Trial Discussion Thread #50 - 14.08.8, Day 40 ~final arguments continue~

[Val1]

My understanding is the judge has the final say as to whether Fresco receives 'immunity' from possible prosecution for firearms offences in exchange for truthful testimony. She can't unilaterally determine his innocence or guilt on any such charges without a trial though.

Nel argues, and rightly so, that Fresco should have the opportunity to address the court himself before she makes a determination.

Will the judge be able to ask Fresco more questions?
ie. had OP asked RS to marry him, did OP say that RS had said yes and why didn't anyone else know about it other than OP's neighbour(not her folks, her friends, apparently not even RS if you believe the clerk where she'd gotten the valentine gift wrap from where they'd joked about boyfriends and RS hadn't referred to him as her fiance, something I would guess every single newly engaged woman would be making a point of), did OP have any other "love" interests Nov/12-Feb/13, when did OP buy the McLaren he had been boasting about and where's the paperwork to support it(how about the one he'd been telling everyone he already owned... the loaner), when OP fired the gun out of the sunroof was he scared/nervous or feeling entitled and belligerent at the "nerve" of the cop to have touched his stuff, when OP called RS about the movie/dinner plans on Feb13/12 had OP been drinking "any" alcohol that day, does Fresco know what the "sh***y" news was that OP had received that morning before the late lunch he and OP had had and where and when did that occur, how often did RS sleep over at OP's when OP was also there, ... did i forget any?

 

[BritsKate]

Will the judge be able to ask Fresco more questions?
ie. had OP asked RS to marry him, did OP say that RS had said yes and why didn't anyone else know about it other than OP's neighbour(not her folks, her friends, apparently not even RS if you believe the clerk where she'd gotten the valentine gift wrap from where they'd joked about boyfriends and RS hadn't referred to him as her fiance, something I would guess every single newly engaged woman would be making a point of), did OP have any other "love" interests Nov/12-Feb/13, when did OP buy the McLaren he had been boasting about and where's the paperwork to support it(how about the one he'd been telling everyone he already owned... the loaner), when OP fired the gun out of the sunroof was he scared/nervous or feeling entitled and belligerent at the "nerve" of the cop to have touched his stuff, when OP called RS about the movie/dinner plans on Feb13/12 had OP been drinking "any" alcohol that day, does Fresco know what the "sh***y" news was that OP had received that morning before the late lunch he and OP had had and where and when did that occur, how often did RS sleep over at OP's when OP was also there, ... did i forget any?

That's a really good question, Val. I think any questions she may have might be limited to the deal he has with the State and whether he held up his end of the bargain. It could be construed as unfair to a defendant having evidence admitted after closing, kwim? I, however, hope I am wrong and she totally grills him because I want the answers to all your questions!

 

[Susza]

And why would there be such a big difference between "somebody/intruders" and RS? I mean: both are human beings.

Good question.

I think the original question in the diagram is wrong. According to the State's Head of Argument, if the judge finds that Oscar believed he was shooting at an intruder it is still murder. Nel spoke about this yesterday. If you shoot A by mistake, thinking you're shooting at B, it is murder because your intent is to kill a human being.

Perhaps asking (in the original question on the diagram) if Oscar 'believed he was under attack by an intruder' instead of asking if Oscar 'believed there was an intruder' would have been a better option.

Thank you, liesbeth.

 

[whiterum]

and the phrase with the Mercedes against Fiat. They still believe they can buy freedom.

And what about a Fiat against Shanks's Mare since his Nephew may soon be in the slammer for the next twenty or so years.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Not exactly. In SA, there are different ways to convict on a murder charge. If he knew he was shooting at Reeva, he will be found guilty of murder, dolus directus. If it's proven he believed he was shooting at an intruder, and intended to cause that intruder's death, he could be found guilty of murder, dolus eventualis, assuming Masipa also rejects OP's defence(s).

CH is akin to negligent homicide. CH lacks any intent but it must be proven that OP could have/should have foreseen the consequences of his actions and proceeded anyway (shooting 4 hollow point bullets into a closed door in a dark room immediately after screaming at the intruder to get out goes a very long way, imo). In SA, a defendant is unable to utilise a self-defence argument when causing the death of an intruder fleeing, or attempting to flee, the premises.

As far as reasonable goes...SA uses the reasonable person standard. Effectively, how a theoretical reasonable person would have acted is placed against Oscar's actions. IMO, this is the reason for the emphasis on his disability driven anxiety. Roux knows OP can't pass the reasonable person standard on its own merits.

All JMO and FWIW - and [IANAL] . My law degree came with a free decoder ring. :biggrin:

This made me laugh out loud but for the wrong reasons!

 

[buntspecht]

About the black tallon amunition:

1. OP had it in his safe (ok, his fathers posession). Anyway guilty.
2. OP killed RS with black tallon amunition. So why bother Nr. 1? If he uses it then he owns it.

please help me!

 

[AJ_DS]

About the black tallon amunition:

1. OP had it in his safe (ok, his fathers posession). Anyway guilty.
2. OP killed RS with black tallon amunition. So why bother Nr. 1? If he uses it then he owns it.

please help me!

Bullets in safe were .38 caliber and NOT Black Talon

Bullets in OP's gun were 9 mm caliber and were Black Talon

 

[Niner]

Anybody who is not wearing a seatbelt on the Oscar bus is getting thrown under it

:underbus:


love this new emoticon! :silly:

:tyou: Zweibel for the tweets!! Just now catching up on "what" happened!!

back to :lurk:

:seeya:

 

[Ncl1968]

Ahh.. Sigh of relief..... It's over.... Bit of a slow burning process but we got there..
Now on September 11th we will see the judge give a jail sentence to a guilty man.. But what we all want to know is If he can remain a free man as he has done the past 18 months or can we lock him up during his obvious appeal..
I hope the gun charges alone can be nel parting shot...

I just hope money is so that deep justice is cheap

 

[pandax81]

Legal Round Table discussion of the State’s Closing Arguments – David O’Sullivan with Prof Stephen Tuson, Cliff Alexander and Riaan Louw (35mins):
https://soundcloud.com/giles-9/lrt-states-closing/s-JkbjO

Legal Round Table discussion of the Defence’s Closing Arguments – David O’Sullivan with Prof James Grant, Michael Motsoeneng Bill and Marius Du Toit (30mins):
https://soundcloud.com/giles-9/lrt-defence-closing/s-RkoDP

Prof James Grant on Channel 199 with David O’ Sullivan after conclusion of Arguments (9mins):
https://soundcloud.com/giles-9/james-grant/s-cDpRf

Attorney Tyrone Maseko on Oscar Trial Radio after conclusion of Arguments (18mins):
https://soundcloud.com/giles-9/tyrone-maseko/s-llHGA

Criminal Law Expert William Booth on Oscar Trial Radio after conclusion of Arguments (20mins):
https://soundcloud.com/giles-9/william-booth/s-opVSS

Brilliant, thanks Giles

 

[pandax81]

Does anyone have the supplementary heads of arguments from the defence, which deal with counts 2-4, please?

I have the defence's main heads (deals with murder) and the defence's response to the state's heads, but not this 3rd defence document...

 

[Val1]

'Prosecutors have twisted the facts to discredit South African athlete Oscar Pistorius in his murder trial, his lawyer has said in closing remarks.

Barry Roux said the double amputee should have faced a lesser charge of culpable homicide over the shooting of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.'

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28698887

My question to this is: If the State had charged OP with CH, would he have plead guilty and if not, why not if even his DT seems to think that was the appropriate charge?

 

[Cherwell]

He can't really appeal the charge re the restaurant incident now, can he? Hopefully he cops a custodial sentence for that one, and then he can do all his appealing from the nick.
Otherwise I can see him remaining free indefinitely, whatever the verdict or sentence.

 

[kittychi]

Arnold Pistorius tweeted: "As LIGHT destroy DARKNESS, TRUTH will destroy the EVIL."

Yeah too true.... the truth WILL destroy the evil!

What is he trying to say the vile man

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-Pistorius-to-learn-fate-on-September-11.html

I tweeted this photograph of Reeva right back to him / them.

 

[Niner]

still about 100 post behind - but just in case no one commented or asked:

According to Sky’s Alex Crawford, Pistorius’ family clearly thought Roux was successful. There was much hugging, smiling and kissing and they were slapping Roux on his back and shaking his hand after the conclusion.

She then had a brief exchange with Arnold Pistorius:

Alex:” How do you think it’s gone?”

Arnold: “It’s like watching a Mercedes car against a Fiat.”

Alex: “Do you think he’s done enough?”

Arnold: “Oh yes, more than enough. I want him (gesturing towards Oscar) back in the Olympics.”

Alex:” Really, do you think that’s possible?”

Arnold:” I flippin’ hope so.”

BIB - Delusional

And not just delusional but such an unpleasant seeming person - like uncle, like nephew IMO. Even the car analogy ultimately reeks of money in terms of what you can buy. If Pistorius does get off I hope he does end up at an Olympics as I believe the booing that will resound around the stadium might finally convince this family of how little regard the vast majority of people who have followed this case now have for this snivelling excuse for a man.

I was going to say the same - the booing from audience in stands will definitely put their heads straight!

It seems such a coincidence that OPs father turns up at this stage... did he just happen to be in town to see Carl in hospital? The others probably ambushed him to appear in court and sign the affidavit.

One would think they would be looking more sober, what with Carl on a ventilator in the intensive care unit.

Oh gosh - what happened to Carl??? :waitasec: I must have missed that conversation somewhere??!! TIA!! :seeya:

 

[pandax81]

I've been over the defence heads of argument. This is my summary of the defence’s argument against murder:

1) First and foremost, OP genuinely believed it was an intruder and that it could not possibly be Reeva. This fact alone is sufficient to reject the murder charge, regardless of what he thought or did, even if he set out to murder the intruder and thought he had successfully done so. (10 pages of legal argument are dedicated to this, and it comes first. I was surprised to see this, every single legal expert I have heard discussing the OP case has always flatly rejected this notion.)

2) Second, in addition to above, he fired as an involuntary reflex, which means he lacks criminal capacity. It was an immediate, involuntary, exaggerated, reflexive fight response in which there was inhibited thinking to at least the end of the shots. It was triggered by the noise and a resulting, overlapping, exaggerated startle response. The evidence in support of it being an involuntary reflex comes from the accused’s testimony, and Prof Derman’s evidence that during a fight response there is less thinking, with the least thinking at the start of the response (I’ve been over and over the argument, this really is the only bit of expert evidence they have to try and make a case of reflexive firing of the shots)

3) As a back-up, in case you reject the above, then OP did fire with thinking and intention in putative private defence (Nel said it brilliantly: they are trying to sit on 2 chairs at once, the defences are not just mutually exclusive but mutually destructive)

 

[kittychi]

@Niner: Carl was in a head-on collision last Friday. Apparently a car coming from the opposite direction veered into his lane. No result yet from investigation about alcohol use. Both drivers had to be extracted from their cars.

Carl has his own thread here now: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...torius-Motor-Vehicle-Accident-Hospitalization

 

[soozieqtips]

I think Roux went way too far when he implied Dr Stipp perjured himself just to help the state's case. That's a shocking and libellous accusation, and I hope Dr Stipp takes action. Roux and OP are very similar, in how they both blame anyone and everyone for all of OP's lies, and even his pathetically awful testimony was blamed on Nel. Is there a single thing that OP has been responsible for in Roux's eyes, apart from the reluctant admittance that he was negligent in Tasha's?

 

[Niner]

and the phrase with the Mercedes against Fiat. They still believe they can buy freedom.

HEY!! :maddening: I resent that - I own a Fiat Pop 500 - and I'll challenge ANY Mercedes!!!! :happydance:

 

[Niner]

@Niner: Carl was in a head-on collision last Friday. Apparently a car coming from the opposite direction veered into his lane. No result yet from investigation about alcohol use. Both drivers had to be extracted from their cars.

Carl has his own thread here now: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...torius-Motor-Vehicle-Accident-Hospitalization

Thanks so much kittychi! Will go and read the link! :wave:

See you all back here September 11th!