An appeal to benjamini and shorty knickers...please, please, please stop filling up the thread with your on going spat....both of you have been excellent contributors to this discussion until recently. I can't be the only one who's started skating over your posts because I assume it's just a continuation of the on-going bickering...which is a shame, as I'm probably missing some of the interesting stuff that you're posting! Please call a truce and just focus on sharing your thoughts on the trial again!
The value of the ignore list should never be underestimated! ;-)
I don't think it has been proved that he intended to kill someone. It has certainly been proved IMO that he intended to shoot someone but not necessarily to kill. I know its a subtle difference but to me its a significant one.
So just wound them a little bit with four black talons you mean?
I don't think it has been proved that he intended to kill someone. It has certainly been proved IMO that he intended to shoot someone but not necessarily to kill. I know its a subtle difference but to me its a significant one.
If it was one bullet fired haphazardly I might be able to agree but four lethal bullets in a very small, enclosed space does not leave much room for any doubt of his intentions IMO or room for survival for the person being shot at.
Of course he may have just been really confused .... but I agree, that is a big slip!
I have a really strong feeling I remembered seeing the judge actually flinch at a particular stage in the proceedings and I think it was when OP said that. It was the only time I have seen her do that and I think she must have thought did he really say that too.
If it was one bullet fired haphazardly I might be able to agree but four lethal bullets in a very small, enclosed space does not leave much room for any doubt of his intentions IMO or room for survival for the person being shot at.
If the person had been standing to the right of the doorway then none of the bullets would've even made contact.
I don't think it has been proved that he intended to kill someone. It has certainly been proved IMO that he intended to shoot someone but not necessarily to kill. I know its a subtle difference but to me its a significant one.
Don't think I've ever been convinced that he killed Reeva intentionally but I feel he deliberately shot that gun to kill whoever was behind that door.
I think one of the biggest slip-ups OP made, was while Nel was asking him why he didn't check if Reeva had escaped through the bedroom door and OP said why would she go through the bedroom door, the incident happened in the bathroom.
If his version was true, really really true, then he would have assumed and hoped that Reeva would have phoned the police as he had instructed her to, and then she would have had to go down and let them in. So it was probable, not just possible, she would have left through the bedroom door, possibly closing the door behind her.
It just doesnt make sense, as Nel said, that he jumped from thinking there was an intruder to thinking it was Reeva, just because he didn't see her in the bedroom. She could have hidden in a cupboard, but OP didn't want to waste time he was already breaking the door down. He had to know it was her. The clue was in him saying "why would she go through the bedroom door - the incident took place in the bathroom", because the part of the incident involving Reeva had not taken part in the bathroom, it was in the bedroom, if his version was true.
If his version is not true and he knew it was her in the toilet, then it would (did) slip out as an obvious remark, because afterall, how could she go through the bedroom door, when she was in the toilet!
BIB. Looks like a slip up to me.
I can hardly believe that he said that. It makes it clear that in his mind Reeva is in the bathroom, not the bedroom.
How can she have left the bedroom? Because it's where he originally said he thought she was, and has to have been, for the very notion of his innocence to stand up.
But if intended to shoot someone (regardless of their identity) for no real valid reason shouldn't that be murder not culpable homicide? I agree I wanted an even stronger case to prove it was Reeva he was purposefully firing at, I was hoping the mobile phone records of thar night would prove more useful, but either way he had no reason to shoot and kill whoever was behind that door and that should therefore be considered as murder.
Agreed, I was hoping, and indeed I have followed the trial to find out if there would be some incontrovertible piece of evidence that proved he knew he was shooting at Ms Steenkamp. But without it's still 'murder'.
I dont see how he can be found not guilty. he has already admitted that he did murder Reeva but is denying that he knew it was Reeva who was in the bathroom. Even if he did not know, he still murdered her.
Even if it was an intruder, there are other ways he could have got out that room but instead he decided to shoot knowing that he would probably murder whoever was in the bathroom.
If the person had been standing to the right of the doorway then none of the bullets would've even made contact.
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.
The one thing to me that is in no doubt is that he is guilty of murder. Whether you believe that he was firing at Reeva or you believe that he was firing at a supposed intruder, either way he knowingly shot four times at someone in an enclosed space with lethal bullets, giving them no chance to escape. He was not threatened by anyone and has no reasonable justification for taking this action other than an over active imagination, which isn't an acceptable excuse for killing someone. He did not warn whoever was in the toilet that he was armed nor did he choose any course of reasonable action to find out who was in there or alternatively to escape the threat. If he had tried to warn whoever he imagined was there (and she wasn't his intended target) then he would have known it was Reeva.
What really concerns me here if the verdict is not guilty, other than a murderer walking away scott free which would already be bad enough, is the wider implications of such a verdict. It would send out a message of shoot first, think later to other gun wielding individuals in SA and the world over.
We are only hearing about this case because of it's celebrity status, but if after all this OP is still not found guilty then why should any other individual in a similar situation be found guilty? What would stop them from citing the OP case as part as their defence and winning on that basis? Basically a not guilty verdict would mean if you can claim you thought it might be someone else that you shot and killed then you could literally get away with murder.
I don't think that is right any way you choose to look at it.
Very very good post.
As an aside, what's with the petty squabbling all of a sudden? People have different views and different ways of posting - the personal insults and non case related debate (I know better than you - no I do - you're stupid - my dad is bigger than yours..) is ruining the thread.
ETA: was a bit late with my second comments. Looks like it's all sorted now - cheers hesty!
The charge of premeditated murder applies to a) Ms Steenkamp or b) a burglar. Intentionally firing at either is murder. If the prosecution could not prove that he knew he was firing at Ms Steenkamp, he could still be found guilty of murder of what he thought was a burglar...
Yes, I appreciate that. I am saying i dont think the prosecution proved he knew he was killing Reeva. He may be found guilty of murder, but in my opinion he won't be found guilty of intentionally killing Reeva and I think the most likely outcome is guilty of culpable homicide
So just wound them a little bit with four black talons you mean?
Yes, the type of ammo he used may be what gets him a murder conviction. I don't think it is certain though. I think the least he will get is a guilty verdict on culpable homicide.
I don't think it has been proved that he intended to kill someone. It has certainly been proved IMO that he intended to shoot someone but not necessarily to kill. I know its a subtle difference but to me its a significant one.
They only have to prove that he knew his actions could lead to the death of someone IIRC.
If the person had been standing to the right of the doorway then none of the bullets would've even made contact.
Can I ask what you read into that?
Is it an intruder would have had more sense?
Reeva would have had more sense?
Or is Nel perhaps correct, and they were indeed shouting at each other through the door?
I have no idea myself.
If it was one bullet fired haphazardly I might be able to agree but four lethal bullets in a very small, enclosed space does not leave much room for any doubt of his intentions IMO or room for survival for the person being shot at.
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.
I don't, sorry. I can see how hearing a window opening in the night, when he believed the only other person in the house was in bed, would send him into a "frenzy of fear and terror". Whether it did or not is obviously debatable but I can understand how it could happen.
but the neighbours heard both Reeva and Oscar AWAKE - before the shots and Reeva was killed, so all the talk of windows open, hearing it, other person in the house other than Reeva and Oscar !! rubbish - Even Oscar couldn't remember his own statements, because he was lying , that was obvious , or he'd not need to have been reminded all the time what the hell his (first) version was that he signed, and he changed his version often enough anyway !
I don't think it has been proved that he intended to kill someone. It has certainly been proved IMO that he intended to shoot someone but not necessarily to kill. I know its a subtle difference but to me its a significant one.
Really? How would that proof have needed to present itself? Other than him admitting it
Don't think I've ever been convinced that he killed Reeva intentionally but I feel he deliberately shot that gun to kill whoever was behind that door.
You don't think the bathroom light being on when OP was supposed to be wandering around too terrified to put it on means that his story is all a fabrication?
but the neighbours heard both Reeva and Oscar AWAKE - before the shots and Reeva was killed, so all the talk of windows open, hearing it, other person in the house other than Reeva and Oscar !! rubbish - Even Oscar couldn't remember his own statements, because he was lying , that was obvious , or he'd not need to have been reminded all the time what the hell his (first) version was that he signed, and he changed his version often enough anyway !
Unfortunately there is no proof of that whatsoever.
Comments
The value of the ignore list should never be underestimated! ;-)
So just wound them a little bit with four black talons you mean?
If it was one bullet fired haphazardly I might be able to agree but four lethal bullets in a very small, enclosed space does not leave much room for any doubt of his intentions IMO or room for survival for the person being shot at.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284048/Oscar-Pistorius-aunt-Micki-I-condone-serial-killers-I-understand-them.html
I have a really strong feeling I remembered seeing the judge actually flinch at a particular stage in the proceedings and I think it was when OP said that. It was the only time I have seen her do that and I think she must have thought did he really say that too.
If the person had been standing to the right of the doorway then none of the bullets would've even made contact.
Don't think I've ever been convinced that he killed Reeva intentionally but I feel he deliberately shot that gun to kill whoever was behind that door.
Well exactly she is dead, he is alive, needs to save his skin now
BIB. Looks like a slip up to me.
I can hardly believe that he said that. It makes it clear that in his mind Reeva is in the bathroom, not the bedroom.
How can she have left the bedroom? Because it's where he originally said he thought she was, and has to have been, for the very notion of his innocence to stand up.
Agreed, I was hoping, and indeed I have followed the trial to find out if there would be some incontrovertible piece of evidence that proved he knew he was shooting at Ms Steenkamp. But without it's still 'murder'.
Even if it was an intruder, there are other ways he could have got out that room but instead he decided to shoot knowing that he would probably murder whoever was in the bathroom.
Hang her high. ;-)
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!!
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.
hoorah!!!!!!!!!:)
Very very good post.
As an aside, what's with the petty squabbling all of a sudden? People have different views and different ways of posting - the personal insults and non case related debate (I know better than you - no I do - you're stupid - my dad is bigger than yours..) is ruining the thread.
ETA: was a bit late with my second comments. Looks like it's all sorted now - cheers hesty!
Yes, I appreciate that. I am saying i dont think the prosecution proved he knew he was killing Reeva. He may be found guilty of murder, but in my opinion he won't be found guilty of intentionally killing Reeva and I think the most likely outcome is guilty of culpable homicide
Yes, the type of ammo he used may be what gets him a murder conviction. I don't think it is certain though. I think the least he will get is a guilty verdict on culpable homicide.
They only have to prove that he knew his actions could lead to the death of someone IIRC.
Can I ask what you read into that?
Is it an intruder would have had more sense?
Reeva would have had more sense?
Or is Nel perhaps correct, and they were indeed shouting at each other through the door?
I have no idea myself.
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.
He has to save pennies where he can.
Really? How would that proof have needed to present itself? Other than him admitting it
You don't think the bathroom light being on when OP was supposed to be wandering around too terrified to put it on means that his story is all a fabrication?
Unfortunately there is no proof of that whatsoever.