Oscar Pistorius Defense

[Giles]

Coaching of an accused and witnesses is quite normal procedure. That's not to say that counsel put words into their mouths but rather how best to deal with the various questions that are likely to be asked. They're always advised to "just answer the question" and try and refrain from adding additional information as this can lead them into territory they may not be prepared for. The following article "Why Defend Criminals" is very interesting to read and explains a lot.

http://sheltonlegal.com/why-defend-criminals/

Thanks for the link - I found this really informative. Thank you.

 

[BritsKate]

OP veered off script, a lot, during his testimony. There is no way the defense was behind OP blaming them for some of the carp that he did. There were times when you could see Roux's head sink further and further down as the testifying (cross) went on. No matter how much the defense worked with OP, he obviously thought he knew best and went against their wishes.

MOO

ITA! And when I said he was crafty I wasn't implying I believed he was a criminal mastermind. Obviously he's not. But he is bright enough to come up with the intruder story immediately after the murder, to provide an alternative scenario to what the witnesses heard - like why he was yelling for help, to run a not so subtle PR campaign alongside his trial, and to attempt to use his disability to mitigate culpability after spending his entire life boldly defying it. Some seem determined to paint him as somehow having diminished capacity - not too bright, ignorant, immature, vulnerable, etc. I think he's far more capable than some presume - intellectually and physically.

I think Oscar's ego trumps all though. Even his attorney's advice.

 

[44ALLAN]

Just to throw this out there too...reading the Burger thread I'm reminded that both Burger and Johnson describe hearing a man yell for help after hearing a woman scream for help before the second set of bangs at 3:17.

The woman is described as fearful by both while the man is flat and monotone. Truly chilling.

Exactly my thinking all along.
He knew what he was about to do and already had his story in place about an intruder.
I've never thought he was 'mocking' Reeva with those 3 cries for help.
He was trying to make an alibi IMO.

 

[shane13]

he would have to be the unluckiest man in Pretoria to suddenly believe there was an intruder in the middle of an argument ( Vd Mewres testimony, Burger testimony, Stipp testimony) ...

also. it would have to be Pretorias stupidest intruder.. Judge Masipa would have to take that into consideration too. that Oscar believed his intruder was stupid enough to interrupt his argument with Reeva.

its a big ask.

Argumentis interruptus defense. Depends on the Judge...

 

[jay-jay]

Exactly my thinking all along.
He knew what he was about to do and already had his story in place about an intruder.
I've never thought he was 'mocking' Reeva with those 3 cries for help.
He was trying to make an alibi IMO.

Crikey, you could be right

 

[shane13]

Don't forget the fact that Oscar just heard a noise. He never saw an attacker. So this case is the first of its kind in South Africa.

In all previous putative private defense cases the shooter saw a person or persons and then mistakenly thought they were being attacked by this person.

Oscar just heard a noise and then mistakenly thought he was being attacked by the person making the noise.

BBM:
Oscar merely claims he heard a noise in the bathroom--while he was carrying 2 noisy fans back into the bedroom, backwards.

with witnesses or at least 1 having heard loud arguing leading right into the shooting.

 

[Ncl1968]

BBM:
Oscar merely claims he heard a noise in the bathroom--while he was carrying 2 noisy fans back into the bedroom, backwards.

with witnesses or at least 1 having heard loud arguing leading right into the shooting.

good point he claimed he heard a noise.... Yet failed to hear reeva scream in agony

 

[patCee]

We know he fired 4 shots. If he had only fired one shot would his position be the same? I think it would because all of his numerous and unlikely actions would still apply...good security on the estate; lax security at his home; unlikely an intruder would be in the toilet; not checking RS position; witness evidence re screaming; not seeking medical help; his evasive/contradictory evidence. Most important of all shooting through a door, killing the unknown person behind it, whilst not being attacked or threatened by the 'unknown' intruder.

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

Exactly my thinking all along.
He knew what he was about to do and already had his story in place about an intruder.
I've never thought he was 'mocking' Reeva with those 3 cries for help.
He was trying to make an alibi IMO.

OMG :furious:

 

[shane13]

We know he fired 4 shots. If he had only fired one shot would his position be the same? I think it would because all of his numerous and unlikely actions would still apply...good security on the estate; lax security at his home; unlikely an intruder would be in the toilet; not checking RS position; witness evidence re screaming; not seeking medical help; his evasive/contradictory evidence. Most important of all shooting through a door, killing the unknown person behind it, whilst not being attacked or threatened by the 'unknown' intruder.

Additional, related point. He fired 4 and only 4 shots.

He did not empty the clip--because IMO he knew (could see) that he had shot her in the head.

 

[DebinGA]

BIB .. I found that part of his testimony absolutely astonishing, one minute insisting he had put his hand all over the floor in order to ascertain whether Reeva was there and then in almost the very next breath he said he went straight from the bed to feeling the curtains and then when questioned on it (i.e. about feeling the floor) he said words to the effect that he didn't need to as he would've walked into Reeva's body on the floor as he walked down that side of the bed had she been there :facepalm: (<<-- not only did this prove that that bit was a big fat lie, but I was astonished by the flippant and disrespectful way he just said that he would've basically walked into/tripped over/kicked Reeva had she "been down on the floor like I asked her to" )

Will OP's reenactment video just zip right through all that feeling around in the dark bedroom for Reeva on his stumps, running back to bathroom still holding cocked gun and shoulder butting the WC door, running back to bedroom and unlocking/opening balcony doors still holding cocked gun and going out onto the balcony and yelling "Help!" 3x, putting cocked gun on bed while donning his legs, returning to bathroom and only then turning on the light? And will the video show him finding Reeva slumped on the floor, not the magazine rack, as he claimed under oath?

 

[patCee]

Additional, related point. He fired 4 and only 4 shots.

He did not empty the clip--because IMO he knew (could see) that he had shot her in the head.

Yes, with the 4th being OP's coup de grace. Parallels with the dog he shot previously, except this time it was not merely to put and end to RS suffering.

 

[DebinGA]

5 key things the judge has to consider in order to find OP guilty:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-trial-5-key-3477190

 

[Cherwell]

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

An inordinate amount of people, really? What sort of numbers are you talking about?

The man who shot his wife - I can see there are similarities, but was their home in a secure compound like OP's?

 

[Greater Than]

We know he fired 4 shots. If he had only fired one shot would his position be the same? I think it would because all of his numerous and unlikely actions would still apply...good security on the estate; lax security at his home; unlikely an intruder would be in the toilet; not checking RS position; witness evidence re screaming; not seeking medical help; his evasive/contradictory evidence. Most important of all shooting through a door, killing the unknown person behind it, whilst not being attacked or threatened by the 'unknown' intruder.

The four shots solidify this as murder rather than putative self defense (or involuntary action of that's his claim now). It's excessive force.

 

[BritsKate]

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

I can absolutely promise you that more men kill their intimate partners daily in South Africa than people who mistake a family member for an intruder.

I believe, through a multitude of evidence, Oscar Pistorius has himself established he was not paranoid about crime, did not live in a constant state of overwhelming fear, and was far less vulnerable than what he claims. However, even in the hypothetical intruder scenario, I believe he would and should still be guilty of murder and nothing less...he shot through a door with no visual assessment and opened fire immediately after screaming at the intruder to get out. A defendant cannot claim putative self-defence when killing an intruder who is fleeing.

 

[DebinGA]

Video: Most Dramatic Moments of the Trial So Far

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/oscar-pistorius-murder-trial-most-3474293

... maybe if OP picked the clips; otherwise, no.

 

[Murphys_Law]

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.

Agreed! And let us not forget that there is photo evidence (attached) of at least one bedroom light being on and yet he does not mention it in his affidavit nor his oral testimony.

from the bail hearing affidavit ....
I fired shots at the toilet door and shouted to Reeva to phone the police. She did not respond and I moved backwards out of the bathroom, keeping my eyes on the bathroom entrance. Everything was pitch dark in the bedroom and I was still too scared to switch on a light. Reeva was not responding.
When I reached the bed, I realised that Reeva was not in bed. That is when it dawned on me that it could have been Reeva who was in the toilet. I returned to the bathroom calling her name. I tried to open the toilet door but it was locked. I rushed back into the bedroom and opened the sliding door exiting onto the balcony and screamed for help.
I put on my prosthetic legs, ran back to the bathroom and tried to kick the toilet door open. I think I must then have turned on the lights. I went back into the bedroom and grabbed my cricket bat to bash open the toilet door. A panel or panels broke off and I found the key on the floor and unlocked and opened the door. Reeva was slumped over but alive.

 

[DebinGA]

Agreed! And let us not forget that there is photo evidence (attached) of at least one bedroom light being on and yet he does not mention it in his affidavit nor his oral testimony.

Thanks, Murphys_Law. I hadn't seen that bedroom light pic. OP via his NPD seems to view Dr. Stipp as a mortal enemy who must be destroyed. He said Dr. Stipp was wrong about the bathroom light being ON moments after the first bangs drew his attention to OP's house. Dr. Stipp, on his balcony observing the goings-on, also heard OP's cries for help after the last bangs, but he didn't testify to seeing OP "opened the sliding door exiting onto the balcony and screamed for help".

 

[44ALLAN]

Reading further on Narcissistic Personality Disorder

The following are some of their character traits.....how many do you think relate to Oscar? Quite a few I would expect...

* Control freaks
* Irritability
* Short fuses
* Low frustration tolerance
* Argumentative
* Need to have the last word
* Unable to lose
* Won’t take “No” for an answer
* Quick to anger if you don’t accommodate them
* Quick to being aggressively defensive if you call them on any deficiency, fault or responsibility
* Can’t apologise or if do, can’t do it sincerely
* Rarely say, “Thank you” or “Congratulations”
* Don’t feel or demonstrate remorse
* Feel entitled to enthusiastic and appreciative approval, adoration, agreement and obedience
* Gloat in victory, sullen in defeat
* Quick to rage if you humiliate them

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/just-listen/201202/rage-coming-soon-narcissist-near-you

.....quite revealing isn't it?

I could have saved you a lot of typing there.................
Instead of NPD it should be MSB.

Murdering spoilt brat