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

robinph

Muff Richardson wrote: »

getting sick of this rubbish from people on here that know as much as i do about the law, more to the point, south african law, which is sweet f*ck all to be honest. this line of "they cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt blah blah blah" seem to think it takes a live audience with a video recording of the murder or for Judge massaipa or whatever her name is to have been sitting on the jacks taking a dump looking at the whole thing in order to prove what happened...I think it's been proven beyond any reasonable doubt quite concisely that he murdered her, not only that I think the guy is humiliating himself at the same time.

So you start off by stating that I don't know anything about SA law, just like you don't. But then conclude that you do know enough about SA law that you are certain the reasonable doubt has been met.

Which is it?

There is lots and lots of doubt over what happened for either version of events. It doesn't need to be proven that he is innocent to find him not guilty, it does need to be proven that he's guilty to find him guilty.

sopretty

I believe it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that his version of events is unbelievable. Which leaves the State's case as the only possible case.

If I were a judge.............

Muff Richardson

robinph wrote: »

So you start off by stating that I don't know anything about SA law, just like you don't. But then conclude that you do know enough about SA law that you are certain the reasonable doubt has been met.

Which is it?

There is lots and lots of doubt over what happened for either version of events. It doesn't need to be proven that he is innocent to find him not guilty, it does need to be proven that he's guilty to find him guilty.

my opinion is just that, an opinion, you and others are making these very matter of fact assertions on what has or hasn't been proven. neither of us have a clue in reality of the exact technicalities behind it all so you should stick to offering nothing more than opinions on what's what and what's not.

I'm of the opinion that its been proven that he's guilty as sin.

robinph

sopretty wrote: »

I believe it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that his version of events is unbelievable. Which leaves the State's case as the only possible case.

If I were a judge.............

This case is a bit back to front though in that the defense has actually given a version of events which they didn't need to do, except for the bail application. The prosecution should be providing a version of events that the judge believes rather than just picking holes in the defense version. That the defense version has holes isn't really enough to prove the prosecution version as the case would normally have been done the other way round.

That was the risk with them giving a version of events for the bail application as it showed their hand before they needed to and causes this confusion.

brimal

robinph, you were pretty quiet during the days of the cross-examination of OP, did you watch it? Has your opinion changed at all since viewing it?

robinph

Life gets in the way of boards.ie sometimes, but I caught all but the last couple of days of the cross examination.

I don't think there was anything that came up during it to cause a change of opinion regarding the charges. I still think that he intended to kill/ seriously incapacitate whoever was behind the door, I don't think he knew it was Reeva behind the door.

OP talking rubbish about guns going off accidentally in the restaurant and in the bathroom is just them chancing it for a tiny bit less blame in the incidents. I really don't think OP or any of the defence team actually believe that the guns went off by accident, but it doesn't do them any harm in saying so, except for OP's public image and that is beyond repair anyway and this is just about trying to keep the sentence as low as possible. OP talking rubbish about guns going off by accident doesn't add anything to the prosecution claim that he knew Reeva behind the door, unless I missed something else significant that was said.

gramar

robinph wrote: »

Life gets in the way of boards.ie sometimes, but I caught all but the last couple of days of the cross examination.

I don't think there was anything that came up during it to cause a change of opinion regarding the charges. I still think that he intended to kill/ seriously incapacitate whoever was behind the door, I don't think he knew it was Reeva behind the door.

OP talking rubbish about guns going off accidentally in the restaurant and in the bathroom is just them chancing it for a tiny bit less blame in the incidents. I really don't think OP or any of the defence team actually believe that the guns went off by accident, but it doesn't do them any harm in saying so, except for OP's public image and that is beyond repair anyway and this is just about trying to keep the sentence as low as possible. OP talking rubbish about guns going off by accident doesn't add anything to the prosecution claim that he knew Reeva behind the door, unless I missed something else significant that was said.

Correct, but it does undermine his credibility. They are very big and obvious lies and only serve to damage his defence.

robinph

gramar wrote: »

Correct, but it does undermine his credibility. They are very big and obvious lies and only serve to damage his defence.

It damages his story about what happened, but it's the prosecutions story that needs to be rock solid for a conviction to stick.

Mr Freeze

What about the defences forensic "Expert"? A forensic geologist.

He seemed to be talking absolute rubbish, and the test's he did were not simulating the same situations as the night Reeva was shot.

Roger Dixon isn't currently employed as a forensic anything, and didn't even have a recent proficiency test. He was commenting on "facts" of the case with the utmost certainty, and then been proving wrong by being made read aloud evidence to the contrary.

He was a terrible witness. Wrong ammo used in recreation, gun jamming, editing sounds together, may have amplified the cricket bat sounds, music producer used to record/edit sounds, not anybody in the the forensic field. He appears to have done most of his investigation by looking at photographs, offered a third version of events in regards to the magazine rack position, didn't measure light levels with an instrument, didn't analyse the bullet holes with anything (prosecution used protractors and angle finders) and I'm sure there was more things that the prosecution pointed out that I don't remember right now.

Now my question is, does the Judge just have to disregard all of Dixon's evidence or can it negatively impact OP's case?

In my opinion Dixon seemed to be misleading the court with false evidence.

brimal

Don't forget Dixon didn't even know OP's height when asked, despite carrying out light tests, window tests, ballistics, etc. where his height would be a fundamental factor. Very poor move by the defence to get this guy in.

gramar

Mr Freeze wrote: »

Now my question is, does the Judge just have to disregard all of Dixon's evidence or can it negatively impact OP's case?

In my opinion Dixon seemed to be misleading the court with false evidence.

The Judge might declare the evidence as inadmissible but she can't 'unhear' what she's heard!

desbrook

robinph wrote: »

Life gets in the way of boards.ie sometimes, but I caught all but the last couple of days of the cross examination.

I don't think there was anything that came up during it to cause a change of opinion regarding the charges. I still think that he intended to kill/ seriously incapacitate whoever was behind the door, I don't think he knew it was Reeva behind the door.

OP talking rubbish about guns going off accidentally in the restaurant and in the bathroom is just them chancing it for a tiny bit less blame in the incidents. I really don't think OP or any of the defence team actually believe that the guns went off by accident, but it doesn't do them any harm in saying so, except for OP's public image and that is beyond repair anyway and this is just about trying to keep the sentence as low as possible. OP talking rubbish about guns going off by accident doesn't add anything to the prosecution claim that he knew Reeva behind the door, unless I missed something else significant that was said.

Correct me if I'm wrong but if found that he "intended to kill /seriously incapacitate WHOEVER was behind the door" then he is guilty of murder as they posed no "immediate danger" burglar or not ?

robinph

desbrook wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but if found that he "intended to kill /seriously incapacitate WHOEVER was behind the door" then he is guilty of murder as they posed no "immediate danger" burglar or not ?

Correct. But that is just for the murder charge of the "whoever" was behind the door, not the pre-meditated murder of Reeva charge.

The initial bail application wasn't really disputing the murder charge from the start. They are just going with the magic self firing gun claims now as it really doesn't make any difference so why not give it a go and see if they can get it just as culpable homicide.

Kunkka

robinph wrote: »

I don't think there was anything that came up during it to cause a change of opinion regarding the charges. I still think that he intended to kill/ seriously incapacitate whoever was behind the door, I don't think he knew it was Reeva behind the door.

OP talking rubbish about guns going off accidentally in the restaurant and in the bathroom is just them chancing it for a tiny bit less blame in the incidents. I really don't think OP or any of the defence team actually believe that the guns went off by accident, but it doesn't do them any harm in saying so, except for OP's public image and that is beyond repair anyway and this is just about trying to keep the sentence as low as possible. OP talking rubbish about guns going off by accident doesn't add anything to the prosecution claim that he knew Reeva behind the door, unless I missed something else significant that was said.

I don't understand how anyone after listening to that man lying on that bench can honestly say he didn't know she was behind the door. None of his story makes any ****ing sense whatsoever. It's either a case of a jealous rage and he murdered her or he fired shots trying to scare her as it's the most logical. Anyone that thinks otherwise is either having their judgement clouded out of respect of his life achievements or they haven't watched the case & OP closely as everything screams he is lying.

desbrook

robinph wrote: »

Correct. But that is just for the murder charge of the "whoever" was behind the door, not the pre-meditated murder of Reeva charge.

The initial bail application wasn't really disputing the murder charge from the start. They are just going with the magic self firing gun claims now as it really doesn't make any difference so why not give it a go and see if they can get it just as culpable homicide.

So your opinion is he will be found guilty of murder but not premed murder ?

robinph

desbrook wrote: »

So your opinion is he will be found guilty of murder but not premed murder ?

Yep.

Dubl07

robinph wrote: »

Correct. But that is just for the murder charge of the "whoever" was behind the door, not the pre-meditated murder of Reeva charge.

The initial bail application wasn't really disputing the murder charge from the start. They are just going with the magic self firing gun claims now as it really doesn't make any difference so why not give it a go and see if they can get it just as culpable homicide.

Bull. One shot, highly unlikely but perhaps. Four, no way on earth.

robinph

Dubl07 wrote: »

Bull. One shot, highly unlikely but perhaps. Four, no way on earth.

What is bull? Are you responding to what you think you are?

The number of shots makes no difference regarding his knowledge or otherwise of who was behind the door.

mbur

robinph wrote: »

It damages his story about what happened, but it's the prosecutions story that needs to be rock solid for a conviction to stick.

The four shots speak a lot about intent, greatly aiding the prosecution's case.

Another plank that the prosecution can rely upon is the fact that only Reeva could reasonably have been behind that door. The onus is on OP to substantiate why he believed someone else was there, how he believed they got there and so on. Something he has failed to do.

robinph

mbur wrote: »

The four shots speak a lot about intent, greatly aiding the prosecution's case.

You are going to have to explain that for us and how shooting four times indicates knowledge about who is behind a door?

mbur

robinph wrote: »

You are going to have to explain that for us and how shooting four times indicates knowledge about who is behind a door?

I don't because It doesn't.

Intention (criminal law) - In criminal law, intention is one of three general classes of mens rea necessary to constitute a conventional as opposed to strict liability crime.
Intent or intention refers an agent's specific purpose in performing an action or series of actions.

The question of who one might reasonably expect to find behind the door is covered in the paragraph that you chose not to quote.

robinph

mbur wrote: »

I don't because It doesn't.



The question of who one might reasonably expect to find behind the door is covered in the paragraph that you chose not to quote.

I'm not suggesting that he didn't intend to shoot whoever was behind the door.

You seem to be trying to claim that either because he shot four times, or because he shot at all that he therfore knew who was behind the door. The shooting prove only that he is an idiot and nobody is disputing that.

AudreyHepburn

gramar wrote: »

Correct, but it does undermine his credibility. They are very big and obvious lies and only serve to damage his defence.

It certainly does. But it still doesn't prove definitively or beyond reasonable doubt that this was a premeditated murder.

AudreyHepburn

mbur wrote: »

The four shots speak a lot about intent, greatly aiding the prosecution's case.

Another plank that the prosecution can rely upon is the fact that only Reeva could reasonably have been behind that door. The onus is on OP to substantiate why he believed someone else was there, how he believed they got there and so on. Something he has failed to do.

No they don't. Not at all. At most they indicate that he intended serious harm to the person if not to kill them.

They say nothing about who he thought he was shooting at.

gramar

mbur wrote: »

The four shots speak a lot about intent, greatly aiding the prosecution's case.

Another plank that the prosecution can rely upon is the fact that only Reeva could reasonably have been behind that door. The onus is on OP to substantiate why he believed someone else was there, how he believed they got there and so on. Something he has failed to do.

That's a good point. I'm not sure how far the prosecution went towards showing how unlikely it would have been for an intruder to have gotten in or for anyone else other than Reeva to have been in there.

robinph

gramar wrote: »

That's a good point. I'm not sure how far the prosecution went towards showing how unlikely it would have been for an intruder to have gotten in or for anyone else other than Reeva to have been in there.

I don't think they did cover that much really which is odd, such as things like the alarm, being a "secure" complex, the size of the bathroom window. But then you have a society nervous of crime and they may not have wanted to highlight those issues too much.

weldoninhio

I think that from all the evidence given, the judge could find him guilty of premeditated murder.

OP made the decision to get his gun and go down the corridor to confront/shoot whoever was in the bathroom. He had the option of getting him and Reeva out of the bedroom and away from danger, but he decided against this and decided to attack the situation head on.

He had already made up his mind to shoot whoever was in the bathroom when he went towards them to confront them.

Deise Vu

robinph wrote: »

I don't think they did cover that much really which is odd, such as things like the alarm, being a "secure" complex, the size of the bathroom window. But then you have a society nervous of crime and they may not have wanted to highlight those issues too much.

You are reaching a bit there I think. If you think a man armed to the teeth in a locked, alarmed apartment in a secure compound with security, and probably police, on tap at short notice, is entitled to be nervous enough to shoot on spec then someone in the townships should be entitled to festoon the area around their shanty with claymores and put a machine gun nest on the roof.

I said at the start that OP was guilty until proven innocent and he has provided no evidence to change my mind. Anyone who buys the Nervous Nellie story has clearly never played a sport at any level. One of the basic requirements for sport at an elite level is an enormous amount of guts just to get to the starting gun, never mind overcoming the inevitable setbacks every athlete has to face, and OP has faced way, way, more than most. A gibbering coward? That is truly laughable.

Worksforyou

When's the verdict?

robinph

Deise Vu wrote: »

You are reaching a bit there I think. If you think a man armed to the teeth in a locked, alarmed apartment in a secure compound with security, and probably police, on tap at short notice, is entitled to be nervous enough to shoot on spec then someone in the townships should be entitled to festoon the area around their shanty with claymores and put a machine gun nest on the roof.

I said at the start that OP was guilty until proven innocent and he has provided no evidence to change my mind. Anyone who buys the Nervous Nellie story has clearly never played a sport at any level. One of the basic requirements for sport at an elite level is an enormous amount of guts just to get to the starting gun, never mind overcoming the inevitable setbacks every athlete has to face, and OP has faced way, way, more than most. A gibbering coward? That is truly laughable.

Well the fact is that he is innocent until proven guilty and not the other way round. That you want to be convinced of innocence is irrelevant and will never happen anyway. I am not convinced of his innocence.

What does need to happen though is for the judge to be convinced of guilt and just because there may not be proof of innocence does not make him guilty.

AudreyHepburn

Deise Vu wrote: »

You are reaching a bit there I think. If you think a man armed to the teeth in a locked, alarmed apartment in a secure compound with security, and probably police, on tap at short notice, is entitled to be nervous enough to shoot on spec then someone in the townships should be entitled to festoon the area around their shanty with claymores and put a machine gun nest on the roof.

I said at the start that OP was guilty until proven innocent and he has provided no evidence to change my mind. Anyone who buys the Nervous Nellie story has clearly never played a sport at any level. One of the basic requirements for sport at an elite level is an enormous amount of guts just to get to the starting gun, never mind overcoming the inevitable setbacks every athlete has to face, and OP has faced way, way, more than most. A gibbering coward? That is truly laughable.

Sorry no, that is not at all how it works. Not in this case, nor in any case.

Despite what many here seem to want to think, the onus here is on Gerrie Nel and the proscution team to prove Pistorius guilty, not on Roux and the defence to prove him innocent.

Ash.J.Williams

John Gilligan was last shot in a similar manner wasn't he? If the crims had OP's firepower they would have finished the job

Deise Vu

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Sorry no, that is not at all how it works. Not in this case, nor in any case.

Despite what many here seem to want to think, the onus here is on Gerrie Nel and the proscution team to prove Pistorius guilty, not on Roux and the defence to prove him innocent.

I am fully aware how the law works but we are talking about a case where the victim is in a locked apartment in a secure compound and the perpetrator is holding the gun that fired three hollow points into her and he admits he did it. There is nothing for the prosecution to prove, absolutely nothing. It is up to OP to come up with a plausible explanation as to how this could have happened innocently. He has failed abysmally to do so.

robinph

Deise Vu wrote: »

I am fully aware how the law works but we are talking about a case where the victim is in a locked apartment in a secure compound and the perpetrator is holding the gun that fired three hollow points into her and he admits he did it. There is nothing for the prosecution to prove, absolutely nothing. It is up to OP to come up with a plausible explanation as to how this could have happened innocently. He has failed abysmally to do so.

He admits to the evidence required for the culpable homicide charge, although he has since come up with the magic gun theory but that doesn't really matter and will be ignored.

He has not admitted to pre-meditated murder so the prosecution do need to prove that if they want that charge to stick, and their version is no more believable than you find OP's version.

Dubl07

robinph wrote: »

He admits to the evidence required for the culpable homicide charge, although he has since come up with the magic gun theory but that doesn't really matter and will be ignored.

He has not admitted to pre-meditated murder so the prosecution do need to prove that if they want that charge to stick, and their version is no more believable than you find OP's version.

:rolleyes: :pac: :pac: :pac:

Deise Vu

robinph wrote: »

He admits to the evidence required for the culpable homicide charge, although he has since come up with the magic gun theory but that doesn't really matter and will be ignored.

He has not admitted to pre-meditated murder so the prosecution do need to prove that if they want that charge to stick, and their version is no more believable than you find OP's version.

How many times does it have to be said: you cannot just shoot an intruder just because you are nervous. I linked a SA Institute of Strategic studies explanation in an earlier post. You cannot shoot someone unless there is an imminent treat. Firing four hollow points through your bathroom door does not meet that criteria.

You seem to be hung up on whether he murdered Reeva or 'persons unknown'. I honestly don't give a ****. He committed murder, whether it was meant to be Reeva or an intruder doesn't matter and only he can absolutely confirm that. However, from the evidence I have heard you would have to make enormous leaps of faith to believe the ridiculous coincidences that would have led him to think there was an intruder in his bathroom, who he is not entitled to murder anyway. So I absolutely 100% believe he knew Reeva was in there. You can draw your own conclusions when someone fires four hollow points into a tiny room when they know their girlfriend is in there. OP murdered Reeva Steenkamp.

robinph

Deise Vu wrote: »

He committed murder,

Agreed.

Deise Vu wrote: »

whether it was meant to be Reeva or an intruder doesn't matter and only he can absolutely confirm that.

It does matter and makes a huge difference to the outcome of the case.

Deise Vu wrote: »

However, from the evidence I have heard you would have to make enormous leaps of faith to believe the ridiculous coincidences that would have led him to think there was an intruder in his bathroom, who he is not entitled to murder anyway. So I absolutely 100% believe he knew Reeva was in there. You can draw your own conclusions when someone fires four hollow points into a tiny room when they know their girlfriend is in there. OP murdered Reeva Steenkamp.

All it takes is for him not to have noticed that she had left the bed whilst he was moving the fans, and everything else that he says in his version follows on as perfectly plausible sequence of events. Which then results in the murder/ culpable homicide.

I find it much harder to believe that an argument went straight to him shooting her through a locked door whilst he is still on his stumps. If she was trying to get away from him she just needed to walk down the stairs, or just push him over. If he was coming after her with a gun then why go and hide in the bathroom? If they had had a fight and she left to sulk in the bathroom then why does he go and hobble back to the bed to fetch the gun and shoot her? That gives plenty of time for him to have calmed down and thought about the situation a bit before firing.

He is a gun nut and shouldn't have weapons, but there isn't anything to suggest that he goes to grab a gun when an argument isn't going his way. There is evidence given from previous girlfriend and his own twitter that he goes for the gun when he is spooked by noises in the house.

whatstherush

robinph wrote: »

I find it much harder to believe that an argument went straight to him shooting her through a locked door whilst he is still on his stumps. If she was trying to get away from him she just needed to walk down the stairs, or just push him over. If he was coming after her with a gun then why go and hide in the bathroom? If they had had a fight and she left to sulk in the bathroom then why does he go and hobble back to the bed to fetch the gun and shoot her? That gives plenty of time for him to have calmed down and thought about the situation a bit before firing.

So you know what would reasonably happen in a fight between the two of them, but when everyone points out, what would reasonably happen when you hear a noise in your bathroom, you dismiss it and play you don't know what is like to live in crime ridden SA card.

Deise Vu

robinph wrote: »

All it takes is for him not to have noticed that she had left the bed whilst he was moving the fans,.........

And not forgetting that he didn't double check where Reeva was, that she didn't respond when he was shouting as he advanced on the bathroom door, that he hopped off down the corridor on his stumps, in the dark, straight towards the 'intruder' because he was scared, that he didn't hear her scream in pain after the first shot, that the neighbours were mistaken about hearing arguments, that the neighbours were mistaken about seeing lights on etc etc etc.

robinph wrote: »

I find it much harder to believe that an argument went straight to him shooting her through a locked door whilst he is still on his stumps. .

Most normal men can't conceive of how you could hit your girlfriend / spouse let alone murder one yet it happens every day. Who knows what trip switches OP or any murderer has. You have accepted that OP is a murderer yet you can't believe he could murder Reeva?

We will just have to leave it at that, there is clearly nothing bar an OP confession that is going to convince you, and even then you would probably say he is such a lovely fella he just cracked to end the ordeal.

gramar

Deise Vu wrote: »

And not forgetting that he didn't double check where Reeva was, that she didn't respond when he was shouting as he advanced on the bathroom door, that he hopped off down the corridor on his stumps, in the dark, straight towards the 'intruder' because he was scared, that he didn't hear her scream in pain after the first shot, that the neighbours were mistaken about hearing arguments, that the neighbours were mistaken about seeing lights on etc etc etc.


Most normal men can't conceive of how you could hit your girlfriend / spouse let alone murder one yet it happens every day. Who knows what trip switches OP or any murderer has. You have accepted that OP is a murderer yet you can't believe he could murder Reeva?

We will just have to leave it at that, there is clearly nothing bar an OP confession that is going to convince you, and even then you would probably say he is such a lovely fella he just cracked to end the ordeal.

Is that you Gerrie Nel?

Deise Vu

gramar wrote: »

Is that you Gerrie Nel?

No just a frustrated citizen who vows to never, ever go on a jury. I'd end up in jail myself.

robinph

There are multiple points in OP's story where if he'd done something different the end result would have been different and us looking at the scenario afterwards it may seem odd that he didn't do any of those things. None of the things he says he did are beyond the realms of possibility though. It would seem far stranger to me the proposed fight scenario though and how that would have occurred.

I think he should be locked up for the 15 years for murder/ culpable homicide. If they want they can probably stick another 15 on the end for the ammo/ restaurant incidents as well (I forget which one has the 15 year potential), but that will probably be just to run concurrently.

If he is convicted of pre-meditated murder then I think the charge will get overturned in appeal. That would be a bad result for SA.

There was a suggestion previously in the thread that I had a soft spot for OP, I do not. Have never been especially keen on him and he was a bit of a knob during the Olympics/ Paralympics, and before then in previous championships as well, and just seemed like a bit of a whiny git. I am more concerned that justice is done right the first time round and that the correct verdict is found. I do not believe that there is the evidence for the pre-meditated murder charge to be safe.

Deise Vu

An Irish jury once believed that a man stood around wringing his hands while his wife kept getting up and falling down administering three potential fatal blows to herself. They believed that a note written by the man lamenting that his mistress was getting married soon and what could he do about it before he lost her forever, was a script for a movie even though the man had a mistress and she was getting married soon. The jury also believed that the false lead he supplied the Gardai of an intruder being in the house was actually supplied by the victim to 'protect' their child. Hiding his bloodied clothes in the house was also to protect the child. The jury also believed the man didn't call an ambulance as the victim bled to death because the victim told him to go away.

Folks, never, ever, ever go on a jury. It will turn you murderous yourself.

Kunkka

Deise Vu wrote: »

And not forgetting that he didn't double check where Reeva was, that she didn't respond when he was shouting as he advanced on the bathroom door, that he hopped off down the corridor on his stumps, in the dark, straight towards the 'intruder' because he was scared, that he didn't hear her scream in pain after the first shot, that the neighbours were mistaken about hearing arguments, that the neighbours were mistaken about seeing lights on etc etc etc.





Most normal men can't conceive of how you could hit your girlfriend / spouse let alone murder one yet it happens every day. Who knows what trip switches OP or any murderer has. You have accepted that OP is a murderer yet you can't believe he could murder Reeva?

We will just have to leave it at that, there is clearly nothing bar an OP confession that is going to convince you, and even then you would probably say he is such a lovely fella he just cracked to end the ordeal.

I echo this. Another huge thing for me is if I was woken up by something in my house that sounded like a burglary the first thing I'd be checking would be if the person I "loved"(as he keeps saying)was ok especially if she was beside me! The last thing I'd be doing would be marching/crawling towards the area armed without checking if my people were ok. I'm nearly sure my own thinking would echo most sane people? Why is Oscar's reaction so different? It's different because it's an absolute fabrication. All logic points to him knowing she was in that bathroom. Now he is just trying to lie himself out of murder which most people can see.

Tigger

Deise Vu wrote: »

An Irish jury once believed that a man stood around wringing his hands while his wife kept getting up and falling down administering three potential fatal blows to herself. They believed that a note written by the man lamenting that his mistress was getting married soon and what could he do about it before he lost her forever, was a script for a movie even though the man had a mistress and she was getting married soon. The jury also believed that the false lead he supplied the Gardai of an intruder being in the house was actually supplied by the victim to 'protect' their child. Hiding his bloodied clothes in the house was also to protect the child. The jury also believed the man didn't call an ambulance as the victim bled to death because the victim told him to go away.

Folks, never, ever, ever go on a jury. It will turn you murderous yourself.

what case was this?

aidan24326

Kunkka wrote: »

I echo this. Another huge thing for me is if I was woken up by something in my house that sounded like a burglary the first thing I'd be checking would be if the person I "loved"(as he keeps saying)was ok especially if she was beside me!

That's the crux of where his whole story falls apart. A simple 'Reeva are you ok' would have been enough to establish her whereabouts and that she was in fact ok. It's just not believeable that he'd go firing shots through the door, at an 'intruder', without knowing where she was first.

If he really did fire those shots at what he thought was an intruder, without checking on Reeva or taking adequate precaution to know who or what he was shooting at, then at best that makes him a loose cannon who certainly should never be allowed to have possession of a gun.

That he knew it was her, that she fled to the bathroom in the midst of a heated row, and that he fired through the bathroom door in the heat of the moment is still a more plausible explantion for me. I doubt it was planned and he no doubt regrets it now but it's still murder once he knew it was her, which in all likelihood he did.

robinph

Kunkka wrote: »

I echo this. Another huge thing for me is if I was woken up by something in my house that sounded like a burglary the first thing I'd be checking would be if the person I "loved"(as he keeps saying)was ok especially if she was beside me! The last thing I'd be doing would be marching/crawling towards the area armed without checking if my people were ok. I'm nearly sure my own thinking would echo most sane people? Why is Oscar's reaction so different? It's different because it's an absolute fabrication. All logic points to him knowing she was in that bathroom. Now he is just trying to lie himself out of murder which most people can see.

I agree, if that was was he was claiming in his version of events... but it isn't. He isn't claiming to have been woken up by a noise. His version is that he was awake, they were chatting in bed, she was on the phone, he went to the window, he hears noise ...

That is the point at which it all goes wrong for him due to not noticing that she'd got out of bed, and that he didn't ask her if she'd heard the noise. By assuming that she was still in bed (he was talking with her seconds before) and that she'd heard the noise (if she's in the bed and awake then why wouldn't she have heard it?), he instead told her to keep quiet and call the cops. All very convenient I'm sure you're now saying, but this story hasn't changed from the night it happened and the doctor arrived on the scene and I don't think the scene or story could have been invented to fit each other in that time.

For him to have invented that story on the spot to fit the scene gives him far more credit than he is due. The simplest scenario is just that he's telling the truth. He's an idiot, but the simplest version is that it happened as he said.

Kunkka

Fair enough Robin but that's the same thing really. The first thing you'd check before pursuing any would be burglar is if the person you "loved" was ok. You don't go John McClain on a bathroom door.

http://wpmedia.news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/fo0221_pistoriushowididit1200b.jpg

He has to pass the bed before going in to kill the "attacker" . Any normal person would check how their partner was en route, it takes half a second.

robinph

Kunkka wrote: »

Fair enough Robin but that's the same thing really.

Agreed. Very similar scenarios and very little required in order to notice that she's not where he thought she was. It's incredibly stupid to not confirm before reaching for a gun, but not beyond the realms of possibility that he could have just assumed she was still in the bed and that is all that needs to happen for his version of events to fit.

Kunkka

robinph wrote: »

Agreed. Very similar scenarios and very little required in order to notice that she's not where he thought she was. It's incredibly stupid to not confirm before reaching for a gun, but not beyond the realms of possibility that he could have just assumed she was still in the bed and that is all that needs to happen for his version of events to fit.

The thing is Robin I was in your camp prior to the trial and thought it could be just down to stupidity ignoring the logic as I know how violent SA can be but after seeing most of the trial I am convinced he murdered her after an argument. You're entitled to your opinion and that's why we have forums to discuss things like this! I just don't know how you or anyone haven't done a U-Turn on your opinion after that evidence.