I agree with you, I've actually never seen anything like it before. Why at this stage in the proceedings does a Prosecutor need more time - it just beggars belief.

I don't think they've proved this case to their credit or in their favour to be honest. We all know one fact and one fact only Oscar Pistorius shot Reeva, did he do it by accident, or by deliberate intention making up a story about an intruder - well no one has proved either story.

I have spent this afternoon watching the Grant Hayes trial, after it finishes I'll watch the trial of his wife - very interesting case, don't know how I missed this one.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

Never hear of Grant Hayes....

I could start a thread?

I'll look and make a note of it at least in the "Snippets" thread

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Hayes trial and that of his wife are over now, i'm just watching his trial first on youtube, since his trial came before his wife's, then I'll follow hers - I already know both were found guilty and sentenced - it was a horrible crime.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

We have a thread. With both trials over people may want to post thoughts now that it's over

Grant and Amanda Hayes - Laura Ackerson murder
viewtopic.php?f=61&t=1218

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Round table legal discussion following day 12...



OP Trial Day 12, 18 March 2014: The legal round table

http://oscartrial.dstv.com/video/489774/category/0

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

A friend of Oscar's confirms Gun shots earlier... he says 3:08 which fits in with Stipp's description of two sets of noises, first one before 3:15

‘He’s heartbroken’
By phakamani on April 26, 2013

AT EIGHT minutes past three on the morning of Valentine’s Day Christo Menelaou woke with a start. He’d heard what sounded like three thunderclaps.

At his home in the Silver Woods Estate east of Pretoria he lay in bed waiting for the rain to start.

Almost an hour later he went to the bathroom.

When he opened the window and looked outside he couldn’t believe his eyes. His window looks out onto an empty plot and Olympic and Paralympic athlete Oscar Pistorius’ house.

...more at link
http://drum.co.za/celebs/hes-heartbroken/

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Dramatic turnaround in prosecution's case in Oscar Pistorius trial
March 19, 2014




...more at link
http://www.smh.com.au/world/dramatic-tu ... hvk7r.html

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Yes, this scenario sounds likely to me - roll on Monday.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

Having heard the State's case and evidence. I don't think they have proved beyond reasonable doubt that OP's claim that he thought there was an intruder is a lie, and that he fired at the toilet door knowing that Reeva was in there.
So I think the judge will have to consider the evidence on the basis that OP DID think that there was an intruder in the toilet. Being sure in his mind that there was an intruder in the toilet, was it reckless (or worse) to have fired 4 shots at the door? Many would say "YES" without much hesitation, but OP's actions will be viewed in the context of the circumstances of this particular event.
His defense will likely be that he was in fear for his life and his gf's life. This is South Africa where home invasion, torture, rape and murder are not unknown. People do live in fear to some extent. In gated communities, with bars on windows, alarms and fences etc and armed guards patrolling at night. Many people do legally own a gun for self defense (that is...own a gun for killing intruders, should the need arise). OP is a paraplegic and so likely grew up feeling somewhat vulnerable (psychological state different from the norm). He is in fact vulnerable to some extent especially while not wearing his prostheses. Less able to fight or flee. He may also argue that retreat and fleeing would have amounted to abandoning Reeva to the "intruder". In a panicked state he fired. Did he have actual intent to KILL the intruder? If it is accepted that OP had a genuine belief that there was an intruder, the Judge will have to decide if that was what a reasonable person might believe in the circumstances. She also has to evaluate OP's reaction to that belief, which was to fire at the toilet door thinking that an intruder was behind it.
I don't think that Nel has given her much "assistance" in deciding these matters. Maybe he will (finally) with his last few witnesses?
I imagine that Roux will be putting a lot before the Judge to sway her decisions

I predict a late start and an early tea break on Monday!

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

One way of looking at this case is to consider that, given that the State will most likely FAIL to show OP is lying, OP's actions should be evaluated by the Judge AS IF there was an intruder as OP genuinely believed.
The judge in this case could then find OP not guilty in the same way home owners who do wind up shooting an intruder are not guilty.

I suspect that there are MANY cases in South Africa where a home owner shoots and kills an intruder.
Charges are never laid and so it is hard to find any reference to such cases, but here is one at least that made it to the news....

Man who shot intruders won’t be charged
May 8 2013 at 12:20pm
By Lungelo Mkamba



...more at link
http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/ ... yzA285Whug

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

The home owner is NOT charged.

The home owner did NOT run away, though he had ample opportunity to do so.

The home owner did NOT need to wait to be sure if the perp(s) had guns and an evil look of intent to do him bodily harm. (they actually had no guns).

I think this has some relevance to the OP case.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

It would seem that observers in he USA have already pinned OP to the wall, as have a great many South Africans.

Like you, however, I'm just not convinced that the Prosecution have a case here - also I agree on your summation of what lies ahead for the Judge - who may well already have reached her own conclusions.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

Hi Wroughhead.

I think the prosecution have a case..... just not the case they are arguing.

The big unknown is HOW SA Judges deliberate. She may well consider wider issues even though the State does not raise them specifically. I don't think that should be, but who knows? I think the State have to "put before the Judge" what it is they allege... then give Defence opportunity to reply... the State can rebut. That is the system of Jurisprudence that we have across UK and UK(ish) places.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I have spotted a legal opinion on SA law that MAY relate to this case

If an accused uses deadly force with a genuine belief that he is facing an imminent threat of harm (even if in hindsight it is known that there was no actual threat at all) - then he is not guilty of intentional murder. At most he can be guilty of culpable homicide.

Case Law excerpt:
(SA case where putative private defense was asserted)

http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/2002/71.html

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Hi Rumpy - I looked at this a while back, closer to the first week of the trial - not that particular section you quoted, but this is why I said at the outset that I'd think if this case were being tried here in the UK, I had the feeling from an educated guess (not an uneducated one, since I've a good background in following trials here in the UK) or indeed, in Scotland where our law is even more different, as we still have the Not Proven verdict which I hope we will continue to have - another discussion for a different thread perhaps.

From the outset of that first into second week, for me this was either going to be Manslaughter or Culpable Homicide, for me it was never deliberate murder, because deliberate murder means that it was planned, either the days beforehand, or on the day itself, or even weeks before - none of this IMO applied to OP.

I used the link you provided also to look up the position with regard to the Assessors - which seems to go back to the olden days of the Admiralty here in the UK - which is often found to be the fundamental basis for law in other western countries. Also SA is not the only country in modern days to still use the Assessor system - I found the articles on it very interesting. I also found a good article directed specifically at the OP case which is worth a read.

http://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/wha ... s-fate.htm


The following was pointed out to me by someone yesterday, when I said it was a bit late in the prosecution's day to ask for more time.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

Och aye the noo, Wrougy lass.

I have half thought of a general post... I'll give it a go, maybe delete if it starts to meander all over the place .


Now that we have seen most of the State case presentation, and have time to reflect, it might be a good idea to take an overview and to "deliberate' a little. Rather than pick out snippets that support a preconceived notion and totally ignore other bits, (with no good reason), it is important to look at ALL the was presented. Judge's instructions to juries include the concept of "weighting" testimony and evidence. For instance, you may give more or less weight to testimony based on your assessment of the witness's honesty, consistency, clarity etc. Further, it is also important consider what was NOT presented, despite there being an opportunity. By that I mean that evidence shown (or claimed) but then not explained or or verified. Information that is not presented at all is NOT evidence and should not be included in considerations.
You need to look at the "Gestalt" of the case presented.
I think the most useful first step in evaluating any case is to establish a broad time line. It can of course be refined as new data is revealed in court. If you look at all the witness testimony together with the snippets of phone record times, you can at the very least, get an idea of a time line of events in this case.

viewtopic.php?f=105&t=1211#p71304

Beyond the time line of events one needs to look for circumstantial evidence that points to OP's motivation, state opf mind etc. Only he KNOWS why he took the actions he did, culminating in shooting 4 shots into the toilet door and killing Reeva Steenkamp. He has presented his version of events, which stands unless the State can disprove it/prove an alternative version. (beyond reasonable doubt). IMO they have not done that. They could though, accept OP's version and argue the criminality of OP's actions. IMO they have barely touched on that at all. As somebody pointed out, they did present evidence of OP's responses to questions on a gun licence application questionnaire, and his broad awareness of SA gun laws pertaining to the use of a firearm in self defence. However the details there are open to debate. Debate that we have not heard yet.

We have ONLY heard the State case, with some cross examination so far. There is a lot more evidence to come from the Defence.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Last things first - as we say here in recluseland!! Obviously the South Africans will know the gun laws as they apply to day to day use - living etc. OP if we believe what testimony we have heard, was something of a loose cannon with his gun - evidence the firing of the gun in the car, in the restaurant etc. The way he spoke to the police officer who handled his gun at the gun firing car incident - speaks volumes I believe, of OP's character. The police officer's fingerprints 'will now be on my gun' - I think a very odd thing to say, particularly since OP, as well as everyone else in the car at the time should have been concerned - he was in the wrong for firing it, not the police officer for holding the gun!

In short, I believe OP was a loose cannon, and because of his fame, and how he had previously led his life, things went to his head, and I don't believe he ever thought he would be seriously challenged (because of who he was - perhaps an inflated notion of how he or his life was perceived outside of his own family) saying that he thought there was a home invasion in progress, I really think (with this scenario) that he thought he would be believed.

If, (another scenario) he was genuinely possessive, and jealous that Reeva had been received (in his perception) too much attention from another man - he could well have been so enraged with jealousy that earlier in the evening they were arguing back and forth with each other, then it would stop, then it would start again, leading up to his trying to scare Reeva - and things got out of hand, she was in the bathroom running away from him, or she was in the bathroom for the usual reasons we visit the bathroom, and would not have been expecting a bullet through the door, her hand or her body generally. He was so mad by this time, as his anger had been building as the evening went on that he thought he would show her he meant business - never for a second intending to kill or even aim a bullet at her - she was in the wrong place at the wrong time, when his male vanity took over.

What do you them of them applies Rumpy?

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

The evidence of the gun incidents is supposed to be a separate issue. It would NOT have been allowed in if it was referencing past charges/convictions, and just there as "character evidence". I have read that it is supposed to be considered separately (by the Judge) And besides... I would NOT give much weight to the testimony by dizzy ex fb bffwb, nor the testimony the plea deal ex-friend.

The second "scenario" is pure speculation. (gossip) I am on the evidence side of matters

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Interesting wee tweet there (I think I should get a twitter account one day) anyway, yes we deal in facts as we know them to be from what we've seen. Unfortunately, not being present in court or seeing some of the images, it's hard to make a judgement from where we sit.
I agree that speculation shouldn't be used. But, although the gun charges re car and restaurant are separate issues, I still think it shows his character, but none of it shows [to me] he's a murderer by the true definition of that.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov