Oscar Pistorious - Last day of freedom for some time

Did anyone else spot OP smirking just as he sat back down there ?

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

If there's any justice, somebody on the inside will take him out long before he gets released.

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

Beggars belief..... amazing what you can get away with if rich and famous

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.

unbelievable..... put four bullets through a toilet door and its reasonable to think you wouldn't ultimately kill someone!!! wtf!

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

Ludicrous thought process on behalf of the judge.
She, and she alone, believed his sobbing,retching,crying performance. Sick

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!?

What's going on? Properties sold or not. Sentence him already

Just how many breaks do they need ffs?

hes going to get a non custodial sentence

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

his uncle did look a little peed off with that!!

* nutters !

Incredible !

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!

Prosecution lawyer - "We have to accept the courts decision"

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!

No doubt all sides are in chambers thrashing out a deal

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.

A book deal?

thought it meant "I blew half her skull away 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.

DartsnBooze 12 Sep 14 10:21

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

.

(will that do?)

If you fire a warning shot you would shoot into the ceiling, the floor or the wall, you don't fire 4 shots straight through the door unless you intended to kill someone.

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.

if OP had been black?! .....same result?

Sep 12, 2014 -- 5:09AM, notcricket wrote:

if OP had been black?! .....same result?

dont be stupid, if OP was black or wasnt rich and famous this trial wouldve lasted a week tops and he wouldve been a few months into his 20 year sentence

We`re reasonable people I would imagine! So.... a person is behind a locked toilet door. Four shots are fired into that door, what would a reasonable person believe the outcome might be? According to the judge death is remote/improbable...... judge my arse!!

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

dangerous presedence being set tho, from now in south africa if you shoot someone and kill them you can claim you didnt know shooting someone could kill them

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

notcricket
12 Sep 14 11:09   
if OP had been black?! .....same result?

See my post at 10:02 this morning.

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

Exactly...... I think Ill burgle this house..... Im inside, **** I need a piss! ....and Id better lock the toilet door as it is a personal matter, mmmmm nice toilet and cistern, would look good in my house..... think Ill have that!

Jail. Take him down........

nah....the judge is weak.....trying to be seen to do the right thing!

And that means custodial sentence to come.

Unless of course this jackass system is worse even than i think..

he will never see the inside of a jail

apart from the last hour....that's it! 1 hour in jail

Of course he gets bail

hahahaha hes been given bail, what a shocker

Utter farce

this is pathetic now

yep real surprise

Well done Sky. They put up a caption that said bail refused.

I was getting all excited..

hopefully someone will hand out some justice on the street

He`s gonna walk free....and make a packet from books interviews etc

So its adjourned until 13th October now? jeez its pathetic

unreal

Disgusting

He's goin to walk from murdering someone with 4 bullets scot free......

1 hour in jail will be all he does

yep, if hes been granted bail theres no chance hes getting a custodial sentence

no chance.....probably get some kind of bravery award soon

and to be fair he shouldn't get a custodial sentence as he`s never killed anyone before.

is the judge getting paid by the hour

nah she gets paid by the day, hence the 3 hour days to maximise the length of time

how long till sentence ?

Sep 12, 2014 -- 6:20AM, Capt__F wrote:

how long till sentence ?

a month

how was it simply "negligent" to put four bullets through that door?!! The judge is pathetic. He`s is a bloody murderer.

well thats that mi-lady... granted bail

sentence at court 13th october....Hairy nel in attendance

Do you know the police in S. Africa a year or twoago shot dead a number of
striking mine workers...and the judical system in S Africa wanted to charge the
miners with murder.!
Those in power, such as this judge, are too stupid tobe making decisions.

So no legs has another month holiday..Bit of a joke this !!

Hope he gets 15 years, but no doubt he will get 15 months

Haven't read whole thread so apologies if this has been mentioned - but how did the judge accept Oscar's version of events, despite finding him an extremely unreliable witness on the stand...but then completely dismiss a prosecution witness who said she heard a woman's scream followed by gunshots? It appears she just took his word over hers.

Legal expert now saying that the judge 'made a mistake' If this is true, then we will soon know if it was a stitch up, as the prosecution won't appeal..

Haven't read whole thread so apologies if this has been mentioned - but how did the judge accept Oscar's version of events

The prosecution had to prove he intended to kill someone (the girl or an intruder). In order to do either they had to show he had a motive. OP didn’t have to prove he didn’t have a motive, they had to prove he did. They failed to do that and that (along with the other evidence she thought wasn’t convincing) left the judge no choice. OP claimed he didn’t mean to kill anyone, the prosecution claimed he did, but without motive the judge had to accept his version. If they had shown he might kill someone by the actions he took, he would have been reckless (knew someone might die as a result but went ahead anyway). OP’s claim that he didn’t mean to kill anyone implies that he was negligent (in other words, too daft to appreciate that someone inside the toilet might die if he shot 4 bullets through the door). So basically she’s taken his word for it, when it comes to down to it, because the prosecution failed to prove motive. As someone, I think Facts, above said - she’s just gone by the letter of the law.

That’s my interpretation, I may be wrong though, I'm sure someone will correct me if I am.

Seems a fair assessment.

In such cases, it is one thing to commit crime but it is quite another matter to prove it. Throw money and fame in to the mix, and it becomes even more problematic.

What I do thing curious is that the judge accepted OP's version that he believed there was an intruder in the toilet although she maintains he was an unreliable or evasive witness.

*thing=find

Did she find any of the prosecution witnesses reliable? It's just an overall feeling, but I got the impression that when he lied or was evasive, that didn't mean he was lying generally because he was trying to cover up a murder, it was for some acceptable reason or other, to the judge. But when the prosecution witnesses were not 100%, that was it, they weren't any good at all - they didn't hear right, they didn't see right, they didn't get the time right or whatever for the judge. Seems to have given them no benefit of the doubt whatsoever. I haven't followed it that closely so maybe that was fair, but it just struck me as a bit biased.

Spot on Flower Myth. She's stuck totally to the absolute letter of the law. I.e it's the prosecutors role to prove guilt. She wasn't interested in anything that didn't tick that box. Perversely though she appeared to give the benefit of the doubt for lots of the defence's points. And even more amazingly seems to have been taken in by the crocodile tears of OP. Both at the crime scene and in court.

Good advert for a jury imo. !

^ That's exactly my point - one female witness was adamant she heard a female's 'blood curdling' scream, followed by some bangs...the judge said to her (and I believe others), you are outright wrong, you're mistaken, and you've become confused due to outside influences such as other witnesses and media reporting!? It seems the judge allowed herself subjectivity when assessing the witnesses, but Oscar was beyond reproach - again, despite her admitting she found his testimony implausible.

just cos he burst into tears after doing it realising what he'd done doesn't mean he didn't completely lost the plot beforehand and killed her in blind rage

the tears were more likely to be for the situation in which he found himself than for her

Have Reeva's family made a statement?

To all the blokes on here (and around the world) who are out on the razzle this weekend - Watch out! There's going to be a lot of pissed off women on the warpath looking to bring fury down on the male species. Especially men who brought hurt and humiliation to an ex, had better be extra vigilant.

Enjoy your weekend

There was evidence that supported the prosecution's claim that he deliberately killed Reeva - the cries heard by neighbours, the text from Reeva saying Oscar scared her at times. Together with the unlikely idea that you assume someone in your toilet is a burglar and not your partner who you share a bed with and ought to notice if she's not there  - it makes a compelling case for murder.

For some reason the judge has chosen to dismiss all this and take the word of a man who she admits is unreliable and inconsistent. Bizarre...

I was not reassured either listening to the judge this morning - who seemed to struggle to construct a coherent sentence.

Sentences aren't her thing.

They BBC were all over the judge a couple of days ago fawning because she is a black woman,But that's the BBC for you.

Guess I'm naive but I reckon he'll get 10 years...

A guilty verdict of murder is a mandatory (no parole) 25 years.

I don't understand why an athlete, albeit famous should be give this much favour and grace by the system and the Judge. The break (was it 6 weeks??!) to see if he was mentally stable was truly bizarre.

Fire 4 shots thru a locked door and you've chosen to kill...

3 years max for me.

And wouldn't be at all surprised if he walked with community service..

I await the prosecutions response..

A_T

She was the same yesterday, and she reading from prepared sheets of text. You'd think the least she would do is to check all the sheets are there, and that they're in the correct order. She's on a world stage here, and completely drops the ball more than once. Embarrassing as well as insulting to the legal profession and to the relations and friends of the murder victim

most he'll get is a couple of years (halved with time of for good behaviour) in some cushy prison hospital type place. but would not surprise me if he doesn't see one single night in jail.

3 bullets hit the poor lass.

Not just any bullets...Dum Dum bullets, invented by the British and then outlawed from warfare. Designed for maximum and of course fatal damage to human tissue.

They spread and mushroom on impact. Passing thru the wooden door they would also have carried splinters into her body...

Yep, but the judge has decided he was only being very ' negligent '  !!

She said OP had no way of  knowing that 4 bullets of such nature, fired through the door, would actually kill the person in the toilet. Unbelievable statement !

I dont think her sheets were reading from were in wrong order she just had another browser open on screen for holiday / retirement homes .. the reason she adjourned so abruptly on day 1 was to get a deposit down on a place that had just come on the market ... South Africa is notoriously corrupt and this would not suprise me in the slightest.

Indeed. SA 'justice' system on trial here, not just OP.

Regular bullets often exit the body after impact. These ones slow up on impact (hence the 'mushrooming') so they stay inside the person for maximum damage.

The SA police are not allowed to use expanding bullets but the public can buy them.

They were outlawed by the Hague Convention in 1899

'........So although Judge Masipa surprised us with the speed with which she adjudicated on evidence and witnesses it's difficult to see legal mistakes in her analysis of why premeditated murder had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

That, unfortunately, is where the praise for sound legal reasoning must end. Unlike in many other jurisdictions around the world, you can also be found guilty of murder in South Africa if you could have forseen that your action that you performed could kill someone, but you still performed that action, in effect reconciling yourself with the eventual outcome - death - that will result from your action.

That is what is meant by that pretentious piece of Latin doing the rounds, 'dolus eventualis'. So if Pistorius did not kill Steenkamp as a result of premeditated, unlawful action, it doesn't yet follow in law that he is not guilty of murder.

In between premeditated murder and culpable homicide - which rests on proving the negligent killing of a person - we have two other murder categories in our law: indirectly intending to kill someone (and doing so) or foreseeing you would kill someone and reconciling yourself to that outcome (and then doing so).

We can set aside the idea of 'indirect intent'. It's not at issue in this case. It refers to a case in which, say, I walk into a packed restaurant and I intent to kill my lover and so I shoot at her. She is sitting with her friends and I fatally injure not her but her friend next to her. That kind of scenario is not at play in the Pistorius case.

The nub of the issue today is that 'dolus eventualis' business. And that's where Judge Masipa got it wrong.

Could Pistorius have forseen that shooting at the bathroom door four times would kill someone behind the door? Yes. Did he, knowing that, refrain from shooting? No.

Did he shoot only once, maybe accidentally, such that we might say it's reasonably possibly true he did not reconcile himself to killing the person behind the door? No, he fired four shots, not in rapid succession either, and while controlling the firearm.

He didn't suffer an epileptic seizure that can be described as a loss of voluntary control over your body. Things didn't happen to his body. He acted. Deliberately, intentionally with a view to landing bullets in the body of a person behind that door. All of this by his own testimony and in light of the evidence of shots fired, the number of shots fired and time lapses between each one. He should therefore have been found guilty of murder.

It is a textbook case of dolus eventualis and if this was a criminal law exam Judge Masipa would barely pass: she stated the law correctly (though even this is a generous description since she failed to flesh it out in adequate detail appropriate for such a complex case) but then hopelessly failed to apply the legal standard accurately to the evidence before her, including the testimony of Pistorius himself.

So why did Judge Masipa, you might wonder, think the requirements of dolus eventualis was not met? Here it gets embarrassing I'm afraid. This test in law is a subjective one. We have to ask what Pistorius was thinking. Pistorius told us he thought Steenkamp was asleep in bed. Judge Masipa believes him and takes this as proof that Pistorius did not desire the death of someone behind that bathroom door.

But that is blatantly a misapplication of the law. Who cares if Pistorius sincerely believed Steenkamp was in the bedroom fast asleep? The question is whether he foresaw any human being behind that door - Xolani or Piet or Marita or nameless intruder - dying if he were to shoot at them through that door four times? So it's not legally relevant that Pistorius genuinely didn't think Steenkamp was in the bathroom. The murder charge holds so long as he believed SOMEONE was there, foresaw that four shots in that direction could kill them and reconciled himself to that outcome. And he did.

It gets worse: Pistorius' defence is that he intentionally shot at the door to neutralise a perceived threat. He just didn't think his voluntary shooting was unlawful. But by the standards of dolus eventualis, properly applied, he committed murder in South African law.

Nel can start filing his appeal papers. His prospects are surely good. Judge Masipa won't be the last judge to have a verdict overturned.......'

Also her interpretation of the evidence was bizarre. Why would anyone assume a person in their toilet was an intruder - when their partner was in the house? Why would you think your partner was asleep next to you when she wasn't? OP's story made no sense.

in the UK doubt the jury would have taken more than 3 or 4 hours to find him unaminously guilty

I'm really at a loss as to why the judge pretty much dismissed the prosecution case but yet found in favour of OP's intruder story when there was absolutely no facts supporting this version other than his courtroom performance.

Also amazed that she found him an evasive and unreliable witness but yet believed his account.

Facts - that's a pretty damning summary.

Reeva's whereabouts is irrelevant to the whole case. OP knew SOMEONE was behind that door and he fired 4 times in such a way and with such bullets, to kill.

As an aside it never helped the State that the crime scene was contaminated. A copper stole one of OP's watches and the gun was handled without gloves, by a ballistics expert!!!!