I get you - I fully understand , it was just the legal jargon and case law Roux referred to that I thought threw a spanner in the works as to what the Judge could charge OP with. it's nearly 3am here now ! :D
i'm not saying you don't get it, sorry - sometimes my posts may read as patronizing, so hard as there is no tone in text, but I promise i am anything but! 4:08am, I must sleep
Vermeulen! oh sandy, you beauty. brilliant researching, I'm going to look into that law that is no more tomorrow.
He's a pretty darn forceful experienced Lawyer, he's been involved in OP case from the start, did you not realise he'd also represented that Rapper,--- he tried to get the guy off killing 4 boys on a Culpable Homicide Charge where he could have walked free, no jail time.. ...>:( ruthless stuff, he must be made of stern stuff that Vermeulen -
I thought that's why you posted the case, one reason anyway, because of the same Lawyer in that Case and this one ! Crikey -- Nel has his had his work cut out for him- and especially if it goes to Appeal as this Vermeulen's involved!
:o I hadn't seen this ! jeeez are they bonkers ?????????????:o:o>:(
Ashamed? they really are over-egging the 'mistake' the tw*t has made arn't they - they doth protest too much - OP's a liar and a killer and he WILL go to jail , he's a murderer something that will have a knock on effect on them and their reputations, even moreso if they carry on like this - he's disgraced the family and they're bailing him out
-even though they will know having been in Court he's soo guilty, and the idiot really lost the plot this time, this mistake of his they're bailing him out of was killing someone-now he has caused difficulty for them--- it's all about image theirs and his ! They have no more respect for the Law , legal process, Justice System than OP does. !
timely article -They know whatever they say in Court will make the press--- it's all so unfair on OP and this should all be stopped, and justice will be served, it was all a mistake you'll see, we know it was..........blah. blah>:(
Astounding isn't it?! I do actually think she can't be in possession of all her marbles?!
I hope she reads the comments below the article, they might give her a more accurate picture of the way things are.
Yes and Roux was oh so nice about Mrs. Ngethwa too...unlike his treatment of the Stipps.
I don't think the comparison was a gamble that paid off for Roux, I think M'Lady would have found it incredulous that he tried to manipulate the facts that way and in very poor taste. & If June Steenkamp did leave the court shortly after that point I wonder whether M'Lady would have noticed..
Agree Hiris! His treatment of Stipps was awful. I notice the assessor lady watched OP and the court like a hawk - perhaps she has been asked to do that while Milady looks at the advocates :D
i'm not saying you don't get it, sorry - sometimes my posts may read as patronizing, so hard as there is no tone in text, but I promise i am anything but! 4:08am, I must sleep
;-) I didn't read it as being patronising in any way,---not at all, don't worry - I understood what you were saying ----See you on here another day !
If Alex Crawford had any journalistic nous she would have asked Henke why he refused to testify and help Oscar with the illegal ammunition charge. (Of course we all know why - no-one wants to go to prison for perjury).
He's a pretty darn forceful experienced Lawyer, he's been involved in OP case from the start, did you not realise he'd also represented that Rapper, he tried to get the guy off killing 4 boys ......really ? ruthless stuff, he must be made of stern stuff the man - I thought that's why you posted the case, one reason anyway, because of the same Lawyers !
lol.... is it definitely the same vermeulen? because that surname is like "smith" here :D:D
If Alex Crawford had any journalistic nous she would have asked Henke why he refused to testify and help Oscar with the illegal ammunition charge. (Of course we all know why - no-one wants to go to prison for perjury).
but it probably wasn't his Dad's ammo anyway ! ^_^;-)
Vermeulen! oh sandy, you beauty. brilliant researching, I'm going to look into that law that is no more tomorrow.
advocate Willie Vermeulen SC ? will research and see if it's the same one!!:o:cool: maybe it's not --,there are also many Roux's i've noticed ! - I thought you were agreeing it was same one !
When forensic geologist Roger Dixon was approached to work for Oscar Pistorius, he hesitated before giving his answer. “I almost turned it down,” says Dixon, “because of the past, you know, you sort of tend to be on one side.” For 18 years, Dixon was working with the South African Police Service (SAPS) forensic laboratory — his work included conducting fingerprint analysis on stolen gold — before taking a research position with the University of Pretoria in 2013. But Dixon says in his field there is no room for prejudice. “Metal is the only witness that never lies,” says the 54-year-old, “it never changes its story.”
bless him:D
Two firearm experts, specialists in guns and bullets, are also working for Pistorius. One is Thomas Wolmarans, a former forensic expert with SAPS based in Pretoria. In 2007, Wolmarans testified on behalf of strip club owner Michael Jackson, accused of murdering a street child. (Wolmarans said there could have been a case of mistaken identity. Jackson was found guilty). “You do this type of work, you take it, and then you must forget about it,” says 67-year-old Wolmarans, “a case is a case.”
Astounding isn't it?! I do actually think she can't be in possession of all her marbles?!
I hope she reads the comments below the article, they might give her a more accurate picture of the way things are.
one comment reads : Aunty if the judge convicts him are you going to ask her the same question. This kind of behaviour only shows money can't buy class
Please tell me you are considering a law degree.
I AGREE with all of above,
"If the court concludes there is a reasonable possibility Pistorius thought he was entitled to kill, it must acquit him" . the key word "reasonable"
To your brilliant points above i would also add:
[1]- no previous break ins or crime at his home
[2]- secure estate with manned patrol
[3]- 'intruder' backed into a corner essentially (being in a toilet cubicle)
He could not have in any way thought it lawful to kill - in fact, in his GUN LICENSE forms, there would be specific outlined rules of engagement (so to speak) for using a weapon. He would have signed it. Which also makes me laugh at the "slow burn" that Roux spoke of. One cannot say "I am in the right mind to own a gun and knew the rules and regulations" but also "I am physically challenged and therefore may startle and kill someone".
Hey - cheers! No plans on degree lol can't be perpetual student ...
[1] Highway shooting. Without an honest account of crime in his past, where is his fear of crime?
[2] He's privileged.
[3] Indeed. So unreasonable that his defence had no option but to hunt around for diminished capacity findings to explain it (I) psychiatric - failed (II) disability - failed (Schultz overall conclusion was 'none') (III) primal reflex - presumably also fails (Darmen).
If it was legal they wouldn't have to keep identifying new reasons for it outside of OP's conscious control.
But if they remove all intention then there isn't a PPD. There is therefore no reason to go to the bathroom anyway.
It is at minimum an unlawful shooting: dolus, not culpa
Prosecution should definitely be confident of that much.
Also, the "snowball of lies" is completely intact (thanks to blood trail) - so the only thing the defence can do is say he was stressed out so much he was making things up as he went along. But he is fit to stand trial, and testified without difficulties on most things.
The only evidence for his intruder is then external: What he said to people after, and his emotions which means he "did not want to kill her". Well, what he said to people isn't evidence as his testimony is already in doubt. So there is only one evidence: The emotions. That is the only external evidence in favour of the intruder.
But it's also external evidence in favour of being "overwhelmed by what he had done" - Nel's closing remarks in the cross-examination.
A panel is much more likely to reach a conclusion of guilt than innocence IMO but the prosecution could and should have countered his emotions with more examples of conscious omissions and suspect activities after shots, and also, written a section in the hypothetical "If the court would find the early gunshots is the truth, then here are more problems....".
That would have been immensely helpful for the judge IMO. Nevertheless, I think the panel will find him guilty of murder of RS at some level of murder charge.
Note that Roux's argument "His emotions means that he did not want to kill her" was specifically in relation to "dolus directus" (MWI). But then that is strange because if he killed the intruder with "dolus directus" then obviously he didn't want to kill RS - he just wanted to kill the specific person behind the door - and did so unlawfully. So how would his emotions make it NOT "dolus directus". Hence, this argument, is clearly an argument for "dolus eventualis" in the case of shooting at RS, instead.
But as Nel says: Aiming matters. The angles matter. And the means matters.
It should be fine but we could have done with more "tangible context" to the before and after events in the state case tbh. It's all a bit theoretical. I'm sure the judge likes to keep things simple too, but yet the tangibles are good, if you have them to hand.
[1] "Get the F outta my house" was screamed moments before firing.
In any event: [1] stretches that character portrayal to breaking point (IMO). You will not find a mention of it in Roux's speech or even in the heads of argument.
(snipped for space). Sorry, I did find [1] alluded to in Roux's heads of argument.
589. As he entered the passage, he was overcome with fear and shouted for the intruder/s to get out of his home. [pp174-5]
What a bunch of sympathetic, empathetic charmers the Pistorius family are, hey? Of course, Nel is the one who should be ashamed in all this, not the guy who killed someone who had maybe 60 years of life ahead of her and deprived her aging parents of the baby of their family. I really don't think Oscar has one iota of guilt over what he has done.
It would all be marvellous ... if Roux's summation did not contain significant legal errors.
Just because you plead "nonpathological incapacity" does not mean you will get it.
Just because you say "I should not be blamed" does not mean the world must necessarily agree with that statement.
What is to stop anyone saying it - anytime you do anything whatsoever.
These people are sometimes incredible.
Their presumption that "Oscar the reasonably possibly not provocative" is reconcilable with "Get the F outta my house" is strange to me. I assume it can't be, for which reason the defence didn't mention it in the closure of their Heads of Argument. lol.
But then if it's "Oscar the combative" then his actions are crass and obviously unlawful (killing dead a random unidentified individual in his bathroom and not while vulnerable). And it's murder (which is one of the important legal errors). And the means even without a good aim might even suffice for dolus directus.
The Pistorii seem to also have forgotten that putative private defence depends on assessing whether subjectively the conduct falls within the bounds of the defence (Header 71). And Roux himself said: "There may be issues of conduct": The gap between the defence headers 821 and 822 is interesting in this regard. That is why I think it can never be a lawful putative private defence.
And if his conduct on the way to the bathroom fails to convince as anything other than provocative, then all those "ingenious" thoughts expressed by Roux fall away. He cannot revert back to "Oscar the vulnerable after being "Oscar the confrontational and provocative".
The only option to evade the murder charge is if it would be believed that, at the very same time as facing the door, after exhibiting a provocative conduct to get there falling outside the bounds of PPD anyway, IMO, his mind returned to a state of naivety and fear, his gun went off by accident, due to a dreadfully unconvincing sound, still unaccounted for, and while pointing the gun in the direction of the person he then shot and killed.
It is innocence at the very last moment requiring a great favour by the judge to ever find in its favour. Otherwise all the defendants will be doing it. No one will ever go to prison.
But, if it didn't go off by accident, then because he was in fact thinking about this person at the time, as well, then it is in fact still PPD (no matter that it was provoked). And please disregard that he provoked it meanwhile. And please disregard it was all a big coincidence too.
Again, if you could plead two defences at once like that, everyone would be doing it. It would be impossible to convict anyone as the defence would have too many fallbacks all at once.
But with a "snowball of lies" being unrefuted by the defence Heads, and it being unbelievable he would shoot anyone without the slightest reason, then in all probability, it's "Oscar the temperamental" and he did in fact shout those angry words at, and then shoot and in the process kill, his girlfriend.
The mystery of his aiming and angles is solved. It's not at chest height above the lock because there was no intruder to aim at. It was aimed more at the toilet and then further back. This also further supports the conclusion that he was adapting his version and not speaking errors in an innocent way.
But of course, Mr. Nel should be ashamed to have said any of this. It's really unfair.
OK cheers - well the verbatim quote sounds better. ;-)
Yes, the one that was beautifully transliterated as "Get the f#ck out of my arse!" by someone here. That particular version gave me the idea for a highly bad taste joke, over which I exercised restraint.
Is the bit about X trying to kill Y but killing Z instead, therefore having no dolus for killing Z, aberratio icta?
Yeah - you clearly need at least two people in your immediate vicinity to even THINK about that principle.
Where are the two people in the cubicle?
There was only RS.
She wasn't standing next to the intruder because there wasn't one.
So it's ridiculous.
And misleading as well.
It's nothing but an argument for making legal errors in the ruling.
That his conduct could fall outside the bounds for PPD
- no subjective threat as the door isn't moving
- too many bullets by far
- provocative in the first instance
so be unlawful. But that unlawfulness can be made to "go away" because RS was in the cubicle. It's simply false.
They just presuppose that his conduct all forms in the bounds of PPD so therefore there is no transfer of a malicious intention because there wasn't any.
However that isn't really the defence. The defence is that he had no intention to fire at anyone and it was a situational accident that the shots went into the door and indeed that he fired at all.
They wish to say that he is not even negligent, or if he might be, then it would be culpable homicide, with a valid PPD.
They don't countenance the idea that he acted in a provocative manner. Or, if he was simply being overconfident in defending himself (possible), then this clashes greatly with the same time being "overcome with fear". I think it becomes an absurd thing to say both at the same time.
All I can say is the judge MUST reject these arguments because it is possible to emulate them in order to paraphrase almost any violent attack in a similar way. Primal instincts, mistakes, going up to someone, opening fire, etc.
Provided you identity just one or two defects/weaknesses/mitigations in your make up, then it becomes possible.
I honestly don't think this is the first time it's been tried in court. And I don't think his case is the one in which it would naturally be accepted as he was unable to be truthful enough.
It's quite probable that the entire arguments will be rejected in totality.
And I think that is what Nel is simply waiting for now - counting on.
Yes, the one that was beautifully transliterated as "Get the f#ck out of my arse!" by someone here. That particular version gave me the idea for a highly bad taste joke, over which I exercised restraint.
You know, I think you already told your bad taste joke without needing to lol as it is probably not too hard to see how that might become a pun in a context lol
Yes, the blood trail is indeed something I didn't see anywhere in Roux's heads.
It's the one solid forensic fact holding together the material there, that's why.
Roux in his speech addressed it but was forced to just say, well, it might have happened by chance [the two pieces line up - too improbable and the state has no obligation to rule such a thing out], but conceded it would have been "splash" from OP's hands while running around.
As a result his main argument about that is that OP couldn't really remember what he was doing after shooting, so might have thrown it on the floor somehow.
He didn't say anything more than that really.
But then where were the fans after all?
And more tellingly, why were none of the policemen asked about all this major disturbance.
It's pretty clear from the write-up in state heads what happened and how one step led to the next to the next - it displays intelligence and a clear conscious awareness of the process of contradicting himself, and how to avoid doing that.
Taken together
[1] Von Staden photos
[2] The blood trail
[3] The embellishments as he goes along with this sequence (there are many)
[4] The lack of questions to either police about it - considering "disturbance" was to be a major theme of the defence case.
[5] OP not noticing anything out of place in either his evidence in chief, or when specifically asked by Nel
should definitely be enough to prove he was making it up.
The discovery that Hilton Botha expressed "the linen was on one side of the bed" which the defence infer to mean "the duvet was on the bed" and which OP then testified that Botha had said, is open to interpretation. Botha made many other errors, some of which we can absolutely prove viz. OP was wearing a bloodied shirt. Also, OP and Rensberg corroborate one another as regards to meeting Botha in the kitchen but Botha is at variance, saying he met OP in the garage.
It would have been helpful for Nel to include more detail about that IMO i.e. that Botha was not called because his observational powers at the time were too poor. And then single speculation, almost tantamount to hearsay plus an interpretation on the language, to boot, cannot be enough to overcome the congruence between [1][2][3][4][5].
Anyway, assuming the crime scene photos are accepted in the main, it leads in Bakers Dozen Item 8 to the unfortunate fact of him having to tell lies about the last time he saw RS before he shot her. That strangely did not cause him to become emotional as he was rather more preoccupied with some of the contradictions in what he was then saying.
If this was real, why so glib in the telling not only of their final words exchanged (added later), but in the telling of the final glimpse he caught of her before those terrible injuries occurred.
I think this argument is essential for the state to succeed (at least in respect of RS). If it doesn't for some reason, then it will be all to do with lawful conduct or otherwise, in relation to the intruder.
I'm disappointed that the state did not tackle his activities either after shooting at the second bangs, or hypothetically shooting during the 'first bangs' (..in the event the court would find). There's probably another "baker's dozen" of suspect facts and also falsehoods there and it seems quite lazy to just leave it be - which is pretty annoying tbh.
I also thought more could have been of his denials about sounds and screaming (saying inconsistently "she didn't" but also "I couldn't have heard if she did" and then finally "it was me" but when asked to describe what he screamed, essentially, talked nonsense). It's all in the record anyway...
That would have been good in order to build more convincingly the argument that he moved the rack because of wishing to deny the means to change his aim. Not made explicit.
Also an argument to say why screams and not falling was what determined the number of shots. Because while she must have carried on falling, she did not carry on screaming. And at this point he dropped his gun, since he already had knowledge of what he had done. Much simpler ("more probable") than if he had run around with it constantly like he said afterwards.
Hope Nel has not been too cavalier. He does seem to somewhat have an attitude of I can just ignore things. Is that how it work's in courts? Hmm.
Suppose it depends on whether the judge plus her trusty assessors have done a mass of research themselves to reach these types of conclusions based on the trial evidence in its totality but in which case it's just lazy to not assist them in the final arguments!
Oh well never mind. Like I say the "snowball of lies" is essential. So long as that is found, the assessors will do their research, and he's going to jail for her murder (aiming at her). If not, if they agree with the defence they cannot "lawfully" reach that conclusion, then it will be something in relation to his conduct and culpability on the other version.
Acquittal is impossible because in any event the judge knows what happened. She will not countenance that as it would be "getting away with murder". She'll work to put her judgement on the firmest possible footing consistent to her beliefs about the totality of the evidence, i'm sure. And that means "murder (at least 'eventualis')". But - well - Nel could have helped her out a bit more there, provided more concrete examples and arguments, that's my impression tbh.
Comments
i'm not saying you don't get it, sorry - sometimes my posts may read as patronizing, so hard as there is no tone in text, but I promise i am anything but! 4:08am, I must sleep
I thought that's why you posted the case, one reason anyway, because of the same Lawyer in that Case and this one !
Astounding isn't it?! I do actually think she can't be in possession of all her marbles?!
I hope she reads the comments below the article, they might give her a more accurate picture of the way things are.
Agree Hiris! His treatment of Stipps was awful. I notice the assessor lady watched OP and the court like a hawk - perhaps she has been asked to do that while Milady looks at the advocates
lol.... is it definitely the same vermeulen? because that surname is like "smith" here
ok, whew. *kisses* I'm off too, night!! ;-)
Exactly, and he didn't want to drop Oscar in it but neither did he want to perjure himself.
From beginning of the trial .........
Wollie and Dixon listed as members of OP's DREAM TEAM for his Murder Trial
When forensic geologist Roger Dixon was approached to work for Oscar Pistorius, he hesitated before giving his answer. “I almost turned it down,” says Dixon, “because of the past, you know, you sort of tend to be on one side.” For 18 years, Dixon was working with the South African Police Service (SAPS) forensic laboratory — his work included conducting fingerprint analysis on stolen gold — before taking a research position with the University of Pretoria in 2013. But Dixon says in his field there is no room for prejudice. “Metal is the only witness that never lies,” says the 54-year-old, “it never changes its story.”
bless him:D
Two firearm experts, specialists in guns and bullets, are also working for Pistorius. One is Thomas Wolmarans, a former forensic expert with SAPS based in Pretoria. In 2007, Wolmarans testified on behalf of strip club owner Michael Jackson, accused of murdering a street child. (Wolmarans said there could have been a case of mistaken identity. Jackson was found guilty). “You do this type of work, you take it, and then you must forget about it,” says 67-year-old Wolmarans, “a case is a case.”
oh dear
Hey - cheers!
[1] Highway shooting. Without an honest account of crime in his past, where is his fear of crime?
[2] He's privileged.
[3] Indeed. So unreasonable that his defence had no option but to hunt around for diminished capacity findings to explain it (I) psychiatric - failed (II) disability - failed (Schultz overall conclusion was 'none') (III) primal reflex - presumably also fails (Darmen).
If it was legal they wouldn't have to keep identifying new reasons for it outside of OP's conscious control.
But if they remove all intention then there isn't a PPD. There is therefore no reason to go to the bathroom anyway.
It is at minimum an unlawful shooting: dolus, not culpa
Prosecution should definitely be confident of that much.
Also, the "snowball of lies" is completely intact (thanks to blood trail) - so the only thing the defence can do is say he was stressed out so much he was making things up as he went along. But he is fit to stand trial, and testified without difficulties on most things.
The only evidence for his intruder is then external: What he said to people after, and his emotions which means he "did not want to kill her". Well, what he said to people isn't evidence as his testimony is already in doubt. So there is only one evidence: The emotions. That is the only external evidence in favour of the intruder.
But it's also external evidence in favour of being "overwhelmed by what he had done" - Nel's closing remarks in the cross-examination.
A panel is much more likely to reach a conclusion of guilt than innocence IMO but the prosecution could and should have countered his emotions with more examples of conscious omissions and suspect activities after shots, and also, written a section in the hypothetical "If the court would find the early gunshots is the truth, then here are more problems....".
That would have been immensely helpful for the judge IMO. Nevertheless, I think the panel will find him guilty of murder of RS at some level of murder charge.
Note that Roux's argument "His emotions means that he did not want to kill her" was specifically in relation to "dolus directus" (MWI). But then that is strange because if he killed the intruder with "dolus directus" then obviously he didn't want to kill RS - he just wanted to kill the specific person behind the door - and did so unlawfully. So how would his emotions make it NOT "dolus directus". Hence, this argument, is clearly an argument for "dolus eventualis" in the case of shooting at RS, instead.
But as Nel says: Aiming matters. The angles matter. And the means matters.
It should be fine but we could have done with more "tangible context" to the before and after events in the state case tbh. It's all a bit theoretical. I'm sure the judge likes to keep things simple too, but yet the tangibles are good, if you have them to hand.
Hopefully it will all be alright.
Yeah, we'd better knocker it off.
(snipped for space). Sorry, I did find [1] alluded to in Roux's heads of argument.
589. As he entered the passage, he was overcome with fear and shouted for the intruder/s to get out of his home. [pp174-5]
Yes, the blood trail is indeed something I didn't see anywhere in Roux's heads.
It would all be marvellous ... if Roux's summation did not contain significant legal errors.
Just because you plead "nonpathological incapacity" does not mean you will get it.
Just because you say "I should not be blamed" does not mean the world must necessarily agree with that statement.
What is to stop anyone saying it - anytime you do anything whatsoever.
These people are sometimes incredible.
Their presumption that "Oscar the reasonably possibly not provocative" is reconcilable with "Get the F outta my house" is strange to me. I assume it can't be, for which reason the defence didn't mention it in the closure of their Heads of Argument. lol.
But then if it's "Oscar the combative" then his actions are crass and obviously unlawful (killing dead a random unidentified individual in his bathroom and not while vulnerable). And it's murder (which is one of the important legal errors). And the means even without a good aim might even suffice for dolus directus.
The Pistorii seem to also have forgotten that putative private defence depends on assessing whether subjectively the conduct falls within the bounds of the defence (Header 71). And Roux himself said: "There may be issues of conduct": The gap between the defence headers 821 and 822 is interesting in this regard. That is why I think it can never be a lawful putative private defence.
And if his conduct on the way to the bathroom fails to convince as anything other than provocative, then all those "ingenious" thoughts expressed by Roux fall away. He cannot revert back to "Oscar the vulnerable after being "Oscar the confrontational and provocative".
The only option to evade the murder charge is if it would be believed that, at the very same time as facing the door, after exhibiting a provocative conduct to get there falling outside the bounds of PPD anyway, IMO, his mind returned to a state of naivety and fear, his gun went off by accident, due to a dreadfully unconvincing sound, still unaccounted for, and while pointing the gun in the direction of the person he then shot and killed.
It is innocence at the very last moment requiring a great favour by the judge to ever find in its favour. Otherwise all the defendants will be doing it. No one will ever go to prison.
But, if it didn't go off by accident, then because he was in fact thinking about this person at the time, as well, then it is in fact still PPD (no matter that it was provoked). And please disregard that he provoked it meanwhile. And please disregard it was all a big coincidence too.
Again, if you could plead two defences at once like that, everyone would be doing it. It would be impossible to convict anyone as the defence would have too many fallbacks all at once.
But with a "snowball of lies" being unrefuted by the defence Heads, and it being unbelievable he would shoot anyone without the slightest reason, then in all probability, it's "Oscar the temperamental" and he did in fact shout those angry words at, and then shoot and in the process kill, his girlfriend.
The mystery of his aiming and angles is solved. It's not at chest height above the lock because there was no intruder to aim at. It was aimed more at the toilet and then further back. This also further supports the conclusion that he was adapting his version and not speaking errors in an innocent way.
But of course, Mr. Nel should be ashamed to have said any of this. It's really unfair.
Is the bit about X trying to kill Y but killing Z instead, therefore having no dolus for killing Z, aberratio icta?
OK cheers - well the verbatim quote sounds better. ;-) At least we do have that: In terms of the level of provocation (for provoked PPD).
Also [821] and [822]. It's not mentioned. They are assessing if his conduct was reasonable. So do not mention the shouting at all.
Yeah - you clearly need at least two people in your immediate vicinity to even THINK about that principle.
Where are the two people in the cubicle?
There was only RS.
She wasn't standing next to the intruder because there wasn't one.
So it's ridiculous.
And misleading as well.
It's nothing but an argument for making legal errors in the ruling.
That his conduct could fall outside the bounds for PPD
- no subjective threat as the door isn't moving
- too many bullets by far
- provocative in the first instance
so be unlawful. But that unlawfulness can be made to "go away" because RS was in the cubicle. It's simply false.
They just presuppose that his conduct all forms in the bounds of PPD so therefore there is no transfer of a malicious intention because there wasn't any.
However that isn't really the defence. The defence is that he had no intention to fire at anyone and it was a situational accident that the shots went into the door and indeed that he fired at all.
They wish to say that he is not even negligent, or if he might be, then it would be culpable homicide, with a valid PPD.
They don't countenance the idea that he acted in a provocative manner. Or, if he was simply being overconfident in defending himself (possible), then this clashes greatly with the same time being "overcome with fear". I think it becomes an absurd thing to say both at the same time.
All I can say is the judge MUST reject these arguments because it is possible to emulate them in order to paraphrase almost any violent attack in a similar way. Primal instincts, mistakes, going up to someone, opening fire, etc.
Provided you identity just one or two defects/weaknesses/mitigations in your make up, then it becomes possible.
I honestly don't think this is the first time it's been tried in court. And I don't think his case is the one in which it would naturally be accepted as he was unable to be truthful enough.
It's quite probable that the entire arguments will be rejected in totality.
And I think that is what Nel is simply waiting for now - counting on.
You know, I think you already told your bad taste joke without needing to lol as it is probably not too hard to see how that might become a pun in a context lol
[gives a knowing ;-) ]
It's the one solid forensic fact holding together the material there, that's why.
Roux in his speech addressed it but was forced to just say, well, it might have happened by chance [the two pieces line up - too improbable and the state has no obligation to rule such a thing out], but conceded it would have been "splash" from OP's hands while running around.
As a result his main argument about that is that OP couldn't really remember what he was doing after shooting, so might have thrown it on the floor somehow.
He didn't say anything more than that really.
But then where were the fans after all?
And more tellingly, why were none of the policemen asked about all this major disturbance.
It's pretty clear from the write-up in state heads what happened and how one step led to the next to the next - it displays intelligence and a clear conscious awareness of the process of contradicting himself, and how to avoid doing that.
Taken together
[1] Von Staden photos
[2] The blood trail
[3] The embellishments as he goes along with this sequence (there are many)
[4] The lack of questions to either police about it - considering "disturbance" was to be a major theme of the defence case.
[5] OP not noticing anything out of place in either his evidence in chief, or when specifically asked by Nel
should definitely be enough to prove he was making it up.
The discovery that Hilton Botha expressed "the linen was on one side of the bed" which the defence infer to mean "the duvet was on the bed" and which OP then testified that Botha had said, is open to interpretation. Botha made many other errors, some of which we can absolutely prove viz. OP was wearing a bloodied shirt. Also, OP and Rensberg corroborate one another as regards to meeting Botha in the kitchen but Botha is at variance, saying he met OP in the garage.
It would have been helpful for Nel to include more detail about that IMO i.e. that Botha was not called because his observational powers at the time were too poor. And then single speculation, almost tantamount to hearsay plus an interpretation on the language, to boot, cannot be enough to overcome the congruence between [1][2][3][4][5].
Anyway, assuming the crime scene photos are accepted in the main, it leads in Bakers Dozen Item 8 to the unfortunate fact of him having to tell lies about the last time he saw RS before he shot her. That strangely did not cause him to become emotional as he was rather more preoccupied with some of the contradictions in what he was then saying.
If this was real, why so glib in the telling not only of their final words exchanged (added later), but in the telling of the final glimpse he caught of her before those terrible injuries occurred.
I think this argument is essential for the state to succeed (at least in respect of RS). If it doesn't for some reason, then it will be all to do with lawful conduct or otherwise, in relation to the intruder.
I'm disappointed that the state did not tackle his activities either after shooting at the second bangs, or hypothetically shooting during the 'first bangs' (..in the event the court would find). There's probably another "baker's dozen" of suspect facts and also falsehoods there and it seems quite lazy to just leave it be - which is pretty annoying tbh.
I also thought more could have been of his denials about sounds and screaming (saying inconsistently "she didn't" but also "I couldn't have heard if she did" and then finally "it was me" but when asked to describe what he screamed, essentially, talked nonsense). It's all in the record anyway...
That would have been good in order to build more convincingly the argument that he moved the rack because of wishing to deny the means to change his aim. Not made explicit.
Also an argument to say why screams and not falling was what determined the number of shots. Because while she must have carried on falling, she did not carry on screaming. And at this point he dropped his gun, since he already had knowledge of what he had done. Much simpler ("more probable") than if he had run around with it constantly like he said afterwards.
Hope Nel has not been too cavalier. He does seem to somewhat have an attitude of I can just ignore things. Is that how it work's in courts? Hmm.
Suppose it depends on whether the judge plus her trusty assessors have done a mass of research themselves to reach these types of conclusions based on the trial evidence in its totality but in which case it's just lazy to not assist them in the final arguments!
Oh well never mind. Like I say the "snowball of lies" is essential. So long as that is found, the assessors will do their research, and he's going to jail for her murder (aiming at her). If not, if they agree with the defence they cannot "lawfully" reach that conclusion, then it will be something in relation to his conduct and culpability on the other version.
Acquittal is impossible because in any event the judge knows what happened. She will not countenance that as it would be "getting away with murder". She'll work to put her judgement on the firmest possible footing consistent to her beliefs about the totality of the evidence, i'm sure. And that means "murder (at least 'eventualis')". But - well - Nel could have helped her out a bit more there, provided more concrete examples and arguments, that's my impression tbh.
At least she has her assessors...