Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 8

[Roussette]

here is Number 7.

Evasive witness, that's very critical

Evasive witness, but she's made it clear that untruthful evidence does not always point to the accused being guilty. States caution here.

(Sorry, I lost the feed, then I lost Mumsnet. I'm now behind.)

Barry Bateman tweets are good.

She's talking about reasonable doubt, and the onus on the State to prove without doubt.

Also, lots of the evidence is circumstantial. In viewing this evidence, it must be seen whether there is any other explanation of it.

She thinks that the evidence is tipped in his favour.

The state has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty of premeditated murder.

I honestly think that it's looking very good for OP right now.

I am now between culpable homicide and being acquitted but because I do not think he will get a prison sentence I will go more with being acquitted.

I tend to agree with that - I know it's controversial, but there was little way of concluding premeditation beyond reasonable doubt. I thought that would be the case.

Trying to follow this as best I can. Sorry but as she has rejected pre meditated murder what other charges can he face? Is there anything other than what we would call manslaughter?

Has she completely dismissed premeditated murder, or just dismissed that he deliberately killed Reeva specifically? I've loaded up the computer so I can follow the video but it's tricky to hear properly when you've got 2 toddlers squawking, including one having epic tantrums because "it's not Thursday, it's just today"

Really? She's dismissed Dolus Directus (and we knew really that the State hadn't proved beyond reasonable doubt already).

Dolus eventualis still in the frame - the fact that the judge has taken a break now I think means still good chance of this.

Member, what does that mean?

What is with all the short breaks? Does she have a deal with the tv channel? The ratings must be astronomical!

I believe absolutely that there is no way OP can successfully claim he was acting in self defense and/or did not intend to hurt anyone when there was no intruder, no one to defend himself against, no actual threat to him or Reeva at all, only his GF using the toilet (at best) and he shot a powerful weapon at a closed door.

I don't see how anyone can be safe in SA from people in their own home if OP succeeds with his line of defense.

She's dealing with the question of whether you had to know who you were killing but rather if you had the intent to kill now. Dolus Eventualis.

Intention to kill.

He may not have intended to directly kill Reeva but he had intention to kill whoever was behind the door when he fired the shots.

Judge said before taking a break that if there is any reasonable chance that the defendants explanation is true however improbable then he is entitled to an acquittal.

Surely he must be guilty of something though? I mean he did kill her.
This must be torture for Reeva s family