@Ahnungslose Roux: 'Won't Get Caught'
Der Dieb selbst ruft: "Haltet den Dieb"....
Ahnungslose schrieb:Reading mit starkem Akzent von Opposition
Da hat Heather Malcherzyk aber einen schönen Luftballon fliegen lassen...
http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2014-08-07-pistorius-trial-closing-arguments/#.U_72qaOICSqDieser Bericht über die closing arguments von Nel und Roux enthält Bestätigungen dafür, dass
Nel NICHT den vorsätzlichen Mord an Reeva bewiesen/dargestellt hat, sondern in der Hauptsache das, was die Verteidigung (und OP) von Beginn an behauptet haben: OP hat Reeva erschossen, weil er glaubte, sie sei ein Einbrecher. Ob das nun stimmt oder nicht, ist egal. Nach diesem Artikel sieht es so aus, dass Nel bestätigt hat, dass OP Reeva nicht nach bzw. wegen eines Streits erschossen hat. Und besonders deutlich wird das in dem Bericht hiermit:
As part of a theme he would return to, he read from Pistorius’s account to support the state’s claim that Pistorius fired at his toilet door with intention: “I felt that when the intruder came out we would be in grave danger…I fired shots at the toilet door.” Pistorius also said that “I mistakenly believed that intruders had entered and posed an imminent threat…the shooting was precipitated by a noise which I believed to be intruders coming out of the toilet”.
None of this suggested a man so overcome with fear that he didn’t know what he was doing, or acting on some kind of auto-pilot, Nel said. On the contrary, it was a man discharging his firearm in response to a specific threat. Nel pointed out that Pistorius never said to any of the early arrivers on the scene that the shot “just went off”, or that he didn’t intend to shoot, or that he didn’t know what happened. Instead, Pistorius said: “I shot Reeva, I thought she was an intruder”.
Später kommen zwar Nel's Punkte zum Streit, aber dieser Hinweis dazu im Bericht ist sehr interessant:
Nel then moved on to the thorniest aspect of his case: the evidence that Pistorius was angry with Steenkamp. It is this that many feel is the weakest part of the state’s case – though motive does not have to be proved in South African criminal law, only intention, the story that Pistorius knew it was Steenkamp behind the door and shot accordingly requires some motivation to be convincing.
[....]
Judge Masipa revealed herself to be skeptical about the import of the Whatsapp messages, particularly given that many messages revealed an apparently loving couple. Relationships are dynamic, she suggests; unhappiness can change from one day to the next. Nel conceded that this was the case, but he asked the court to at least concede that the messages suggest that Pistorius and Steenkamp did not have a relationship free from problems.
Sehr interessant auch der Einwand der Richterin an Nel:
After tea, Judge Masipa gently informed Nel that he was moving too slowly, and reminded him that the two sides had to wrap up this week because she is unavailable all next week.
Nel wurde somit von der Richterin unter Druck gesetzt, seine closing arguments kurz zu halten. Ähnliches gab es auch schon im Prozessverlauf,
während sich Roux zu allem so lange auslassen konnte wie er wollte, selbst wenn er sich ständig wiederholte und/oder ständig um Unterbrechungen bat, weil er irgendwas nicht anständig vorbereitet hatte.Schon bemerkenswert, dass die Anklage von der Richterin zur Eile gedrängt wird - und das in einem Mordprozess !!!
Am aufschlussreichesten aber fand ich diesen Passus - der bestätigen könnte, dass Nel nicht ernsthaft eine Verurteilung auf
vorsätzlichen Mord an Reeva verfolgt (hat):
Nel concluded by making an argument for Pistorius to be found guilty of everything from premeditated murder to culpable homicide. There was sufficient planning to support pre-meditation, he said, pointing to Pistorius’s sequence of actions: deciding to get his gun, finding his gun, walking down the hallway etc. If not that, Pistorius must surely be convicted of murder on dolus directus (when a certain result is intended) or dolus eventualis (when the possibility of a certain result is foreseen but recklessly disregarded).
Even if Pistorius believed it was an intruder within the toilet, Nel said, he intentionally and unlawfully shot to kill that person.
As a last recourse, Nel said Pistorius cannot escape a conviction on culpable homicide. A “reasonable person” would not have fired without cause, and there was no cause.
Für den "Laien" sieht es trotzdem so aus, dass Nel "sein Möglichstes getan" hat...
Und die "psychologische Untersuchung" war ja wohl ein Witz ersten Ranges, wenn man jetzt so hört, was Menschen erzählen, die ihn kennen.
