Oscar Pistorius Defense

[shane13]

and going back thru Baba's testimony, its Baba that mentions the car running in the driveway with the doors open, back and front.. I don't know if that was Standars car, or Oscars car that Standar had , or Clarice had, started and opened the doors.. but he definitely says it was so.. a car , engine running and doors open, in the driveway..

the mystery running car.

Great. I was right.
That's who I attributed the running engine to a couple of days ago.

Thought it was Mr Baba. And that's why I implied there was some truth to the Daily Star article of a year ago.

DS was also the one IIRC who claimed there were trophies askew on the ground floor when cops arrived.

WO Botha seems to have said otherwise in interviews of his first impression of how neat everything was when he entered.
So this remains speculation.

 

[liesbeth]

Oscar's defense is that he thought an intruder was about to attack him.

The very first question the judge will ask herself is: Is it reasonably, possibly true that OP could have believed there was a) an intruder and b) that the intruder was about to attack him?

The answer to that question will determine if OP will win or lose this case.

 

[Lyra500]

Oscar's defense is that he thought an intruder was about to attack him.

The very first question the judge will ask herself is: Is it reasonably, possibly true that OP could have believed there was a) an intruder and b) that the intruder was about to attack him?

The answer to that question will determine if OP will win or lose this case.

Really?

So all of the lying, version discrepancies, unbelievable claims, witness statements, lack of effort to get Reeva to hospital all count for nothing as long as the possibility that OP thought he was under threat exists? Really?

What do you mean by win or lose?

He shot Reeva dead, recklessly firing four times through a door knowing someone was on the other side. In what way can he possibly 'win' the case?
.

 

[Viper]

Oscar's defense is that he thought an intruder was about to attack him.

The very first question the judge will ask herself is: Is it reasonably, possibly true that OP could have believed there was a) an intruder and b) that the intruder was about to attack him?

The answer to that question will determine if OP will win or lose this case.

If that is the first question, he will lose this case. He lived in a Fortress Community and had no reason to believe that someone would break in to his home intent on killing him and Reeva.

The second question that she has to determine is: Was his firing four hollow points at the intruder, who was behind a door and never said a threatening word or brandished any sort of weapon, reasonable for a person? Perhaps going so far as to add "a person with a disability." It clearly was not.

 

[katydid23]

If that is the first question, he will lose this case. He lived in a Fortress Community and had no reason to believe that someone would break in to his home intent on killing him and Reeva.

The second question that she has to determine is: Was his firing four hollow points at the intruder, who was behind a door and never said a threatening word or brandished any sort of weapon, reasonable for a person? Perhaps going so far as to add "a person with a disability." It clearly was not.

Also, the woman lying next to him was wide awake. So when he heard a noise in the bathroom, why wouldn't he think it might be her, having a quick tinkle, as opposed to an intruder, getting past the electric fence, the roving security, and the home alarm system? And why not first check on her whereabouts, before shooting 4 times through the toilet door? :doh:

 

[Viper]

I don't remember the magazine rack thing being discussed here, so forgive me if this is redundant.

It seemed so odd at first that OP wanted it to be that the police moved the mag rack. But since it is the only "wood" that could have moved within the WC it does make sense. If OP had not targeted the wood sounds because the mag rack was against the right wall of the WC, he would have missed Mr. Armed Intruder with all four of the bullets that he fired. But with the mag rack close to the toilet and making a noise as Reeva feel down on it, his bullets were clearly aimed at whomever was in the WC. And OP wants the court to believe that he never aimed at anyone, the three bullets that hit Reeva were just a coincidence.

 

[liesbeth]

If that is the first question, he will lose this case. He lived in a Fortress Community and had no reason to believe that someone would break in to his home intent on killing him and Reeva.

The second question that she has to determine is: Was his firing four hollow points at the intruder, who was behind a door and never said a threatening word or brandished any sort of weapon, reasonable for a person? Perhaps going so far as to add "a person with a disability." It clearly was not.

Indeed.

He lived like a man who wasn't afraid of intruders. Secure community. Slept with open balcony doors. No burglar bars on the windows. Dogs. Went to bed without caring if the alarm's censors outside were working. He was code-red trained to find an intruder in the house and he's done it twice before without shooting anyone.

But also...he knew Reeva was in the house with him. So why assume it wasn't her making the noise?

 

[liesbeth]

Really?

So all of the lying, version discrepancies, unbelievable claims, witness statements, lack of effort to get Reeva to hospital all count for nothing as long as the possibility that OP thought he was under threat exists? Really?

What do you mean by win or lose?

He shot Reeva dead, recklessly firing four times through a door knowing someone was on the other side. In what way can he possibly 'win' the case?
.

You're preaching to the choir, Lyra500. See my post directly above.

 

[Viper]

Indeed.

He lived like a man who wasn't afraid of intruders. Secure community. Slept with open balcony doors. No burglar bars on the windows. Dogs. Went to bed without caring if the alarm's censors outside was working. He was code-red trained to find an intruder in the house and he's done it twice before without shooting anyone.

But also...he knew Reeva was in the house with him. So why assume it wasn't her making the noise?

Pfft. You got me, IDK. OP should be put in the Guiness (sp) Book of World Records as the only person to ever move about a bedroom with his eyes not noticing the largest thing in the room, the bed. All that nonsense about his back always being towards the bed and his eyes always focused on the bedroom hallway should have some reward, in addition to life in a SA prison and AIDS (HIV) and tuberculosis, and...

 

[liesbeth]

We were warned to stay on topic. So back to OP's defense....

I'm with Viper in that I do not think the judge will decide that it was reasonably, possibly true that OP could have believed it was an intruder.

Any man in his position would have assumed it was Reeva in the toilet. There was no reason whatsoever for him to believe it wasn't her.

Add to that the testimony of Burger, Johnson, Mrs. Stipp, Pieter Baba, Dr. Stipp, Captain Mangena, Dr. Saayman, Vermeulen, Van Rensburg, Van der Nest, Van Staden and, lest we forget, Oscar's own performance on the stand...

 

[sleuth-d-]

Sleuth

Your post highlights something about people with NPD that many don't realise or can't get their head around. With NPD, narcissistic injury can be caused by things that most people would think are "normal" and would not be threatened by. It doesn't have to be a big issue. It could be something as mundane as a partner getting more attention the narcissist.

Until now, I've not weighed in on the question about "what caused the fight". My main reason being that, with a narcissist, the trigger could be something so ridiculous that no reasonable person would "get it".

However, the one "precipitant" that has occasionally come to mind is: a disagreement, about who knows what, followed by Reeva saying she was going home. IMO Reeva walking out would have caused a major narcissistic injury for OP who already feels deserted by his mother and father. A narcissist would be angered by the further abandonment, and want to prevent it. IMO this is more plausible than OP telling Reeva to leave.

thanks for the information. i agree re: small trigger. from any number of stored annoyances, the fight started with something trivial, and - stemming from that - all the underlying frustrations gradually came out. then the rage.

"People who are narcissistic commonly feel rejected, humiliated and threatened when criticised. To protect themselves from these dangers, they often react with disdain, rage, and/or defiance to any slight criticism, real or imagined.[22] To avoid such situations, some narcissistic people withdraw socially and may feign modesty or humility. In cases where the narcissistic personality-disordered individual feels a lack of admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation, they may also manifest a desire to be feared and be notorious (narcissistic supply)."

bbm - was the athletics career on the wain, maybe?... but i notice how the eyes of the courtroom, and of the world are certainly now back on him.

 

[Viper]

We were warned to stay on topic. So back to OP's defense....

I'm with Viper in that I do not think the judge will decide that it was reasonably, possibly true that OP could have believed it was an intruder.

Any man in his position would have assumed it was Reeva in the toilet. There was no reason whatsoever for him to believe it wasn't her.

Add to that the testimony of Burger, Johnson, Mrs. Stipp, Pieter Baba, Dr. Stipp, Captain Mangena, Dr. Saayman, Vermeulen, Van Rensburg, Van der Nest, Van Staden and, lest we forget, Oscar's own performance on the stand...

BIB. So you are saying that it does not look good for OP? LOL! I agree!

If OP had only fired just one bullet, his "I was scared and I felt vulnerable and I didn't mean to pull the trigger" story might be believable; and he would probably not be on trial for Premeditated Murder right now. But he didn't, he fired four bullets, and three of them hit Reeva. Reeva was murdered and she died a horrible death.

I can't wait for the next DT "expert" witness to take the stand. Really I am wondering if one will. During a trial the attorneys have to discuss alternatives with the client, and I am leaning towards OP pleading guilty to Murder and taking the MMS of 25 years over risking Life in prison. Time will tell.

"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." Sammy Davis, Jr.

 

[G.bng]

We were warned to stay on topic. So back to OP's defense....

I'm with Viper in that I do not think the judge will decide that it was reasonably, possibly true that OP could have believed it was an intruder.

Any man in his position would have assumed it was Reeva in the toilet. There was no reason whatsoever for him to believe it wasn't her.

Add to that the testimony of Burger, Johnson, Mrs. Stipp, Pieter Baba, Dr. Stipp, Captain Mangena, Dr. Saayman, Vermeulen, Van Rensburg, Van der Nest, Van Staden and, lest we forget, Oscar's own performance on the stand...

IDK but for Masipa to find it was not reasonably possibly true that OP could have in his paranoia believed there was an intruder is imo a big hurdle to surmount. I don't understand what you mean when you say a man in OP's "position would have assumed it was Reeva" when there seems to be an inordinate amount of people in SA shooting family members in the dead of night believing them to be intruders, one around the same time as OP who shot his pregnant wife coming out of the bathroom. Being a subjective test will make it more difficult for Masipa to set aside OP's claim so I believe she will find it is reasonably possibly true. That said I still believe OP will and should be found guilty of at least CH if not murder albeit maybe not of Reeva rather that he had intent to kill an intruder. Certainly I don't see how Masipa could believe it was reasonably possibly true that OP, after arming himself and rushing to "confront" the intruder (as stated during his testimony) on hearing a noise did not intend to kill the burglar only shoot at the door. JMO

 

[liesbeth]

BIB. So you are saying that it does not look good for OP? LOL! I agree!

If OP had only fired just one bullet, his "I was scared and I felt vulnerable and I didn't mean to pull the trigger" story might be believable; and he would probably not be on trial for Premeditated Murder right now. But he didn't, he fired four bullets, and three of them hit Reeva. Reeva was murdered and she died a horrible death.

I can't wait for the next DT "expert" witness to take the stand. Really I am wondering if one will. During a trial the attorneys have to discuss alternatives with the client, and I am leaning towards OP pleading guilty to Murder and taking the MMS of 25 years over risking Life in prison. Time will tell.

"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." Sammy Davis, Jr.

I remember, during cross, Gerrie Nel said that he did not believe Oscar's version of events. Nel listed the things he did not believe and then he said that he does believe one thing and that was that Oscar felt remorse. I thought: "Hello? What does this mean?" I know remorse, true remorse, is taken into account during sentencing.

I'm still thinking about the implications of Nel's statement for OP's defense (notice how I'm still on topic?) but I wouldn't mind some input on this. Thank you.

 

[JudgeJudi]

<Respectfully snipped by me>

I'd thought initially Oscar wasn't the brightest crayon in the box...but I have a sneaking suspicion he's far craftier than some give him credit for.

Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[Viper]

I remember, during cross, Gerrie Nel said that he did not believe Oscar's version of events. Nel listed the things he did not believe and then he said that he does believe one thing and that was that Oscar felt remorse. I thought: "Hello? What does this mean?" I know remorse, true remorse, is taken into account during sentencing.

I'm still thinking about the implications of Nel's statement for OP's defense (notice how I'm still on topic?) but I wouldn't mind some input on this. Thank you.

BIB. IIRC... South Africa has constitutionally mandated Mandatory Minimum Sentencing for the crime of murder. It is 25 years in prison. No judge that finds an accused guilty of the charge of Murder can give a lesser sentence. Judge Masipa can give a greater sentence, but not a lesser sentence.

 

[Madeleine74]

The problem with OP's defense is that the story was crafted after the killing, which is why it doesn't ring true. It doesn't have a feel of authenticity to it, and it's a stretch on many levels, which the judge surely has to see for herself, even a little. Add to that OP's changing stories along the way, his performance on the stand and I don't think he's going to walk away from this.

He wasn't merely reckless. He has murdered, and with 4 shots he fully intended to both shoot and kill, no doubt about it. 1 shot could be an accident. 4 shots is no accident. 4 shots into a little loo where a human is locked inside and not a threat is murder, not just homicide.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Sleuth

Your post highlights something about people with NPD that many don't realise or can't get their head around. With NPD, narcissistic injury can be caused by things that most people would think are "normal" and would not be threatened by. It doesn't have to be a big issue. It could be something as mundane as a partner getting more attention the narcissist.

Until now, I've not weighed in on the question about "what caused the fight". My main reason being that, with a narcissist, the trigger could be something so ridiculous that no reasonable person would "get it".

However, the one "precipitant" that has occasionally come to mind is: a disagreement, about who knows what, followed by Reeva saying she was going home. IMO Reeva walking out would have caused a major narcissistic injury for OP who already feels deserted by his mother and father. A narcissist would be angered by the further abandonment, and want to prevent it. IMO this is more plausible than OP telling Reeva to leave.

You might like to read this article.

http://www.destinyman.com/2014/04/15/is-oscar-a-narcissist/

 

[DebinGA]

I think if OP hadn't claimed the bathroom was dark when he shot, when both Stipps said the light was clearly ON, he'd have had a much better chance of avoiding jail. Lying on the stand about a fundamental element of what happened should make everything else he said seem unreliable. OP knew what the Stipps would say under oath, but chose to lie instead of telling the truth.

 

[wb180]

Given this thread is about OP defense, the attached link about private defense is pretty interesting. (Private defense looks like essentially what we are all talking about regarding OP's self defense claim).

http://www.saflii.org/za/journals/PER/2013/4.html

Anyways, here is an extract:

"For a situation of private defence to arise, evidence must show (a) an attack, (b) upon a legally protected interest; and (c) that the attack was unlawful.

The first requirement is that there must have been an attack.

Fear alone is not sufficient to justify a defence. Private defence may be utilised only where there is an attack which has already commenced or is imminent. The term "commenced" means that private defence may be resorted to only where the attack has already begun and there is no time to seek other forms of protection.

Burchell notes that "imminent means that the attack is about to begin immediately - what is important here is not so much the imminence of the threat, but rather the immediacy of the response required to avoid the attack. If the nature of the attack is such that the threatened harm cannot be avoided, the victim should be entitled to act with such anticipation as is necessary for effective protection."

I mean, (a) above is already a fail for OP. No wonder, one year after the bail statement, he chose to dismiss the self defense claim and go for involuntary claim (i.e. the BS statement of "before I knew it, 4 shots came out of my gun.")