04-13-2014, 09:57 PM #1
Trial Discussion Thread #48
Oscar Pistorius: South Africa gears up for its 'trial of the century'
(CNN) -- He was one of South Africa's favorite sons, an amputee track star who defied all the odds and sprinted into the hearts of millions during the 2012 Summer Olympics in London. She was a staggering beauty with the brains to match, a law graduate and model whose star was on the rise.
Pistorius channel goes on air in South Africa
Watch live: Oscar Pistorius murder trial
Follow events from Pretoria as paralympic athlete Oscar Pistorius appears in court accused of murdering his girlfriend, the model Reeva Steenkamp.
Full Indictment-4 Counts-107 Witnesses
Live News Feed
Trial Video Archive:
Thread #8 Thread #9 Thread #10 Thread #11 Thread #12 Thread #13 Thread #14 Thread #15 Thread #16 Thread #17 Thread #18 Thread #19 Thread #20 Thread #21 Thread #22 Thread #23 Thread #24 Thread #25 Thread #26 Thread #27 Thread #28 Thread #29 Thread #30 Thread #31 Thread #32 Thread #33 Thread #34 Thread #35 Thread #36 Thread #37 Thread #38 Thread #39 Thread #40 Thread #41 Thread #42 Thread #43 Thread #44 Thread#45
07-06-2014, 05:54 PM #2
07-16-2014, 05:07 PM #3
Please continue the discussion here, and keep in mind that WS is a public message board whose members hold widely diverse opinions.
Respect, courtesy, and common sense will go a long way and keep you out of here --->>>
Muddy water in the street; Muddy water 'round my feet... as sung by the inimitable Bessie Smith, "Muddy Water (A Mississippi Moan)"
WEBSLEUTHS ON FACEBOOK
07-16-2014, 06:16 PM #4
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.
07-16-2014, 06:37 PM #5Registered User
- Join Date
- Jun 2013
07-16-2014, 06:45 PM #6
07-16-2014, 06:56 PM #7Registered User
- Join Date
- May 2014
Thanks to AJ_DS for his kind post on the previous thread: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...2#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
07-16-2014, 07:01 PM #8
Also looking forward to the closing arguments ! still haven't got any ideas on this question though:
Can Nel introduce new damning testimony or evidence in his closing argument? I don't think he can, as theyd have to be submitted or put in the dock. However, can he make new points based on the evidence he's seen so farů I always point out the breathing/not breathing as a good example of that. E.g.New point but no bringing new evidence.. (Just rehashing OP's words )
07-16-2014, 07:05 PM #9
Regarding the incident in the nightclub when poor innocent OP was apparently "aggressively interrogated" by Jared Mortimer for no reason at all... Uncle Leo said OP "was “grappling with an extreme level of emotional pain that is manifesting itself in some of his recent unwise actions and choices”.
Okay, so what was his excuse for his "unwise actions and choices" in the months / years before he killed Reeva when he wasn't "grappling with an extreme level of emotional pain"?
Uncle Leo didn't mention that.
07-16-2014, 07:05 PM #10Registered User
- Join Date
- Jun 2013
Worth a quick look. Two paras from a fairly long piece in the Guardian
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.
07-16-2014, 07:18 PM #11Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2014
Just replying from the last thread:
Here's the report for those who haven't read it.
07-16-2014, 07:19 PM #12Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2011
There was nothing in Prof. Saayman's evidence that wasn't covered elsewhere in the trial, so at the time I felt a bit aggrieved that we hadn't been able to hear or read his exact words.
However! This may now be useful becauses it rubbishes the DT's claim that they had witnesses who refused to testify because the trial was being televised or publicly broadcast. It demonstrates that they could have requested that their testimony not be broadcast, as Prof. Saayman did.
I'm probably taking it too far when I say that I wonder if the PT foresaw such an eventuality, and arranged for one of their witnesses to make such a request.
07-16-2014, 07:21 PM #13Former Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2014
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.
07-16-2014, 07:24 PM #14
07-16-2014, 07:27 PM #15Former Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2014
By beach in forum Oscar PistoriusReplies: 924Last Post: 05-18-2014, 11:10 PM
By beach in forum Oscar PistoriusReplies: 1257Last Post: 04-24-2014, 12:54 PM
By bessie in forum Oscar PistoriusReplies: 1031Last Post: 04-04-2014, 06:05 PM
By beach in forum Oscar PistoriusReplies: 1190Last Post: 03-24-2014, 02:33 AM
By beach in forum Oscar PistoriusReplies: 321Last Post: 03-17-2014, 03:02 AM