Oscar Pistorius Trial part 9

[JillJ72]

Starting a new thread as part 8 is nearly full, here - www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/2080468-Oscar-Pistorius-Trial-Part-8

My problem is that every definition of dolus eventualis I've read seems to fit what Pistorius did. But I accept that Judge Masipa knows far more about this than I.

What did the judge say about the stomach contents evidence?

This is one (of many other) things that disturbs me about the verdict. She dismissed it as not an exact science- but the science did clearly indicate that she had eaten far later than OP's version allowed for. It's an indication that they were awake, not asleep in bed. Another indication that OP lied.

I suppose it's only an indication ths she was awake.

How on earth are her stomach contents an indication that they were awake. It was said in the trial that she could have gone downstairs at any time after he fell asleep
Genuinely, how are her stomach contents an indication that he lied?

The assessor even asked for clarity that Reeva knew how to operate the alarm, so she could quite easily have gone downstairs for a snack.

That's the thing with all the evidence presented in court, and probably why he was found not guilty of murder - there is an alternative explanation for everything

If she ate something later - and the stomach contents indicate that she did - it is an indication (one of many) that his version might not be true - he said they were both asleep in bed.

But then, according to his version, he obviously wasn't too knowledgeable on Reeva's whereabouts that night. What with shooting her by 'accident' and all.

... and he said that when he woke up, she was already awake.

Pretty ropey proof that he is a liar. It doesn't prove anything.

I didn't say it was proof - I said it could be an indication that he was untruthful in the witness box. One of many. Even the judge said his evidence was unreliable and untruthful.

The thing that gets me about the stomach contents is that Dr Saayman said she had recogniizable food in her stomach. He also said digestions does not stop after death. Her body was not refrigerated until 1145am. So if digestion continues after death why after 10 hours was there any recognizable food in her stomach even if she had eaten at 1am. And how did he determine that she ate more or less 2 hours prior to death based on his findings.

There was also no indication that they had eaten late that evening. No partially eaten meal on the table. No dirty dishes in the sink or in the bedroom. If she had eaten a snack seems like something light and easy to fix would be easier than dragging out leftovers from dinner, heating up and washing dishes. If arguing during meal why wash dishes during an argument?

I said it could be an indication that he was untruthful in the witness box.

could sits right at the very heart of reasonable doubt. I understand the disquiet of many posters above but I do think some of them just aren't thinking in the context of beyond reasonable doubt. I found that a two-day session of jury deliberations in the UK made me think very carefully about what might be reasonable and what not. A very plausible version of how things went on doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

That said if Pistorius doesn't spend years in prison this will be an insult to the Steenkamp family.

I completely missed the end of the last thread so have just been catching up. I must admit I was shocked at the verdict and will be interested to see the sentencing.

It's tragic that Reeva's family are unhappy with the verdict and that some women's rights groups are concerned it gives violent men carte blanche to shoot their partners.

The problem I have with this case is the one I've had from the very beginning ie if there is only one witness and they are also the accused then how can you ever determine guilt? There will only be circumstantial evidence and if that isn't strong enough to uphold a murder conviction then it would imply one can't be found guilty of murder in those circumstances unless you confess. I understand such an approach protects the 'innocent' accused but it doesn't protect innocent potential victims.

I'm not questioning this decision just musing on the principle of law which it represents. It seems to imply that a conviction hinges on a confession from a remorseful accused.

There's a brilliant article in the guardian which I'll try and link to. I'm in the trust the judge and presume not knowing it's Reeva camp but this is the first clear article to make me really question my thinking.

That would be an interesting read Nerf. Is it online? I'll google it

Yes it's in the guardian app and twitter by Deborah Orr. It's really the only thing I've read that actually made me think again about accepting the whole confused, middle of the night thing. And no, I'm not a Superfan.

I'll go and read it

And neither am I!!!

I think I am used to the last 9 threads where by and large posters have been respectful, enquiring and open to debate and willing to share their sources. Even if they don't agree.

It was a bit of a shock to see some of the bile on that other thread. One poster even made light of OP getting "buggered nightly" by Big Daddy or something. Post has now been deleted.

I have said, for the last 9 threads, that I was on the fence and would listen to all the evidence. Also that I trusted the judge.

Now I'm off to find your article - I might change my mind

No the other thread is very odd, as if you've got to be enemies or something for having a different view point. Given up.

Interesting article here from Andrew Harding whose reporting has been good all through the trial.

Nerf I read the guardian piece, which was interesting, but did have some errors, such as Reeva being asleep in bed, when it was said in court that she was awake, etc.

The article also says that a number of his former girlfriends found his attitude problematic. This was said on the other thread, so I'm wondering where this is coming from.

It was more the tone I think, I can't remember the details anymore of who was awake when but it was refreshing to read. She was awake he says wasn't she.

That Deborah Orr article is emotionally stirring, but doesn't really add anything in terms of the law.
I think it is highly likely the prosecution will appeal, based on what I read in another guardian article, this one, by a S.A. lawyer who says "I would say that the law is clear – it doesn't have to be a specific person whose death can be foreseen, it can be anyone." so this disagrees with the point by upnorth earlier, about transferred intent, i.e. he argues it doesn't matter if OP didn't intend to kill Reeva, if he could have forseen the death of any person, it is still common-law murder.

The Deborah Orr piece was interesting as was the Andrew Harding.
I think that they both make good points

I think OP himself said that he has a very fiery relationship with his first long term gf and then there was discussion that his relationship with Sam Taylor being of a similar vein. I have no idea how straightforward Ms Taylor's evidence is in this regard.
The messages from Ms Steenkamp would also indicate that at times he had a temper that was worrying
According to the testimony of OP Ms Steenkamp was awake when he awoke and her stomach contents would certainly indicate that she might have been awake but had been awake in the hours preceding her killing.

I didn't post it for the legal side more it was the first thing is read to persuade me more towards 'he knew'

I thought the video of Andrew Harding in OP's house was interesting. Despite seeing the toilet in court and all the animations/drawings of the scene, it felt quite different to actually see someone walk from the bedroom down the corridor to the bathroom.

I must admit I watched it prior to the judgement being delivered and it made me think OP must have known it was Reeva. The corridor seemed longer and more enclosed than I had imagined which made it seem like a much more deliberate act to set off down the corridor rather than to flee the room. Plus the distance between OP and the toilet door was much shorter than I had imagined. Again, it just made it seem even more unlikely that Reeva wouldn't have called out in reponse to all the noise OP was making.

Poor Reeva and her poor family. It's awful that they have had to sit through much and still don't feel they have justice. I really wish, for their sake, that OP had been a much more credible witness.

One thing I can't quite reconcile is why she would lock herself in the loo if scared, it's the most trapped part of the house really.
But we only have OPs version which says it was locked.

I see that he is to write a book. That is shocking

Oh dear. I really hate the trend of convicted murderers writing books. (I know he wasn't convicted of murder but am unsure what the equivalent is for culpable homicide!). It puts OP in the same club as Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. It's so disrespectful to the victims.

I hope it's not true.

Did you guys read this?
Utterly confused and in a past life I did two law degrees ( UK )