Is his house sold yet? Who would buy a house after a murder there? Same as Madeline Mcgann case, the owner couldnt manage to sell it after all those years.
his aunt being his psychiatrist is a big joke imo
male and female voices, two tones of voices , two peoples voices were heard -
I'll explain to you
SO they weren't arguing in their sleep , or screaming in their sleep or shouting HELP HELP HELP: in their sleep ,-- so they were AWAKE ^_^
You don't have to "explain it" to me, love. I just said there was no proof that witnesses heard Pistorius and Steenkamp arguing, which is entirely true.
I don't think he had to know it was reeva to e premeditated. by his own testimony he went and armed himself and then crept along the corridor....he told Nel he wanted to 'confront' the intruder....all indicates time and a level of cognitive thinking which does meet criteria of premeditation.
I'm not sure I agree because I've been reading up on the S51.1 stuff, and it seems to be akin to our 'whole life' situations in the UK, reserved for the most heinous murders. One of the criteria, as with ours, would be the killing of a police officer. I should think an unexpected random intruder of some description could hardly count as planned- well not unless he kept him in a cellar for a few days and killed him gruesomely.
Personally I believe that there is a charge of 'ordinary' murder available if the court found that he intended to kill a random person who was now holed up in the toilet and by whom OP felt not in the least threatened. By ordinary I mean one which doesn't carry a mandatory life sentence, which the current charge does.
The current charge relies on premeditation or planning, which by default requires him to have known it was Reeva.
It's defo time to get out of this thread and go to bed.
What the hell is " ordinary murder" when it's at home?
There is no such crime on the statute book in S Africa.
Please post a link to "ordinary " murder. I'm fascinated.
Some posters here seem to be getting upset because other people have already decided OP is guilty. So what? Some people have made their mind up on his guilt - some have not. Some may change their minds before it's over - some may not. Everyone is entitled to THEIR opinion.
Ultimately, the judge/s will have to go one way or another in the end based on the evidence as THEY see it.
Exactly - see I'm in a sub group that says guilty because she died, guilty because he knew she was behind that door - but that at the time he pulled the trigger he wasn't consciously planning to shoot Reeva - it was that he'd lost the plot with the whole lot, someone disobeying him, someone who beat him to the bathroom because he didn't have his legs on, then a locked door doing his head in - like a spoilt toddler who throws his dinner on the floor - but this was a raging adult with his favourite Zombie Stopper who'd totally lost control of his very flawed personality.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was a bit of bat work on the door both before and after the shots.
So the door gets it, and so does she because as a normal person... well you just don't expect anyone to actually shoot, do you? Who wants to think they've been in bed with a total nutcase? Maybe she thought it was just like the bullshyte that he'd previously come out with while in controller mode... and was waiting for him to calm down.
I think in his head he is genuinely not guilty because that's the way his "no acceptance of blame" head works - but knows he can't use the reality as a defence. He won't even accept the 'culpable homicide' route.
But I have no problem with those who think he knowingly set out to shoot Reeva, or those at the other end of the scale who believe the intruder panic story.
The one thing that I keep coming back to is the conclusive evidence of the blood pattern on the duvet that was neatly aligned to the continuing blood pattern on the carpet....undeniable proving that the duvet had been on the floor already when he carried Reeva through bedroom. This negates so much of his testimony e.g. where he moved the fans to and when he ran, on his stumps, to the balcony to shout for help. The only reason he had to lie about this was if he knew it was Reeva in the toilet.
Do others feel this is a verdict clincher?...if not, can you explain why...as I think this is the piece of evidence that is really swaying me.
Is his house sold yet? Who would buy a house after a murder there? Same as Madeline Mcgann case, the owner couldnt manage to sell it after all those years.
his aunt being his psychiatrist is a big joke imo
I read it sold for$ 3000 but not sure if that's right. Will try and find a link.
Ah I didn't realise that if that is the case, I also thought that premeditated meant with a considered intent to kill (whoever) rather than a specific person. I think premeditated always makes it sound as if the killer was sitting there for days beforehand planning away, but in reality isn't it that they were aware of the consequences of their actions and that they had an intent to kill, whether that was 5 minutes before it happened or 5 weeks before?
Thats right, planned is worse than just with intent but unplanned.
It's defo time to get out of this thread and go to bed.
What the hell is " ordinary murder" when it's at home?
There is no such crime on the statute book in S Africa.
Please post a link to "ordinary " murder. I'm fascinated.
Is his house sold yet? Who would buy a house after a murder there? Same as Madeline Mcgann case, the owner couldnt manage to sell it after all those years.
his aunt being his psychiatrist is a big joke imo
I searched online to see if his house was sold but couldn't find anything.
Right thats me off here, hope tomorrow isnt more of dr kelly lookalike talking about wood splinters and everything else under the sun whilst we dont know WHY cos Roux doesnt give a clue,cheers all x
I don't think that can be proved as they could easily have ricocheted. It does however lend further weight to the fact he was consciously aiming at someone and that the bullets were not fired in that area of the toilet accidentally. Otherwise as you suggest if they were not aimed potentially the majority would not have struck Reeva.
Personally I believe that there is a charge of 'ordinary' murder available if the court found that he intended to kill a random person who was now holed up in the toilet and by whom OP felt not in the least threatened. By ordinary I mean one which doesn't carry a mandatory life sentence, which the current charge does. The current charge relies on premeditation or planning, which by default requires him to have known it was Reeva.
No it doesn't. Premeditation can simply be a decision taken at the time of the event not some long drawn out plan. And it does not depend on him knowing it was Reeva. I thought this was cleared up 3 threads ago...
The state must prove that Pistorius knew Ms Steenkamp was in the toilet when he fired through the door. If the judge does not believe he intended to kill his girlfriend, the state must instead prove that he intended to kill the suspected intruder inside.
Guilt in either case of premeditated murder carries a life sentence.
If the judge accepts that Pistorius did not intend to kill but used an unreasonable level of force to tackle a suspected intruder, then he could be found guilty of a lesser charge of culpable homicide.
Has anybody closely payed attention to M'ladys body language and demeanour while Oscar was on the stand? I can only remember at the beginning when he said he made a terrible mistake referring to shooting Reeva, Nel was dumbfounded to say you made a mistake! And I remember M'lady leaning back and turning her chair.
You don't have to "explain it" to me, love. I just said there was no proof that witnesses heard Pistorius and Steenkamp arguing, which is entirely true.
So now you are suggesting that it was another couple in another house, and it was all just a massive coincidence?
You don't have to "explain it" to me, love. I just said there was no proof that witnesses heard Pistorius and Steenkamp arguing, which is entirely true.
^_^ jeeeez - the noises were coming FROM OSCAR'S HOUSE !!!
unless he had an ex in his basement !
The one thing that I keep coming back to is the conclusive evidence of the blood pattern on the duvet that was neatly aligned to the continuing blood pattern on the carpet....undeniable proving that the duvet had been on the floor already when he carried Reeva through bedroom. This negates so much of his testimony e.g. where he moved the fans to and when he ran, on his stumps, to the balcony to shout for help. The only reason he had to lie about this was if he knew it was Reeva in the toilet.
Do others feel this is a verdict clincher?...if not, can you explain why...as I think this is the piece of evidence that is really swaying me.
The duvet with the blood drops on the carpet is almost as compelling as the bathroom light being on and the ambient light in the toilet. Taken together they're pretty convincing and could easily sway me to a guilty verdict. How to explain it. Dunno. I just wish there was something more...concrete.
I think one of the problems facing the SAPD is that their forensic work doesn't seem to be anywhere near as advanced as is the UK. In the UK the blood drops on the duvet and carpet would've been analysed to death. Nel just showed a photo and used a mouse to pinpoint where they were. The same goes for the flex of the fans. Much was made of that by Nel but it was never backed up with further evidence. It's frustrating.
If I get up to go to the toilet in the night I wouldnt lock the toilet door or take my phone with me . I think she ran in there to get away from him and intended to phone someone for help but she didnt get chance because he shot her .
I have to confess I do take my phone with me to the loo at night (especially since being obsessed with this trial:))I'm not having a torrid affair or anything sinister!!!... I just can't resist a quick look at the news or to make sure I haven't missed something exciting on twitter! ...it's not even a younger generation thing, I'm nearly fifty!!!!:)
Thanks I saw the article but didnt read it in entirity or make the connection his psychiatrist was his blooming aunt!!!
How sad and improper is that!!
OP's aunt, the psychologist has probably assisted him in 'talking around' what happened.
They learn the methods people use to communicate. Who does she think she is?!
Comments
Yes just noticed that - I was a couple of pages behind
Is his house sold yet? Who would buy a house after a murder there? Same as Madeline Mcgann case, the owner couldnt manage to sell it after all those years.
his aunt being his psychiatrist is a big joke imo
You don't have to "explain it" to me, love. I just said there was no proof that witnesses heard Pistorius and Steenkamp arguing, which is entirely true.
I'm not sure I agree because I've been reading up on the S51.1 stuff, and it seems to be akin to our 'whole life' situations in the UK, reserved for the most heinous murders. One of the criteria, as with ours, would be the killing of a police officer. I should think an unexpected random intruder of some description could hardly count as planned- well not unless he kept him in a cellar for a few days and killed him gruesomely.
It's defo time to get out of this thread and go to bed.
What the hell is " ordinary murder" when it's at home?
There is no such crime on the statute book in S Africa.
Please post a link to "ordinary " murder. I'm fascinated.
Exactly - see I'm in a sub group that says guilty because she died, guilty because he knew she was behind that door - but that at the time he pulled the trigger he wasn't consciously planning to shoot Reeva - it was that he'd lost the plot with the whole lot, someone disobeying him, someone who beat him to the bathroom because he didn't have his legs on, then a locked door doing his head in - like a spoilt toddler who throws his dinner on the floor - but this was a raging adult with his favourite Zombie Stopper who'd totally lost control of his very flawed personality.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was a bit of bat work on the door both before and after the shots.
So the door gets it, and so does she because as a normal person... well you just don't expect anyone to actually shoot, do you? Who wants to think they've been in bed with a total nutcase? Maybe she thought it was just like the bullshyte that he'd previously come out with while in controller mode... and was waiting for him to calm down.
I think in his head he is genuinely not guilty because that's the way his "no acceptance of blame" head works - but knows he can't use the reality as a defence. He won't even accept the 'culpable homicide' route.
But I have no problem with those who think he knowingly set out to shoot Reeva, or those at the other end of the scale who believe the intruder panic story.
Do others feel this is a verdict clincher?...if not, can you explain why...as I think this is the piece of evidence that is really swaying me.
I read it sold for$ 3000 but not sure if that's right. Will try and find a link.
Yep - remember the melon shooting video.
Thats right, planned is worse than just with intent but unplanned.
Please stop with the attitude, thanks.
I searched online to see if his house was sold but couldn't find anything.
He was aiming at the magazine rack.
The state must prove that Pistorius knew Ms Steenkamp was in the toilet when he fired through the door. If the judge does not believe he intended to kill his girlfriend, the state must instead prove that he intended to kill the suspected intruder inside.
Guilt in either case of premeditated murder carries a life sentence.
If the judge accepts that Pistorius did not intend to kill but used an unreasonable level of force to tackle a suspected intruder, then he could be found guilty of a lesser charge of culpable homicide.
So now you are suggesting that it was another couple in another house, and it was all just a massive coincidence?
^_^ jeeeez - the noises were coming FROM OSCAR'S HOUSE !!!
unless he had an ex in his basement !
Done deal - they have other commitments plus quite a few public holiday days.
If it wasn't so violent over there I'd be tempted to buy property at those prices...a beaut of a house for 300,000.00
The duvet with the blood drops on the carpet is almost as compelling as the bathroom light being on and the ambient light in the toilet. Taken together they're pretty convincing and could easily sway me to a guilty verdict. How to explain it. Dunno. I just wish there was something more...concrete.
I think one of the problems facing the SAPD is that their forensic work doesn't seem to be anywhere near as advanced as is the UK. In the UK the blood drops on the duvet and carpet would've been analysed to death. Nel just showed a photo and used a mouse to pinpoint where they were. The same goes for the flex of the fans. Much was made of that by Nel but it was never backed up with further evidence. It's frustrating.
I have to confess I do take my phone with me to the loo at night (especially since being obsessed with this trial:))I'm not having a torrid affair or anything sinister!!!... I just can't resist a quick look at the news or to make sure I haven't missed something exciting on twitter! ...it's not even a younger generation thing, I'm nearly fifty!!!!:)
Oh dear
OP's aunt, the psychologist has probably assisted him in 'talking around' what happened.
They learn the methods people use to communicate. Who does she think she is?!