No offence to anyone in the thread but it did become a bit of an echo chamber for the pro-murder conviction folk. If you were arguing for anything except a murder conviction, your motives in doing so were immediately questioned. Maybe if the discussion had been more balanced, there wouldn't be such surprise and disappointment now...
That is OP's claim. You cannot say what actually happened as you weren't there. You are entitled to believe OP and others are entitled to disbelieve him.
It does seem that the majority think that in the event of someone actually (or imagined) breaking into their property the priority would be to ensure that others in the house were actually safe - and not assumed to be safe.
You don't agree, and that's a valid position, albeit a minority one.
Looks like it. I thought there had to be a direct threat on his life to justify the shooting. We had all these experts saying that for months. I'm not sure why she threw out the murder charge. She dismissed the witnesses but has given credence to OPs own testimony. none of this is making much sense to me.
completely baffling as she actually said he was a poor witness! i don't understand this at all. her logic seems to be "well, he said it and he was there so it must be right"
No offence to anyone in the thread but it did become a bit of an echo chamber for the pro-murder conviction folk. If you were arguing for anything except a murder conviction, your motives in doing so were immediately questioned. Maybe if the discussion had been more balanced, there wouldn't be such surprise and disappointment now...
Indeed. I suspect many people on the thread literally talked each other into believing it was premeditated murder. 'Echo chamber' is the perfect description.
I don't believe that M'lady is corrupt and bribed but I do think that she has played it safe and ignored a lot of facts without explaining why she has ignored those facts.
She has accepted that OP lied and was a terrible witness; nevertheless she builds her whole argument on the premise that his cooked up story is true. Plus she misinterpreted his reaction of remorse after the murder.
This is my last post on here, but not my last word on this subject.
I'm just so sorry. No words.
It's been really great 'meeting' all of you... much love and good luck for the future...
(I may need it most, living here in SA, as it seems shooting multiple times through a door at an unseen target, is OK, as long as you are scared and in fear)
xxx
bgk.
Quite disappointing that before the announcement people on here were saying that m'lady's verdict would be respected, etc. etc. and now people are saying she's been blackmailed or she's corrupt.
Really disappointing. She's a judge with a vast amount of experience and integrity.
But Kap, you know yourself that maybe it is not the same people saying it. I said I would listen to her verdict & reasoning (didn't think she'd dump all witnesses' evidence in one go, e.g. plus gastric emptying), and right now I'm listening and not persuaded and quite disappointed. Am looking forward to legal analysis and now at least know I won't have to follow the Derwani trial (because of the weird reasoning at work here).
Looks like it. I thought there had to be a direct threat on his life to justify the shooting. We had all these experts saying that for months. I'm not sure why she threw out the murder charge.
She dismissed the witnesses but has given credence to OPs own testimony. none of this is making much sense to me.
Yeah, she seems to have taken his version at face value, as she has for evidence that supports his version.
E.g. She said that the fact that he appeared to be very upset shortly after the killing means that he couldn't have possibly intended to kill her. But is extremely likely that if he had killed her in anger, he would also have been distraught shortly afterwards when his anger was replaced by other emotions.
An objective view would be that being distraught was not proof either way and should have been discounted, but she only seemed to do that to DT evidence.
Yes, it has. Pistorius's story was always reasonably possible. Some people just preferred to think otherwise but once you accept the reasonable plausibility then the charges of premeditated murder became much less persuasive.
Indeed. I suspect many people on the thread literally talked each other into believing it was premeditated murder. 'Echo chamber' is the perfect description.
I was in for Dolus Eventualis
I'm with Masipa that the evidence for Pre-med was more circumstantial. What isn't circumstantial is that OP got a gun and fired it into an enclosed space thinking someone was behind the door. There is only one inevitibility to shooting a firearm into an enclosed space. The fact Masipa has ruled this out boggles my mind completely.
Indeed. I suspect many people on the thread literally talked each other into believing it was premeditated murder. 'Echo chamber' is the perfect description.
They never got to me Kap .... I did it all myself.
That is OP's claim. You cannot say what actually happened as you weren't there. You are entitled to believe OP and others are entitled to disbelieve him.
It does seem that the majority think that in the event of someone actually (or imagined) breaking into their property the priority would be to ensure that others in the house were actually safe - and not assumed to be safe.
You don't agree, and that's a valid position, albeit a minority one.
But would you automatically assume that anyone who didn't was guilty beyond reasonable doubt?
Plenty on here have said they wouldn't
But Kap, you know yourself that maybe it is not the same people saying it. I said I would listen to her verdict & reasoning (didn't think she'd dump all witnesses' evidence in one go, e.g. plus gastric emptying), and right now I'm listening and not persuaded and quite disappointed. Am looking forward to legal analysis and now at least know I won't have to follow the Derwani trial (because of the weird reasoning at work here).
A lot of so called "supporters" took a lot of sh1t. I'm sure most of them were not "mindless OP lovers" or any of the other derogatory terms slung around.
Comments
Leave me out of your judgement please.
The point is that IT IS REASONABLY POSSIBLE.
This has been gone over and over.
completely baffling as she actually said he was a poor witness! i don't understand this at all. her logic seems to be "well, he said it and he was there so it must be right"
Indeed. I suspect many people on the thread literally talked each other into believing it was premeditated murder. 'Echo chamber' is the perfect description.
Or they'll be no witnesses...
Completely disagree.
He'll think himself more invincible than ever. It'll only be a matter of time before he's carrying again IMO.
She has accepted that OP lied and was a terrible witness; nevertheless she builds her whole argument on the premise that his cooked up story is true. Plus she misinterpreted his reaction of remorse after the murder.
catch you on twitter though
Yes. He had no intention to kill his girlfriend on Valentines Day.
But Kap, you know yourself that maybe it is not the same people saying it. I said I would listen to her verdict & reasoning (didn't think she'd dump all witnesses' evidence in one go, e.g. plus gastric emptying), and right now I'm listening and not persuaded and quite disappointed. Am looking forward to legal analysis and now at least know I won't have to follow the Derwani trial (because of the weird reasoning at work here).
Yeah, she seems to have taken his version at face value, as she has for evidence that supports his version.
E.g. She said that the fact that he appeared to be very upset shortly after the killing means that he couldn't have possibly intended to kill her. But is extremely likely that if he had killed her in anger, he would also have been distraught shortly afterwards when his anger was replaced by other emotions.
An objective view would be that being distraught was not proof either way and should have been discounted, but she only seemed to do that to DT evidence.
There were some other similar pieces too.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/11071863/British-resident-of-Durban-shot-dead-by-thieves.html
Yes, it has. Pistorius's story was always reasonably possible. Some people just preferred to think otherwise but once you accept the reasonable plausibility then the charges of premeditated murder became much less persuasive.
I was in for Dolus Eventualis
I'm with Masipa that the evidence for Pre-med was more circumstantial. What isn't circumstantial is that OP got a gun and fired it into an enclosed space thinking someone was behind the door. There is only one inevitibility to shooting a firearm into an enclosed space. The fact Masipa has ruled this out boggles my mind completely.
To death, mate, gone over and over to death!
And people wonder why Pistorius acted in the way he did.
Must be very odd to sit down for lunch, having a chat etc while there is a man a matter of yards away with his life/future in the balance.
They never got to me Kap .... I did it all myself.
Will you be cheering him on at the next Olympics?
But would you automatically assume that anyone who didn't was guilty beyond reasonable doubt?
Plenty on here have said they wouldn't
A lot of so called "supporters" took a lot of sh1t. I'm sure most of them were not "mindless OP lovers" or any of the other derogatory terms slung around.