all jmho
What is OPs defence?
In substance, his evidence is involuntary action. This eventually became clear. It was repeated over many sessions, and was consistent and never contradicted. In retrospect, his defence actually did not change from the start of the trial and appears quite deliberate.
Summary & Intepretation of his evidence:
He heard a noise
He perceived it as the toilet door opening
He thought an intruder was coming out to attack him
This caused an involuntary fear response
In this response, he was not in control of his actions
In this response, he was not able to think
In this response, he was aware of his actions and can remember them
In this response, he fired the shots
He did not want to fire, he did not mean to fire, he did not intend to fire
His evidence of the trial:
Plea Explanation
The discharging of my firearm was precipitated by a noise in the toilet which I, in my fearful state, knowing I was on my stumps, unable to run away or properly defend myself physically believed to be the intruder or intruders coming out of the toilet to attack Reeva and me.
Evidence in Chief 8 April
I heard a noise from inside the toilet, what I perceived to be somebody coming out of the toilet. Before I knew it id fired 4 shots at the door
Nel 9 April
You referred to the incident in plea explanation as an accident. What was the accident?
-The accident was I discharged my firearm in the belief that an intruder was coming out to attack me
Was the discharge accidental?
-The discharge was accidental * I believed that somebody was coming out. I believed the noise I heard inside the toilet was somebody coming out to attack me or take my life
Do you know what an accidental discharge is?
-My understanding is that I didn't intend to discharge my firearm
Oh, then you do.
So you never intended to shoot the intruders?
-I never intended to shoot anyone. I got a fright from a noise that I heard inside the toilet. I perceived it to be somebody coming out to attack me. That's what I believed.
You never purposefully fired shots into the door.
-No I didn't.
Nel 11 apr
- I didn't mean to pull the trigger, in that sense it was an accident
I don't want us to get confused later on. You say I never meant to pull the trigger
- That's correct my lady
- The noise from the bathroom made me pull the trigger
- I can remember pulling the trigger
- I didn't intend to shoot
Nel 14 April
-I discharged the firearm my lady
-Because I thought someone was coming out to attack me
-I didn't want to shoot the person coming out
-I didn't have time to think of what I wanted to do
-I was terrified
You were thinking every step of the way, but on this critical instant you didn't think
-yes
Isn't your defence that you thought you were in danger and wanted to shoot the person that put you in danger?
-No
Is it your defence that you fired at the attacker?
- No
Or at the perceived attacker?
- I fired at the door
Is it your defence that you fired at the perceived attacker?
- No that's not my defence
Then what is your defence?
- My defence is as I've said I heard a noise and I didn't have time to interpret it and I fired my firearm out of fear
Out of fear, by accident....because I don't understand your defence, you can't have two. You understand that?
- I understand that
The way I understand your defence is that you acted in putative self defence. You perceived an attack, you fired at the attacker, to kill him or to ward off the attack. That's not true am I right?
- I didn't fire to kill anyone
Or to ward off an attack?
- I didn't have time to think. I heard this noise and I thought it was somebody coming out to attack me so I fired my firearm
Your defence has now changed sir from putative self defence to involuntary action, is that what you're telling me?
- I don't understand the law, I can tell what is asked, and reply as what I thought
I wouldn't say I understand the law but that is what I hear that your defence is not one of PSD any more, we can forget that. It's now I don't know why I fired
- Im not saying I don't know why I fired, I've given the reason to why I fired, I thought somebody was coming out to attack me
But you didn't fire at that person
- I fired in the direction I thought the attack was coming from
Break
- I didn't think
- My firearm was pointed at the door
- I didn't intend to fire my gun
- My firearm was pointed at the door, when I heard the noise I fired
You didn't intend to fire your gun, your gun just went off
- No my gun didn't just go off, I didn't intend to fire but I did fire, it didn't just go off
Is it like the glock did it just go off or did you pull the trigger
- I pulled the trigger
Why
- Because I perceived danger to be coming out to attack me
Did you fire at the danger
- I fired where my firearm was pointed where I perceived the danger to be that's correct
Why did the evidence appear so confusing at the time?
Because it was. OP deliberately didnt offer the explanation explicitly and deliberately kept it hidden. Only by thorough cross-examination was it eventually teased out. Why this was the case is open to speculation. His bail application also strongly implied, but did not say explicitly, intent and putative self defence. There came further confusion because the question why he fired is ambiguous - OP answered as to what caused him to fire, the question and answer could equally be interpreted as his intent and purpose of firing. Further confusion can come from the word accidentally - OP did explicitly define it as meaning just unintentional, but commonly it is also understood to mean without good cause and/or purpose.
Is there any clue that this is now the courts understanding of OPs evidence?
Yes, a big clue. During Dr Vorsters evidence, she said OP told him after the trial in her meeting that he fired at the noise. This was immediately seized on by Nel as an important contradiction and shift away from his testimony that he fired at the door. Judge Masipa nodded in strong agreement and was the most animated I saw her throughout the whole trial. If OP thought the noise was the door - as he said, then what does it matter? It matters because firing at the door is something a passive observer can witness and remember., it is consistent with involuntary action. But firing at the noise goes further, how can one know he fired at the noise not just the door - it requires thinking and intent, it is inconsistent with involuntary action.
What might this mean for the arguments and judgement?
I don't see how putative private defence can be successfully argued, as this requires intent.
I think involuntary action of this nature cannot reasonably possibly be true, especially as Scholtz and Derman did not offer it as an explanation.
This leaves OP with nowhere to go - neither the court nor his legal team can make up a defence for him.
The prima facie case is strong enough to convict of murder.
If I have time later tonight, I will cite SA case law to support this.
