Trial Discussion Thread #29

[liesbeth]

I thought he did. I thought his defense was acting in self defense. But on the stand, he changed that to involuntarily pulling the trigger when giving testimony. Or is that allowed?

And would you agree that this in fact did hurt his credibility? Just as claiming he never pulled the trigger of the gun in Tasha might have?

BBM. Not only credibility but also reliability in my opinion.

 

[minor4th]

I thought he did. I thought his defense was acting in self defense. But on the stand, he changed that to involuntarily pulling the trigger when giving testimony. Or is that allowed?

And would you agree that this in fact did hurt his credibility? Just as claiming he never pulled the trigger of the gun in Tasha might have?

It seemed that way for a bit, but as cross examination proceeded and then redirect, it was clear that he wasn't saying he accidentally pulled the trigger or that the gun went off accidentally. He confirmed that he pulled the trigger because he feared that the person in the bathroom was coming out to attack him.

As far as whether this hurt his credibility - yes, I think the way he testified and what looked like a purposeful attempt to avoid using the words "intentional" and "deliberate" and his repeated use of the word "accident", all of that hurt his credibility. However, as I have stated before -if you consider all of his testimony and what he means by "accident" and so forth, I think the biggest problem is his use of words and their meanings to him are different than the words Nel wants him to use.

 

[Paysee]

I respect that you may not have, but that doesn't make it universally true. There are valid reasons children are not tried as adults and the law protects them.

O/T Wasn't a 11 year old boy tried as an adult in the US for shooting dead his pregnant step-mother? And then calmly getting on the bus and going to school? I sorta remember his surname was Brown.

 

[steveml]

Yes, that does not describe continuous screaming

There's a world record for the longest continuous scream(ing).

It stands at 2mins 5 secs, and that required a crowd of people to achieve.

Link

 

[nastasya]

Well but this is a self defense case.

This is not a self-defense case.

One of the defense witnesses unequivocally testified that OP did NOT shoot in self-defense.

Trying to think who that witness was.....

OH YEAH! It was some guy named OSCAR PISTORIUS!!

 

[minor4th]

BBM. Not only credibility but also reliability in my opinion.

I think credibility is a subset of reliability when we're talking about witness testimony.

Reliability would also include such things as accuracy of recall, observation abilities, bias, and other things along those lines.

 

[soozieqtips]

Well, I'm dense as mud when it comes to understanding the law, but I can't believe that in a case involving murder in which there is only one person present and left to recount the crime (the killer) that lying would be extremely detrimental.

Some members on here accused Nel of interrogating OP. I was so confused by their comments. I would think that would be Nel's job as a prosecutor. And if the accused can't provide facts repeatedly without embellishing or changing versions, isn't that the whole rub to what Nel is trying to accomplish?

BBM - yes. If he was telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - his version wouldn't have kept changing. I think his problem's been that he's been allowed to witter on incoherently, adding a few details here and there, then denying he added any details, then being forced to admit he did because it's on record that he did. With all that dialogue going on, he just can't remember which bits he's added, even if it's just a minute later. The Judge has witnessed all this chopping and changing and made reams of notes (particularly when he's been caught out in yet another 'mistake'.) And the Judge will be used to people like OP so nothing will get past her.

 

[TipDog]

O/T Wasn't a 11 year old boy tried as an adult in the US for shooting dead his pregnant step-mother? And then calmly getting on the bus and going to school? I sorta remember his surname was Brown.

He was tried and found delinquent (guilty) in juvenile court and sentenced to a juvenile facility until he is 21. Here is a link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/jordan-brown-11-year-old-kenzie-houk-pennsylvania_n_1528791.html

The article mentions something about him being under 12, so perhaps 12 is the cut-off, not 14.

 

[liesbeth]

I was referring to Nel's "error in persona" argument. That's an argument - it's a legal argument. And it requires Nel to assume that the intruder was helpless and innocent.

Indeed. So let's go from there.

The person was behind a closed door. O.P. assumed that it was an intruder. He assumed the intruder was neither helpless nor innocent.

 

[TipDog]

It seemed that way for a bit, but as cross examination proceeded and then redirect, it was clear that he wasn't saying he accidentally pulled the trigger or that the gun went off accidentally. He confirmed that he pulled the trigger because he feared that the person in the bathroom was coming out to attack him.

As far as whether this hurt his credibility - yes, I think the way he testified and what looked like a purposeful attempt to avoid using the words "intentional" and "deliberate" and his repeated use of the word "accident", all of that hurt his credibility. However, as I have stated before -if you consider all of his testimony and what he means by "accident" and so forth, I think the biggest problem is his use of words and their meanings to him are different than the words Nel wants him to use.

Not accidentally - involuntarily, as in not by choice or will. And I must have missed that redirect (possible since I've had to watch the trial on archived videos given my location).

 

[Emz73]

He hasn't changed his defense - but changing a legal argument is not perjury.

I would say that aspect's of OP's testimony definitely hurt his case. I think it casts doubts on his overall credibility.

Thought HE has changed it from putative private self defence to involuntariness defence. That's what a SA criminal professor says.

 

[minor4th]

This is not a self-defense case.

One of the defense witnesses unequivocally testified that OP did NOT shoot in self-defense.

Trying to think who that witness was.....

OH YEAH! It was some guy named OSCAR PISTORIUS!!

It's definitely not a self defense case. It's a putative self defense case.

 

[Mr Ron]

Started playing catchup and have gotten as far as the end of Mrs Van Der Merwe.

The one thing in her testimony I thought might be important was that she heard 4 sounds followed by a woman's / Oscar's crying. She said that she heard no other sounds (other than the 'woman's' side of a possible argument that may have come from anywhere far away).

Does anybody suppose that this indicates that there is in fact a reasonable variation in loudness between gunshots and cricket bat strikes?

 

[minor4th]

Thought HE has changed it from putative private self defence to involuntariness defence. That's what a SA criminal professor says.

Read my whole post above - it seemed that way for a bit but was subsequently clarified.

 

[TipDog]

BBM - yes. If he was telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - his version wouldn't have kept changing. I think his problem's been that he's been allowed to witter on incoherently, adding a few details here and there, then denying he added any details, then being forced to admit he did because it's on record that he did. With all that dialogue going on, he just can't remember which bits he's added, even if it's just a minute later. The Judge has witnessed all this chopping and changing and made reams of notes (particularly when he's been caught out in yet another 'mistake'.) And the Judge will be used to people like OP so nothing will get past her.

BIB

Yes. Nel's tactic worked brilliantly, IMO.

 

[steveml]

BBM. Not only credibility but also reliability in my opinion.

It did seem that way.

My take on this is that OP is trying to do two things at once.

He's claiming that he didn't intend to shoot Reeva, whilst at the same time attempting to ensure that he doesn't say the wrong words regarding the alleged intruder.
He seems fully aware that this could increase his prison term.

Nel was playing a bit of cat and mouse here. It would have looked far more genuine from OP if he wasn't so clued-up on the charges.

 

[minor4th]

Started playing catchup and have gotten as far as the end of Mrs Van Der Merwe.

The one thing in her testimony I thought might be important was that she heard 4 sounds followed by a woman's / Oscar's crying. She said that she heard no other sounds (other than the 'woman's' side of a possible argument that may have come from anywhere far away).

Does anybody suppose that this indicates that there is in fact a reasonable variation in loudness between gunshots and cricket bat strikes?

Did she say what time she heard the 4 shots? Not exactly sure what to make of her testimony

 

[Emz73]

Read my whole post above - it seemed that way for a bit but was subsequently clarified.

So you are disagreeing with a SA criminal law professor?

 

[minor4th]

Indeed. So let's go from there.

The person was behind a closed door. O.P. assumed that it was an intruder. He assumed the intruder was neither helpless nor innocent.

Correct.

 

[sorrell skye]

He did say burglar and he said he believed them to be armed.

Subjective evidence: OP claims he believed the 'intruder' was armed.

Objective evidence: On what basis did OP determine the 'intruder' was armed?

Did he see the alleged intruder?

Did he see a deadly weapon (knife, gun, etc.)?

In addition, did the 'intruder' threaten to cause him bodily harm or threaten to kill him?

The answers to these questions are "no".

It is only OP's claim that he was in imminent danger. I think a claim of imminent danger needs to be based on more than just a nondescript sound behind the door of a toilet cubicle.

Not to mention, OP himself changed his defense from putative self defense to involuntary discharge of his firearm during cross examination.

Opinions of SA legal experts have been posted numerous times that explain that OP can't have two defenses, and that OP undermined or cancelled out his putative self defense claim during his testimony regarding involuntarily shooting.