Can't believe what I'm hearing. This is the difference between a jury and a single judge. The judge is 100% going by the law book ( literally). Almost robotic like she just quotes what the law states. She has measured everything put forward against the law book. No emotion, no regard to anything else.

She has believed OP 's version ! Saying he cried, and called 911 therefore he was not guilty of murder !

The girls parents must be distraught.

Horrible person.
Guilty of manslaughter. Hope he gets maximum sentence. But won't hold my breath.

Looks like he might not even get jail   House arrest?  FFS

I wonder how many times this trick of murdering someone in your own home and then claiming you thought it was an intruder has been pulled over there?

I bet a non celebrity wouldn't get away with it. Definitely a ruse for the rich or famous.

If OP was black and skint, he would be in prison by now.

and why was nothing mentioned regarding the flushing of the toilet by Reeva? If she was there due to usual reasons the toilet would have been flushed and hence heard by OP! OP would have heard that in his version!?

Just how many breaks do they need ffs?

Bet his Uncle is pleased that the world  now knows his address and where mutters can find OP

* nutters !

Judge asking where OP has been staying (like she didn't know he's been living at his uncle's house the past 18 months). Under house arrest it is then.

Take your pick of the most appropriate emoticon...Sadly no death emoticon available!

so if you want to kill someone.......take a trip to SA, be alone with that person in say, a house..... let them go into the loo, say you think an intruder has entered the flat....then blast the loo door with bullets!! Simples!! ...........then, of course, write a book and make zillions!! Living the dream!

The way I see this is, first, I agree with what you all are saying. I think he’s as guilty as hell of murder. But the judge seems to be saying that he was negligent (basically too stupid to see the consequences of his actions might be that someone dies) rather than reckless (knew someone might well be killed but what the heck) when he shot at the door. The prosecution had to prove he intended to kill the person (girlfriend or intruder) and they failed, it seems, to provide a convincing motive. In the light of that, she had no choice but to accept that he was stupid rather than intent on murder as that is a reasonable enough scenario. Like here, he doesn't have to prove he didn't intend to kill anyone.

But what a system, this is what you get folks when you whine on and on about the jury system and its perceived flaws - a tortuous lumbering trial punctuated with 24 hour tea breaks every 90 minutes.

a cis puris torso

is a latin anagram of oscar pistorius

which as all us classic scholars know means:

I shot her in the body and got away with it.

If only Reeva had time to send a fone message from the toilet.

"OP's gone beserk. I'm scared for my life and he's smashing at the door with a bat."

No doubt it would have also been dismissed in court.

A 21st Jack Ruby outcome would appease a lot of people.

(will that do?)

South Africa?

Say no more.
What else would you expect from a place that's run like that is?

The verdict was probably reached before the trial began.
That's how these kind of regimes operate.

shes either retarded or on the take, one or the other

defence hasn't got a leg to stand on, etc

Whichever way you look at it. Highly unlikely an intruder would have locked himself in the toilet to have a pee !