Subtle ? The judge applied CH to Op killing Reeva because he thought she was an Intruder. But the law is clear - it doesn't matter- it was still murder with intent , he shot at them knowing he could kill them ,which is Dolus Eventualis , so the Judge got it wrong . Let's see if the state Appeal on that basis shall we. Got to hand it to him, his fake burglar story really confused the Court and meant the trial was based around that story rather than him rowing and then shooting Reeva !
I wonder how sick those witnesses feel who heard Reeva's screams that he got away with it
.
There was no persuasive evidence that Pistorius and Steenkamp argued on the night, or that the argument ended in her being shot, or of a motive as to what the argument was about.
Actually I thought in the trial the most part, anyway by the prosecution , focused on this issue, ie the reckless way in which OP used it that night, and had done in the past I thought it was very relevant.
IF OP had not had a gun that night, intruder or Reeva nobody would have die..I don't think the trial has been overly focussed on the DV issue it has been a point of discussion in this forum but I am not sure that has translated to the wider world. The gun culture issue however has,and does not seem to have been addressed in the verdict and sentence which is a shame.
Good post. IMO if no one stopped OP his obsession with guns it was inevitably going to end up with someone's death. Just look at the incidents brought to trial, Sam Taylor's statement, the washing machine tweet, and a story about pointing a gun at an overnight house guest I can't now find on tinternet. It's a shame we had to wait for him to actually kill someone. Minority Report on its way ! ( err, I've not actually seen the film )
Its standard to visit the actual crime scene - but clearly not SA. And even in the Dewani trial they showed a video to the Court of the crime scene , so why not in this Case. And not sure why I would visit the crime scene, what a strange comment.
You said a visit to OP's house would've revealed what a "load of bull" his story was. My question was 'how do you know a visit to the house would've revealed that his story was a load of bull unless you'd visited it yourself?' So I asked 'have you visited it?'. If not, then upon what basis were you making your allegations?
Carl is really enjoying his five secs of fame isn't he? .. wouldn't mind betting he's quite pleased at this outcome .. he can be the focus and the mouthpiece for a few more months yet.
There was no persuasive evidence that Pistorius and Steenkamp argued on the night, or that the argument ended in her being shot, or of a motive as to what the argument was about.
Yes there was. They were both awake and their voices heard by neighbours....
An hour later 4 shots were fired and Reeva was dead. He got his phone wiped of evidence too - that is not behaviour of a man telling the truth. You may not have heard all of the trial....
I'm not sure what you intend the question to be relevant to. Certainly it's not relevant to understanding the facts of the case and their implication in assessing the judgement and sentence. The ability to reason, sort information and logically and reliably resolve conflicting narratives is what is necessary for that. For a fine example, see Masipa's judgement.
I wouldn't hold it up as a fine example - too much evidence skipped over if commented on at all and then the leap from the findings on the unreliability of the accused testamony to accepting his version.
Yes there was. They were both awake and their voices heard by neighbours....
An hour later 4 shots were fired and Reeva was dead. He got his phone wiped of evidence too - that is not behaviour of a man telling tbe truth. You may not have heard all of the trial....
Estelle van der Merwe's evidence of an 'argument' proved to be entirely inconclusive.
Yes there was. They were both awake and their voices heard by neighbours.....a
An hour later 4 shots were fired and Reeva was dead. You may not have heard all of the trial....
There is a) no proof that either of them were awake, never mind both. And b) ONE neighbour heard a female voice only. She couldn't identify the language or where it was coming from. That evidence was rightly dismissed as unreliable and unusable.
Subtle ? The judge applied CH to Op killing Reeva because he thought she was an Intruder. But the law is clear - it doesn't matter- it was still murder with intent , he shot at them knowing he could kill them ,which is Dolus Eventualis , so the Judge got it wrong . Let's see if the state Appeal on that basis shall we. Got to hand it to him, his fake burglar story really confused the Court and meant the trial was based around that story rather than him rowing and then shooting Reeva !
I wonder how sick those witnesses feel who heard Reeva's screams that he got away with it
.
Good post. I think the CH/DE is more complicated than you say but I look forward to an appeal on that to clear it up. I agree with your sentiment about it all being around his story, although that is his prerogative, and apparently he is allowed to tell a pack of lies about it and you are not allowed to infer guilt from that.
I do wish Nel and his team had made more effort on a timeline. I don't believe a credible alternative couldn't be found. Might have needed a mathematician or two though.
I wouldn't hold it up as a fine example - too much evidence skipped over if commented on at all and then the leap from the findings on the unreliability of the accused testamony to accepting his version.
I completely disagree. Evidence was not skipped. It was not a 'pick and mix' or selective use of evidence verdict as I've often seen it characterized. People who think that, and there are depressingly many of them, don't understand how she applied logic and reason. The most reasonable interpretation of key evidence rendered other evidence less important or negated it all together.
If I was honest I don't know either oscar Pistorius nor Reeva Steenkmp. Their lives and indeed their deaths are meaningless to me. I'm a mere spectator as is everyone here is also. Their lives do not impact on me in any way and my opinion does not impact on them . We are however all here discussing it so it's rather disingenuous for anyone to pretend that they have any moral high ground .
There was no persuasive evidence that Pistorius and Steenkamp argued on the night, or that the argument ended in her being shot, or of a motive as to what the argument was about.
Whether they argued or not has no relevance for a guilty DE verdict.
If that was even remotely correct Nel would have won his case for murder with intent. It appears you've heard the verdict incorrectly - OP was found not guilty of murder with intent but guilty of CH.
Despite the trial result being broadcast worldwide people still seem to struggle understanding the verdict
He intentionally shot through the door, as Masipa underlined today in her conclusion he knew there was someone behind the door having heard the window open, the door slam and a noise from behind the door. Ergo he intentionally shot whoever was behind the door. Also he fired four shots not just one, as in the other case quoted, and also he knew he was firing into a confined space so escape from injury for the person behind the door was not a likely outcome.
All things considered I think that qualifies as intentionally shooting someone behind a door.
It appears that some people are still struggling to accept that OP deserves to be in prison.
The judge applied CH to Op killing Reeva because he thought she was an Intruder. But the law is clear - it doesn't matter- it was still murder with intent , he shot at them knowing he could kill them ,which is Dolus Eventualis , so the Judge got it wrong .
.
Not if the defendant was acting in mistaken self-defence. Then it's culpable homicide, if he was objectively negligent.
Disgusting verdict - should have been much longer >:(>:(>:(>:(>:(>:(>:( r.i.p to beautiful Reeva. Rot in jail for (silly) 10 months OP you absolute monster! Baffles me some on here support that vile killer..,
Whether they argued or not has no relevance for a guilty DE verdict.
I think that's a fair statement. But what most people think is that he got away with premeditated murder. it's those arguments that need to be firmly refuted. Even killers can experience injustice.
What ever you say dizzy1969...Oscar sweetie lost his argument for any one of his versions...or else he would be back in Ranch Moomin tonight instead of sharing a bar of soap.
Disgusting verdict - should have been much longer >:(>:(>:(>:(>:(>:(>:( r.i.p to beautiful Reeva. Rot in jail for (silly) 10 months OP you absolute monster! Baffles me some on here support that vile killer..,
Or perhaps some people aren't supporting him, but just have a different opinion to you. Ever considered that?
There is a) no proof that either of them were awake, never mind both. And b) ONE neighbour heard a female voice only. She couldn't identify the language or where it was coming from. That evidence was rightly dismissed as unreliable and unusable.
It was part of all the circumstantial evidence and the Judge made her Ruling on the common cause facts alone . Anyone who heard those witnesses give testimony know that from that evidence .they were awake
...the two voices heard....the two tones ,the woman shouting ...woman screaming for help....followed by a man....hearing gunshots -
how we getting on with the Standers being related to OP?
Stander was his grandfather (founder of the H Pistorius & Co lime company, the "lime king" who is still alive at 97)'s mother's maiden name, she had a brother named Johannes Stander
BIB. Me too.
He had history of reckless behaviour and which is not a good mix with guns
Actually I think it was a bit more that, he has a reckless behaviour but there are a lot of people out there like that..
I just feel he was just completely di-sensitive to the gun for whatever reason, upbringing, culture, personality. It had built up over years, something happened that night as a trigger, and he just used it much like he was shouting at someone does that make sense...
I am not agreeing with what he did just trying to make sense of it ..this is always an issue in countries where the gun is so freely available and no boundaries are set in everyday life, where owning a gun is akin to owning a handbag, however despite that most people have self control..so maybe I am back to agreeing with you:p
There is a) no proof that either of them were awake, never mind both. And b) ONE neighbour heard a female voice only. She couldn't identify the language or where it was coming from. That evidence was rightly dismissed as unreliable and unusable.
It was part of all the circumstantial evidence and the Judge made her Ruling on the common cause facts alone . .You're only talking about VDM ! Anyone who heard those witnesses give testimony know that from that evidence .they were awake
...the two voices heard....the two tones ,the woman shouting ...woman screaming for help....followed by a man....hearing gunshots -
Comments
There was no persuasive evidence that Pistorius and Steenkamp argued on the night, or that the argument ended in her being shot, or of a motive as to what the argument was about.
Good post. IMO if no one stopped OP his obsession with guns it was inevitably going to end up with someone's death. Just look at the incidents brought to trial, Sam Taylor's statement, the washing machine tweet, and a story about pointing a gun at an overnight house guest I can't now find on tinternet. It's a shame we had to wait for him to actually kill someone. Minority Report on its way ! ( err, I've not actually seen the film
You said a visit to OP's house would've revealed what a "load of bull" his story was. My question was 'how do you know a visit to the house would've revealed that his story was a load of bull unless you'd visited it yourself?' So I asked 'have you visited it?'. If not, then upon what basis were you making your allegations?
He only has a dicktionary I'm afraid..
An hour later 4 shots were fired and Reeva was dead. He got his phone wiped of evidence too - that is not behaviour of a man telling the truth. You may not have heard all of the trial....
I wouldn't hold it up as a fine example - too much evidence skipped over if commented on at all and then the leap from the findings on the unreliability of the accused testamony to accepting his version.
Estelle van der Merwe's evidence of an 'argument' proved to be entirely inconclusive.
There is a) no proof that either of them were awake, never mind both. And b) ONE neighbour heard a female voice only. She couldn't identify the language or where it was coming from. That evidence was rightly dismissed as unreliable and unusable.
Too many witnesses heard their voices - so not going over alll of that .....but it 's another very good reason for the State to Appeal.
Good post. I think the CH/DE is more complicated than you say but I look forward to an appeal on that to clear it up. I agree with your sentiment about it all being around his story, although that is his prerogative, and apparently he is allowed to tell a pack of lies about it and you are not allowed to infer guilt from that.
I do wish Nel and his team had made more effort on a timeline. I don't believe a credible alternative couldn't be found. Might have needed a mathematician or two though.
I completely disagree. Evidence was not skipped. It was not a 'pick and mix' or selective use of evidence verdict as I've often seen it characterized. People who think that, and there are depressingly many of them, don't understand how she applied logic and reason. The most reasonable interpretation of key evidence rendered other evidence less important or negated it all together.
Whether they argued or not has no relevance for a guilty DE verdict.
He intentionally shot through the door, as Masipa underlined today in her conclusion he knew there was someone behind the door having heard the window open, the door slam and a noise from behind the door. Ergo he intentionally shot whoever was behind the door. Also he fired four shots not just one, as in the other case quoted, and also he knew he was firing into a confined space so escape from injury for the person behind the door was not a likely outcome.
All things considered I think that qualifies as intentionally shooting someone behind a door.
It appears that some people are still struggling to accept that OP deserves to be in prison.
No witnesses described "them" arguing. You are incorrect. Shouldn't you ensure you are correct in your facts at the very least?
Not if the defendant was acting in mistaken self-defence. Then it's culpable homicide, if he was objectively negligent.
I think that's a fair statement. But what most people think is that he got away with premeditated murder. it's those arguments that need to be firmly refuted. Even killers can experience injustice.
Agree all above, catching up and is taking a while! ;-)
Or perhaps some people aren't supporting him, but just have a different opinion to you. Ever considered that?
It was part of all the circumstantial evidence and the Judge made her Ruling on the common cause facts alone . Anyone who heard those witnesses give testimony know that from that evidence .they were awake
...the two voices heard....the two tones ,the woman shouting ...woman screaming for help....followed by a man....hearing gunshots -
http://www.geni.com/people/Anna-Sofia-Magdalena-Stander/6000000017201266452
just to add to conspiracy she had a sister called Van Rensburg, maybe South Africans are just very inbred
I just feel he was just completely di-sensitive to the gun for whatever reason, upbringing, culture, personality. It had built up over years, something happened that night as a trigger, and he just used it much like he was shouting at someone does that make sense...
I am not agreeing with what he did just trying to make sense of it ..this is always an issue in countries where the gun is so freely available and no boundaries are set in everyday life, where owning a gun is akin to owning a handbag, however despite that most people have self control..so maybe I am back to agreeing with you:p
It was part of all the circumstantial evidence and the Judge made her Ruling on the common cause facts alone . .You're only talking about VDM ! Anyone who heard those witnesses give testimony know that from that evidence .they were awake
...the two voices heard....the two tones ,the woman shouting ...woman screaming for help....followed by a man....hearing gunshots -