Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Oscar Pistorius Trial Part 8

986 replies

Roussette · 15/05/2014 09:14

here is Number 7.

OP posts:
msrisotto · 11/09/2014 10:05

My idea that the judge had discounted the witnesses came from journalist updates (can't watch it as am at work) so I suppose they weren't very accurate

BeCool · 11/09/2014 10:05

That's it - Culpable Homicide.

I've wobbled a little either way as various evidence came to light through the trial, but essentially since the very beginning I've thought Culpable Homicide too.

Sentencing would be at judges discretion I believe.

LookingThroughTheFog · 11/09/2014 10:05

I'm calling Guilty of 2nd degree murder (forgotten what the SA term is).

Murder - Dolus Eventualis. He knew someone was going to die on account of his actions.

I think this too.

It could be Culpable Homicide though.

mumtosome61 · 11/09/2014 10:10

He will still be convicted of something relating to murder, as an intruder in a locked toilet wouldn't pose an immediate threat; although I wonder whether they'd consider his impairment. I cannot remember what the sentences available are - I guess the least severe would be manslaughter and would be given if the Judge felt OP killed what he thought was an intruder, without premeditation and because of threat to his own life.

Difference is whether he knew it was Reeva, whether it was premeditated, or whether it was murder based on feeling threatened by an unknown. Legally, he'd be guilty, but the difference in the sentencing tariff's and the implications between whether the Judge felt OP was killing Reeva in premeditation, killing Reeva in "heat of moment" or killing what OP thought was an intruder. Whatever verdict she decides will determine the length of the tariff - so he will be guilty of something - on a scale of severity.

bobblewobble · 11/09/2014 10:11

I think he will be found guilty of culpable homicide but I think she will use her discretion and not give him a prison sentence.

LookingThroughTheFog · 11/09/2014 10:14

A reminder of the possible charges (from the Guardian this morning)

The charges Pistorius faces

If Masipa finds Pistorius guilty of premeditated murder – that is, he knowingly intended to kill Steenkamp, or deliberately decided to kill an intruder – he would face a mandatory life sentence. It would be 25 years before he would even be considered for parole.

The judge will also consider whether he is guilty of murder without premeditation: an intent to kill, but with no planning, in the heat of the moment. Sentencing for a guilty verdict here is at the judge’s discretion.

There is also the possibility of a manslaughter, or culpable homicide, conviction, if the judge believes Pistorius’ claim that he did not mean to kill Steenkamp, but decides he acted recklessly or negligently in firing into the locked door.

Pistorius could be acquitted if the judge accepts his account that he genuinely feared for his life and thought he was acting in self-defence.

Alongside the charge of murder, Pistorius is accused of two counts of discharging firearms in public, and another of illegal possession of ammunition.

Discharging firearms in public, first count: The prosecution says he discharged a firearm at a restaurant in January 2013. Pistorius said his friend Darren Fresco had passed him the loaded gun and denies he pulled the trigger. In closing arguments, defence counsel Barry Roux said Pistorius had made a mistake and should be found guilty of a lesser charge of negligently discharging the firearm.

Discharging firearms in public, second count: Pistorius is accused of firing a gun through a car sunroof while he was with Fresco and Pistorius’ then girlfriend Samantha Taylor in November 2012. The athlete says he became angry after a police officer inspected his gun when the car was stopped for speeding; the gun was apparently lying on a car seat. But he denies firing a gun. Both Taylor and Fresco say he did.

Illegal possession of ammunition: Pistorius is charged with being in possession of .38 ammunition; he does not have a licence for a gun that takes that ammunition, a permit to be in possession of it or a dealer’s licence. Pistorius told the court the bullets belonged to his father and he had them for safe-keeping.

If found guilty, Pistorius could face five years in prison on each of the first two counts, and 15 years for the illegal possession of ammunition.

msrisotto · 11/09/2014 10:14

I really don't think she can avoid giving him a prison sentence, not with the world watching.

LookingThroughTheFog · 11/09/2014 10:14

Gah, sorry for the formatting fail. I wish Mumsnet would allow editing of posts.

OneStepCloser · 11/09/2014 10:28

Hi, dropping back in after an absence, the news says that they think the verdict will be today as Judge M is storming through her summing up. I still think CH I can't see how it's been proved that it was Reeva, Guilty for the other Gun crimes which I believe can carry a lengthy sentence.

greyhoundgymnastics · 11/09/2014 10:33

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BeCool · 11/09/2014 10:35

from Judge - "Pistorius’ evidence that if he had wanted to kill the perceived intruder, he would have fired higher is “inconsistent with someone who shot without thinking”."

Strong indication she believe OP shot purposefully.

WildThong · 11/09/2014 10:36

I think he's going to get away with it

greyhoundgymnastics · 11/09/2014 10:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LookingThroughTheFog · 11/09/2014 10:41

Masipa is about to deal with the 'plethora of defences'.

LookingThroughTheFog · 11/09/2014 10:45

Diminished capacity emerged during the trial. He repeatedly told the court he had no time to think, or he'd done it before he knew it.

Raised doubt as to whether he could be held accountable.

Could he distinguish between right or wrong, and was he capable of acting accordingly.

The psychiatric observation happened, details of this, the report submitted, at the time of the offences, he did not suffer from a mental disorder or defect etc.

LookingThroughTheFog · 11/09/2014 10:48

Going on to involuntary reflexive response. If he had increased involuntary startle response, it negated liability.

LookingThroughTheFog · 11/09/2014 10:50

She's dismissing this too. The court is satisfied, the accused could distinguish between right and wrong and act accordingly. Startled or not.

LookingThroughTheFog · 11/09/2014 10:51

Second defence - putative private defence. He believed that the intruders were coming out of the toilet to attach him and Steenkamp.

OneStepCloser · 11/09/2014 10:51

Blimey, I can't keep up with Judge M! Thank god for you Looking Grin

BeCool · 11/09/2014 10:52

Guardian feed buffering badly here

greyhoundgymnastics · 11/09/2014 10:54

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LookingThroughTheFog · 11/09/2014 10:55

Sorry - this one is confusing.

She refers to OP saying he had no intention to shoot anyone on many occasions. But if he did, then it was self defence.

She agrees with State that it can't be both. If he didn't intend to shoot at all, then it wasn't self defence.

LookingThroughTheFog · 11/09/2014 10:56

I've missed some due to buffering.

tedmundo · 11/09/2014 10:58

Looking .. Thank you for taking the time on this.

greyhoundgymnastics · 11/09/2014 10:58

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Swipe left for the next trending thread