So, has the judge even addressed the key issue of Pistorius's defence?
... that he thought it was an intruder?
Seems to me that this is, to now, a judgement based on his actions regardless of who was behind the door.
That regardless of the occupant of the toilet, firing four shots in to it was negligent but not necessarily carried out with an intention to kill?
Check the panel describing the Judge's options in this story (towards the end). Where does it make any distinction between the Steenkamp prosecution case or the intruder defence?
Posted By: norway on September 11th 2014 at 15:13:13
Message Thread
- A reasonable man bollocks. (General Chat) - harry boulders, Sep 11, 13:37:45
- Indeed. The judge appears to have contradicted herself a bit. (General Chat) - trafford_canary, Sep 11, 13:52:10
- they are different things (General Chat) - CWC, Sep 11, 14:27:36
- So, has the judge even addressed the key issue of Pistorius's defence? (General Chat) - norway, Sep 11, 15:13:13
- in a way, yes she has (General Chat) - CWC, Sep 11, 18:03:11
- Sorry *this* story... (General Chat) - norway, Sep 11, 15:13:42
- So, has the judge even addressed the key issue of Pistorius's defence? (General Chat) - norway, Sep 11, 15:13:13
- And this is why adjourning to tomorrow is really, really unhelpful (General Chat) - norway, Sep 11, 13:59:06
- they are different things (General Chat) - CWC, Sep 11, 14:27:36
- Indeed. The judge appears to have contradicted herself a bit. (General Chat) - trafford_canary, Sep 11, 13:52:10
Reply to Message
In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.
If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.