The positive thing for us about that article is that our League Cup win is entirely equal to Arsenal's invincible season. Yeah, it's total **** though, not worth even bothering to pick apart.
Wayne Rooney has completed the bucket challenge. KFC reported that he managed 12 wings, 8 portions of fries and 6 boxes of popcorn chicken.
The judge has only just started reading her judgement, PNP, but she has already decided a number of key issues re witnesses' recollections of hearing the events in his favour. Looks as if she is building up to acquit him. As with the OJ.Simpson trial in the '90s, there's an element of farce in these TV trials. Disproportionately long trial, too many silly histrionics, too much emphasis on peripheral issues....result is not guilty because artificial doubt is created.
He should be found guilty from his own ridiculous account, regardless of anything that anyone else has said. Even if it had been a burglar, I still think that he should've been facing some sort of manslaughter charge, at the very least.
Judge now definitely finding against him! Issue is what will she find him guilty of - premeditated murder, unplanned murder or culpable homicide.
I don't think that it'll be premeditated, but either of the other two seem up for grabs. Culpable homicide is looking like the best bet at the moment. He appears to have screwed himself with his own testimony, as I suspected he might. So arrogant.
If she rejects the story about the intruder (she it appears she may), it would still be murder, albeit unplanned. Culpable homocide would be on basis that she accepts he might have intended to shoot intruder, but without justification.
I think that he should get done for murder, as his story simply doesn't make any sense, but I still feel that the judge will go with the lesser charge of culpable homicide. I suspect that they had an argument and he lost it and killed her, which would be consistent with his jealous, irrational behaviour, plus the burglar thing just doesn't add up. What would anyone reasonable have done in his position, even ignoring his disability? Heard a noise in the bathroom and suspect a burglar has entered via a window. Do you: A) Arm yourself, stay in your bedroom with your girlfriend and call your live-in, male housekeeper, your closed community's security guards and the police, or: B) Arm yourself, waddle down the hallway towards a room with blindspots and then fire repeatedly into a closed door?
Looks like culpable homicide. Not sure if firearms offences too - are you allowed to arm yourself in your home in this way in SA? (Probably)
The State can't disprove Pistorius' account, so judge feels she has to accept it and apply SA law to the facts of his account - hence culpable homicide is likely verdict. Trial could have been done in a day or two on that basis!
In addition to killing Steenkamp, Pistorius faces a bunch of other charges, which are all firearms related. He discharged one in a restaurant, which his defence counsel suggests should be seen as negligent discharge, rather than the more serious offence of discharging it in public. He discharge one through the sunroof of his car after being pulled over by a policeman, according to two witnesses, but denied by him. He was also found to be in possession of some ammunition which he wasn't permitted to own, having no license for a gun in their calibre and no permits for them. The first two carry a sentence of up to 5 years and the second carries one of up to 15 years. My guess is culpable homicide and concurrent sentencing on anything else that he's found guilty of. That's the least that he deserves.
One of the judge's claims is rather puzzling to me. Pistorius apparently “did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door, let alone the deceased”. He fired four bullets into a cubicle-sized room with a flimsy wooden door. Killing someone in that room is hardly an unforeseeable outcome, is it? This appears to be something of a balls up, according to those reporting on the case.
Several commentators are saying the judge made a colossal legal error in the ruling, which leads to this comment on the Guardian website: "State can appeal legal errors. Arguably a legal error to restrict Dolus Eventualis to Reeva when it's irrelevant who was behind the door."
That's a pretty massive mistake to make, especially when she's the only person involved in coming to a verdict. Months and months of a trial and the judge doesn't even understand the possible conclusions? South African justice system, just
