Discussion in 'Oscar Pistorius' started by bessie, Mar 25, 2014.
Well then explain to me how this was a game changer because I don't see it.
I can't think what he'd be heated/ angry about?
If he'd been drinking that would've shown in toxicology tests, as alcohol remains in your system a while. Why they say not to drive in the morning if you've been heavily drinking/were drunk the previous evening, as it's not safe, due to alcohol still being in your system.
PT would have addressed that during their presentation if alcohol was a proven factor.
Killing a person when it is not in self defense? Damn right I find that as wrong as chasing a girlfriend down and killing her. A life is a life. It matters not to me if it is a "loved one" or someone from the street. You asked what I find to be moral and I told you. Don't believe me if you chose. I know what I find morally acceptable, morally wrong. Either take my word for it or don't. No skin off my nose.
I asked if you found the two scenarios to be equally morally wrong, and you've explained now that you do. I'll take your word for it.
Thankfully the law distinguishes between intent and mistake.
The defense claimed during their cross examination of the State witnesses that certain things would be shown to be wrong based on their experts. One of those things was the double tap theory. This was shot down. One was that Reeva was shot in the head first. This was shot down. There are others as well. When the defense claims one thing during the States CIC yet can't deliver during their own CIC, I see it as a game changer.
Particularly in SA . . . .
I'm guessing that this will be the defense's "answer" as to why OP rushed back upstairs as soon as Reeva was pronounced dead by Dr. Stipp, he had to puke.
I didn't know the double tap theory was crucial to anything.
I don't think the defense ever said that Reeva was shot in the head first or that they would prove that. They only concentrated on the fact that she could not scream after the head shot. I think all of the experts have agreed to that.
I just don't see how any of this testimony makes the states case stronger or more conclusive.
Here's what I would think would make the state's case stronger and more conclusive:
1. Showing that Oscar's version is clearly fabricated - i.e. showing that it could not have possibly happened as Oscar described it
2. Somehow explaining the first "shots" and what they could have been other than gunshots or cricket bat sounds. If there is some theory that those sounds were something else, the state needs to explain it - otherwise, the evidence indicates that it was the gunshots at 3:00 ish and cricket bat at 3;17, and the screams everyone heard could not have been Reeva. This is the big hurdle the state has to get over - and if they can't then there is reasonable doubt.
A member posted regarding Valentine's Day gifts etc and Reeva being one of the most desirable women in the world. With due respect to Reeva, I'd never heard of her till last Feb (unfortunately).
However, many people knew/know who Oscar is pre Feb last year.
Maybe my memory fails me but I distinctly remembered Roux arguing the first shot was the head. When this didn't work with the ballistic evidence, they then argued about the screaming.
What evidence indicates this? Evidence other than OP's word?
I don't believe Oscar thought there was an intruder, I do think that was all made up. With witness testimony and the phone messages history so far at this stage I think it's more likely that
- he has a history of being volatile and quick to draw his gun and shoot in anger
- he and Reeva were arguing
- Reeva was screaming in fear and/or pain
How the shooting came about is open to speculation because he is the only living direct witness but in my opinion it might have been in anger, frustration or initially to frighten her or warn her to get out and face him.
It feels a little patronising to me to word it as "waited for her to go to the bathroom to shoot her" surely you could concede OP shooting RS through the toilet door could happen in other circumstances such as in an out of control moment during a heated argument? Not that it did - but that it could?
I don't know yet if I think he meant to kill her or fired his gun out of anger, frustration, lack of control but I lean to he didn't intend to kill her in that moment, that perhaps he was angry and not thinking clearly.
I'm sure he regrets it and probably did in the moment he realised what he'd done.
But I don't believe OP thought there was an intruder in the house that night.
i understand he is on trial for the murder of RS, not RS or a random intruder. so as i see it the prosecution have to prove that he knew RS was behind the door, not just 'he shot/killed/murdered a person behind the door'.
what are they saying his motive was for murder?
so far the screams are the only element that place her behind the door, that he could have heard and identified as RS.
if there were no screams, i would be asking OP what he heard, or what made him stop shooting at four rounds?
I thought the charge was for murder - ie OP unlawfully and intentionally kill a person (namely, Reeva). I believe PT said in the summary that an error in persona, will not affect, the intention to kill a human being.
I don't recall anyone saying it was planned in the sense of days, weeks or months but you know that.
However, did OP not deliberately go and get his gun(supposedly from under the bed) and made sure it was ready to fire, before advancing on the closed toilet room door then before identifying any threat, let alone confirm that RS was not the one creating the "noise", start shooting, at close range and with bullets meant to kill, until he was satisfied the "threat" was gone?
thank you. apologies for my lack of knowledge of all the fine detail.
in that case, how can shooting four times into a confined space at close range not show intent to kill a human being.
No problems - I am actually not clear as well but I think that was the charge. Anyways, I think OP is arguing he was in such a state of fear, he had to shoot first.
then, if he was in such a state of fear, why stop shooting at four rounds... what made his fear subside at four shots [if it wasn't the cessation of the screams].
i assume there were more than four rounds in the weapon.
We know what he did for her on Valentine's Day, he killed her. Whether through negligence, stupidity or anger, we're trying to find that out so don't go and spoil the suspense. That said, he still deliberately killed the person he shot behind that closed door and in SA, it seems that's considered premeditated murder.