Oscar Pistorius trial part 4

[Pennies]

Here you go.

As BeCool says,

We'll never know if he killed Reeva or not, but there are no reasonable grounds to believe that there was an intruder.

Totally agree with BeCool.

I seem to say that a lot.

Even if he did genuinely think there was an intruder & was gung-ho enough to go towards the perceived danger; why not shout that you're armed/fire a warning shot into the air in addition to shouting "get the fuck out of my house"?

I've looked again at those murder definitions, and I'm wrong about being wrong.

MURDER – DOLUS EVENTUALIS

It’s important to understand that in this crime, the identity of victim and existence of motive are not in question, what is in question is whether the conduct itself and the way it was done suffices as in intent to kill.

So at this point it doesn't matter if he thought it was Reeva behind the door or not. If he thought that he was likely to kill them by going through the actions, then that is enough for Murder Dolus Eventualis.

So - did he intend to kill whomever was behind that door? 4 shots in a cluster, using the specific sort of weapon he did? Yes - he intended to kill.

In which case in my opinion, he's definitely guilty of Murder Dolus Eventualis.

He is (in my opinion) guilty of the culpable homicide of Reeva, because he did not sufficiently check where she was before firing.

Eminent South African lawyer on sky news says tonight he believes nel went for overkill but believes which ever way you dress it up OP is guilty of murder. Said OP not credible

Sorry - I know that the rest of you got that ages ago.

Considering the shocking rates of domestic violence in SA, I'd expect the judge to be very aware of the dynamics of abusers.

It struck me today that people are talking about this case in the context of how much violent crime there is in SA, but really the comparable statistic should be how often (with that fear of violent crime) that people 'accidentally' kill a loved one. It really isn't that common even in SA that people disregard the safety of their loved ones to tackle an intruder, and end up killing a family member/friend. Yes, there is the case where the man killed his dd but we all know about that case because it isn't common.

Just signing in.

I have been reading over the thread, catching up. I am off to you tube to watch today's proceedings.

I caught a bit of channel 5 news when the presenter asked some "expert" if he thought the judge had all the information she needed and had made up her mind. Why bother with defence then

I agree with Nerf and others about the embellished reconstructions and the online diagnosis of a personality disorder.

I'm not the thread police (again) so I'll just move on from these

I have a question for those who heard today. Do you think, with the height and angle of the shots that it is beyond reasonable doubt that he intended to kill.

Oh, and someone mentioned the order of the bullets. I seem to remember fro week 1 or 2, Roux saying that the didn't agree with the bullet order. I read somewhere that the defence case was that Reeva was bent over, with her ear to the door, as if listening. I think that was mentioned as it was relevant as to how she fell and whether she could scream.

I agree, I think it's going to be a stretch for him to be found not guilty of murder. It's going to be a very tough decision for the judge. If she thinks that he is telling the truth but still believes him to be guilty of murder, will she be more lenient on him with regard to sentencing, since she will believe him to have accidentally murdered somebody very dear to him and will therefore have suffered hugely already?

Sorry, that's meant to say I agree with Looking...

I think if she rules he has been lying he will have zero leniency
I am also not at all convinced she is anything but impartial and fair : she has stopped Nel and questioned him but I'm not reading any preferential treatment of OP into this.

I really feel sorry for the situation he is in actually. All this for a short relationship, what a terrible outcome for both of them. He faces years in prison, losing all his achievements, and she has died in terrible circumstances. The horror must be unbearable for him and her family.

I find the defence hard to accept.

I don't feel sorry for him at all. I have friends in SA who have told me what a violent place it is. Most people who live there don't end up shooting theirs partners though do they? He either did it on purpose or acted with total negligence of anyone's safety.

"Equally, if he genuinely thought there was an intruder, I hope he isn't convicted of murder." why not? Even if he genuinely thought there was an intruder, the apparent risk was not immediate. The door was closed. Whoever might have been on the other side was not immediately there to put his life at risk.

Imagine you wake up in the night and you hear a noise downstairs. You think it might be a burglar (we've probably all been there in a sleep haze), you get up and walk down the stairs armed with whatever you could find, cricket bat/maglight (I've always maintained one of those would make a good weapon) and creep into the darkness. You hear the sound and lash out at whatever it is, hitting it several times until it crumples to the floor. At the moment you haven't seen who or whatever it is. Now that it's debilitated you turn on the light and discover to your horror that it's one of your dc. Would you think if someone did that here that would be acceptable as a defence in court? because I don't. If the risk is unknown, the fear does not excuse the reaction...

One thing I've wondered - am I right in thinking that the bathroom leads into the toilet, so there is a separate toilet door inside the bathroom? In which case, does the bathroom have a door also? because if it does, then wouldn't an option have been to close and lock the bathroom door with the perceived intruder inside the already locked toilet, thus giving time to get out/call the police?

book it is a recorded statistic that three women a day are killed by their partner in SA.

Blatant place mark

Wanna - think bathroom has no door and toilet has one

Wannabe, I said that when I was still under the impression that he would have to have identified Reeva for any of the murder charges to stick.

Given that it doesn't actually matter who he thought was in there, yes, I think he is guilty of murder, and hope he is found guilty.

I've tried to work out what on earth I mean when I wrote that, given that I don't feel that right now. I think what I meant is that if he genuinely thought he was killing an intruder, then I hope he doesn't get found guilty of deliberately murdering Reeva (specifically Reeva).

I think what was going through my head was, if he sits in prison feeling that injustice, then the whole of it becomes all about him and how hard done to he is, because he was telling the truth and he didn't know it was Reeva and so forth.

If he goes to prison because there's no way he could possibly have thought that anyone could have lived through his attack, it would be harder for him to argue against and claim the injustice. He can't say 'but I was so scared so it wasn't my fault!' because the reply to that is 'doesn't matter; you gave the person behind the door no chance of surviving, which is why you're here.'

Does that make sense?

Again, we're into the realms of speculation now. I suppose, what it boils down to is this; what does he have more chance of mounting a successful appeal for; intending to kill specifically Reeva (hard to prove what was in his head with the circumstantial evidence), or intending to kill whoever was behind the door (where his intent and thoughts aren't in question; only his actions are, and we know what he did).

wannaBe - there is no door to the bathroom.

It's temping to feel sorry for him and all he has lost until you remind yourself that he brought this on himself. Reeva had no choice in the matter. Wrap hat do you think he will do if/when he goes to prison? I think prison would very difficult for him in all kinds of ways.

*what

Where did wrap hat come from?!

Apologies for a banal question but why does Oscar answer questions with Mi'lady? Is he required to answer as though the female judge has questioned him? I'm loving your
Forensic examination of the process in your thread. I've learned a lot but I have nothing to offer. (Except my opinion of course but I bring nothing new there either.)