Oh dear, not Prof Dixon again. Even M'lady had a smile on her face when she told Nel to restrain himself from being rude!
Just revisiting the sock fibre thing - do they not have proper fibre analysis in SA? A ten year old with a microscope could give more reliable evidence. Dixon's fairly sure the fibres didn't come from a cleaning cloth not because he did tests on both the cloth and the sock, but because he observed the cleaning and it wasn't very vigorous.
I thought the Judge telling Nel off was rather , tongue in cheek for her , but she had to ,,,,,,,,,,,I think she was feeling Nel's pain !
I truly think it's gone beyond culpable homicide. For that, the court would have to believe that he made a mistake he should not have made, but a reasonable person could well have made the same mistake.
This might work if we were talking about one shot. But four? Plus the ballistics show that he shot once, moved position, then shot three more times.
The court have to decide whether he intended to kill whoever was behind the door - Reeva or not. I think he obviously did.
They then have to decide whether it was reasonable for him to kill that person under the circumstances, and it clearly (to my mind) was not.
I think he's looking at murder. If Nel can show that he knew it was Reeva and that he's lied to cover his tracks, his sentence will be even longer.
sorry if this has been said, but i've just read page 107 and someone mentioned nel asking why oscar would suddenly have thought it was reeva in the toilet and not looked for her downstairs. could it be the case that he knew she couldn't have gone downstairs because if she had, the alarm would have gone off?
I truly think it's gone beyond culpable homicide. For that, the court would have to believe that he made a mistake he should not have made, but a reasonable person could well have made the same mistake.
This might work if we were talking about one shot. But four? Plus the ballistics show that he shot once, moved position, then shot three more times.
The court have to decide whether he intended to kill whoever was behind the door - Reeva or not. I think he obviously did.
They then have to decide whether it was reasonable for him to kill that person under the circumstances, and it clearly (to my mind) was not.
I think he's looking at murder. If Nel can show that he knew it was Reeva and that he's lied to cover his tracks, his sentence will be even longer.
I think so too. His defense of putative private defense was bungled, and he's shown intent - I think even for CH, he's already at Dolus Eventualis. A step above CH.
sorry if this has been said, but i've just read page 107 and someone mentioned nel asking why oscar would suddenly have thought it was reeva in the toilet and not looked for her downstairs. could it be the case that he knew she couldn't have gone downstairs because if she had, the alarm would have gone off?
possibly, although he didn't actually state that...there was also the bat leant against the door and he didn't mention that either.
Reeva's mum has to rely on hand outs to afford to get to attend the trial !
aww, that's really sad, the SA Justice system should pay for her to attend.
sorry if this has been said, but i've just read page 107 and someone mentioned nel asking why oscar would suddenly have thought it was reeva in the toilet and not looked for her downstairs. could it be the case that he knew she couldn't have gone downstairs because if she had, the alarm would have gone off?
We know the alarm was on because? The killer says so?
Alex Crawford speaks to op`s family every morning, but not with Reeva`s family, it was the way she spoke, felt a bit biased?.
they are the news, family of the accused - best way to get info is to be close to them - she leaves Steenkamps alone, respectful I think.
She does however come across bias , almost sorry for Oscar at times, but reporting on what she sees in Court , but does tend to waiver i agree.
We know the alarm was on because? The killer says so?
no, i don't think the alarm was on. i think he's guilty. but if he IS innocent, why would he not say "i thought she hadn't gone downstairs because i didn't hear the alarm go off"? the fact he didn't, to me, makes him look even more guilty because it's such an obvious line argument. that, and as hesty_smith said, the bat against the door. i agree with nel that it's a huge leap to make from simply not feeling/seeing her in the room to realising he shot her
We know the alarm was on because? The killer says so?
I think the fact that he didn't say it is really significant....I think it didn't occur to him to say that because the alarm wasn't on that night and the bat had never been resting against the door that night. Impossible to prove.... just another indicator that his testimony just doesn't ring true.
We know the alarm was on because? The killer says so?
I don't believe the alarm was on - he had to say it was because he needed to show how afraid he was of being attacked in his own home. He stumbled quite a bit when asked about why it didn't go off when he went downstairs and he said he must have automatically turned it off but had no recollection of doing so.
Comments
Will team sky stay in SA for the recess?.
Hey, Gaaron. Sadly there is nothing I am able to do about it. Take a look back.
(That is a rhetorical question}
I truly think it's gone beyond culpable homicide. For that, the court would have to believe that he made a mistake he should not have made, but a reasonable person could well have made the same mistake.
This might work if we were talking about one shot. But four? Plus the ballistics show that he shot once, moved position, then shot three more times.
The court have to decide whether he intended to kill whoever was behind the door - Reeva or not. I think he obviously did.
They then have to decide whether it was reasonable for him to kill that person under the circumstances, and it clearly (to my mind) was not.
I think he's looking at murder. If Nel can show that he knew it was Reeva and that he's lied to cover his tracks, his sentence will be even longer.
And he should know
But he did not do tests. Perhaps they were from a shirt?
I think so too. His defense of putative private defense was bungled, and he's shown intent - I think even for CH, he's already at Dolus Eventualis. A step above CH.
I have a 'feeling' that the cock, struggled with a Peahen, a person who maybe had good a life of her own.
You can read the letter in full here.
possibly, although he didn't actually state that...there was also the bat leant against the door and he didn't mention that either.
Reeva's mum has to rely on hand outs to afford to get to attend the trial !
aww, that's really sad, the SA Justice system should pay for her to attend.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/oscar-pistorius/53387/oscar-pistorius-trial-reeva-had-no-time-scream
We know the alarm was on because? The killer says so?
Good point!
She does however come across bias , almost sorry for Oscar at times, but reporting on what she sees in Court , but does tend to waiver i agree.
' The implication of this is that it would have been more acceptable to shoot an intruder the way you did. Execution from behind a closed door.'
no, i don't think the alarm was on. i think he's guilty. but if he IS innocent, why would he not say "i thought she hadn't gone downstairs because i didn't hear the alarm go off"? the fact he didn't, to me, makes him look even more guilty because it's such an obvious line argument. that, and as hesty_smith said, the bat against the door. i agree with nel that it's a huge leap to make from simply not feeling/seeing her in the room to realising he shot her
I think the fact that he didn't say it is really significant....I think it didn't occur to him to say that because the alarm wasn't on that night and the bat had never been resting against the door that night. Impossible to prove.... just another indicator that his testimony just doesn't ring true.
Dixon's a bit of light relief in some ways - they looked the same 'm'lady', I saw them with my eyes, well, not the sock ones.:D
I don't believe the alarm was on - he had to say it was because he needed to show how afraid he was of being attacked in his own home. He stumbled quite a bit when asked about why it didn't go off when he went downstairs and he said he must have automatically turned it off but had no recollection of doing so.