IS HE GUILTY?

JAMES BLOND Wrote:

---

> mr hawaii Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > JAMES BLOND Wrote:
> >
>

---

>
> >

---

> > > If i was OP I would not take the stand
> > > because the state must prove beyond
> reasonable
> > > doubt that his version van not be true and I
> > think
> > > they can not do that, manslaughter at best
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure if he can now as the state has a
> > right to question him on his statement for his
> > bail application and I'm sure I heard something
> > about him giving his version when his advocate
> > read his responses to the charge sheeet and Mr
> > Roux has mentioned Mr Pretorius will say .. -
> > Without him giving evidence to the contrary how
> > can he possibly believe the court will not
> favor
> > the versions presented by Fresco, Sam Taylor
> and
> > Lerena (who has as far as I know no reason to
> lie
> > about what happened) if he does not state
> > otherwise?
>
> MR H with my layman knowledge you can not be
> forced to testify or br questioned if you do not
> want to but maybe our learned friend Haupir can
> shed light on hat
> my take is we know he shot R the state must prove
> beyond reasonable doubt that his intention was to
> murder her and with what I have heard so far I do
> not think that the state will be able to prove
> that , ro much conflicting evidence imo so for him
> to testify can hurt him
> the gun charges is not so serious it was brought
> in to discredit his character because in MURDER
> TRAIL you are not allowed character witnesses
> smart move from the sttae to prove he liked guns
> but it does not disprove his version
>
> do not be surprised when BR brings application to
> have murder charges to be dropped once state
> closes it case, that will be a shrewd move,
> because if the states case is not strong I am sure
> the judge will consider that

If that happens then I think there will be more than one murder that the courts will have to deal with as the South African public want justice either for Oscar or against him

mr hawaii Wrote:

---

> JAMES BLOND Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > mr hawaii Wrote:
> >
>

---

>
> >

---

> > > JAMES BLOND Wrote:
> > >
> >
>

---

>
> >
> > >

---

> > > > If i was OP I would not take the stand
> > > > because the state must prove beyond
> > reasonable
> > > > doubt that his version van not be true and
> I
> > > think
> > > > they can not do that, manslaughter at best
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm not sure if he can now as the state has a
> > > right to question him on his statement for
> his
> > > bail application and I'm sure I heard
> something
> > > about him giving his version when his
> advocate
> > > read his responses to the charge sheeet and
> Mr
> > > Roux has mentioned Mr Pretorius will say .. -
> > > Without him giving evidence to the contrary
> how
> > > can he possibly believe the court will not
> > favor
> > > the versions presented by Fresco, Sam Taylor
> > and
> > > Lerena (who has as far as I know no reason to
> > lie
> > > about what happened) if he does not state
> > > otherwise?
> >
> > MR H with my layman knowledge you can not be
> > forced to testify or br questioned if you do
> not
> > want to but maybe our learned friend Haupir can
> > shed light on hat
> > my take is we know he shot R the state must
> prove
> > beyond reasonable doubt that his intention was
> to
> > murder her and with what I have heard so far I
> do
> > not think that the state will be able to prove
> > that , ro much conflicting evidence imo so for
> him
> > to testify can hurt him
> > the gun charges is not so serious it was
> brought
> > in to discredit his character because in
> MURDER
> > TRAIL you are not allowed character witnesses
> > smart move from the sttae to prove he liked
> guns
> > but it does not disprove his version
> >
> > do not be surprised when BR brings application
> to
> > have murder charges to be dropped once state
> > closes it case, that will be a shrewd move,
> > because if the states case is not strong I am
> sure
> > the judge will consider that
>
> If that happens then I think there will be more
> than one murder that the courts will have to deal
> with as the South African public want justice
> either for Oscar or against him

you see the state has paint them self in a corner with the murder charge because they have to prove that beyond reasonable doubt
if they brought manslaughter it was so much easier and he could still face a stiff sentence but they chose the murder charge
it would be interesting if Haupie or some expert could tell us should BR do that and judge grant the request in what position the stae will be in
can they then retrial on manslaughter?

I take the view that in a non-life threatening situation(unless the defense has found "the intruder") the intent of Pistorius was to KILL or gravely injure whoever was behind that door. The presence of an alarm system, many cellphones, and the absence of ANY warning shot shows that he DID not try to remove himself from the situation but had the INTENT to kill that person(Reeva or intruder). His threats to Mark Batchelor(not a meek and mild bloke) - something about" I'll break your legs" shows we are not dealing with a poor amputee that fears for his life and is afraid to the point of panic. When confronted by someone who was allegedly following he got out of his car and threatened that person with a gun(did he know if the other person was a threat to his life then too?) - he may be paranoid but to expect the world to believe he acted in self defense for fear of an alleged and non existent intruder is going too far. Coupled with this is another undisputed as yet fact where he was placed in a similar situation(Sam Taylor) but then CHOSE to wake his lover BEFORE going to the bathroom shooting range.

OP's arrogance and ego and his lack of respect for the law or those representative of it shows that be can see the consequences of his actions but CHOOSES to ignore them...kind of like the TEFLON DON...negligent and arrogance in the extreme to know something is wrong and to still proceed in doing it as you do not think that you will face the consequences of your actions...

I think the state has more to come....their bombs must still be dropped

I think Advocate Roux might just use "The Open Bet" defense as a last resort

mr hawaii Wrote:

---

> I think Advocate Roux might just use "The Open
> Bet" defense as a last resort


.....lol...it's all about timing....no need to play that card yet....only when one is totally out of ammo....that is the last resort.....only dicks with no clue or looking to shift blame for a bad strategy play that card....

Nice link to firearm safety and justified use of a gun

mr hawaii Wrote:

---

> JAMES BLOND Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > mr hawaii Wrote:
> >
>

---

>
> >

---

> > > JAMES BLOND Wrote:
> > >
> >
>

---

>
> >
> > >

---

> > > > If i was OP I would not take the stand
> > > > because the state must prove beyond
> > reasonable
> > > > doubt that his version van not be true and
> I
> > > think
> > > > they can not do that, manslaughter at best
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm not sure if he can now as the state has a
> > > right to question him on his statement for
> his
> > > bail application and I'm sure I heard
> something
> > > about him giving his version when his
> advocate
> > > read his responses to the charge sheeet and
> Mr
> > > Roux has mentioned Mr Pretorius will say .. -
> > > Without him giving evidence to the contrary
> how
> > > can he possibly believe the court will not
> > favor
> > > the versions presented by Fresco, Sam Taylor
> > and
> > > Lerena (who has as far as I know no reason to
> > lie
> > > about what happened) if he does not state
> > > otherwise?
> >
> > MR H with my layman knowledge you can not be
> > forced to testify or br questioned if you do
> not
> > want to but maybe our learned friend Haupir can
> > shed light on hat
> > my take is we know he shot R the state must
> prove
> > beyond reasonable doubt that his intention was
> to
> > murder her and with what I have heard so far I
> do
> > not think that the state will be able to prove
> > that , ro much conflicting evidence imo so for
> him
> > to testify can hurt him
> > the gun charges is not so serious it was
> brought
> > in to discredit his character because in
> MURDER
> > TRAIL you are not allowed character witnesses
> > smart move from the sttae to prove he liked
> guns
> > but it does not disprove his version
> >
> > do not be surprised when BR brings application
> to
> > have murder charges to be dropped once state
> > closes it case, that will be a shrewd move,
> > because if the states case is not strong I am
> sure
> > the judge will consider that
>
> If that happens then I think there will be more
> than one murder that the courts will have to deal
> with as the South African public want justice
> either for Oscar or against him


Gents, on a point of law, or rather a few points of law, this case wil still have many surprises for the man in the street.

I have been away from internet access for a few days, as my daughters have been involved in some serious athletics up country and I stayed on a farm where I had no tv or internet access. I will be catching up on 199 tonight.

However, OP will have to testify. he has made a statement saying he pulled the trigger. He admitted he killed Reeva. There is, IMO, no way he can avoid taking the stand. Yes, BR can argue at the end of the state cas that s174 of the criminal procedure act should apply and his client should be discharged on all counts. But for this to happen he will have to state that there is NO evidence his client has to answer to.

Evidence that is bad, is still evidence. So he will have to convince the court that Gerrie Nel has not made out any kind of case for OP to answer to. I doubt this will ever be in the judge's mind. She will have to hear OP's evidence. He pulled the trigger.

Also, we have to keep in mind that the charge is murder. In our law, and we are one of the few countries applying this, Culpable homocide is a competent verdict on a murder charge. So it will serve no purpose for OP and BR to argue there is no case to answer ot.

There is a tried and tested maxim in our law called Dolus eventualis. Google it if you want. It means that a person may nit have had the intent to kill, but still fired the shots realising the shots could kill someone. It doesn't matter if he knew the ID of that person, as long as he knew it was a human being. The moment he accepted that his shots could kill a human being, and he still fired those shots, he is guilty of murder.

This is, IMO, OP's boggest problem. Intruder or Reeva, He shot to kill. I just hope the judge knows this.

We all have our opinions. The judge will have her own. She will also haev her own agendas. We will never know what they are. However, I believe the realises that the world wants to hear OP's version.

I would love to be GN, cross examining OP. He has so much to answer to. But, once again, if he successfully sticks to his story, he should walk.

Lets see what the new week brings. I am sure Gerrie Nell has a surprise or 2 up his sleeve for the defence

Haupie Wrote:

---

> mr hawaii Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > JAMES BLOND Wrote:
> >
>

---

>
> >

---

> > > mr hawaii Wrote:
> > >
> >
>

---

>
> >
> > >

---

> > > > JAMES BLOND Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

---

>
> >
> > >
> > > >

---

> > > > > If i was OP I would not take the stand
> > > > > because the state must prove beyond
> > > reasonable
> > > > > doubt that his version van not be true
> and
> > I
> > > > think
> > > > > they can not do that, manslaughter at
> best
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure if he can now as the state has
> a
> > > > right to question him on his statement for
> > his
> > > > bail application and I'm sure I heard
> > something
> > > > about him giving his version when his
> > advocate
> > > > read his responses to the charge sheeet and
> > Mr
> > > > Roux has mentioned Mr Pretorius will say ..
> -
> > > > Without him giving evidence to the contrary
> > how
> > > > can he possibly believe the court will not
> > > favor
> > > > the versions presented by Fresco, Sam
> Taylor
> > > and
> > > > Lerena (who has as far as I know no reason
> to
> > > lie
> > > > about what happened) if he does not state
> > > > otherwise?
> > >
> > > MR H with my layman knowledge you can not be
> > > forced to testify or br questioned if you do
> > not
> > > want to but maybe our learned friend Haupir
> can
> > > shed light on hat
> > > my take is we know he shot R the state must
> > prove
> > > beyond reasonable doubt that his intention
> was
> > to
> > > murder her and with what I have heard so far
> I
> > do
> > > not think that the state will be able to
> prove
> > > that , ro much conflicting evidence imo so
> for
> > him
> > > to testify can hurt him
> > > the gun charges is not so serious it was
> > brought
> > > in to discredit his character because in
> > MURDER
> > > TRAIL you are not allowed character witnesses
> > > smart move from the sttae to prove he liked
> > guns
> > > but it does not disprove his version
> > >
> > > do not be surprised when BR brings
> application
> > to
> > > have murder charges to be dropped once state
> > > closes it case, that will be a shrewd move,
> > > because if the states case is not strong I am
> > sure
> > > the judge will consider that
> >
> > If that happens then I think there will be more
> > than one murder that the courts will have to
> deal
> > with as the South African public want justice
> > either for Oscar or against him
>
>
> Gents, on a point of law, or rather a few points
> of law, this case wil still have many surprises
> for the man in the street.
>
> I have been away from internet access for a few
> days, as my daughters have been involved in some
> serious athletics up country and I stayed on a
> farm where I had no tv or internet access. I will
> be catching up on 199 tonight.
>
> However, OP will have to testify. he has made a
> statement saying he pulled the trigger. He
> admitted he killed Reeva. There is, IMO, no way he
> can avoid taking the stand. Yes, BR can argue at
> the end of the state cas that s174 of the criminal
> procedure act should apply and his client should
> be discharged on all counts. But for this to
> happen he will have to state that there is NO
> evidence his client has to answer to.
>
> Evidence that is bad, is still evidence. So he
> will have to convince the court that Gerrie Nel
> has not made out any kind of case for OP to answer
> to. I doubt this will ever be in the judge's mind.
> She will have to hear OP's evidence. He pulled the
> trigger.
>
> Also, we have to keep in mind that the charge is
> murder. In our law, and we are one of the few
> countries applying this, Culpable homocide is a
> competent verdict on a murder charge. So it will
> serve no purpose for OP and BR to argue there is
> no case to answer ot.
>
> There is a tried and tested maxim in our law
> called Dolus eventualis. Google it if you want. It
> means that a person may nit have had the intent
> to kill, but still fired the shots realising the
> shots could kill someone. It doesn't matter if he
> knew the ID of that person, as long as he knew it
> was a human being. The moment he accepted that his
> shots could kill a human being, and he still fired
> those shots, he is guilty of murder.
>
> This is, IMO, OP's boggest problem. Intruder or
> Reeva, He shot to kill. I just hope the judge
> knows this.
>
> We all have our opinions. The judge will have her
> own. She will also haev her own agendas. We will
> never know what they are. However, I believe the
> realises that the world wants to hear OP's
> version.
>
> I would love to be GN, cross examining OP. He has
> so much to answer to. But, once again, if he
> successfully sticks to his story, he should walk.
>
> Lets see what the new week brings. I am sure
> Gerrie Nell has a surprise or 2 up his sleeve for
> the defence

Haupie i wish you were my lecturer in contracts - I think i would then have finished my degree - nice explanation that almost anybody could understand

Haupie Wrote:

---

> mr hawaii Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > JAMES BLOND Wrote:
> >
>

---

>
> >

---

> > > mr hawaii Wrote:
> > >
> >
>

---

>
> >
> > >

---

> > > > JAMES BLOND Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

---

>
> >
> > >
> > > >

---

> > > > > If i was OP I would not take the stand
> > > > > because the state must prove beyond
> > > reasonable
> > > > > doubt that his version van not be true
> and
> > I
> > > > think
> > > > > they can not do that, manslaughter at
> best
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure if he can now as the state has
> a
> > > > right to question him on his statement for
> > his
> > > > bail application and I'm sure I heard
> > something
> > > > about him giving his version when his
> > advocate
> > > > read his responses to the charge sheeet and
> > Mr
> > > > Roux has mentioned Mr Pretorius will say ..
> -
> > > > Without him giving evidence to the contrary
> > how
> > > > can he possibly believe the court will not
> > > favor
> > > > the versions presented by Fresco, Sam
> Taylor
> > > and
> > > > Lerena (who has as far as I know no reason
> to
> > > lie
> > > > about what happened) if he does not state
> > > > otherwise?
> > >
> > > MR H with my layman knowledge you can not be
> > > forced to testify or br questioned if you do
> > not
> > > want to but maybe our learned friend Haupir
> can
> > > shed light on hat
> > > my take is we know he shot R the state must
> > prove
> > > beyond reasonable doubt that his intention
> was
> > to
> > > murder her and with what I have heard so far
> I
> > do
> > > not think that the state will be able to
> prove
> > > that , ro much conflicting evidence imo so
> for
> > him
> > > to testify can hurt him
> > > the gun charges is not so serious it was
> > brought
> > > in to discredit his character because in
> > MURDER
> > > TRAIL you are not allowed character witnesses
> > > smart move from the sttae to prove he liked
> > guns
> > > but it does not disprove his version
> > >
> > > do not be surprised when BR brings
> application
> > to
> > > have murder charges to be dropped once state
> > > closes it case, that will be a shrewd move,
> > > because if the states case is not strong I am
> > sure
> > > the judge will consider that
> >
> > If that happens then I think there will be more
> > than one murder that the courts will have to
> deal
> > with as the South African public want justice
> > either for Oscar or against him
>
>
> Gents, on a point of law, or rather a few points
> of law, this case wil still have many surprises
> for the man in the street.
>
> I have been away from internet access for a few
> days, as my daughters have been involved in some
> serious athletics up country and I stayed on a
> farm where I had no tv or internet access. I will
> be catching up on 199 tonight.
>
> However, OP will have to testify. he has made a
> statement saying he pulled the trigger. He
> admitted he killed Reeva. There is, IMO, no way he
> can avoid taking the stand. Yes, BR can argue at
> the end of the state cas that s174 of the criminal
> procedure act should apply and his client should
> be discharged on all counts. But for this to
> happen he will have to state that there is NO
> evidence his client has to answer to.
>
> Evidence that is bad, is still evidence. So he
> will have to convince the court that Gerrie Nel
> has not made out any kind of case for OP to answer
> to. I doubt this will ever be in the judge's mind.
> She will have to hear OP's evidence. He pulled the
> trigger.
>
> Also, we have to keep in mind that the charge is
> murder. In our law, and we are one of the few
> countries applying this, Culpable homocide is a
> competent verdict on a murder charge. So it will
> serve no purpose for OP and BR to argue there is
> no case to answer ot.
>
> There is a tried and tested maxim in our law
> called Dolus eventualis. Google it if you want. It
> means that a person may nit have had the intent
> to kill, but still fired the shots realising the
> shots could kill someone. It doesn't matter if he
> knew the ID of that person, as long as he knew it
> was a human being. The moment he accepted that his
> shots could kill a human being, and he still fired
> those shots, he is guilty of murder.
>
> This is, IMO, OP's boggest problem. Intruder or
> Reeva, He shot to kill. I just hope the judge
> knows this.
>
> We all have our opinions. The judge will have her
> own. She will also haev her own agendas. We will
> never know what they are. However, I believe the
> realises that the world wants to hear OP's
> version.
>
> I would love to be GN, cross examining OP. He has
> so much to answer to. But, once again, if he
> successfully sticks to his story, he should walk.
>
> Lets see what the new week brings. I am sure
> Gerrie Nell has a surprise or 2 up his sleeve for
> the defence


thanks Haupie for your very informative insight into the law I found it interesting and the whole trail fascinating as things sways back in forth in favor of the state and the defense
one moment you think OP is as guilty as heel and then you hear how the state has messed up some of the evidence and you start thinking the defense is no on top and so it goes on, can not wait for this weeks happenings
I believe the trail can be extended for twee weeks.
wonder what the blond will wear tommorrow I predict black and white

The man is in bed with his girlfriend.

He supposedly goes out to the balcony to get a fan.

Then hears a noise, and without checking that Reeva is safe first.

He also keeps his gun by his bed.

If he went out to get the fan, on his stumps, he would not have his gun with him, and he would also know that Reeva was still in the bed.

He then gets his gun and goes to the toilet.

Had he put on his prosthetic legs, before going to the toilet, he would have known whether Reeva was in bed or not.

Had he not put on his prosthetic legs before going to find out the source of the noise, after, supposedly, going to the balcony, to get the fan, he would still have to go back to the bedroom to get his gun. If this was the case he would have known whether Reeva was in bed or not.

As much as I want this to be a big mistake, you took a life of a beautiful woman, and took a life, and destroyed her parents.

Your actions , Oscar, have not only put Reeva's family in turmoil, but also your own.

Did you have to push the limits.?