Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Oscar Pistorius
- Thread starter cjd
- Start date
m20gull
Well-known member
Not just me then. I suppose that as he is the only witness the only way that the prosecution can 'prove' murder is by showing him to be a liar by discrediting his story.
SK1NT
Well-known member
You have to be mad to think he's not guilty however what there is no argument about is that he pulled a trigger and killed someone... Manslaughter minimum?
symyjym
Banned
He has been caught out on lies leading up to the incident. If he really thought there was an intruder he wouldn't have to make stuff up as he goes along. He is contradicting his bail statement and also adding to it.
Footsoldier
Banned
- May 26, 2013
- 2,904
Does life mean life for convicted murders in South Africa or is it like here when someone gets sentenced to life with the recommendation that the individual serves a minimum of 6 years?
Hillian1
( . ) ( . )
I'm sort of with you on this, I know in this country it has to be "Beyond ALL reasonable doubt" but not sure what it is in SA.
Well there is a doubt in my mind, a tiny little one maybe, but a doubt all the same.
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
This is why I am finding the trial fascinating. There is no hard evidence of murder, and there was never likely to be. The prosecution have picked loads and loads of holes in his story, so is that enough to sway the judge? His story is extremely improbable and the fact that he keeps changing it and remembering some things and not others isn't helping, but will the judge see it that way? It is beyond a reasonable doubt here too, which is very vague. I do not find much in his story that is reasonable.
He has also pleaded guilty to 3 other charges, 1 of which it has been shown that he is guilty (the illegal ammunition charge - it is a simple case of the law), 1 is the shooting in the restaurant where he is obviously guilty and the other is the firearm out of the sunroof one, where he says it didn't happen, the 2 others said it did. So this also cannot help as it goes against his character.
Not quite.
The standard in the UK for criminal cases is "beyond reasonable doubt"; no "all". Juries frequently ask for guidance as to what that means. The officially approved guidance is that judges can say it means that they need to be persuaded by the arguments put forward in Court "so that you are sure".
I haven't followed the OP case closely, so can't offer an opinion as to his his guilt or otherwise, nor can I offer any guidance on what the standard of proof is in SA.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
I'd say 3 bullets in a dead victim are hard evidence. The circumstantial evidence is how those bullets came to be there. Even in believing OP's defense, he shot to kill with no provocation, no actual threat to his life other than hearing a couple of sounds. To me, he is guilty of murder both within the state's case and his own defense even taking into account South African law.
He is the only direct witness, and the facts of the case are that he took his gun and shot to kill. We have to try to believe a highly improbable defense in that in those brief moments of him bringing the fans in Reeva managed to slip past him to toilet, in the pitch black maybe carrying her phone for light.
She slide open the window and shut the toilet door within the bathroom area and for whatever reason locked in. OP then got his gun on hearing those noises said to the now empty bed 'get down, phone the police' and walked down the passage shouting 'get out of my house.
Reeva at this point knows there is no one in the bathroom as she is in there. She can only assume (within OP's story) that an intruder is somewhere else in the house, and yet she doesn't say a single word. She has her phone with her but doesn't make a call. OP then hear's what he is saying is the magazine rack moving and fires 4 shots in a tight formation, without warning that he is armed and ready to shoot hitting Reeva who all agree is stood directly behind the door facing the door.
Now I'm not actually sure how much you need to discredit that story given it is so improbable. Even accounting for an unhinged paranoid highly strung individual, none of it makes any plausible sense.
Someone you live with opens a window and shuts a bathroom door and you put 4 bullets in them. That isn't just highly strung panic and fear. There is too much in his story that he contemplated and thought about for it to be instinctive panic strewn reactions.
Yoda
English & European
I think there are some people on here forgetting what he is ACTUALLY on trial for. PRE MEDITATED murder.
We know he is guilty of actually killing her, but that is not what they are trying to prove in this case.
If he is not found guilty at the end of this trial, Oscar is still going down for man slaughter as a minimum.
We know he is guilty of actually killing her, but that is not what they are trying to prove in this case.
If he is not found guilty at the end of this trial, Oscar is still going down for man slaughter as a minimum.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Would be interesting to know who you are referring to given most posts seem to have a reasonable grasp of what he's being tried for.
He is actually on trial on 4 counts; Pre meditated murder, culpable homicide, discharging a firearm in public, owning illegal ammunition.
He can be found as guilty or not guilty on each of those counts within this trial.
Footsoldier
Banned
- May 26, 2013
- 2,904
When you're telling the truth you don't have to remember nothing but when you're lieing you have to remember what lies you've told and when you have to remember the lies then you become complacent and the lies are glaring at all to see. It seems every time Oscar opens his mouth another weed/lie comes out and starts to sprout and grow around him.
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 70,246
Yup, was just about to post something similar. You can have any pitbull/rottweiler prosecutor up against you, but if you only know one version of the truth then it's damn near impossible for him to catch you out with inconsistencies in your story. Because there won't be any.
Footsoldier
Banned
- May 26, 2013
- 2,904
Absolutely spot on.
METALMICKY
Well-known member
- Jan 30, 2004
- 6,081
"Roses are red, violets are blue, I think today is a good day to tell you that, I love you."
No wonder he lost the plot! That so does not flow!
I have a theory. Maybe Reeva suggested doing some shots and before she could clarify the self absorbed egotistical goon had let off four. Sorry mlady another mistake
No wonder he lost the plot! That so does not flow!
I have a theory. Maybe Reeva suggested doing some shots and before she could clarify the self absorbed egotistical goon had let off four. Sorry mlady another mistake
Seasider78
Well-known member
- Nov 14, 2004
- 5,939
I think they are going to struggle to prove it was pre meditated as despite the holes in his story there are no witnesses to back up the prosecutions version of what they think has happened. Essentially it's one word against the other which I don't think will be concrete enough for a murder conviction. Most likely outcome is manslaughter with the firearm offences lumped on top
Been listening to a south african radio over the internet and the phrase they keep using is Reasonably Possibly True.
So to avoid the murder rap as long as his story is Reasonably Possibly True it can still be somewhat far fetched and have some holes and inconsistencies.
So to avoid the murder rap as long as his story is Reasonably Possibly True it can still be somewhat far fetched and have some holes and inconsistencies.
At the end of the day if you fire 4 shots into a door believing there's someone behind it you intend to kill that person. Surely that's murder. He was trying to kill that person and it was premeditated because he had got his gun, taken the safety off and used it. The accident was that it was Reeva but that's actually not relevant.
His story seems to remind me of the Ian Huntley case, those poor girls. Did the jury belive him? of course not, all this emotional nonsence should not take away that he should pay for what he's done in my opinion. Will it turn into the OJ Simpson farce trial (yeah he was innocent) i hope not.
symyjym
Banned
Yep, his bail statement and plea was that he fired in self defense, but under cross examination he said firing the gun was an involuntary reaction. It can only be one or the other
He knew exactly what he was doing when he made Reeva fear for her life, and I am certain that she ran to the bathroom because he was waving the gun at her in the bedroom.
Terrorising someone and accidently killing them is still murder because they started something they couldn't control. He instigated a tragedy and if he didn't give a f*** about killing her for 2 seconds, that is 2 the seconds he was happy for her to die.
He probably detached himself from reality and didn't even understand what death really meant for that moment. It soon sunk in though.