Oscar Pistorius trial commences in Pretoria, South Africa. Includes Court video.

[Amazon]

Grrrr! Very long day at work, get home, slip into PJs, open a bottle of sauvignon and you tube..... to find that case adjourned for over a week!! (of course I hope the assessor is okay and it's nothing serious). Now he has an extra week with the coach to perfect his story 

[Amazon]

Oscar P. is expected to take the dock tomorrow morning (fri. 28th). I am looking foward to his cross; I hope Nel is up to the task. I would start with the firearms charges OP has also pleaded not guilty to; expose OP as an obvious liar about his reckless use of a handgun, twice. Then hit him hard about the murder of Reeva.

It should be fascinating.

The crux of this case (i.e. the issue of premeditation to get the extra whallop on the sentence) is all about OP's mindset at the time - i.e. his fear of intruders, fear for his life/threat against him at the time, his vulnerability because of disability etc. If he didn't testify, the court would have to judge the available evidence of his mindset at the time of the murder (i.e. not much if he doesn't tell them) versus what a reasonable person is his position would fear, given the circumstances. If he does testify - and he will for that reason,  he will focus on all that stuff, but he also has to destroy any evidence that he knew it was her - i.e. the screams that were likely, given the state evidence of the sequence of the shots and witnesses to the screams - which is why they are trying to assert that the first shot was to the head and that the witnesses heard the sounds of the cricket bat on the door. I'm not sure that his gun ho attitude comes into it really. It is all about what happened that night and the circumstances that lead up to it.

What I really want to know is
1) why OP went back upstairs whilst Stipp was attending to Reeva and what he did whilst he was up there - the defence allege contamination/ tampering by police of the crime scene, but what did OP do whilst he was up there? a little tampering of his own no doubt. Also, why was Reeva surrounded by plastic bin liners? Who the hell would fetch bin liners in that situation?
2) whats his excuse for taking a phone away from the scene and what did he do with it before the defence team handed it over.
3) who the hell would think to call their lawyer within literally minutes of these circumstances?

Oh gawd, I could go on forever with these!!

Nel has ensured he has put a lot before the court without dwelling on it during the prosecution phase, so he's going to bring much more into play during the defence phase. He also didn't call OP's mate Sander, as he's much more useful to trip up in cross examination for the defence than he would ever be as a hostile prosecution witness. Remember this when you are wondering why Nel didn't call certain witnesses.

[Tim Invictus]

I know, I cleared my schedule all day to watch the case live and  . What a bummer and why the hell isn't one of the court officials designated as replacement assessor in the event one of them is taken ill!

Amazon did you hear Dr. Stipp and wife testify that within an hour of returning to bed after trying to save Reeva's life, the security gate called to inform them Oscar's lawyers want to speak to them? This was at like 5.20am .... Reeva would still have been warm and Oscar is already setting up his story!  Hardly the actions of a man who has just made a tragic mistake as he will have us believe!

I actually think Oscar's gung ho attitude to guns is highly relevant. His ex-girlfriend's testimony about the incident a car was following them and he stopped his car and approached the car behind raising his gun to the window is highly indicative of his gun first attitude. This car could have been press or a fan but OP went str8 for his gun!

I didn't know about the bin liners! That seems strange! As does carrying Reeva down to the front door! I wonder if OP's first instinct was to get rid of the body but he was thwarted by security and Dr. Stipp turning up?

10 days to wait now! Ggggrrrrr. With a bit of luck Shrien Dewani will be appearing in a South African court before OP's next visit. I really hope they televise that trial too ..... if it ever happens!

[John]

Not sure about the pre meditated aspect in the Pistorius case.  From the evidence he appears to be hot headed and tended to outbursts of rage.  Probably an argument which went too far and as someone already suggested maybe she was for walking and just knew too much about him.

[Tim Invictus]

Not sure about the pre meditated aspect in the Pistorius case.  From the evidence he appears to be hot headed and tended to outbursts of rage.  Probably an argument which went too far and as someone already suggested maybe she was for walking and just knew too much about him.

Surely shooting someone who is hiding from you through a locked door, has to be premeditated. Sure it was an outburst of rage but going to get the gun then firing 4 times is absolutely deliberate and premeditated. It does not have to be a long standing plan to be premeditated.

[Amazon]

Yes Tim, but going back to my previous post, this case is all going to be about OP's belief at the time, which he will argue made him act in putative self defence. As per the link I posted

"Where an accused is found to have genuinely believed that his life was in danger and that he was using reasonable means to avert an attack on himself or his property, he may escape conviction for murder on the grounds that he lacked the requisite intention.

As intention is tested subjectively, the pivotal question would be what the actual state of mind of the accused was at the time when he killed the victim. If an accused genuinely but mistakenly believed that an attack was imminent or that his life was in danger, the court will find that he lacked the intention to be convicted of murder".

So, OP has to prove two big things to get to anywhere near a culpable homicide decision (which is his best case scenario as he admits to firing the shots) and therefore a sentence at the discretion of the judge:

1) that he had the requisite genuine belief - which is where all the "he's vulnerable because of disability, has had death threats, has a fear of crime, has been a victim of crime numerous times before yadda, yadda"...AND
2) because of 1) he has to prove a genuine belief that the person in the toilet was an intruder when he fired, i.e. that he didn't know it was Reeva, which is why the defence are trying to assert that the first shot was to the head and there could be no screaming, rubbishing the witnesses who testified re screaming etc. (if this were true, the fact that he was happy to fire 4 black talons into some poor probably black guy gives cause for a different debate altogether)

The judge has already intimated that the state has made a case to answer for the offence charged, i.e premeditated murder. Remember when Nel asked for an adjournment beacause of the public holidays? She said then that she thought his request reasonable because the state had made a case. Roux never asked for the case to be thrown out when the prosecution rested, which is common in SA, so he obviously realised that too. So, OP has to go for the putative self defence as his only escape, so he has to testify, as the test is subjective and if he doesn't, the court will just infer his state of mind from all the other evidence (most of which is negative to him). He wants to be a Rudi Visage and get away with it completely,  and is peddling his disability, 'love' of Reeva, vomitting and bible reading etc..to overcome all the other negative stuff i.e. gun ho attitude, text messages indicating all not well, general arrogance....

[Mr Moderator]

Just as you mention Bible reading it reminded me of a comment on Sky News today when Alex Crawford mentioned that Pistorius and his sister are reading religious books in court.  Are they trying to impress the audience or seek eternal salvation?

[Tim Invictus]

The 'Oscar screams like a woman' testimony should be interesting! I will be very surprised if the judge gives it an ounce of credence!

[Sherlock Holmes]

Bin liners were used to staunch blood flow, apparently.

[Tim Invictus]

I wonder if some of the strange facts of the case will ever be explained?

* Why was there blood splatter over the headboard of the bed?
* Blood spots on the duvet?
* Damage to the bedroom door?
* How come the very credible Doctor and his wife both testified to hearing two lots of three shots?

I am sure there are many more unanswered questions.

[John]

The phone texts repeated again today on Sky News reveal an insecure individual who was extremely jealous of Reeva and her interactions with others.

[abs]

Surely shooting someone who is hiding from you through a locked door, has to be premeditated. Sure it was an outburst of rage but going to get the gun then firing 4 times is absolutely deliberate and premeditated. It does not have to be a long standing plan to be premeditated.

I agree, the fourth and last shot to the head was the one that killed Reeva. He would have heard her scream after the first shot, I believe it was to her hip. He could have stopped right there, and Reeva could have lived. He didn´t. He CHOSE to shoot three more times. That was to deliberately kill her = premeditated murder.
Imagine the torture, fright and despair she must have gone through, imagine the screams of panic and pain, which Oscar HEARD. Yet there was no mercy, he must be punished accordingly.

[John]

I agree, the fourth and last shot to the head was the one that killed Reeva. He would have heard her scream after the first shot, I believe it was to her hip. He could have stopped right there, and Reeva could have lived. He didn´t. He CHOSE to shoot three more times. That was to deliberately kill her = premeditated murder.
Imagine the torture, fright and despair she must have gone through, imagine the screams of panic and pain, which Oscar HEARD. Yet there was no mercy, he must be punished accordingly.

You might find this piece on premeditated murder in South Africa of interest.



www.books.google.co.uk/books?id=ggxAhLBuOegC&pg=PA469&lpg=PA469&dq=premeditated+murder+laws+in+south+africa&source=bl&ots=0Y3UrQOalm&sig=BN0vGlX0WTJd6QEtMMbKMTzlmJs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hSo5U4-tEamN7QbGk4GgCg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=premeditated%20murder%20laws%20in%20south%20africa&f=false

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yes Tim, but going back to my previous post, this case is all going to be about OP's belief at the time, which he will argue made him act in putative self defence. As per the link I posted

"Where an accused is found to have genuinely believed that his life was in danger and that he was using reasonable means to avert an attack on himself or his property, he may escape conviction for murder on the grounds that he lacked the requisite intention.

As intention is tested subjectively, the pivotal question would be what the actual state of mind of the accused was at the time when he killed the victim. If an accused genuinely but mistakenly believed that an attack was imminent or that his life was in danger, the court will find that he lacked the intention to be convicted of murder".

So, OP has to prove two big things to get to anywhere near a culpable homicide decision (which is his best case scenario as he admits to firing the shots) and therefore a sentence at the discretion of the judge:

1) that he had the requisite genuine belief - which is where all the "he's vulnerable because of disability, has had death threats, has a fear of crime, has been a victim of crime numerous times before yadda, yadda"...AND
2) because of 1) he has to prove a genuine belief that the person in the toilet was an intruder when he fired, i.e. that he didn't know it was Reeva, which is why the defence are trying to assert that the first shot was to the head and there could be no screaming, rubbishing the witnesses who testified re screaming etc. (if this were true, the fact that he was happy to fire 4 black talons into some poor probably black guy gives cause for a different debate altogether)

The judge has already intimated that the state has made a case to answer for the offence charged, i.e premeditated murder. Remember when Nel asked for an adjournment beacause of the public holidays? She said then that she thought his request reasonable because the state had made a case. Roux never asked for the case to be thrown out when the prosecution rested, which is common in SA, so he obviously realised that too. So, OP has to go for the putative self defence as his only escape, so he has to testify, as the test is subjective and if he doesn't, the court will just infer his state of mind from all the other evidence (most of which is negative to him). He wants to be a Rudi Visage and get away with it completely,  and is peddling his disability, 'love' of Reeva, vomitting and bible reading etc..to overcome all the other negative stuff i.e. gun ho attitude, text messages indicating all not well, general arrogance....

Yes, but doesn't the fact that he fired illegally - i.e. contrary to SA laws governing the use of a firearm in self defense - and knew that he was firing illegally (as demonstrated by the prosecution in court showing copies of the written test he took for a firearm license) undermine all that?

In other words, provision in SA law for firing at an unknown target in self defense ( and other criteria also ignored that night by OP) does not exist, so how could he argue, legally speaking, that that was what he was doing?

[Sherlock Holmes]

The 'Oscar screams like a woman' testimony should be interesting! I will be very surprised if the judge gives it an ounce of credence!

Perhaps Advocate Nel will call upon him to give a demonstration.

Presumably Barry Roux, having been the one to come up with the idea, will be happy to have his client oblige.