IS HE GUILTY?

PLEASE NOTE THIS ThREAD IS ABOUT THE UPCOMING COURT CASE
not for personal attacks on OP or any gripe you have with whoever
If you do not like this thread do not read it or make derogatory remarks
Would like to stimulate meaningful discussion between those who want to follow court case and form own opinions.
I am sorry for those members who are close to this whole thing but unfortunately it is happening and some of us will follow the happenings with interest.

Yesterday I read in Beeld an opinion by am forensic scientist Dr. David Klatzow that OP would have to answer the following questions:
1) Why did he use a 9 mm pistol that can cause extensive damage?
2)He's or RS life was not in immediate danger, if there was someone in the toilet he could have called him out or fire warning shot?
3) If you are in danger you want distance between you and the threat why was he so close to the door?
4)why 4 shot's? he will have to explain why he used so much force if his life was not in immediate danger
5)Apparently there was a lot off screaming and shouting and if it is proof beyond reasonable doubt through witnesses and the court excepts that as the truth he will have to explain why and about what it was?.
6) he will have difficulty in explaining why he did not make sure where RS was before going after the "intruder"

and I would like to add my own question what made him think there was an intruder and is their any evidence to confirm that indeed there was an intruder?

your thoughts?

Is the question ,"is he guilty of premeditated murder"

Taggert used to say "there`s been a murderrrrrr"

GUILTY

I agree the sate will have difficulty in proving premeditated
imo at best manslaughter

in USA they have man 1 and 2 but I am not sure about SA

mister a Wrote:

---

> GUILTY


yes Sir we all know he is guilty but the question is of what?

we should be discussing the trial on the thread and not guessing the outcome

hibernia Wrote:

---

> we should be discussing the trial on the thread
> and not guessing the outcome

I agree can you perhaps stick it on top?

Were there any holes in the ceiling? The size of the toilet is also important as a reasonable man would know that if they were shooting into such a confined space they would be likely to injure or kill someone, much like canned hunting. If the shots were grouped then that shows that the shooter had a reasonable idea where the victim was. Were any shots fired into the ground ? Also the height of the shots is important as the Victim was shorter than the shooter (unless he had not put on his legs)and if the shots were aimed in such a way to suggest the shooter knew the height of the person behind the door that could also be a factor. Is there a door leading into the bathroom that could have been locked to keep the "intruder" in that area(not the toilet). A reasonable man would have closed that door and called for help before shooting into a closed toilet door I think. I think a reasonable man would not have done many of the things that OP did and that will be his downfall

I personally think enough has been said on here already,it will upset some who know the family Steenkamp.
Let the courts do their jobs,I'm sure there's plenty of non sport forums to give your opinions.

There are no witnesses. Not guilty. (which I do not agree)

OP's lawyer managed to get an unnamed rugby player off for "murdering" a policeman. There is a lot of precedent that is in favour of OP and the state has its work cut out in order to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. S v Kubeka states how there can be absolutely no other conclusion to be drawn from the proven facts in order to sentence an accused to a) culpable homicide (murder without the intent) and b) murder (with required intent). I feel the state at least in this current trial will not be able to prove all the required elements. The state places more importance on letting a potential criminal walk then putting an "innocent" man behind bars for the rest of his life.

My conclusion being OP will walk free, whether that's the right decision or not is not for you and me to decide, rather the independent judiciary. One thing that is for sure is that this case is going to create some possibly law changing precedent on this topic. Either accused persons in the future will walk a lot easier or convictions will occur a lot easier on this accusation. Whatever the decision tremendous pressure is on the courts to make the right decision and I have no doubt regardless of the outcome of the case an appeal is evident.

Interesting fact, in Ireland they have opened up betting on the verdict.() LOL

CCN a South African bookie is also betting on the verdict , but they don't deserve the advertising