Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Oscar Pistorius trial part 3

999 replies

JillJ72 · 12/04/2014 19:08

Hiya,

Thread 1 here - www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/2022610-Oscar-Pistorius-trial

Thread 2 here - www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/2049921-Oscar-Pistorius-trial-part-2

To continue our respectful, open, interesting discussion.

OP posts:
Bonnielangbird · 13/04/2014 18:22

Ah I wondered if jacky was a name change. No relentless bias if you read the posts properly. In fact many of my last posts have included comments which would suggest he is guilty as well as those that would indicate he is telling the truth (because, as I said earlier, I don't know what to think anymore). Obsessive and disturbing is name changing and also not giving your own view.

This thread has to stay respectful, open and interesting as jill said above otherwise it becomes a bit pointless. And I'm glad that on the whole people are respectful of others opinions.

HowAboutNo · 13/04/2014 18:22

*a solid prosecutor who wouldn't be pushing for the charge if he didn't believe in it. Mad that Roux makes in a day roughly what Nel makes in a month... There's so much more money in defence, you must really believe in justice not to be attracted to it

SauceForTheGander · 13/04/2014 18:23

There's a fine line between analysing Reeva's texts, personality and how she behaved that night and victim blaming.

I know we must look at Reeva and what happened to her - but I feel uncomfortable with assertions that because she didn't run outside or make a phone call that this supports the mistaken intruder theory. I understand that it will be done on a thread about this case and that it's natural - but ultimately it's the behaviour and words of the perpetrator that should be scrutinised most closely.

Littleturkish · 13/04/2014 18:30

The most damning facts are the ones you cannot argue: he fired four times; he never checked where Reeva was before firing; he fired into a space where he would have known the person would definitely be hit and would die.

That is murder. There was no clear threat to his life, there was no reason to fire his gun. There was no need for a young woman to die.

mumsneedwine · 13/04/2014 18:31

Reeva is the victim and blameless. However her actions are the only evidence we have for what went on that night so have to be analysed. As does every aspect of her life. He has the right to put forward any evidence which might show his innocence. It's distasteful to listen to but is what courts do.

JackyDanny · 13/04/2014 18:32

Opinions are not facts.
I am saying, look at the facts.

JackyDanny · 13/04/2014 18:33

Yes turkish

mumsneedwine · 13/04/2014 18:33

But littleturkish, it's not murder under SA law IF he felt threatened. Under their law you have the right to fire if you feel unsafe.

shoppingbagsundereyes · 13/04/2014 18:34

Pistorius is fast on his stumps. He learnt how to run and walk on them and had heels grafted onto them as a young boy. This is partly why he has been so successful as an athlete. He has superb balance without prothestics.

SauceForTheGander · 13/04/2014 18:36

mumsneedwine (they do indeed Grin)

Her actions aren't the only evidence - we have his actions, word, behaviour that night and in court and witness statements.

I know we must look at where Reeva was and guess as to why - I just feel we must keep the focus on the perpetrator of this act and the facts.

Do we even know as fact that she had her phone with her or just OP's word for it?

JackyDanny · 13/04/2014 18:36

And is a world class athlete (was?) at the top of his game.
Extremely fit and strong.

Ukgal36 · 13/04/2014 18:38

I have been reading the thread here as I have also been following this story. I registered specially to respond to you. The answer to your question is yes Mr Neel nailed OP on the stand in the last 3 days. Nobody in their rightful mind will not have doubts of his innocence in their mind unless head was buried in the sand.

Ukgal36 · 13/04/2014 18:39

My response was for Louisebrook I thin that was the name

OneStepCloser · 13/04/2014 18:41

In SA you can defend yourself if you feel you are in mortal danger, thats what he has to prove.

He can certainly be foind guilty of murder even if it was an intruder in the bathroom, even in SA you cant just go shooting people.

I must admit now, I really cant see how he wont be found guilty of murder, even with good defence (christ knows what that`ll be, people coming to say hes a jolly good egg?) over the next few weeks.

He has been shown to be lax with his security.

mumsneedwine · 13/04/2014 18:42

I think her phone was found in the toilet with her. And I agree there is lots of other evidence - a lot of it conflicting. I was refering to the comments about blaming Reeva. Unfortunately the police haven't been great and lots of things not done properly which muddies the waters. Our law is not theirs and the burden of proof required is different - he will not go to jail if it is found that he believed it was an intruder. As I said, I am on the fence, but I do find it worrying that so many people are so quick to condem without hearing ALL the evidence and waiting til the trial is completed. Everyone has the right to be a fair trial.

Ukgal36 · 13/04/2014 18:42

I also relay to DH, OP said to Neel the reason he felt RS did not speak when he called out was because maybe the danger was coming towards her....thought that was him tripping over himself. The only danger coming towards RS was OP

OneStepCloser · 13/04/2014 18:44

Hes having a fair trial.

mumsneedwine · 13/04/2014 18:44

I'm afraid you can do just that Onestep. Just as you can in Florida. It's a very scary law to me as it can be so misused - remember the white man who shot the black teenager who was minding his own business. SA has the same law - he just has to price he felt threatened. I don't agree with it but it's their law.

mumsneedwine · 13/04/2014 18:45

prove not price.

Ukgal36 · 13/04/2014 18:45

OP is the best prosecution witness ever!

Littleturkish · 13/04/2014 18:48

How can he prove he felt threatened when there is no evidence (and he has offered none) that he did?

Ukgal36 · 13/04/2014 18:51

Even Jesus Christ himself while on the cross on Calvary cried out to God while in pain and distress let alone us humans. How can a gun shot hit a human flesh and the instinctive reaction is not to cry out in pain. OP out do himself here...

mumsneedwine · 13/04/2014 18:51

No idea littleturkish ! But think that's his defence. It's a mess.

AmIthatSpringy · 13/04/2014 18:52

Bonnie This thread is by and large respectful of all opinions about this case, by those of us who are following it.

I believe I was also accused of bias by one particular PP who comes across as being a wee bit goady.

I'm not the thread police, so I just ignore her posts.

There's nowt wrong with your posts Bonnie We can all ask questions that pertain to how this crime unfolded, or could have unfolded. Some ask the questions from a position of understanding the crime scene and questioning what does or doesn't make sense to us. Some ask questions or make assertions based on personal experiences. Some do the same with only the briefestl knowledge of the case and the crime scene

Doesn't matter though, as long as we can ask, and listen to other's points of view.

It's when some posters start goading and slagging off the viewpoint of others that threads can quickly become confrontational.

Which is a real shame

Animation · 13/04/2014 18:57

Bonnie - there's no name change. 'Disturbing' was your word - turned back on you. As for respect Reeva needs respecting.

Swipe left for the next trending thread