinced many people with his mistaken identity excuse......going by the results of this poll......here's hoping the jury share our opinion. I cannot imagine what RS family and loved ones must be enduring.

lease:

minor4th · May 3, 2014

I do not think the State has yet proved murder beyond a reasonable doubt for the following reasons:

1. The initial crime scene photographs (between 5:55 a.m. - 6:21 a.m.) are not reliable as depictions of an untouched crime scene because of the presence of several SAPS personnel handling evidence during the time of the initial photographs

2. The evidence and testimony suggests the gunshots happened at least 5 minutes before the cricket bat hit the door. If this is true, the screaming heard by ear witnesses could not have been Reeva

3. Aside from the screams, the only other evidence that even suggests "intention" to kill Reeva is Van Der Merwe's hearing a loud female voice in the hour preceding the shooting. While this is some circumstantial evidence, by itself it's not enough to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

4. There's no evidence that there was any kind of fight or acrimony between OP and RS on the night of the incident.

5. The evidence suggests that OP and RS were very fond of each other and enjoyed each other's company. RS expressed that she loved OP and there were loving-type messages exchanged on that day.

On the other hand, the state has gained some ground during the defense case - especially during OP's testimony. They have cast doubt on OP's version and his defense. I can't rule out the possibility that the state may still be able to prove their case by the time it's over. I am genuinely having trouble making any firm conclusions either way right now.

I do believe the state has presented enough evidence for a conviction for culpable homicide for these reasons:

1. Portions of Oscar's version seem improbable, and his testimony indicates to me that he has not told the complete truth - but I still believe it's reasonably possible that he thought there was an intruder in the bathroom who was going to attack him.

2. His testimony indicated that he might have been able to safely get himself and Reeva away from the perceived threat by exiting the bedroom. Before his testimony, I considered his actions more reasonable because I thought it would have been difficult or impossible for him to navigate the stairs quickly on his stumps -- but he did not mention this in his testimony, so that was apparently not one of his considerations.

3. His testimony was not real clear that he actually did shoot with the intention of lawfully defending himself. Although he was rehabilitated somewhat, he never made a conclusive statement that he was shooting to defend himself.

4. He approached the perceived danger and he stated that it's not his personality to run away.

Culpable homicide is going to be a judgment call for Masipa - I think there's evidence to support a conviction and there's also evidence to support an acquittal depending on how she interprets the evidence.

jimmy73 · May 4, 2014

minor4th said:
I do not think the State has yet proved murder beyond a reasonable doubt for the following reasons:

1. The initial crime scene photographs (between 5:55 a.m. - 6:21 a.m.) are not reliable as depictions of an untouched crime scene because of the presence of several SAPS personnel handling evidence during the time of the initial photographs

2. The evidence and testimony suggests the gunshots happened at least 5 minutes before the cricket bat hit the door. If this is true, the screaming heard by ear witnesses could not have been Reeva

3. Aside from the screams, the only other evidence that even suggests "intention" to kill Reeva is Van Der Merwe's hearing a loud female voice in the hour preceding the shooting. While this is some circumstantial evidence, by itself it's not enough to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

4. There's no evidence that there was any kind of fight or acrimony between OP and RS on the night of the incident.

5. The evidence suggests that OP and RS were very fond of each other and enjoyed each other's company. RS expressed that she loved OP and there were loving-type messages exchanged on that day.

On the other hand, the state has gained some ground during the defense case - especially during OP's testimony. They have cast doubt on OP's version and his defense. I can't rule out the possibility that the state may still be able to prove their case by the time it's over. I am genuinely having trouble making any firm conclusions either way right now.

I do believe the state has presented enough evidence for a conviction for culpable homicide for these reasons:

1. Portions of Oscar's version seem improbable, and his testimony indicates to me that he has not told the complete truth - but I still believe it's reasonably possible that he thought there was an intruder in the bathroom who was going to attack him.

2. His testimony indicated that he might have been able to safely get himself and Reeva away from the perceived threat by exiting the bedroom. Before his testimony, I considered his actions more reasonable because I thought it would have been difficult or impossible for him to navigate the stairs quickly on his stumps -- but he did not mention this in his testimony, so that was apparently not one of his considerations.

3. His testimony was not real clear that he actually did shoot with the intention of lawfully defending himself. Although he was rehabilitated somewhat, he never made a conclusive statement that he was shooting to defend himself.

4. He approached the perceived danger and he stated that it's not his personality to run away.

Culpable homicide is going to be a judgment call for Masipa - I think there's evidence to support a conviction and there's also evidence to support an acquittal depending on how she interprets the evidence.

To respond on your first set of points:

1. The police photographs at the scene have not been deemed inadmissible as a result of these inconsistencies. There is no evidence of tampering or falsification of evidence. The police would have no reason or even ability to tamper/falsify object positions to incriminate prior to OP's initial statement.

2. Which specific evidence are you referring to? Even by OP's testimony, it didn't sound like it took more than a minute or two to return to the bathroom with the bat and break the door down. These times tally with the both the witness record of the shots at ~03:16 and OP's calls to Stander / Netcare at 03:20, and add credibility to the PT case IMO.

3. In light of the evidence of both an argument between 02:00 and 03:00 and terrified female screams for ~15 mins thereafter, I would suggest the onus is on the DT to disprove this very strong evidence. Perhaps the other DT witnesses will help OP's case in this regard.

4. Aside from the witness reports of arguing and screams, I'd broadly agree on physical evidence within the house. I'm still surprised more hasn't been made of the jeans below the bathroom window.

5. There is also good evidence prior to the incident of arguments, jealousy and RS being scared of OP. I'm not sure either are conclusive.

So much depends on the witness testimony. If these accounts are accepted, I don't see how OP's version can possibly stand up. I think there is ZERO chance of an acquittal.

Do you think the prosecutor proved the case?

Do you think the prosecutor proved the case?

The case for murder was demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt

Murder directus -OP fired shots knowing it was RS and intended to kill her

Murder eventualis- OP believed it was a burglar, foresaw he would kill by shooting

The case for culpable homicide was proven

There are many holes in the case – too many unanswered questions

Prosecutor’s evidence and witness testimony verify OP’s version

The firearm charges were substantiated

None of the above

Retired Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Former Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Retired Moderator

New Member

New Member

New Member

Former Member

Former Member

Retired WS Staff

Active Member

Verified Attorney

New Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics