Trial Discussion Thread #48

[AJ_DS]

Thanks to AJ_DS for his kind post on the previous thread: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?249307-Trial-Discussion-Thread-47-14-07-8-Day-38&p=10756852#post10756852 This is my response (sorry for those who must find all this boring!)

Hi AJ, my understanding is:

The court will consider all the evidence, the prosecution case and the defence case, and then come to its own judgement on whether the charge is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

If there is a not guilty verdict on murder, a charge of culpable homicide will then be determined.

Murder requires intent to unlawfully kill - there is no such thing as murder without intent. The weakest form of intent is dolus eventualis, ie you did not want to kill the person but you must have foreseen the possibility that this would happen. The strongest form is dolus directus - you wanted to kill. The mental state of the accused at the time - meaning his perceptions, knowledge, thoughts, foresight and aims - is therefore key in reaching a verdict on murder.

A defence of putative private defence is an absolute defence against the charge of murder, ie it acquits the accused regardless of other evidence or argument. This is because by definition, the accused did not intend to unlawfully kill, they intended to act lawfully but were mistaken. It is not an absolute defence however against culpable homicide, as the accused may still have acted unreasonably.

Your original point is that if a court finds an accused genuinely believed he was acting lawfully in self defence, this is not sufficient to constitute a defence of PPD. You say that in addition a test of reasonableness must be passed - it is necessary for the accused to show his belief he was under attack was reasonable. I say I'm not sure where you get this additional test from - I don't see how it can be in accordance with the law, if you didn't have intent to unlawfully kill, you cannot have murdered. You say this is irrelevant, because PPD is not a defence against the murder charge, it is its own separate case with its own aims to be tried, if and when the murder charge is not proven. This makes no sense to me, and I disagree. You also say it is a test of subjective reasonableness not a test of objective reasonableness, and I'm also not sure what this means.

Please do correct me if I've misunderstood anything you've said
Thanks again for the discussion, pandax

Masipa can't just 'find an accused genuinely believed he was acting lawfully in self defence' directly… Masipa must follow these steps, in this sequence :

1. Address the State's case for Murder… this means exploring and explaining why she does not believe there is sufficient credible and reliable evidence to support the charge of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. Address the Defence's case of PPD… this means exploring and explaining why she believes OP's version and evidence is sufficiently credible and reliable to support the case for PPD.

3. Apply the 3-step assessment to determine whether the death of Reeva was lawful (PPD) or unlawful (culpable homicide)

What you seem to suggest (and I may be misunderstanding) that Masipa can jump ahead to (2.) and dismiss (1.) by using (2.)… I don't believe that is legally possible

 

[pandax81]

Yes, by definition murder includes an intent

I don't agree that murder requires proof of the mental state of the accused

Imagine we had a CCTV recording with audio inside the bathroom where OP bashed the toilet door with the cricket bat whilst Reeva was in toilet cubicle screaming in fear and then OP drew his gun and fired 4 times at her... that's murder… what does it matter what OP's perceptions, knowledge, thoughts, foresight and aims were ??… they are irrelevant… they could constitute a motive, but a motive is not required.

Now to the issue of PPD being the absolute defense to murder… again I'm not in agreement

Yes PPD and Murder are mutually exclusive… but building a case of PPD does not weaken the State's case for Murder.

The fact is that we have 2 very different stories (versions)…

If one believes OP's story then the murder charge is ludicrous but it does not mean OP can automatically obtain PPD because he must pass the 3-step assessment… if he fails at the 3 steps he gets culpable homicide.

If one does not believe OP's story then the PPD case is ludicrous and culpable homicide will not work either.

Basically, if Masipa believes OP's story (in spite of all the evidence to the contrary), OP can hope for either PPD or culpable homicide… If Masipa rejects OP's story, OP can forget about PPD and culpable homicide, it's murder.

In your CCTV example, what makes it murder? I say the evidence of intent to unlawfully kill. Intention is ultimately a mental state, and this was concluded from all the evidence you listed - we infer that he heard the fearful screaming, that he knew he wasn't under attack, that he wanted to kill etc. We can determine intention objectively and subjectively. What if in his defence OP presented credible evidence that he had been hypnotised to do this and was not in a fully conscious state? I say we may rethink our evaluation of his mental state, intention and guilt.

PPD is not a separate case to be tried. I'm not sure where you get this from, or the 3-step assessment. It is a defence against the charges.

First, the charge of murder. The evidence, the defence case and the prosecution case will be considered together and then a judgement on the charge made. If it is found that the accused genuinely believed he was acting in lawful private defence, dolus is excluded, and he must be found not guilty.

Second, if not guilty of murder, comes a charge of culpable homicide. If the accused is as above, but also found to have acted reasonably and to have held his mistaken belief on reasonable grounds - judged on the objective standard of a reasonable person, then again he is not guilty.

Just my understanding. I hope this clears up your Qs. I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this one!

 

[sweetcaro]

Will any sealed evidence be unsealed post verdict?

 

[Greater Than]

This is my take on OP's defense:

In the beginning, OP hears a noise and grabs his pistol. He's the man, so of course he has to protect his girlfriend, and since he's on his stumps, he feels vulnerable and has to protect himself. So in full protection mode, he chivalrously puts himself between Reeva and the danger. He hears movement, feels trapped inside his locked bedroom, so he "fires shots at the door," as specifically stated in his bail application. With no uncertainty, he intentionally fires at the door because, after all, he was protecting Reeva and himself and acting in self defense.

But then OP gets on the stand. He was terrified. He didn't aim. He didn't have time to think. Before he knew it he had fired four rounds of zombie stoppers into a tiny toilet cubicle. Nel asks, "You didn't intend to fire four shots into the door?" "No milady, I did not."

Oh dear.

Now Roux is forced to take a different route because his client doesn't even know what his own damn defense is.

Enter Vorster. Amputation of OP's lower legs was a "traumatic assault," losing his mother at age 14 was devastating, he has a higher level of concern regarding crime and his safety than the average South African, and he has GAD, which may have played a role in OP's actions the night he shot and killed Reeva.

GAD? Nel is all over this like white on rice. He wants OP immediately sent to a mental health institution for a psychiatric evaluation.

Whoops.

NO! NO! NO! Roux objects! He argues in vain against the referral.

No dice. Referral approved.

30 days later - No GAD! No mental disorder! No diminished capacity!

Uh oh. Now what? Roux needs to figure out another way to support OP's testimony.

In comes OP's sports doctor, who treats the court to a thorough explanation of the startle/fight/flight/freeze response, which is unequivocally the length of the average doctoral dissertation. Is his purpose to confuse the court? Who knows! But he reinforces how vulnerable OP is and how he's easily startled, so it's working well enough. But then, when Nel asks him why he thinks OP shot at the door, he replies, "To nullify the threat."

Geeze Louise! That's clear intent!

Oh well. Roux is out of options, so he rests his case.

 

[Greater Than]

Worth a quick look. Two paras from a fairly long piece in the Guardian


http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ppeal-witnesses-refuse-testify-media-coverage
Oscar Pistorius's lawyers hint at appeal over witnesses deterred by TV coverage
Five people refused to testify owing to media attention, says defence as it wraps up its case in Paralympian's murder trial


A source close to Pistorius said five witnesses had declined to appear because of the intense scrutiny. "It was a media trial," the source said. "Without the media, it would have been very different. You've got to be a halfwit to think it's a fair trial. The full truth hasn't come out."

"A lot of the question revolves around Oscar's credibility and I don't think he did himself any favours with the legal strategies he adopted," said Altbeker. "The judge has to believe Oscar has taken her into his confidence. He's done the exact opposite and I think he'll live to regret that.

BIB - Whether or not it was televised would not change the fact that this was going to be a high profile trial. OP is a celebrity. Even without audio or audio/visual broadcasting, journalists would still be live tweeting and reporting from the courtroom. So while witnesses voices and images would not have been shown live to the public, their names and the content of their testimonies would have been. So any "intense scrutiny" these alleged witnesses did not want to subject themselves to, could only be avoided by not testifying at all, TV or no TV.

 

[AJ_DS]

In your CCTV example, what makes it murder? I say the evidence of intent to unlawfully kill. Intention is ultimately a mental state, and this was concluded from all the evidence you listed - we infer that he heard the fearful screaming, that he knew he wasn't under attack, that he wanted to kill etc. We can determine intention objectively and subjectively. What if in his defence OP presented credible evidence that he had been hypnotised to do this and was not in a fully conscious state? I say we may rethink our evaluation of his mental state, intention and guilt.

PPD is not a separate case to be tried. I'm not sure where you get this from, or the 3-step assessment. It is a defence against the charges.

First, the charge of murder. The evidence, the defence case and the prosecution case will be considered together and then a judgement on the charge made. If it is found that the accused genuinely believed he was acting in lawful private defence, dolus is excluded, and he must be found not guilty.

Second, if not guilty of murder, comes a charge of culpable homicide. If the accused is as above, but also found to have acted reasonably and to have held his mistaken belief on reasonable grounds - judged on the objective standard of a reasonable person, then again he is not guilty.

Just my understanding. I hope this clears up your Qs. I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this one!

In your hypnosis example, it would fall into the realm of the referral which could deem OP not legally responsible or having legally diminished responsibility… it would not be a mental state as you have described earlier : "perceptions, knowledge, thoughts, foresight and aims"

I believe that intent is "foreseeing that one's actions will result in foreseeable consequences"… pointing and discharging a gun at a person demonstrates an intent to kill that person… regardless of the shooter's perceptions, knowledge, thoughts, foresight and aims…. that intent may be deemed lawful (PD or PPD) or unlawful (Murder)

The 3-step assessment for PD and PPD can be found in SA jurisprudence

You say : "If it is found that the accused genuinely believed he was acting in lawful private defence, dolus is excluded"… I believe you are mistaken… the Judge has witnesses, forensics, expert evidence to evaluate and deem not sufficiently credible or reliable to sustain a charge of murder beyond a reasonable doubt… In her verdict, Masipa will have to address all of those elements.

It's not a matter of 'did OP genuinely believe he was acting in lawful private defence'… if so, the murder charge can be discarded

Masipa will have to say if she believes OP's version of events or not, based on the evidence AND her appreciation of OP's credibility.

 

[Greater Than]

Putative self defense and how it relates to OP's case is explained really well by this SA professor:

To succeed with a claim of self or private defence, one must satisfy a number of specific requirements. These requirements can be divided into those which relate to the attack, and those that relate to the response. The requirements of the attack are as follows:

1) One must be under an unlawful attack;

2) Which has commenced or is imminent;

3) Against a legally protected interest – such as life, bodily integrity, or property (of significant value), or the life, bodily integrity, or property of another.

The requirements of the defence are as follows:

4) Force used in response must be directed at the attacker (and no-one else);

5) Force must be necessary;

6) The extent of force must be necessary and reasonable.

If one satisfies these requirements, one’s conduct is lawful and one escapes liability. If one does not satisfy all of these requirements one’s conduct is unlawful. This is, of course, the position for Pistorius – who has conceded as much. There was no unlawful attack upon him or Reeva.

However, one is only ultimately liable, if, as required (see overview under ‘Fault’), one’s fault (intention for murder) extends or relates to all the requirements of the unlawful conduct. If one did not intend to act unlawfully, one has a valid defence. Thus – and this is what Pistorius appears to be claiming – if one mistakenly believes that one was acting lawfully, in self/private defence, one has a valid and complete defence. Here is the catch – actually, there are two.

http://criminallawza.net/2014/03/03/the-pistorius-defence/

He goes on to explain two hurdles OP has to jump in order for this defense to work for him. Worth a read for anyone still uncertain about SA's putative self defense requirements.

After OP testified, that same professor wrote about the implications of his testimony since he appeared to change his defense. Another good read IMO.

http://criminallawza.net/2014/04/13/pistoriuss-new-defence/

 

[AJ_DS]

Putative self defense and how it relates to OP's case is explained really well by this SA professor:


He goes on to explain two hurdles OP has to jump in order for this defense to work for him. Worth a read for anyone still uncertain about SA's putative self defense requirements.

After OP testified, that same professor wrote about the implications of his testimony since he appeared to change his defense. Another good read IMO.

http://criminallawza.net/2014/04/13/pistoriuss-new-defence/

Thanks Greater Than … great reference !!

I must say that the professor's explanations are not easy to follow (just as one would expect from the Law, lol)… will have to read it one more time tomorrow, after a good nights sleep with a fresh cup of coffee.

I mostly read SA jurisprudence on PPD and PD… it was explained in simpler terms.

I believe my explanations and understanding does not contradict the professor… I may however be mistaken… if so, I gladly invite posters to set me straight

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Regarding the referral…

The only character evidence available to the panel came from OP's family members and people on OP's payroll.

Character evidence was first led at Trial AFTER the psyche assessment and therefore none was to be found in the Court record during the assessment because PT cannot lead such evidence unless the DT first opens the door to it.

The sole legal purpose of the report is to determine if OP could be held legally responsible of his actions AND if OP suffered from a mental illness or disorder which could diminish his legal responsibility… (excluding sentencing)

Results were, Legally responsible = Yes , Mental illness or disorder = No … that's it.

The specific scores OP obtained for various tests will NOT be considered by Masipa during her deliberations… i.e. OP's empathy score (or whatever) cannot be used by Defence or State to bolster their case…

e.g. DT cannot plead that OP is not likely to have shot and killed Reeva deliberately because he obtained a score of 80 at the UVW test.

e.g. PT cannot plead that OP is likely to have shot and killed Reeva deliberately because he obtained a score of 30 at the XYZ test.

Psychiatric and psychological evaluations focus on behaviors, i.e. the WHY

Criminal Trials focus on actions, i.e. the WHAT

The GAD diagnosis the DT hoped for was ONLY intended to strengthen the Putative Private Defence… GAD would serve to bridge the gap between the current subjectively unreasonable and the desired subjectively reasonable perception of a threat.

As stated by Roux and Dr. Vorster, the GAD diagnosis would NOT have diminished OP's legal responsibility.

Final thought on this matter… These psychiatric and psychological evaluations are NOT an irrefutable proof of one's personality and psyche… they are far from being a precise or exact science… they can readily be manipulated to some extent.

These tests were designed to diagnose individuals who truly suffer from a mental illness or disorder… they were NEVER designed to establish (or help to establish) the guilt or innocence of an individual, nor determine if the individual is lying to avoid a prison sentence... healthy, balanced individuals are outside the scope of these tests.

I agree. All the evaluation has proved is that OP was of sound mind when he shot and killed Reeva. jmo

 

[ColonelMustard]

You are correct… neither Nel nor Roux can pull a proverbial rabbit out of their hat during closing arguments.

However, we will have 2 kinds of surprises in closing arguments :

1- Elements which were put into evidence but not in the Court record… meaning it can be used but it was not heard during the Trial… e.g. contents of phone data, expert reports, etc… I have a wager that Nel will introduce a 'mystery' Whatsapp message in his closing arguments.

2- Interpretation of the evidence… this is a circumstantial evidence Trial and no matter how thorough we on WS have been at exploring possibilities and probabilities, the fact remains none of us had access to all of the material that was put into evidence and some that was not but that may have helped us formulate a different hypothesis… Nel and Roux have interviewed many witnesses that were not called upon but that may have shed useful information.

I have a wager that Nel will introduce a 'mystery' Whatsapp message in his closing arguments.​

What makes you think so? Who will it be to? From? What will it say?

 

[AJ_DS]

I have a wager that Nel will introduce a 'mystery' Whatsapp message in his closing arguments.​

What makes you think so? Who will it be to? From? What will it say?

François Moller's testimony in chief-examination (the cellphone expert) :

Moller is being led by Nel to explain exhibit ZZ-3 : Reeva's phone detailed billing chart of 13 February

NEL : " Now, if one would use application like Whatsapp and/or Facebook how would that be indicated on the detailed billing ? "

MOLLER : " M’Lady all the social media communications will take place by means of the GPRS connections. "

… Moller goes on explaining various incoming and outgoing calls featured in ZZ-3 …

Moller skips ahead and explains the very last GPRS connection which started at 20:04:17 on 13 February and was uninterrupted until 7:28:06 on 14 February.

Nel asks Moller to skip back and explain the GPRS connection immediately before that last one.

Moller explains that the second to last GPRS connection started at 20:04:00 and lasted 17 seconds.

NEL : " Now to establish if this was a Whatsapp or what this was, one could refer back to the download report of her handset ? "

MOLLER : " That is correct M‘Lady, one would have to go back and have a look in the download report if one can actually find any application that made use of the internet for communication and mostly, in this case that she was a regular user on Whatsapp, one will have to go and look at the Whatsapp messages. "

NEL : " So if there’s a Whatsapp message at the same time that would indicate this connection with the internet ? "

MOLLER : " That is correct M’Lady. "

Reference : Oscar Pistorius Trial: Tuesday, 25 March 2014, Session 1 – starting at 17:53


Nel was very insistent on this particular and very brief GPRS connection… he basically invited Judge Masipa to look in the download report, in the Whatsapp messages, at the specific time of 20:04:00.

I may be wrong but I just can't imagine Nel would say all this if nothing relevant or useful to his case was to be found there.

 

[liesbeth]

Why did Roux argue against the psych evaluation?
And why did the judge say she thought it strange that the defense argued against it?
​

OP's official defence is (was?) putative private defense. This means that Oscar says he honestly believed that there was an intruder in the house and that he honestly feared for his life and that he honestly thought he had no other choice but to use his gun to defend himself/Reeva.

In order to decide if this could be true the judge will put herself in his shoes to decide if it was possible and reasonable for Oscar to have made an honest mistake/s. It's a subjective judgement. (SA Law: Dolus, or intent to act unlawfully, is a subjective judgement based on the person's state of mind.)

If the judge decides that it was an honest mistake, she would step out of OP's shoes and look at his actions and his situation more or less objectively. So she'll say yes, he made an honest mistake, but did he act like a reasonable man? (Note: This reasonable man is based on the legal definition and not on general consensus.)

If she decides that he was mistaken and he acted like a reasonable man, he's innocent. If she thinks he was mistaken but did not act like a reasonable man, he's guilty of culpable homicide (culpa = negligence).​

Or...

She could decide that he did not make an honest mistake. Then she will reject Oscar's version and look at the objective facts to determine his guilt.

If she decides he had the intention to kill (which is, by the way, the State's case) then he's guilty of murder. But, as I understand it, she could also decide that (based on the objective facts) he was negligent and could then find him guilty of culpable homicide.

Note: Murder and culpable homicide are two different things. Murder requires intent (dolus) and culpable homicide requires negligence (culpa, not dolus) so no intent to act unlawfully.

Edit: Added Note: I've heard that once the judge decides it is murder the charge can not be changed. I'm not sure of this fact, but I include it so that someone who knows could perhaps help and tell me if this is true or not.​

Simple enough so far. But things get interesting when, during his testimony, Oscar says he believed there was an intruder and he says he believed his life was in danger, but he does not say that he shot because he believed it was his only choice. Instead he says the gun went of accidentally and that he had no intention to shoot anyone and it was an accident. This weakens his official putative self defense plea. It also opens a door for another defense- automatism of some sort.

I don't think the defense planned this. At some stage during Oscar's testimony, right at the end of one of the videos, I heard a voice (Roux?) saying something like: "This is going to blow up." I'm looking through my notes and I'll post a link when I find it.​

To complicate matters even more Dr. Vorster testifies that Oscar had GAD at the time of the killing. She says that GAD would not have prevented him from knowing right from wrong. But GAD could have influenced his capability to act in accordance with this knowledge. According to S.A. law a person can not be guilty of a crime if he a) does not know right from wrong, and b) is not capable of acting in accordance with this right/wrong knowledge. So here's another possible defense- criminal incapacity (or insanity) of some sort.

I don't think the defense planned this either. I think they intended to use the GAD to lubricate the shoes for Judge Masipa, to make it easy for her to believe that Oscar's version is possible.​

Nel tells the judge that, based on past cases, the Appeal court will fault the judge if she does not send OP for evaluation. Nel also mentions that, without the psych evaluation, the prosecution has no way to counter Dr. Vorster's evidence with their own expert psychiatrist. (Which, of course, would give the State grounds for appeal if OP's found innocent.)

Which brings us back full circle: If the defense thought that the psych evaluation would support Dr. Vorster's finding of GAD, why argue against it? And why did the judge find their objection strange?

Dr. Vorster said her GAD diagnosis was based purely on what OP & company had told her during interviews. She admitted that Oscar could have been lying.

If Oscar wasn't lying the defense shouldn't have a problem with the psych evaluation. In fact a (minor) psychological disorder at the time of the shooting could even support Oscar's version.

Of course if the report comes back and says Oscar had no GAD....

We now know that the report says Oscar had no mental disorder/defect at the time. Oscar is normal. And this is significant indeed because if Oscar is normal, the defense will have a lot of trouble convincing the judge that Oscar should be judged differently because of his disability. And that Oscar did not lie to Dr Vorster. Or to anyone else.

Just my opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Could one of our legal eagles (or one of our learned members) explain to me whether a different charge would be in place if OP had honestly owned up to having a furious fight with Reeva, screaming and shouting for her to get out of his house, chasing her to the bathroom, she locking herself in the toilet cubicle and, in his rage, he shooting through the door 4 times. Would the "shooting in a rage after a dreadful argument" situation have allowed the charge to be CH rather than murder and, given his show of grief, have enabled him to cop a short prison term? Does a Crime of Passion charge exist in SA?

This is old but relevant

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Pistorius-Crime-of-passion-not-ruled-out-20130610

Pistorius: Crime of passion not ruled out
2013-06-10 09:11

 

[pandax81]

Morning folks!

Hi AJ_DS, I am enjoying our friendly discussion. I agree - I think it's interesting, and also important given what's left to come in the trial.

I think it's time to draw breath and take stock and go over where our different understanding lies. I'm gonna suggest that the confusion all stems from something simple. Let's imagine a murder case where the defence argues PPD:

1. You say that putative private defence (PPD) is not a defence against a murder charge. I disagree. I suggest this is the source of all confusion.
3. You therefore say that PPD cannot and will not be considered by the judge in reaching a verdict on the murder charge. I disagree.
5. You therefore say that the mental state of the accused at the time can be ignored in reaching a judgement on the murder charge. I disagree.
7. You therefore say that PPD only comes into play if a not guilty verdict on the murder charge is determined. I disagree.
9. You therefore say that PPD must always pass a test of reasonableness of the mistake as it can only be a defence against culpable homicide. I disagree - while necessary to defend a culpable homicide charge, it is not necessary to pass this test to defend a murder charge.

I am trying to understand and simplify where our disagreement lies. I've numbered the points so we can refer to them easily. Once we know what our 'positions' are, only then can we discuss any rights and wrongs in understanding.

Would you say that I've understood your view correctly? Do you have any Qs about my view?

(I hope this is coming across the right way, just being friendly and respectful and trying to learn and understand. Im always scared of tone coming across wrong on the internet!)

 

[zwiebel]

Legal questions on OP being answered right now.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ewnreporter

 

[Hoosen_Fenger]

Snipped by me for space.....

2- No Objectively reasonable escape, e.g. you were pinned in the corner of the bedroom with your pants around your ankles, i.e. no way of escaping the furious husband.

So if you were naked, where would you be hiding your gun? :blushing::laugh:

 

[K.T]

More general thoughts Weskoppies psychologist Scholtz’s reports (not the three psychiatrist’s report):

• Over reliance of the defendant’s self-reporting and the reporting (even lying) of family members and supporters of the defendant may unduly affect the clinician’s results.
• The results may tell one about attitudes of the professionals, in terms of bias or subjectivity, than strictly about defendant’s character.The psychometric tests are well devised but can be reductionist and are not infallible. Similar findings may have interpreted differently by professionals.

A separate case which I find problematic is Weskoppies’ Dr Sholtz use of battered woman syndrome in the ‘Advocate Barbie’ Cezanne Visser trial. Dr Sholtz’s Weskoppies observation of Visser claimed she was suffering from battered syndrome and only defrauded children’s homes, indecently assault and made child *advertiser censored* of underage girls aged between 11-14 because of indoctrination from her boyfriend Prinsloo. Prinsloo also made her get a boob job, have sex with children and go on a television reality Idol competition…
http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/from-ice-queen-to-sex-kitten-1.438529#.U8dY5Kjd2BA
http://www.health24.com/Columnists/Flattery-or-battery-20120721

Weskoppies Sholtz’s defense testimony of Visser makes me feel as queasy as Jodi Arias ‘expert’ trying to use battered woman syndrome to excuse murderous intent. While Prinsloo may have strongly influenced Visser, I do not think this is also a textbook coercive case and it sets a worrying precedent of defending sexual predation of children/minors. It also makes you wonder about their knowledge about emotional abuse or intimate partner violence research, in terms of Steenkamp's death.

Aunt Micki Pistorius was also involved in the Advocate Barbie case - hired as the defense psychologist expert in mitigation of sentencing. Micki Pistorius reiterated that Visser, convicted of 11 charges including child molestion, was a “textbook” example of a battered woman and felt remorse as she was back to her “conservative ways and now that she was back to her church.”*

“Asked by Acting Judge Chris Eksteen how Visser’s remorse could be reconciled with the fact that she did not admit guilt and tried to evade conviction, Pistorius reiterated that Visser had to some extent taken responsibility for what she did.
Pistorius said Visser had told her she wanted to face her victims and tell them she was sorry.”
http://mg.co.za/article/2010-02-11-barbie-psychologically-imprisoned-by-dirk

Except it appears that Visser did not later show remorse for molesting the girls; denied intending criminal intent; tried to appeal the conviction and also denied that the underage victims deserved compensation for their rehabilitation and recovery.

Previously it was asked on the forum if Aunt Micki Pistorius might have coached or helped Pistorius with to make a favorable result on this psychological report -

Aunt Micki Pistorius may be helping Pistorius but it’s uncertain to what extent. Uncle Arnold said in multiple interviews the whole family is supporting him ‘in any way possible’. (Evidence Room, interviews, expensive public relation agents etc.). Pistorius is a highly competitive, well-funded and intensely supported defendant. He may feel he has influenced the psychologist Sholtz’s report in his favour from the ‘loyalty’ of his family. Not to imply collusion but forensic psychology is a small community in SA and from working on similar cases in Pretoria Micki Pistorius and Weskoppies Jonathan Scholtz would know of each other.

* The use of Christianity and appearing ‘devout’ in Pistorius’ testimony and the way his religious background is briefly implied in Scholtz’s Pistorius report as beneficial, similar to how Aunt Micki Pistorius thinks a convicted child molester is now morally upright as she has rejoined the church, IMO just other examples of how an expert’s bias may make their findings questionable. The amount of convicts who are religious at the time of committing a crime or become pious and then re-offend, shows religion does not necessarily reveal character or remorse.

 

[kaos]

Well, I'm off the week beginning 7th August, so I'm going to invade my neighbour's house, and watch an almost life-sized Nel (life-sized compared to my laptop) give his closing arguments on her brand new 50-inch TV. Really looking forward to both sets of closing arguments so long as no green buckets pop up anywhere.

I'm watching it from the start. I missed all the opening but transferred all the sabcdigitalnews youtube videos over to my tv. It took over an hour to do and there's 102 video clips

One thing I noticed about Michelle Burger's testimony was she was quite adamant about the 4 shots and the pause between the first and second and if you think about the bullet holes in the door, they do seem to back up her version where you can tell one shot seemed apart from the rest of the grouping.

Legal questions on OP being answered right now.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ewnreporter

I'm not on twitter so couldn't get your original link but I took out the word "mobile" and the tweets showed up. It's not really easy to follow the relevant tweets but that's probably just me

 

[liesbeth]

Snipped by me for space.....

So if you were naked, where would you be hiding your gun? :blushing::laugh:

I love your sense of humour!

 

[liesbeth]

Why did Roux argue against the psych evaluation?
And why did the judge say she thought it strange that the defense argued against it?
​

snip

I don't think the defense planned this. At some stage during Oscar's testimony, right at the end of one of the videos, I heard a voice (Roux?) saying something like: "This is going to blow up." I'm looking through my notes and I'll post a link when I find it.​

To complicate matters even more Dr. Vorster testifies that Oscar had GAD at the time of the killing. She says that GAD would not have prevented him from knowing right from wrong. But GAD could have influenced his capability to act in accordance with this knowledge. According to S.A. law a person can not be guilty of a crime if he a) does not know right from wrong, and (edit: should read and/or) b) is not capable of acting in accordance with this right/wrong knowledge. So here's another possible defense- criminal incapacity (or insanity) of some sort.

I don't think the defense planned this either. I think they intended to use the GAD to lubricate the shoes for Judge Masipa, to make it easy for her to believe that Oscar's version is possible.​

snip

Made a correction as indicated above.