Trial Discussion Thread #47 - 14.07.8, Day 38

[foxbluff]

[Bolding below is by Vip Room website]
An unforgettable evening indeed!! Since there was a "come as superhero" costume party in Vip Rm on Saturday night, I'm wondering if OP came dressed as himself.

http://www.thevip.co.za

WELCOME TO THE VIP ROOM
For a night filled with glamour, elegance and grandiose, slip on your diamante dancing shoes or designer suit and dance the night away at the most ostentatious venue in Joburg.

Catering for the nouveau riche, The VIP Room will make sure you have an extraordinary time, offering its exclusive clientele superlative service, music and ambience.

Located in the heart of Sandton’s bustling business district, the VIP room is Jozi’s premier nightlife destination, catering to a discerning audience with higher sensibilities and tastes. The VIP Room is an intimate 300 square meter space designed with a special form of luxurious informality and splendour.

The unsurpassed service will ensure that each guest will leave having had an unforgettable evening, whether it be experiencing some of the finest whiskeys known to man or just superlative company, this exquisitely designed venue never fails to please.

 

[4MrsB]

Oh My...this could have been an even bigger problem (considering alcohol being consumed that evening). It appears that Reeva's dear friend (the one she lived with) GINA MYERS was also at The VIP Room Saturday night.

Several pictures of her dressed up as Catwoman for the Superhero Squad event held that night.

https://www.facebook.com/VIPRoomJHB...8590906573709/539564546143009/?type=3&theater

 

[liesbeth]

Yes. Roux has to come up with a reason for his appeal that Masipa believes an appellate panel of judges may consider and potentially find a different verdict given those reasons, issues, or facts that Roux alleges in his appeal. If it seems fantastic or frivolous or something that she has already dealt with she can and should reject the application. Right now it seems that the issues may be the missing extension cord and witnesses refusing to testify because their voices would be broadcast, but Roux could have compelled them to testify anyway and he did not.

Indeed. So at the moment we have the following possible grounds for appeal:

1. Missing extension cord
2. Witnesses refusing to testify because of televised trial
3. Dr Fine is unable to testify and the Prosecution refuses to share their psychiatrist (Dr Kotze) with the Defense/Defence
4. The leaked video of a mobile Oscar running and walking on his stumps and his legs left uncovered in the background
5. If the judge does not take Oscar's disability into account, I'm sure they'll use it for grounds to appeal

I think the Defence leaked the video hoping that Mr Nel would try to use it in court. I'm guessing that if Mr Nel had tried to use it, the Defence would have asked for a mistrial. Clever Mr Nel didn't use it. At least not directly. But the video was the elephant in the room and, in my opinion, it made Derman think carefully about the veracity of his testimony. (He told the truth about the possibility of, for example, OP walking backwards. And also...Derman was suddenly very eager to explain his definition of running while in his earlier testimony he was quite content just to say that OP could not run.) I leave it on the list because I'm certain that, if there is a way, the DT will use it.

 

[AJ_DS]

Respectfully snipped

With respect:

- The standard for guilt is beyond reasonable doubt, not reasonably probable.
- In judging a defence of putative self defence, whether the accused was entitled to believe he was in danger is not the question, the question is whether he did in fact believe he was in danger.
- If the judge thinks its culpable homicide, this is because she has already answered the reasonable person test, this is not a question to subsequently address.

And the biggie:

- it is OP's clear evidence that he did NOT fire in self defence, because he did not fire intentionally. My understanding of the evidence is he says he thought he was going to be attacked and as a result he underwent a temporary uncontrollable fear response where he was conscious, which he remembers, but where he was not in control of firing 4 shots through the door. This is the big question the judge will decide on IMO, and it will be the foundation to reject his whole story. The 2 unbelievable claims, this and finger not on the trigger in Tashas, destroy his whole credibility IMO.

Respectfully, BiB is incorrect.

The way you are formulating it makes it sound like the accused simply has to state that he perceived his life was threatened and if he is believed by the Judge, that is enough for PPD… that is NOT so.

1. The Judge has to subjectively evaluate the nature and dangerousness of the perceived threat as described by the accused but also using peripheral evidence.

If the Judge concludes the accused had a subjectively reasonable cause to believe his life was threatened, the Judge goes to the second step :

2. The Judge has to objectively evaluate the possible means available to the accused to extract himself from said perceived life-threatening situation.

If the Judge concludes the accused had no objectively reasonable means of escape, the Judge goes to the third and final step :

3. The Judge has to objectively evaluate the accused response to the perceived life-threatening situation.

If the Judge concludes the accused response to said perceived threat was objectively reasonable, the Judge may find in favor of PPD… but FIRST, she must completely reject the State's evidence and case for murder.

If the any of the 3 steps fail, PPD will also fail.

Considering OP fired not once but 4 times, well grouped shots, with a change in trajectory between the 1st and the remaining 3 shots and with a pause between the 1st and the remaining 3 shots… makes OP's alleged 'unintentional uncontrollable fear response discharge of the firearm' impossible and totally unbelievable.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Did sudden fame and fortune change Oscar Pistorius? Certain media accounts and opinion pieces recount his history and say exactly that.

Reeva, that sweet, bright soul, got caught up in his personal crossfire. I’ve no doubt that had it not been Reeva it would have eventually been another woman, given OP’s history and volatile personality. She simply had the extreme misfortune of crossing his path and falling in love with the carefully-crafted Myth of Oscar.

 

[liesbeth]

Pistorius: If guilty, can he appeal? Would he win it?

Attorneys David Dadic and Ulrich Roux answer the following questions from Nick vd Leek.

1. Is Oscar likely to appeal and if so on what basis? And on what basis is he most likely to be granted an appeal?

2. How likely is an appeal? Masipa and Nel seem to be closing off all possible doors in order to hold off an appeal. Under what circumstances are appeals generally denied? And in an instance where one has unlimited funds and expert advice what angle/or grounds are most likely to succeed?

3. Take us through the appeals process. It will take place in Bloem. How long is likely to last? Who will be present? What is likely to happen? Can his sentence theoretically be made worse?

4. If Oscar was your client what would you advise him?​

Edit: David Dadic on Twitter

Apologies if the link's already posted.

 

[AJ_DS]

The hilariously stupid thing about OP's Defence is that instead of focusing on a single Defence he tried to have 2 of them.

OP knew that PPD was a Hail-Mary attempt at best :

1. Subjectively reasonable perceived threat… was somewhat shaky WITH the disability, vulnerability, GAD and Fight/Flight… without those, the first step would be likely to fail.

2. Objectively reasonable means of escape… was not so much of concern, IMO… it could be argued either way.

3. Objectively reasonable response… was problematic to say the least, considering the number of shots fired, the irrefutable ballistics evidence and the witness testimonies.

OP knew that involuntary discharge was a ludicrous Defence on its own

……….so OP thought it would be a great idea to combine 2 Defences with the hope that they would bolster each other sufficiently.

IMO, doing so made OP's Defence simultaneously, less credible and less likely to succeed.

 

[Interested Bystander]

She could have assisted had she known in advance which test he was facing next and had time sufficient time to go through them with him beforehand. I find this unlikely. Also, these tests have a range of inbuilt scales included to uncover instances of faking or evasiveness, denial, faking good (ie, lying). She would know which questions he needed to answer in a certain way to put him within the normal ranges. It is possible she could have influenced the results with sufficient coaching if, she knew what test was being done next. To what degree is impossible to quantify. If she tried to coach him on a range of tests, she'd more likely do more harm than good as it would most likely show up on the relevant scales.

However, it matters not in terms of the trial. He was found to be sane, he knew right from wrong on the night he killed Reeva. Even if he was coached and reduced otherwise elevated levels of narcissism, sociopathy or even psychopathy, to within the normal ranges, it remains that the judge still has to decide if, given the evidence, he reasonably probably knew it was Reeva in that toilet when he fired upon her and killed her. If so, it's premeditated murder. If she decides to accept his version that he didn't know then she has to ask was he entitled to think he was in danger because of a noise? If not, then it's murder. If the answer is yes, and she thinks it was culpable homicide, was his reaction proportionate to that of a "reasonable" man confronted with the same situation? According to the psychiatric and psychological evaluations, on the night he killed her he had no mitigating psychological factors. It's all down to the evidence presented to the court. On that alone will he stand or fall.

The judge and assessors have only to believe that a woman was heard screaming and he will be guilty of murder (premeditated?). However, as I said when we had a poll some long time ago, I think he will get off with CH but IMO that would be a really bad call by the judiciary and I would question that the judgement had been fudged because of who he is.

 

[Cherwell]

Pistorius: If guilty, can he appeal? Would he win it?

Attorneys David Dadic and Ulrich Roux answer the following questions from Nick vd Leek.

From the above link: " .... his bail will be extended to the hearing of the appeal so assuming he is sentenced to prison he will at least buy himself a bit more time at home pending the outcome of the appeal."

I so hope he's found guilty on those firearms charges, given a jail sentence and refused leave to appeal it. raying:

 

[luvmygarden]

OP has proven that his gun in hand gets him in trouble to the extreme. As well as his mouth and what extreme verbiage comes out to build his self image.
If what he claimed at the bar is true the other night re: his families connections he hurts others without conscience. Reeva was affected by his extreme verbal diarrhea. We have evidence of that in messages to and from OP. The intruder story is just another extreme.
Tell us OP what really happened !!!!

 

[MeeBee]

Warmth is 35. This means OP measures significantly low on this test, well outside the normal range, and in fact this is the standout result in terms of the numbers, no cherry picking needed.

The report states: "Warmth (WRM) - The WRM scale provides a measure of the extent to which an individual is empathic and engaging versus withdrawing, rejecting and mistrustful in interpersonal relationships. Item content involves being sociable, sympathetic, affectionate, and patient with others." BBM

The PAI manual states: "Assesses the extent to which a person is interested in supportive and empathic personal relationships. A bipolar dimension, with a warm, outgoing style at the high end and a cold, rejecting style at the low end." BBM

From interviews, Scholtz report says OP was described as "argumentative", "controlling" and "suspicious".

Sounds like a recipe for conflict and arguments in a relationship to me, and that it could come seemingly from nowhere at any time. Remember, messages were read out in court where Reeva was arguing with OP about him being "cold and stand-offish".

Remember, there was also a huge argument where Reeva was most upset that she had planned to tell OP she loved him, but then felt unable due to his behaviour. We know she planned again to tell him for the first time, and can assume she would have been very sensitive to any cold or rejecting behaviour on that evening. Remember, this was Valentines day and for Reeva at least a new dawn in the relationship - this can be a time where even normal people don't know how to react or start raising doubts or suspicions or ask about things from the past before accepting the commitment, sounds like OP would be more prone to this and a potential conflict. Remember, Reeva had told OP about planning and then withholding her "I love you", who's to say she wasn't forced to do this again, and the valentines card is in fact evidence of OP's motive not the the other way round...

Very interestingly, Scholtz writes "His style of conflict resolution is to talk through the situation or remove himself from the situation". To me, the implication is clear - if he perceives that the other person is not talking things through rationally and to his liking, ie a typical argument, then he cannot cope and instead has to leave. Why, what happens if he cannot or does not leave? I think we have found that out already unfortunately.

Yes, WRM measures how warm he is in interpersonal relationships, it does not measure the capacity to feel empathy as something low in that category would be a red flag for a serious PD like sociopathy or narcissistic PD. Given what we learned about OP being mistrusting of people and having difficulty in relationships, this score doesn't surprise me. I don't know how far outside the normal range it is.

It is cherry picked because it is selectively ignoring all the other points in the report that point to OP's lack of narcissism, his lack of rage or anger, his anxiety stemming from being disabled...that's exactly what the initial post was doing in response to someone else. Narrowing the whole thing down to this one scale. I find that misleading and silly. As junebug pointed out, the actual score for empathy was normal (if she can be believed). Personally, I trust the psychs are more qualified than any of us to make these findings. Nothing in the report that I've heard so far is a huge red flag to me. That's significant.

As for the rest, I have already posted my opinions quite a bit on OP and RS and the arguments they had. They were just normal arguments, viewed from the outside from people who weren't there but are quick to out their own spin on it.

 

[redheart]

RSBM:

As for the rest, I have already posted my opinions quite a bit on OP and RS and the arguments they had. They were just normal arguments, viewed from the outside from people who weren't there but are quick to out their own spin on it.

That's true that the arguments are viewed through the framework of our own knowledge and experiences, but that door swings both ways. Claiming that the arguments are just normal, harmless arguments is also putting one's own spin on it. Many other people see them as much more disturbing. Who's to say for sure who is right? Let's not kid ourselves that saying they are normal arguments is any less spin than saying they are ominous arguments.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

OK, I’ll say it. It needs to be said.

God didn’t save Reeva - why would he save Oscar?

We know the truth. He knows the truth. He’s terrified.

But you keep drunk-Bible-tweeting, Oz.

 

[Cherwell]

Yes, WRM measures how warm he is in interpersonal relationships, it does not measure the capacity to feel empathy as something low in that category would be a red flag for a serious PD like sociopathy or narcissistic PD. Given what we learned about OP being mistrusting of people and having difficulty in relationships, this score doesn't surprise me. I don't know how far outside the normal range it is.

It is cherry picked because it is selectively ignoring all the other points in the report that point to OP's lack of narcissism, his lack of rage or anger, his anxiety stemming from being disabled...that's exactly what the initial post was doing in response to someone else. Narrowing the whole thing down to this one scale. I find that misleading and silly. As junebug pointed out, the actual score for empathy was normal (if she can be believed). Personally, I trust the psychs are more qualified than any of us to make these findings. Nothing in the report that I've heard so far is a huge red flag to me. That's significant.

As for the rest, I have already posted my opinions quite a bit on OP and RS and the arguments they had. They were just normal arguments, viewed from the outside from people who weren't there but are quick to out their own spin on it.

I'm sure he's a lovely chap really. :heart:

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Let’s just put the entire case out there in one tiny nut shell -

Oscar Pistorius is a spoiled, entitled, supremely arrogant rich boy, an adrenaline-junkie with anger and control issues who thinks he can get away with murder and party like Reeva Steenkamp never existed.

Life has consequences.

Welcome to reality, Oz.

 

[pandax81]

Respectfully, BiB is incorrect.

The way you are formulating it makes it sound like the accused simply has to state that he perceived his life was threatened and if he is believed by the Judge, that is enough for PPD… that is NOT so.

1. The Judge has to subjectively evaluate the nature and dangerousness of the perceived threat as described by the accused but also using peripheral evidence.

If the Judge concludes the accused had a subjectively reasonable cause to believe his life was threatened, the Judge goes to the second step :

2. The Judge has to objectively evaluate the possible means available to the accused to extract himself from said perceived life-threatening situation.

If the Judge concludes the accused had no objectively reasonable means of escape, the Judge goes to the third and final step :

3. The Judge has to objectively evaluate the accused response to the perceived life-threatening situation.

If the Judge concludes the accused response to said perceived threat was objectively reasonable, the Judge may find in favor of PPD… but FIRST, she must completely reject the State's evidence and case for murder.

If the any of the 3 steps fail, PPD will also fail.

Considering OP fired not once but 4 times, well grouped shots, with a change in trajectory between the 1st and the remaining 3 shots and with a pause between the 1st and the remaining 3 shots… makes OP's alleged 'unintentional uncontrollable fear response discharge of the firearm' impossible and totally unbelievable.

Hi, thanks for your post. The easy bit - you are correct, I didn't mean to be setting out all the questions that need to be considered, I apologise if this wasn't clear - I was just replying to the one question I quoted, as you rightly point out there are questions of necessity and proportion too.

However, on that question, I think we need to explore this further. We are discussing specifically 'PPD' and a judgement on murder, not culpable homicide - this is clear by looking at the context of the post I am replying to.

As far as I know, murder requires dolus, intent, and therefore the mental state of the accused is key - if the judge finds the accused did genuinely believe he was under attack (and all the other criteria), then he did not intend to unlawfully kill, and must be acquitted of murder. You say there is an extra test, was he also reasonable in forming his belief (the same thing as the original poster) - I don't see how this should be directly relevant to a murder charge, rather it is highly relevant to culpable homicide which then must be considered.

I don't see how on your understanding someone can be acquitted of murder then found guilty of culpable homicide, if you have already deemed them to have acted reasonably. My understanding is you can be acquitted of murder with a defence of PPD for being mistaken and then found guilty of culpable homicide for being unreasonable in your mistake.

I'm not saying I'm definitely right, I just want to explore this further in friendly fashion - if you could explain where you're coming from or have some references maybe, we are all anticipating the judgement and it would be helpful to know the law.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

"If I killed the woman I loved by accident (and had no children to live for) I would then turn the gun on myself. ... If he walks free then that opens the gates to any man to shoot his wife and get away with it and that would be a dreadful mistake." - Jack Smith biznews.com

Bulls eye. Defense keeps stating that OP is suicidal. Seriously? Was he “suicidal” when he was partying with friends in April 2013 at the Kitchen Bar? Was he "suicidal" when he made a snide, cryptic comment in court to Gina Myers? Is he “suicidal” when he’s with his new girlfriend, 19 year old Leah Skye Malan?

If Judge Masipa does not convict him of at least culpable homicide (I’m betting she goes for murder), this would set an extremely dangerous legal precedent in a country already beset with rampant murder. One could then murder with absolute impunity - shoot at anything or anyone, seen or unseen - on the mere defense of being “terrified” of a “noise”. The Ooops-My-Bad Defense.

To believe OP’s fantastical story, one must believe that the “noise” constituted the “attack”. This bizarre notion is simply not rational to any sane mind.

 

[JuneBug67]

Nope you are right. The usual suspects on these boards don't have much empathy because they actually use their brains on the evidence provided rather than just "feel" OP's innocence.

I hope Roux uses this line of argument in closing. "Please have empathy for OP. Just look at him with those disabled kids reading the bible!" Lol

Empathy is a part of clear thinking. How many times have people implied that those who have serious doubts about Oscar's guilt have poor reasoning skills? Dozens. However the one piece of balanced, professional evidence we have on Oscar's character and pathology supports what that group perceived, not what the hang 'em high gang has said over and over. At least two posters on the reasonable doubt side suggested Oscar had PTSD long before the report was out and in one case before the evaluation was even proposed. Others who had doubt supported that idea with comments or thanks. On the contrary the report clinically eliminates all Websleuths diagnoses of narcissism, psychopathy, predilection to abuse and violence and more. So who is it that is actually thinking straight?

 

[AJ_DS]

Hi, thanks for your post. The easy bit - you are correct, I didn't mean to be setting out all the questions that need to be considered, I apologise if this wasn't clear - I was just replying to the one question I quoted, as you rightly point out there are questions of necessity and proportion too.

However, on that question, I think we need to explore this further. We are discussing specifically 'PPD' and a judgement on murder, not culpable homicide - this is clear by looking at the context of the post I am replying to.

As far as I know, murder requires dolus, intent, and therefore the mental state of the accused is key - if the judge finds the accused did genuinely believe he was under attack (and all the other criteria), then he did not intend to unlawfully kill, and must be acquitted of murder. You say there is an extra test, was he also reasonable in forming his belief (the same thing as the original poster) - I don't see how this should be directly relevant to a murder charge, rather it is highly relevant to culpable homicide which then must be considered.

I don't see how on your understanding someone can be acquitted of murder then found guilty of culpable homicide, if you have already deemed them to have acted reasonably. My understanding is you can be acquitted of murder with a defence of PPD for being mistaken and then found guilty of culpable homicide for being unreasonable in your mistake.

I'm not saying I'm definitely right, I just want to explore this further in friendly fashion - if you could explain where you're coming from or have some references maybe, we are all anticipating the judgement and it would be helpful to know the law.

Thanks Pandax

I'm not quite sure I follow all of your analysis… I will try and respond the best I can with my limited understanding

Murder with intent… the mental state of the accused is not key… unless I misunderstand your meaning of 'mental state'… If OP knew it was Reeva behind that door when he discharged his firearm 4 times, OP's intent was to end Reeva, i.e. murder with intent

The PT case and DT case do not intermingle… they are 2 separate cases based on the same evidence… First Masipa will address the PT case of murder… If she finds it valid and beyond a reasonable doubt, she will NOT evaluate the DT case of PPD… If the PT case fails the test, Masipa will address the DT case… If she does NOT find it valid and beyond a reasonable doubt, then she will consider an intermediary verdict as culpable homicide.

Subjectively reasonable in forming the belief his life was threatened… not the same as objectively reasonable

BiB… Not sure about that… proffering a Defence cannot acquit you of a charge… Murder has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt independently of your Defence

PPD has strict rules and a lot of Jurisprudence… if the accused obtains it then it's because the 3 criteria were met.

This is not a guilty of muder or innocent type of Trial… OP has admitted he killed Reeva… so he has to prove that the killing of Reeva was a PPD or else he won't get that by default if the PT fails at murder

 

[Interested Bystander]

Yes, WRM measures how warm he is in interpersonal relationships, it does not measure the capacity to feel empathy as something low in that category would be a red flag for a serious PD like sociopathy or narcissistic PD. Given what we learned about OP being mistrusting of people and having difficulty in relationships, this score doesn't surprise me. I don't know how far outside the normal range it is.

It is cherry picked because it is selectively ignoring all the other points in the report that point to OP's lack of narcissism, his lack of rage or anger, his anxiety stemming from being disabled...that's exactly what the initial post was doing in response to someone else. Narrowing the whole thing down to this one scale. I find that misleading and silly. As junebug pointed out, the actual score for empathy was normal (if she can be believed). Personally, I trust the psychs are more qualified than any of us to make these findings. Nothing in the report that I've heard so far is a huge red flag to me. That's significant.

As for the rest, I have already posted my opinions quite a bit on OP and RS and the arguments they had. They were just normal arguments, viewed from the outside from people who weren't there but are quick to out their own spin on it.

BIB

How can "I'm scared of you sometimes and how you snap at me and how you will react to me" be considered normal? Fear in a relationship is most definitely not normal. If anyone is scared in a relationship, that relationship is abusive.

Their relationship was very young and OP admits only getting to know RS during January 2013. It didn't take long for him to frighten her, did it! The disagreements/rows/happened one after the other towards the end of January until the time he killed her.