" The conclusion, that because an accused is untruthful he is therefore probably guilty, must be guided against, as a false statement does not always justify the most extreme conclusion."
T.Masipa LLB.
:facepalm:
She is absolutely right though!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
" The conclusion, that because an accused is untruthful he is therefore probably guilty, must be guided against, as a false statement does not always justify the most extreme conclusion."
T.Masipa LLB.
:facepalm:
Yes, bless her. And don't forget if you cry and show remorse, that also indicates you didn't mean to kill anyone, because let's face it, no murderer in the history of the world has ever cried or shown remorse in the hope of passing off the murder as an "accident"In Masipa-world, of course she is right.
Yes, bless her. And don't forget if you cry and show remorse, that also indicates you didn't mean to kill anyone, because let's face it, no murderer in the history of the world has ever cried or shown remorse in the hope of passing off the murder as an "accident"
The point was Masipa implied that because OP cried... he couldn't have intended to kill Reeva. That's absolute rubbish because murderers often cry and feign remorse when trying to get off a murder charge. If this were about a nobody, I'm sure people would find the invisible intruder story laughable in the extreme. OP's not special just because he's famous. Try approaching his fairytale from a non-celebrity point of view and see if you're still willing to believe it.How would someone who killed a loved one by mistake then found themselves accused of their murder behave?
....exactly.......isn't this case surely one of the greatest judicial farces ever to have existed......if Pistorius was some unheard of kid from a local council estate he would of been doing his life sentence by now and no one would of even noticed............The point was Masipa implied that because OP cried... he couldn't have intended to kill Reeva. That's absolute rubbish because murderers often cry and feign remorse when trying to get off a murder charge. If this were about a nobody, I'm sure people would find the invisible intruder story laughable in the extreme. OP's not special just because he's famous. Try approaching his fairytale from a non-celebrity point of view and see if you're still willing to believe it.
The point was Masipa implied that because OP cried... he couldn't have intended to kill Reeva. That's absolute rubbish because murderers often cry and feign remorse when trying to get off a murder charge. If this were about a nobody, I'm sure people would find the invisible intruder story laughable in the extreme. OP's not special just because he's famous. Try approaching his fairytale from a non-celebrity point of view and see if you're still willing to believe it.
If this were about a nobody, I'm sure people would find the invisible intruder story laughable in the extreme. OP's not special just because he's famous. Try approaching his fairytale from a non-celebrity point of view and see if you're still willing to believe it.
The point was Masipa implied that because OP cried... he couldn't have intended to kill Reeva. That's absolute rubbish because murderers often cry and feign remorse when trying to get off a murder charge. If this were about a nobody, I'm sure people would find the invisible intruder story laughable in the extreme. OP's not special just because he's famous. Try approaching his fairytale from a non-celebrity point of view and see if you're still willing to believe it.
BIB - depends if one was aware he was a sporting hero in the first place. I'd never heard of him until he killed Reeva, and many others here had never heard of him either. So maybe the "some" you're referring to are on other forums?His celebrity status has nothing to do with how I have formed my opinions on this case. Conversely, however, I think that for some there may well have been a bit of celebrity schadenfreude in the media demolition of a sporting 'hero'.
I don't think that Mdunge's account of what happened when he shot his pregnant wife was laughed at?
His celebrity status has nothing to do with how I have formed my opinions on this case. Conversely, however, I think that for some there may well have been a bit of celebrity schadenfreude in the media demolition of a sporting 'hero'.
I don't think that Mdunge's account of what happened when he shot his pregnant wife was laughed at?
Er, there were 4 witnesses who heard female screams, 2 who heard female crying, 3 who heard male crying and 1 who heard OP crying. BIB - huh? The timings are of vital importance. Clearly 2 different perceptions of a sound at the same time indicates that someone misheard something and so the state can't claim that the screams had to be Reeva's. I have just given the evidence but it has been ignored as far as I can see.
The photos were compromised. I don't know if that means the court should throw them all out, but it certainly should mean that they treat them with caution and don't rely on them too much to make the case for murder.
Because the photos were compromised there is no way of knowing for sure whether the big fan was unmoved. The big fan might not have been moved to exactly where pistorius indicated. Is there no margin for memory inaccuracy? Is the expectation that a person remembers every precise detail?
The duvet could have fallen to the floor when he was searching for her or after getting his legs on, for example. It could have fallen on the floor when she left the bed.
Weirdly, even if you are right about the reliability of the photos and none of the possibilities mentioned above were applicable, Pistorius could have lied about the whole fan-moving incident and still be innocent of deliberately killing Reeva Steenkamp
It's not irrelevant at all. The state called van Rensberg as the police witness to what happened to the scene from when the police arrived up till when the photos were taken. His evidence indicated that he was in a position to give this evidence because he was the first on the scene and controlled the scene throughout up to and including when the photos were taken. However, his evidence was contradicted by police affidavits and Botha's bail hearing evidence. How can you then say the state can rely on photos when they didn't call all the relevant police witnesses and there's evidence that the main police witness may at the least have been mistaken about who was on the scene?
.
Er, there were 4 witnesses who heard female screams, 2 who heard female crying, 3 who heard male crying and 1 who heard OP crying. BIB - huh? The timings are of vital importance. Clearly 2 different perceptions of a sound at the same time indicates that someone misheard something and so the state can't claim that the screams had to be Reeva's. I have just given the evidence but it has been ignored as far as I can see.
" The conclusion, that because an accused is untruthful he is therefore probably guilty, must be guided against, as a false statement does not always justify the most extreme conclusion."
T.Masipa LLB.
:ignore:
:sweep:
:lookingitup:
Where is the evidence the photos were compromised? This is a huge allegation and needs to be supported.
The Duvet could not have fallen on the floor because Oscar claims thats where the fans were.
Oh really? Considering the fan moving incident is the entire reason Reeva slipped behind him unnoticed into the bathroom, can you explain how he can be innocent? You just admitted Oscars story can be a lie yet it can still be considered reasonable probably true?? lol
So 6 different people heard a female either crying of screaming? How much more damning you can get? Do you need 20? Ever heard of someone mistaking a male scream for a female? The timing is secondary because there were multiple noises, heard from multiple locations. Someone might perceive a scream as crying, people were being woken from a sleep so exact details might not be accurate etc, but the key is they heard a female. You cant just ignore that because of semantics.
What do the photos have to do with who was at the scene?