Mad Pistorius tries to turn murder trial into Oscar Ceremony!(76 Posts)
Not sure how many of you are watching the trial (or trying to avoid it!) but the following article from the excellent and very funny Evening Harold has found an angle with the Oscars. Enjoy!
In what way? Personally, I reckon it is poor taste that the guy is even trying to deny being guilty. Talk about an open & shut case ....!
Have you ever heard of 'innocent until proven guilty' or evidence? He has a right to a fair trial.
Bad taste maybe, but let the guy have a fair trial, sheesh.
domestic or sexual violence cases usually happen without direct witnesses. In a sense, one person's word against the other's. But one of them is innocent until proved guilty, the other a witness the defence must show is unreliable. In this case the 'witness' is dead, so that will influence things. I think the system there does not use a jury? But as ex-empire, their system derives from ours, so similar problems arise
It's only really funny if the fact that a woman died doesn't matter to you at all.
the whole thing is a spectacle. from the televisation of it to the paddypower adverts, and the fact that a man accused of murder was allowed out on bail for nearly a year - why?
But to whoever said "innocent until proven guilty," it's important to remember here that OP isn't innocent - he killed Reeva Steenkamp in cold blood. there is IMO no such thing as innocently firing several bullets through a locked door at someone who is not in a position to defend themselves. Even if it had been an intruder that course of action would not be ok.
As far as I'm aware, one of the charges against him is that it was premeditated murder, and that is what he is pleading not guilty to. He hasn't denied that he fired the shots, just that he didn't know it was her and it wasn't planned.
So in that matter, he is innocent until proven guilty.
As for firing bullets through a locked door at what may have been an intruder, that's a debate that spreads worldwide - how far should we be able to go to defend ourselves and our property? In that respect, "innocent" isn't something that can easily be defined. I have to admit, I don't know if what he 'meant to do' (as in shoot an intruder) is legal in South Africa or not. I understand what you mean, wannabe, but it isn't as simple as saying he's not innocent.
I've said this on another thread today, but if it really was a tragic accident, he has to live with that for the rest of his life. If he is found guilty, he will receive a harsh sentence.
Agree with WannaBee. He was the one who pulled the trigger that killed Reeva. The intruder theory I don't believe.
Murder vs Unbelievable Stupidity. It's hardly a win-win situation for him.
"how far should we be able to go to defend ourselves and our property?" has to be examined alongside what is our responsibility for the safety of people around us. Let's not forget he never even saw or head an intruder!
I'm very interested to see how the evidence stands up.
The article in the OP above is very poor taste. A woman lost her life at the hands of her partner - it's just not funny.
Enjoy? Seriously? A woman lost her life. A man's life as he knew it is likely over. Hilarious
It's not very funny. It's not merely that joking about this case is in bad taste, it's not very funny full stop.
Good grief, not only is it not funny, that would be serious contempt of court in this country. Don't they believe in the concept of a fair trial?
But to whoever said "innocent until proven guilty," it's important to remember here that OP isn't innocent - he killed Reeva Steenkamp in cold blood.
That is something to be decided at his trial. If he fired in self-defence, then it isn't killing in cold blood, and he is innocent. Apparently under South African law there is a lot of leeway for people using weapons to defend their homes.
I haven't heard the self defence against an unseen person locked in a neighbouring room argument, yet. Can I act on self defence against a group of people (also unseen, possibly as yet unheard) reported to be in a nearby town? I'm off to buy a shotgun.
"The intruder theory I don't believe."
Based on what?
I don't know whether he is guilty or not. I haven't seen all the evidence, nor have I read the witness statements from the 107 people who may be called up. I am not qualified to say whether he is guilty or not.
In fact, until yesterday, the only information I knew was what had been portrayed in the BRITISH media, and I don't really trust them with our own justice system, let alone that of another country. Even the 'highlights' of proceedings yesterday were edited, and you can edit things to show pretty much whatever you like.
This is the reason the trial is being televised, to show proceedings as they happen, rather than the media deciding what to show.
Luckily, the judge who does get to decide whether he is guilty or not is going to evaluate all the evidence before making a decision, rather than going on what she believes beforehand.
Part of me is beginning to wonder whether trial by jury is really all it's cracked up to be after reading some comments about this case.
That Evening Harold link is just unpleasant and not at all funny.
My heart goes out to Reeva Steenkamp's family, having to put up with this circus after losing their beloved daughter.
I also wonder what the reporting would have been like if she'd shot him through a closed door and was using the same defence - I expect we'd be hearing lots of stuff about her sexual history, and old "friends" would be turning up to describe her as a cool, calculating blonde.
I realise that people will always make jokes over tragedies, but this article is just not funny. And at least most jokes aren't printed in newspapers, but circulated 'privately', not available for any of her friends and family to see.
It's almost as though some people have forgotten that this trial is about the killing of a real life human being.
I'm South African. I'm trying to avoid this case as much as possible but it's difficult as our media seems to be focussing on little else at the moment. It's not that I'm apathetic, I'm just not interested in coming to my own conclusion based on the sensationalism in the media. The judge will decide.
My understanding of our laws ito self defence is that you may not shoot someone unless they are a direct threat to you at that moment. E.g. if you are on one side of your dining room table and there is an intruder with a knife on the other side you may not shoot him until he starts coming for you. You need to understand the crime situation in our country though. Especially in the northern parts home invasions are common. People are trigger happy for good reason. However I still don't think you can justify shooting someone through a locked door.
Well summed up Seff.
I watched a bit on TV this morning, and it was clear that some of the journalists tweets were not giving an accurate account of the witness testimony.
I am sure the judge, who is held in very high esteem, will reach a decision based on the actual evidence that there is, and will not be swayed by all that has been printed and talked about over the last year.
If he is found guilty of premeditated murder, then I am sure it will be the right decision and it will be based on the facts presented in courts. But it isn't up to me to judge based on what is printed in tabloids
"There are no juries at trials in South Africa, and his fate will ultimately be decided by Judge Thokozile Masipa."
I get a sinking feeling as I follow this trial.
Will justice really be done?
How can it all fall on one man to decide?
Woman. Who, from what I have heard, advocates very harsh sentences for violence against women. The verdict will not be given until a few weeks after all evidence has been heard. IMO, the right person for the job.
I've said it before, but so many people are convinced of his guilt before hearing all the evidence that I'm not sure trial by jury is the best course of action anyway.
Juries are our trial method for criminal cases, but they are not the only fair trial method. All our civil cases are (with super rare exceptions) tried by judges only even when they will have repercussions almost as serious as a criminal conviction. I don't have a problem with that.
Anecdotal evidence from friends and relatives who have served on juries (and some recent research) suggests to me that having a jury is not the failsafe many people imagine.
In the age of social media, and 24 hour news, can juries in high profile cases really be truly impartial?
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.