Of course he may have just been really confused .... but I agree, that is a big slip!
Yep, he said that. Whilst it is 'possible' althouth I think improbable that he wouldn't have checked outside of the bedroom, it is impossible that he would say such a statement unless he knew Reeva was in the toilet. Nel didn't pick up it, although he did x-examine about why he had assumed she wasn't outside of the bedroom.
An appeal to benjamini and shorty knickers...please, please, please stop filling up the thread with your on going spat....both of you have been excellent contributors to this discussion until recently. I can't be the only one who's started skating over your posts because I assume it's just a continuation of the on-going bickering...which is a shame, as I'm probably missing some of the interesting stuff that you're posting! Please call a truce and just focus on sharing your thoughts on the trial again!
That I agree with. And I did indeed see you put your house on the line. I retract what I said.. I'm sorry.
I walk alone in here. I watch the evidence and post my opinions.
I get stick all the time. Do I care? Not in the slightest . It's not a D S popularity contest.
Thank you for apologising. I also walk alone in here. I also have a thick skin. One has to on DS.
I absolutely think he should be found guilty of something. At the moment i think at least culpable homicide. I don't think the prosecution have proved beyond reasonable doubt that he knew he was shooting Reeva. I think he may not get found guilty of murder but will be found guilty of cp as things stand at the moment.
I bloody well hope he gets sent to prison for a significant number of years.
I am very, very frustrated that the prosecution case was not as strong as I thought it was going to be.
But if intended to shoot someone (regardless of their identity) for no real valid reason shouldn't that be murder not culpable homicide? I agree I wanted an even stronger case to prove it was Reeva he was purposefully firing at, I was hoping the mobile phone records of thar night would prove more useful, but either way he had no reason to shoot and kill whoever was behind that door and that should therefore be considered as murder.
An appeal to benjamini and shorty knickers...please, please, please stop filling up the thread with your on going spat....both of you have been excellent contributors to this discussion until recently. I can't be the only one who's started skating over your posts because I assume it's just a continuation of the on-going bickering...which is a shame, as I'm probably missing some of the interesting stuff that you're posting! Please call a truce and just focus on sharing your thoughts on the trial again!
My apologise. It's the last thing I would want to do.
I too think he is 100% guilty. You only have to step back for one moment and acknowledge the truth of the situation that night, a simple truth that is irrefutable. NO ONE other than OP and Reeva were in that house that night. NO ONE !!!
No burglars, intruders or even the slightest hint in that direction . NO ONE !!! From that simple truth, you have to deduce that not a single outside influence could possibly have been responsible for sending him into a frenzy of fear and terror to the point that he reached for his gun and blasted four shots into a toilet door, a locked toilet door at that.
His version is complete and utter BS. If you accept that, then it has to be a deliberate act.
I don't, sorry. I can see how hearing a window opening in the night, when he believed the only other person in the house was in bed, would send him into a "frenzy of fear and terror". Whether it did or not is obviously debatable but I can understand how it could happen.
I absolutely agree. And in fact, the useful evidence at the trial notwithstanding, the salient facts of the case are to be found in his bail affidavit: 4 shots into a locked cubicle constitutes intent to seriously harm or kill. One shot could be let off by mistake, four no. He cannot claim self defence because he was not being immediately threatened, and SA law is clear on this point, nor did he actually know (so he claims) who was in the toilet. If he's no idea who is in the toilet, then he has no idea if he's being threatened.
He found himself outside a door with the belief there was a person inside, and a choice to make: he could have run, called the police, shouted a warning that he was armed and would shoot. Instead he chose to fire 4 shots of particularly lethal bullets. Premeditation is a decision taken at the time of the event: he made a decision to shoot multiple times into a confined space, that shows intent, and that is murder.
Here you go...not up to date though (ie this is 18th March 2014) http://oscartrial.dstv.com/video/489774/category/0
OP Trial Day 12, 18 March 2014: The legal round table - David O'Sullivan talks to Advocate Mannie Witz and defence attorneys Riaan Louw and Cliff Alexander.
I absolutely think he should be found guilty of something. At the moment i think at least culpable homicide. I don't think the prosecution have proved beyond reasonable doubt that he knew he was shooting Reeva. I think he may not get found guilty of murder but will be found guilty of cp as things stand at the moment.
I bloody well hope he gets sent to prison for a significant number of years.
I am very, very frustrated that the prosecution case was not as strong as I thought it was going to be.
The charge of premeditated murder applies to a) Ms Steenkamp or b) a burglar. Intentionally shooting either is murder. If the prosecution could not prove that he knew he was firing at Ms Steenkamp, he could still be found guilty of murder of what he thought was a burglar...
But if intended to shoot someone (regardless of their identity) for no real valid reason shouldn't that be murder not culpable homicide? I agree I wanted an even stronger case to prove it was Reeva he was purposefully firing at, I was hoping the mobile phone records of thar night would prove more useful, but either way he had no reason to shoot and kill whoever was behind that door and that should therefore be considered as murder.
I don't think it has been proved that he intended to kill someone. It has certainly been proved IMO that he intended to shoot someone but not necessarily to kill. I know its a subtle difference but to me its a significant one.
An appeal to benjamini and shorty knickers...please, please, please stop filling up the thread with your on going spat....both of you have been excellent contributors to this discussion until recently. I can't be the only one who's started skating over your posts because I assume it's just a continuation of the on-going bickering...which is a shame, as I'm probably missing some of the interesting stuff that you're posting! Please call a truce and just focus on sharing your thoughts on the trial again!
I apologise. It peed me off when it happened between two other posters earlier today and now I am doing it. For my part, its over
I don't think it has been proved that he intended to kill someone. It has certainly been proved IMO that he intended to shoot someone but not necessarily to kill. I know its a subtle difference but to me its a significant one.
Comments
Yep, he said that. Whilst it is 'possible' althouth I think improbable that he wouldn't have checked outside of the bedroom, it is impossible that he would say such a statement unless he knew Reeva was in the toilet. Nel didn't pick up it, although he did x-examine about why he had assumed she wasn't outside of the bedroom.
Thank you for apologising. I also walk alone in here. I also have a thick skin. One has to on DS.
But if intended to shoot someone (regardless of their identity) for no real valid reason shouldn't that be murder not culpable homicide? I agree I wanted an even stronger case to prove it was Reeva he was purposefully firing at, I was hoping the mobile phone records of thar night would prove more useful, but either way he had no reason to shoot and kill whoever was behind that door and that should therefore be considered as murder.
His family are supporting a killer cos they are his family, his psychiatrist needs to be ridden of all her qualifications
I see you've given the polite version there bella ;-)
OMG the whole clan are nutters
My opinion . Is that allowed? Or are only collective opinions allowed now?
My apologise. It's the last thing I would want to do.
I don't, sorry. I can see how hearing a window opening in the night, when he believed the only other person in the house was in bed, would send him into a "frenzy of fear and terror". Whether it did or not is obviously debatable but I can understand how it could happen.
Exactly.
I understand the family supporting him .. sort of. But she is not right in anyway to do what she did.
thanks-I shall take a look.x
No comment
It's all about 'HIM' now, after all she is DEAD. (That seems to be their attitude, not my thoughts).
I don't think it has been proved that he intended to kill someone. It has certainly been proved IMO that he intended to shoot someone but not necessarily to kill. I know its a subtle difference but to me its a significant one.
Just sayin'
Because I don't believe the Stipps are liars. Simple.
If they were the only independent witnesses and OP had the same version he would still be 100% guilty.
Is she? Did I miss somethng?
I apologise. It peed me off when it happened between two other posters earlier today and now I am doing it. For my part, its over
To kill someone...
OR...
To shoot someone...
OR...
To shoot at someone...
OR...
To shoot in the direction of someone.