Trial Discussion Thread #51 - 14.11.9, Day 41 ~announcement of the verdict~

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Does that mean that anyone can shoot someone in their home and just say that they were fearing for their life.. they thought the person was an intruder!!!
 
disappointed. so sorry to the beautiful Reeva and her family. :'(
 
Oh noooooooooooooo. They're taking an early lunch. I have another half hour before work and was hoping to see as much as possible before I left. I'll have to record the rest.

One thing I don't get is that just because OP told other people the intruder story, and just because Dr Stipp said OP was distraught, then the judge has taken that as truth. Of course he was distraught. He would hardly be standing there smiling while carrying a dead body, and so what if he told other people the intruder story. That doesn't make his words true!!!!
 
How many bullets would he have had to have fired for it to be murder?, bizarre.
 
I don't even know that she'll find him guilty of culpable homicide since she has now said that he genuinely thought his life was in danger
 
I'm not sure judge will find OP guilty of culpable homicide either.

I'm mystified that she found him a very poor, inconsistent and dishonest witness, but totally accepts his version of events?

Thank you. Defies all logic and reason. If nothing else, conspiracy theorists will always hang their hats on this imvho as evidence of a verdict that was not fair and just...in fact was tainted in some way.
 
Again Stipp's assertion that OP's distress at the scene was genuine.

He could still be in a genuine panic/distressed after killing Reeva in the heat of the moment, IMO.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

i agree it was genuine - for HIMSELF. Making up a story so quickly? A case just like this a year ago where the guy said he thought it was an intruder and got off. Heck, I could think of a story within seconds if I knew how much trouble I'd be in for something like this.
 
Judge Masipa must have had death threats from Pistorians or been paid off by the "Family"... I can't believe this!
 
So it's a slap on the wrist for OP. As he informed the police officer ' he always wins '.
Never a truer word spoken !!
 
Of course he could foresee that he would kill the person behind the door!! Or did she disregard the evidence of Sean Rens as well?? Was any witness of use to her at this trial??
 
I'm not sure judge will find OP guilty of culpable homicide either.

I'm mystified that she found him a very poor, inconsistent and dishonest witness, but totally accepts his version of events?

Just from what I'm reading here and on the BBC website it doesnt sound like it to me either.... CH at this point will be a huge victory (this morning I'd thought that was the very least he should get).
 
I've been very much of the opinion from the start that it was CH, not murder.

I simply don't see the evidence for murder. I so see evidence for CH, he fired and it was reasonable to think someone might die. BUT if he didn't realise he was firing as he panicked.... well maybe.

I never thought he would be done for murder, I don't think it was murder and clearly the judge agrees from looking at the evidence.
 
Facinating that she said he lied on oath but now says his story is true because it was what he uttered. Lawyers already aghast, like most of us. I see an enormous backlash to this case.
 
What was his intent even if it had been an intruder? Warning shots?
 
I've seen some court decisions that I didn't quite understand how it was arrived at, but this is positively befuddling. She *only* took the evidence of witnesses that benefitted the accused and none of what wasn't in his favor. Can Nel appeal a CH verdict? Esp. on the grounds of how she arrived at it?
 
He fired four shots into a closed toilet door....and she couldn't find intention to kill someone?

That is ridiculous & senseless.

What a shame Nel cannot appeal. This murderer is going to walk.
 
She and OP are the only "reasonable" ones. The rest of us are idiots apparently.
 
Does that mean that anyone can shoot someone in their home and just say that they were fearing for their life.. they thought the person was an intruder!!!

I don't understand her reasoning, I really don't. I thought that we all discussed it didn't matter if Reeva grrrrrrr
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
100
Guests online
1,811
Total visitors
1,911

Forum statistics

Threads
599,003
Messages
18,089,251
Members
230,775
Latest member
Theresa06
Back
Top