Discussion in 'Oscar Pistorius' started by Harmony 2, Apr 26, 2014.
List 5 facts or pieces of evidence that validate your opinion from the above...
1. An impossible timeline provided by the defence.
2. OP providing explanations consistent with what the ear-witnesses heard, thereby also conceding their testimony.
3. Absolutely no solid evidence of a history of fearful, paranoid behaviour on the part of OP.
4. Mangena, Saayman, and Botha's testimony, allowing for Reeva to have screamed.
5. OP himself stating a woman never screamed that night...when he also said he couldn't hear.
(Am I really limited to just 5?)
6. Calling Stander before netcare. Wanting help to lift Reeva though he hadn't called netcare yet and ultimately didn't need assistance anyway.
7. By defence timeline, allowing Reeva to lay on the toilet floor, without seeking medical assistance for (at least) 8 minutes.
8. No witnesses hearing gunshots at approximately 3:12, when Oscar estimates he fired.
9. No evidence provided that Reeva had the ability to leave his bedroom that evening. In fact, the opposite, OP was adamant she absolutely could not have.
10. Screaming at an intruder to get out but allowing no time for that intruder to escape. According to SA law, one cannot seek a putative self-defence claim when one kills an intruder who is in the process of fleeing.
11. No visual assessment of where Reeva was. No verbal acknowledgement from Reeva - ever - which is highly suspect.
12. Continually changing his account, sometimes even mid-sentence, in an apparent attempt to explain away damaging evidence.
13. Deeply loving Reeva - and then getting her birthday wrong on the stand.
14. 'Contamination, tampering, and disturbance' by crime scene investigators who would have needed to know OP's version (which wasn't fully fleshed out until trial).
15. Firing 4 highly lethal bullets, without aiming, in a close cluster, without intending to shoot at a door, without ever establishing who was beyond that door.
(In no particular order. Limiting myself so I can serve up a late tea...I could very easily carry on...)
ETA: Murder, dolus directus. It's my very firm belief he knew exactly whom he was shooting at.
Yes. I think the PT has proved their case.
1. No history of crime against OP to bolster his vulnerability claim.
2. Called a friend after murdering Reeva instead of calling for medical help.
3. Proof that he is prepared to lie under oath when he denied firing a gun in Tasha's when it was impossible for the gun to have discharged itself.
4. Leaving out significant details from his affidavit and then adding ones that conveniently explained what witnesses heard - screaming and crying for example.
5. His need to discredit each and every witness, including Dr Stipp. His need to shift blame for his own misdeeds. His refusal to accept any blame for anything at all.
1. How he fails to never see reeva leave bedroom
2. Telling someone or person to get out mtime house then shoot through a door
3. Lies all the time
4. Witness heard argument
5. After the shooting calls friends and lawyers
I actually voted Murder eventualis because of the reasons you gave for it. However, I'm wondering why it can't be Murder directus using my theory.
I believe that OP intended to kill whoever was in the toilet.
He gave no warning shots, although he claimed that by shouting "Get the **** out of my house" and shouting to Reeva to phone the police was in his way a warning. However, he shot as soon as he heard another noise which he thought was wood moving. He claimed that the only ways out would be the window or the door. The fact that the door handle didn't move meaning the door wasn't opening would suggest that the "intruders" would have perhaps been trying to flee through the window as he had hoped. He shot four times at that point so didn't give them a chance.
Also he claimed that he didn't check with Reeva whether she had heard anything because "he was sure of what he heard", this could suggest he was sure it was an intruder and so he reached for his gun, walked to the bathroom in order to deliberately confront the intruders and then fired the 4 shots using black talon ammo into the toilet door.
It could be argued that he had planned the murder of an intruder by purchasing deadly ammunition which wasn't just going to harm, it was going to cause "maximum damage". He didn't use the gun in self defence, that is obvious. Shooting 4 times at a door of a room that size with those bullets would have to either kill or seriously injure whoever was in there as he is a trained shooter.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. Could be either pre-meditated (dependant on which definition is used) or murder.
It might help if you gave a definition of each. What would it mean if he deliberately shot to kill the intruders but it turned out to be someone else. It's still murder surely but what would it be classified as?
He seems to be saying sorry Milady I made a mistake, my mistake was taking Reeva's life. I didn't want to kill anyone really but there was someone in my bathroom being noisy and it bothered me as I was tired so I had to shoot them 4 times although I couldn't see who they were or if in fact they were even posing a danger to myself or Reeva. I'm sorry and it won't happen again, will you let me go home now please.
Murder requires intent. Intent can be proven through one of the following:
Murder, dolus directus - intended to kill the victim.
Murder, dolus indirectus - A more serious form of dolus eventualis. Intended to kill an unidentified person.
Murder, dolus eventualis - did not intend to kill, but does so out of recklessness. Should have foreseen his actions could culminate in the victim's death and proceeded anyway. Objective factors are used to determine forseeability, such as number of shots, type of ammunition, type of weapon, shooting into a closed door, not getting a verbal responce from Reeva, etc. The more combined factors, the more the defendant should have been able to foresee the consequences of his actions.
Culpable homicide - Unlawful, negligent killing of a human being. If acquitted of murder, the reasonable person test is applied to determine guilt of CH. The conduct of OP is weighed against what a reasonable person, in the same circumstances, would have foreseen and what they would have done to avoid the consequences.
*IANAL but this is my understanding of SA law. HTH*
ETA: Sorry to be repetitive...see the poll was updated with legal definitions while I was typing.
I’m still on the fence regarding whether OP intentionally killed RS or thought there was an intruder. I want to hear the Prosecution's closing arguments and see how Nel makes sense of all the evidence presented. Presently I’m somewhere between directus and eventualis and fluctuating with every intelligent post I read here.
I thought OP was fairly consistent with his testimony and his version of events. I thought his emotions seemed congruent and generally I believed him. Unfortunately, some of his testimony gave pause for thought, especially regarding the secondary charges, and I believe him to be guilty of these.
The testimony he gave regarding the moment he fired at the intruder seemed a desperate attempt to shirk all responsibility and displace all blame. There is some pretty damning evidence that suggests he may be lying. Even though it's the Defence who are now calling witnesses, it seems to be the Prosecution’s case which is strengthening.
However, I still want to hear the rest of the Defence’s case before deciding. I would like some psychological insight into the mind of OP; could his disability make his version more plausible and believable? Also, what does Oscar sound like when he screams? Are there other ear-witnesses who can help clarify what was heard and when? To what extent did Police tamper with the crime scene, if at all? Does Roux have something up his sleeve?
1. Controlling and jealous re: the engagement party. She touched a dudes arm.
2: he doesn't 'think' before he 'acts'. Re: he could have killed her really by accident in a car crash, speeding. Maybe he has a death wish?
3: he speaks 'Oscar speak' (coined by Shane13) when he is fibbing to save his Life
4: lovers holiday= lovers murder. True
5: he didn't really like or love her, but instead he used her for his own public image. That night he grew to hate her.
Moo....oh yeah. I picked #2
An interesting point mentioned there.
I think that struck a chord with most people, regardless of their belief of whether OP intentionally killed Reeva or not.
You could certainly see the 'self-preservation' instinct come from OP at this point in the testimony. It never sits well when a person we expect to be showing remorse clearly demonstrates to us that self-interest is still one of their highest priorities.
I'm not sure what Judge Masipa will read into this, but it certainly didn't help his cause regarding public opinion.
1. Dead body
2. Admitted killer
3. Killer pursued victim
4. Killer told victim to leave
5. Victim retreated, killer fired 4 shots at retreating victim.
This is a prima facie case. This means the state has prima facie evidence of murder.
The burden of proof shifts to the defendant to show why his killing of victim was allowed by South African law.
Killer has has only presented self-contradictory and unreasonable testimony from himself in an effort to prove his case.
Guilty on all counts. 25 years to life.
My five reasons for voting for Murder Directus have already been listed above in other posts. I also believe that the other weapons charges have been proven as well.
I like this poll. Can we have a new one once all witnesses have been heard please
This article has helped me to understand it so much more
With that said, I'd like to change my vote to Murder directus as there is no need for motive. I was waiting for the State to prove motive but as it isn't necessary for them to do that I feel I can go straight to MD.
Yes, state has proved its case.
1. State has proved that OP killed RS because he admitted to killing her.
2. State has proved intent because OP fired 4 shots.
3. Defense has not proved self defense argument because OP himself has rejected this self defense argument.
4. Defense has not proved accidental argument because OP actively shot four times and guns do not fire by itself.
5. OP has proven to himself that he is a liar.
Oh yes they do
Yes, I think the prosecution proved their case
1. Ear witness testimony
2. OP's lies during his tesiphony
3. OP calling friends instead of emergency services
4. OP has anger issues and is trigger happy
5. The missing 5th phone.
Murder, dolus directus
:moo: :moo: :moo:
Oscar Pistorius Clashes With Prosecutor Over Picture Of Reeva Steenkamp - Trial Day 19 - YouTube
I do not think that the defense has proven PM.
1) (15:54) “The accident was that I discharged my firearm in the belief that an intruder was coming out to attack me I never intended to shoot anyone Mi’Lady I got a fright from a noise I heard inside the toilet, I perceived it to be somebody coming out to attack me that is what I believed.”
2) “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.” It is here that I think Nel feels his case slipping away and begins to try to get Oscar to admit to culpable homicide which Oscar does not do. IMO Oscar either through honesty or brilliance beat Nel at his own game in this exchange.
3) Oscar has stuck to the core of his original version of that morning.
4) Oscar opened wide his front door, after he had been screaming, after the gunshots, and I think it bends the realms of logic to think he did so with the intentions of toting Reeva’s body off somewhere after the loudness of events that just happened.
5) Oscar did admit to killing Reeva,(7:17) his exact words were “My mistake was that I took Reeva’s life Mi’ lady”. Nel demanded that Oscar not only state that he mistakenly took Reeva’s life but Nel insisted “You killed her you shot and killed her won’t you take responsibility for that.” To which Oscar responded “I did Mi’Lady”.
6) Nell can and did outwit Oscar at points, he twisted Oscar’s words and I don’t believe that will be lost on Mi’lady, one instance of this is when Nel chastised Oscar when Oscar admitted that he was trying to understand the implications of his own answers to Nel’s questions. IMO Oscar said exactly what he meant, Oscar is horrendously sorry that he killed Reeva, but it was unintentional and Oscar poorly but correctly stated that Nel was playing semantics in order to get Oscar to admit premeditated murder.
7) The scream testimonies are inconclusive.
8) I think the video (8:30) showing Oscar firing guns and talking about a Zombie brain will be seen as the parlor stunt that it was and that Oscar was very accurate in his assessment in saying that it carried no relevance.
9) Nel’s nonsense of saying that Oscar was getting emotional when it was convenient for him was in stark opposition to the recorded history of the trial. More importantly was the arrow shot across the bow by Judge Masipa when she said “It’s fine, he can be emotional, he has been emotional, I don’t think you can ask him why, now, he has been emotional throughout.”
10) Oscar sounds like a woman when he gets emotional; there is no reason to think if the morning unfolded on a similar fashion in which he has told it did, to think that his screaming could not have easily been mistaken for a screaming woman.
11) The difference between whisper and low tone is a nonissue.
12) The scene was contaminated by poor police work which makes the grand photographic evidence, of Oscar’s story being impossible because of what the photographs show, a moot point.
I think Masipa has shown sound judgment in the past and will continue to do so in this case, I will respect her decision. I also think that the assessors, one a former defense attorney and one a newly minted academic are going to be Defense friendly.
I believe Nel is more interested in his own ego than getting to the facts.
That Oscar has character issues and some histrionic traits does not make him a cold blooded killer. Nor IMO has the evidence proven him such so far. I think his remorse and emotion is for both Reeva and himself.
I listened to OP's testimony and at no time did I think he sounded like a woman but that's just my opinion. Also, his ex-grirlfriend, ST, testified that she had heard OP screaming on occassion, at her and at other people, and she never thought he ever sounded like a woman. Dr. Stipp also testified that he heard a man yell help help help from the balcony that night---as we know, that was OP.