Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend
Discussion
TheSnitch said:
You think the prosecution has it's work cut out? Are we watching the same trial?
Yes we are. The defence are all smoke and mirrors but Nel has not yet nailed it. He ruined Dixon. If he can do the same to today's tedious witness then progress might be made.It's the amateurish set up of the whole trial that makes me skeptical that justice as most of us see it may be done.
10 Pence Short said:
I haven't watched every moment of this trial. However, it is worth remembering, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, yet the defence only has to introduce that doubt.
Nothing is certain until the verdict arrives.
I don't see any way of proving OP's intent on the night. So I disagree that this has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. I believe that they are simply proving that OP's story is inconsistent, unreliable and evasive. Once they show that he is lying then they prove their case.Nothing is certain until the verdict arrives.
He admits the shooting and was present. So it's only his intent that is being judged. you cant 'prove' someones intent as its in their mind, but you can judge that the evidence that they have given is untruthful and unreliable, OP has to present a truthful story of events that support his version and his lack of intent. If this story is not believed, and can be judged as being untruthful, he'll be found guilty, as the only alternative to him telling the truth is him lying because his intent was to kill her. If there is enough circumstantial evidence to support his evidence, then there will be enough doubt to sway the judge. However, none of the 'circumstantial' evidence seems to be supporting his story. In fact, most stuff seems to contradict him.
A better defence for him would have been that he was sleep walking and not in control of himself. But to state that he believed he knew she was still in bed and that he knew therefore that she wasn't in the toilet cannot be believed. His insistence on arguing with the prosecutors over some very tiny details does him no favours when he has to admit why he 'can't remember' some of the major details or change his evidence.
I can see a retrial/appeal due to his poor defence team messing him up. But the difference between this trial in SA and most trials is that he doesn't have access to his defence team whilst giving evidence. This is what's killed him IMHO. In most western countries his defence would have been coaching him throughout......
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I'd go with that as well. And so far the prosecution hasn't come close to establishing Pistorious knew Reeva was behind the door. The most anyone can hope for is OP has some kind of breakdown and admits to deliberately killing Reeva, but the little s
t is too busy feeling sorry for himself to do that. goldblum said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I'd go with that as well. And so far the prosecution hasn't come close to establishing Pistorious knew Reeva was behind the door. The most anyone can hope for is OP has some kind of breakdown and admits to deliberately killing Reeva, but the little st is too busy feeling sorry for himself to do that. whichever, reeva or burglar, they were not posing a threat to him so this could never have been self defence. The difference is surely only between a really long prison term and a really really long one.
Efbe said:
thing I don't get is does it actually change anything?
whichever, reeva or burglar, they were not posing a threat to him so this could never have been self defence. The difference is surely only between a really long prison term and a really really long one.
Premeditated murder will carry a much longer (it's all relative I suppose) sentence. But you're right - it's murder of one kind or another.whichever, reeva or burglar, they were not posing a threat to him so this could never have been self defence. The difference is surely only between a really long prison term and a really really long one.
Don't. Forget that OP has already denied several times intending to kill anyone. He said in evidence that the gun went off unintentionally. He said he didn't shoot to kill anyone, not Reva and not a burglar. He's contradicted his own evidence that he fired intentionally due to feeling threatened.
So he's saying to the judge that the whole thing is a terrible accident. The judge won't believe that, because its horse st. If the judge decides that he's lying, and that his evidence is all lies, then there is no evidence opposing the prosecutions case that it was murder. Pistorious has to provide enough evidence so that there is doubt that it was premeditated murder, and he isn't doing a good job.
Pistorious has been shown to be changing his story as evidence is being presented, to suit his defence. He's been shown to need time to consider his replies to the prosecutors questions so as to work out what the best answer to give is. He's been called a liar in court over his answers, and he's been found wanting in the ability to provide a straight forward answer to many questions. All these things show him as being a liar, and the only answer the judge can draw from that is he's evading telling the truth because the truth is the opposite of the story he tells.
If his version of events is not acceptable then they are disregarded and the prosecutions case has to be accepted.
So he's saying to the judge that the whole thing is a terrible accident. The judge won't believe that, because its horse s
t. If the judge decides that he's lying, and that his evidence is all lies, then there is no evidence opposing the prosecutions case that it was murder. Pistorious has to provide enough evidence so that there is doubt that it was premeditated murder, and he isn't doing a good job. Pistorious has been shown to be changing his story as evidence is being presented, to suit his defence. He's been shown to need time to consider his replies to the prosecutors questions so as to work out what the best answer to give is. He's been called a liar in court over his answers, and he's been found wanting in the ability to provide a straight forward answer to many questions. All these things show him as being a liar, and the only answer the judge can draw from that is he's evading telling the truth because the truth is the opposite of the story he tells.
If his version of events is not acceptable then they are disregarded and the prosecutions case has to be accepted.
TTmonkey said:
... Pistorious has to provide enough evidence so that there is doubt that it was premeditated murder, and he isn't doing a good job...
I'm not familiar with the SA legal system but isn't it more like ours in that it's actually down to the prosecution to prove beyond doubt that he did it intentionally? Of course proving yourself to be a self obsessed egotist with a propensity to tell fibs probably won't help your cause. But of itself may not be enough.
(I'd find him guilty just on watching him have a strop after being beaten at the Olympics. Seems like a very disingenuous and unpleasant individual to me. Thankfully I'm not a judge
). Murph7355 said:
TTmonkey said:
... Pistorious has to provide enough evidence so that there is doubt that it was premeditated murder, and he isn't doing a good job...
I'm not familiar with the SA legal system but isn't it more like ours in that it's actually down to the prosecution to prove beyond doubt that he did it intentionally? Of course proving yourself to be a self obsessed egotist with a propensity to tell fibs probably won't help your cause. But of itself may not be enough.
(I'd find him guilty just on watching him have a strop after being beaten at the Olympics. Seems like a very disingenuous and unpleasant individual to me. Thankfully I'm not a judge
). In that case, a gang of youths chased a lad into a shop and corner him. He gets stabbed, in the leg. He dies of blood loss after the attack. The prosecution could not identify the indevidual in the gang that struck the fatal blow. Only 2 of the five seemed to have weapons. Yet all 5 were convicted of murder. There was no need to prove intent. I would guess that if you stab someone in the leg your intent isn't murder, it's GBH, or similar. I would also suggest that it's impossible to prove that all 5 youths in the gang had intent to commit murder. But it does not matter, it ended in murder and they were all convicted of murder. So how has the prosecution proven intent to commit murder in this case? It hasn't needed to.
Even the prosecutors admit that the boys set out to injure the victim.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news...
All the prosecution in this case of OP really need to show is that he knew that she was in there and that he's lying about the intruder/burglar scenario. That's enough to convict him of the murder of Steenkamp, they don't need to prove his intent to actually kill her by shooting at the door. I believe the only truth he's told is that he didn't 'intend' to kill her. But that doesn't make it manslaughter, it's still murder, if he shot multiple times at her knowing she was behind the door.
When he was blubbing about not 'wanting' to kill her he means that he hadn't sat down and planned it some days before. What I believe he means is that he didn't 'want' his own life ruined by the actions he took in what was probably some blind rage during an argument/fight which he escalated beyond the control of his fame and public stature can control.
He lost control, he went past the point where everyone else simply turns and punches the nearest door/wall in rage, and he showed her good and proper. He probably came to his senses within seconds of what he had done and he's been in denial ever since.
I think also the calibre of the idiots that the defence has called in the last few days also shows that they struggle to find anyone with proper credentials willing to take the stand to defend this guy. That to me is damning. If the best you can get is bumbling washed up non professionally recognised defence witnesses then you are struggling to be believed.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
EFBE above is correct. If he thought it was a burglar = culpable homicide (our manslaughter), shorter sentence but up to 15 years and judge has absolute discretion to even set him free if convicted. Even if a burglar you can not shoot if they do not pose an immediate threat. there are many tests for what constitutes an immediate threat and OP is not even close.Murder is a different kettle of fish. He must have known she was behind the door and he shot. Given this, death is foreseeable. They do not have to prove he intended to kill her, just that he knew she was in the bathroom and he shot. This is why OP claims involuntary shooting i.e that the gun just discharged and is reserved for rare cases of people who do terrible things whilst in an uncontrollable fit. Murder carries a mandatory sentence in SA of 25 years.
We also have 5 years a piece of the gun charges(X3). The man is going to prison, for how long is up to the judge. We won't know until at least mid June
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff