Although it wouldn't diminish their sense of loss, do you think the Steenkamps would find some solace if the Judge ruled that their daughter's killing was a case of mistaken identity rather than at the hands of the boyfriend for whom she had declared her love?
Not if all the evidence points otherwise, and they think the verdict was compromised because OP is the only witness.
Would anyone?
If Op had come across as decent. And a truthteller and blamed himself and was any way real in his testimony, yes, I think it would have been a comfort.
Actually the state based their version on the allegation by Hilton Botha during the Bail Hearing that because Oscar was wearing his Prosthetics when he shot , this would prove he was guilty of Pre. Med. Murder. When asked what ballistics they had done to support this, they hadn't done any. In fact these are the material issues that the State has changed it's approach and changed its story on in trial. It should have been about CH all along IMO
.
I agree - although I do think theres a case still to be made for the murder of a perceived intruder (MPI). I can even see that the state might have had a slight dilemma: whilst on one hand it must have been tempting to reduce the charge to MPI, and thus save the court's time as regards witnesses and evidence, I can see that because the defence scenario does sound so far fetched, it was possibly worthwhile to see if a full trial could shake anything out.
Actually the state based their version on the allegation by Hilton Botha during the Bail Hearing that because Oscar was wearing his Prosthetics when he shot , this would prove he was guilty of Pre. Med. Murder. When asked what ballistics they had done to support this, they hadn't done any. In fact these are the material issues that the State has changed it's approach and changed its story on in trial. It should have been about CH all along IMO
.
Actually the state based their version on common sense, that mistaking one's girlfriend for a burglar inside your own toilet (not climbing in the window) hardly ever happens. And more rarely when neighbors hear screaming. Whereas DV is the common scenario.
Then the prosecution was burdened with having to refute a timeline that was carefully constructed along the lines of the words dark, vulnerable, open window, ladder, noise (but not the noise of your girlfriend urinating).
Although it wouldn't diminish their sense of loss, do you think the Steenkamps would find some solace if the Judge ruled that their daughter's killing was a case of mistaken identity rather than at the hands of the boyfriend for whom she had declared her love?
not when Reeva's mother,,relatives and friends have sat through the trial and heard evidence otherwise - they weren't fooled by Roux, you could see that from their faces when Roux gave closing arguments, and they know anyway, - they've heard OP on the Stand.
I think it's important for people to get justice and I don't think the Steenkamps will get a sense of justice if Oscar is merely found guilty of murdering an intruder. That would mean that, although Oscar is guilty of murder, the killing of Reeva was an accident and, well, the Steenkamps have seen and heard all the evidence that shows Oscar to be lying.
I agree - although I do think theres a case still to be made for the murder of a perceived intruder (MPI). I can even see that the state might have had a slight dilemma: whilst on one hand it must have been tempting to reduce the charge to MPI, and thus save the court's time as regards witnesses and evidence, I can see that because the defence scenario does sound so far fetched, it was possibly worthwhile to see if a full trial could shake anything out.
Ok. However Oscar gave the sane version at the Bail hearing as he had stated to The Standers, Dr Stipp moments after the shooting and the same version continued throughout the trial. I know nothing about this is funny but Roux,s comment regarding Nell's Bakers Dozen which I felt Roux argued very successfully IMO.' If that's your Bakers Dozen then I don't want those cookies.' Lol moment for me., although all very tragic.
Actually the state based their version on common sense, that mistaking one's girlfriend for a burglar inside your own toilet (not climbing in the window) hardly ever happens. And more rarely when neighbors hear screaming. Whereas DV is the common scenario.
Then the prosecution was burdened with having to refute a timeline that was carefully constructed along the lines of the words dark, vulnerable, open window, ladder, noise (but not the noise of your girlfriend urinating).
Yes.
People seem to keep forgetting that thinking 'girlfriend in toilet being threatened' is somehow difficult, and 'intruder got ladder climbed up thinking window open and then slammed it and then hid in toilet and I BELIEVED this' is somehow more credible.'.
When it seriously. seriously isn't.
And all the 'it's a dangerous country, I am scared, doesnt' change the fact that OPs house was one of the safest and he didn't even THINK about what his money had bought him, his alarms, his panic button, and his dogs.'
Nothing but a bump in the night made him go 'nuts', apparantly.
Ok. However Oscar gave the sane version at the Bail hearing as he had stated to The Standers, Dr Stipp moments after the shooting and the same version continued throughout the trial. I know nothing about this is funny but Roux,s comment regarding Nell's Bakers Dozen which I felt Roux argued very successfully IMO.' If that's your Bakers Dozen then I don't want those cookies.' Lol moment for me., although all very tragic.
I've got to admit, Roux's quip wasn't the best I've ever heard, but it was less cringeworthy than the state's whole 'relay race' analogy and the excruciatingly sad 'bakers dozen'. I doubt that came from Nel.
Quite liked Nel's 'can't count so became a lawyer' bit though.
Put is this way, I read of lots of cases where someone has seen an intruder in their house and shot at them. I've never seen another case where someone heard a noise in the night and fired gunshots without knowing what the situation was, who or what they were shooting at, and if there was actually an intruder present.
I've got to admit, Roux's quip wasn't the best I've ever heard, but it was less cringeworthy than the state's whole 'relay race' analogy and the excruciatingly sad 'bakers dozen'. I doubt that came from Nel.
Quite liked Nel's 'can't count so became a lawyer' bit though.
And I thought Nel was a bit rough and ready but really clear and cogent.
And Roux was slippery and theatrical and scored an absolute howler when he equated OP to an abused woman.
I think it's important for people to get justice and I don't think the Steenkamps will get a sense of justice if Oscar is merely found guilty of murdering an intruder. That would mean that, although Oscar is guilty of murder, the killing of Reeva was an accident and, well, the Steenkamps have seen and heard all the evidence that shows Oscar to be lying.
I agree and would like to think they will see justice done, if M'Lady accepts the witness testimonies relating to a woman's screams; Roux himself even alluded to the witness accounts of intermingled screams/voices of a man and a woman, then I don't see how she could accept OP's version of Reeva remaining silent.
Put is this way, I read of lots of cases where someone has seen an intruder in their house and shot at them. I've never seen another case where someone heard a noise in the night and fired gunshots without knowing what the situation was, who or what they were shooting at, and if there was actually an intruder present.
Well there was the SA case in which the chap shot dead his pregnant wife, who had also merely gone to the bathroom. I know he only fired the once but the result was the same.
It sounds unbelievable to us, I agree.
I agree and would like to think they will see justice done, if M'Lady accepts the witness testimonies relating to a woman's screams; Roux himself even alluded to the witness accounts of intermingled screams/voices of a man and a woman, then I don't see how she could accept OP's version of Reeva remaining silent.
I was very interested when Roux went on about how the witnesses expressed hearing the male and female voice together differently.
When it demonstrated that those male and female voices were HEARD.
I can't believe that the judge will believe that he couldn't have heard her - when gun experts have said that you CAN hear over the ringing, quite easily. I hope one of the assessors knows this, and then there is no issue.
Well there was the SA case in which the chap shot dead his pregnant wife, who had also merely gone to the bathroom. I know he only fired the once but the result was the same.
It sounds unbelievable to us, I agree.
Yeah, he only fired once, and he got her to hospital and plead guilty.
And he didn't have all the alarms and shit either.
I've got to admit, Roux's quip wasn't the best I've ever heard, but it was less cringeworthy than the state's whole 'relay race' analogy and the excruciatingly sad 'bakers dozen'. I doubt that came from Nel.
Quite liked Nel's 'can't count so became a lawyer' bit though.
yes, i agree with you there. i cringed throughout nel's metaphors. enjoyed the "can't count" quip. but i still maintain there's no such thing as a bad cookie
And I thought Nel was a bit rough and ready but really clear and cogent.
And Roux was slippery and theatrical and scored an absolute howler when he equated OP to an abused woman.
That was SUCH a 'high'.
I didn't think Nel was any too great. I saw that you were grumbling that he was mumbling and unclear at the time.
Roux was more impressive because, frankly, he had more to work with. His 'abused woman' analogy was all wrong. Not the principle - as in that we are all shaped by our life experiences - but in the way he expressed it. that was surprisingly 'off'.
Actually the state based their version on common sense, that mistaking one's girlfriend for a burglar inside your own toilet (not climbing in the window) hardly ever happens. And more rarely when neighbors hear screaming. Whereas DV is the common scenario.
Then the prosecution was burdened with having to refute a timeline that was carefully constructed along the lines of the words dark, vulnerable, open window, ladder, noise (but not the noise of your girlfriend urinating).
Is Common Sense a new legal Term, and have you evidence to support this.
yes, i agree with you there. i cringed throughout nel's metaphors. enjoyed the "can't count" quip. but i still maintain there's no such thing as a bad cookie
I loved them.
He's not great at them, but he has a go. Honest and workmanlike. Not an English graduate, like Oldfatfullofpiesandanalogies probably is.
Comments
Not if all the evidence points otherwise, and they think the verdict was compromised because OP is the only witness.
Would anyone?
If Op had come across as decent. And a truthteller and blamed himself and was any way real in his testimony, yes, I think it would have been a comfort.
But he absolutely wasn't.
I agree - although I do think theres a case still to be made for the murder of a perceived intruder (MPI). I can even see that the state might have had a slight dilemma: whilst on one hand it must have been tempting to reduce the charge to MPI, and thus save the court's time as regards witnesses and evidence, I can see that because the defence scenario does sound so far fetched, it was possibly worthwhile to see if a full trial could shake anything out.
Somewhat prophetic
Given his obsession with guns I wonder if he designed it
Who does she post as?
I was a bit cross about the trench, we shouldn't submit to the bossy, controlling and annoying, but it's worked out ok.
But we are allowed to do as we like in THIS thread too, no one's going to shoot us through a door or anything.
Actually the state based their version on common sense, that mistaking one's girlfriend for a burglar inside your own toilet (not climbing in the window) hardly ever happens. And more rarely when neighbors hear screaming. Whereas DV is the common scenario.
Then the prosecution was burdened with having to refute a timeline that was carefully constructed along the lines of the words dark, vulnerable, open window, ladder, noise (but not the noise of your girlfriend urinating).
well that's definitely inappropriate now ! yikes !
Ok. However Oscar gave the sane version at the Bail hearing as he had stated to The Standers, Dr Stipp moments after the shooting and the same version continued throughout the trial. I know nothing about this is funny but Roux,s comment regarding Nell's Bakers Dozen which I felt Roux argued very successfully IMO.' If that's your Bakers Dozen then I don't want those cookies.' Lol moment for me., although all very tragic.
Yes.
People seem to keep forgetting that thinking 'girlfriend in toilet being threatened' is somehow difficult, and 'intruder got ladder climbed up thinking window open and then slammed it and then hid in toilet and I BELIEVED this' is somehow more credible.'.
When it seriously. seriously isn't.
And all the 'it's a dangerous country, I am scared, doesnt' change the fact that OPs house was one of the safest and he didn't even THINK about what his money had bought him, his alarms, his panic button, and his dogs.'
Nothing but a bump in the night made him go 'nuts', apparantly.
Not credible to any thinking person.
I've got to admit, Roux's quip wasn't the best I've ever heard, but it was less cringeworthy than the state's whole 'relay race' analogy and the excruciatingly sad 'bakers dozen'. I doubt that came from Nel.
Quite liked Nel's 'can't count so became a lawyer' bit though.
And I thought Nel was a bit rough and ready but really clear and cogent.
And Roux was slippery and theatrical and scored an absolute howler when he equated OP to an abused woman.
That was SUCH a 'high'.
I agree and would like to think they will see justice done, if M'Lady accepts the witness testimonies relating to a woman's screams; Roux himself even alluded to the witness accounts of intermingled screams/voices of a man and a woman, then I don't see how she could accept OP's version of Reeva remaining silent.
Well there was the SA case in which the chap shot dead his pregnant wife, who had also merely gone to the bathroom. I know he only fired the once but the result was the same.
It sounds unbelievable to us, I agree.
I was very interested when Roux went on about how the witnesses expressed hearing the male and female voice together differently.
When it demonstrated that those male and female voices were HEARD.
I can't believe that the judge will believe that he couldn't have heard her - when gun experts have said that you CAN hear over the ringing, quite easily. I hope one of the assessors knows this, and then there is no issue.
OP heard Reeva screaming.
Yeah, he only fired once, and he got her to hospital and plead guilty.
And he didn't have all the alarms and shit either.
yes, i agree with you there. i cringed throughout nel's metaphors. enjoyed the "can't count" quip. but i still maintain there's no such thing as a bad cookie
I didn't think Nel was any too great. I saw that you were grumbling that he was mumbling and unclear at the time.
Roux was more impressive because, frankly, he had more to work with. His 'abused woman' analogy was all wrong. Not the principle - as in that we are all shaped by our life experiences - but in the way he expressed it. that was surprisingly 'off'.
Is Common Sense a new legal Term, and have you evidence to support this.
Well they didn't charge him with murder, which rather helped.
I loved them.
He's not great at them, but he has a go. Honest and workmanlike. Not an English graduate, like Oldfatfullofpiesandanalogies probably is.
And so did the relationship and the circumstances. Not the same at all.
Oh and the ONE gunshot and immediate effort to HELP.
Very different.