General Discussion Thread #1 -Bail Hearing

[whitedove]

I will be leaving soon, got work to do, thanks for you company on a crazy day, hope to see you all in court if he hasn't done a RUNNER.

 

[Sunday]

People appear to have zero capacity to be objective in this case. I think Nair did a fantastic job at considering the facts and remaining objective, despite his doubts and reservations. OP will never be convicted of the premeditated murder of RS because the evidence simply isn't there. There is only circumstantial evidence to go on, that of which is so weak that it leaves room for considerable doubt. The strongest argument anyone has is, "No one would have done this or that. He would have done A or B, not C", and blah, blah, blah. He would walk in a jury trial here in the US because there is nothing but reasonable doubt in this case, and the magistrate in SA will allow him to walk because there simply isn't significant evidence to establish intent, motive, nothing. Do I think OP intentionally killed RS? I am on the fence, leaning towards the side of "yes", but opinion is irrelevant.

 

[Carol70]

Did I understand correctly that the person was part of the entourage of someone who is not quite kosher ... Nightclub owner or something... D-list celeb?

Yep, a total chop....they call him the sushi king...throws 1m ZAR parties and lets his guests eat sushi off naked woman....ex con, one time best friend of Julias Malema and acquired wealth by dubious means. What he is doing in court is beyond me but its at least got him name in the papers!!

 

[jjenny]

People appear to have zero capacity to be objective in this case. I think Nair did a fantastic job at considering the facts and remaining objective, despite his doubts and reservations. OP will never be convicted of the premeditated murder of RS because the evidence simply isn't there. There is only circumstantial evidence to go on, that of which is so weak that it leaves room for considerable doubt. The strongest argument anyone has is, "No one would have done this or that. He would have done A or B, not C", and blah, blah, blah. He would walk in a jury trial here in the US because there is nothing but reasonable doubt in this case, and the magistrate in SA will allow him to walk because there simply isn't significant evidence to establish intent, motive, nothing. Do I think OP intentionally killed RS? I am on the fence, leaning towards the side of "yes", but opinion is irrelevant.

Presumably he was intending to kill whoever was in the toilet. And it doesn't appear that he had that right under SA laws. So why wouldn't that establish premeditation?

 

[commspecialist]

Well, you know what they say.. you can't choose your relatives!


To those who feel hurt and disappointed... don't. This guy's life is blighted. He's mental toast, and he's almost certainly going to get hard time sooner or later. He is washed up.

He has two futures... either life as the man who killed his woman inadvertently... and has to live with that...
or as the bloke who got away with deliberately killing his lover but whom everybody thinks done it anyway... the smell will be pervasive.

Not much of a life for someone of 26. It's a long time he'll have to bear that.

I have a really hard time feeling sympathy for this guy, though. He should've thought of all that before opening fire on a person locked in his bathroom. Even if it was an intruder that hardly justifies four bullets into a tiny bathroom. Why not call the police, or fire a warning shot at most? Self-defense isn't brutally gunning down an intruder hiding behind a closed door.

 

[Estelle]

Botha was the weak link so now they have got rid of him, there is a chance for the prosecution to prove him guilty. The minimum will be culpable homicide.

I gleaned from what Nair said that he probably thinks it is premeditated murder but the State has to prove it as they do not have enough evidence yet.

 

[otyikondo]

People appear to have zero capacity to be objective in this case. I think Nair did a fantastic job at considering the facts and remaining objective, despite his doubts and reservations. OP will never be convicted of the premeditated murder of RS because the evidence simply isn't there. There is only circumstantial evidence to go on, that of which is so weak that it leaves room for considerable doubt. The strongest argument anyone has is, "No one would have done this or that. He would have done A or B, not C", and blah, blah, blah. He would walk in a jury trial here in the US because there is nothing but reasonable doubt in this case, and the magistrate in SA will allow him to walk because there simply isn't significant evidence to establish intent, motive, nothing. Do I think OP intentionally killed RS? I am on the fence, leaning towards the side of "yes", but opinion is irrelevant.

I don't wish to doubt you, but this was a BAIL HEARING. It merely looked like a mini-trial.

One presumes that - in the words of Rumsfeld - there are a number of known knowns and even unknown knowns that the prosecution have yet to divulge, as it was not incumbent upon them to divulge them at a bail hearing. One presumes the forensics will be brought properly into play, for example. Just one small suggestion he had his legs on and blasted her through the doors from a decent height and he is toast. Equally, the contents of the iPad and iPhones may reveal something we have yet to hear...

I'd say your response is premature.

(Which doesn't mean I don't think he'll get off)

 

[Kimster]

:seeya:

I'm going to make a new thread for you guys, so get your bags packed for the trip.

 

[Sunday]

Presumably he was intending to kill whoever was in the toilet. And it doesn't appear that he had that right under SA laws. So why wouldn't that establish premeditation?

You are correct; in SA you can be convicted of murder even if you know it's an intruder. Four shots are intended to kill, whether it was RS or an intruder. However, I don't feel that this will necessarily "stick" in this case, given his stature in SA society. They will cite his "vulnerability" due to his disability, and the fact that he is a celebrity who is constantly under a higher degree of threat. The case will be hurried through the process and put behind OP and the SA legal system. The entire case is a black mark and huge bother to SA and its legal system, which is now coming under global light as corrupt and flawed. MARK. MY. WORDS.

 

[Estelle]

Oscar Pistorius granted bail ahead of murder trial

Though the judge admitted he has problems with Pistorius' account of the night he allegedly shot his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, he set the Olympian free on bail, citing mistakes made by the prosecution.

By Michelle Kosinski, Rohit Kachroo and Ian Johnston, NBC News

PRETORIA, South Africa -- Oscar Pistorius was granted bail Friday pending his trial for the alleged murder of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp.

<modsnip>

On the fourth day of his bail hearing Friday, Chief Magistrate Desmond Nair told the court that he had "come to the conclusion that the accused has made a case to be granted bail."

There was a cry of "yes" from the public gallery after his decision and his relatives embraced, cried and prayed.

In contrast to the joy of his relatives, Pistorius looked very upset.

Nair spoke for more than 90 minutes prior to announcing his decision, summarizing the testimony given to the four-day hearing, citing previous cases and the relevant laws.

<modsnip>

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...orius-granted-bail-ahead-of-murder-trial?lite

 

[cityslick]

I have a really hard time feeling sympathy for this guy, though. He should've thought of all that before opening fire on a person locked in his bathroom. Even if it was an intruder that hardly justifies four bullets into a tiny bathroom. Why not call the police, or fire a warning shot at most? Self-defense isn't brutally gunning down an intruder hiding behind a closed door.

My issue isn't that he fired four shots, it's that he never even positively identified that there was an intruder in there to begin with. I've mentioned before there are a ton of gun owners, especially in the US that are no holds barred when it comes to intruders, if they see someone in their house who is not supposed to in the middle of the night, they are going to shoot first and ask questions later, not wait to call 911. He never identified there was someone that wasn't supposed to be there. An open window is not proof that someone else is in your house, especially since he wasn't alone and the possibility exists that she could of opened the window.

You can see his defense already, he's going to somehow say he (in his mind) though he saw Reeva sleeping in the bed when he got the gun. He's going to say it was dark and panic did not make him verify that, just a quick glance told him she was there. Then he's going to say logic and reason never entered his mind as to why Reeva wouldn't awake when he started screaming or when he went to get his gun. The state is going to have to come up with some evidence that makes just one facet of his story false. That's all they need and the whole thing will fall apart.

 

[Kimster]

Here is your new thread: Oscar Pistorius shoots and kills his girlfriend, charged with murder #2 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


:skip: