Anyone following the Pistorius Trial

Parent Cafe
41

<p>The cross examination is like a game of cat and mouse. Pistorius has had a year to rehearse his story and has scripted answers for all the questions posed to him. The prosecutor knows this and is setting traps for Pistorius with seemingly innocuous questions which is attempting to lock Pistorius into a version of the events or timeline which isn’t feasible. The prosecutor is playing chess with him by striving to be at least 3 or 4 moves ahead of Pistorius. What makes the exchange riveting is that Pistorius is no dummy and is doing his best to parry the line of inquiry by the prosecutor. </p>

<p>The other thing the prosecutor is doing to keep Pistorius off-balance is changing the subject frequently. For example, he will question him about the text messages one second and then immediately shift to the movement of the fans in the bedroom before the shooting. He doesn’t allow Pistorius to ever get comfortable or to anticipate which questions are coming next. </p>

<p>What also makes this trial fascinating is that the prosecutor and defense attorney are phenomenal attorneys who are well-matched for this trial of the century in South Africa. Apparently, the entire country is watching the trial. </p>

42

<p>What network is broadcasting the trial? </p>

<p>If he were being tried in the U.S. and the person in the bathroom had been an intruder, he would probably still be convicted of manslaughter. A door locked from the inside implies the person inside was avoiding confrontation. Shooting blindly through a door is not self defense. But of course this happened in South Africa.</p>

43

<p>He doesn’t have entirely consistent answers as to why he shot at the door. He claims it was self-defense because he heard a noise which he interpreted to mean the intruder was opening the door. OTOH, he also says it was accidental…that he never meant to shoot but just panicked. He partly justifies his actions because he felt particularly vulnerable without his prosthetic legs.</p>

<p>Interestingly, although he has been undergoing cross examination for a day and a half, the prosecutor hasn’t asked any questions yet about the locked door or the fact she was dressed in street clothes. Nel is extremely meticulous and is questioning him about every aspect of his movements that night.</p>

<p>It is being streamed live on the BBC website: <a href=“http://www.bbc.com/news/world/africa/”>http://www.bbc.com/news/world/africa/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

44

<p>The reason why this case is not a slam dunk for the prosecution is because the defense attorney, Barry Roux, has made the police look like idiots. They have made every mistake possible in collecting and analyzing the evidence. Even the police photographer has contradicted himself a number of times. Roux is like Perry Mason in the way he gets the prosecution witnesses to look foolish and confused.</p>

45

<p>Question: In SA, do defendants have the right to decline to take the stand? Clearly, once they do, the prosecution gets to cross examine, but since they don’t have jury trials, I didn’t want to assume anything else.</p>

46

<p>They just adjourned until Monday. It was exhausting just listening to the cross examination for the last three hours. I can only imagine how it must have felt to Pistorius. </p>

<p>Pistorius spent considerable time trying to explain why Reeva did not say anything in the bathroom after Pistorius yelled at the intruder and screamed for Reeva to call the police. He claims she was too scared to talk because she must have thought he was retreating into the bathroom trying to get away from the intruder. She didn’t want to give away her position to the intruder. </p>

<p>Pistorius keeps making mistakes. He has repeatedly said that no woman screamed that night, but finally had to admit that it was possible that Reeva screamed after the first shot after admitting his ears were ringing from the gunfire. Nel keeps asking him why did he leave the bedroom and walk toward the danger if he so scared. Also, he now claims he talked to Reeva in the bed before getting his gun and she didn’t respond to him. This was not in the version he gave at his bail hearing. Nel still hasn’t asked him why the bathroom door was locked.</p>

<p>Nrdsb4, I think the rules for a defendant testifying are similar in South Africa. It is his choice. I don’t think the defense had any other choice after the prosecution rested its case. The one major difference is that the defendant testifies first in the defense case rather than go last as is customary in the US.</p>

47

<p>We’ve just finished up the 4th day of cross examination and it was probably the roughest that Pistorius has had to endure yet. Actually, I am somewhat bothered by the legal system in South Africa. It seems like the prosecutor can say just about anything to Pistorius, not matter how inflammatory. He frequently accuses him of lying, tailoring the evidence and being guilty of murder. There has been many inconsistencies in the version told by Pistorius, and each time he is caught the prosecutor uses it to berate Pistorius. </p>

<p>Although I believe he is guilty, I don’t think it is healthy to have a legal system which allows the defendant to be constantly browbeaten. Nel is questioning Pistorius about every minute detail in his story, which could almost make an innocent person look guilty. Nobody has perfect recall and can remember every second that took place during an 8-hour period. </p>

<p>The problem for Pistorius is his version of what took place seems highly improbable. I believe the prosecutor could let the facts speak for themselves without all the prejudicial commentary.</p>

48

<p>I’m going to look somewhat pushy but came across this site while doing some web surfing on the case. Obviously it’s a huge deal here, especially to those of use who are studying law. Might be able to shed some light on the procedural aspects of of the South African legal system. </p>

<p>Firstly, the jury system was officially abolished over forty years ago but we retained quite a lot of the same rules with regard to hearsay, similar fact and character evidence. Now that there are only qualified, experienced presiding officers in criminal trials, they’ve been able to relax a couple of those rules. Not drastically, obviously, but there isn’t a jury to try to evoke sympathy from. </p>

<p>In the second instance, Barry Roux opened the floodgates of character evidence. Once that has been done, Nel effectively has free reign to adduce evidence that would have otherwise been inadmissible. Standing there during examination-in-chief and trying to paint a picture of a do-gooder probably won’t do you many favours, but he may be banking on the old scales tipping to OP’s favour. </p>

<p>Oscar’s weakness lies in the lack of defence. The onus may well be on the state, but he has already admitted to his “mistake” or the accident. Autonomy is an incredibly unlikely defence - easier if it pertains to a pre-existing medical condition but otherwise incredibly difficult to prove. Psychogenic amnesia doesn’t count. The plea explanation at the beginning of the trial was also unnecessary - it just gives the State some more cannon fodder, which Gerrie Nel predictably uses as chewing tobacco. </p>

<p>At this rate, even putative private defence would be a tough one. It could lower the charge down to culpable homicide but his actions are stacked against him. Generally with putative private defence, you act within the bounds of private defence, believing your life to be in danger even though it wasn’t. He can’t claim a threat was imminent - the “threat” was locked behind a bathroom door, he lives in a complex with dedicated security and he shot without knowing who or what his target was. That is exceeding the bounds and could well equate to murder. </p>

<p>The identity behind the door doesn’t matter - all that is pertinent to Nel’s case is that, at the time, whether he thought it was a burglar or Reeva, OP either directly intended to use his firearm or his used his firearm known that there was a reasonable chance he could kill someone (a separate form of intention). </p>

<p>OP needs to start answering questions. He’s admitted to a crime but he’s pleading not guilty - where’s the defence? </p>

49

<p>According to a news report I read, the prosecution has rested. What’s next? Does the defense do rebuttals, recall old witnesses, etc.? In SA, do the parties do closing statements?</p>

50

<p>Kelly736, thank you for posting on this forum. It’s great to have a law student from South Africa giving us a local perspective of what is happening. </p>

<p>I thought the most fascinating part of the cross examination was when Nel was questioning Pistorius about his thought process for shooting the gun into the toilet door. He seemed (to the chagrin of his attorneys) to be changing his defense from a putative self-defense to an accident where he didn’t have conscious control of the gun. I don’t think the judge is going to look kindly on the theory that Pistorius didn’t intend to shoot the gun or that if fired accidentally. </p>

<p>It seems like it would be difficult for Pistorius to be found not guilty of culpable homicide. The judge would have to conclude that he didn’t intend to kill anyone but only was trying to defend himself and made a reasonable mistake thinking there was an intruder in the toilet who was an imminent threat. One could say he made a mistake but it is a leap to say it was a reasonable mistake. I don’t think anyone fires a gun four times unless he was trying to kill whoever was behind the door. Since he didn’t know who was behind the door and the door never moved, I don’t think the judge can conclude there wasn’t some degree of negligence here. </p>

<p>It will be interesting to see the rest of the defense case and the testimony of their expert witnesses. </p>

51

<p>So sad for Reeva’s family that he was only found guilty of cupable homicide and nothing greater. I can see why her family is so sad. I hope he gets some jail time–he seems like a very troubled man and a rather dangerous one.</p>

52

<p>I too hope he gets jail time – at least five years – but do respect the decision and was very interested in the logic and reasoning the judge provided. Apparently it was a unanimous decision as well (with her two assistants).</p>

<p>I do feel for Reeva’s family but also agree with the judge that we cannot assume what was in Oscar’s mind. Culpable homicide is apparently roughly equivalent to our second degree murder and IMO it is a reasonable decision, although disappointing to many in that it is more “grey” than either murder or acquittal.</p>

<p>I will be very interested in the sentencing decision, and do hope that Oscar goes directly to jail.</p>

<p>Life is a soap opera, IMO.</p>