The story will change as detail is added and other factors are brought into the trial. This is to be expected. The key factors are how relevant those discrepancies are with regard to the charges made by the State.
OP can lie as much as he chooses, all that matters is whether the lies affect the States claim of his intent to kill Reeva. It's not a credibility test. Judge Masipa can't suddenly change the whole justice system by deciding that because OP has lied about 1000 other things he must therefore have knowingly killed Reeva. We can think that, as can judges, but judges can't act upon it.
It IS a credibility test, and OP did not come across as very credible witness in his own Defence - because he contradicted his Plea and Affidavit (which in turn contradicted eachother anyway) ,he also blamed his own Counsel for omissions in HIS statement ,that HE signed and approved..........it's exactly those inconsistencies of his own version that shows a Judge that a Defendant is lying. He also contradicted his own Defence case and introduced another........ - so think he's pretty much heading for prison to be fair, and for a long time !
it was nice to see him jump to roux's defence though. the two of them shared a look as if to say "can you believe what this guy is saying?"
yeah he did, love him. At the end of the day, they've got each others back as regards professionalism ........, even if in the theatre they are working on opposite sides.
The story will change as detail is added and other factors are brought into the trial. This is to be expected. The key factors are how relevant those discrepancies are with regard to the charges made by the State.
OP can lie as much as he chooses, all that matters is whether the lies affect the States claim of his intent to kill Reeva. It's not a credibility test. Judge Masipa can't suddenly change the whole justice system by deciding that because OP has lied about 1000 other things he must therefore have knowingly killed Reeva. We can think that, as can judges, but judges can't act upon it.
The story-change can't change so much to allow for a door slam and 'wood movement' which the accused never mentioned in his account just after the killing.
It is a credibility test. Judge Masipa isn't changing the whole justice system by examining the accused's evidence to her, in court, against his initial statement.
There is no way out of a guilty verdict for OP on this count or the charge of being in possession of the unlicensed ammo. The gun didn't fire itself while he was holding it and his 'understanding' of the law regarding the ammunition is wrong.
For the record on the charge of possessing .38 ammunition found at his house
FIREARMS CONTROL ACT 2000
CHAPTER 10 - CONTROL OF AMMUNITION AND FIREARM PARTS
Prohibition of possession of ammunition
90. No person may possess any ammunition unless he or she—
(a) holds a licence in respect of a firearm capable of discharging that ammunition;
(b) holds a permit to possess ammunition;
(c) holds a dealer’s licence, manufacturer’s licence, gunsmith’s licence, import,
export or in-transit permit or transporter’s permit issued in terms of this Act;
or
(d) is otherwise authorised to do so.
Mr Pistorius, do you have licence for a .38 firearm: No
Mr Pistorius,do you hold a permit to possess this calibre of ammunition: No
Mr Pistorius, do you hold a dealer’s licence, etc: No
Mr Pistorius, are you otherwise authorised to possess this ammunition: No
Mr Pistorius, which part of Guilty don’t you understand?
and I think Batman got it wrong,...... I think OP was on his legs and because he was on his prostethics he had to lean forward to get a good swing with that bat at that toilet door, and he kicked it too, (batman even demonstrated that OP would had to have been in an uncomfortable position to use the bat on the door,but that wouldn't have been uncomfortable for OP ,because of his disability and way he moves with legs on!)
look at the damage to his sock on the bottom of that leg, ,,,,,,,,,,,
-OP was vein, he dressed well,he had money to buy nice clothes, no way would have had worn a torn sock on his leg, - that damage was caused that night.
For the record on the charge of possessing .38 ammunition found at his house
FIREARMS CONTROL ACT 2000
CHAPTER 10 - CONTROL OF AMMUNITION AND FIREARM PARTS
Prohibition of possession of ammunition
90. No person may possess any ammunition unless he or she—
(a) holds a licence in respect of a firearm capable of discharging that ammunition;
(b) holds a permit to possess ammunition;
(c) holds a dealer’s licence, manufacturer’s licence, gunsmith’s licence, import,
export or in-transit permit or transporter’s permit issued in terms of this Act;
or
(d) is otherwise authorised to do so.
Mr Pistorius, do you have licence for a .38 firearm: No
Mr Pistorius,do you hold a permit to possess this calibre of ammunition: No
Mr Pistorius, do you hold a dealer’s licence, etc: No Mr Pistorius, are you otherwise authorised to possess this ammunition: No
Mr Pistorius, which part of Guilty don’t you understand?
BIB - Basically his defence is that he was holding it on behalf of someone licensed to.
Not that he should have been authorised to hold it himself , but rather keeping it for someone who is/was.
The story-change can't change so much to allow for a door slam and 'wood movement' which the accused never mentioned in his account just after the killing.
It is a credibility test. Judge Masipa isn't changing the whole justice system by examining the accused's evidence to her, in court, against his initial statement.
I agree............
or that the very woman he's being charged with Murdering didn't speak to him in his first account, and then goes into Court saying she did ,,,,,,,,just before he killed her !
I repeat: Nel has said that he will argue that OP's evidence be rejected.
I wait to see Nel's closing argument for an exact breakdown of why OP's evidence should be rejected by Judge Masipa but I have a suspicion that lying on the stand and tailoring his evidence to 'explain' hostile witness statements might feature.
I repeat: Nel has said that he will argue that OP's evidence be rejected.
I wait to see Nel's closing argument for an exact breakdown of why OP's evidence should be rejected by Judge Masipa but I have a suspicion that lying on the stand and tailoring his evidence to 'explain' hostile witness statements might feature.
yes, I agree, and Mr Standers, and Prof Derman and Dr Vorsters.............actually a lot of Woollie's and Dixon's testimonies too ! they weren't Experts on everything they testified to.
BIB - Basically his defence is that he was holding it on behalf of someone licensed to.
Not that he should have been authorised to hold it himself , but rather keeping it for someone who is/was.
I agree............
or that the very woman he's being charged with Murdering didn't speak to him in his first account, and then goes into Court saying she did ,,,,,,,,just before he killed her !
I know thousands of posts , enlightening at times , have been written on the screams , the bangs , witnesses etc. ... I just think it's not REASONABLY possibly true that , OP hears a noise in another room and does not even glance at RS , who is there , as far as HE is concerned , 2 metres away .... OP says he knew she was awake ...all he did was get off the bed , go to the balcony door , put the fans in. Maybe 20 seconds if that. Then he hears a noise ....he's just spoken to her ...i say it's IMPOSSIBLE not to look in your girlfriend/wife/friend's direction and even just mutter something along the lines of "what the f....???".
My opinion is that , it's not reasonably possibly true that one wouldn't look , not when you've just spoken to that person and you don't have to go look for her/him but just need to turn your head.
IT'S NOT TRUEEEEE !
I repeat: Nel has said that he will argue that OP's evidence be rejected.
I wait to see Nel's closing argument for an exact breakdown of why OP's evidence should be rejected by Judge Masipa but I have a suspicion that lying on the stand and tailoring his evidence to 'explain' hostile witness statements might feature.
i know we shouldn't be seeing it as entertainment, but i am really looking forward to nel's closing argument. i think it'll be totally riveting
BIB - Basically his defence is that he was holding it on behalf of someone licensed to.
Not that he should have been authorised to hold it himself , but rather keeping it for someone who is/was.
Claiming he was holding it for someone else is totally irrelevant in the eyes of the law as Nel pointed out.
Pistorius had the ammunition illegally in his possession in contradiction of the requirements of the FCA 2000 Chapter 10 sect 90 (paras a –d)
The Act does not allow for ‘holding ammunition for someone else’ even if Pistorius thought it did by ‘his understanding’
I see a link has emerged between people believing in OP's innocence and also in believing he is appropriately remorseful and respectful of Reeva's family, and grieving the loss of Reeva and taking responsibility for the life he took.
Just something I think is worth noting, without any inference as to why this might be.
I know thousands of posts , enlightening at times , have been written on the screams , the bangs , witnesses etc. ... I just think it's not REASONABLY possibly true that , OP hears a noise in another room and does not even glance at RS , who is there , as far as HE is concerned , 2 metres away .... OP says he knew she was awake ...all he did was get off the bed , go to the balcony door , put the fans in. Maybe 20 seconds if that. Then he hears a noise ....he's just spoken to her ...i say it's IMPOSSIBLE not to look in your girlfriend/wife/friend's direction and even just mutter something along the lines of "what the f....???".
My opinion is that , it's not reasonably possibly true that one wouldn't look , not when you've just spoken to that person and you don't have to go look for her/him but just need to turn your head.
IT'S NOT TRUEEEEE !
it does all seem so very obvious doesn't it- and like your location !
have you voted yet ?
Claiming he was holding it for someone else is totally irrelevant in the eyes of the law as Nel pointed out.
Pistorius had the ammunition illegally in his possession in contradiction of the requirements of the FCA 2000 Chapter 10 sect 90 (paras a –d)
The Act does not allow for ‘holding ammunition for someone else’ even if Pistorius thought it did by ‘his understanding’
I agree 100% . I was simply stating what his defence was , as per his testimony.
Which is not a defence , in my view. To claim you were certain you didn't need a licence to hold that ammo on behalf of someone else is not an excuse , he will be found guilty on that charge (and others).
BIB - Basically his defence is that he was holding it on behalf of someone licensed to.
Not that he should have been authorised to hold it himself , but rather keeping it for someone who is/was.
So OP was not fit to hold a gun licence? As he clearly has no understanding of the test he took or the papers he signed. Ignorance is no defence.
This person who he was holding the ammo for, did they supply a statement saying this was the case? Did they attend court and state this was fact?
Not in possession but in possession by proxy..."its not mine Officer"...oh yes that would work a treat with the British bobbies...down the nick in double time I suspect.
Hopefully after this he will never be allowed to touch a gun again, can you imagine if he turned it on one of his own family?... in a moment of shear blind panic...birdie burping outside at dawn or something.
There would be a public outcry...murder some will say. Others will say...well ehm its an act of god, a tragic accident.
Comments
The story-change can't change so much to allow for a door slam and 'wood movement' which the accused never mentioned in his account just after the killing.
It is a credibility test. Judge Masipa isn't changing the whole justice system by examining the accused's evidence to her, in court, against his initial statement.
For the record on the charge of possessing .38 ammunition found at his house
FIREARMS CONTROL ACT 2000
CHAPTER 10 - CONTROL OF AMMUNITION AND FIREARM PARTS
Prohibition of possession of ammunition
90. No person may possess any ammunition unless he or she—
(a) holds a licence in respect of a firearm capable of discharging that ammunition;
(b) holds a permit to possess ammunition;
(c) holds a dealer’s licence, manufacturer’s licence, gunsmith’s licence, import,
export or in-transit permit or transporter’s permit issued in terms of this Act;
or
(d) is otherwise authorised to do so.
Mr Pistorius, do you have licence for a .38 firearm: No
Mr Pistorius,do you hold a permit to possess this calibre of ammunition: No
Mr Pistorius, do you hold a dealer’s licence, etc: No
Mr Pistorius, are you otherwise authorised to possess this ammunition: No
Mr Pistorius, which part of Guilty don’t you understand?
this is why I think OP was on his legs when he had an argument with Reeva, and shot at the door, firing from his hip.........
and I think Batman got it wrong,...... I think OP was on his legs and because he was on his prostethics he had to lean forward to get a good swing with that bat at that toilet door, and he kicked it too, (batman even demonstrated that OP would had to have been in an uncomfortable position to use the bat on the door,but that wouldn't have been uncomfortable for OP ,because of his disability and way he moves with legs on!)
look at the damage to his sock on the bottom of that leg, ,,,,,,,,,,,
-OP was vein, he dressed well,he had money to buy nice clothes, no way would have had worn a torn sock on his leg, - that damage was caused that night.
BIB - Basically his defence is that he was holding it on behalf of someone licensed to.
Not that he should have been authorised to hold it himself , but rather keeping it for someone who is/was.
I agree............
or that the very woman he's being charged with Murdering didn't speak to him in his first account, and then goes into Court saying she did ,,,,,,,,just before he killed her !
I wait to see Nel's closing argument for an exact breakdown of why OP's evidence should be rejected by Judge Masipa but I have a suspicion that lying on the stand and tailoring his evidence to 'explain' hostile witness statements might feature.
yes, I agree, and Mr Standers, and Prof Derman and Dr Vorsters.............actually a lot of Woollie's and Dixon's testimonies too ! they weren't Experts on everything they testified to.
..... So?
I know thousands of posts , enlightening at times , have been written on the screams , the bangs , witnesses etc. ... I just think it's not REASONABLY possibly true that , OP hears a noise in another room and does not even glance at RS , who is there , as far as HE is concerned , 2 metres away .... OP says he knew she was awake ...all he did was get off the bed , go to the balcony door , put the fans in. Maybe 20 seconds if that. Then he hears a noise ....he's just spoken to her ...i say it's IMPOSSIBLE not to look in your girlfriend/wife/friend's direction and even just mutter something along the lines of "what the f....???".
My opinion is that , it's not reasonably possibly true that one wouldn't look , not when you've just spoken to that person and you don't have to go look for her/him but just need to turn your head.
IT'S NOT TRUEEEEE !
So it's laughable , IMO.
i know we shouldn't be seeing it as entertainment, but i am really looking forward to nel's closing argument. i think it'll be totally riveting
Claiming he was holding it for someone else is totally irrelevant in the eyes of the law as Nel pointed out.
Pistorius had the ammunition illegally in his possession in contradiction of the requirements of the FCA 2000 Chapter 10 sect 90 (paras a –d)
The Act does not allow for ‘holding ammunition for someone else’ even if Pistorius thought it did by ‘his understanding’
Apologists
what did you say?
have you voted yet ?
Ah! For a moment there I thought you were offering that as a credible defence!
24 Murder with Intent
4 Murder - no intent
2 Culpable Homicide
0 Acquittal
1 Not sure
I agree 100% . I was simply stating what his defence was , as per his testimony.
Which is not a defence , in my view. To claim you were certain you didn't need a licence to hold that ammo on behalf of someone else is not an excuse , he will be found guilty on that charge (and others).
So OP was not fit to hold a gun licence? As he clearly has no understanding of the test he took or the papers he signed. Ignorance is no defence.
This person who he was holding the ammo for, did they supply a statement saying this was the case? Did they attend court and state this was fact?
Not in possession but in possession by proxy..."its not mine Officer"...oh yes that would work a treat with the British bobbies...down the nick in double time I suspect.
Hopefully after this he will never be allowed to touch a gun again, can you imagine if he turned it on one of his own family?... in a moment of shear blind panic...birdie burping outside at dawn or something.
There would be a public outcry...murder some will say. Others will say...well ehm its an act of god, a tragic accident.
I would still want to see Justice served.
Nooo! Not at all Whatabout !
Just what HIS defence , on that charge , IS ...as per his cross-exam testimony.