Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 8

[Roussette]

here is Number 7.

It just seems so obvious to me - he shot her, no one disputes that, witnesses heard her screaming, some heard arguments. What is the most likely scenario? eh? Picking apart that the witness accounts vary is not particularly interesting, of course they vary, but together, they are significant.

Judge Masipa slapped Roux down before the lunch break over his lengthy diatribe over the undigested food in Reeva's stomach, the Court also sounded a little mocking.

I have always believed that OP shot into the toilet cubicle with the sole intention of killing whoever was in there, my sticking point is did he definitely know it was Reeva, I don't want to believe he did.

However, I can't get my head round the facts that even though they were both awake and had spoken to each other minutes beforehand, OP didn't hear or see her go to the toilet, she went in the dark even though they were awake so there was no danger of waking anyone up by putting on the light, she didn't need to creep about so as not to disturb him as, again, they were both awake. When he heard the 'noise' and asked Reeva to call the police and received no response from her that he didn't check she had heard him and was actioning his request. Again, the lack of "did you hear that, Reeva?" or "was that you making that noise Reeva?" just doesn't make any sense to me.

I also don't believe the opening of the bathroom window scenario.

According to the Daily Telegraph Roux conceded OP is guilty, and should be found guilty, of negligence relating to the discharge of the firearm in the restaurant. Daily Telegraph states this is quite a big turnaround as OP was pleading not guilty on all the charges. A deflection tactic to show OP can take responsibility? If so, to me it is too little, too late.

I mentioned that upthread, Emotion. He didn't say that OP was changing his plea - just that Roux agrees the court should find him guilty if they believe that he asked for and took the firearm from his cousin.

So his argument was 'he can take responsibility - look, he takes responsibility for Tashas and says says he was misguided and shouldn't have done it.' However, not quite enough responsibility to change his plea, and still determined that the gun went off all by itself.

I've just skim read the defence response. It's their response to the State's heads of argument, not the defence's heads of argument iyswim. It doesn't include a timeline but there were a few points that struck me.

Unless I've read it wrong it says WhatApp messages prove Reeva took her phone to the toilet but didn't use it to call for help?! I don't remember that evidence. I remember the phones were automatically downloading updates.

Then it makes two points that I think show a complete lack of understanding of domestic violence. It says Reeva would have hidden in the toilet behind the wall if she thought, or if OP had said, that OP was going to kill her. (Even for someone in a long-standing DV relationship, you don't automatically jump to thinking you will be killed.)

And Roux also says if OP was shouting at Reeva when he said 'get out of my fucking house' then Roux says she would just have left, she wouldn't have run and locked herself in the toilet. I get that might seem like the logical response but it's actually common for people in DV situations to lock themselves in a toilet.

Sounds like it really all is semantics. It's one question - did he intend to kill when he fired? I think the answer is more likely to be yes. Whether out of fear or rage, we may never know. Four shots.....

then Roux says she would just have left,

What, so the a terrified DV victim would walk past their attacker while they were in full screaming mode?

That's surely less likely than them hiding until their abuser had at least calmed down.

Masipa, I think, would be able to see it from the victim's point of view.

It seems the ear witnesses can't win with Roux. If the couples' testimonies are the same then he implies they tailored them and are unreliable. If the couples' testimonies differ then he implies one or both of them must be lying. And yet all of that is ignored when it comes to the witnesses who suit his argument.

Thanks for that clarification Looking.

I thought I might be guilty of reading too much into it!

Agree Book, perhaps that's why Judge Masipa seemed so irritated when Roux made the analogy.

If the couples' testimonies are the same then he implies they tailored them and are unreliable. If the couples' testimonies differ then he implies one or both of them must be lying.

Now you've mentioned it, that's exactly right.

I just can't see him getting his gun, loading it and choosing to aim at the locked door. That's not impulse - there's so many decisions made in those steps.
And I think Roux just doesn't have the charisma of Nel, making him less appealing when actually a lot of what he said made sense - Botha claiming to have knowledge from forensics and then changing his story later for example. Nel did repeatedly imply OP was lying 'that cannot be' which would be hard for a witness and nothing has apparently come out of the psychiatric assessment suggesting guilt or Nel would have been all over it.
Frank. That's the problem for me. Nel saying there were two people in the house and there weren't.

Roux's tone to the Judge is a bit lecturing isn't it?

Nel did repeatedly imply OP was lying 'that cannot be'

To be fair, Roux did this too, with Burger and Stipp. 'It cannot be' seems to be the vaguely more acceptable version of 'I don't believe you.'

Frank bothers me too, but it bothers me equally in both directions.

I disagree with Roux on the height of the shots, bearing in mind the type of bullets used, those shots are placed to ensure hitting the target and causing maximum damage. A stomach wound is invariably fatal.

loading it

When did he load it?

Sorry - that suddenly sounds like an inane question, but I'd always understood it to have been pre-loaded.

If he loaded it in the bedroom before taking it into the bathroom, then that's even more time when he thought he was in the room with Reeva during which time he didn't hear her answer him, didn't hear her start to call for the police like he said...

So he didn't intend to kill. I completely agree with Emotions - 1 shot low might well have killed with those bullets. Four was surely bound to.

Dolus Eventualis now.

No, we've diverted into disputing each individual point again.

Roux is now saying that if there was intent, you have to prove the intent. That the names of the other forms of murder don't count, only intent.

It remains subjective. If he failed to reconcile and foresee, then you get culpable homicide. It's unreasonable to convict of murder. There have been two cases on appeal on this.

This does not match with the other stuff I've read on the murder charges available.

Sorry for the bombardment.

Roux: The pure legal question; did the accused foresee the possibility that she was in the toilet? No, the opposite is true. He genuinely thought she was in the bedroom.

My argument remains, he had no reason to believe she was in the bedroom.

Now he's going on about 'you have the facts, you have heard the argument, and now you need to make the value judgement about whether his actions were reasonable or not...'

Which sounds a lot like he's telling her precisely how to do her job.

I am not sure about Roux's closing argument, is he saying that disability gives a Defendant an exception and a sort of 'get out of jail free card' covering all their actions and behaviours?

is he saying that disability gives a Defendant an exception and a sort of 'get out of jail free card' covering all their actions and behaviours?

I think he's been trying to be slightly more subtle - there should be one set of 'reasonable behaviours' for the man in grey suit and grey shoes, and another set of 'reasonable behaviours' for people on a like for like basis.

To be fair though Nel also told the court that they would find OP guilty during the trial. I don't think Roux is as bad as some of you seem to think - I wonder if you are so bowled over by Nel that Roux seems poor in comparison?
Sorry, I assumed re loading as I always thought you weren't allowed to keep a gun with its ammunition.

To be fair though Nel also told the court that they would find OP guilty during the trial.

Yes, but that's his job. Roux is supposed to be finding him not guilty - which is why I made the point. If his own lawyer has said that he should be found guilty, then that's why it's an issue.

(Wait, I've just seen you meant about him telling her her job. Again, I think there's a difference between 'you must find him guilty' having stated a fact and 'now you must go away and look at the facts and make your judgement...'

To which her answer could easily be 'no, really? I thought I had to go and throw darts at a wall.)

Nel is calling Roux on his 'let's not label things' comment.

He intended to kill a human being, he thought there was a human being in the toilet 'dolus directus'. That's murder.