Oscar Pistorius Defense

[homegirl]

Dixon proved OP lied about finding Reeva sitting on the WC floor, not on the magazine rack. What possible innocent reason is there for OP misremembering that?

Dixon was obviously not up to speed on OP's latest version. I noticed that he was in
court during Roux's direct of OP. I don't know if he was in court during Nel's cross. He may have been busy redoing tests and such. He seems to have missed that OP changed the position of the magazine rack. Perhaps that was the first time the DT heard OP's description of where her found Reeva.

I felt a little sorry for him until he introduced the cropped photo of the test boards showing the wood splinters- and showing only the back side.

Then he admitted that he had suggested they reproduce one gunshot 4 times in rapid succession, rather than redo the tests after withdrawing the double tap theory. He went so as to try it out on his computer. He put forth the highly improbable gun jamming story as the reason for having to redo the gunshot tests. Not that he was trying to mislead the court or anything. He is pretty disgraceful in my opinion, comical but disgusting.

BBM Good question. It seems that OP could not bring himself to agree with any aspect of the prosecution case, even when the evidence is irrefutable. He may have thought that he cold single-handedly disprove the states case and do a better job than Roux at it.

 

[Carmelita]

Have you seen this Carmelita, I posted it on an earlier thread.

Quote:
It is worth noting that our law is only prepared to take account of the immediate external circumstances of an accused – and to hypothetically place the reasonable person in these circumstances. Our law has steadfastly refused to take account of any subjective factors peculiar to an accused, including any disability that the accused suffers with. This has been controversial, but it has been a line from which our courts have not wavered. If the reasonable person would not have made the mistake Pistorius claims to have made, even if the court accepts that Pistorius made this mistake, he may be convicted of culpable homicide.
http://criminallawza.net/2014/03/03/...orius-defence/

ETA The site has been updated so try this http://criminallawza.net/2014/03/03/the-pistorius-defence/#comments

OR...on the site type in The (Original) Pistorius Defence

Thanks Pat and yes I have seen that, perhaps when you posted it before. This part in particular seems to be of importance

Our law has steadfastly refused to take account of any subjective factors peculiar to an accused, including any disability that the accused suffers with. This has been controversial, but it has been a line from which our courts have not wavered.

Our courts have not wavered means that the court does have some latitude. I cannot believe that Roux would be presenting the case in the way he is if this were a rule with no sway whatsoever.

I read somewhere and I will have to search it out that the court could lawfully take "extreme circumstances" into it's decision making process. I think part of the judge and her assessors deliberations will be, to what extent is "fleeing" though a locked door on a second story, an extreme situation for a double amputee without his prosthetic on when he believed that there was a dangerous intruder in his home only feet away.

Now the judge and her assessors may conclude Oscar made the whole thing up so then his disability and state of mind would have no bearing on the case.

 

[Carmelita]

I believe liesbeth's point (though I don't mean to speak for her) is that the intruder may have been opening the door to get out of Oscar's house. Further, I'd add that 'wood moving' could have been a theoretical intruder clambering out of an open toilet window. The important point for both of us is that Oscar opened fire after screaming at the intruder to get out but leaving no time or ability for the intruder to actually do so.

And this brings us right back to a putative self-defence claim being nullified if one kills an intruder who is attempting to, or in the midst of, fleeing.

Could be. Then the onus is on the intruder to let the home owner know that they are surrendering. For an intruder to think that they can just open a door further into a victims home without suffering repercussions seems pretty foolhardy.

The important point for both of us is that Oscar opened fire after screaming at the intruder to get out but leaving no time or ability for the intruder to actually do so.

That is your interpretation, Oscar's version is that he thought the intruder after being told to get out of his house was then entering further into his house. Oscar states that he was irrational at this point.

 

[Viper]

Originally Posted by DebinGA
Dixon proved OP lied about finding Reeva sitting on the WC floor, not on the magazine rack. What possible innocent reason is there for OP misremembering that?

<RSBM> For space.

BBM Good question. It seems that OP could not bring himself to agree with any aspect of the prosecution case, even when the evidence is irrefutable. He may have thought that he cold single-handedly disprove the states case and do a better job than Roux at it.

IMO OP needs the mag rack to be in some other place, other than under Reeva. If the mag rack made a "wood sound" and OP fired directly at it then he intended to shoot the person behind the door by aiming at the sound that the mag rack had made. So OP and the DT do not want the court to believe that he fired directly at the sound(s) that Reeva (or the intruder, if you must) were making. In reality, think of him aiming at her blood curdling screams, IMO Nel made this point using OP's own version and testimony.

I cannot think of any other reason why the DT wants that mag rack to have been moved over to the left and placed in the blood pool by the police.

 

[patCee]

Thanks Pat and yes I have seen that, perhaps when you posted it before. This part in particular seems to be of importance

Our law has steadfastly refused to take account of any subjective factors peculiar to an accused, including any disability that the accused suffers with. This has been controversial, but it has been a line from which our courts have not wavered.

Our courts [I]have not[/I] wavered means that the court does have some latitude. I cannot believe that Roux would be presenting the case in the way he is if this were a rule with no sway whatsoever.

I read somewhere and I will have to search it out that the court could lawfully take "extreme circumstances" into it's decision making process. I think part of the judge and her assessors deliberations will be, to what extent is "fleeing" though a locked door on a second story, an extreme situation for a double amputee without his prosthetic on when he believed that there was a dangerous intruder in his home only feet away.

Now the judge and her assessors may conclude Oscar made the whole thing up so then his disability and state of mind would have no bearing on the case.

BBM My understanding of the above is there will be no latitude. It's only considered based on what a 'reasonable' person would do. It takes OP seconds to put on his legs, and he has the key to the door. Most importantly he was not under any direct threat by an aggressor.

It will be interesting to hear the judges summing up and whether she comments on these things.

 

[Viper]

Thanks Pat and yes I have seen that, perhaps when you posted it before. This part in particular seems to be of importance

Our law has steadfastly refused to take account of any subjective factors peculiar to an accused, including any disability that the accused suffers with. This has been controversial, but it has been a line from which our courts have not wavered.

Our courts have not wavered means that the court does have some latitude. I cannot believe that Roux would be presenting the case in the way he is if this were a rule with no sway whatsoever.

I read somewhere and I will have to search it out that the court could lawfully take "extreme circumstances" into it's decision making process. I think part of the judge and her assessors deliberations will be, to what extent is "fleeing" though a locked door on a second story, an extreme situation for a double amputee without his prosthetic on when he believed that there was a dangerous intruder in his home only feet away.

Now the judge and her assessors may conclude Oscar made the whole thing up so then his disability and state of mind would have no bearing on the case.

OP said his bedroom doors had shrunk up from exposure to humidity and the lock could barely reach from one door to the other. So to secure his door he propped a cricket bat up against them. Sorry, but a locked door was not in his way. The cricket bat was though. LOL!

He is a double amputee. I wish that had never happened to him. And frankly I would have trouble wishing that upon my worst enemy. But he is/was an Olymic runner, and his legs were on the right side of the bed next to where he says Reeva was laying, still asleep. An easy choice, grab his legs and make a safe escape with Reeva? Or go for his gun and run towards a possible death at the hands of Mr. Armed Intruder?

OP testified that his legs were on the right side of the bed next to the window. OP testified that Reeva was sleeping there, next to his legs. I never understood why he wanted his gun to be on the left side of the bed, until just now! Funny!

OP's Defense is just arrogance. No judge, no court, would fall for all of this nonsense.

 

[wb180]

BBM My understanding of the above is there will be no latitude. It's only considered based on what a 'reasonable' person would do. It takes OP seconds to put on his legs, and he has the key to the door. Most importantly he was not under any direct threat by an aggressor.

It will be interesting to hear the judges summing up and whether she comments on these things.

Given even Carmelita said that what OP did that night was not reasonable in an earlier post, I guess he is going to jail for a bloody long time despite her arguing something else lol

 

[sleuth-d-]

Dixon was obviously not up to speed on OP's latest version. I noticed that he was in
court during Roux's direct of OP. I don't know if he was in court during Nel's cross. He may have been busy redoing tests and such. He seems to have missed that OP changed the position of the magazine rack. Perhaps that was the first time the DT heard OP's description of where her found Reeva.

I felt a little sorry for him until he introduced the cropped photo of the test boards showing the wood splinters- and showing only the back side.

Then he admitted that he had suggested they reproduce one gunshot 4 times in rapid succession, rather than redo the tests after withdrawing the double tap theory. He went so as to try it out on his computer. He put forth the highly improbable gun jamming story as the reason for having to redo the gunshot tests. Not that he was trying to mislead the court or anything. He is pretty disgraceful in my opinion, comical but disgusting.

BBM Good question. It seems that OP could not bring himself to agree with any aspect of the prosecution case, even when the evidence is irrefutable. He may have thought that he cold single-handedly disprove the states case and do a better job than Roux at it.

the other thing i noticed, was that dixon was in attendance/listening during the testimony of the defence expert botha. it struck me how similar dixon's voice/inflection/delivery was to botha's.

 

[DebinGA]

....
I cannot think of any other reason why the DT wants that mag rack to have been moved over to the left and placed in the blood pool by the police.

RSBM ... If OP had found Reeva sitting on the floor, which Dixon proved he didn't, then his claim that he called Stander first because he couldn't lift Reeva by himself might have made sense.

 

[shane13]

Similarities and differences in Cop shooting with OP case


In the news now; an allegedly drunk cop emptied his clip of 13 rounds from his vehicle into an adjacent vehicle hitting the passenger side person 6 times.
This may have been the car right next to him.

Note that even though hit 6x, they will not be fatal to that person. This cop may not have been looking at who he was shooting, so we have some randomness here . (Or he was too drunk, almost the same as random?)

Again OP, shooting 4X and only 4x, with the last one being a kill shot to the head speaks volumes as to what really happened. JMO

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...king-six-times-bizarre-unprovoked-attack.html

 

[DebinGA]

the other thing i noticed, was that dixon was in attendance/listening during the testimony of the defence expert botha. it struck me how similar dixon's voice/inflection/delivery was to botha's.

I can't remember whether Dixon admitted to Nel that this trial was the first one where he'd testified as an expert or just as a witness. He obviously didn't seem to know what he was doing up there, so watching Botha seems like a wise move, especially since Dixon felt himself qualified to expound on the wounds.

 

[sleuth-d-]

RSBM If OP had found Reeva crumpled on the floor, which Dixon proved he didn't, then his claim that he called Stander first because he couldn't lift Reeva by himself might have made sense.

the lifting is clearly an excuse for the stander call. and a lame one. after the call he immediately picked her up and carried her down the stairs.

she was 5'7" with the slim build of a model.
he was an olympic athlete, with exceptional upper body strength.

i wonder what weight he could gym lift. i think he could pick her up easily.

 

[DebinGA]

Similarities and differences in Cop shooting with OP case


In the news now; an allegedly drunk cop emptied his clip of 13 rounds from his vehicle into an adjacent vehicle hitting the passenger side person 6 times.
This may have been the car right next to him.

Note that even though hit 6x, they will not be fatal to that person. This cop may not have been looking at who he was shooting, so we have some randomness here . (Or he was too drunk, almost the same as random?)

Again OP, shooting 4X and only 4x, with the last one being a kill shot to the head speaks volumes as to what really happened. JMO

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...king-six-times-bizarre-unprovoked-attack.html

That drunk cop must have missed the memo re hollow points being "the type of ammunition that is used for my firearm". The innocent stranger he shot 6 times using a 9mm Glock Parabellum is still alive.

 

[DebinGA]

the lifting is clearly an excuse for the stander call. and a lame one. after the call he immediately picked her up and carried her down the stairs.

she was 5'7" with the slim build of a model.
he was an olympic athlete, with exceptional upper body strength.

i wonder what weight he could gym lift. i think he could pick her up easily.

Definitely, as she was elevated on the magazine rack.

 

[shane13]

That drunk cop must have missed the memo re hollow points being "the type of ammunition that is used for my firearm". The innocent stranger he shot 6 times using a 9mm Glock Parabellum is still alive.

9mm Glock.
I am not sure the type of ammo was noted?
And I think cops often or sometimes use hollow points.
I will have to check this.
I think the main issue is randomness or not.

 

[homegirl]

IMO OP needs the mag rack to be in some other place, other than under Reeva. If the mag rack made a "wood sound" and OP fired directly at it then he intended to shoot the person behind the door by aiming at the sound that the mag rack had made. So OP and the DT do not want the court to believe that he fired directly at the sound(s) that Reeva (or the intruder, if you must) were making. In reality, think of him aiming at her blood curdling screams, IMO Nel made this point using OP's own version and testimony.

I cannot think of any other reason why the DT wants that mag rack to have been moved over to the left and placed in the blood pool by the police.

That all makes sense to me, except that IIRC both Botha and Dixon seemed to agree with the PT about the final position of the magazine rack. Dixon was very confused about it. I think it was probably some permutation in OP's mind, as he tired to think of the implications, rather than a DT consensus.

 

[shane13]

Here is a good article about police using hollow points in SF.

Note; it references that the early use of hollow points was considered a war crime.


http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2013/02/20/why-do-cops-use-hollow-point-bullets

 

[DebinGA]

Thanks for your comments:

BB3 - Yes, this is in dispute. The Prosecution say that OP was on his stumps when he wielded the cricket bat (Vermuelen's testimony). While both the Prosecution and Defence agree that he was on his stumps when he fired the gun.

rsbm for relevance

Capt. Mangena left open the possibility that OP could have shot Reeva wearing his legs if his arm was not at shoulder height but nearer his waist. OP slipped up on the stand and described his stance as a "crouch" iirc, like OP is in this pic firing on the shooting range with knees bent, upper body slightly forward:

http://a.abcnews.com/images/International/ABC_skynews_oscar_pistorius_gun_jt_140301_16x9_992.jpg

 

[TorisMom003]

rsbm for relevance

Capt. Mangena left open the possibility that OP could have shot Reeva wearing his legs if his arm was not at shoulder height but nearer his waist. OP slipped up on the stand and described his stance as a "crouch" iirc, like OP is in this pic firing on the shooting range with knees bent, upper body slightly forward:

http://a.abcnews.com/images/International/ABC_skynews_oscar_pistorius_gun_jt_140301_16x9_992.jpg

Firing the same gun he used to shoot and kill Reeva as well. That picture shows us what OP looked like, minus the ear protectors (maybe), that early morning when he killed Reeva IMO.

 

[Viper]

That all makes sense to me, except that IIRC both Botha and Dixon seemed to agree with the PT about the final position of the magazine rack. Dixon was very confused about it. I think it was probably some permutation in OP's mind, as he tired to think of the implications, rather than a DT consensus.

BIB Respectfully, but oh no! I have been re watching much of Nel's cross of OP. OP fought with Nel about this at nauseam.

There are many things that OP needs the court to believe the police moved or changed before they took the crime scene photos, and this is absolutely positively one of them. Some others are the fan, the curtains, the lamp and patio lights, the duvet, and the jeans. These things affect OP's, his Defense Team's, ability to portray his story as plausible. With respect to the magazine rack it affects their ability to claim that OP did not aim at the sound(s) that Reeva or the intruder were making behind the closed door and his hitting her with three of the four bullets was coincidental, not intentional.