Oscar Pistorius Defense #2

New Posts

I think this is why OP wants the magazine rack to be nearer the door and not where it's found, so he can use it for his 'wood moving' sound.

Not sure why else he wants the rack not to be where it is.
 
Hi - :seeya: I'm a newbie jumping into the discussion with recollection of some facts from the trial before adjournment. Did Nel discuss RS's outgoing cell phone calls during that day and night of her death? And were her cell records of outgoing calls that night to a former bf substantiated? If so, was that fact enough to bring OP into a killing rage of anger and jealousy? Were the recipients of her calls that day and night interviewed?
Also, it's odd that she was wearing shorts in the bathroom, unless she wore them to bed, or unless she was fully clothed and trying to escape the wrath of OP.
Secondly, why did Nel not press the fact of blood spatter being found in the master bedroom (presuming forensics went over the walls, floor, furniture and effects with whatever is used to lighten blood in the dark) and hammer OP about an argument already in progress, his possible chasing her with the bat before the shots were fired and heard by witnesses. If he were so desperate to get her out of the bathroom according to his story, then why would he waste time running back to the bedroom to put on his prosthetics?
I think he threatened her with the bat or even gun during an argument, she fled to escape, didn't have time to get out of the flat, so found shelter in the WC part of the bathroom. There seems to be a contradiction from witnesses as to which sounds happened first - the bat hitting the door, or the shots fired into the door and when R's screams were heard.
Lastly, can the prosecution under SA law, file for a dismissal of the trial based on contaminated evidence?
Have a great day!
 
RileyA said:
Hi - :seeya: I'm a newbie jumping into the discussion with recollection of some facts from the trial before adjournment. Did Nel discuss RS's outgoing cell phone calls during that day and night of her death? And were her cell records of outgoing calls that night to a former bf substantiated? If so, was that fact enough to bring OP into a killing rage of anger and jealousy? Were the recipients of her calls that day and night interviewed?
Also, it's odd that she was wearing shorts in the bathroom, unless she wore them to bed, or unless she was fully clothed and trying to escape the wrath of OP.
Secondly, why did Nel not press the fact of blood spatter being found in the master bedroom (presuming forensics went over the walls, floor, furniture and effects with whatever is used to lighten blood in the dark) and hammer OP about an argument already in progress, his possible chasing her with the bat before the shots were fired and heard by witnesses. If he were so desperate to get her out of the bathroom according to his story, then why would he waste time running back to the bedroom to put on his prosthetics?
I think he threatened her with the bat or even gun during an argument, she fled to escape, didn't have time to get out of the flat, so found shelter in the WC part of the bathroom. There seems to be a contradiction from witnesses as to which sounds happened first - the bat hitting the door, or the shots fired into the door and when R's screams were heard.
Lastly, can the prosecution under SA law, file for a dismissal of the trial based on contaminated evidence?
Have a great day!
Click to expand...

:Welcome1:

Great 1st post and great questions. I will have to let others reply to most questions as I really only followed toward the end before break. The thread has died down some since the break but you will get replies I am sure eventually here. And when trial starts again, definitely stay with us. Lots of people will come back to join. It was very active during trial days.

For the question about cell phone calls from Reeva, that is a really good theory of why OP may have gone off the handle. I am just not sure whether her calls were brought up during the trial or not. Someone will know here and hopefully answer.

I totally agree with you about the fight between them is what happened IMO. I think OP just lost it when she went to the bathroom to escape his wrath during a big fight.

For your very last question, I think the prosecution thinks they are going to win the trial so no need to dismiss for them IMO.
 
It’s hard to even find much I disagree with in AJDS’s great postings, and I’ll have to just take a point or two because otherwise my reply will be even longer.

This is in response to AJDS's post in page 57 of Defence thread 1 because Mods have since opened this new thread.:

AJDS: “If toilet door was locked from the inside by Reeva, she would not have been standing in front of it whilst OP was bashing at it and shooting at it… she would have taken refuge as far away from the door as possible, i.e.next to the toilet bowl under the toilet window… plus RS surely would have opened the toilet window and screamed for help.

So I infer the toilet door was never locked, therefore the key was not there, because if it had been there, RS would have locked it.

OP was not bashing at the door to gain access :

1- If he wanted to gain access he could have broke the door down completely as he eventually did.

2- If he wanted to gain access, why bash the stainless steel bathtub panel ? …and the wall tiles ?

OP was frustrated and angry… he was bashing about to vent his rage."

I think she had actually managed to lock herself in the toilet – she was not holding onto the unlocked door. (Even though I must say, when I first heard him talk about retrieving key I felt instinctively that it was suspiciously detailed.)
Because…
1) I just can’t imagine she was holding on to door handle in unlocked toilet and he wouldn’t have tried and succeeded to get it open by yanking it back.
2) He always needs to be in control, show who is boss and he has great upper body strength. So I believe if she had just been trying to hold it closed he would have been successful and got the door opened and events would have unfolded slightly differently- injuries/* shot trajectories.
I do understand some witnesses stated they inferred the injuries meant she could have had an arm outstretched towards the handle but that is convenient for DT having a pee theory. (I digress but re physical battery/other injuries* I also think he is not a man to use his fists first – I perceive him to be a total coward who typically resorts to his gun first - regardless of the Taylor-Memmory & Batchelor allegations - but someone else can put me straight about that if I’m wrong.Hence hard to find any conclusive assault bruises from earlier fighting before being besieged in the toilet.)

3) My hunch was bat first right from the time of bail hearing so I’m finding it hard to get my head around him whacking the unlocked door without the reason being that he needed to get to her to open up, so he could then really get at her or get her to face him by her coming out. (ie Bat strikes as expression of “frustration” at not being able to get to her which escalates to gun.)
BUT I can also see that I could be being too rational myself as I don’t know much about domestic violence so I have been looking at it as if he wanted to get to her rather than just express his rage on walls, bath panels etc. Maybe I I cant think along lines of DV profiles.
Certainly the bath panel damage etc could have all happened in similar time frame to bat strikes as wild lashing out and I have always assumed they happened just before it but are simply not so audible.

4) In addition, I previously thought that the batgunkick ladies’ theory of her stepping out of toilet (but NOT actually successfully retrieving her phone even though it was lying on bathroom floor from when he had previously knocked it out of her hand) was too convenient but I think now it could be the reason it escalated to the gun. And if that was true- that she stepped out briefly- he fired because she had locked the door from the inside and he “had to” stop her screaming.
5) I understand what AJDS is saying in point 1 quoted above- Just because he later smashed door to retrieve her body doesn’t mean that this would have been his first logical alternative instead of the gun. But he was irrational not logical and is trigger-happy. OP resorts to guns easily as a show of power After he’d killed her he had no choice –because it was locked- he had to get her out- not cause because he had at that point planned his intruder excuse..)
6) I think another reason she was facing, close to the door-instead of cowering- could be because she was trying to listen or look through the door split/cracks. Pitch black toilet. Cracks emitting light in– it's instinctive to peer out to the danger on the outside if you are so afraid? Of course she had a very limited view – not saying that I'm certain she would have necessarily actually seen the gun.


Related opinions but not in response to AJDS's post:
His shooting position is still odd to me- that he didn’t shoot more face-on the door. Instead it’s from an angle as if he was hiding or concealing himself. But I just can’t convince myself he was shooting from there because he was already setting up his intruder story. Can only think of two reasons for that
1) Simply that he was in shooter mode and avoiding ricochet and/or more speculatively
2) I still wonder though if he is really quite cunning and it could be simply as Nel said – Reeva was talking to you from behind that door.
Equally I consider it plausible that she could have been facing door not because she was peering out but because she was listening as he had gone silent like a hunter stalking prey. Or less plausibly that he was somehow trying to fool her into coming out or talking her out from there whilst simultaneously giving her the impression that he had calmed down maybe even lying that he had calmed down was going to let her go home after all, but all the while was poised with a gun trained on her from his safe position.

Please feel free to jump in! Sorry if this over long and should be in the theory thread! I’ll post other points separately.
 
cottonweaver said:
It’s hard to even find much I disagree with in AJDS’s great postings, and I’ll have to just take a point or two because otherwise my reply will be even longer.

This is in response to AJDS's post in page 57 of Defence thread 1 because Mods have since opened this new thread.:

AJDS: “If toilet door was locked from the inside by Reeva, she would not have been standing in front of it whilst OP was bashing at it and shooting at it… she would have taken refuge as far away from the door as possible, i.e.next to the toilet bowl under the toilet window… plus RS surely would have opened the toilet window and screamed for help.

So I infer the toilet door was never locked, therefore the key was not there, because if it had been there, RS would have locked it.

OP was not bashing at the door to gain access :

1- If he wanted to gain access he could have broke the door down completely as he eventually did.

2- If he wanted to gain access, why bash the stainless steel bathtub panel ? …and the wall tiles ?

OP was frustrated and angry… he was bashing about to vent his rage."

I think she had actually managed to lock herself in the toilet – she was not holding onto the unlocked door. (Even though I must say, when I first heard him talk about retrieving key I felt instinctively that it was suspiciously detailed.)
Because…
1) I just can’t imagine she was holding on to door handle in unlocked toilet and he wouldn’t have tried and succeeded to get it open by yanking it back.
2) He always needs to be in control, show who is boss and he has great upper body strength. So I believe if she had just been trying to hold it closed he would have been successful and got the door opened and events would have unfolded slightly differently- injuries/* shot trajectories.
I do understand some witnesses stated they inferred the injuries meant she could have had an arm outstretched towards the handle but that is convenient for DT having a pee theory. (I digress but re physical battery/other injuries* I also think he is not a man to use his fists first – I perceive him to be a total coward who typically resorts to his gun first - regardless of the Taylor-Memmory & Batchelor allegations - but someone else can put me straight about that if I’m wrong.Hence hard to find any conclusive assault bruises from earlier fighting before being besieged in the toilet.)

3) My hunch was bat first right from the time of bail hearing so I’m finding it hard to get my head around him whacking the unlocked door without the reason being that he needed to get to her to open up, so he could then really get at her or get her to face him by her coming out. (ie Bat strikes as expression of “frustration” at not being able to get to her which escalates to gun.)
BUT I can also see that I could be being too rational myself as I don’t know much about domestic violence so I have been looking at it as if he wanted to get to her rather than just express his rage on walls, bath panels etc. Maybe I I cant think along lines of DV profiles.
Certainly the bath panel damage etc could have all happened in similar time frame to bat strikes as wild lashing out and I have always assumed they happened just before it but are simply not so audible.

4) In addition, I previously thought that the batgunkick ladies’ theory of her stepping out of toilet (but NOT actually successfully retrieving her phone even though it was lying on bathroom floor from when he had previously knocked it out of her hand) was too convenient but I think now it could be the reason it escalated to the gun. And if that was true- that she stepped out briefly- he fired because she had locked the door from the inside and he “had to” stop her screaming.
5) I understand what AJDS is saying in point 1 quoted above- Just because he later smashed door to retrieve her body doesn’t mean that this would have been his first logical alternative instead of the gun. But he was irrational not logical and is trigger-happy. OP resorts to guns easily as a show of power After he’d killed her he had no choice –because it was locked- he had to get her out- not cause because he had at that point planned his intruder excuse..)
6) I think another reason she was facing, close to the door-instead of cowering- could be because she was trying to listen or look through the door split/cracks. Pitch black toilet. Cracks emitting light in– it's instinctive to peer out to the danger on the outside if you are so afraid? Of course she had a very limited view – not saying that I'm certain she would have necessarily actually seen the gun.


Related opinions but not in response to AJDS's post:
His shooting position is still odd to me- that he didn’t shoot more face-on the door. Instead it’s from an angle as if he was hiding or concealing himself. But I just can’t convince myself he was shooting from there because he was already setting up his intruder story. Can only think of two reasons for that
1) Simply that he was in shooter mode and avoiding ricochet and/or more speculatively
2) I still wonder though if he is really quite cunning and it could be simply as Nel said – Reeva was talking to you from behind that door.
Equally I consider it plausible that she could have been facing door not because she was peering out but because she was listening as he had gone silent like a hunter stalking prey. Or less plausibly that he was somehow trying to fool her into coming out or talking her out from there whilst simultaneously giving her the impression that he had calmed down maybe even lying that he had calmed down was going to let her go home after all, but all the while was poised with a gun trained on her from his safe position.

Please feel free to jump in! Sorry if this over long and should be in the theory thread! I’ll post other points separately.
Click to expand...

Good post cottonweaver !

I got the distinct impression that Oscar Pistorius is a coward… the worst kind of coward there is.

He threatens people of breaking their legs, he is verbally abusive, etc… but have we heard of Oscar ever physically attacking anybody ?

He did not even try to open the toilet door because he wouldn't know what to do with Reeva face to face or how to confront her physically… he was trying to assert his dominance by trashing about the bathroom with the cricket bat…. it was all a display, much like a gorilla will thump his chest, run around and break tree branches to intimidate, to show who's the boss.

Oscar Pistorius was all bark no bite… the only way he could silence Reeva was with a gun, shooting at her through a closed door !!… that's why it was so easy for him to pull the trigger : he did not have to look into Reeva's eyes as he ended her.

I believe if Reeva had stepped out of that toilet cubicle, Oscar would never have shot her.

I suspect Oscar Pistorius has a lot of unresolved 'mommy' issues.
 
AJ_DS said:
Hi Sherbert,

Thanks… and you definitely should post more !

BiB… My take on why OP did not want to admit RS could have gone downstairs :

1. Get out from underneath the duvay and out of bed on the right-hand side (balcony side)
2. Navigate precisely in the dark through the mess of things on the floor (hair clipper, iPad, electrical cords, t-shirt, prosthetics, fans, etc)
3. Locate the alarm remote in the bedroom and deactivate it
4. Remove the cricket bat from the bedroom door
5. Unlock and open the bedroom door
6. Make her way to the kitchen
7. Eat
8. Make her way to the bedroom
9. Close and lock the bedroom door
10. Place the cricket bat at the bedroom door
11. Reactivate the alarm
12. Go to the bathroom and brush her teeth again !!
13. Make her way to the bed
12. Navigate precisely through the mess of things on the floor
13. Slip back into bed and under the duvay

_______ all this, without the GAD stricken hypervigilent OP ever waking up.

Furthermore, having RS fall asleep and forgetting to bring in the fans and lock the balcony doors as instructed by OP, was the basic premise of the whole intruder mistaken identity scenario…

… If RS had indeed woken up during the night, she surely would have brought the fans in and locked the balcony doors… then OP would not have had any reason to go to the ONLY place in the bedroom where he would simultaneously face away from the bed AND from the bathroom passageway.

Therefore, it was better for OP's version to have RS fall asleep, forget to lock the balcony doors and stay asleep in bed next to him until 3AM.
Click to expand...


Hi AJ_DS!

Thanks very much indeed for taking the time to explain your theory.

As you point out, I see that Oscar's reluctance to concede the snack may be attributable to his wish not to compromise the detail of his story.

Also, of course, he doesn't want Reeva awake around the time when Estelle heard a raised female voice.

Accepting Prof Saayman's evidence that the snack took place, it would seem that the row either commenced or escalated considerably after approximately 1.15am, as I cannot imagine that poor Reeva would have felt like a snack if she felt under threat.

As Estelle heard only a female voice, I am now thinking that Reeva was raising her voice because she was communicating with Oscar through a locked door at 1.56am?
 
My "theory" (thoughts) on LOCKED door VS UNLOCKED door are just based on one simple item (and perhaps I'm silly to base it on this one little tidbit of information) . . .

I don't believe the toilet door was locked by RS because I don't believe the key was ever left in the door (or in plain sight for that matter).

* OP is a single guy. This toilet was in his master bedroom/bathroom. There was no need for him to ever lock it and therefore no reason to always leave key inserted into lock & hanging from the toilet door. (And when the occasional female guest spent the night, I doubt he ever gave a thought to them needing a key for any reason.)
* The key in courtroom photos has unsightly green plastic tag attached. I don't know if this green plastic tag was attached later by the state as an evidence marker, but I have always thought this is exactly as it was found. If so, very unlikely (IMO) it was left hanging from the door on a daily basis. OP lives in luxurious, neat home and it's "presentation" seems very important to him. He would not have a key, with a cheap plastic green unattractive tag dangling from his master bedroom toilet door, day after day (for a key he never even used). I know I personally would not leave that unsightly thing hanging from my MB toilet door. If it didnt have the green plastic tag, just the key stuffed in the lock - then maybe. The green tag looks like the kind you can write on & label (i.e...MBed Toilet) so when you throw it in a drawer you can recall which door it goes to. Since never used/needed in this single guy's own Master Bedroom toilet, my thoughts are that it was most likely kept out of sight somewhere (like in a drawer in the bathroom, or night stand next to bed).
* I think once the argument escalated to the point that Reeva was fearful of OP or at least felt she needed to escape behind a closed door...it was urgent & she would not have had time to go grab key from its stored location. The reason I think she had very little time is based on the location she retreated to...tiny toilet cubicle. If she felt need to "escape" from OP, I think she would have preferred anywhere other than trapped in that tiny toilet area with no lighting, upstairs.
Side Note: Something went on with those bedroom doors as well. Not really sure how that damage all unfolded. Perhaps RS first ran upstairs and locked bedroom door (as I believe that key was there, since OP locked that routinely at night). After OP able to enter bedroom in a rage, RS then retreated to only spot available, toilet.
* Based on damage caused in bathroom (tiles, base of tub) - OP was initially focused on venting his rage, power & control over the situation, in an effort to both scare the crap out of RS & because the guy has "anger issues", to say the least.

I know it sounds a little silly to base all this on the unsightly aesthetics of that plastic green tagged key...but I feel rather strongly about this. No single guy living in this luxurious "bachelor pad" is going to have that hideous key dangling from the Master Bedroom toilet (on a door he has never had a need to lock since the day he moved in). That door opened out, so when it wasn't closed & in use, the key would always be visible.

However, if the State attached that green plastic thing to mark it as evidence...well then, "never mind, excuse the ring". :blushing:
 
Thought it might be useful to post the flowchart I corrected and redesigned from one included in the study "Insanity and Diminished Capacity before the Court" relative so SA law, (albeit the legal principle and outcomes are the same as in any other democracy), no longer published online, so that anyone could see the full range of outcomes that can result Monday... obviously some more likely than others!



For those who may still remember the original flowchart titled, "Flowchart of the possible routes through the criminal justice system when criminal responsibility is at stake", which was included in the study, "Insanity and Diminished Capacity before the Court", see my next post with the original giving my explanations of my corrections and changes since the original had two really fundamental flaws along with a few minor ones relating to clarity... must be that's why a designer is a designer and a lawyer a lawyer!
 
For those who still have on file or who still remember the original flowchart from the study: "Insanity and Diminished Capacity before the Court", by Adelene Africa, this is the original with explanations on the whys and wherefores of my corrections and changes. My previous post is the corrected and redesigned version which charts the same principle as incorporated into the laws of most countries including that of South Africa.


 
cottonweaver said:
Related opinions but not in response to AJDS's post:
His shooting position is still odd to me- that he didn’t shoot more face-on the door. Instead it’s from an angle as if he was hiding or concealing himself. But I just can’t convince myself he was shooting from there because he was already setting up his intruder story. Can only think of two reasons for that
1) Simply that he was in shooter mode and avoiding ricochet and/or more speculatively
2) I still wonder though if he is really quite cunning and it could be simply as Nel said – Reeva was talking to you from behind that door.
Equally I consider it plausible that she could have been facing door not because she was peering out but because she was listening as he had gone silent like a hunter stalking prey. Or less plausibly that he was somehow trying to fool her into coming out or talking her out from there whilst simultaneously giving her the impression that he had calmed down maybe even lying that he had calmed down was going to let her go home after all, but all the while was poised with a gun trained on her from his safe position.

Please feel free to jump in! Sorry if this over long and should be in the theory thread! I’ll post other points separately.
Click to expand...

I agree that Reeva would have been unable to hold the door back with the strength of OP pulling it open.


About the angle of the shots, DT wants us to believe OP stood to the side so that if intruder shoots straight ahead the bullets would hit OP. Logical I suppose.

My opinion is that he was shooting at the sound of the person behind the door. Reeva could have stood into the right corner and would have been missed by shots, so could an intruder. IMO, there is no way OP would risk that happening if we are to believe his story.

So imo, OP heard the screams, knew first shot hit target, heard the shuffles, the fall on magazine rack, hence knew location of Reeva, and maybe, could see her through crack in door. Not too convinced of the last one yet.

But if we are to believe there was an heated argument and Reeva fled to the toilet cubicle to escape, all the rest really is a moot point, because OP was enraged for whatever reason and chose to silence her once and for all.

JMHO
 
G.bng said:
Thought it might be useful to post the flowchart I corrected and redesigned from one included in the study "Insanity and Diminished Capacity before the Court" relative so SA law, (albeit the legal principle and outcomes are the same as in any other democracy), no longer published online, so that anyone could see the full range of outcomes that can result Monday... obviously some more likely than others!
Click to expand...

Thanks G.bng !… great chart !

One thing is missing though : the plea explanation of the accused and his testimony.

If OP had said that in the middle of a row with RS he completely lost his mind for an instant and shot her in blind furious anger, the chart would apply.

But this is not the case… OP gave an elaborate version for Putative Private Defence against a perceived intruder.

If Masipa does not believe OP's story and sides with the State's case that OP had to know he was shooting at RS, then the chart does not apply as it stands now.

GAD is only relevant if Masipa believes OP.

Dr. Vorster was quite clear on that.
 
Completely off-topic but there is no WAY one would place their flip-flops (slops) pointing away in the direction ready to be used a metre from the side of the bed you're NOT sleeping on. I just had a look at that photo again.

And for all OP's stuff to be on the side of the bed that OP is apparently NOT sleeping on, the following is needed: OP happens to need to 'air' his legs, OP happens to put his shirt on his legs out of habit and Reeva happens to be using the iPad last so she puts it down on that side.
 
G.bng said:
For those who still have on file or who still remember the original flowchart from the study: "Insanity and Diminished Capacity before the Court", by Adelene Africa, this is the original with explanations on the whys and wherefores of my corrections and changes. My previous post is the corrected and redesigned version which charts the same principle as incorporated into the laws of most countries including that of South Africa.


Click to expand...

I am not following the need for these charts. Didn't Dr. V, Roux, and OP himself say that OP understood right from wrong that night?

I had the impression that Dr. V was throwing Anxiety in to the picture to explain OPs fight response. But his actions of shooting at a person that he never saw (identified) were his own. OP says as much in his putative self defense claim, he intentionally fired to defend himself. Why the chart? Respectfully, I don't see it's relevance.
 
AJ_DS said:
Thanks G.bng !… great chart !

One thing is missing though : the plea explanation of the accused and his testimony.

If OP had said that in the middle of a row with RS he completely lost his mind for an instant and shot her in blind furious anger, the chart would apply.

But this is not the case… OP gave an elaborate version for Putative Private Defence against a perceived intruder.

If Masipa does not believe OP's story and sides with the State's case that OP had to know he was shooting at RS, then the chart does not apply as it stands now.

GAD is only relevant if Masipa believes OP.

Dr. Vorster was quite clear on that.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the complement AJ, but you appear to have misunderstood my chart's purpose entirely. The chart was not to chart criminal responsibility just in OP's case, but criminal responsibility as applied by SA law, and indeed as applied by the laws of any democratic country bar a few states of the US which after the Hinkley verdict severely curtailed the possibilities of an insanity plea, and 3 or 4 states that even abolished the plea altogether. And BTW, it is not necessary for Masipa to believe OP only to find there is a reasonable doubt that his version or the majority of it could be possible, or otherwise said, that the State fails to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

And as an advocate for severely learning disabled adults and with an OH with one severely and one profoundly severely learning disables sons, I am happy say that you are wrong to think it can ever be too late for a not criminally responsible (NCR) or so called insanity plea, whatever a defendant may have claimed he did whether during an investigation or during trial, if, and I am not of the opinion it is OP's case, there are genuine mental illness or mental "defect" (and I really despise people using that word since my OH's sons or any like them are "defectuous", simply differently abled) grounds for such a plea. NCR has often been used for appeals and even when a defendant has confessed to the crime and neither lawyers nor court have realised they were mentally ill, severely learning disabled, etc. and therefore NCR even if they had confessed to the crime and done it.
 
G.bng said:
Thanks for the complement AJ, but you appear to have misunderstood my chart's purpose entirely. The chart was not to chart criminal responsibility just in OP's case, but criminal responsibility as applied by SA law, and indeed as applied by the laws of any democratic country bar a few states of the US which after the Hinkley verdict severely curtailed the possibilities of an insanity plea, and 3 or 4 states that even abolished the plea altogether. And BTW, it is not necessary for Masipa to believe OP only to find there is a reasonable doubt that his version or the majority of it could be possible, or otherwise said, that the State fails to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

And as an advocate for severely learning disabled adults and with an OH with one severely and one profoundly severely learning disables sons, I am happy say that you are wrong to think it can ever be too late for a not criminally responsible (NCR) or so called insanity plea, whatever a defendant may have claimed he did whether during an investigation or during trial, if, and I am not of the opinion it is OP's case, there are genuine mental illness or mental "defect" (and I really despise people using that word since my OH's sons or any like them are "defectuous", simply differently abled) grounds for such a plea. NCR has often been used for appeals and even when a defendant has confessed to the crime and neither lawyers nor court have realised they were mentally ill, severely learning disabled, etc. and therefore NCR even if they had confessed to the crime and done it.
Click to expand...

BiB 1... Agreed in part

Both the State and the Defence have a burden of proof : State must prove murder with intent (MWI) beyond a reasonable doubt and Defence must prove putative private defence (PPD) beyond a reasonable doubt.

If State does not manage to prove MWI, that does not mean OP walks a free man or obtains his PPD automatically.

If both fail to prove their case, Masipa will rule with an intermediary verdict.

BiB 2… Agreed in part

I believe it is different when the accused gives a full detailed version for PPD under oath…

… he cannot then simply switch his story completely and go for NCR.

i.e. OP cannot now say that he had a fight with Reeva that escalated to a point where he drew his gun and shot her in an uncontrollable furious anger… this would mean that he knowingly perjured himself… that he knew he was giving a false testimony and that he did so with the intent of misleading the Court : lying with malice aforethought.

Finally there is a BIG distinction with :

- NCR because can't distinguish right from wrong
- NCR because can't act in accordance with that distinction

The first, circumstances do not matter.

The latter, circumstances do matter a lot… meaning if the accused lied about the circumstances, like he fabricated his version of events, the mental disorder diagnosis will not be relevant.
 
Viper said:
I am not following the need for these charts. Didn't Dr. V, Roux, and OP himself say that OP understood right from wrong that night?

I had the impression that Dr. V was throwing Anxiety in to the picture to explain OPs fight response. But his actions of shooting at a person that he never saw (identified) were his own. OP says as much in his putative self defense claim, he intentionally fired to defend himself. Why the chart? Respectfully, I don't see it's relevance.
Click to expand...

True, GAD does not affect one's ability to distinguish right from wrong but it may affect one's ability to act in accordance with that distinction.

Roux, OP's current advocate, is pursuing PPD with GAD to strengthen the PPD.

This does not mean that OP can't fire Roux, get a new advocate who may want to pursue a diminished responsibility Defence.

That is why Nel insisted (rightly so) for the referral… to prevent such an occurrence and remove obvious grounds for an Appeal in the case of a guilty verdict on the murder charge.
 
Interested Bystander said:
This is a short piece re the psychiatrists' report, and the recent heart attack of OP's choice causing a delay in his signing it off. The psychiatrists' report is deemed to be unanimous.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Report-Pistorius-psychiatrist-has-heart-attack-20140627
Click to expand...

Thanks for the LINK. Interesting update (aside from the unfortunate heart attack suffered by Dr. Fine).

Mentions:
1. Psychiatrists reports are UNANIMOUS (seems really odd that this would already be leaked to reporters)
2. One of OP's attorneys (Weber) states they expect trial to resume immediately and last approx 2 weeks.
3. The Journalist's twitter states that the State & Defense won't receive the "Psychiatric evaluation report" until Monday morning. However, she states that they have both already received "a detailed psychological report".

#3 suggests that the remarks made to the press by OP's attorney means we will not likely see OP committed to a permanent stay at Weskoppies (not that anyone expected that outcome).

Thanks again for LINK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 181 more.
Total: 3,821 (members: 182, guests: 3,639)

Online statistics

Members online
182
Guests online
3,639
Total visitors
3,821
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,818
Messages
17,959,579
Members
228,620
Latest member
ohbeehaave
Back
Top