Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

quote:

---

Crap spouted by Twilight:
* think some people do sleep in loose shorts but it does seem an unusual choice for a young woman with her lover on Valentine's Day.

---

Not if you're used to living with room-mates or family who you don't necessarily want to be naked in front of.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

quote:

---

Crap spouted by Twilight:
* think some people do sleep in loose shorts but it does seem an unusual choice for a young woman with her lover on Valentine's Day.

---

Not if you're used to living with room-mates or family who you don't necessarily want to be naked in front of.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
Didn't P start to try and change his story part way through the trial? This isn't something an innocent party would do if they were being charged with murder, when in fact it was a tragic accident.

If he'd sent just one shot through the bathroom door then maybe his story would have held up. But 4 shots!? Nah, that was never going to work.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't agree with that, I mean the bit about changing your story. Presumably, P did this under legal advisement; I see this as a way to avoid the middle charge, that is 'foresight of likely death', or however you define it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't agree with that, I mean the bit about changing your story. Presumably, P did this under legal advisement; I see this as a way to avoid the middle charge, that is 'foresight of likely death', or however you define it.

---

Well, put it this way. Say I accidently killed my missis while reversing the car and found myself charged with murder. I would not change my account of event no matter what anyone said, nevermind if they're a lawyer with a funny wig or whatever.

That isn't to say I might not still go to prison for it though. As did Mrs chamberlin over the dingo dog killing her baby. Did she ever once change her story throughout that whole ridiculous ordeal?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
OK, WAS the bathroom light broken? How was she 'fully dressed' in 'shorts' - me wearing boxers and a T-shirt is NOT being fully dressed - if her jeans were on the floor?

This is me being open here.

So she WASN'T leaving him? Put our heads on his body, or rather blend us and him and we still wouldn't shoot.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Yes, I still think it's odd for a woman who models lingerie to sleep in clothes you might wear for racket ball...

---

Why? Why is someone whose job is looking glamorous still expected to make an effort to look glamorous on her day off, at home, in the middle of the night?

I don't sleep in my lingerie either. It would be dashed uncomfortable. And pyjama sets that consist of a T-shirt and a pair of soft jersey shorts are very common over here.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Thanks, Twilight, for explaining the meaning of "shorts" here.

As for the verdict, I think it does matter what his state of mind was, and how that fits with South African law about could/should/did etc. In the US, we have too many incidents of people getting off for killing people when there are other courses of action they could have chosen, so I'm glad that the Pistorius verdict could at least come in "culpable homicide" rather than "guilty".

He did kill Steenkamp, but the court has determined that it is not proven that he knew it was her behind the door and that his goal was to kill her.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:

Why? Why is someone whose job is looking glamorous still expected to make an effort to look glamorous on her day off, at home, in the middle of the night?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
Rolyn, if you accidentally reversed the car over your wife I think you might find yourself changing details of your story; simply because you'd be so traumatised after the event that you wouldn't be able to produce a coherent account of it.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
What are "shorts"? In the US they're a garment you could wear outside, as jeans are. They're like trousers but with legs that end above the knee (anywhere between the crotch and the knee, depending on the style)...

On the other hand, if they're short trousers and thus outer garments, then the jeans don't come into it at all because you wouldn't need to put jeans on to be dressed to leave the house, and you certainly wouldn't put jeans on over them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

quote:

---

Crap spouted by Twilight:
* think some people do sleep in loose shorts but it does seem an unusual choice for a young woman with her lover on Valentine's Day.

---

Not if you're used to living with room-mates or family who you don't necessarily want to be naked in front of.

---

But if you're in bed with the bloke you're currently seeing and haven't been seeing for that long, and there isn't anyone else in the house you need to be careful about? Still seems a bit weird to be dressed.

Well, until we get her side of the story, there's always going to be scope for different interpretations, I guess.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What has amazed me is that the phrase 'fully clothed' is widely found on internet forums and blogs in relation to Reeva. It took me about ten minutes, to find various reports that she was wearing shorts and a t-shirt, and her jeans were on the floor (in fact, shown in photographs).

So I'm kind of stunned that such speculations run rife, and then take on a life of their own, and are obviously not checked. Eventually you get something like, 'she was frightened of him, after a row, so she got dressed, ran to the toilet with her phone (in order to call for help), and locked the toilet, to keep him out, and then he shot here in a rage'.

Pure speculation; well, you can see why we need courts of law.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes, shorts mean outerwear in the US, but soft shorts such as running shorts are often worn to bed, even (or maybe even especially) by fashionable young women. They are comfortable, easy to wear, and have a cute sporty look. And in my part of the US, bed-time wear and daywear are often indistinguishable (my students frequently wear pajama bottoms to class). I can very much imagine a young woman wearing them to bed, even on Valentine's day. I wear something similar on warm summer nights (and of course, it would have been summer in So. Africa).

Whether or not these Californian fashion sensibilities translate to South Africa, of course, I have no way of knowing. Just that it doesn't seem at all a stretch.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

It's not that I "expect," her to look glamorous on her day off, it's that I thought she might actually want to. I said her choice was odd as in "not typical," I didn't say it was wrong.

---

quote:

---

We tend to think of terms of how we would deal with something. This is not always accurate.
The unwavering story is neither a sign of innocence or guilt.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
Hey, I didn't say I would be *rational*. Being female, my first thought would be to look for other members of the household so we could tackle the intruder together. Such as my Other Half, who is considerably stronger than me, and my daughter, who knows martial arts.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
I also wonder if some people want him to be guilty of murder because it's easier to think that he meant to kill her than that she died in a horrible (and avoidable) accident*?

*Accident in the sense that he did not intend to kill her, not that he fired the gun accidentally.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

Mob justice really. It reminds me of 'The Ox-Bow Incident', a shattering western novel and film, where 3 cowboys are lynched for castle-rustling, only then for the real culprits to be found.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
Well, it's not OK though, is it? The judge made it perfectly clear in her summing up that it wasn't. And you're talking as if he got off scot-free; he's been convicted of culpable homicide, which several people with legal qualifications have told us was the most he could have been convicted of under South African law with the evidence available. What might have happened in Florida (or any other US state with 'stand your ground' laws) is beside the point.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Twilight wrote:

He heard someone in the bathroom and shot through the door into a small room. He had to have meant to kill someone. Fear and hysteria may lesson your reasoning ability, but not to the point where you forget that bullets kill. This wasn't an accident. It wasn't a case of pushing someone who then fell against the hearth and died. He used a lethal weapon at close range. He deliberately took a life. I think you "don't want" him to be guilty because you don't care very much about that life.

Whoa, that's getting a bit personal, isn't it? Would you care to withdraw that, as you don't actually have a clue what I care about.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Twilight wrote:

He heard someone in the bathroom and shot through the door into a small room. He had to have meant to kill someone. Fear and hysteria may lesson your reasoning ability, but not to the point where you forget that bullets kill. This wasn't an accident. It wasn't a case of pushing someone who then fell against the hearth and died. He used a lethal weapon at close range. He deliberately took a life. I think you "don't want" him to be guilty because you don't care very much about that life.

Whoa, that's getting a bit personal, isn't it? Would you care to withdraw that, as you don't actually have a clue what I care about.

---

My post was in retaliation for all the personal accusations you've made on this page alone about people who want to find him guilty because we're just an angry mob. Read your own posts.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Haydee:
But if it is subjective, then you could also say that you DIDN'T know that putting a gun to someone's head and firing would kill them.

It seems that this is what Judge Masipa is saying when saying that the prosecution has not proved P knew he was likely to kill someone.

I guess this is what will be tested on appeal (assuming the state appeal) - whether her interpretation is correct, or whether there is a point when 'you should have known, but the prosecution needs to prove you did know' becomes 'from a legal standpoint we will assume you did know'.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
<snip>his gun (with specially lethal bullets) and shooting through that door into a tiny room<snip>

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Twilight wrote:

I think you "don't want" him to be guilty because you don't care very much about that life.

Whoa, that's getting a bit personal, isn't it? Would you care to withdraw that, as you don't actually have a clue what I care about.

---

My post was in retaliation for all the personal accusations you've made on this page alone about people who want to find him guilty because we're just an angry mob. Read your own posts.

---

That wasn't in relation to you, or anyone on this forum. I don't see people here as an angry mob at all.

I had been reading through various forums, blogs, and newspaper columns, and was struck by the amount of fantasy directed at Pistorius.

I regret that you won't withdraw that very offensive accusation. So it goes.

---

In that case I do withdraw it and didn't really mean it in the first place, except as a "If you think I just want him to be guilty then I think -blah blah- opposite stuff."

Sorry, heat of the moment, and caffeine of the coffee.