Oscar Pistorius trial part 4

[Pennies]

Here you go.

I agree re. the conjecture. There's enough to think about without it, and unless there is evidence we'll never know so it is irrelevant.

Nerf - or anybody else, has anyone had any thoughts on the potential relevance of the magazine rack? All I can think of is the fact that OP is using it as part of his version, and so Nel is trying to prove that it could/couldn't have had the placement that OP wants it to have in order to back that up. I also don't understand why Nel was so keen to prove that the extra marks on her back were caused by shrapnel and not the magazine rack - again I'm assuming it's in order to disprove the location of the rack.

Reading back over your posts, again I am struck by how odd it is that during all this fear and panic, he did not at any point switch the light on.

Sorry, just to clarify my 'several sorts of murder...' imprecision - bold bits from Godot's link

MURDER – DOLUS DIRECTUS

Dolus Directus (direct intent), is where the accused meant to perpetrate the prohibited conduct, or to bring about the criminal consequence and where the consequences of an action were both foreseen and desired by the perpetrator. You want to kill someone, so you shoot him. In this case the perpetrator had a specific victim in mind and then went about killing him

In Pistorius' case he would have to know for sure it was Reeva there.

MURDER – DOLUS EVENTUALIS

Dolus eventualis exists where the accused does not mean to actually cause the unlawful consequence which follows from his conduct, but foresees or should foresee the possibility of the consequences ensuing, and nonetheless proceeds with his conduct.

It’s important to understand that in this crime, the identity of victim and existence of motive are not in question, what is in question is whether the conduct itself and the way it was done suffices as in intent to kill.

Until just now, I thought this might be relevant if he killed Reeva thinking she was an intruder, but I see now I was wrong.

CULPABLE HOMICIDE

Culpable homicide has been defined simply as the unlawful negligent killing of a human being. The essential difference with this crime from those mentioned above lies in the fact that the fault in this crime stems from negligence (culpa) and not intent.

I cannot see how he is not guilty of Culpable Homicide given that he did not effectively check whether Reeva was in the bedroom. He did not get any verbal confirmation before discharging his weapon.

"particularly what OP says @ 16mins 50 - what do you think?"

Something about he wanted to ask Reeva why she isn't phoning the police?

"Voice" well he obviously did at some point. Question is when? I thought he said it was on by the time he stated bashing the door with the bat?

Nobody else hearing "I shouted at Reeva why is she calling the police"??

Member:

he says 'screaming m'lady, I was scared I wanted to... ask Reeva why, if she's phoning the police, I was scared that there was someone coming out of the bathroom'

Agree voice, and was he ever asked how he could tell Reeva wasn't hiding if it was dark?

Ah, ok - I thought I was hearing a Freudian slip & wondered why it hadn't been pounced on!

Yes it is why he said "I don't know" about the bullets.
It is why he won't admit that HE is responsible for Reeva's death.
It is why he said he shot the "door" "accidentally".
Why the gun in the restaurant miraculously discharged itself in his hands.

He is trying to avoid any admission at all that he knew there was a person behind that door and that he was shooting them. Even though, perversely, that is the crux of his defense.

has anyone had any thoughts on the potential relevance of the magazine rack?

I'm afraid I have none.

With Nel disproving that it was moved as Pistorius says - I think he'd have to. Simply because you can't have incorrect evidence bandied about the courtroom.

I had the idea that Roux was gearing up to disproving that the gunshots happened in the way/order that the Prosecution Expert said they did. I don't know, because we'll have to see tomorrow. I wonder though, if he's about to come out with the idea that the hip shot wasn't first.

From what I could make out, the prosecution witness said that the bruises around the back were caused by the ricocheting second bullet. This witness is saying that they were solely related to the rack.

Magazine rack. This is my understanding.
OP claimed he fired as he hears a noise like the lock sliding back. As the lock never moved he says with hindsight it must have been the magazine rack. He claims that Reeva was slumped against the wall, and the rack was on the rhs. It was usually on the back wall opposite the toilet door.
His own defence tried to argue against the evidence that the rack had to be in the usual place as Reeva is marked by its edges. But they didn't succeed.
OP needs the rack to move in order for the noise to have happened. But why would he lie about it's positioning and not just say it had been moved to wherever it was found? Because then the housekeeper would have said it couldn't have been moved, it was always there.

Late to this (and NC'd after the hacking thing) - has anyone addressed whether Reeva was actually in the process of going to the loo? Surely forensics can check this?

don't take my word for it though member, that's just what i think I can hear.

I think it could be If, is or isn't but listened a few times and settled on 'if'

"has anyone addressed whether Reeva was actually in the process of going to the loo? " They said her bladder had very little urine in it.

Though she could have wet herself when shot?

someone else will probably know

I think culpable homicide could be easier to pin on him but Dolus Eventualis isn't out of the question; firing a gun in an enclosed space is likely to cause injury; firing four times in an enclosed space (with black talon bullets)designed to kill.

I think I agree with LookingThroughTheFog, His version could just about be true, although highly highly improbable (beyond belief in my view), but even so he could still be guilty of murder due to firing lethal bullets at someone for no good reason.
As for the speculation about a diagnosis of NPD, I don't really think that will be relevant to the judge, nor should it be. You are on shaky ground if you start diagnosing people. Does that mean they would then have diminished responsibility? Like someone with a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia would?
Hopefully the judge has plenty of experience listening to and deciphering lies.

was he ever asked how he could tell Reeva wasn't hiding if it was dark?

Is the answer to this tied in with the grilling he was getting over the 'checking' Nel was very determined to see when he was checking and when he wasn't. He checked the bed by feel, he got down by the side of the bed where he told Reeva to get and didn't check there (but he argues with the size of the area, he would have tripped over her if she'd been there), and he checked the curtains. All by hand, all in the dark.

I suppose the argument was, if she were at the other side of the room, she'd have said something while he was checking.

Nel did pounce on why Pistorius didn't check the bedroom door, as that was then the most plausible place for her to be if she weren't in the bedroom.

This is when I got over-excited about the point at which he guessed/suspected/thought/knew for certain Reeva was in the toilet.

I wondered if anyone who was starting to think his story was made up is now wondering if it might be true since the Defence have been back?

I certainly have had points today where I have thought 'oh, maybe he is telling the truth after all' particularly when the jeans thing happened - at least I can't help thinking the scene is so tampered with that nothing can be proven.

I think if it can be shown she didn't have much urine on her bladder or hadn't wet herself (how awful this all is, poor Reeva) - then surely that begs the question again of why go to the toilet in the dark?

There clearly was no flushing of the loo was there? Or OP would have heard and mentioned it?

Though she could have wet herself when shot?

I'm relatively certain that they would be able to detect urine residue on the shorts she was wearing, or would have urine mixed with the blood on the floor.

I don't think such a thing would have been overlooked - if not, they would have qualified the 'had little urine in her bladder' with 'but there was a massive amount of it on the floor/over her shorts.

They're not touchy-feely about such things (I wouldn't think).

Ditto - they'd be able to say for certain whether she had had sex just prior to the incident. This will be information released to both sides in the autopsy report.

even if he is 'telling the truth', he still killed a person behind a locked door.
There was no intruder.
No reasonable grounds to think there was an intruder.
No threat to OP at all, though there was a very real threat to Reeva from her trigger happy heavily armed, incredibly stupid boyfriend (I'm being nice).

BeCool - precisely

The thing that bothers me is this question of was she going to the loo, or not?

And if not, was she hiding?

Stack, I'm still on the fence, but I'm wavering over which side of the fence I'll get down on.

The one thing I can say; if he did do it, I desperately hope there will be justice for Reeva. I don't want to see him free on a technicality.

Equally, if he genuinely thought there was an intruder, I hope he isn't convicted of murder.

But... he needs to face the consequence that he did not check where Reeva was before discharging his firearm.

I know I keep harping on about that, but if he convinces the judge that his level of terror was so high that he couldn't possibly check, and that his gun went off in his hand (though mysteriously didn't when he carried it to and from and all over the bedroom and put it down and picked it up again, so it didn't have that much of a hair trigger), then I'd be very upset for her. It would feel as though she wasn't worth checking for and that his fear took priority over her safety. Which would make me very upset.