[aggs]

Originally Posted by cath99

I think you're reading into it wrong to be honest. It suggests a legal form of increasing male hormones - which is what testosterone does illegally.

Honestly, if anything like the IOC or drug sporting bodies raided the house of any top flight athlete, I'd be amazed not to see something like that found. I would imagine you could go to most of his competitors and find similar. It's a natural - and so legal - way of hormone boosting. Some of the sporting benefits without the nasty failing of drug tests and bans.

Depending on where he was in his training cycle at the time, there is also the possiblity it is old stuff that has been hanging around for some time. Top athletes are very blase about phials and injections - some of them have even been known to keep the actual illegal stuff in the fridge next to the milk!

Which I assume, would be the reason for the drug tests. Which is another thing, as an internation sportsperson, his blood and hormone profiles will be extremely well documented. If there was a spike from the normal levels, it will be easy to see.

[calico_pie]

Originally Posted by tellywatcher73

if you pick up a gun, walk into a different room and shoot then it is premeditated. It doesn't mean thinking and planning for months, it could be seconds. It just means that it is a deliberate act.

So what would count as murder that was not premeditated, as opposed to manslaughter then?

I thought premeditated required the person to have reasonably thought about what they were doing.

If it was a violent argument where he started waving a gun around, and shot in the heat of the moment without really thinking about what he was doing, would that really pass as being premeditated in a court of law?

[calico_pie]

Originally Posted by francie

We will have to differ on that but no problem. I know I can personally hear a darn sight more in the early hours of the morning than I can in the day or evening.

I also can't understand why the neighbour(s) would say they'd heard something if they hadn't, not much to gain I should imagine.

It would be interesting if they try to recreate this - while I agree sound carries more at night (or at least our hearing is more sensitive to sound in the dark), if it is a modern house, presumably with fairly decent double glazing, I wouldn't expect to hear sound.

[tellywatcher73]

Originally Posted by alsmama

I would have agreed with you too until I worked out how far 600 or even 300m is and that in practice I don't hear anything from the high street at the top of our street. Give it a try, map out how far 300m is from your bedroom.

there are woods near my house and if you walk through them there is a river where people like to party on a summers night. The river is roughly 500+ metres from my house. On a still night, with the windows open, I can hear the people at the river. I live in a sixth floor flat, and sometimes I can't hear the people round the corner playing music unless I am on the landing. It all depends on the direction the sound is coming from.

[Deep Purple]

Originally Posted by calico_pie

So what would count as murder that was not premeditated, as opposed to manslaughter then?

I thought premeditated required the person to have reasonably thought about what they were doing.

If it was a violent argument where he started waving a gun around, and shot in the heat of the moment without really thinking about what he was doing, would that really pass as being premeditated in a court of law?

The term premeditated causes much confusion, and leads people to think of planning. It is not actually in the definition of murder here, but is often used when discussing it.

Murder is unlawfully killing, with the intention of doing so, or causing grievous bodily harm.

The term intent often leads to the term premeditated.

Firing a gun at someone in temper is murder, even if the act is spontaneous.

[tellywatcher73]

Originally Posted by calico_pie

So what would count as murder that was not premeditated, as opposed to manslaughter then?

I thought premeditated required the person to have reasonably thought about what they were doing.

If it was a violent argument where he started waving a gun around, and shot in the heat of the moment without really thinking about what he was doing, would that really pass as being premeditated in a court of law?

if she's hiding in a toilet and he picks up a gun, walks in and shoots through a door then I would say yes, its premeditated. If he has a gun in his hand and shoots on impulse while she's standing in front of him, its murder. It is the act of walking from one place to another to commit the crime that makes it premeditated.

[aggs]

Originally Posted by cath99

This isn't the trial though. We shouldn't know what the witnesses have said yet. We know OPs version of events without any cross examination. The police version of events sounded highly plausible to me until the defence lawyer started picking it to bits. The prosecution haven't had chance to do likewise to Pistorius. So it's easy to take what he says as "fact" so far.

A lot more will come out at the trial.

I do agree with the prosecution that he doesn't seem to have grasped the severity of what he's done. The statement from his agent a couple of days ago when he said they'd discussed his race schedule astounded me.

People do react in different ways, though. How many times just on DS have people in news stories been declared innocent or guilty because of tears or lack of. Hairdo's and outfits have been examined in detail before coming down on one side or the other - often erroneously

Perhaps focusing on something that is second nature to him, like his running, is a way of keeping himself together. Perhaps it was just his agent trying to put a spin on things, which wouldn't be unknown either. Whatever the outcome, whatever the reasons, whatever he meant to do, he has taken someones life - and that can't be easy to deal whoever you thought it was or wasn't.

[calico_pie]

Originally Posted by Agent Krycek

That for me is the main stumbling block with OPs story. Take away whether or not he intended to kill Reeva specifically in that moment, I can't see how he can argue away that he didn't intend to kill whoever was in that toilet, surely it's difficult to claim self defence as there was no threat, beyond him hearing some noise, could the locking of a toilet door (which she may have done on hearing him call out, intending to hide) be mistaken for the cocking of a gun ready to fire? (genuine question, I've no idea, never been round guns in my life)

It has been suggested that the shots were angled downwards, or even through the lock and hinges. That could contradict the suggestion he was shooting to kill.

It could probably be argued that if you thought there was an armed invader in your bathroom, that posed a very real threat.

[francie]

Originally Posted by tellywatcher73

there are woods near my house and if you walk through them there is a river where people like to party on a summers night. The river is roughly 500+ metres from my house. On a still night, with the windows open, I can hear the people at the river. I live in a sixth floor flat, and sometimes I can't hear the people round the corner playing music unless I am on the landing. It all depends on the direction the sound is coming from.

So many factors - weather, environment (main road, traffic etc) even interior environment and, of course, personal hearing levels. All I can say is that with windows open and the environment / weather stable I can hear remarkably more during the early hours than I can in the day - but that's not to say others do.

[stargazer61]

Originally Posted by calico_pie

Exactly this.

Most people expect Pistorius to have reacted in the exact same way that they would react, based on their personality, experience and circumstances.

Ignoring the fact that people's personalities, experience and circumstances can vary wildly.

Well said.

Not only that but many do not seem to appreciate that what they say they would do in any particular circumstance, may be very different from what they actually would do.......because of the myriad of factors which would come into play.

[calico_pie]

Originally Posted by JoTaylor

"Premeditated murder is the crime of wrongfully causing the death of another human being (also known as murder) after rationally considering the timing or method of doing so, in order to either increase the likelihood of success, or to evade detection or apprehension"

For me 4 gun shots covers the method of doing so - you're pretty sure that 4 shots such a small space would hit the person.

For me, the important part is the "after rationally considering" part.

Tragic as it would be, if it had been a violent argument where he started waving a gun around, I doubt he would be rationally considering very much.

[tellywatcher73]

Originally Posted by calico_pie

It has been suggested that the shots were angled downwards, or even through the lock and hinges. That could contradict the suggestion he was shooting to kill.

It could probably be argued that if you thought there was an armed invader in your bathroom, that posed a very real threat.

if the shots were angled downwards, would that not contradict his own evidence that he didn't have his legs on? It was also such a small space, he must have known he was going to hit someone.

[Department_S]

Originally Posted by tellywatcher73

there are woods near my house and if you walk through them there is a river where people like to party on a summers night. The river is roughly 500+ metres from my house. On a still night, with the windows open, I can hear the people at the river. I live in a sixth floor flat, and sometimes I can't hear the people round the corner playing music unless I am on the landing. It all depends on the direction the sound is coming from.

The question the defence asked of Botha was - could the witness hearing these arguments be 100% sure they came from OPs house from that distance. It's a rhetorical question really because of course the answer would be no.

[francie]

Originally Posted by aggs

People do react in different ways, though. How many times just on DS have people in news stories been declared innocent or guilty because of tears or lack of. Hairdo's and outfits have been examined in detail before coming down on one side or the other - often erroneously

Perhaps focusing on something that is second nature to him, like his running, is a way of keeping himself together. Perhaps it was just his agent trying to put a spin on things, which wouldn't be unknown either. Whatever the outcome, whatever the reasons, whatever he meant to do, he has taken someones life - and that can't be easy to deal whoever you thought it was or wasn't.

Yes, I can see that - mental discipline. I'm sure I read his *PR agent is an ex Sun executive/editor or something (not relevant I know but just thought I'd add ) - I'm sure they'd be putting a positive spin on everything.

* Stuart Higgins, former editor of the Sun,

[Deep Purple]

Originally Posted by calico_pie

For me, the important part is the "after rationally considering" part.

Tragic as it would be, if it had been a violent argument where he started waving a gun around, I doubt he would be rationally considering very much.

There are many definitions, and that is far removed from the legal one in the UK. Not sure what the SA one is, but they charged him with murder so it must be similar.

There is no rationally considering part in the legal definition here. Intent is what it means, and it is a given that firing a gun towards someone has intent.

[JoTaylor]

Edit - replied above.

[tellywatcher73]

Originally Posted by calico_pie

For me, the important part is the "after rationally considering" part.

Tragic as it would be, if it had been a violent argument where he started waving a gun around, I doubt he would be rationally considering very much.

possibly not but if she ran to hide in the bathroom and he followed her and put four shots through the door, then he thought about it. He might not have been in his right mind, but it takes more than a split second to go from one room to another.

[Agent Krycek]

Originally Posted by calico_pie

It has been suggested that the shots were angled downwards, or even through the lock and hinges. That could contradict the suggestion he was shooting to kill.

It could probably be argued that if you thought there was an armed invader in your bathroom, that posed a very real threat.

The ballistic evidence really is going to be key here. Although firing multiple shots towards a very small space you'd have to be a hell of a shot to pull that off without causing serious injury. I'd have thought, if you were firing to scare, then a shot into the ceiling would be pretty effective.

[Deep Purple]

Originally Posted by calico_pie

It has been suggested that the shots were angled downwards, or even through the lock and hinges. That could contradict the suggestion he was shooting to kill.

It could probably be argued that if you thought there was an armed invader in your bathroom, that posed a very real threat.

Firing four times into an enclosed space where you cant see the person on the other side shows a recklessness so great that it would be murder in most places.

[tellywatcher73]

Originally Posted by Department_S

The question the defence asked of Botha was - could the witness hearing these arguments be 100% sure they came from OPs house from that distance. It's a rhetorical question really because of course the answer would be no.

its possible they did hear shouting, but you could never swear in court who it was at that distance.

[The Net]

Originally Posted by Department_S

The question the defence asked of Botha was - could the witness hearing these arguments be 100% sure they came from OPs house from that distance. It's a rhetorical question really because of course the answer would be no.

Precisely.

In the trial the jury will apply their own interpretation as to what is a reasonable likelihood. Not sure why its a major debating point. It was a predictable question that any defence barrister would pose of a witness in such circumstances.

[LH1]

Originally Posted by Agent Krycek

That for me is the main stumbling block with OPs story. Take away whether or not he intended to kill Reeva specifically in that moment, I can't see how he can argue away that he didn't intend to kill whoever was in that toilet, surely it's difficult to claim self defence as there was no threat, beyond him hearing some noise, could the locking of a toilet door (which she may have done on hearing him call out, intending to hide) be mistaken for the cocking of a gun ready to fire? (genuine question, I've no idea, never been round guns in my life)

It's the four shots as well. He didn't intend to wound or he would have shot once and maybe retreated to the hall way.

[JoTaylor]

Originally Posted by calico_pie

For me, the important part is the "after rationally considering" part.

Tragic as it would be, if it had been a violent argument where he started waving a gun around, I doubt he would be rationally considering very much.

I guess if they were arguing THEN he got the gun then he'd made a choice but if he already had the gun in his hand then it could be a fit of rage.

Hold on I am considering that people argue with guns in their hand?!!! What has this case turned us all into - we just dont have this kind of thing here in the UK but it seems normal after this week on here to even consider it.

[Deep Purple]

Originally Posted by Department_S

The question the defence asked of Botha was - could the witness hearing these arguments be 100% sure they came from OPs house from that distance. It's a rhetorical question really because of course the answer would be no.

This is one of the strange things about the way this is done there.

The defence are asking Botha awkward questions about other witnesses evidence. he cant answer for them.

They clearly know that, and know it will cause people to come to their side.

Thankfully, the Judge will know too.

[francie]

Originally Posted by LH1

It's the four shots as well. He didn't intend to wound or he would have shot once and maybe retreated to the hall way.

^ this.