Zum Nachlesen, wer die Bongani Interviews mit Judge Greenland und Ulrich Roux nicht anschauen kann.
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