Oscar pistorius

[spiderbabymum]

Heard the news this am

I'm just Devastated for him and his family and partners family

I think, based on what has gone so far, that he is telling the truth. In the circumstances he describes, I doubt he had any coherent "thought" at all - he probably doesn't even know why he did or didn't do this or that - his mind must have been absolutely racing. We all think we know what we would do in a set of circumstances, but I don't think we do really - I can't imagine that level of fear.

As to precedent, I had a look at the Visagie case. A man shot what he thought was a car thief driving his daughter's car away from their home. There was no threat (or imagined threat) to him or his family, and it was in fact his daughter taking the car on an early morning drive. She died - there was no question this was due to his actions, but charges were dropped on humanitarian grounds. I think that is probably just - punished enough etc. Still doesn't let us know what would have happened had it really been a car thief he'd killed though - and protecting property rather than persons wouldn't have been enough to excuse using the gun at all. That was 2004 though - maybe there have been more recent cases.

Ohthedandy - see I don't get that. Shooting someone who is stealing your car is acceptable? A human life vs a big lump of metal?

Back to OP, I think he'll get bail, but I don't think this will automatically mean he'll be acquitted. The prosecution have been caught out this week, poorly prepared, relying on guesses about what happened rather than established facts. They haven had time to collate all the evidence. I suppose most of the time their suspects don't have access to shit hot lawyers ready to pounce all over them at a bail hearing.

Well said yellow. Shooting through a closed door, on the other side of which you believe there to be an armed robber who is perfectly prepared to shoot you if you confront, or shoot you as you try to run away, then go for your girlfriend - if OP is telling the truth, then i could understand why he fired.

"I have to say I'm stunned that anyone thinks he shouldn´t go to prison if it was a "tragic accident." so where do you draw the line there? There was a rugby player recently who shot what he believed to be an intruder on his property - through a window no less so this individual wasn't even inside his house) although apparently it was supposed to be a warning shot and the "intruder" turned out to be his daughter who he hit and killed. This case has been posted here yet I don't see anyone saying this father should have been sent to prison for what was essentially a tragic accident... Why not?

BC my point about Reeva having not been asalted related to the fact that prior to the shooting there were no physical marks on her body which would imply any kind of domestic violence, so that doesn't fit with an argument that he was violent and she was running away in fear.

Yellow yes, the people who have never lived in SA do seem to be applying their own standards to this case because none of them have ever lived in a country where burglars do actually come intending to kill the people they are burgling.

As for the calasness of the friends, tbh doo they really owe the public anything? They are supporting a man who they believe has killed his partner in the most tragic circumstances. In their eyes he is grieving the loss of the woman he loved and having to come to terms with the fact that he is responsible for her death - and he is having to do that in the eyes of the world's press. They are his supporters. They believe him to be innocent of premeditated murder. This does not take away from the fact that Reeva Steenkamp (and wtf are people calling her Reeva as if they knew her?) is dead. They are not answerable to the public, and presumably they probably wouldn't want to be interviewed by the press anyway.

The defence already say that they have a huge number of recent cases where loved ones have been killed, even through closed doors, which have not resulted in custodial sentences.

I am really really really thankful I live in UK & not SA. A place where you can kill a family member or overnight guest and go "oops I didn't mean to & I've suffered enough from my actions. I was really scared inside this teeny tiny brain of mine" and 'get off'??

How do they distinguish an accident from "I'm going to kill the bitch - bang! Oh dear! It was an accident I swear!!!"

Terrifying.

A woman is killed by her intimate partner roughly every 8 hours in SA - with precedents like the above, it's not surprising.

Thing is, it's the lawyers job to present a strong defence and OP is very wealthy so can afford the best of the best.

I'm not entirely convinced by this being understandable because it's AS. And a poster further upthread commented, understandably- that people here are "naive"about the realities of life in SA. I'd hold my hands up to that but I think they rather negated the point they were trying to make by assuming that people here are living in "leafy Berkshire". Most people here don't live in that kind of environment.

I think some people are keen that OP gets off and are getting carried away with the drama, imagining themselves armchair detectives. Even if his defence is to be believed he shot someone dead at close quarters and there's no disputing that, the defence just has to try and present a case where what he did was "understandable".

Also let's not forget a young woman died in terror and pain because of his actions.

I mean SA, not AS.

NB am not saying people are forgetting our don't care but it would be good to keep that at the forefront of our minds.

(and wtf are people calling her Reeva as if they knew her?)

I don't know but you did in your second paragraph

But I agree with what you are saying, although I think OP's friends should be more sensitive to the case as a whole.

wannabe here is Wikipedia's definition of Domestic Violence. There are many forms of DV that don't leave a physical mark

"Domestic violence can take many forms, including physical aggression or assault (hitting, kicking, biting, shoving, restraining, slapping, throwing objects, battery), or threats thereof; sexual abuse; emotional abuse; controlling or domineering; intimidation; stalking; passive/covert abuse (e.g., neglect); and economic deprivation."

wannabe have you never been fearful of violence as the result of a threat, or perceived threat?

There is a case currently in the spotlight where someone was so scared, from a completely imagined threat, that he shot his girl friend.

names escapes me ......

Marking

What we have to remember here is the what we are seeing played out is a bail hearing not trial.
The prosecution opposes bail so they need to show that there is little chance of the case being either dismissed or the defendant acquitted. The in depth evidence could never possibly be ready in just a week. It takes a great deal of time to collect, evaluate, test and retest the evidence. If the UK allowed coverage of bail hearings some of the issues with the evidence in this case would be seen. There are obviously issues within this case however you simply can't think of the evidence presented in this bail hearing as if it where evidence at a trial.

In the bail hearing the onus of proof is on the defence to prove there is a reasonable chance that the case will be dismissed or result in equital. Thankfully it will be the judge with many years of expirance and an inside out knowledge of South African law who will make this decision. I have every faith he will make the right one.

On the chat thread I talked about motive behind every leak to the press and the manipulation of the press and public as the two 'sides' fight their battle of public opinion.
What we are seeing in the court now at the hearing is the legal side of that battle. Every single word the lawyers on both sides use has purpose and motive, everything they say is very carefully though out to sway the judges opinion one way or the other and to use every legal avenue and loophole open to them. This is why they earn the big bucks as they say.

Watching this unfold and reading the general publics reactions, opinions and thoughts is leading me to to think that the SA method of hearing and trial has a great deal of merit. I am glad a jury won't go near this case. The whole thing is too complex, to own to interpretation and personal feelings. The fact it is judge not jury who will make the final decision gives me the hope that one way or another, justice will be done for Reeva, what ever the result ends up as.

YellowFlyingPineapple, that is not what .SA is like everywhere at all though. I am from there and go over to visit family annually, and yes I am cautious but we stroll at night, sit out in the garden, give people lifts in rural areas, we've travelled up and down the country and we''ve not had a single incident. It's not a total hellhole everywhere by any means.

Hear hear yellow. I tried saying similar things three times already on this thread, but apparently some people cannot conceive that there are countries in this world where when you wake up in the night to a strange noise, your first thought is "intruder".

As I said further up thread, the intentional homicide rate in SA is twenty one times that of the UK.

But, I love my home country - it's amazing. It's not perfect, but it has so much going for it, that it is really sickening that these criminals are holding it to hostage. Amazing weather, amazing people (so friendly, especially compared to British people), amazing food, amazing scenery - if it wasn't for the crime it would be paradise.

Watching this unfold and reading the general publics reactions, opinions and thoughts is leading me to to think that the SA method of hearing and trial has a great deal of merit. I am glad a jury won't go near this case. The whole thing is too complex, to own to interpretation and personal feelings. The fact it is judge not jury who will make the final decision gives me the hope that one way or another, justice will be done for Reeva, what ever the result ends up as.

I'm inclined to agree with this. I know that the right to a trial by 12 of your peers is enshrined in our legal system - but sometimes I think if I was on trial I would rather it be heard by a judge who was trained in the legal system.

Sorry if this has been gone through - but why did she lock the door?

Yellow, that is a very extreme description of SA, maybe an accurate description of joburg but certainly not where my family live. In fact out of all my family and friends in SA I don't know one who owns a gun.

Hopefully tomorrow this bail hearing will come to an end, at this rate there will be no evidence to submit in the trial.

Teenage, who know's why she locked the door, it could be habit, many posters on here have already said they lock the door every time they go to the loo, could be because she heard OP shouting at the "intruder" and locked herself in to protect herself or she locked the door to get away from OP - who knows. I don't think we will ever know to be honest.

I lock the door often when going to the bathroom out of sheer autopilot force of habit. If I was with a newish boyfriend I would definately lock.

I still don't believe him. Seeing as though everyone is so keen on evidence, what evidence do we have that anything he says happened prior to the shooting is as he says? They might not have been in bed, he may not have gone out to the balcony. We only have his word for all that. A story which could have been concocted to save his ass. There are too many instances during his story where he could have ascertained where Reeva was, yet apparently didn't. I find that really hard to reconcile

"my point about Reeva having not been asalted related to the fact that prior to the shooting there were no physical marks on her body which would imply any kind of domestic violence, so that doesn't fit with an argument that he was violent and she was running away in fear"

Use your imagination. He doesn't have to have touched her to frighten her. He had a gun.

Oh god, would people stop querying why she locked the door!! Just because you don't lock the door when you use the loo, plenty of people do - its not weird!

It's plausible she locked it when she ran in there to get away from him.

It's also plausible she locked it because that's what she did.

Really, this won't be a relevant point for either side.

He doesn't have to prove what he did do. He has to cast reasonable doubt on the accusations of the prosecution.