huggybear wrote:
@kai,
Those conflicting reports are from the media, not the evidence in court. Which is the problem with real-time updates on the internet. Everything is being reported as and when it breaks without it being checked for authenticity or accuracy.
It's difficult for him because if he goes with the 'I didn't know who it was' line, then he is effectively admitting he wanted to wound, or kill an unknown person, which is still a serious violent crime.
Also it's for the defence to prove any form of diminished responsibility that backs up that view, not for the prosecution to prove. Forensics will have enough evidence to proof the prosecution's account, including the shot through the door hypothesis.
I know the conflicting reports were from the media. I was pointing out that it we don't know what version of events is true at this stage so making any conclusive judgements as to the viability of his story is difficult.
Agreed on the fact that saying "I didn't know who it was" would be an admission that he intended to harm a person, but we don't know that that's the only thing he said to police in any sort of statement. In all probability that will only be one part of what he said in his version of events. That just seems to be the 'tag line' that has been grabbed by the media. The same would go for what is being reported about his statement re: not intending to kill her rather than harm her. I never find the media more frustrating than when it involves evidence related to a court matter: wording, context and detail are
so important and we never get that accurately.
I also thought that I indicated in my post that the burden of proof for any defence strategy will rest with the defence. They'd have to put forth the evidence related to his state of mind at the time and, as I said, IMO if the theory that is being reported is the one they are going with then that will become crucial.
As for the voluntary manslaughter point you raise, that was what I was getting at with my comments about their choice of charge and how that could backfire. It's not a given that if they don't prove premeditated murder he can be found guilty of a lesser charge. I don't know the South African system on that one, but I know cases in Australia, the US and the UK have all been botched due to the prosecution going with a more serious charge than they can prove.