Oscar Pistorius Defense

[homegirl]

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.

BBM I can't wait either. I feel sorry for Roux. I bet that he was just a gob smacked as some of us at OP's ever changing, increasingly absurd story. His case lies in shambles. He is lucky to have this delay.The Dt experts were running around like mad right up to the evening before Dixon testified, trying to re-do tests to match OP's latest version.

I think Nel will rip the ballistics and sound tests into tiny pieces. Would Roux dare to put on a blood spatter expert? Op paid the professional animators between $10,000 and $20,000. It will have to be almost completely redone and they will probably not do it for free. I would love to see the animation. It would be interesting to see Op feeling with his hand on the floor (or not), then feeling along the curtains, all the while tiptoeing through all the stuff on the floor, in the dark, on his stumps, screaming in panic, all without stepping on a single thing. I kind of doubt that we will see it though.
Who else is left to testify? About what? My hope is for Clarice Stander. A plea would probably be OP's best option, but he probably thinks that he outsmarted Nel and will win. He always does.

My Opinion Only

 

[Trooper]

BBM I can't wait either. I feel sorry for Roux. I bet that he was just a gob smacked as some of us at OP's ever changing, increasingly absurd story. His case lies in shambles. He is lucky to have this delay.The Dt experts were running around like mad right up to the evening before Dixon testified, trying to re-do tests to match OP's latest version.

I think Nel will rip the ballistics and sound tests into tiny pieces. Would Roux dare to put on a blood spatter expert? Op paid the professional animators between $10,000 and $20,000. It will have to be almost completely redone and they will probably not do it for free. I would love to see the animation. It would be interesting to see Op feeling with his hand on the floor (or not), then feeling along the curtains, all the while tiptoeing through all the stuff on the floor, in the dark, on his stumps, screaming in panic, all without stepping on a single thing. I kind of doubt that we will see it though.
Who else is left to testify? About what? My hope is for Clarice Stander. A plea would probably be OP's best option, but he probably thinks that he outsmarted Nel and will win. He always does.

Clarice!!......

please let it be Clarice!..

 

[Karmady]

That case is very different. The person that was killed verbally attacked the shooter, telling him that he wanted to kill him. He also reached in to his pocket for, what the victim thought, was a weapon.

The gun that the victim used was very different from OPs, in that it was manufactured to fire more than one bullet with a single pull of the trigger. OP intended to fire all four of the bullets that he fired at Reeva, with all four of his four pulls on the trigger of his gun that night.

I agree that factually, it's somewhat different. But I cited it for the law regarding putative personal defense, not to say the same result would obtain here.

Regarding the gun, please link where it's a different gun in the two cases based on the references in the case I cited and the information in this case. I don't think that conclusion can be drawn based on the objective information available. Happy to be proven wrong, though.

 

[Trooper]

Clarice is a lawyer.. she has probably booked herself into a clinic for a sudden surgical procedure.. unable to attend , milady.

 

[Karmady]

alas... (and I am sure everyone has seen that case.. it gets put up regularly by the hopeful.. )... to add to Oscar's trouble, the law in SA has changed since 2013, when that case was appealed.. Not sure whether you have been following the slight change in law, which, as luck would have it, Oscar falls under, which requires a stiffer standard of behaviour as a gunowner...

the hopeful? The hopeful that poor Oscar will be proven innocent because we lurve him so??? yah, that's it

Link to the slight change in the law you're referring to please?

 

[liesbeth]

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.

Interesting idea to look at it from the intruder's point of view.

So our intruder chooses a house in a high security estate as his target. He doesn't break into a house near the wall where no one can see him. No, he makes his way through patrolling guards to the middle of the estate. Then he ignores the broken window on the ground floor and he ignores the open balcony doors. Instead he chooses a closed window on the next floor. Not sure if the window is locked, he drags a ladder to the wall and sets it up. But he is lucky because no one hears the ladder and the dogs don't bark and no laser beam is broken and no one sees him. Not even Oscar.

 

[JudgeJudi]

There's still a lot of misunderstanding about the law in this trial. South African law, while based on that of the British, is different in some respects to that of the USA, Britain and Australia. I've just found what I consider to be the ultimate article "Criminal Law of South Africa" written by Professor James Grant PhD, Associate Professor Law, University of Witwatersrand, J'burg which canvasses the following:

Defences under the Protection of Information Bill (not necessary to read IMO)
Pistorius's New Defence?
Can "new" bad character evidence be produced in response to an accused who testifies to his good character?
The perplexing problem of proof.
Evidence of "bad character" and "prior bad acts".
The (original) Pistorius defence.
What if you shoot the "wrong" person.

This is quite a lengthy article but some members really do need to read this to fully understand it all (and that certainly included me too). Examples are given and cases cited for those who want to read further.

http://criminallawza.net/

 

[Karmady]

There's still a lot of misunderstanding about the law in this trial. South African law, while based on that of the British, is different in some respects to that of the USA, Britain and Australia. I've just found what I consider to be the ultimate article "Criminal Law of South Africa" written by Professor James Grant PhD, Associate Professor Law, University of Witwatersrand, J'burg which canvasses the following:

Defences under the Protection of Information Bill (not necessary to read IMO)
Pistorius's New Defence?
Can "new" bad character evidence be produced in response to an accused who testifies to his good character?
The perplexing problem of proof.
Evidence of "bad character" and "prior bad acts".
The (original) Pistorius defence.
What if you shoot the "wrong" person.

This is quite a lengthy article but some members really do need to read this to fully understand it all (and that certainly included me too). Examples are given and cases cited for those who want to read further.

http://criminallawza.net/

Thanks! Here's a pithy paragraph from your link that clears most of the misunderstandings up, imo (~bbm):

For murder, you must intend to unlawfully kill. If you are mistaken, and genuinely believe you are acting lawfully (such as in private-defence (the technical name for the defence under which self-defence is located)), whereas you are not acting lawfully, you cannot be convicted of murder because you don’t intend to act unlawfully. To escape a conviction of culpable homicide this mistake must be reasonable – one which the reasonable person may make. But on a murder charge, it is enough, for an acquittal, if the accused was subjectively mistaken.

 

[Laf]

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.

I believe Oscar feels remorse for the loss of his prior life. In my opinion he isn't capable of feeling remorse for what has happened to Reeva.

 

[Greater Than]

If OP doesn't spend the rest of his life in prison, will anyone EVER feel safe going to the bathroom in his home in the middle of the night after all of this?

 

[JudgeJudi]

oh hell yes, I read that bit, he got his clock well and truly cleaned for his .. well. .. ... what it was, was an attempt to expect a whole lot of suspension of logic and reason , time, gravity ,physics, .. kind of like what Oscar is having a shot at.. evasiveness.

Re the de Jager trial

Two comments from the prosecutor's closing argument:

De Jager had also not been helpful during cross-examination.

"He was a very combative witness, he evades questions, and it took the State a long time to get answers from the accused."

Sound familiar?

 

[JudgeJudi]

BBM I can't wait either. I feel sorry for Roux. I bet that he was just a gob smacked as some of us at OP's ever changing, increasingly absurd story. His case lies in shambles. He is lucky to have this delay.The Dt experts were running around like mad right up to the evening before Dixon testified, trying to re-do tests to match OP's latest version.

I think Nel will rip the ballistics and sound tests into tiny pieces. Would Roux dare to put on a blood spatter expert? Op paid the professional animators between $10,000 and $20,000. It will have to be almost completely redone and they will probably not do it for free. I would love to see the animation. It would be interesting to see Op feeling with his hand on the floor (or not), then feeling along the curtains, all the while tiptoeing through all the stuff on the floor, in the dark, on his stumps, screaming in panic, all without stepping on a single thing. I kind of doubt that we will see it though.
Who else is left to testify? About what? My hope is for Clarice Stander. A plea would probably be OP's best option, but he probably thinks that he outsmarted Nel and will win. He always does.

My Opinion Only

I'd LOVE to see the Standers, a proper sound expert (the musician ) and someone from Netcare.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Clarice!!......

please let it be Clarice!..

I always think of Silence of the Lambs when I hear that name. How appropriate.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Clarice is a lawyer.. she has probably booked herself into a clinic for a sudden surgical procedure.. unable to attend , milady.

Would that be a partial lobotomy to remove the temporal lobes which play a critical role in storing and retrieving crystal-clear, long-term memory.

 

[homegirl]

Clarice is a lawyer.. she has probably booked herself into a clinic for a sudden surgical procedure.. unable to attend , milady.

Yes, and she anticipates surgical complications- laryngitis and amnesia.

 

[liesbeth]

Thanks! Here's a pithy paragraph from your link that clears most of the misunderstandings up, imo (~bbm):

For murder, you must intend to unlawfully kill. If you are mistaken, and genuinely believe you are acting lawfully (such as in private-defence (the technical name for the defence under which self-defence is located)), whereas you are not acting lawfully, you cannot be convicted of murder because you don’t intend to act unlawfully. To escape a conviction of culpable homicide this mistake must be reasonable – one which the reasonable person may make. But on a murder charge, it is enough, for an acquittal, if the accused was subjectively mistaken.

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.

 

[katydid23]

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.

and he didn't say he heard the noise of someone cocking a gun or people whispering to each other behind the door...nothing that was threatening...

 

[jay-jay]

BBM I can't wait either. I feel sorry for Roux. I bet that he was just a gob smacked as some of us at OP's ever changing, increasingly absurd story. His case lies in shambles. He is lucky to have this delay.The Dt experts were running around like mad right up to the evening before Dixon testified, trying to re-do tests to match OP's latest version.

I think Nel will rip the ballistics and sound tests into tiny pieces. Would Roux dare to put on a blood spatter expert? Op paid the professional animators between $10,000 and $20,000. It will have to be almost completely redone and they will probably not do it for free. I would love to see the animation. It would be interesting to see Op feeling with his hand on the floor (or not), then feeling along the curtains, all the while tiptoeing through all the stuff on the floor, in the dark, on his stumps, screaming in panic, all without stepping on a single thing. I kind of doubt that we will see it though.
Who else is left to testify? About what? My hope is for Clarice Stander. A plea would probably be OP's best option, but he probably thinks that he outsmarted Nel and will win. He always does.

My Opinion Only

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" )

 

[Mr Fossil]

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" )

Notwithstanding the fact that he seemed to have lost the power of speech! It wouldn't have taken much to say (whisper, talk softly, shout) "Reeva, where are you?". Even better, switch the light on!

 

[jay-jay]

Notwithstanding the fact that he seemed to have lost the power of speech! It wouldn't have taken much to say (whisper, talk softly, shout) "Reeva, where are you?". Even better, switch the light on!

Yes, why didn't he say that at that point? Many of us have questioned the 'fact' that OP never said "Reeva, did you hear that?" when he claims he heard the window opening .. well, as you said, why didn't he also say that ("Reeva, where are you?") when he had his apparent sudden realisation that it could be Reeva he just shot? How can anyone believe all this old rot? :facepalm: