Trial Discussion Thread #29

[james83]

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?

After the 4 sounds she heard complete silence, after that she heard Oscar crying very loudly, the total silence she heard after the 4 sound's suggest's she must have have heard the 2nd set of sound's.

 

[steveml]

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

She awoke and heard the shots at 3am.

 

[Hatfield]

I do not believe anyone is taking Oscar’s word for everything. I think and I will simply copy and paste here; a few posters that believe that the legal burden of proof, without a reasonable doubt, of premeditated murder has not been demonstrated through evidence or by the prosecution as of yet it really is that simple.


By the way, one can rationally argue that the judge in a legal proceeding is not bound by the philosophical poise of Occam’s razor, more so a judge is not. A judge is bound to lawfully consider the evidence in a light most favorable to a defendant, a judge is also bound to look beyond a reasonable doubt; this is exactly when the antithesis of Occam’s razor would be reasonable. To give weight to a more complex possible reality than the perceived simple one that is the subjective consensus of the mass of onlookers is the judge’s duty.

I don't know how the judge will rule or what her looking glass will be beyond the hard evidence.

Re: BBM

Thats it. You figured it out. Some people are following "Oscar's Razor" rather than "Occam's Razor". :floorlaugh:

 

[BritsKate]

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.

And while the law may allow a putative self-defence to absolve one's intent to commit murder when it comes to an intruder, either armed or not, it draws a line if that intruder is running away or trying to escape. So even an 'intruder' being locked in the toilet is going to factor in heavily in my opinion.

http://www.londonllb.com/2013/02/oscar-pistorius-and-transferred-malice.html

 

[minor4th]

She awoke and heard the shots at 3am.

More evidence that it was the gunshots first heard at around 3:00 and then heard Oscar crying out

 

[liesbeth]

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.

Good point. I've often wondered how involved OP is in his own defense. It does appear, from his performance under cross examination, that he doesn't trust his defence/defense team enough to follow their instructions.

 

[minor4th]

So you are disagreeing with a SA criminal law professor?

I don't know - maybe? What SA crim law professor and at what point did he say that OP definitely changed his defense?

 

[soozieqtips]

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.

BBM - I think so too. Nel actually said something like "So you heard a noise. And you were overcome with terror. How did you get from 'noise' to 'terror'". That's the crux of it really. The window sliding open and slamming into the frame were things OP added in his testimony. At the time he said he was 'overcome with fear and terror', all he'd heard was an unidentified noise. And he immediately armed himself and went to kill whoever made the noise. It's ridiculous that a 'noise' is sufficient reason to kill someone, and I don't think the Judge will think it's sufficient, because it would set an extremely dangerous precedent.

 

[soozieqtips]

More evidence that it was the gunshots first heard at around 3:00 and then heard Oscar crying out

Then what was OP doing for 19 minutes before the first phone call he made?

 

[liesbeth]

And while the law may allow a putative self-defence to absolve one's intent to commit murder when it comes to an intruder, either armed or not, it draws a line if that intruder is running away or trying to escape. So even an 'intruder' being locked in the toilet is going to factor in heavily in my opinion.

http://www.londonllb.com/2013/02/oscar-pistorius-and-transferred-malice.html

Exactly.

OP had a way out. He could have run away. But he didn't even try the bedroom door.

 

[BritsKate]

So you are disagreeing with a SA criminal law professor?

I think this sums it up...it always should have been putative self-defence until Oscar screwed up on the witness stand - many times over - denying any intention to do anything.

Roux attempted to rehabilitate such damage on his redirect with Oscar. Some people feel he was successful - it was an honest slip by a rattled defendant - and now we're back to putative self-defence.

Others believe it irreparably damaged any claim to putative self-defence which requires some intent.

I think both views are opinion at this point. But from your link earlier, I wanted to share this, because I think it's still relevant:

To be fair, the interpretation of “accident” as a claim to involuntariness is a technical one. It is understandable that an accused who is unfamiliar with the law and the legal implications of what he is saying may make this mistake. This is not, in my view, the problem. The problem is that he seems unclear as to what his defence is. Until his testimony his defence has been one of putative private defence. It is consistent with such a defence to say: I intended to kill – although I thought I was doing so lawfully; I intended to kill the person behind the door who I thought was an intruder and that I had to use lethal force. On a charge of murder, there is nothing inconsistent with innocence to intentionally kill someone – so long as you think you are doing so lawfully (such as in private defence). But if this is your defence, it makes no sense to deny having intended to kill anyone. An accused who does so would appear to be unclear about his/her defence.

For me this gives rise to a crucial question: Why would an accused be so unclear about his defence that it seems to change as he testifies on the stand?

http://criminallawza.net/

 

[minor4th]

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.

OP's claim is not that he was in imminent danger but that he thought he was in imminent danger. There's obviously a big difference.

And there is much testimony as to why he believed that - it was not simply that he heard a noise in the toilet.

Regarding the change in his defense - like I said, it was clarified that his defense remains putative self defense. If you believe otherwise, then we'll see what Roux argues in his summation. I would bet money that Roux is not going to argue involuntary action and will indeed argue putative self defense.

 

[Carmelita]

My only question to you is have you watched OP's week long cross examination by Nel on the net or TV? Whether his testimony is gospel or not he has been charged by the state for premeditated murder. In his defense he took the stand to save his life as he claims, in the process he spun himself into an cobweb of lies, and refused to adhere to Nels warning on numerous occasions that he was committing perjury that was harming his own interest and future. Not once did any of his attorneys stand up and raise objections to Nel's cross examination.They were shell shocked and were helpless in watching OP dig his own grave.You may raise questions about his so called mental capacity to digest the fact that he killed Reeva as you put it in an accident, but the truth is that now even God can't save him.

We have amongst us an attorney who's an prolific poster,she could educate us all on the consequences for an accused charged with premeditated murder perjuring himself on the stand for one whole week.

I have watched portions of his testimony but not all it I have read transcripts but not all them.

I believe Oscar gave conflicting testimony and that has eroded some of his credibility but it has not nullified his defense. I believe that there are viable reasons other than being guilty of premeditated murder that could have effected Oscar’s testimony.

And I don't know any other way to say it other than Oscar has not changed his defense, I can see people being confused by it because of Oscar's testimony, but it has been cleared up by Roux.

 

[Mr Ron]

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

She was fairly non specific stating only that it was "around 03.00".

She was unsure that the sounds she heard were in fact gunshots. She finally termed them 'thud-shots' but only after pressing (She was extremely nervous and highly strung, finding it difficult to get her words out). She said the shots came quickly, the one after the other, and that there were definitely 4. She also said this was around when her husband woke up and he told her they were gunshots.

I found her to be honest, but incredibly vague. She seemed very certain it was a woman's voice she heard during the possible argument heard intermittently between 2am and 3am, but couldn't identify the source. She also managed to mistake Oscar's crying (once the ambulance had arrived) for that of a woman. I think this speaks towards her credibility in this regard.

 

[TipDog]

Good point. I've often wondered how involved OP is in his own defense. It does appear, from his performance under cross examination, that he doesn't trust his defence/defense team enough to follow their instructions.

OP doesn't follow the rules, made evident by the fact that he shot at an unidentified target through a locked door. I can only imagine the headache he has to be to Roux. But that's why he makes the big bucks.

 

[james83]

Looking back at Van Der Merwe's testimony, and thinking of her claim's of hearing loud talking for around an hour i thought this was quite interesting

Van der Merwe says voices at Oscar Pistorius's house also woke her up on 21 February this year(2014).

 

[minor4th]

And while the law may allow a putative self-defence to absolve one's intent to commit murder when it comes to an intruder, either armed or not, it draws a line if that intruder is running away or trying to escape. So even an 'intruder' being locked in the toilet is going to factor in heavily in my opinion.

http://www.londonllb.com/2013/02/oscar-pistorius-and-transferred-malice.html

I agree with you that there's an issue about whether it was reasonable to shoot through a closed door, even if he really thought there was an armed intruder about to attack him - irrelevant that it was locked because Oscar didn't know that when he shot his gun.

 

[minor4th]

OP doesn't follow the rules, made evident by the fact that he shot at an unidentified target through a locked door. I can only imagine the headache he has to be to Roux. But that's why he makes the big bucks.

That is not evidence that OP doesn't follow the rules.

 

[TipDog]

Then what was OP doing for 19 minutes before the first phone call he made?

A2H, Screaming like a woman and then crying like a girl - neither of which helped the deceased or his case, IMO.

 

[liesbeth]

Correct.

And the next question... Was it a reasonable assumption?