Search results

Masipa: The conclusion that if a witness tells an untruth he must be guilty is not helpful. Thank you - I got ridiculed for saying the same a few weeks ago.

Clear IMO now that no acquittal. Only question is CH vs eventualis - I think she'll go for the latter. Don't forget the medical evidence which she put to one side and said she will come back to. Would be v surprised if that got him off the hook tho

Clear now IMO she will find him guilty of evenualis. Calm down people. This was obviously what was going to happen. People got so into the DV, prosecution case (which had little factual basis) that its easy to forget that he can still be guilty of murder without this. As I have been saying, it...

She hasn't got to that yet. Just dealing with the very weak state case. People seem to forget he can be guilty of murder even if state primary case is rejected.

I wrote that she was a pistorian - with dripping sarcasm. There is no power, money or influence here - just an objective judge giving justice. It may not be the conclusion that people here thought she would reach - but looked objectively it was fairly obvious that this would be the only findings...

Relying on phone records (as I said she would). Glad that the Judge has put emotional reactions to one side and is analysing the cold hard evidence. Still suspect she will find him guilty of murder (evenualis) but finally the weak prosecution case is being subjected to objective scrutiny.

Hope all those who accepted that Masipa was a fair Judge who listened to the evidence carefully don't now start going on about money, power etc influencing her.

Looks like Masipa is a "Pistorian" too...

Looking forward. My guess: guilty of murder (eventualis), believed intruder behind door, prosecution primary case of argument and knowledge that it was Reeva rejected. Accepts pistorius evidence as credible but that Even on that eventualis made out

I wonder if Nels cross examination was cut short by Masipa. It did end rather suddenly and I remember that the day before she was getting a bit annoyed at him going over the same ground over and over and then asked to see both him and Roux in chambers. I personally agree his going over the...

[/B] I don't understand. Are you saying that if he thought it was an intruder he would have shot more than 4 times?

True - you're right she asked if defence chronology in HOA was common cause. But since defence rely on the implausibility of prosecution case on those timings I think that might show where her mind is going. Not long to find out anyway!

I agree with you, but doesn't this actually suggest that he is telling the truth, i.e. that the shots did not take place at 3:17 but earlier than this. This would give enough time for everything to have happened. Even if you take the view that he was lying about going to the kitchen etc, there...

Do you think he was lying about the bracelets then? You're right he did say bracelet, and then this changed to bracelets. Hmmm....maybe he is lying about everything.

So it's possible that witnesses could confuse Reeva's screams for a man but not that they could confuse OP for a womans? I'm not saying Reeva necessarily stayed silent throughout, just that the "event" took place earlier than these witnesses give evidence. I.e. they were woken by the shots, and...

No, I know all of that is dripping with sarcasm. I meant that bit where you said that my posts were inadvertedly helping future murderers.

I find that outlandish. Anyway Nel didn't put that argument to OP. Even he didn't put it to OP in cross-examination that he deliberately screamed out for help before killing Reeva to cover up what was happening. In my view, the Judge would struggle to (lawfully) make a such a finding, given that...

Sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying OP is lying because it took him 20 minutes to eat a stir fry? I will always take 20 minutes or so over dinner, I think most people do. He was probably chatting to Reeva about the day. I don't think we can say he's lying because he didn't eat dinner in 5...

I hope and assume that this is tongue in cheek?

Of course I will accept it. The Judge, and the two assessors, have listened carefully throughout and had the benefit of seeing the witnesses first hand in Court. Whatever they say I will 100% accept. And by the way, I'm not saying you are "all wrong". There are people who post and read here who...