Mord-Prozess Oscar Pistorius

 I think where Op is in genuine trouble is that the evidence didn't really show an alternative series of events. None of his "experts" advanced his cause at all, leaving things pretty much exactly where he started, with the earwitnesses plus a lot of inexplicable evidence such as the photographs depicting the damage to the bathroom, the blood trail over the duvet, the position of the fans etc. Roux's had to do a lot of fiddling to get that timeline - using Johnson's "rough" notes which Johnson himself said were unreliable, rounding time estimates to suit his case, asking the court to discard earwitness evidence that doesn't suit his timeline, turning Dr Stipp's (0 second, likely an error) call to security into a conversation that the doctor had at his home yet at a time when Dr Stipp had actually arrived at OP's house but also suggesting that Dr Stipp's evidence was biased and should be rejected etc. 

Having said that though he argues so convincingly and so well that if this was a jury trial I think OP would be in a better position. I am assuming that the Judge and her assessors will closely evaluate the presented evidence themselves and not rely on Roux's interpretation of it and that Nel, in knowing the strength of the State's earwitnesses, doesn't need to jump up and down telling the court what they need to infer. I am also assuming that, being trained in such matters, the Judge and assessors will be skilled at weighing up all the evidence and thus will not make a decision based on a single factor about the case ("help help help", or OP's disability=vulnerability argument) which would have been a potential problem with a jury, who, as we have seen on here, may well have contained a member who simply can't see past a single point to look at the wider picture. Because of the complexity of the case with OP's disability and his own high profile I would be a lot less confidant if this was to be decided by a jury. Although having said that I'm sure Nel's presentation and explanation of the facts would be very different if this were the case. 

The other factor which makes me confidant is that the vast majority of posters here immediately saw Roux's trickery in skewing the timeline and also all of the other "cheap DT tricks" - OP's supposed puking, wailing "remorse", his memory lapses on the stand, the inconsistencies in his testimony, his shocking and sometimes frankly biased defence witnesses, lack of expert witness note taking, the late reports, the wailing of female ear witnesses imitating the crying that they knew was from a man etc. I'm sure we're a clever bunch but I'm equally sure that when it comes to criminal law and criminal defence, things that raise our "bull waste" hackles will also be noted by the Judge and assessors who are, I'm sure, able to more than match the cleverest of us intellectually and who will leave us all for dust when it comes to their knowledge of South African criminal law.


http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?241098-Theory-Thread-What-happened-at-Pistorius-house-on-the-night-of-Feb-13-2013&p=10906569#post10906569

Ali schrieb:@Die Lara

Bei websleuths und digitalspy schreiben wirklich sehr gute Leute. Da wühlt man sich dann auch gerne mal durch das ganze Englisch. Jeden Tag kommen da mehrere Seiten zusammen, schafft man auch nicht immer. 
Deshalb seht es mir bitte nach, wenn ich nicht auch noch übersetzen mag.
Die Beweislast ist ausserdem so gravierend, dass Roux die Schreie ( waren ja männliche UND weibliche) nicht wegbekommen wird. Das Licht, das Kreuzverhör, den Mageninhalt, allein die 4 Schüsse, es spricht ja alles gegen ihn.
An einer Stelle hat ihn Nel fast mal gehabt, nämlich als er Oscar fragte, ob er keine Schreie gehört hat und dieser dann in minutenlanges Schweigen verfiel.
Wenn ich 2m vor jemandem stehe, dann bin ich niemals so taub, dass ein "ring ring" "bloodcurling screams" überdeckt.
Seine Geschichte ist wirklich von vorne bis hinten erlogen. Zuviele Zufälle auf einmal.
Die Burgers und besonders auch Dr. Stipp waren Albtraumzeugen für die Vertredigung.

Wette, dass Roux das auch weiss und der Appeal schon in Vorbereitung ist. Damit und mit der Kaution hat OP sich bestimmt schon mal 3 Jahre Freiheit erschwindeln können. Vielleicht geht auch nicht alles aufs Rouxs Konto, wie zum Bespiel den Vorfall Tasha abzustreiten und für gar nichts Verantwortung übernehmen zu wollen.
Wie auch immer, die Richterin ist nicht auf die Show der Verteidigung am Ende reingefallen. Das war zu auffällig. 
Nel braucht sowas nicht, weil er klar ist.

Ali schrieb:Die ersten Sounds, die Stipp gehört hat, können keine Schüsse gewesen sein. 

Ali schrieb:Wenn man sich einiges noch mal anhört oder auch niedergeschreiben sieht, wird das Bild immer klarer.

Ali schrieb:

Hier nochmal schnell zwei Experts. 

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/08/08/will-oscar-pistorius-be-found-guilty-murder-legal-analysts-weigh

Rabenfeder: ich habe halt das Problem, dass ich Videos nicht anhören kann, dauert zu lange
bin in einem Gebiet ohne jegliche Versorgung mit Internet
weswegen ich auf Zusammenfassungen angewiesen bin
was genau war an der Aussage von Stipp so aufschlussreich?

Rabenfeder: wieso wurden all diese aufschlussreichen Elemente nicht im Plädoyer zusammengefasst

DieLara: Auf jeden Fall waren die ersten Sounds für mich Luftgewehrschüsse.

WHEN CAN I FIRE?

Use of lethal force to defend property

Anton du Plessis, Institute for Security Studies

Published in Crime Quarterly No 8 2004

http://www.issafrica.org/pubs/CrimeQ/No.8/duPlessis.htm

Ali schrieb:Deshalb geht mir auch das zerdepperte Badewannenblech nicht aus dem Sinn, das sich ja unterhalb des Badezimmerfensters also in guter Hörweite Richtung  Stipps hin liegt.

Ali schrieb:Ansonsten wird wieder fleissig gebetet, wer sich da noch reinquetschen will. 

28.11 Roux interjects Nel and goes on about 1st and 2nd shots
BUT - listen to Roux slip up ---- He says :

"...........we have no other statements, after those shots, not the first shots....., the real shots"

Siobhan - the Defence's case is that the first sounds were the Gunshots at 3.12, not the second sounds ,but he contradicts this in what he said on that VT. 

The Defence Case is that the first sounds were gunshots, the second sounds was the bat on the door, but Roux said :

"...........we have no other statements, after those shots, not the first shots....., the real shots"

Combine the above comment with Roux's physical movements and expression - and he revealed he knows the second sounds were indeed the real gunshots, he lost concentration I think of OP's version !!



http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost.php?p=74557029&postcount=16619

Bongani Bingwa with Judge Greenland and Ulrich Roux - Part 1

I’ve transcribed all relevant parts of this brilliant interview at the conclusion of Nel’s closing argument because it covers all the important issues:

“JG: What I want to say is that we’ve come to the point at the conclusion of all Nel’s efforts. We’ve said that Roux is in full flight and I would say that Nel has made a very nice landing in concluding his arguments. And in a very calm, dignified way, he submitted to the court that Oscar has to be convicted of murder on the basis that his story, his version, has to be rejected because for any number of reasons – he was a vague witness, he was argumentative, and most importantly he was guilty of striking mendacity. And he has said that the idea of a perceived intruder, once that’s out of the window, the whole defence falls flat. So his first submission is that even – and we must understand this – even if the court is unable to say that the State has proved how or why the murder was committed, ...
BB: The killing rather.

JG: ... sorry, the killing occurred, he is guilty of murder. And this is important for the public to understand – the State doesn’t have to prove why, the State doesn’t have to prove motive. Gerrie did proffer a timeline as to how the murder did occur and why, as regards them, by saying they must have been awake at the time, there’s an inference they had a quarrel. But it’s important for the public to understand that the State doesn’t have to prove that. It only has to prove that Oscar pointed the weapon at Reeva, shot and killed her without legal excuse. That’s all it has to do. So that was his first point.

And his second point was that even if you accept Oscar’s version, he is still guilty of murder as opposed to, let’s say, culpable homicide. He’s sayingthere’s still intention, and Ulrich is going to explain why that is so. From the public’s point of view it really boils down to this: You can’t just shoot an intruder. You can’t just execute an intruder. You cannot shoot or kill somebody just because they are in your house. You can only shoot somebody if you’re actually under imminent threat of serious injury or death.

UR: When one looks at the charge of murder, there are four different variances. The first is premeditated murder, then you have murder directus, then you have dolus eventualis and murder dolus indirectus. Premeditated murder is where there is a plan conceived and that plan is executed by the accused (example given). There is no definition in our law of premeditated murder. There is no definition in our Act. But people do get convicted of premeditated murder and the important thing surrounding that, and the difference between premeditated and normal murder is that with premeditated murder the court can sentence a person to life imprisonment – that is the minimum sentence. With murder the minimum sentence is 25 years. Where that comes into play is when a person receives a life sentence, he can only apply for parole after 25 years. When he receives 25 years, he can apply for parole after 12 years. So that is the big difference between premeditated and murder. Murder directus is where a person acts in a certain manner. He knows that if he acts in that manner someone will be killed and he acts accordingly. What Nel pointed out in his argument today is there is no significance in an error in persona. In other words whether it is an intruder behind the door or whether it is Reeva behind the door, there is no difference. He still wanted to kill whoever was behind that door.

BB: You already explained what premeditated murder was. You were then in the middle of explaining how somebody might kill another without perhaps planning to but nonetheless do it intending to do so.

UR: That is what we refer to as dolus directus. So I act on the spur of the moment so to speak. There is no premeditated plan but something happens and it enrages me or I act in a certain way. I want to kill a person and I proceed to kill that person. The importance of that definition in this case especially is that if there’s an error in persona, in other words if I’m not sure, as in Oscar’s case, who is behind that door, it is no defence. I still made up my mind to draw my firearm, fire four shots through that door with the intention of killing whoever is behind that door.

BB: Which is why then Nel was at pains to say, “Look, he did plan to do this. He went and thought about where the firearm was, he walked towards that door all the time shouting, he had enough time to make a decision, if you accept, as the State contends, that in fact Oscar knew it was Reeva behind that door. But if you put that aside and you go with his version, he then says he still can’t get off because he knew there was an individual behind that door, and in fact conceded that under cross-examination.

UR: Exactly. And the gap that Nel also has is there is no defined time limit to premeditated murder. You can plan it in a matter of 20 seconds or as I explained it earlier, in a matter of weeks or months. But that is where Nel still says that it was premeditated murder. We’ve finished with murder dolus directus now. Then you get murder dolus eventualis which Nel also referred to. Now, that is where a person knows that if he acts in a certain manner, there is a possibility that someone will be killed through his actions. He reconciles himself with that fact and he still acts accordingly, and that is what Nel is also saying. Even if you acquit him on premeditated murder or murder dolus directus, surely you must find him guilty him on that because surely you must have known that if you take your firearm and you discharge four bullets through a bathroom door, and it is your perception that there’s someone behind that door, there is a very real possibility that whoever is behind that door will be killed, you reconcile yourself with that fact and you still act accordingly. And then Nel went even one step further. He said, “Even if the Judge acquits Oscar on those three different variances of murder, then she must convict him on culpable homicide because his actions were so negligent, and of course that is the negligent killing of another person, that he must be convicted in that he thought that there was a – well, even if he thought there was an intruder, still his actions led to the person being killed and he was grossly negligent in doing that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBKG...Ymmeg1-HBURUsg
 

Bongani Bingwa with Judge Greenland and Ulrich Roux - Part 2

BB: So in a sense Nel has tied up almost every single possibility as far as making sure OP goes away for a long time. Barry Roux of course is having none of that is he?

JG: Yes, and just to clarify what we’ve just been talking about, all the other evidence about the hearing of a woman screaming and all that is really facts and factors and circumstances that are relevant to these core factors. So we must understand that even if you didn’t have any other evidence, and you only had what we’ve just been talking about, and the Court accepts Nel’s argument that it must reject Oscar’s evidence, it would have to find him guilty. So as I said to you before, it really boils down to that. If Oscar’s version is rejected, and Nel is arguing that it must be rejected, he must be found guilty.

BB: I have to ask you this though. Barry Roux as he began to lay out what he is going to be arguing, says, “You can’t ignore the timeline”. He says, “The defence, or rather the State, hasn’t at all bothered with the fact that there were differences in when different sounds might have been heard. And for the defence’s case, that’s a crucial thing because if the shots went out at 3:12 or thereabouts, it then gives Oscar time to scream which explains what the ear witnesses brought by the State might have heard, and of course it accounts for the second set of sounds that the defence says happened because the cricket bat was beating down the door to break it open. Surely Barry Roux has a point there?

JG: No. He has a point because it’s critical to the defence in terms of the defence perception that Oscar must be believed. In order to have Oscar believed, he has to advance this argument that you cannot ignore the timeline. To the defence it’s important that the State witnesses be disbelieved or their evidence be rejected. I am saying – and I’m sticking my neck out – that at the fundamental level, all that is actually irrelevant. The timeline might be completely messed up between all these witnesses. If the court does not believe Oscar, or rather if the court disbelieves Oscar as to why he killed Reeva, the court has no option for the reasons that Ulrich has set out, but to convict him. Whatever findings about the timeline there are and about the screaming and cricket bat and all that, that in a sense is actually, not irrelevant, but sort of a red herring.

BB: Ulrich Roux, you’re a defence attorney, put yourself in Barry Roux’s big shoes no doubt. How do you with what Nel was saying today, that OP was not only a weak witness, that he was mendacious? How do you deal with making sure that the court looks favourably on your client? I mean where does Barry Roux go to from here?

UR: We said it from the beginning, and we maintained it throughout the trial, that the trial was always going to be about Oscar’s testimony. And unfortunately it doesn’t matter how much you prepare your client or witnesses, you cannot foresee how they will react in the witness box and how they will withstand cross-examination. Now it is of course everyone’s perception that he was a weak witness, that he didn’t testify well. Nel outlined how he was evasive, he was emotional, he got angry with Nel, he changed his versions and all those reasons, but the only thing that the defence is left to do now is to stick to their version and their version was that he made a mistake in shooting Reeva, that he thought there was an intruder, he honestly believed his life was in danger and that the only way that the only way he could protect his own and Reeva’s lives was to shoot whoever was behind that door. Now they attempted to back that up by all the psychological evidence that was led and all the character evidence that was led on Oscar’s behalf as well, that he’d gone through all these traumatic experiences throughout his life and that that was the reason why he thought that his life was in danger. Now to answer your question, it is difficult to deal with the way your client testified, it is of course, and that testimony is on the record. But if I had to give them advice it would be “Stick to your story. Do not attack the State’s case as such now. Stick to your version and try and convince the Judge that it is reasonably possibly true”. Now he’s already shown his hand and indicated that he’s going to attack the police investigation of the matter, but I don’t think it is really material because of those reasons we said earlier. He picked up his gun, he killed whoever was behind that door. The fact that the scene was tampered with to an extent afterwards, after she was shot and killed, or interfered with, does it really have a big meaning? Is it really material? Do the timelines really play such a big part, as Judge Greenland said now? Those are the things that they need to consider. But they can only hang on their case and their version.

BB: Judge Greenland, if I may, Barry Roux says all those things are material. He says that what the State is choosing to ignore are material facts.

JG: Can I put it this way. It’s in the interests of the defence to subvert all the evidence that contradicts Oscar – evidence before and the evidence thereafter – because it then provides the basis for them submitting to the court, “The only explanation you have of the killing is from Oscar”. And for the reasons that our colleagues have often told us on this show, it’s the reasonably possible true story. “You might not like it, but unless you can actually disbelieve him on jurisprudential grounds, you have no option but to acquit”. So in a nutshell, this is to reach a stage where the defence can submit that the court can only go on Oscar’s version.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBKG...Ymmeg1-HBURUsg