How did the State do?
For several months now, we have all pored over the evidence in this case and searched for answers to many nagging questions. Many of those questions still remain unanswered and were not addressed in the State’s closing arguments… much to the disappointment of some people expressing their opinions online, and likely to the delight of the Defense.
Does that mean the State has not proven their case? No, absolutely not.
I don’t want to get bogged down in dissecting every aspect of the evidence from trial, as I’ve already done that throughout the blog. I’d rather point out from a legal perspective why I believe that Gerrie Nel conducted a pretty brilliant case. Of course, the verdict will ultimately determine that, but here is my assessment as to why I believe they have succeeded…
Cases fail when the State does too much or does not have a narrow focus on what they are trying to achieve. The goal is not to spew out endless amounts of information in the hopes that more is better. It’s better to know what exactly you have to go after to prove that the accused/defendant is guilty per the letter of the law.
Nel set out on a very specific mission back in March to prove to the court that Oscar’s story could not be reasonably, possibly true. We heard that sentence numerous times. He was direct in stating that this was a circumstantial case. It’s circumstantial because only two people were in the house that night and only one of them can tell a story.
Circumstantial evidence requires an inference. It is an accumulation of details that reinforce each other and corroborate that inference. For instance… a woman is heard screaming in terror, several minutes later there is gunfire and a woman is subsequently found dead. You can circumstantially make the inference that the screams came from the woman who was killed and not from somebody else.
There is also direct evidence, which does not rely on inference (ballistics, blood spatter, etc) that can be added to the story to further strengthen it. The ballistics evidence from Mangena greatly supports that Reeva had time to scream. It also supports that there was a pause after the first shot, which equals conscious thought. That bolsters the circumstantial evidence of what the neighbors heard and also shatters the Defense assertion that Oscar acted out of an involuntary response.
Nel reaffirmed that this case is not about the pieces – it’s about the totality of the evidence and what you get when you put it all together. The mosaic. “It is necessary to step back a pace and consider the mosaic as a whole. If that is not done, one may fail to see the wood for the trees.”
I really started to fully grasp what he was trying to achieve when he concluded Oscar’s cross-examination on April 15th with the following:
Nel puts to Oscar that there were only two people in the house that night. He killed Reeva and is the only one who can give us a version of what happened. Oscar agrees.
Nel also puts to him that “his version is not only untruthful; it is so improbable that it cannot be reasonably, possibly true.” Oscar does not agree.
Nel continues, “the court WILL, on the objective facts and the circumstantial evidence, make the following findings”:
1) Reeva ate within 2 hours of being shot and killed.
(Oscar himself, via testimony, cannot confirm or deny that Reeva ate within 2 hours of her death, therefore the Medical Examiner’s evidence will be more credible than his even if it is subjective)
2) Whilst awake, there was an argument in which Mrs. van der Merwe heard Reeva’s voice.
(First, this bolsters the eating later in the night – if Reeva was eating, then she was awake. Second, if there was a fight starting around 1:56, and an arguing female voice was heard, and subsequently one hour later a woman is shot dead, then one can strongly infer that voice was from the victim. If the Judge finds Mrs. VDM to be credible, she will infer that voice was Reeva’s)
3) Johnson, Burger and both Stipps heard Reeva’s blood-curdling screams.
(Oscar cannot and did not prove in court that he screams like a woman. That will forever remain only an assertion. If the Judge finds Johnson, Burger and the Stipps to be credible, then the Judge will accept that Reeva did scream.)
4) Oscar shot 4 shots through the door while knowing that she was behind the door.
(Using the logic from above, the Judge, accepting that the voice and screams were Reeva’s, will then accept that Oscar knew it was her when he shot her through the door)
5) Oscar knew that she was talking to him.
(Reeva was inside of the toilet room, standing up, fully clothed and facing the door. We know this from the hip shot. The neighbors heard screaming from a woman and voices inter-mingled. Based on this, again, if the Judge has already found those witnesses credible, she will infer that Oscar and Reeva were communicating through that door.)
6) She was locked in the toilet room.
(The State nor Oscar disputes that the door was locked. The Judge will accept that the door was locked.)
7) Oscar armed himself with the sole purpose of shooting and killing her.
(In logical procession, with the Judge accepting the ear witnesses as credible – a woman is awake, arguing and screaming, voices-intermingled, there is communication going on from behind a closed door, Oscar retrieves his loaded gun, shoots Reeva 4 times through that door – there is no other way for the Judge to see this but an intentional killing)
After this day in court concluded, I had read some debates online about Nel’s use of the words “The court WILL find…” Some people seemed to think that it was a pretty arrogant thing to say considering the Defense had not yet given their full presentation; there were several more witnesses to call. Nel’s intention here was not to be arrogant. He was pointing out his laser-focus on this case, which he remained true to throughout:
IN THE ABSENCE OF A SUBSTANTIATED, TRUTHFUL STORY FROM OSCAR, THE COURT WILL THEN HAVE TO RELY ON THE OBJECTIVE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. This is the most important sentence to understand in this case.
Point 218 from the Conclusion in Heads of Argument:
If the court rejects the accused’s version of events and relies on the objective (common cause) facts and the circumstantial evidence a conviction on murder with dolus directus is inevitable.
(Dolus directus is murder with intention – the equivalent of first degree murder in the United States)
In the matter State versus Montsho (Case No: CC31/13), Judge Thulare defined premeditated as “to think out or plan beforehand”. The Judge went on to explain that this concept “suggests a deliberate weighing-up of the proposed criminal conduct as opposed to the commission of the crime on the spur of the moment or in unexpected circumstances”
At page 9 of the judgment the court deals with the concepts of planned or premeditated murder and found: “ … the period of time between the accused forming the intent to commit murder and carrying out this intention is obviously of cardinal importance but, equally, does not provide a ready-made answer to the question of whether the murder was planned or premeditated …”
The common cause facts include:
• The accused thinking of and remembering where he concealed his firearm
• The accused moving towards the place of concealment, uncovering and then extricating the firearm
• Un-holstering the firearm
• Getting the firearm ready to fire, by at least disengaging the safety mechanism
• Walking/running more than 5 metres with the firearm at the ready
• Taking up a position
• Firing four shots into the toilet cubicle
• Maintaining a good grouping while firing
We respectfully argue that the actions of the accused demonstrate pre-planning in that he armed himself, moved towards the toilet and killed the person in the toilet.
I believe strongly that Murder was proven and that dolus directus will be the finding. I believe that Judge Masipa will find the ear witnesses to be credible, therefore she will infer the screaming female voice was Reeva’s. The only inference left is that Oscar’s story is not reasonably, possibly true.
The Judge will render her decision on September 11.
In my next blog post, I will share my opinions on the Defense Heads of Argument.
Juror13 
Absolutely brilliant. Thank you Juror 13 for your very clear and informative articles. Regarding closing arguments, the State’s is concise/clear and focused, whilst the defence have (unsurprisingly) attempted to build a large intrinsic maze within the thick forest they started to plant from day 1.
Thank you, Marcey!
Just to compare the common cause facts from Defence & State.
From the Defence:
The above Bullet points completed in total darkness AND without any response from Reeva before & during being shot. This is not reasonably, possibly true.
From the State:
The above Bullet points taking place against a background of events other than that to which OP claims, contradicting evidence from a Pathologist & ear witnesses. Reasonably, probably true.
As the only other person in the room, one needs to test OP on the bullet points. Give him a fair opportunity to explain his actions & the Court can assume that without reasonable doubt, his version is not reasonably, possibly true. This leaves the States case as without reasonable doubt, the only option. He is Guilty of Murder.
I was expecting Nel to really nail OP on the “noise” he heard that made him shoot…….what was it?
OP really struggled to come up with an explanation, giving several, before finally, under pressure from Nel,he concluded that it must of been the magazine rack. This is the only point of OP`s version that he could not control and adapt, as he couldn’t see into the toilet. It is an accepted common cause that RS was shot while standing in front of the door + the mag/rack was a couple of feet behind her (I believe that this is the reason OP was adamant that the mag/rack was in FRONT of the toilet). It is impossible for her to have moved it, so what did he hear? Remember OP testified that he didn’t even see the handle move.
Just as Nel said, OP heard a noise AFTER the first shot when she screamed and fell onto the mag/rack and readjusted his aim.
I really cant see any other explanation.
In respect to the voices/screams perhaps belonging to someone other than OP/RS,as the defence has suggested… .No one came forward from the Estate to say it was them that evening- that the neighbors could have heard.Everyone was aware of what had happened the next day as it was a big news story.
Excellent summary! Thank you.
Just one minor spelling correction: van der Merwe – it’s an extremely common Afrikaans surname. (You can call me Kenny Oldwage if you want to 🙂 )
William… I would never insult you like that! 🙂 thx for the correction!
Hi Juror 13 🙂 i am going to miss you and your excellent way of unraveling certain facts that was just a mistery to me!!! (are you a writer?)
Thx, Nana… Where am I going? 🙂 I’ll be back to write about other trials. I’m not a writer by profession.
Carise Standers evidence of the kitchen light being switched on when she first arrived at OP’s home while he was descending the stairs also supports POINTS 1 and 2.
OP in his evidence does not turn the kitchen light on and has no reason to do so.
By default, it falls that Reeva had to be responsible, going by his version, and thus the kitchen light being on is associated with Reeva.
Worth noting is that in OP’s version,is that Reeva was the last person to leave the kitchen the previous night so he cannot know the status of the kitchen light being on or off from that point forwards.
By his own version OP would have been aware of the kitchen light being on when he descended the stairs to open the front door.
This is information he had and should be part of his thinking even if he was innocent of knowing Reeva was in the toilet. Thus it is the case that his answers in testimony need to fit with that state of knowledge. The problem for OP is that his answers contradicted that state of knowledge and that is a big problem for him and his version(s).
Hi David… You are totally spot on with this! Really great points.
Thank you, Lisa, for all of your hard work on this case!
Thx for reading! I’ll see you on WS soon 🙂
Thanx juror#13 for this blog. Its excellent. I love it.
Lets suppose OP story is true. He approached the bathroom screaming to the intruder to get the f***out. He then heard wood noise and assumed intruder was comming out. Why didnt he give the intruder the chance to surrender? Was he under any imminent attack to justify the excessive lethal shots he fired? Believe OP, or dont. Either way i think he is screwed.
OP did make some some telling slip ups in the witness box:
1 He ate alone
2 He asked why Reeva was phoning the police.
3 He Knelt (suggesting he was wearing prosthesis all along!)
The truth has a way of comming out itself, dont it.
I agree with you whole hartedly.
Excellent write up, I totally agree with you. Nel did a brilliant job putting all the pieces of the puzzel together in his HoA. Proving that it couldn’t have possibly been rapid fire (due to the fact that bullet hole b would have hit her) and linking it with MB evidence was genius. I was concerned when the judge asked about the whatsapp message being reliable (relationships being dynamic or something) but I’m glad she asked because Nel answered that question so well! Couple of great quotes was ‘as long as you accept that they wern’t without problems’ and ‘This is not a normal relationship, this ended in death’. RIP Reeva.
I just read a comment over on WS saying the Stipps are a black couple. Is that true? I just did a general google search and found nothing.
No the Stipps are not a black couple. The Nhlegenthwas and the Motshuanes are black but I believe that race is irrelevant here.
Nel did ok. He failed to clean up a MAJOR part of the evidence regarding when the ‘female’ screams took place.Roux has a chronological submission attempting to prove that the screams COULD not have been Reeva since she was already shot. Now, if Nel would have pre-empted this with his own chronology of the calls and what the witnesses said occurred about those times , his case would be won for sure. I think Roux (with all the inaccurate interpretation he presented) may have put a reasonable doubt as to when the real 4 gunshots took place, before or after…I personally know that it was Reeva’s voice because of the time frame he yelled the helps. Nel failed to clearify that to the judge. what a shame.
I agree. I also think Nel could have gone into more detail regarding some of the evidence. However, I think Nel knew exactly what he was doing. Knowing that he has a very strong case, I think he saw no need to lay out a timeline as comprehensive as the defence’s. Nel has an amazing eye for even the tiniest detail as shown during his cross examination of witnesses. I trust that if he saw the need to raise certain issues, issues the public such as myself thought were relevant, he would have done so.
I note that OP has been tweeting Christian inspired quotes… It has inspired me to so also… From Gautama Buddha .. ‘. it is a mans’ own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways’….
Juror13, thank you for this brilliant analysis. It confirms very much what we on this Justice for Reeva Steenkamp site have been debating and put up as arguments against OPs litany of lies. Adv. Gerrie Nel aptly named it a “snowball” of lies. This snowball gained significant speed and snow as it rolled along. The defense and OP contradicted one another, showed confusion, became discombopulated, put suspect or outright untruthful witnesses (including OP) in the witness box and tailored evidence to try and debunk the prosecution’s case. All totally unsuccessful.
For those wondering about why Nel did not focus more on the timeline, you have missed the logic of Juror13’s excellent summation.
The only evidence in the case that supports OP’s two active defences (self defence and involuntary action) is the testimony of the accused.
Therefore Nel sticks close to the action – destroying the testimony of OP.
Nel does not want to get down in the weeds about who heard what scream when. That is a complete diversion from the fact that multiple witnesses believe they heard a woman screaming,
While the burden of proof is on Nel, in the case of active defences there is an evidentiary burden on the defence to raise a sufficient evidentiary basis for them.
So the witness testimony re screams is contradicting OPs testimony and that is the natural conclusion when a woman has been shot dead.
It is Roux who needs to try and establish as a fact, or at make it unclear, that the witnesses could not have heard a woman screaming. The prosecutor does not need to prove each fact beyond reasonable doubt.
Looking at the evidence it is easy for the judge to accept as likely, that the witnesses heard a woman and the light was on.
Getting down in the weeds only assists Roux’s deflections. Nel does not want to focus the judge on that nonsense
Secondly Nel is making submissions to a judge not to a jury
Therefore he does not need to wade through all the law and rehash evidence endlessly
However if this was a jury trial then you would have seen him spend more time on the application of the facts to the law.
Its amazing to me that the media have not bothered to look at what you need to show for self defence (with mistake on top!!)
These include
1. Did he face an imminent threat/attack
2, Was the force used reasonable/necessary
http://criminallawza.net/2014/03/03/the-pistorius-defence/
On top of that we have the issue of mistake
1. Subjective test /murder: Was the mistake a reasonable possibility
2. Objective test/cupl. homicide: Was the mistake reasonable?
When you consider these aspects it is clear why Nel has been focussing on the core of the case – not Roux’s unlikely deflections
In the end we know RS was shot some time around 3.16/17 due to the blood spatter evidence and the testimony of Stipp which I believe will be accepted.
Nel showed there was no imminent threat of attack.
The force was not reasonable.
The mistake is improbable
etc
p.s Great site!
Thanks, James. I really appreciate your thoughtful post.
WS = Websleuths.
What is WS?
Great summary Juror13 ! Also all the comments above: I like them all!
Thanks – great site, and informative read. Unlike everyone else here, I don’t think OP knew it was Reeva in the toilet, although I still think he is guilty of murder.
But for those who believe OP knew it was Reeva, I’d be interested to know why you think he screamed for help before he shot her (evidence of Burger). Surely this is entirely inconsistent with an argument escalating to shooting, and suggests that the screams Burger/Stipp et al heard was in fact OP?
One has to compare the States Head of Arguments with the Defence’s Head of Argument. I don’t see anyone doing this because it is complex but it is what the Judge will be doing.
If OP’s manner is disagreeable, if OP has been found to be exaggerating or not giving the whole truth or even to be lying in places in court – this doesn’t mean OP is guilty of knowingly murdering RS.
I will be tackling the Defense arguments this week.
If OP felt that the police were trying to frame him as per Hilton Botha then one can begin to imagine why he would try to take such a manner on the witness stand. One of the contentions of the Defence was that the investigating office, Hilton Botha, was trying to do exactly that at the beginning, making false statements etc.
On my part, for me, the defence has shown that the first set of noises were the gunshots and the second set of noises were the bat – and the State hasn’t shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the second set of noises were the gunshots. This is the key for the defence to show that OP didn’t knowingly kill RS. From there everything else more or less fits into place in supporting OP main testimony.
I am quite sure OP did tweak his story here and there and was evasive on the other minor counts – but that “proves” nothing. I am quite sure OP was reckless and some of his possible tweaks are to counter his recklessness and to protect himself against the police that at the beginning – in the guise of H Botha were allegedly trying to frame him.
She said that the screams for help in a males voice were after the female screams for help and that they were much more subdued than the female screams for help.
She even went in to suggest that she thought they could have been a mockery of the female screams, now while im not its the case , it wouldnt surprise me as we have seen OP arrogance and dishonesty first hand and to my mind he is quite capable of that.
But, again that is why Nel kept refering to OP mosaic and that with each contradiction it became more smudged to the point where there was nothing left.
Its easy to argue or discredit one aspect or contradiction but if you look at all his contradictions and lies then the probability of each one being wrong becomes highly unlikely.
Nel made reference to this in his arguments , that the court needs to consider all aspects and facts of the evidence.
Nel got OP to claim he was just before the corner to the bathroom when he heard the toilet door slam.
A live demonstration of how noisy the actual door lock was, was carried out in court to leave no doubt on the issue.
OP was unable to give a reason for not hearing the toilet door being locked following that claimed slam time. His claim that the door locking took place as the door was slammed is impossible as it has to be in sequence. Slam first, locking second.
This door locking had to take place while OP was less than 4 metres from the source of the sound according to his version so it appears impossible that he could not have heard the sound of the noisy lock mechanism in the circumstances.
Taking in mind the implications that arise from knowing the door was locked then it can be concluded that OP did hear the door being locked and is lying to avoid the implications.
OP gave evidence in that he was concerned about implications being drawn from his answers so it is a fair to apply this thinking.
A key implication is that with the door being locked there can be no possible reason for OP to claim an imminent threat of attack and that consequently he was the aggressor.
Other implications arise as well as also introducing into’s OP’s thoughts the thinking of why a person inside the toilet would be locking the door. Such thoughts would at least delay action and lessen any stress at the very minimum.
in response to Andrew re OP calling out help help help prior to shots as testified by Mrs Burger..Is it not possible that the accused was in fact mimicking/mocking Reeva in her distressed and terrified state?
Thanks for the great parts and comments! I wonder why neither the State not the Defense presented pictures of the alarm remote as evidence (or did I miss out?).
IMO, if Oscar’s version was true, then there’s no way that there could be no blood on that remote. Likewise, the State would have had a field day showing the pictures to the court of there was no blood on the remote.
Another question I have, is why nobody asked Oscar on the stand how long he had been awake before (on his version) “getting up.” He says that Reeva was awake too and asked him whether he could not sleep, to which he replied he could not. So he must have been awake for a while already, struggling to sleep, and thus have been aware of any sounds in his garden etc. His eyes would also have been very accustomed to the *dark*.
I would like to know what you people here are thinking about the cell phone from which he called Stander put to a charger in the kitchen downstairs.
———
During closing arguments we heard that from Nel:
Nel: (…) when he carried her down the stairs Carrice (…) walked in, and, she and him then attended to the deceased. He never had an opportunity there to put the phone on the charger.
(…) somewhere between him taking her down and shooting her he must have put the phone on the charger
From Court record:
Pistorius: I made the phone call before I picked Reeva up. I put the phone in my pocket.
Nel: Who put it on the charger?
Pistorius: I do not know My Lady.
Nel: If Carice would say it was on the charger in the kitchen, when she spoke on it, how would that have happened.
Pistorius: I am note sure My Lady.
———
Remember Pistorius called Stander at 03:19:03.
Pistorius said on 9 April when examined by Roux: I ran back to my bedroom where my phone was next to the left handside of the bed, both my phones where there, I picked them up and I ran back to Reeva. I then phoned Stander …
I have said this a number of times on many blogs, but if you want to test OP’s credibility in a subtle way, the phones do it. He had two iPhones, he said that he tried to call from Reeva’s but it was locked.
Anyone that owns an iPhone will tell you that when they are locked, there is still the option of making an Emergency call from it. Not only did OP know this as an owner of 2 iPhones, but when faced with a locked phone, he chose to not do the quickest & easiest thin, but rush off to get his phones.
Even then, he did not call the Emergency services. He called Stander.
Credible?
100%.
I think this blog & comments is a great example of the power of crowd sourcing with the publically available information.
It’s a shame we do not have the exhibits!
So let’s see
One day in a tragic accident you shoot your girlfriend thinking she was an intruder, and worse luck you scream like a woman so everyone thinks you are guilty.
Then to cap it all off – the police come round and decide to “frame” you for murder
But thank your lucky stars that they decided to frame you in a really lame way with fans and duvets and extension cords
I like your style, James 🙂 Yes, the Stipps were the only ones to hear the initial bangs around 3am. Don’t let anybody fool you (which I doubt they will) that one of the security guards and Mrs. VDM heard them as well.
If you listen to Baba’s and VDM’s testimony very carefully, you will realize that they did not say they heard the sounds at exactly 3am. It was sometime around/after 3am that they heard them. What is more important in their testimonies is the content of what they heard and how it matches up to the other ear witnesses.
The Stipps were the only ones with a direct ear shot – open door looking out over to OP’s open window – no AC, no fans… they could hear everything perfectly including the beginning of what was clearly a loud ruckus going on in the house that night. Look at the bedroom door and all of the damaged stuff in the bathroom. Those first bangs could have been anything, but they most definitely were not the gunshots that everybody else heard very clearly later on.
This whole nonsense about OP sounding like a woman when screaming is probably the biggest lie and rubbish the defence have put forward, its even more ridiculous, as far as im concerned, than the suggestion the police tried to frame him or manipulate the scene.
And I say that because Roux actually put to a witness that when OP screams it sounds like a woman.
OP confirmed that they did do recordings of him while he was at uncle arnolds house but guess what , NO recording was ever presented in court and OP was never requested to scream in court. Surely if he sounded like a woman they would have done one if not both??
And yet they ask a female witness to mimic him screaming on the night, do me a favour!!
The defence even tried to pass off enahnced and manipulated recordings of the bats and gunshots (Nel got Dixon to spill the beans on this) so if OP sounded even remotely like a woman im sure they would tried to enahnce and manipulate the recording and submitted it, which they never did.
Ear witness also heard a man and a woman scream and even asked if they were supposed to believe that OP was changing his voice while he was screaming, meaning they thought the suggestion to be absolutely ridiculous.
I doubt this evidence would have been allowed in a Jury trial without a factual foundation to support it.
Sorry I meant I doubt that assertion would have been allowed
In the US, there would no doubt be a pre-trial motion by the Prosecution to prevent it and they likely would have won in the absence of a credible recording from OP.
In the Trayvon Martin/Zimmerman case there was a recorded 911 call from one of the neighbor witnesses and you can hear a high-pitched man screaming in the background. It was hotly contested pre-trial whether that voice was Trayvon’s or George’s. Both sides hired experts to analyze the tape but they had such a short clip to work with that the Judge ultimately ruled that the methods used for testing were unreliable. The jurors did get to listen to the recording in court, but it was left up to their own discretion as to who they thought it was. Neither side was able to have their experts testify, nor were they able to make the assertion that it was absolutely their client screaming.
I think in OP case they would have been allowed to play a recording of him screaming and I say that because a witness was allowed, unchallenged, to try and mimic what she heard that night with reference to a man screaming. And the defence were allowed to play recordings if the cricket bat test and gunshots. This also unchallenged although under co dixon made it clear with his fumbling that they were manipulated and enhanced.
Do you guys think a jury trial is better? I suppose 12 people making the same decision means it has to be right. But they are also open to their own bias be it religious racial sexual whatever.
Hypothetically in a US trial… Yes, if Oscar had indeed submitted a recording of himself, and the methods of recording were deemed to be appropriate, then it’s very possible it would have been let in for the jurors to hear. In the absence of a recording, I think the Defense would lose the motion and not be able to make the assertion during trial. So much of this sticky stuff is sorted out pre-trial in the US.
Is a jury trial better? It depends.
If I were on trial, and I knew I was innocent and felt comfortable that I could prove it, I would probably prefer to have a Judge decide.
If I knew I was guilty, I would absolutely want a jury to decide. It’s a lot easier to confuse and sway 12 lay people than a Judge, especially when you are famous! In the grand majority of cases, the Defense would pick a jury over a Judge any day of the week.
And believe me, 12 people making a unanimous decision definitely doesn’t make it right. Just ask the people of Florida 🙂 (the US peeps will understand that)
I think that Oscar would fare well in a US court… especially if it were Florida, lol. (The US peeps will understand that). And trust me, 12 people making a unanimous decision does not always mean it’s right.
Personally I think Roux has been a bit naughty with this aspect.
He claimed when he X-ed state witnesses that he would bring evidence to prove this point but then never actually did.
His evidence actually was:
1. It can be hard to tell a man and a woman apart at distance
2. Neighbours though they heard OP not Reeva
Now re point 2 the neighbours certainly never heard Reeva scream as they were awakened by the gunshots – so they are not witnesses to the woman’s screams
So personally I think this was very naughty and I think the judge should have controlled it better.
Rather than trial by Jury – how about trial by internet?
Surely it is only a matter of time given that trials are now broadcast over the internet live. Someone has already come onto this site and advertised the fact that he/she has already published their second or third book on OP & RS.
Not sure what you mean? The public is entitled to their opinion. Trials are public information. You can go in to almost any court room and watch. So the fact that they are broadcast, I don’t think, is a big deal. I’d rather have the process be transparent and the public using their own minds, rather than just accepting the opinions of the media.
At the end of the day, the Judge or a jury will continue to decide cases and there are laws/processes in place to make sure it is done fairly.
Oscar has been given a fair trial and we are all well within our rights to discuss it.
Trial by internet: instead of a jury by 12 – we have a public phone in. Not sure if this has already been tried (small claims court). There was that TV show in the US where the plaintiff and defendant went before a TV court.
Are you being funny or serious?
Hahaha you cant be serious?
I laughed out loud at that, a public phone in?!?!?!
😅😅
Like American Idol… He could get lucky if JLo, Keith & Harry decide to use their “save” on him 🙂
🙂
@ Jason – Trial by phone in – indeed why not? They could call it So You Think You Can Kill (and Get Away With It)
Yes electronic voting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting
I think it is less funny than the broadcasting of RS dead body and shot head over the internet etc.
Hey Jason… we’re just having a little fun with you. My opinion on electronic voting is that it would absolutely not be a fair process. All parties involved need to be in the courtroom with the Judge presiding and keeping it fair.
Although we like to discuss and debate the evidence as we see it from the outside, the people inside of that courtroom will ALWAYS be better informed than we are.
As for the broadcasting of images, I understand that it’s a sensitive issue and I respect opinions on both sides. I personally tend to fall on the side of total transparency. Because trials are public, and involve the safety and justice of our societies, I want full disclosure on everything that is evidence in a trial. But that’s just me. On the flip side, I do agree that autopsy photos or photos that are just plain salacious are not necessarily for public consumption. Unfortunately there are people out there that want to see that stuff for freaky reasons, not because they are just evaluating a case. So that can definitely be a grey area.
I appreciate your opinions. It takes guts to speak out when you’re not in the majority.
I reckon if it was a public phone in OP would be sent to the electric chair for certain. I have perused the websleuth site (although not contributed to it) and the majority there reckon this is a clear case of hot blooded murder of RS … I was in that group until I read the Head of Arguments statements.
I don’t have an issue with the defence placing technical evidence like a recording in evidence as the prosecution can call its own expert witnesses and also cross examine.
The problem for the defence is that there was only one meaningful recording to make – namely OP screaming in the bathroom, recorded from Stipps house
Clearly they were never going to let that kind of recording into court!
What bugs me is Roux asserting stuff that is not in evidence
I agree.
Nel did a good job teasing information out of OP.
The latest piece of incriminating stuff I have come across is to do with the contractors ladders.
On april 11th in cross examination Nel gets OP to agree that he did not check whether the contractors ladders were put away that night or not as per the supposed arrangements that OP claimed. OP stated clearly he did NOT check on that night (13th) and he claimed to not know why he did not check.
That all seems fine!
OR IS IT?
Well actually OP is lying. He did check as to whether the contractors ladders were put away or not that night.
We know this because of his Bail affidavit. In that he states clearly that he KNEW the contractors ladders had not been put away securely.
NOT THINK OR BELIEVE….but KNEW!
He could only know that the ladders were outside on the premises if he had checked.
So he had checked, and knew, and chose, to keep the ladders outside THAT NIGHT.
There must have been a reason for that…hmmm what could that be?…was he planning something that required the ladders to be outside?
Considering the murder, that is yet another piece of evidence that strongly suggests a planned murder to go along with other bits of evidence that support a planned murder that night.
once again, well done Mr Nel.
He certainly changed his story. I don’t recall seeing any ladders outside in the police photos. Do we know that they were left outside?
Yes, they were. Look at my post for when Van Rensburg testified and you’ll see pics.
If standing outside, looking at the bathroom windows, they were below and to the left. Just around the corner of that wall on the other side of the house is OP’s bedroom – Van Rensburg could see them down below when looking out over the left side of OP’s balcony.
I want to ask those who think OP shot at intruders why they think that, and on what basis?
I think he knew it was Reeva and have had difficulty trying to see it any other way after looking at the case and all evidence presented.
I have read here a few people use 1 contradiction here and there to say , well he didnt know it was RS, but no one has really provided a list of facts and evidence that confirms it was an intruder.
There seem to be a number of people, not only on this site, who think he made a mistake in firing so im sure someone could shed light on this.
I am not wanting to start an argument or mudslinging episode but i ask really out of interest.
With all due respect, this is the only question since 14th Feb till now, and has been covered a million different ways.
We`re way beyond this now
IN HIS VERSIONS.
OP claims he was “certain” it was an intruder when he heard the noise(s) in the bathroom seemingly based on a belief Reeva was in bed.
This required 3 elements.
1/ A belief that the alarm system had unquestioningly failed for no good reason.
2/ A ladder being available, which he knew for sure as he had checked they were out that night.
3/ That the bathroom window was not secured (may have even been open at least a bit) but that he must KNOW this for sure.
POINTS 2 and 3 go completely against his claim to be “security conscious” both individually but even more so in combination.
The ladder points to planning being a genuine concern.
The window not being secure, also by how its presented or not in his evidence, suggests previous thoughts on the matter. OP himself was the LAST PERSON IN THE BATHROOM in his version before he went to sleep. Thus by his version he would be the one who knew the window to not be secure by either his actions at the time or observation to check.(did you ever wonder why we were told the toothbrush story!)
It is OP’s version that Reeva did not get up , though its obvious to him and all that by being asleep he would not be able to tell.
What OP does claim in his version IS THAT HE ASKED REEVA TO CLOSE THE BALCONY DOORS BEFORE SHE WENT TO SLEEP.
HOWEVER as he KNEW the bathroom window to be unsecured/open then why would he not ask her to close that as well (in his version) to be consistent with his claimed security consciousness?
BUT for OP to know! on hearing the noise in the bathroom and be certain that the window was insecure it raises the issue of him NOT KNOWING if Reeva had closed the window and that he needs to ask her to find out. His claim to be CERTAIN “cannot be” with that point unanswered at the time of the supposed noise in the bathroom.
What we do have though is OP creating the story circumstances to allow for an IMAGINED INTRUDER to permit his MISTAKEN FOR AN INTRUDER MURDER PLAN.
Alternately he was a bit fuzzy headed on waking up then went into “combat mode” on hearing a noise in the bathroom area.
The Judge might find OP guilty of murdering RS but I think the crux of the matter will be whether the Judge thinks he intended to kill an intruder, whether it was putative self defence, or some reflexive action. In some legal constitutions he would at least be charged with “man”slaughter.
I meant guilty of manslaughter – but maybe I am wrong there.
Glad you mention the noise in the bathroom area.
In the Bail affidavit the actual wording relates to a noise from which the conclusion is that someone was inside the bathroom and not relating to someone trying to gain entry who may not even have done so. The devil is in the detail.
LOOKING AT THE BAIL AFFIDAVIT A BIT MORE..
It is clear to us now that OP could not come up with a viable cover story for him using/sleeping in the right (balcony) side of the bed. However, at the time the Bail affidavit was composed he was not sure which way to play things and deliberately kept his options open on which side of the bed he was supposed to be using in his version.
That sort of issue in such a document as the Bail affidavit is a great hint that the person is likely to be fabricating a version.
HOWEVER despite his efforts with the Bail application it can be deduced from using that document and his ipad data that he was using the right side of the bed.
Clearly OP has realised this fact and has been forced to change evidence at trial that conflicts with the Bail Affidavit to portray him using/sleeping on the left side to try and create a more viable version.
The ipad showed a last access to a webpage at 9.19 pm and it can be concluded by us that the ipad was switched off shortly after. OP was linked as being the user so if still up watching television at 10.00 pm while Reeva was doing yoga then it must be him that placed HIS ipad on the floor on the right side and thus with other evidence he must have been using that side.
In court testimony he had to change things a lot to present himself as falling asleep earlier and moved Reeva’s yoga forward to when he was on the phone and not after he was on the phone and after he was using the ipad. That had to be done so when he claims to fall asleep it is Reeva(in this version) that takes it off him and places it on the floor on the right side where he wants to portray her as sleeping.
One extra problem for OP’s using ipad with head on Reeva’s stomach and arm round Reeva’s legs…is how would he hold, view and use it in such a position. He could not manage that…it cannot be!!!!
The State didn’t do well at the Bail Hearing – they lost it. I put it to you (as Mr Roux did in closing argument) that the lies, manipulation and attempts to incriminate Mr Pistorius at the bail hearing put the Accused on guard against the State so that he was not prepared to admit anything to them even on the minor counts. It was this that made OP look bad and evasive on the stand. I put it to you to check all the psychiatrists reports it simply cannot be otherwise.
That really sounds desperate, blaming the state at the bail hearing for OP lies and contradictions?
Like I asked a day or 2 ago, is there anyone who can present evidence that proves his version to be true, because all ive seen his the state drill holes in every story he told and a defense team who clearly are more interested in getting him off on technicalities and trying to discredit witnesses than getting the actual truth out there.
For example, when nel told OP that it was impossible for him to have moved the large to where he said he moved it he doesn’t state as a fact that he did and that it can reach, no, he says he hasnt got a measurement of the cord or the carpet!!!
He just had to leave a door open with that for him back out of as he knew he never put the fan there and was scared nel would catch him out.
Doesn’t sound like an honest remorseful man to me.
“Large fan…….. “
It’s all explained in the Defence Head of Arguments & Closing Statements. A person that doesn’t attempt to read it or engage in it but rather sticks with their “own string him up he is obviously guilty” fixation, and calls all reasoned arguments against it “desperation” and “excuse turds” … have no concept of the process of justice and would be better joining the emotional vitriol that can be found on youtube and elsewhere. 🙂
Anyway since the debate has ended and we are left with bickering and name calling I think it is time for me to say best wishes and I hope you get the result that will make you happy.
Your post implies you think he has things to admit.
Psychologist is not the same as Psychiatrist.
The psychiatrists confined themselves to the mental health issue.
Your point is thus wrong. Opinions of so called experts are just that.
Evidence often shows the claimed opinion to be wrong as many have seen in the trial. it does not help when a so called professional makes a reports that makes clearly untruthful claims.
All of the psychiatric reports? Even Vorster who was 100% wrong in her evaluation??
Also, the police had nothing to do with the Tasha shooting, the ammo possession, nor shooting out of his sunroof. Sounds like more OP supports again making excuses for him breaking the law
With all due respect I put it to you that OP has not broken any law. It is up to the court to decide whether he has broken any law and until that decision has been made the presumption of innocence must remain. At the present time one can only talk of ones own opinion as to whether he did or did not break the law, This I believe to be true under my understanding of the Law.
I’m not sure to which country’s Law you are referring. According to retired South African High Court judge Chris Greenland, he is definitely guilty of murder – “You cannot simply execute an intruder in your home.”
If OP is already guilty of murder why do we need to continue with this court case – why can’t we all go round to OPs house & string him up now?
He has broken the law because he has UNLAWFULLY taken the life of a human being, whether or not you believe he did it intentionally or recklessly. This man is definitely not getting acquitted, ie his defence/s will not be accepted. I put it as strongly as that.
Vorster was probably the 2nd biggest waste of court time behind dixon.
Breaking the law is just that BREAKING THE LAW. That is the fact.
A conviction is when someone is found guilty of a crime. Sometimes the wrong people get convicted.
Surely there must be a legal definition of “breaking the law”? You can’t just say “a means a” – as that is circular and content free. Surely a determination of whether a law has been broken involves several steps … including an interpretation as to what the law actually is?
This is a general query that I throw out to all. Many thanks for your careful considerations and replies.
Shame the Laws 101 trolls have arrived
The case has shown the power of the crowd to find insights in large amounts of public data.
That doesn’t mean public phone ins.
But I do believe that crowd sourcing is a powerful approach to analyzing evidence that could be used in our legal system to improve efficiency and save money.
If the crowd finds interesting insights, the Judge can review them.
Personally I doubt 3 judges can be expected to find as many of the insights that everyone on the internet has found.
“The case has shown the power of the crowd to find insights in large amounts of public data”
Has this particular case really shown that?
“Shame the Laws 101 trolls have arrived”
Are you calling everyone that might disagree with you a troll? Is OPs defence team a troll for putting up a defence?
As I said it makes no difference for me whether OP is found guilty or not … but clearly for some it does even though they have no connection with anybody related to the case. Too many are treating this as soap opera entertainment … that is why I don’t believe it should have been broadcast …
On the great scale of global events this is a minor almost negligible event … but one can see the same type of public reactions to other events broadcast as infotainment …
Look I appear to be irritating the majority here by posting views not currently in agreement with them … and there is little progressive debate currently occurring … so rather than name calling we can at least agree that we disagree … and I hope you don’t think I am a moron or an idiot or worse for disagreeing with you.
I am not actually sure what we are disagreeing on … but the crux of my belief is that
1) The Defences HoA and Closing Statements cannot be ridiculed as nonsense. That it is serious, makes sense, and needs to be carefully considered.
2) That we don’t have all the evidence in front of us and have less knowledge of the law than that contained in the Court.
3) That the Court will decide on what OP is guilty of.
4) Everybody outside of the Court can hold their opinion of whether or not OP is guilty of this or that … but it is their personal opinion and shouldn’t be represented as “fact”.
5) That people can disagree and still be decent and intelligent.
Your comment “With all due respect I put it to you that OP has not broken any law” screamed out for the Laws 101 trolls response!
Where I come from it is against the law to kill people.
People are killing other people all the time … on the roads, on the pavements, industrial, resisting arrest, pollution, unaffordable health care, drone bombing etc.
But this is neither here nor there … just read the Defence’s HoA. The fact that no one is reading the Defence’s HoA either on this website nor on the websleuth website tells its own story.
Actually, I have read the Defense HoA. They are very good but I suspect not good enough for OP to escape a conviction for murder.
I suspect it will come down to the issue of the Judge deciding whether OP “intended to murder the intruder” and issues associated with that … OP had armed himself with explosive bullets designed for maximum damage and killing. It is in this respect that I am not entirely convinced of the defences argument.
Nel has done a good job in painting a picture of OP being reckless with guns and not accepting responsibility for his actions … that is why including the minor counts is considered by some to have been a masterful strategy in building up a case to lead to a lengthy jail time conviction.
This site is attractive because of the high quality discussion of the evidence – especially in comments.
That discussion inevitably centres on what facts have been proven or not proven
Unfortunately some of the comments in relation to whether the states case has been legally proven are uninformed
Those who go to law school and then get admitted to the bar as a Barrister (or attorney) learn that any such discussion will start and end with the statutory provisions relating to self defence and involuntary acts and the relevant case law.
Unfortunately one sees many comments that “reasonable doubt has been shown” despite a total failure to apply the factual matrix to the actual law of South Africa.
One simple example.
The key legal issue at trial is whether the shooting was unlawful.
A subordinate issue is thus whether OP had a subjective belief that he faced imminent attack.
Of course if he knew it was Reeva then such belief was not held.
But even if that cannot be proven OP must establish a factual foundation which demonstrates why such a belief might have been held as a reasonable possibility.
Given on his own testimony the door was not opening, it would appear he has failed to show any basis on which he could have held such a belief.
So yes it is tiresome when the laws 101 crew state this or that about the case without managing to quote a single relevant part of the law of South Africa
Of course what throws people is that in a jury trial, the judge would explain the law of self defence to the jury, and explain to them the different consequences of various factual findings.
For instance if the force level was not justified then it is murder, even if OP believed he faced an attack
If the mistake was not objectively reasonable, then OP is guilty of culpable homicide, even if he genuinely believed he was being attacked.
But of course in South Africa the judge need not explain the law to herself, nor does Nel need to lecture the judge on how to apply the facts to the law
Indeed Nel stressed only a few cases on a couple of key points.
I hope that explains things better
You know something does not add up if an accused hires a company to recreate the crime scene and actually does a full walk through and reenactment of the crime and still cant get a straight, lie free version together. I mean think about that.
Great point
You can actually tell the points in his testimony when he starts lying
His switch from genuine cognitive playback of real memories to manufactured content is reflected in his speech
Indeed. His voice definitely became softer when he was obviously lying.
And all of them have the same pious mentality.
There is nothing clever about trying to claim a moral high ground, in giving OP the benefit of doubt until conviction. Both sides have spoken, both made their case, and IMO he BROKE THE LAW and is guilty. I have no problem with JudgeM finding otherwise, she knows far more about this than I, but I will be surprised.
At the end of the day, even on OP`s version, he shot at a noise, killed someone because he was “scared”. Surely as a disabled person, he would of envisaged a scenario where he would possibly have to defend himself at night without his legs on. One would expect him to have his own set of priorities based on his disability in that situation.
Are we to believe that with OP being apparently so security conscious, that when he needed them most, he didn’t call them (panic button right next to his bed, ARMED security running regular patrols). Instead he kept telling Reeva to call the police, who he clearly didn’t trust and would take much longer to arrive?
Another thing I cant get out of my mind as normal, is if this WAS just an accident, why didn’t OP call an ambulance IMMEDIATELY after finding Reeva alive and clearly in need of urgent medical assistance? A child would know to call emergency service at that point, but he chose to wake a sympathetic neighbor at 3am to assist.
On his own version, almost EVERY decision he made that night was wrong and it lead to the death of an innocent defenseless woman. Oscar, a grown man wants us to excuse him, because he was scared
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is only a legal standard of proof at trial.
Obviously the State (i.e. police & prosecutor) believe in guilt rather than innocence which is why they choose to prosecute.
There is nothing wrong with citizens holding a belief in guilt.
Imagine a murderer who would be found guilty on balance of probabilities but reasonable doubt existed – say due to a problem with contaminated DNA evidence.
It would be rather illogical to regard that person as innocent if you had to have personal dealings with them!
Let’s not forget OP took on the mighty International Olympics Committee. Insisted to run with able bodied athletes. Told the world not to treat his a disabled but as a normal person. Now when it suits him he wants special treatment due to being disabled. You can’t have it both ways OP. My man Gerrie Nel did a brilliant job. Pack you bags for prison.
Question to Juror 13.
When Judge Masipa makes her decision will there also be a document such as the Heads of Arguments for the public to read, that also explains her decision?
I presume that the case may not be over even when this court makes a decision – it is likely to go to appeal dependent on the court’s decision … and then it will go on for another few years … Great for that contributor who is onto his/her fourth or fifth book on this “opera”.
That’s a good question. I would imagine so. She does have to detail the reasoning for her judgement so it will be on court record.
Take care. Keep up the good work. I’ll take a vacation break now and await the decision 🙂
I agree
What more could he ask for (besides an acquital) He had time, money,ballistic experts, sound experts. psychologists, psychatrists, doctors, pathologists, sympathetic social workers, supporting fans family, friends etc at his disposal and still no version reasonably true and devoid of blatant falsehoods… Its up to the judge now.
lmao (Law 101)
You have just shot 4X at a human being, through a closed door, who has not attacked you or given you reason to believe your life is danger and killed them. At what point are you guilty of murder. (choose 1)
a/ when you break the door open and find your girlfriend instead lying in a pool of blood.
b/ when the police tamper with evidence to incriminate you, and make you tell lies in court against your will.
c/ when the prosecutor proves your story is not reasonable and possibly true.
d/ when the judge hands you a guilty verdict.
e/ all of the above
LOL!
Not guilty in court does not, and never has meant the accused is innocent.
In OP bail affidavit his very first lie is 16.4.
But one I found very interesting is at 16.11 where he says he fired because he heard movement in the bathroom. That to me sounds like feet scuffling in the floor, maybe your arm making contact with the side of your body etc but it cant be wood being moved as we know in his own version the door handle never moved and the door never opened.
We also know from expert evidence from the state AND defence that the magazine rack never moved at all the entire evening and that in the position RS was shot in it was impossible for her to have bumped it from the other side of the bathroom so he cant get away with saying the movement he heard was wood.
To my mind this proves there was no noise.
But he knew, even by the 19th February 2013 that he had to give an explanation for what caused him to fire into the toilet.
Later on he realised the importance of that noise and thats when he said it was wood moving and that he perceived it be the door opening and it cased him to fear for his life, but he dug himself deeper into the hole because it was proved that the only thing that could have caused a wood noise never moved.
This is one of the contradictions that Nel was referring to when he spoke about the snow ball of lies. It gets bigger and more improbable as one goes along.
I would also like to hear from someone who supports/believes his version and can explain this contradiction. Leave the name calling out though, and stick to the facts. Thats when debate is enjoyable, because thats all this is, its a debate. We are not required to make a finding in court or rule on a sentence.
For me, once I finally understood how the witness evidence fitted together partly thanks to this site 🙂 the more interesting question has always been how did OP formulate this crime.
Stepping back and looking at what the state has proven we know that OP has the traits of a domestic abuser.
While the facts don’t show much in the way of careful planning – I do wonder to what extent he might have fantasized about killing using this excuse. To my mind I can’t see him coming up with it in the few mins after he shot her.
I think he might have thought this through before he shot her – and that is why Nel has argued premeditation.
I also think he felt he “needed” to shoot her on account of what had proceeded.
I must agree.
I cant believe his version as the lies are just too many and the contradictions cant be explained reasonably.
That leaves me with nothing else but to say well he knew it was RS and not an intruder.
And like you I find it hard to believe he managed to create such a detailed version in just a few minutes between the shooting and him making the phone calls.
Or maybe OP just read this…….http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Man-who-shot-wife-in-error-can-sympathise-with-Oscar-20140407
Oh dear!
This explains a lot
The media like to perpetuate the myth that nice white men “snap” in a moment of stress and commit these terrible crimes.
The reality is usually a long history of abuse combined with a pattern of escalation until the abuser commits an assault that kills or grievously injures the victim.
I think you are right
OP knew about this other case.
I think he staged managed the situation and then possibly lost control – unleashing this shocking violence
The data shows so clearly why women should not live in homes where there are guns!
I feel that there was no planning and that something occurred or was said that night which sparked a sudden uncontrollable fear and rage in OP.
“I thought she was an intruder. It was an accident” was all he said immediately after the killing. There really was NOTHING else he could say to explain the shooting.
He then had a couple of days to come up with the broad outline of events before his bail application knowing that he would have to account for the bangs, shots, screaming and shouting which would have been heard by the neighbors.
He then added a bit more detail for his plea explanation.
I agree with the possible “need” to shoot her (“neutralize the threat” was an interesting choice of words used by Derman). I cannot believe this was simply about her wanting to leave or sparked by petty jealousy. My gut tells me that a dark secret lurks behind all of this.
Agree 100%
In fact OP`s explanation of ALL 3 noises is highly questionable.
I have already tried to engage Pistorians over the toilet noise, but all I got back was, that the mag rack was in front of the toilet, Reeva moved it, OP shot, then the police PLACED it in the blood (?!?!) You really dont want to encourage these people.
I find the “noises” to be a bit of a red herring except in that they show OP was lying.
There was never any reasonably possibility to think there was an intruder in the toilet.
One of the most detestable things about OP`s version, is how he paints Reeva as this shriveling scared 6yo who is petrified of noises at night.
He openly admits that she MUST of heard the window opening, but was apparently frozen to her bed. Who the hell stays in bed when they believe an intruder has entered their house?!!?! Who the hell believes that after all the shouting and screaming, followed by 4 loud gunshots, that they would STILL be in bed!!?!?!
Lets lighten things up a little shall we?
We post a quote from the trial and the others have to guess who it was.
Ill go first. . . . . ” I used my eyes my lady”
Our favorite Geologist, Dixon 🙂
My other favorite from him was when Nel asked him if he was a sound expert and he answered that he would like to believe he is a “sound” expert. What a ding dong.
Lol, and Nel asked him again, very strained and clearly irritated, ” Are you a sound expert sir?”
Here’s a question: why was Mrs Burger with Mr Johnson and not Mr Burger?
Ok, I got a good chuckle out of this one 🙂 They are indeed a married couple, but Mrs. Burger does not use Mr. Johnson’s last name.
Ah hah! Maybe they’re lying ….;)