Der Prozess Oscar Pistorius und der Tod von Reeva Steenkamp03.08.2014 um 23:47
So, allen eine Gute Nacht! ;-)
“That goes to premeditation,” Hansen said. “If the judge buys that, then Oscar spends 25 years to life in jail, and that’s what (Nel) is going for. Somehow the defense is going to have to come back and counter that.”Llewelyn Curlewis: " A case is only as strong as the evidence and the version of your Client "
Pistorius, however, offered little on Friday to refute those claims. Nel told Pistorius that his version of events was pathetic and improbable.
“It was amazing,” Hansen said. “As an American attorney, it makes you jealous because we don’t get an opportunity to say that. We would be held in contempt. And (Judge Thokozile Masipa) did, at some point, kind of chastise (Nel) and said that you can’t call the witness a liar and you’ve got to calm down a little bit. But he really just went after him – straight out called him a liar and put it all out there. And Pistorius didn’t respond well to that. I think before this case he wasn’t used to being challenged, and here he’s had to put up with it a whole lot and the tears are certainly in response to that.
“Today I think he just ran out of things to say.”
Nel, in fact, requested that the trial take a recess until Monday. He said he needed a break from all of the lying.
“And the thing that’s killer about that is, according to the law, Pistorius can’t talk to his lawyer,” Hansen said. “So all weekend long he’s got to just stew in what he’s already said (and) not have any guidance whatsoever (on) how he should handle things on Monday.”
As an attorney, Hansen has been extremely impressed with Gel, who has preyed on Pistorius’ psyche. Gel has tried to break Pistorius, telling him to imagine how scared Steenkamp felt when she was being shot at.
Baruchan schrieb:Roux hat seinen Job gut gemacht.Das hat er. So gut er konnte.
How I think Nel will argue PREMEDITATION -Das was die Burgers hörten waren Schüsse.
The testimonies of Burger, Johnson and the Stipps all mentioned OP shouting before the shots.
- Dr Stipp heard this as male and female voices intermingled.
- Anette Stipp heard a male shouting but could not tell what he was saying, during the female screams.
- Michell Burger and Charl Johnson heard a female call for help in a terrified petrified voice and then a male calling for help 3 times in a flat, embarrassed monotone.
Their perceptions -
The Stipps thought it was a family murder. Someone was being threatened, causing the female to scream out in fear, Dr Stipp said 'scared out of her mind, fearful, severe, and anguished'.
Burger and Johnson thought a couple were under attack and that the female feared for her life.
They all said the shots they heard after that was gunfire and it could not have been the cricket bat, the Johnsons especially being too far away to hear that and the shots being too rapid for that. The experts only found two cricket bat strikes on the door anyway - not 3 or 4.
None of them could equate what they had heard to Oscar mistaking Reeva for an intruder.
I think Nel will argue that with the intruder version being rejected on other evidence, OP shouting for help before firing does not make any sense, except if he was staging an attack from a third person. Roux even put it quite nicely for him when cross-examining Burger and Johnson.
MB: He then told me that at the office he just heard that Oscar Pistorius is on the news and ‘he thought there was an intruder and then he shot his girlfriend.’
Nel: And when you heard that what did you think?
MB: I told my husband that it cannot be because it’s not what we heard.
MB: I stated to M’lady yesterday that with those fearful petrifying screams it couldn’t be ‘you think there’s an intruder’ - your life is endangered.
Roux: Why not? Why could it not have been right that he thought there was an intruder? Why did you decide then already ‘it’s not true, it’s not right, he could not have thought there was an intruder’?
MB: As I stated yesterday, moments before the shots were fired she had petrifying screams. I heard that female screaming fearfully, and she was very very scared of something that was threatening her life, moments before those shots went, and that made me know her life was threatened severely in the house – that’s why she shouted. It could not coincide with thinking there’s something outside.
Roux: How can you say at that stage that there was not an intruder in the house, on those limited facts?
MB: M’lady as I stated, what I stated before, the media stated Mr Pistorius thought there was an intruder in the house, but the screams that I heard was the petrifying screams of someone that’s life was threatened. Someone had to be in the house threatening her. It’s not just a thought, of thinking there might be an intruder.
MB: So in my mind, the way I saw it that evening, there was someone standing there threatening that man and that woman. Because she was petrified. That’s life threatening screams that she gave. It was petrifying. In my mind they were attacked in the house. And then I heard the gunshots. That was a logical deduction.
Roux: Just on objective facts, if there’s a man about to kill his girlfriend with a firearm, she runs away, seeks safety in the toilet and he shot her, one thing that’s inconsistent with that is a man in that same house during that time period shouting for help, to the extent that you also reconcile that shouting with people being attacked in their house. It’s inconsistent, that’s all I’m saying.
MB: That was part of the sequence of events.
Roux: Yes, I’m asking you something else, I’m not asking if it’s part of the sequence. If you have a difficulty to make any concession that’s fine, I’ll argue it to the court.
MB: So, what are you asking?
Roux: I say it’s inconsistent to those facts sketched to you.
MB: M’lady I can only think that Mr Pistorius must answer why he called for help. I was not there. I can just say what I heard. I don’t know, she shouted for help, he shouted for help, I don’t know why he did that.
Roux: Madam, all that I get from your answer and I put it to you because I’m going to argue it to the court, sometimes when it’s an obvious concession you will still not make that, in so far as in your mind that may assist the accused. You will still not make even an obvious concession. That’s your evidence. Because to me it’s obvious (- naughty naughty Roux!!). But you will not do it because it might be good for him. That’s you as a witness. That’s what I put to you. Do you want to comment on that?
MB: M’lady I’m as honest as I can be to the court, I’m just saying what I heard. And I’m giving my story as clearly as I can.
Roux: Shall I ask you a last time and then move on, and see if you’re willing to consider that? On a version, that a man has a gun, he wants to kill his girlfriend, he wants to shoot her, she runs away from him and she hides in the toilet and he shot her through the toilet door. One part of your evidence is inconsistent, of your observations, what you heard. And that is a man shouting for help in that series of events to the extent that also that shouting caused you to think they were attacked, and there was a housebreak.
MB: M’lady afterwards, after I heard what happened the only thing I can now sit and ask is was it a mockery? I don’t know. I’m not Mr Pistorius. I do not know. I cannot answer on behalf of him.
Roux: You’ve answered. I’m very happy with your answer, because that’s what I’m going to argue. You will even call it a mockery other than to make an obvious concession. That’s what I put to you. You will even go so far Ma’am to call it a mockery, with no facts, just not to make a single concession that can help that man. That’s your evidence.
Nel: With the utmost respect, this witness is now badgered and saying ‘you called it a mockery’ – she was asked for an opinion, she gave an opinion, if Counsel doesn’t like the opinion he should carry on Madam, oh er, ‘Madam’ I apologise sincerely M’lady, (laughing) I apologise. He should carry on M’lady that question’s now been answered, he should move on.
Masipa: Yes, it’s fine. Yes Mr Roux I really think you have exhausted this.
Roux: Thank you, I’ll move on.
Roux: “Help, help help” – you heard that - the man screaming.
MB: I heard the man screaming after I heard the woman screaming.
Roux: Yes, you heard the woman screaming then you heard the man screaming, one following the other. And he was also anxious I assume?
MB: The emotion in the voice was a bit different – she was fear stricken.
Roux: But was it just a ‘help…….help………help’, I mean pretending ‘help’, or was it shouting for help?
MB: I won’t be able to say, I mean that question M’lady would be have, will have to ask Mr Pistorius for that, but what I heard was [very slow flat tone] help……………help………………help. I heard that.
Roux: One thing that does not fit in was the man screaming for help, that’s strange to say the least.
CJ: Can Advocate Roux perhaps clarify why he thinks it’s strange?
Roux: Did you not think it was strange when a man, you know now that the man shot his girlfriend, him screaming help? It doesn’t fit in.
CJ: M’lady, that is correct, and that’s why initially I was surprised when I learnt what had happened.
CJ: Also the screams did not sound like fighting but more like panic and distress calls of someone being attacked.
Roux: It tells you one thing. That in your mind none of the screams, and I’m referring to the screams by the man, could resemble a mockery. It was genuine to you.
CJ: M’lady, something that I related to, it was part of my version that I related to my colleagues, it’s not contained in my notes, my statement, because it’s a subject of perception, was the contrast between the, I don’t know how to express this, the fear and intensity in the lady person’s voice, versus a very monotone male voice. Um, what I related to my colleagues was at that point I thought the attackers had left the house because the man almost sounded embarrassed to be calling for help. And I thought that they’d been locked up in a room, or tied up and he felt embarrassed to be calling for assistance from his neighbours. Like I say it’s my impression that I got. It was something that struck me at that point. So my reference to the panic and distress calls of someone being attacked is a separate reference to the lady person that I heard.
Nel: This is a really important issue and I want you to read it out.
CJ: (reading from his notes) After [Vellum?] called a few people he called me back and said that he had heard it was a domestic violence incident. I recall that I told him there is no way that what I had heard was a domestic incident. I said to him that I was convinced those people were attacked in their home. Especially because we heard a woman and a man calling for help. Also the screams did not sound like fighting, but more like panic and distress calls of someone being attacked.
Ahnungslose schrieb:Prosecutor Nel is building his case upon Oscar firing 4 shots purposefully and in a focused manner through a closed door. As per Mr. Nel, after the 1st shot hit Reeva she must have screamed in pain as the 2nd shot missed her. Oscar should therefore have realized by now that his babe was in that tiny cubicle. However, as sound travels in a straight line, it was impossible for Oscar to have heard the screams if he was on his stumps as he claimed to be. Reeva’s screams had to travel through that room, way above his head towards the open bedroom window and in the direction of his neighbours abode if Mr. Nel’s claims that Ms. Steenkamp was standing upright in the loo is to be believed.Best Erklärung ever und aller, die da noch kommen werden. Made my day - ach was, mein ganzes Jahr :D
Remember defence witness Anette Stipp testifying to seeing the lights on in Oscar Pistorius's bathroom? As she was obviously not standing on stumps at the time of the shooting, Reeva’s screams was more likely to have smacked her right in the face as per the straight line theory, than reaching Mr. Pistorius’s ears."
The interview with Thunderbird Man
OP's referred to how he was acting purely in Reeva's Defence, and he wanted to tell his story out of respect for not only himself but for Reeva in her memory
Thunderbird Man says :
that if OP is found guilty Nel could tell the Court that OP actually did the opposite and therefore not only is OP a Liar, but he stooped to the lowest of the Low by using Reeva's name .....and OP dishonoured Reeva to such an extent that he used her indirectly to advance his Defence - and that will have an aggravating aspect to it that Nel will ask the Court to define which will ultimately have an effect on the sentencing that will be imposed.