Oscar Pistorius not guilty of murder

I admit that I havent been following this, so am not familiar with the evidence that was presented from either side, but I have to say that im not in the slightest bit shocked at the verdict.
 
Bizarre some of the things the Judge is saying? IMHO and I followed the trial as best I could as S Africa interest me
 
I called the NG on murder elsewhere. The police and prosecution were shockingly inefficient and mistakes were made from the day of the killing onwards, they did a lot of damage to their own case.
 
I thought the prosecutor summed it up nicely in his closing last month:
'He knew there was a human being in the toilet. That's his own evidence,' Mr Nel told the judge.
'His intention was to kill a human being. He's fired indiscriminately into that toilet. Then m'lady, he is guilty of murder. There must be consequences.'
 
viv1969 said:
I thought the prosecutor summed it up nicely in his closing last month:
'He knew there was a human being in the toilet. That's his own evidence,' Mr Nel told the judge.
'His intention was to kill a human being. He's fired indiscriminately into that toilet. Then m'lady, he is guilty of murder. There must be consequences.'
Click to expand...

Killing a human being doesn't necessarily mean murder is committed...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Premeditated murder was always a stretch. Murder, maybe, but I've always thought that a conviction for culpable homicide - SA law doesn't use the term manslaughter - was a more likely outcome. We'll see.
 
The Judge said

"He cannot have foreseen killing whoever was behind the toilet door"

and

""How could the accused reasonably have foreseen that the shot he fired would kill the deceased?"

and

""Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility, that he would kill the person behind the door, let alone the deceased as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time."

He did fire 4 shots into the toilet, what was he trying to do ……. just scare them

The judge also accepts that Pistorius believed that Steenkamp was in his bedroom at the time of the shootings"

Bizarre, she will be giving him a medal next for trying to protect Steenkamp from an intruder
 
Last edited:
I think he'll get culpable homicide and a non custodial sentence.
But not today....The judge has adjourned :lol:
 
I don't fancy his chances in the long term.

He is guilty of Killing her, he admits he fired the shots.
He was trying to kill someone that is certain.
He could not claim he was just trying to scare or wound them.
I do not doubt he knew he was shooting at her.
Her first scream would have told him that, if he did not already know it before hand.

I place him as a lying cowardly bully who loses his temper when he does not get his way.
 
BillN_33 said:
The Judge said

"He cannot have foreseen killing whoever was behind the toilet door"

and

""How could the accused reasonably have foreseen that the shot he fired would kill the deceased?"

and

""Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility, that he would kill the person behind the door, let alone the deceased as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time."

He did fire 4 shots into the toilet, what was he trying to do ……. just scare them
Click to expand...

Yep, i found those comments very odd as well. How can you not expect to kill someone when firing that many rounds through a door knowing someone (if not exactly who) is on the other side?

If he isn't convicted of culpable homicide then something has gone very wrong in that court.
 
H2O said:
Yep, i found those comments very odd as well. How can you not expect to kill someone when firing that many rounds through a door knowing someone (if not exactly who) is on the other side?

If he isn't convicted of culpable homicide then something has gone very wrong in that court.
Click to expand...

It mostly went wrong at the crime scene with sloppy procedures and the police treating it as if it was some sort of theme park for everyone to come and have a tour of the celebrity's house (and pinch his gear).

It wasn't helped by a prosecutor who was too stubborn and more intent on making a name as being a "bulldog" in court and not going where the evidence was leading.
 
ST4 said:
I hope he escapes the man slaughter charge and glad he got away from the murder one.
Click to expand...

Oscar Pistorius was charged with murder, and some firearms offences. He can still be convicted of culpable homicide, at the court's discretion, but was never charged with this. Manslaughter doesn't exist in SA law.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I don't fancy his chances in the long term.

He is guilty of Killing her, he admits he fired the shots.
He was trying to kill someone that is certain.
He could not claim he was just trying to scare or wound them.
I do not doubt he knew he was shooting at her.
Her first scream would have told him that, if he did not already know it before hand.

I place him as a lying cowardly bully who loses his temper when he does not get his way.
Click to expand...
Excellent point about the scream.How did the judge miss that!
 
But she said he acted hastily and had been negligent. Mr Pistorius says he thought an intruder was in the toilet.

No doubt adjusting the toilet roll to the correct orientation?

Joking aside, We all know that SA is a much more violent place than the UK,
And we don't know the full facts, only those reported by the media.
But firing 4 shots though a (any) closed door I would suggest was
would not be the actions of a responsible person.
 
shapeshifter said:
Excellent point about the scream.How did the judge miss that!
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that she did. The summaries/extracts I've read suggest that Judge Masipa found that the severity of Reeva Steenkamp's injuries made it unlikely that she could have screamed after being hit, and that there was no evidence to contradict Oscar Pistorius' version, that he screamed when he realised what had happened, and that this must have been what the witnesses heard. She was quite critical of the state witnesses testimony about who was screaming, which they heard from some distance away, considering that they had never heard Steenkamp or Pistorius screaming before.

This was all dealt with right at the beginning of today's proceedings.
 
Last edited:
Least he can make a career change.
Golden Globe for Best Actor in a Dramatic role goes to......
 
This judge is a disgrace to the SA legal system from a technical as well as a natural justice standpoint

- I have watched and read about this trial as much as I could - as I said SA is interesting to me - I have even thought about living there permanently
 
Last edited:
I can't say I've followed this that closely - obviously there have been time when it's been impossible to avoid. And that leads me to one point I think worth noting:

If we (in the UK, if nowhere else) learn one thing from this it's that we should not go down the road of televising court cases.

At times it's been a pantomime, and the judge today behaved at timers like she was in a soap opera!
 
BT Bob said:
At times it's been a pantomime, and the judge today behaved at timers like she was in a soap opera!
Click to expand...
She's obviously been watching too much Judge Judy ;)
 
BillN_33 said:
This judge is a disgrace to the SA legal system from a technical as well as a natural justice standpoint

- I have watched and read about this trial as much as I could - as I said SA is interesting to me - I have even thought about living there permanently
Click to expand...

Why?

She can only judge on the evidence presented by the prosecution, and Nel did a shocking job, for a prosecutor with such a reputation he was useless. He seemed to think being arrogant and interrupting witnesses and even trying to lead witnesses was a clever tactic.

I also followed the case quite closely, (through SA media, not just the sound bite cuts shown here), as I was also very interested as I lived out there for many years.
 
Dave1 said:
Why?

She can only judge on the evidence presented by the prosecution, and Nel did a shocking job, for a prosecutor with such a reputation he was useless. He seemed to think being arrogant and interrupting witnesses and even trying to lead witnesses was a clever tactic.

I also followed the case quite closely, (through SA media, not just the sound bite cuts shown here), as I was also very interested as I lived out there for many years.
Click to expand...

Is that going to be her excuse?
 
BillN_33 said:
Is that going to be her excuse?
Click to expand...

Excuse for what? You haven't really even answered why you think she is a disgrace.

She can only judge on the evidence, nothing else, that is the law. No suppositions or theories, no personal feelings, only what Nel presented and Roux defended.

Nel did a bad job, she doesn't have a great deal of fact proved beyond a reasonable doubt to consider.
 
BillN_33 said:
- I have watched and read about this trial as much as I could - as I said SA is interesting to me - I have even thought about living there permanently
Click to expand...

To add, if you want a more in depth view of the trial, have a read of this SA site, every news report of the trial is posted, as is plenty of local opinion, including from the legal side (it is pretty long by now, you might want to move up to about page 35 for the judgement).

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php/613224-The-Oscar-Pistorius-Murder-Trial-II
 
Dave1 said:
To add, if you want a more in depth view of the trial, have a read of this SA site, every news report of the trial is posted, as is plenty of local opinion, including from the legal side (it is pretty long by now, you might want to move up to about page 35 for the judgement).

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php/613224-The-Oscar-Pistorius-Murder-Trial-II
Click to expand...

so based of the evidence presented you agree with the judge who said

"He cannot have foreseen killing whoever was behind the toilet door" ………. and

""How could the accused reasonably have foreseen that the shot he fired would kill the deceased?" ……. and

""Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility, that he would kill the person behind the door, let alone the deceased as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time."

He did fire 4 shots into the toilet, what was he trying to do ……. just scare them

The judge also accepts that Pistorius believed that Steenkamp was in his bedroom at the time of the shootings"

I don't ……. based on the evidence …….. but I'm not a judge
 
BillN_33 said:

The judge also accepts that Pistorius believed that Steenkamp was in his bedroom at the time of the shootings"
Click to expand...
This is where it all goes tits up for me too.
IF I believed there was an "unauthorised person" in my house,
and I was about to walk around with a loaded gun,
I'd make damned sure I knew where my family was first and foremost!
Not just guess, but visually check,
not least to make sure they were safe and unharmed.

With only one other person "to worry about",
that wouldn't take but a second or two would it?
 
Cobra said:
Joking aside, We all know that SA is a much more violent place than the UK,
And we don't know the full facts, only those reported by the media.
But firing 4 shots though a (any) closed door I would suggest was
would not be the actions of a responsible person.
Click to expand...

I wondered about that too. IIRC, there's a question about firing through a closed door in the written competency test for a firearm license. The answer is that it's very difficult to justify, because you can't identify your target and assess the threat he represents. OP must have passed this test.

Some SA lawyers are suggesting that the judge may have made a mistake about dolus eventualis, by limiting her interpretation of OP's intentions to RS. This could open the door for a state appeal against OP's acquittal on the murder charge.
 
i am right in thinking that there is no maximum limit for culpable homicide ,,,so he could be banged up for quite a while anyway ,,,and then the other three charges could carry up to five years each if found guilty ????
 
donut said:
i am right in thinking that there is no maximum limit for culpable homicide ,,,so he could be banged up for quite a while anyway ,,,and then the other three charges could carry up to five years each if found guilty ????
Click to expand...

Maximum is 15, but likely to be 7-10.
Discharge is a fine or up to 5.

Don't know whether a sentence would be consecutively, or concurrently (the latter to me is stupid.) - Bit like you're going to prison for 5 years and we'll revoke your driving licence for 2 yrs kind of stuff you read about every other day.
 
I would think that the State must appeal …….
 
still wouldnt want to be in his shoes ,,,,,,the judge handed out a 252 year sentence to a serial rapist ,so she dont mind big numbers.
( did i really type that first sentence ? )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top