Trial Discussion Thread #11 weekend thread

[Feynman]

excerpted quote:

OP is a paraplegic and so likely grew up feeling somewhat vulnerable (psychological state different from the norm).

He's not a paraplegic; there is no paralysis. He's a double amputee who used to outrun most other boys in his age group when he was 12 - on his stumps. Just my opinion: Given his youth, athletic ability, and training with guns, he has less to fear from an intruder, even on his stumps, than your average Joe.

 

[zwiebel]

That's true. There are very few facts in this case, this was stated at the beginning by Nel when he said that the case will be based mostly on circumstantial evidence. It's always the major stumbling block when there's only one witness, the accused. Everything that's posted on a forum you can presume as 'IMO', I know it doesn't always come across like this - I'm just as guilty as the next person with my wording on occasion.

Almost all criminal cases are based on circumstantial evidence. It is nothing unusual or particularly daunting for an experienced criminal prosecutor. Direct evidence is the rarity, I think.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence

 

[Rumpole]

It really does become risky for the defense. I too can see OP doing himself more harm than good if he takes the stand. As OP has maintained his innocence, and maintained that this was a tragic mistake, I'd guess the general consensus is that he should take the stand. I'd be bitterly disappointed if I were Reeva's family and this didn't happen.

Watching (mainly US) trials the advice is usually that the defendant does NOT take the stand. The times I have seen a defendant take the stand despite that advice, it seems to do them harm rather than good. Obviously it opens them up to cross examination and a competent lawyer can usually show them in a bad light. In between late starts and tea breaks, I think Nel is probably more than competent at cross examining a defendant.

FWIW I would not recommend that OP testifies. An outline of his version is already in evidence.

 

[steveml]

OP's lawyers will have him well warned to behave himself if/when he takes the stand. When his friend was testifying about the incident in the car, OP's sneering gave away a lot about his character. Even though he knew the whole thing was being televised and his whole future depended on this trial, he still could not control his negative emotions towards his friend, probably ex-friend now.

Indeed. I have a feeling that Roux is going to be a lot more eager to make objections than Nel was when his first witness was cross-examined. It may be that they have more leniency in SA courts, however I feel that Roux overstepped the mark on a few occasions. The judge only cautioned him once from what I can recall.

 

[Viper]

The case above is a tragedy but it is significantly different from the Pistorius case. There are no issues of alleged intrusion, no questions regarding victim screams, no suggestions that the accused was vulnerable. All these issues and many more are going to come into play when the defense team begin. The only similarity I can find between the two cases is the fact that an innocent person was killed. I can see what you mean as to how the charge would have still stuck if the state hadn't offered leniency though.

I regard you as a very intelligent person from reading your posts. So it is not surprising that you see the differences, but trust me there is a freezer full of red meat in that case for others to find the similarities, that is why it was posted! A Few of the similarities I see are:

1) car thefts in the area, and OP claiming numerous breakins violence blah blah
2) it was the mans child so he was devastated, OP we were deeply in love, Im so hurt, blah blah blah
3) he thought she was a car thief, OP thinks she was an armed killer
4) the man received no incarceration because his pain and grief for the rest of his life will be agonizing each and every day, OP is paying his fortune and his attorneys are using that case as a blueprint or roadmap to follow to freedom

There are more, others will post I assure you. But then another list will start to point out the stark differences.

 

[steveml]

Watching (mainly US) trials the advice is usually that the defendant does NOT take the stand. The times I have seen a defendant take the stand despite that advice, it seems to do them harm rather than good. Obviously it opens them up to cross examination and a competent lawyer can usually show them in a bad light. In between late starts and tea breaks, I think Nel is probably more than competent at cross examining a defendant.

FWIW I would not recommend that OP testifies. An outline of his version is already in evidence.

I'd be advising exactly the same. I think I mentioned earlier that Reeva's family would want him to testify, but when years behind bars are at stake you'd expect him to take his lawyers advice.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I promised I would post this if I found the video of OP putting his ordinary prostheses on (actually only one is shown) and how quickly this is achieved. Go to 1.00 minute on the tape.

[video=youtube;pIme8MrOpwU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIme8MrOpwU[/video]

With his running blades he does use strappings which look as though they are made from Velcro.

 

[Viper]

Watching (mainly US) trials the advice is usually that the defendant does NOT take the stand. The times I have seen a defendant take the stand despite that advice, it seems to do them harm rather than good. Obviously it opens them up to cross examination and a competent lawyer can usually show them in a bad light. In between late starts and tea breaks, I think Nel is probably more than competent at cross examining a defendant.

FWIW I would not recommend that OP testifies. An outline of his version is already in evidence.

His affidavit was found to be deficient by the magistrate overseeing his bail hearing. The judge read off a list of things that he was concerned with before releasing OP.

I had thought that he would not testify, but seems that he must if the other judge's concerns are not addressed, and how could they be if he stays quiet?

 

[minor4th]

Please share the opinions that you read, would love to see them!

The one case that you linked is a tragedy and an anomoly, it was significantly different from what Pistorius did and I am not aware of another like it, it was exceptional.

For the forum:

A retired man woke in the early morning to see his truck being stolen. There had been numerous reports of car theft in his neighborhood prior to that night. He woke his wife and told her at the same time grabbed his gun and then shot one bullet aimed at the back if the thief's head, killing her. The thief turned out to be his daughter, who never left the house that early but did that day to go and help set up a birthday party. The father was initially charge with murder, remember the SA laws about taking a life are very strict! Investigators also could not rule out that he intentionally wanted to murder his child. It was not until later that the NPA learned that the mans wife was a witness and confirmed that he thought it was a thief and yet it was really his greatly loved daughter. The State took the unprecedented step of withdrawing the charge because of the mans pain and anguish were much harsher than any prison term.

OPs affidavit is a cut and paste job of this one very exceptional case. Good luck with that in front of an experience judge! :smile:

Check out the link below - it is a list of SA cases with issues of murder and self defense. There are pdf links to many of the cases. Interesting to read around if you have the time:

LawCite

 

[minor4th]

His affidavit was found to be deficient by the magistrate overseeing his bail hearing. The judge read off a list of things that he was concerned with before releasing OP.

I had thought that he would not testify, but seems that he must if the other judge's concerns are not addressed, and how could they be if he stays quiet?

He did indeed list areas of concern and that needed explanation.

 

[Rumpole]

I'd be advising exactly the same. I think I mentioned earlier that Reeva's family would want him to testify, but when years behind bars are at stake you'd expect him to take his lawyers advice.

IF/when he is free he can talk in person to Reeva's family... when the time is right for both sides.
IF his story is true and he shot Reeva accidentally, then he too has lost a loved one. It is hard to see him sympathetically as a grieving lover since there is the 50/50 on his intent, but if he is genuine, then it's a painful loss for him, with the added fact that he himself shot her.

 

[minor4th]

The case above is a tragedy but it is significantly different from the Pistorius case. There are no issues of alleged intrusion, no questions regarding victim screams, no suggestions that the accused was vulnerable. All these issues and many more are going to come into play when the defense team begin. The only similarity I can find between the two cases is the fact that an innocent person was killed. I can see what you mean as to how the charge would have still stuck if the state hadn't offered leniency though.

I think's what significant about that article is the law professor's comments about SA recognizing a case of mistaken belief of imminent harm - that would apply to Oscar's claims.

 

[steveml]

Almost all criminal cases are based on circumstantial evidence. It is nothing unusual or particularly daunting for an experienced criminal prosecutor. Direct evidence is the rarity, I think.

Circumstantial evidence in it's most basic form is when you don't have an eye-witness. Many cases do have eye-witness testimonies, but on the whole cases aren't that cut and dried. I'm not sure anyone's ever worked out the balance between direct/circumstantial, but you may well be correct. Normally you would go with eye-witness testimony as your main focal point of the case and fill the rest out with circumstance. In this case circumstance is basically all we have, therefore this evidence will carry a greater weight than normal.

 

[minor4th]

A couple of interesting bits of info I learned from reading those SA cases this morning:

-- The judge can override both the state and defense and convict and sentence a defendant even if the state withdraws the charges

--Seems that many more defendants do testify at trial compared to the US, and in cases where they're claiming self defense, they are pretty much expected to testify and give their version and if they don't it can be detrimental to their case

--The appeals courts seem to have a whole lot more discretion to reverse a trial court's judgment than in the US. There doesnt have to be particular harmful error by the trial court; the appeals court can essentially re-weigh the evidence and come to a different opinion about the proper verdict and sentence and can reverse on that basis.

 

[Viper]

IF/when he is free he can talk in person to Reeva's family... when the time is right for both sides.
IF his story is true and he shot Reeva accidentally, then he too has lost a loved one. It is hard to see him sympathetically as a grieving lover since there is the 50/50 on his intent, but if he is genuine, then it's a painful loss for him, with the added fact that he himself shot her.

This it petty and may be rumor but it is said that he has in fact found a replacement candidate to be the love of his life, a 19 yo paramedic student he met on vacation in Mozambique. They say she attends the trial to lend moral support.

But more directly, OP was dating Reeva for just three months; if he had the characteristic to quickly fall for a girl and stay with her, as many men do and others do not, he most likely would have married his high school sweetheart or
Samantha. JMO

 

[minor4th]

This it petty and may be rumor but it is said that he has in fact found a replacement candidate to be the love of his life, a 19 yo paramedic student he met on vacation in Mozambique. They say she attends the trial to lend moral support.

But more directly, OP was dating Reeva for just three months; if he had the characteristic to quickly fall for a girl and stay with her, as many men do and others do not, he most likely would have married his high school sweetheart or
Samantha. JMO

I have to be honest and say that does really bother me about him that he dates such young girls. Like John Mayer does. Yuck.

 

[Rumpole]

A couple of interesting bits of info I learned from reading those SA cases this morning:

-- The judge can override both the state and defense and convict and sentence a defendant even if the state withdraws the charges

--Seems that many more defendants do testify at trial compared to the US, and in cases where they're claiming self defense, they are pretty much expected to testify and give their version and if they don't it can be detrimental to their case

--The appeals courts seem to have a whole lot more discretion to reverse a trial court's judgment than in the US. There doesnt have to be particular harmful error by the trial court; the appeals court can essentially re-weigh the evidence and come to a different opinion about the proper verdict and sentence and can reverse on that basis.

Yes I was forgetting the "self defense" aspect. He does need to make that case, so may testify for that reason. My "IANAL" advice would still be to not take the stand. His version outline is in evidence. Roux can and will flesh it out for him.

 

[steveml]

I can't remember seeing OP's estranged father during the trial. Any knowledge? :dunno:

 

[minor4th]

Yes I was forgetting the "self defense" aspect. He does need to make that case, so may testify for that reason. My "IANAL" advice would still be to not take the stand. His version outline is in evidence. Roux can and will flesh it out for him.

I think he needs to testify. If he is telling the truth, then he needs to say it and explain it, especially since he is claiming self defense.

 

[foxbluff]

Roux says he can prove that OP screams like a woman, and we are all eargerly awaiting that evidence!

Yup, the old "I can scream in falsetto and do a duet with myself in two different voices at the same time" defense! Works every time! Sarcasm

I've got that image of pistorius practising his girly scream in the mirror again.[/quote]



BBM I have a different image. I'm picturing Roux entering a balloon into evidence.

IMO it's possible that when OP, in his bail affidavit didn't mention how he came to wake up that night or why he was bringing the fans in, could also have failed to mention that while bringing the fans in he was sucking the air out of a blownup balloon.