Oscar Pistorius, das Model, der Valentinstag und das war dann Notwehr

tayo schrieb:@Rabenfeder

Nel war damals schon der Ankläger, konnte sich jedoch nicht durchsetzen, der damalige Richter hat O.P. auf Kaution freigelassen.

tayo schrieb:dieser hatte entschieden, dass er auf Kaution freikommt - anfangs noch mit Auflagen - diese wurden später jedoch sehr abgemildert.

It is indeed possible to pick individual aspects of the prosecution evidence and describe ways in which they could be given an alternative explanation.

I think my response to this would be two-fold

1. Just because something is possible does not mean it is probable.
2.The more borderline possible things that are added into an account, the smaller the likelihood of overall probability.


I will try to illustrate with this case. This is just a small sample. To believe OP's defence, we have to believe the following possibilities which I would suggest are actually improbable even taken separately, but when added together become almost impossible:

*The ear-witnesses are all wrong and did not hear a woman screaming.
*The PT witnesses are lying.
*The prosecution pathologist is wrong and Reeva did not eat 2 hours before she died
*The bedroom door and bath panel have damage which is perfectly innocent
*OP chose not to alert Frank for assistance.
*OP heard the bathroom window open whilst he was faffing about with the fans but did not hear Reeva getting up out of the bed he was standing right next to.
* OP stated that he chose not to fetch Reeva and head out of the bedroom and downstairs because the tiled floor outside the bedroom was slippery on his stumps and yet he chose to go towards the claimed perceived threat in the tiled bathroom on his stumps with a loaded and cocked gun.
*OP chose not to attempt to interact directly witth Reeva whilst he was right next to the head of the bed fetching his gun.
*OP did not wait for a response from Reeva before rushing off to shoot.
*OP heard the window frame open and then the bathroom door slam shut as he moved down the relatively short passage to the bathroom - meaning that when he ran down the corridor screaming, Reeva was in the toilet and made no effort to talk to him or let him hide with her.
*Op heard a sound in the toilet and started firing but he wasn't firing at the sound
*Op didn't consciously fire the gun (having specifically gone to fetch it and cock it ready for firing) - it just somehow went off FOUR times when it is a confirmed fact that each discharge requires active pressing of the trigger.
*OP was told by Netcare to pick up Reeva with her multiple gunshot wounds, stick her in the car bleeding profusely and take her to the hospital himself.
*The police tampered with the crime scene in precisely the right way to disprove OP's version of events with the fans etc before they even knew what his version was.

There is more, but I trust this is enough to illustrate the point I am trying to make. In my honest opinion, it simply is not possible for all of the above rather unlikely individual points (and all the others I have not listed) to have miraculously happened together on that evening/night and therefore make OP's version acredible truth.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=244441&page=10

Interesting Pistorius timeline as offered by donmack

This offering clearly emanates from someone who believes that Oscar Pistorius did mean to kill Reeva Steenkamp. He lays out the timeline as he sees it.

Thoughts?


http://phil51089.wordpress.com/2014/04/26/interesting-pistorius-timeline-as-offered-by-donmack/#comments

Rabenfeder schrieb:Was meinst du, wird die Öffentlichkeit auch weiterhin informiert werden?
Oder wird damit weitgehend Schluss sein?

KlaraFall schrieb:Am Ende wird die Gerechtigkeit siegen.

Another GEM of a post by our valued Elizabeth Holmes. Thank you Elizabeth:

"I have now finished watching a pertinent trial concerning the mental health of the defendant. The Defense brought on 3 mental health professionals that said she was "insane" at the time of the murders. In the prosecutions rebuttal case, they brought in 3 more mental health professionals (who were extremely good witnesses) said she was "sane" at the time of the murders. The prosecution won and the defendant was convicted of the murders of her 2 teenagers. Life in prison....jury didn't buy the "mentally insane" argument and neither will the Judge in OP's case.

As I was listening to the prosecution's case they were pointing out the "sane" things the defendant did such as:

- Going to a firearms store kilometers away from where she lived and not in her community.
- Consciously told the gun store she wanted it for protection which was a lie. She wanted it to kill her children. The very fact that she lied about its intended use meant that what she was about to do was wrong. If she was insane, she would have told them the truth and they wouldn't have sold her the gun AND would have reported her.
- She put post it notes on her front door that the family had gone to New York so nobody but her husband would find the bodies. (depraved)
- In her police interview, she was very clear on what she had done and showed remorse.

These are just a few of the highlights that the prosecution used to show she was sane and clearly thinking, even planning the killings. This is why she was found guilty and not "not guilty by reason of insanity".

I've said it before and I'll say it again....GAD is a common as the common cold! The defendant in the above referenced case had real mental issues; documented over a period of time....that said....at the time of the offense, she was legally sane. I was a little worried about the jury being swayed but like Nel, the prosecution put on an excellent case. And Nel is right, the timing of this GAD is ultra suspect!

So taking the above case in consideration, let's take a look at some of OP's 'sane' actions:

- OP knew how to fire a gun; in fact you could call him proficient
- OP went "towards" the perceived danger instead of taking the safe way out through his bedroom door. And it wasn't easy to get to the danger, he had to navigate a few areas "in the dark"
- OP knew that if he fired a gun into the small, enclosed cubicle that he would injure someone if not kill them.
- OP knew there was someone in there (an intruder in his mind, but we all knew he knew it was Reeva)
- OP knew that he had a gun in his hand because he has said as much
- OP has seen the damage a gun can do through his watermelon display and most likely through watching violent films/news/etc.
- OP fired the gun into the toilet room - he's admitted that and there is evidence of that
- OP altered the crime scene so as to confuse the investigation
- OP delayed getting Reeva assistance so her could tell "a story"
- When pressed by the prosecution, he changed his "intruder and attack me" defense to "gun accidentally went off" and now this "alleged mental disorder". This shows that he has the capacity to form a defense and tailor his evidence. He has not shown GAD throughout the bail hearing or through his testimony. It is coming out now because things are not going well for him. The changing of defense was his choice.
- OP showed emotion which is supposed to be a display of remorse. This tells me that he knows what he did was wrong.

I'm sure there are other examples of OP's clarity of thought, but these will do for now.

There is no way that a team of medical professionals will write a report saying that he was not responsible for murdering Reeva due to GAD. Diminished capacity is a very very high bar to reach and this doesn't even make it off the ground.

South African Mental Health Laws:

Diminished Responsibility

When a person is not responsible for his or her actions

A person is relieved of criminal responsibility if rendered incapable of acting rationally or of controlling his or her own conduct by a mental disorder or disease.

Insanity

Because South African law does not define mental illness or defect, the existence of either condition in an accused is determined on the basis of psychiatric evidence before the court.

Temporary mental aberrations are not regarded as being illnesses or defects; nor is being in a psychopathic state. (See mental disorder.)

If a mental illness (or defect) is established, the court must decide if it made the accused incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of his or her actions. (**And peeps, he knew exactly what he was doing but most likely regretted it once he came back to planet earth after visiting ego centered OP land)

If the court finds an absence of criminal responsibility, the accused will be found not guilty by reason of mental illness. If this is found to be the case after a conviction but before sentencing, the court will set aside the conviction, and direct the accused to be detained in prison or a mental health hospital for treatment pending a further decision by the state (which I could live with, but this won't happen....can you see OP in a mental hospital?). If the court finds that the ability of an accused to appreciate the wrongfulness of his or her actions (or to act in accordance with such appreciation) was diminished by mental illness or mental defect, the sentence may be reduced - even if the person is found to be criminally responsible.

If a mental illness or defect prevents an accused from making a proper defense because he or she is incapable of understanding the proceedings, the court may, after an inquiry, declare the person to be a state patient in terms of the Mental Health Act.

Mistake or ignorance of fact....

Generally, before guilt can be established, it must be proved that an accused had the necessary intent and knew that the action concerned was unlawful. (Nel has proven this)

A person who through ignorance commits a crime, cannot be said to have acted intentionally and therefore would not be liable. For example, a game hunter who accidentally shoots a man whom he could not have reasonably foreseen to be at the scene of the shooting, cannot be held liable for wounding or killing him.

The mistake must be both relevant to the question of guilt and genuine: if the error does not form an essential element of the crime it will not be regarded as a good defence.

For example, if a man steals a car because he believes it belongs to A, and not to B, the mistake is irrelevant to the question of guilt. A crime has still been committed - regardless of who owns the car. If, on the other hand, he takes a car thinking it belongs to him when it was, in fact, B's, the mistake would be regarded as a good defence and would possibly lead to an acquittal."

https://www.facebook.com/Justice4ReevaSteenkamp/posts/625232940888612

KlaraFall schrieb:Also wäre es eigentlich sinnlos und nur suspekt daraus einen Geheimprozess zu machen.

KlaraFall schrieb:There is

no way that a team of medical professionals will write a report saying that he was not responsible for murdering Reeva due to GAD.

Diminished capacity is a very very high bar to reach and this doesn't even make it off the ground

KlaraFall schrieb: Was genau in den Gutachten stehen wird, gehört natürlich eindeutig zu seiner Privatsphäre, die es zu schützen gilt.

.lucy. schrieb:Dieser Meinung bin ich nicht.
Kann OP denn bestimmen was wärend des Prozesses erwähnt werden darf, oder sagt er vorher schon, das ist privat, also wird es nicht erwähnt, weder von Zeugen noch von Nel

Beim Verlesen des Gutachtens müßte der Gerichtssaal ja fast leer sein, keine Zuschauer, auch reevas Mutter nicht, keine anderen Gutachter

Dann wäre ja auch das Gutachten von der letzten Psychaterin nichts wert, wenn OP vorher hätte bestimmen können was sie erzählt oder verschweigt

KlaraFall schrieb:Doch ich schätze, dass die Schuldfähigkeit sicherlich begründet werden darf, so wie es auch Dr. Vorster erlaubt war gewisse Dinge öffentlich zu erwähnen.
Ich denke, dass nur alle Bereiche, die sich NICHT um Schuldfähigkeit drehen, nicht weiter ausgeführt werden. Wenn jetzt andere Persönlichkeitsstörungen diagnostiziert werden, die aber die Tat nicht berühren, bleiben diese sicherlich auch verschlossen.