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

Zumindest im deutschen Notwehrrecht gibt es keine Verhältnismäßigkeit

aberdeen schrieb:Das musste der auch gar nicht sehen, denn da greift ja gerade die P-Notwehr. Durch den Umstand, dass der Verteidigende zunächst seine Verlobte schickte, die Polizei zu rufen und auch fette Einbruchssicherungen an der Haustür hatte - übrigens der Grund, warum die Polizei überhaupt so lange vor der Haustür war - konnte der halt glaubhaft machen, dass er wirklich ständig mit einem Überfall rechnete.

mitleserin schrieb:Wie erklärt es sich denn die Verteidigung, dass Reeva nicht geantwortet hat? OP hat doch nach seiner Aussage im Flur zum Bad hin gerufen während er näher kam?

aber er hat ja geschossen und gehen wir jetzt mal davon aus (es fällt schwer, das weiß ich) er spricht die Wahrheit, dann wäre es ein Fall von putative self-defense, vielleicht zuzüglich exzessiver Notwehr und es wäre dann culpable homicide

Meanwhile, Pistorius is expected to argue that he was trying to make the handgun safe when it went off.

Roux said his client was initially shocked and then upset with Fresco for passing him a loaded weapon.

Zuagroaste schrieb:Wie kommt man generell auf so eine bescheuerte Idee eine Waffe, ob geladen oder nicht, in einem Lokal (noch dazu neben Kindern) herumzureichen?

Roux says the calls were barely two minutes apart and by that stage, Pistorius had just broken down the door with his cricket bat.

Erfolg, Macht, Geld in jungem Alter verdirbt nicht nur in Südafrika den Charakter.

Pupupu schrieb:Roux hat Fühler für Gefühle. Nur nicht für die der Zeugen.^^

Defence on attack ... Oscar Pistorius' attorney Barry Roux put to husband and wife witnesses that they colluded on their testimony. Source: AP

Mr Roux sought to undermine the prosecution testimony of a couple who say they heard a woman's screams and gunfire the night that Pistorius killed Steenkamp. Telephone records will show that the banging sounds the neighbors heard were not gunshots but a distressed Pistorius breaking down the toilet door with a cricket bat after realising he had shot Steenkamp when she was in the toilet, thinking it was an intruder, Mr Roux asserted.

Throwing doubt on the witnesses' recollection of the sequence in the early hours is crucial for Pistorius' defence after the state maintained there was a loud argument on the night he shot Steenkamp through a door in his bathroom and the screams and shouts were before a gun was fired.

Pistorius' team wants to show the screams were Pistorius calling for help after the accidental killing and before he used the bat on the door.

Charl Johnson and his wife Michelle Burger have testified to hearing a woman screaming, a man shouting for help and then gunshots. During his cross-examination of Mr Johnson, Mr Roux said call records will show Pistorius called an estate manager at around 3:19am and soon after he bashed in the door with the bat.

In Mr Johnson and Ms Burger's testimony, they say they heard what they described as shots straight after making a call to security at 3:16am. The similar times show the sounds were the bat on the door, Mr Roux argued.

"There is only one thing you could have heard, because it coincides precisely,'" Mr Roux said to Mr Johnson. "That was the time that he [Pistorius] broke down the door [with the bat].'"

Mr Johnson replied: "I am convinced the sound I heard was gunshots."

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=588924087852831&set=a.423571704388071.95931.423567214388520&type=1&stream_ref=10

KlaraFall schrieb:http://ewn.co.za/2014/03/05/Oscar-Pistorius-trial-Defence-puts-pressure-on-two-key-witnesses (Archiv-Version vom 06.03.2014)

Questions & answers found here:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=236783&page=44

Ok, here are some questions for those of you who do not believe that the the witnesses have contradicted each other and believe that these witnesses have successfully discredited Oscar's statements:

1. When did Oscar scream "help, help, help" - before the shots were fired or after?


Based on witness testimony, I believe he yelled out help before the gunshots, possibly mocking Reeva. It's interesting to me that Ms. Burger had considered that possibility, as there had been a few of us here on this forum, including myself, who had entertained the same notion (I believe it was whiterum who first posted about it prior to Ms. Burger stating so in court the following day).


2. Who screamed after the shots were fired, Oscar or Reeva?


At least two posters (IIRC, they were Shane and Interested Bystander) have posted information regarding bullets and the sound barrier. Apparently, the sound of a gunshot travels at a faster rate of speed than the human voice. I think it's entirely possible that what was described as the "fading" of Reeva's final scream following the 4th gunshot was due to this phenomenon.


3. On the night of the shooting, did the husband and wife hear a woman's screams that sounded fearful and like her life was in danger? Or did they hear a confrontation that made them believe a house intrusion was happening and the husband was shot in front of the wife?


I think both these possibilities crossed their minds as events unfolded that night. Since they could only hear (and not see) what was going on, their minds went to what were logical scenarios.


4. Was Burger awoken by a woman's screams or by her husband jumping out of bed when he heard screams or gunshots?


Ms. Burger testified that she was awakened by screaming. Mr. Johnson testified that he jumped out of bed when he heard the screams. I don't believe he could know with precise certainty when his wife woke up or what caused her to be startled awake as he does not reside in her mind or body. Only Ms. Burger can attest to that and she affirms it was the screams that awoke her.


5. Did Burger and Johnson discuss their statements and testimony or did they not?


I believe over the course of this past year, they have talked to one another regarding what happened on that fateful night. I don't believe they collaborated to arrive at similar versions, as Roux would like the Judge to believe. I think it's perfectly natural for two people who live together & have been together for a number of years to share a similar vocabulary. I believe they are credible witnesses who testified as to what they each individually heard and pondered on the night of the shooting.