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

[HauntsForHope]

I'm curious.... now that we've heard all the evidence, it would be interesting to see what the WS 'jury' outcome would be. Does anyone know how to set up a poll?

Roux seemed to accept guilty on the restaurant shooting and guilty of culpable homicide....

 

[HauntsForHope]

Aww bless uke:

LOL :loveyou:

 

[HauntsForHope]

"For example, if it is shown that a man ought to have foreseen the possibility of killing someone when he fired a gun, negligence is present and he is guilty of culpable homicide. If it is shown that he must have foreseen the possibility of death resulting from his actions or that he intended to kill, intention is proved and he is guilty of murder."

http://www.legalcity.net/Index.cfm?fuseaction=RIGHTS.article&ArticleID=4191473

 

[liesbeth]

But the State had already charged premeditated murder at the bail hearing and Burger/Johnson didn't give their statement until several weeks later! And when Burger did give her first statement iirc Roux noted she never described "bloodcurdling screams", simply "screams", with all the other descriptors appearing much later. So I am not so sure the police or prosecution actually gave the option of a plea for CH, (it takes two to tango) and Roux said they didn't. And if there were the need I'm sure that could easily be checked since the prosecution are in effect servants of the court, they give oath to serve the court, the same as all advocates, not the other way around, so notes and records will exist of any plea bargaining offers whether by prosecution or defence.

BBM

In her statement Mrs Burger said she heard "angs-gille" which Roux translated as "anxious screams." That's a deliberate mistranslation.

"Angs-gille" can only mean "terrified screams," never "anxious screams."

Nel called Roux on his deliberate mistranslations saying that Roux is not testing true contradictions. The judge then said that she wants the original Afrikaans statement admitted as evidence.

 

[HauntsForHope]

Thanks everyone for the fantastic trial chat! :happydance:

 

[HauntsForHope]

View attachment 56592
Rest in Peace Reeva
1983-2013​

 

[liesbeth]

SA Channel 199's Afternoon Show with Bongani Bingwa, 8 August 2014:

Barry Roux "put it" to witnesses that he will call experts to testify that a) Oscar screams like a woman, b) cricket bat on Meranti wood sounds like gunshots, c) the police tampered, contaminated and disturbed the scene.

The fact that Roux never called these experts will hurt the defence's case.

 

[Val1]

R: State said OP needed to be in bthroom and forgot....may I read bail application statement?

'During early morn I woke up, went out on balc and brought the fans in and closed the sliding door and curtains. Then I heard a noise..'

R: He heard that noise after he had closed the curtains....It's unfair.

Where has Roux been?? OP said under x that he never went out on the balcony, he merely pulled the fan/s in from the balcony and had basically said his affidavit was incorrect but oh that's not his fault, all he did was sign it. I can't remember if that was the first time he threw his lawyers under the bus...

 

[Susza]

Simple diagram on decisions judge has to make, and sentencing.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/08/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-murder-verdict-decision/

I had a look on this diagram and have a question as I am not at all into law.
In the diagram
- the question is: Did OP believe there is an intruder in his house?
- then: If the answer is no , OP is guilty of murder.
Explanation given (BBM):
First -- and most important -- did Pistorius know Steenkamp was behind the door in his bathroom when he fired four shots through it on Valentine's Day last year, killing her?

If the answer is yes, beyond a reasonable doubt, Pistorius knew he was shooting at his girlfriend, then the judge will find him guilty of murder.

My question is: So, if OP thought there is SOMEBODY in the toilet and his mistakes were not reasonable it's CH. If he thought it's RS it's murder.
Is that right?
If that's right, what are "reasonable mistakes"? And why would there be such a big difference between "somebody/intruders" and RS? I mean: both are human beings.
I apologize, I just try to learn.

 

[buntspecht]

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

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

 

[Val1]

R: We KNOW the deceased voided her bladder....it's all consistent with the accused's version.

It's also consistent with the involuntary voiding that occurs both when in trauma/shock and death, which I would hope we also all know. That the shorts she was wearing were so soaked with her blood that they dripped all through the house conveniently helped to cover up any staining that would have identified that, although I certainly don't recall OP testifying that he'd heard the toilet flush to support his version, oops?

Sorry these responses are so late, just got the chance to check the forums again after checking out on Roux's whine and cheese party at 4am(my time) this morning.

 

[Interested Bystander]

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

Thank you, Giles, so much for your links. I have missed the last two days almost entirely. Today, I couldn't bear to listen to Roux's whining. I had started to lose faith but after listening to all the discussions you kindly posted, I feel heaps better that justice will be done. It is very clear that all the lawyers thought (a) that Roux's arguments were weak and (b) that OP has a lot to answer for. The overall impression I got from the discussions was that it was thought that Roux was faffing around.

 

[Susza]

Thank you, AJ_DS, I appreciate your posts. They are really helpfull for me.

 

[liesbeth]

Interesting remarks from Channel 199, Legal Round Table, 8 August 2014:

* In SA law there is no such thing as a reasonable disabled man.

* SA case law says that the judge will have to look at the big picture, or mosaic, created by all the evidence before her.

* SA case law says that a defense of involuntariness have to be thoroughly proven. Lots of groundwork. No room for this defence here.

* Barry Roux, blaming Nel, said the case should have been culpable homicide from the beginning. But it was Oscar and Roux's call.

* The defence could have called Hilton Botha and/or all the other witnesses who 'refused to testify.' The fact that they are complaining but did not do so is damaging to their case.

 

[liesbeth]

I had a look on this diagram and have a question as I am not at all into law.
In the diagram
- the question is: Did OP believe there is an intruder in his house?
- then: If the answer is no , OP is guilty of murder.
Explanation given (BBM):
First -- and most important -- did Pistorius know Steenkamp was behind the door in his bathroom when he fired four shots through it on Valentine's Day last year, killing her?

If the answer is yes, beyond a reasonable doubt, Pistorius knew he was shooting at his girlfriend, then the judge will find him guilty of murder.

My question is: So, if OP thought there is SOMEBODY in the toilet and his mistakes were not reasonable it's CH. If he thought it's RS it's murder.
Is that right?
If that's right, what are "reasonable mistakes"? And why would there be such a big difference between "somebody/intruders" and RS? I mean: both are human beings.
I apologize, I just try to learn.

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.

 

[AJ_DS]

Thank you, AJ_DS, I appreciate your posts. They are really helpfull for me.

WOW… Thanks, but what brought this on… can you tell me ?

As I was logging in, I was contemplating giving all you folks my adieu, my farewells, etc… when I opened the last page of this thread, your post Susza was staring me in the face and I was taken aback.

 

[Cherwell]

I had a look on this diagram and have a question as I am not at all into law.
In the diagram
- the question is: Did OP believe there is an intruder in his house?
- then: If the answer is no , OP is guilty of murder.
Explanation given (BBM):
First -- and most important -- did Pistorius know Steenkamp was behind the door in his bathroom when he fired four shots through it on Valentine's Day last year, killing her?

If the answer is yes, beyond a reasonable doubt, Pistorius knew he was shooting at his girlfriend, then the judge will find him guilty of murder.

My question is: So, if OP thought there is SOMEBODY in the toilet and his mistakes were not reasonable it's CH. If he thought it's RS it's murder.
Is that right?
If that's right, what are "reasonable mistakes"? And why would there be such a big difference between "somebody/intruders" and RS? I mean: both are human beings.
I apologize, I just try to learn.

(bit highlighted in red)
No, I don't think that's right. It's murder if he intended to kill the person behind the door - whether it was Reeva or some other unknown person.

Even if it had been a burglar, he could only lawfully have shot the person if certain conditions were fulfilled, eg he was being directly threatened by the person and he had no means of escape.
Well of course he wasn't threatened, he never even saw an intruder (because there was none) and as Nel described, he could have retreated to the bedroom door, taken cover (with Reeva) behind the passage wall and covered the exit to the bathroom. None of which he did.

 

[BritsKate]

I had a look on this diagram and have a question as I am not at all into law.
In the diagram
- the question is: Did OP believe there is an intruder in his house?
- then: If the answer is no , OP is guilty of murder.
Explanation given (BBM):
First -- and most important -- did Pistorius know Steenkamp was behind the door in his bathroom when he fired four shots through it on Valentine's Day last year, killing her?

If the answer is yes, beyond a reasonable doubt, Pistorius knew he was shooting at his girlfriend, then the judge will find him guilty of murder.

My question is: So, if OP thought there is SOMEBODY in the toilet and his mistakes were not reasonable it's CH. If he thought it's RS it's murder.
Is that right?
If that's right, what are "reasonable mistakes"? And why would there be such a big difference between "somebody/intruders" and RS? I mean: both are human beings.
I apologize, I just try to learn.

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:

 

[Sherbert]

I find I tie myself up in knots looking at timelines of bats, shots, phone calls and crying.

As I understand it, the bottom line is, if Milady makes a finding of fact that Mrs Berger did hear Reeva screaming in terror, it's dolus directus for Oscar, appeal or no appeal.

And, in my opinion, Mrs Berger was a very credible witness whose evidence was broadly corroborated by the equally credible Mr and Mrs Stipp and Mr Johnson.

 

[Susza]

It also wasn't reasonable because he could have escaped, but chose to confront the danger instead.

It also wasn't reasonable because as an experienced, licensed gun owner, he knew shooting an an unseen/unidentified target is illegal.

It also wasn't reasonable because even without ear witnesses, the pathologist confirmed that Reeva would have screamed after being hit in the hip with the first shot indicating to OP it was mistaken identity, or at the very least there was no more imminent threat since he incapacitated the intruder, but he changed his aim and fired again...and again...and again.

It also wasn't reasonable because he was composed and thinking clearly enough to approach the bathroom cautiously, looking around corners, holding his gun in a manner that an intruder couldn't grab it, didn't fire a warning shot because of the ricochet, but then became a fumbling fool who pulled the trigger without thinking because he was startled. He was awfully cool and collected right up until the moment he suddenly "didn't have time to think," and the shots just fired out of his gun like an involuntary knee-jerk reaction.

Totally and completely unreasonable.

I would have liked to thank you three times, unfortunately it isn't possible. Thank you, Greater Than!