I dont understand. He fired 4 shots through a blind door. How is that not murder of someone, even if it's of an intruder? 1 shot could be manslaughter, but 4? And how does he not shout through the door to enquire who is in there? If you woke up in the middle of the night and heard a noise from a bathroom would you immediately think it's an intruder or would you think it's someone who lives with you? And if you did think the former, how do you not check where your partner normally sleeps to see if she's there and then not shout through the bathroom door to enquire who is in there before shooting indiscriminantely?
From listening yesterday, I haven't this morning, I got the impression the judge thought he was guilty as sin but her hands were tied with the verdict. Hopefully the sentence handed down will show this. I'm with Bummer, I too have hated him since his unsporting trackside interview at the Olympics. It showed a volatile & narcissistic side to his personality.
You firstly need to be able to prove he intended to kill whoever was behind the door, which is near impossible to do. He could quite easily claim the shots were a warning or that he intended to cause a non-fatal wound to incapacitate the intruder and there's no evidence that could prove otherwise. This is why he has been convicted of mansluaghter, the behaviour you've listed resulted in a persons death but without proving intent he can't be found guilty of murder, which lets face it most people suspect is what happened.
Personally I think it's obvious what's happened. He and Reeva had big argument and she ran into the bathroom to protect herself. I'm not sure what that means in terms offence or sentencing because I'm not clued up on South African law.
But that's my point - 1 shot at a high trajectory could easily be a warning. 4 shots fired at different trajectories isnt a warning. That is intended to hit someone as many times as possible and ultimately kill them. At this point I should probably clarify that I'm not a lawyer.
To clarify, it was pointed out when the judge was summing up yesterday that:- He yelled at her to call the police. His statement. He shouted again, prior to shooting, "at the top of his voice" for her to call the police. His statement again. The door was locked. I would have thought that shouting at the top of his voice would have merited a response from her. Obviously this would have come from the loo. If she didn't respond why shoot? He's guilty as sin, but there's no evidence to suggest he's lying hence the negligence verdict.
If you have proof of this fact then please let the South African authorities know as they currently are not in receipt of this knowledge that he murdered her intentionally and with the proof to back this theory up.
He's not guilty in law, as they didn't find sufficient evidence, but he's guilty in the eyes of most, as his story was complete bollocks.
I think you will find that a lot of people actually believe his version of the events. Where is the proof his story was complete bollocks?
Not in the eyes of the law maybe, but I suspect the rest of the world, or the vast majority of it, thinks he is.
I understand what your saying and your probably right, its just the how the legal system works unfortunately.
Even the judge said he was full of ****, just not enough to prove guilt. What sort of headcase pumps four bullets into their bathroom without first checking to see if their girlfriend has just gone for a piss? It's ridiculously unbelievable. It's the same as OJ case, he was obviously guilty, but they didn't manage to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt(until it was tried in a civil court, where it was more about common sense, than burden of proof and he was found guilty).
I wonder what they had for lunch? I refuse to believe that I'm the only one thinking this. I reckon something light like a chicken salad or maybe an omelette.
If im being honest in my house if i here a noise, my mrs gets a nudge e.g. "wtf was that shhhh did you hear it!" i dont go running about with a bat. he killed her on in anger imo!
Most people can see past the fact that he wasn't caught with a smoking gun, and make a decision based on human behaviour. Unfortunately a court of law isn't allowed to do this otherwise he would already have been sentenced to 25 years for murder. Unfortunately the law is an ass!
Has it not set a dangerous precedent? The next time a South African wants to bump-off a partner they just shoot through the door whilst they're taking a late night dump.
