To think Oscar Pistorius deserves the benefit of the doubt?

[SilverMoo]

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? I think the media circus around this is really unfair and am shocked so many people are ready to jump on the bandwagon and call him a murdering woman hater before he's even been tried. Just that really.

I find it really odd that every single statement in court is being relayed live on Twitter by loads of reporters.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, courts have always had reporters I suppose. It just seems weird that everything is being reported in real time, and therefore in minute detail.

Also, the bail hearing seems really long and almost like the real trial. But I know nothing of SA law (ad not that much of UK law either if I'm honest).

Bearbehind - but if she was in the loo and thought he was calling out about an intruder elsewhere then she might have kept quiet to not alert said "intruder" to her location.

As I said upthread, I screamed in shock a few weeks ago, when, getting up, and tiptoeing to the loo, leaving DP asleep (so I thought), I got a real shock when he was sat - in silence (even when I walked in the bathroom) on the loo, in the dark. I would have sworn he was in bed. And I guess that for OP it's even more so (if he's telling the truth) in that she was in bed when he got up, and she just got up when he was moving the fan. The difference is I didn't shoot DP! I'm not on the alert for burglars, I don't have gun etc etc. The point I'm making is that it's really easy to be completely mistaken/disorientated in the night about someone's presence. That in no way excuses what he did but it's the one thing that I do find totally plausible about his story. Particularly if she did get up after he did.

Other aspects, I'm yet to be convinced on - but that, I do find plausible.

Normally I'm a huge advocate of trial by jury. I think though that in this current media climate, and the laxity of the contempt laws in SA, it's probably fairer that it's just one judge (that's slightly circular, in that I understand that the reason the contempt laws are more relaxed is because it's a judge - and less likely to be influenced).

I think that's just harmless speculation LegoWidow though. People will make connections wherever they can. I wouldn't pay too much attention into it.

Yeah that's true Lego never thought of that only started reading thread properly after posting . yes it is a mess and very very sad whatever the outcome, for her family and his for that matter.

In murder cases often the accused or guilty parties parents and family are forgotten and all sympathy is focused on the victim and their family. But how awful must it be for parents of the accused in cases like this and his siblings, the sorrow and worry, not to mention the stigma must be horrendous.

I have a handsome but l am biased very athletic son, does triathlons , marathons etc. and is a similiar age to Oscar. It must be heartbreaking and l cant bear to think about how l would feel if it was my son in the dock.

I remember years ago l lived in Ireland and there was a case where a young man killed another young man in a fight and on the steps of the courtroom after the guilty verdict the father of the victim saw the father of the killer visibly distraught and went over and hugged and comforted him.
When asked later why and how he managed to find it in him he said he saw him and his heart just went out to him and he realised he had also lost a son that day.

^ my previous comment about people mentioning his "dark side" being revealed at the Paralympics.

For me, it will all hinge on whether there is any proper evidence of DV in this relationship or previous ones to support his having a reason (to him) to kill her. Wondering why he didn't do this or that doesn't mean anything - we are not him and we were not there. What Even what other people think they would do isn't necessarily what they would do if faced with exactly the same situation.

Thisis - I don't agree that whether 'accident' or deliberate, OP deserves years in jail. I had a look at the Visagie case which has been mentioned (maybe on another or previous thread). Visagie shot what he thought was a car thief driving his daughter's car away from their house - no threat to him or his family (real or imagined) - just didn't want to lose the car presumably. Tragically it was in fact the daughter taking the car for an early morning drive. She died. Visagie was charged with murder but the charges were subsequently dropped on humanitarian grounds, as he obviously had no intent to kill his daughter and presumably the authorities felt her death was punishment enough.

Socrates - yes, you are right.

Sudaname - I know what you mean - whilst obv main sympathies are with Reeva and her family - I do feel huge sympathy for (Oscar - if his story is true - and) the Pistorius family. The 3 siblings seem really close. The journalists yesterday reported that his brother Carl was kneeling on the floor yesterday in order to be able to reach forward far enough to be able to touch him during proceedings, and today he was sat in front with the defence lawyers helping with the lines of questioning.

I do want to add one more thing...
A lot of people are commenting on him not being worried about sleeping with the doors open. Any time I've been in a hot country, there have been shutters on the doors so they can be left open but not open. When I read he got up to shut the door, I assumed he had shutters...?

I was a fan, but that doesn't blind me to the fact that he killed his girlfriend and deserves to be on trial for it.

Whether Oscar is guilty or not of premeditated murder remains to be seen, and if convicted, he deserves everything he gets.

The tweets from court are extremely interesting though, yet not really being reported on in a consistent way.

News headlines are sensationalised, leading with the prosecutions allegation, with the defence rebuttals coming later - after we've read and taken in the headlines.

The police officer in charge and his evidence were, by all accounts, ripped apart by the defence advocate, although I'm not hearing that in the news reports

Someone upthread stated he "clearly" had anger issues. Other poster have made what appear to be factual comments about him and this murder.

Where are such assertions coming from?

I am not defending him - I can't possibly do that, as I don't know any of the facts - but nor am I advocating locking him up and throwing away the key, based on media speculation.

of course, by the time the trial comes around, the media speculation could be well backed up with evidence, but I'd rather wait for that.

AmIThatWintry - yes, that's kind of how I feel. Not disputing that he should be on trial. He killed her.

It's been a real insight for me though - reading the tweets from court on how the defence ripped the investigating officer's story to shreds and then not seeing the news stories reflecting that.

e.g re testosterone. The headline in the Evening Standard is about him being found with testosterone and talks in length about that - but then adds almost as an aside that the defence stated what it actually was, that the prosecution admit that they haven't tested it - and doesn't even mention that the lead investigating officer admitted that he hadn't even read the label properly yet had put as part of the case that it was testosterone (even if the lab results hadn't come back yet - shouldn't he at least have read the label properly and looked up what that was?!). Now I'm sure that it will be tested and the court will know either way in due course - but even "respectable" papers (Independent etc) are focusing on the prosecution assertion without really mentioning the defence

I don't know why it surprises me that the papers are sensationalistic!

We won't know the truth until the trial, so we won't know for sure if media reports from the weekend are warranted, although am sceptical.... Trying to keep an open mind somewhat, but when you see the media doing such a good job of contradicting themselves and reporting selectively to feed public perception, well, they're not doing their profession any favours.

South African cases are decided by a judge (who rules on law) and two assessors (who decide facts). This is not only more common worldwide than the jury system but is preferable as the assessors will be trained in the law of evidence and (unlike the average UK juror) know what to ignore. Nothing to do with racism. It also explains why there has been so much public comment allowed by the Court- no daft jurors to confuse.

Just to add- my in-laws are South African. None of them carry guns or, to my knowledge, keep them in the house. They say there are few worse ways to protect oneself. By the way, Britain and British people have nothing to teach South Africans about race relations.

Call me a cynic - but the investigating officer suddenly has a case of attempted murder reopened against him this morning?

What amazing and coincidental timing!

I don't think it has been reopened this morning - it has been confirmed this morning - the Officer is due in court in May. I just don't understand how can someone in that situation is not under suspension?

I am appalled by the suggestion that he should be given the benefit of the doubt

That phrase is totally inappropriate to the magnitude of this offence. A person has been shot to death, not "accidentally" removed goods from a shop without paying for them!!!

FFS

Does anyone know what Testocompasutium Co-Enzyme actually is or where it could be bought. The only references I can find on google are in relation to this case

In England a fair trial and benefit of doubt go hand in hand. You are found guilty if it is beyond all reasonable doubt after all.

The law in south africa may be different. But you would not get away for shooting a burglar through a door in this country.

One thing I wondered is why you would leave a fan on your balcony? Surely on hot nights you'd have it in your bedroom plugged in ready to get up and turn on if it got too hot. That's what I do in the summer anyway. Not speculating either way but just seems a bit odd.

Someone said upthread that they needed to know more about the domestic violence allegations before they made their mind up properly. I am the same.

At the moment, the story he is telling more or less makes sense, when put in its context. The witness statements alluded to which describe screaming and rows have not been put into enough of a context for me to think about them properly. For example, did the concerned party call the police? Where were they? I would need some sort of explanation of why someone would hear screaming and gunshots, yet not take any action.

Ditto, the hints about domestic violence and previous police visits. Did they relate to Reeva and Oscar, or to other parties? What was meant to have happened? Who actually summoned the police? When did they occur? If a previous partner gives a definite account saying that he was violent/abusive to her, I will believe her, but now, I can't make anything of what we've been told.

Can I point something out? This is not a trial - it's a bail hearing.

The trial will probably be in about 4 months when all the forensics, evidence and witness statements have been collected and analysed.

Also, the reason they don't have jury trials in SA is because there are 11 different first languages.

The stuff I mentioned is important in assessing whether he's a danger or not: there's a massive difference in risk between paranoid protectivist and misogynist killer.