Blade Runner becomes Blade Gunner **Mod Warning Read OP""

Ann22

sopretty wrote: »

They had contact other than texts. Real life contact. Which puts the texts in context. Have you ever texted your hubby telling him that he scared you?

Can't say that I have ...besides as those kinds of rows we would've had occurred in our early years before we had mobile phones.

It's just that ..I can't believe anyone in their right mind would actually pull the trigger knowing what would happen..especially with him being so careful with his image. Surely there'd be some build up to such a serious row. He'd been on the phone to his cousin shortly beforehand things between them were running smoothly.

sopretty

Ann22 wrote: »

Can't say that I have ...besides as those kinds of rows we would've had occurred in our early years before we had mobile phones.

It's just that ..I can't believe anyone in their right mind would actually pull the trigger knowing what would happen..especially with him being so careful with his image. Surely there'd be some build up to such a serious row. He'd been on the phone to his cousin shortly beforehand things between them were running smoothly.

He was on the phone to his cousin before 9pm. Reeva was shot around 3am.

ninebeanrows

I cannot believe how many people are being taken in by this guy.

I really think that he will get away with it and it shows that if you have money and a good legal team anybody can get away with murder.

sopretty

Weathercheck wrote: »

I cannot believe how many people are being taken in by this guy.

I really think that he will get away with it and it shows that if you have money and a good legal team anybody can get away with murder.

It's the Judge we need to think about. She's not as easily taken in as the rest of us.

Ann22

sopretty wrote: »

He was on the phone to his cousin before 9pm. Reeva was shot around 3am.

But still...I just can't picture things getting that serious in that period of time when both parties are sleepy and no alcohol has been taken. If he did it deliberately, he must be deranged. Have any of her friends spoken up about it? Surely they would've suspected she was in serious fear of him.

In saying that...reeva asking if she could wear the leopard print dress was disturbing. ..though he replied pleasantly enough..I was sure he would've abruptly answered 'wear it if you want' ..being clearly unhappy about it...followed the next day by her trying to placate him but no, things were fine'.

Don't know if wwe're ever going to know the full truth. I think though he'll be found guilty of reckless endangerment.

sopretty

Ann22 wrote: »

But still...I just can't picture things getting that serious in that period of time when both parties are sleepy and no alcohol has been taken. If he did it deliberately, he must be deranged. Have any of her friends spoken up about it? Surely they would've suspected she was in serious fear of him.

In saying that...reeva asking if she could wear the leopard print dress was disturbing. ..though he replied pleasantly enough..I was sure he would've abruptly answered 'wear it if you want' ..being clearly unhappy about it...followed the next day by her trying to placate him but no, things were fine'.

Don't know if wwe're ever going to know the full truth. I think though he'll be found guilty of reckless endangerment.

6 hours? Things can't go wrong in 6 hours?

What he replied in texts is not the entire basis of their relationship. They had phonecalls and actual contact. Her asking whether she could wear a certain dress, seems like there is more context outside of the texts.

.jacksparrow.

So sky news taking the credit for discovering that video.

They are unbelievable.

Tasden

Ann22 wrote: »

But still...I just can't picture things getting that serious in that period of time when both parties are sleepy and no alcohol has been taken. If he did it deliberately, he must be deranged. Have any of her friends spoken up about it? Surely they would've suspected she was in serious fear of him.

In saying that...reeva asking if she could wear the leopard print dress was disturbing. ..though he replied pleasantly enough..I was sure he would've abruptly answered 'wear it if you want' ..being clearly unhappy about it...followed the next day by her trying to placate him but no, things were fine'.

Don't know if wwe're ever going to know the full truth. I think though he'll be found guilty of reckless endangerment.

I thought this was weird too at first but actually after seeing the read through of the texts again, she says something like "I wore it twice but neither were media events" or something similar to that, so it seems actually more looking for an opinion/advice rather than permission, especially considering his response, even if it was phrased weird. And when you consider the fact his defence used that text to show a happy relationship it does make sense that it was an innocent enough text.

Tigger

Even if he thought it was an intruder is he of guilty of murdering an intruder?

sopretty

Tigger wrote: »

Even if he thought it was an intruder is he of guilty of murdering an intruder?

No, because there was no intruder.

Tigger

sopretty wrote: »

No, because there was no intruder.

But if there had been an intruder and he murdered it ?
The whole thing is mad he shot his girlfriend and people are falling for his crying and lies

sopretty

Tigger wrote: »

But if there had been an intruder and he murdered it ?
The whole thing is mad he shot his girlfriend and people are falling for his crying and lies

But there was no intruder?

Tasden

sopretty wrote: »

But there was no intruder?

Seriously, in both posts the poster said "IF".

cynicalcough

Weathercheck wrote: »

I cannot believe how many people are being taken in by this guy.

I really think that he will get away with it and it shows that if you have money and a good legal team anybody can get away with murder.

I certainly don't feel like I've been 'taken in' by anyone and I have some qualifications in this area.

I'm judging this on the evidence presented as I outlined in my previous post. If you have anything to contradict what I have posted Id be very interested in hearing it.

sopretty

Tasden wrote: »

Seriously, in both posts the poster said "IF".

Why talk about 'if' when the 'if' is not a scenario?

Tasden

sopretty wrote: »

Why talk about 'if' when the 'if' is not a scenario?

A couple pages back you were discussing "if" you were reevas mam... so you tell me

Tigger

sopretty wrote: »

Why talk about 'if' when the 'if' is not a scenario?

It's the scenario that OP claims he thought was unfurling
I'm pretty sure that shooting someone through a door without giving them time to identify themselves is murder
If that's what he intended to do the. He intended to kill the person on the otherwise of the door and did kill that person
Ergo premeditated murder

Stavros Murphy

Weathercheck wrote: »

I cannot believe how many people are being taken in by this guy.

I really think that he will get away with it and it shows that if you have money and a good legal team anybody can get away with murder.

Well, here's a thing. No-one moves in our house at night without first waking me verbally, from a good distance, even going to the loo is avoided, mainly as I have a way of reacting if woken by a noise that involves pretty much going into "commando mode" without being even half awake.

Awake, I'm as placid as they come and the kids could bash me over the head with a frying pan and I'd mess back - I'm no control freak and the opposite of uptight. We were burgled a lot when I was a kid and I was often woken from sleep by intruders(fcuking rough area)and had to fight/help the old lad fight, literally. I was woken by lads standing over me one time too many and the inner self never forgets.


I'd hurt you without even knowing it if you woke me up suddenly, probably pretty badly as I'm a big lad and the "inner aim" would be to maim you, and it would be pure instinct, no conscious control whatsoever. Might not be bare hands either. So I kinda look at this case and go "jasus, that could happen me". At work we often stay in Hotels and no-one will share with me. Not that I offer to share anymore. Wouldn't end well, and didn't, the one time I did share. Yer man was white-faced and sitting hunched up in the corner when I woke up the next morning. The standing joke is "don't share with him, he'll kill you if you get up to go to the loo"....

Y2KBOS86

Stavros Murphy wrote: »

Well, here's a thing. No-one moves in our house at night without first waking me verbally, from a good distance, even going to the loo is avoided, mainly as I have a way of reacting if woken by a noise that involves pretty much going into "commando mode" without being even half awake.

Awake, I'm as placid as they come and the kids could bash me over the head with a frying pan and I'd mess back - I'm no control freak and the opposite of uptight. We were burgled a lot when I was a kid and I was often woken from sleep by intruders(fcuking rough area)and had to fight/help the old lad fight, literally. I was woken by lads standing over me one time too many and the inner self never forgets.


I'd hurt you without even knowing it if you woke me up suddenly, probably pretty badly as I'm a big lad and the "inner aim" would be to maim you, and it would be pure instinct, no conscious control whatsoever. Might not be bare hands either. So I kinda look at this case and go "jasus, that could happen me". At work we often stay in Hotels and no-one will share with me. Not that I offer to share anymore. Wouldn't end well, and didn't, the one time I did share. Yer man was white-faced and sitting hunched up in the corner when I woke up the next morning. The standing joke is "don't share with him, he'll kill you if you get up to go to the loo"....

You should go see a doctor.

You sound proud of your disease?

http://sleepfoundation.org/sleep-disorders-problems/abnormal-sleep-behaviors/rem-behavior-disorder

AudreyHepburn

My god I'd hate to find my self on trial with the people on this thread as judge and/or jury. You'd have me convicted before I could speak on the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence or because of the colour of my skin and financial situation or simply because I didn't do exactly what you would have done in the same situation.

For me it is not a case of being taken in by anyone, I have believed Pistorius story from the start and now that I see the evidence that is being presented I am even more convinced. Anyone can see, if they just allow themselves to look at the case logically rather simply jumping on the Oscar-is-guilty bandwagon that there is not one shred of hard concrete evidence of premeditation. Manslaughter certainly, murder no.


And whether you like it or not you cannot judge some-one or convict them based on what YOU would do in any situation. Everyone is different, we come from different places, different cultures and different social realities. What might be considered a normal reaction here to an intruder in your home is completely different in SA, a place where people put iron bars across their bedroom doors to stop intruders getting in.


And in any case who can reasonably say how they would reaction in Pistorius situation? There is no way you can possibly know how you would react unless and until you find yourself there. The bravest person in the world could freeze terror. The most frightened could become a hero. You just don't know. So can any of you here say how Pistorius should have reacted?

Stavros Murphy

Y2KBOS86 wrote: »

You should go see a doctor.

You sound proud of your disease?

http://sleepfoundation.org/sleep-disorders-problems/abnormal-sleep-behaviors/rem-behavior-disorder

Are you on somthing?

amdublin

Ok so that bullsh1t story about the intruder and not noticing that reeva was out Olathe bed. Come on!!!!


My theories
Big fight, she's in bathroom crying and he's shoutng at her tthrough door. Fires shots to scare her/terrorise her. Kills her by dgoing do.
Manslaughter??

Or
Big fight, she's in bathroom crying and he's shooting at her tthrough door. So angry he shoots her through door.
Murder??

amdublin

*shouting, not shooting. Can't edit properly.

amdublin wrote: »

Ok so that bullsh1t story about the intruder and not noticing that reeva was out Olathe bed. Come on!!!!


My theories
Big fight, she's in bathroom crying and he's shoutng at her tthrough door. Fires shots to scare her/terrorise her. Kills her by dgoing do.
Manslaughter??

Or
Big fight, she's in bathroom crying and he's shooting at her tthrough door. So angry he shoots her through door.
Murder??

whatstherush

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

My god I'd hate to find my self on trial with the people on this thread as judge and/or jury. You'd have me convicted before I could speak on the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence or because of the colour of my skin and financial situation or simply because I didn't do exactly what you would have done in the same situation.

For me it is not a case of being taken in by anyone, I have believed Pistorius story from the start and now that I see the evidence that is being presented I am even more convinced. Anyone can see, if they just allow themselves to look at the case logically rather simply jumping on the Oscar-is-guilty bandwagon that there is not one shred of hard concrete evidence of premeditation. Manslaughter certainly, murder no.


And whether you like it or not you cannot judge some-one or convict them based on what YOU would do in any situation. Everyone is different, we come from different places, different cultures and different social realities. What might be considered a normal reaction here to an intruder in your home is completely different in SA, a place where people put iron bars across their bedroom doors to stop intruders getting in.


And in any case who can reasonably say how they would reaction in Pistorius situation? There is no way you can possibly know how you would react unless and until you find yourself there. The bravest person in the world could freeze terror. The most frightened could become a hero. You just don't know. So can any of you here say how Pistorius should have reacted?

You have believed from the start that he was innocent and your cribbing that other people are biased. Can you not see the double standards your applying here. Like you I have made up mind from the day I heard his whimsical sorry, so can you tell us why you are allowed to have formed your opinion before the trial but every one else who thinks he's a cold blooded murder aren't and who haven't changed their minds by the defence so far. It's the exact same position as you except you are trying claim yourself to be some bastion of open mindedness and fairness, which you ain't.

Tasden

What I don't understand is that everybody thinks his story is bull**** because "nobody would shoot without checking the bed" or "who would be crazy enough to just shoot without checking" etc.you would do x y and z, not shoot.

Could the exact same thing not be said for the other theory? "nobody would shoot their girlfriend through a door just because they were fighting" or "nobody would be crazy enough to just shoot their girlfriend during an argument". You would do x y and z, not shoot her.

One is just crazy in a moment of terror.
One is just crazy in a moment of rage.

Both are something most people wouldn't do, so why is one more crazy/unbelievable than the other.

Gyalist

Ann22 wrote: »

I don't know what to think. I think he's coming across as very credible. Cant believe after hearing all the texts thay he would've shot her. If he had done it would he have rung for help so quickly?

The two rows they mentioned are typical of the ones me and my hubby have had many times over the years. He too would go into silent moods..but has a lot of self control and would never show violence. Especially sober.

I find I'm believing him. Afraid to admit it to anyone except you guys though!

So you don't consider it significant that the prosecution, very early in the trial, introduced into evidence previous incidents of him recklessly discharging firearms?

robinph

People seem to have trouble believing that he'd not obviously notice that she wasn't still in bed, as that is what they would do.

What is more worrying is the alternative version where an argument at 3am goes straight from a bit of shouting to him breaking out lethal weapons is what people seem to think is a more reasonable story. Is that because that is what people would expect most people's normal response to be?

Muff Richardson

sentient_6 wrote: »

I real wish they'd stop playing exerts on the radio of this prick whinging on the stand, his fake, weak, half crying moaning voice is pathetic.

I heard bits on the radio this morning and his quivering voice and his breakdowns/hissy fits really are pathetic. It’s clearly strategic, the recesses he's being afforded due to this buy him time when the prosecution is getting stuck in. I'm not doubting he's emotional and remorseful and in a genuine state but he's capitalising on it as much as he can.

One south African observer they had on newstalk commented how all his hysteria is in great contrast to a person who up until the murder would've demonstrated immense strength of character and determination. To get to where got to before his downfall with his disability would’ve required huge strength of character who has had to withstand an awful lot thrown in his direction throughout his life. This coupled with the fact if someone is innocent of the charges that are being brought against them in what they know in their heart of hearts that it was a tragic accident they will feel a certain amount of inner peace or well-being and an ability to compose oneself in order to defend themselves.

What you have is a guilt ridden lying fiend without an ounce of dignity and would reduce himself to anything when he is being shown up as much to save his own skin, hence the hysteria and puking…it is pathetic and just pure desperation. It is controllable, the judge really needs to tell him to put a lid on it or let the cross examining continue until he exhausts himself into a fit state again. I seriously hope this sicko gets sent down for a very long time, I have my doubts he will though and if he does get off you can only that there is a long life of OJ style karma waiting for him.

Tasden

robinph wrote: »

People seem to have trouble believing that he'd not obviously notice that she wasn't still in bed, as that is what they would do.

What is more worrying is the alternative version where an argument at 3am goes straight from a bit of shouting to him breaking out lethal weapons is what people seem to think is a more reasonable story. Is that because that is what people would expect most people's normal response to be?

So people assume that in a blind panic, genuinely fearing for his life that he'd have his wits about him and the forward thinking to double check she's in the bed because obviously if he shoots without checking the consequence would be that he'd shoot his girlfriend accidentally.

But if it was done in a fit of rage during an argument, we expect him to not have his wits about him or any forward thinking about the consequences of shooting reeva (being put on trial for murder being just one! Also losing the very person he is so hurt about and possessive of), because its understandable to lose all logic and sense when angry but not when genuinely fearing for your life...?

Shooting someone in a moment of anger is no more logical than shooting them accidentally in a moment of panic.

whatstherush

Tasden wrote: »

What I don't understand is that everybody thinks his story is bull**** because "nobody would shoot without checking the bed" or "who would be crazy enough to just shoot without checking" etc.you would do x y and z, not shoot.

Could the exact same thing not be said for the other theory? "nobody would shoot their girlfriend through a door just because they were fighting" or "nobody would be crazy enough to just shoot their girlfriend during an argument". You would do x y and z, not shoot her.

One is just crazy in a moment of terror.
One is just crazy in a moment of rage.

Both are something most people wouldn't do, so why is one more crazy/unbelievable than the other.

His story is a series of unbelievable events, that he acted irrationally, at every stage except the point where he got his gun, that she acted irrationally on at least two occasions when Oscar shouted at the "intruder". When he let out his second shout in the bathroom, the person in the toilet according to him went to open the door, so Reeva after hearing a much louder shout than first said absolutely nothing to him, but instead tried to open the door. There has been countless cases of spouses bathering and murdering their partners down through the years but you think that is less plausible option than his story?

Tasden

whatstherush wrote: »

His story is a series of unbelievable events, that he acted irrationally, at every stage except the point where he got his gun, that she acted irrationally on at least two occasions when Oscar shouted at the "intruder". When he let out his second shout in the bathroom, the person in the toilet according to him went to open the door, so Reeva after hearing a much louder shout than first said absolutely nothing to him, but instead tried to open the door. There has been countless cases of spouses bathering and murdering their partners down through the years but you think that is less plausible option than his story?

He whispers to her to be quiet, he assumes she's doing what he asked or is too fearful to make noise (actually not an irrational reaction at all, certainly more of an understandable reaction than shooting your partner because you're annoyed).
He goes to the bathroom where he thinks the intruder is. Starts shouting at intruder.
Reeva in the bathroom assumes he's talking to the intruder elsewhere. Is terrified.
He says to her (thinking she's in bed) to get down (not get up/move, stay where you are) and call the police, she is genuinely fearful hearing how he is reacting and what he is telling her because she can't see what's going on, so she doesn't answer/react, she remains in the bathroom silent hoping its over soon. Eventually she gets up the courage to open the door (silently so as not to alert the intruder to her presence in the room), he obviously assumes its the intruder.

AudreyHepburn

whatstherush wrote: »

You have believed from the start that he was innocent and your cribbing that other people are biased. Can you not see the double standards your applying here. Like you I have made up mind from the day I heard his whimsical sorry, so can you tell us why you are allowed to have formed your opinion before the trial but every one else who thinks he's a cold blooded murder aren't and who haven't changed their minds by the defence so far. It's the exact same position as you except you are trying claim yourself to be some bastion of open mindedness and fairness, which you ain't.

To be fair I have never claim myself to be anything except willing to look logically at the evidence instead of stringing OP up because he's rich or white or didn't act how I think I would in that situation.

I did believe him from the beginning yes but my point was that I was willing to look at the evidence being presented logically, with an open mind and without jumping on the Oscar hating bandwagon. .And having done that I still hold the same opinion I did at the start.

But I have always said that if some-one can present hard evidence that OP is lying then I will be the first to say I was wrong and that remains the case

I just feel like an awful lot of people here are unwilling to allow themselves to consider that he might be telling the truth. I don't think it's that people CAN'T believe him, it's that for whatever reason they WON'T.

AudreyHepburn

Gyalist wrote: »

So you don't consider it significant that the prosecution, very early in the trial, introduced into evidence previous incidents of him recklessly discharging firearms?

That's not related to the murder accusation though, that's to do with the other charges he is facing - illegally owning firearms, reckless use of same or something along those lines.

But even if they were relating to the murder charge these incidents do not necessarily make him a murderer. They just make him reckless and implusive which fits with his version of what happened imo.

whatstherush

Tasden wrote: »

He whispers to her to be quiet, he assumes she's doing what he asked or is too fearful to make noise (actually not an irrational reaction at all, certainly more of an understandable reaction than shooting your partner because you're annoyed).
He goes to the bathroom where he thinks the intruder is. Starts shouting at intruder.
Reeva in the bathroom assumes he's talking to the intruder elsewhere. Is terrified.
He says to her (thinking she's in bed) to get down (not get up/move, stay where you are) and call the police, she is genuinely fearful hearing how he is reacting and what he is telling her because she can't see what's going on, so she doesn't answer/react, she remains in the bathroom silent hoping its over soon. Eventually she gets up the courage to open the door (silently so as not to alert the intruder to her presence in the room), he obviously assumes its the intruder.

Read over his testimony again, after the second shout, he precieves someone opening the door and fires, the way you are describing it "eventually" minutes have passed by from his second shout to her trying to open the door. What we do know is that his second shout is going to be a much loader then first from reevas point of view due to proximity. So we are to believe on hearing his first shout she scuttles into the toilet and on his second much loader she comes out of the toilet all the time not saying a word.

gramar

If she's in the toilet and hears him shouting she's gonna shout back something along the lines of 'what the f**k is going on?'

whatstherush

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

To be fair I have never claim myself to be anything except willing to look logically at the evidence instead of stringing OP up because he's rich or white or didn't act how I think I would in that situation.

I did believe him from the beginning yes but my point was that I was willing to look at the evidence being presented logically, with an open mind and without jumping on the Oscar hating bandwagon. .And having done that I still hold the same opinion I did at the start.

But I have always said that if some-one can present hard evidence that OP is lying then I will be the first to say I was wrong and that remains the case

I just feel like an awful lot of people here are unwilling to allow themselves to consider that he might be telling the truth. I don't think it's that people CAN'T believe him, it's that for whatever reason they WON'T.

I have done the exact same, I don't give a ****e about his skin colour or whatever other strawman you want to introduce. I find story unbelievable, for many reasons which I have started through out this thread, why can't you just accept that, and stop trying to label me and others as having some nefarious reason for not believing him ? And if his story is untrue I have to infer he is lying for a reason.

Tasden

whatstherush wrote: »

Read over his testimony again, after the second shout, he precieves someone opening the door and fires, the way you are describing it "eventually" minutes have passed by from his second shout to her trying to open the door. What we do know is that his second shout is going to be a much loader then first from reevas point of view due to proximity. So we are to believe on hearing his first shout she scuttles into the toilet and on his second much loader she comes out of the toilet all the time not saying a word.

Honestly I don't know the details off by heart, I'm just giving one possible series of events based on what I recall, I'm not on trial
Whatever the series of events, its all plausible really, if they both thought there was an intruder they wouldn't necessarily act rationally. We can all judge distance of hearing and the time between each event but when its actually happening its a whole different story and expecting either of them to even think logically let alone act a certain way is a bit naive if they were in that situation.

AudreyHepburn

gramar wrote: »

If she's in the toilet and hears him shouting she's gonna shout back something along the lines of 'what the f**k is going on?'

It's been said before but....not if she too is terrified of the intruder she believes is outside.

OP has said he warned her that there was an intruder and to stay quiet and call the police.

If she believed him, and there is no evidence to say she didn't, then it follows she would have stayed silent so as not to draw attention to her presence.

robinph

gramar wrote: »

If she's in the toilet and hears him shouting she's gonna shout back something along the lines of 'what the f**k is going on?'

Possibly, but there is nothing to say that she definitely would have shouted back. Not unreasonable to think that she would just be wondering what was going on and think to quietly have a look and see what he was up to.

From her point of view there would be someone else in the bedroom, she's hardly going to be shouting back to alert them to another person being in the bathroom.

AudreyHepburn

whatstherush wrote: »

I have done the exact same, I don't give a ****e about his skin colour or whatever other strawman you want to introduce. I find story unbelievable, for many reasons which I have started through out this thread, why can't you just accept that, and stop trying to label me and others as having some nefarious reason for not believing him ? And if his story is untrue I have to infer he is lying for a reason.

If you have done the same thing then fair play to you. You would be one of the few on either side who has is all I'm saying.

Tasden

gramar wrote: »

If she's in the toilet and hears him shouting she's gonna shout back something along the lines of 'what the f**k is going on?'

Not if she's panicking that he's shouting at an intruder and if she makes noise the intruder will turn his attention to her. Fight or flight and instinct plays a part in these situations, we act however is natural/what instinct tells us, not on logic or what makes sense with hindsight 20/20.

sadie06

Muff Richardson wrote: »

What you have is a guilt ridden lying fiend without an ounce of dignity and would reduce himself to anything when he is being shown up as much to save his own skin, hence the hysteria and puking…it is pathetic and just pure desperation. It is controllable, the judge really needs to tell him to put a lid on it or let the cross examining continue until he exhausts himself into a fit state again. I seriously hope this sicko gets sent down for a very long time, I have my doubts he will though and if he does get off you can only that there is a long life of OJ style karma waiting for him.

I have to agree with you. The histrionics are ridiculous. The wailing and sobbing are not the expected reactions of somebody who has had over a year to process a trauma. Tears and emotion? Yes. Uncontrollable sobbing and sinking to the ground causing several adjournments? Totally unbelievable.

I even have severe doubts about the vomiting and retching. Certain medications can induce this, and I have wondered if, on the days where he knows there will be gruesome evidence, he has taken something to provoke that response from his body.

gramar

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It's been said before but....not if she too is terrified of the intruder she believes is outside.

OP has said he warned her that there was an intruder and to stay quiet and call the police.

If she believed him, and there is no evidence to say she didn't, then it follows she would have stayed silent so as not to draw attention to her presence.

If he warned her then I imagine he whispered it and not certain she'd have heard him from inside the cubicle inside the toilet while he was in the bedroom.

whatstherush

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It's been said before but....not if she too is terrified of the intruder she believes is outside.

OP has said he warned her that there was an intruder and to stay quiet and call the police.

If she believed him, and there is no evidence to say she didn't, then it follows she would have stayed silent so as not to draw attention to her presence.

She too terrified to say any thing behind a locked door but she brave enough to come out? More mental gymnastics.

brimal

OP looking very bad here.

First he says Reeva was lying about him being nasty to her, and now he says the "I'm scared of you sometimes" message refers to her feelings for him.

Many people in the court raising a wry smile and even shaking of heads in disbelief.

seamus

Tigger wrote: »

Even if he thought it was an intruder is he of guilty of murdering an intruder?

Yes!

I think so anyway, from what I recall of the original discussion on this, the law in SA is not much different to here.

Under Irish law, it's all about intent. If you believed there was an intruder behind the door and intended to kill them by shooting at them, then you are guilty of murder, even if the person behind the door in fact wasn't who you thought it was.
The test for murder is all about intent. If you intend to kill someone, and your actions cause you to kill anyone, then you are guilty of murder regardless of who your intended victim was.

Afair, it's exactly the same in SA, and this trial is not about whether he knew Reeva was behind the door, it's about whether he intended to kill the person behind the door. I could be wrong though.

ninebeanrows

seamus wrote: »

Yes!

I think so anyway, from what I recall of the original discussion on this, the law in SA is not much different to here.

Under Irish law, it's all about intent. If you believed there was an intruder behind the door and intended to kill them by shooting at them, then you are guilty of murder, even if the person behind the door in fact wasn't who you thought it was.
The test for murder is all about intent. If you intend to kill someone, and your actions cause you to kill anyone, then you are guilty of murder regardless of who your intended victim was.

Afair, it's exactly the same in SA, and this trial is not about whether he knew Reeva was behind the door, it's about whether he intended to kill the person behind the door. I could be wrong though.

OP is denying he intended to shoot anyone (at least this is what he said yesterday). He said he shot at the door out of fear but when asked did he intend to shoot the person he said, 'I shot at the door out of fear' and pressed he refused to say he intended to shoot anybody.

gramar

Weathercheck wrote: »

OP is denying he intended to shoot anyone (at least this is what he said yesterday). He said he shot at the door out of fear but when asked did he intend to shoot the person he said, 'I shot at the door out of fear' and pressed he refused to say he intended to shoot anybody.

If he expects anyone to believe that load of old cobblers then he's deluded.

Too Tough To Die

What song are they talking about?

robinph

seamus wrote: »

Yes!

I think so anyway, from what I recall of the original discussion on this, the law in SA is not much different to here.

Under Irish law, it's all about intent. If you believed there was an intruder behind the door and intended to kill them by shooting at them, then you are guilty of murder, even if the person behind the door in fact wasn't who you thought it was.
The test for murder is all about intent. If you intend to kill someone, and your actions cause you to kill anyone, then you are guilty of murder regardless of who your intended victim was.

Afair, it's exactly the same in SA, and this trial is not about whether he knew Reeva was behind the door, it's about whether he intended to kill the person behind the door. I could be wrong though.

I think it might be different, or there wouldn't be anything for them to be arguing a case about at all. I thought the defence was coming from the direction of self defence, fear for his life due to an intruder angle and that it therefore wasn't murder.
Although OP threw a spanner in the works yesterday with saying that he shot the gun accidentally when he heard the noise from the toilet.