Video at link of BBC's Andrew Harding touring OP's home. Shows large bloodstain on carpet down by the side of where bed used to be.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29162620
To be fair, she couldn't tell stories about things she wasn't asked or crossed on, correct? Plus, who would have believed her, it's the "golden boy" of SA's word against hers and she'd already been portrayed as some bitter little witch with an axe to grind.
Naturally gutted - like many of you - with Masipa's justifications for her acquittal on dolus eventualis. Don't really want to have to wait a couple of years to find out if State's likely appeal wins and her verdict for CH is overturned.
Sadly I can't keep up with the trial live due to work but, off topic and hopefully not repeating what others have said, I urge posters to read the Sam Taylor revelations in yesterdays Daily Mirror which, as it's a tabloid, is forbidden to quote from here(?)
If some of you want to disbelieve Sam as a lying, gold-digging, scorned woman then she must have had to do quite a bit of research on behaviour in classic Domestic Abuse scenarios.
It is mind-blowing and sickening.
The so-called legal experts have been wrong on many things thus far. The TV lawyers have been are as bad as the press for sensationalising minor technicalities in an effort to retain public interest. It's worth remembering that many of these lawyers have as much experience at losing cases as they have of winning.
She was a witness for the prosecution, if at anytime she was in fear for her life during their relationship, I'm pretty certain Nel would have brought it up?? That was the crux of their case..that OP killed Reeva in a fit of rage. Lol, I now have to go back and see exactly what she testified.
He comes from old money, maybe socially people will give him crap, but he wont lack for food, shelter or luxury.
And there won't be a lack of girls willing to be attached to someone with old money.
She was a witness for the prosecution, if at anytime she was in fear for her life during their relationship, I'm pretty certain Nel would have brought it up?? That was the crux of their case..that OP killed Reeva in a fit of rage. Lol, I now have to go back and see exactly what she testified.
Seems clear to me that Masipa only tests Dolus in respect of the deceased rather than a person.
She agrees that he thinks there are intruders in the toilet at the time he fires four shots.
She says he acted unlawfully. I agree and if the test is applied to a person (the intruders) then it is Dolus.
She thinks it's improbable that OP could have made up a story ("it was an intruder") so quickly and maintained such a consistent story. I disagree. It's such a simple story to conceive and relate (it's only a few words) and he didn't have much option. He then went on to develop the story for the bail hearing, plea affidavit, evidence in chief and cross examination ... tailoring it as the evidence worked against him. It then became inconsistent.
:hilarious:Conclusion: The judge was at a different trial.
OP will be convicted of CH tomorrow AJ. He's going to get a heavy prison sentence for that and for a couple of the weapons laws violations. And whether or not that happens the Pit Bull is still going to appeal all of it and go for Murder, seeking an even longer sentence. OP is caught up in the SA criminal justice system and getting out of it will take him at least two decades. Masipa is just his first step, that's how it works, and it is a beoch!!!! :smile:
I've seen something somewhere about this. Double jeopardy does apply in South Africa. I'll do some digging.
ETA: This report is interesting, see 2.14 onwards. http://www.justice.gov.za/salrc/reports/r_prj73_appeal_2000dec.pdf
This article is also interesting: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/oscar-pistorius-judge-error-prosecutors-article-1.1936371
:gasp: the first article is 109 pages! Cliff notes needed as it's 2:09 and I didn't go to sleep yet...thinking 3:30 a:m would be a short session and I would befftobed: at 4:30 am