So now you are suggesting that it was another couple in another house, and it was all just a massive coincidence?
think it's just a wind up -
I agree .with you.......none of the witnesses had any reason to lie, - too many to be a coincidence, and at 3am - all from Oscar's house. I'm not sure some are following or listened to the witnesses.
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.
No it doesn't. Premeditation is simply a decision, 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.
I have always thought that he would be found guilty of CH. But there still seems to be a different and less serious charge of murder available than that with which he's been charged. The only difference lies in the sentencing available.
Yes, pretty much it would be proved by the cross examination. I don't think Nel asked the right questions.
Whatever Nel had asked, OP would have never indicated his intention to kill someone. How possibly would you have expected to hear proof..? Isn't it just a normal deduction to say he intended to kill someone from his actions...?
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 should imagine that financially the forensics dept. in SA does the best it can with the equipment they've got. Plus after seeing how the police treated the scene...:(
Mrs Van der Merwe wasn't actually sure where the argument was coming from.
she didn't get up did she, she put a pillow over her head - and it was irritating to her , disturbing he sleep - too much of a coincidence it was on same night other witnesses heard disturbance from Oscar's house - that has to be said.
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.
That was one of the first indicators that he had no idea what his defence plea actually meant.....I'm surprised the judge just turned on her chair and didn't fall off it! I can't help thinking it makes the defense team look a tad incompetent!
I am off to bed now but I shall leave you with this very serious thought!
I think the reason Masipa said she would get back to them tomorrow relating to the 2 weeks rest is because she wanted to check for a late availability. If she can get a good deal on a break away it's a goer, if not then we won't be having the 2 weeks off.
^_^ jeeeez - the noises were coming FROM OSCAR'S HOUSE !!!
unless he had an ex in his basement !
You're wrong, again. The only person to hear the "argument" before the shots was Mrs van der Merwe and she said: "I had no idea where the voice was coming from".
It's compelling. Maybe I just need to repeat it to myself like a mantra until I'm convinced. I'd much rather be convinced of his total guilt than not know one way or another.
If you make the leap of believing the bat came before the shots, everything comes into focus.
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.
Got to admit, that was the thing that totally convinced me yesterday.
But when Roux showed the two photos of the jeans (inside and out) I questioned whether the police might well have changed many things in the room and the photo would have to be considered unreliable evidence of how the scene was that morning.
I just don't know. Why the hell were the police messing about with things in the room?
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.
I think the duvet was undoubtedly on the floor. The blood spatters are consistant on the carpet and duvet to confirm that for me. Did he carry Reeva into the bedroom or was it spatters from his clothes? I have not an idea. OP was covered in blood. He returned to the bedroom at least once if not twice. I think it's inconclusive and where it originated from is speculation. Which is why neither the defence nor the prosecution have discussed it.
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'm not certain the forensics today prove anything about OPs innocence.
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?!
If you mean his style of answering Nel's questions...then good job he didn't have to pay her / get a whopping family discount.
I should imagine that financially the forensics dept. in SA does the best it can with the equipment they've got. Plus after seeing how the police treated the scene...:(
I agree. I'm sure they do the best they can but that footprint on the door panel was a shocker.
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.
I don't know, was it suggested why there was blood on the carpet & duvet at that point?
But the prosecution have said that the killing was the end result of an argument. It's up to the state to prove the argument not the defence to prove there wasn't an argument.
I agree .with you.......none of the witnesses had any reason to lie, - too many to be a coincidence, and at 3am - all from Oscar's house. I'm not sure some are following or listened to the witnesses.
For the quadrillionth time, no-one on here has said that the witnesses are "lying".
Whatever Nel had asked, OP would have never indicated his intention to kill someone. How possibly would you have expected to hear proof..? Isn't it just a normal deduction to say he intended to kill someone from his actions...?
I agree that OP was desperately trying to avoid accepting any responsibility whatsoever but I think Nel could have pinned him down far better on why he chose that particular kind of bullets, what he thought might happen if one of them, never mind four, hit someone.
I did not find op's version implausible. I wanted to, i expected to but I didn't.
Bed for me. I am out a all day tomorrow so won't see the trial
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.
I find it significant for the reason you have said. Also, he would have noticed the duvet on the floor, in his version and that would, I believe make him question while standing there in the bedroom when he hears the window open is...Reeva can't be in bed if the duvet is on the floor, as she has just kicked it off to get out of bed and also he would notice that the bed was empty, as there is NO duvet outline on bed.
Does that make sense?
I think folk need a reminder of what a black talon bullet looks like after it has hit something.
"I didn't mean to kill anyone"
The bullet is intended to fan out into razor sharp blades and NOT pass through a body - police forces liked it as it avoided collateral damage AND was not prone to ricochet as it was soft.
But the prosecution have said that the killing was the end result of an argument. It's up to the state to prove the argument not the defence to prove there wasn't an argument.
The only 'proof', because the argument, if it took place, was between two people with nobody else present in the house, and one of the two is dead, is the witnesses stating under oath that they heard it from their houses.
Comments
think it's just a wind up -
I agree .with you.......none of the witnesses had any reason to lie, - too many to be a coincidence, and at 3am - all from Oscar's house. I'm not sure some are following or listened to the witnesses.
There is also 'no proof' that they didn't.
Mrs Van der Merwe wasn't actually sure where the argument was coming from.
I have always thought that he would be found guilty of CH. But there still seems to be a different and less serious charge of murder available than that with which he's been charged. The only difference lies in the sentencing available.
Whatever Nel had asked, OP would have never indicated his intention to kill someone. How possibly would you have expected to hear proof..? Isn't it just a normal deduction to say he intended to kill someone from his actions...?
I should imagine that financially the forensics dept. in SA does the best it can with the equipment they've got. Plus after seeing how the police treated the scene...:(
He's got a damaged shoulder but can manage to batter shit out of the door.
He claims it was pitch black but witnesses have said the lights were on.
she didn't get up did she, she put a pillow over her head - and it was irritating to her , disturbing he sleep - too much of a coincidence it was on same night other witnesses heard disturbance from Oscar's house - that has to be said.
That was one of the first indicators that he had no idea what his defence plea actually meant.....I'm surprised the judge just turned on her chair and didn't fall off it! I can't help thinking it makes the defense team look a tad incompetent!
I think the reason Masipa said she would get back to them tomorrow relating to the 2 weeks rest is because she wanted to check for a late availability. If she can get a good deal on a break away it's a goer, if not then we won't be having the 2 weeks off.
True story ;-)
Night all.
You're wrong, again. The only person to hear the "argument" before the shots was Mrs van der Merwe and she said: "I had no idea where the voice was coming from".
If you make the leap of believing the bat came before the shots, everything comes into focus.
Got to admit, that was the thing that totally convinced me yesterday.
But when Roux showed the two photos of the jeans (inside and out) I questioned whether the police might well have changed many things in the room and the photo would have to be considered unreliable evidence of how the scene was that morning.
I just don't know. Why the hell were the police messing about with things in the room?
I think the duvet was undoubtedly on the floor. The blood spatters are consistant on the carpet and duvet to confirm that for me. Did he carry Reeva into the bedroom or was it spatters from his clothes? I have not an idea. OP was covered in blood. He returned to the bedroom at least once if not twice. I think it's inconclusive and where it originated from is speculation. Which is why neither the defence nor the prosecution have discussed it.
I'm not certain the forensics today prove anything about OPs innocence.
If you mean his style of answering Nel's questions...then good job he didn't have to pay her / get a whopping family discount.
I agree. I'm sure they do the best they can but that footprint on the door panel was a shocker.
I don't know, was it suggested why there was blood on the carpet & duvet at that point?
But the prosecution have said that the killing was the end result of an argument. It's up to the state to prove the argument not the defence to prove there wasn't an argument.
For the quadrillionth time, no-one on here has said that the witnesses are "lying".
I agree that OP was desperately trying to avoid accepting any responsibility whatsoever but I think Nel could have pinned him down far better on why he chose that particular kind of bullets, what he thought might happen if one of them, never mind four, hit someone.
I did not find op's version implausible. I wanted to, i expected to but I didn't.
Bed for me. I am out a all day tomorrow so won't see the trial
I find it significant for the reason you have said. Also, he would have noticed the duvet on the floor, in his version and that would, I believe make him question while standing there in the bedroom when he hears the window open is...Reeva can't be in bed if the duvet is on the floor, as she has just kicked it off to get out of bed and also he would notice that the bed was empty, as there is NO duvet outline on bed.
Does that make sense?
Yes, I can see how that makes it all clearer
"I didn't mean to kill anyone"
The bullet is intended to fan out into razor sharp blades and NOT pass through a body - police forces liked it as it avoided collateral damage AND was not prone to ricochet as it was soft.
I wonder if Pistorius knew that or 'forgot'.
The only 'proof', because the argument, if it took place, was between two people with nobody else present in the house, and one of the two is dead, is the witnesses stating under oath that they heard it from their houses.