Oscar Pistorius Trial part 9

[JillJ72]

Starting a new thread as part 8 is nearly full, here - www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/2080468-Oscar-Pistorius-Trial-Part-8

*acquit, not commit

Clues in the wording Sabrina. reasonable . It means there were adequate grounds for believing his version of events! not that a smokescreen was put up clouding the real facts!

And being an unreliable witness does not mean the judge thought him a liar but that because of his mental state, during and after the event, and throughout the trial.....(she sent him for psychiatric appraisal which diagnosed a severe anxiety state, totally in keeping with someone who had accidentally killed the woman he loved).

And the inside out jeans discarded on the floor sounds a bit romantic to me!

No, it means the judge felt the prosecution hadn't proved the case for murder beyond reasonable doubt. There is a difference.

She found him reckless and unreliable. And of course, the result is the same either way - a young woman, who spent the night with a man she loved and trusted, was gunned down at point blank range through a door.

Whoever Oscar thought was behind the door was dead as a result of his actions - the actions of a hot-tempered, gun crazy man.

NoMary has repeatedly mentioned a machete but I haven't read such a claim anywhere else.

Generally I think the posts on the many threads on MN have been respectful and thoughtful. It's such a shame if the last thread falls into lurid accusations.

upnorth the other cases were discussed on one of the earlier threads in particular the case of Mr Visagie. The obvious difference between that case and OP's case was that the bond between a parent and child is generally considered stronger than that between a boyfriend and girlfriend of a few months. The other difference was the testimony from the neighbours as to what they thought they heard that night.

I've yet to unhitch and discard my jeans in the middle of a row!

"The judge has been appalling since giving her verdict. She seems to have had her head turned both by fame and by Pistourius court room histronics which should have had no bearing on the verdict."

I Agree - aemingers - the judge has been very weak.

Testimony by neighbours deemed unreliable.

Machete, machine gun, intercontinental ballistic missile are all suppositions because the intruder behind the door didn't exist, as didn't said weaponry!

The only lurid accusations are that it was a deliberate act of murder, when it has been found legally not to be the case and apparently accepted by RSs family who have been there through the trial.

I have never said OP was anything other than reckless, immature and arrogant. But he is also physically vulnerable, anxious and insecure. Not to mention having been burgled before, which is possibly why he bought this gun.

I thought the judge was measured, covered the criticisms, covered the "parallel" case, and was quite firm in her decision, having taken all factors and noise and disquiet into account. The sentencing was hers to deliver, just as the verdict. The most important thing from all of this is that he did not get a non-custodial sentence, and Reeva's parents have some sense of 'satisfaction' that he doesn't go home tonight. That's what's important.

I expect Reeva's parents are exhausted, drained, traumatised and want to be away from OP. I am not convinced they are 'satisfied'.

The sentence was right imo though I think he should spend longer in prison. 2 years would be better. I'm not sure what house arrest is but I hope it is as it sounds.

Either way he is a broken man. I am sorry for him but more so for the victim.

Apologies for going back to the case before the verdict was delivered, but this is bugging me.

I have followed the case fairly closely. The live court reports, not the media coverage. However, I've never read mention in testimony anything of Oscar's dogs and their reaction to the alleged intruder who Oscar thought he was at risk from.

Am I right that he had two dogs at the property? and if so, was there any mention of their reactions at the time in question when Reeva was locked in the toilet cubicle and Oscar was fearing an intruder who put their respective lives at risk?

I don't think the judge was weak. I think she acted the only way she could and explained clearly how she applied the law to this case.

Yy there were other legal experts who said they would have applied it differently regarding dolus and the discounting of ear witnesses and circumstantial evidence but ultimately I think the judge delivered a verdict that could withstand scrutiny and hence make an appeal less likely. I also think her sentencing is in line with her reasoning and conclusions.

Ultimately Reeva's family feel they have justice and that is the most important point imo

Thanks to all the regular posters who have provided such amazing updates and insightful comments throughout the process including those who made me question what I thought and who took the time to explain parts of the process that were unclear. I know if I attempted to name you all, I'd miss someone out but I have valued the discussions.

And RIP Reeva. I hope her family can find some peace

Considering the struggle Judge Masipa has faced to get to where she is, I think describing her as weak is very uncalled for.

But since people seem to be claiming they know the law better than her and know the evidence before the court, better than her, I'm not surprised such nonsense is being spouted.

Oscar Pistorius isn't an Afrikaner either, but I know it fits the narrative better for him to be so.

Good post, Sue.

Masipa judged that the murder charge had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. I understand and accept that.

That doesn't mean

" there were adequate grounds for believing his version of events!"

But that the prosecution did not prove their version of events beyond reasonable doubt.

If beyond reasonable doubt means, say, 95% sure, then Masipa could be anywhere between 6% and 100% sure that OP's version was true.

NoMary, you seem to be at the high end of that scale.

RIP Reeva

And to her parents and family. I hope they can find some peace now.

I have to agree with NoMarymary. Like me, she is very passionate about her opinion. I have turned the case inside out, upside down, backwards and forwards and just don't see he intended to kill Reeva. I am with her in that if it had been an intruder in the bathroom he would have been at a great disadvantage so I can understand his fear especially with his disability.

I don't think anyone can say with certainty how they would respond to an intruder in their home. I think having the threat in the bathroom of the bedroom one is sleeping in makes the treat that much worse. I am pretty certain when it comes to them or me I would go into survival mode by instinct and do what I could to protect myself.

As for the other South African cases I mentioned regarding people killing family members in similar ways. I was just mentioning that these men all reacted the same way in that none of them ascertained where their loved ones were, didn't fire a warning shot, didn't press the panic button or phone the police before defending themselves and property. It was just an example that people don't always respond in the most logical, well thought out way when they perceive their lives to be in jeopardy.

As for the argument theory. I can't accept there was an argument based on the testimony of Mrs. VDM in that she only heard one voice on and off for an entire hour, didn't know where it was coming from, didn't know what they were saying or what language was being spoken. In addition to the fact that the security guard was in the front yard of OP's immediate neighbors house on his rounds at the time of the supposed argument and didn't see or hear anything.

I also can't disregard the testimony of the immediate neighbors. Dr. Stipp, Mr. Johnson and neighbor Mike N all called security within minutes of one another to report what they heard. That means they were all hearing the same thing at the same time. Why does the testimony of neighbors up tp 177 meters away carry more weight than the neighbors one either side of the Pistorius house? It is not likely that they could hear better than the people living on either side of Oscar Pistorius. Not one person testified to hearing the crying/screaming sounding muffled which it would have had to of been if it was Reeva as she was in the toilet with the door closed.

I can only see that OPs version of events is far more believable than that of the prosecution.

Anyone can accept that reasonable doubt errs on the side of caution but just because this is the case it does not preclude the probability/possibility that the defendants case is 100% truthful.

In the case of this trial it was black and white. He either murdered her in a rage or he thought there was an intruder. The evidence points more to the second instance, therefore it's not a case of him getting away with murder but murder never being the case. If you accept it was not murder then his account has to have been truthful.

People have pointed to the locked toilet door as evidence RS was trying to get away from OP. To me this is evidence that the relationship was in its early honeymoon phase and the idea of your world famous boyfriend walking in on you sitting on the toilet would have been acutely embarrassing. Far more believable than locking herself away from a man in a rage and one that the forensic evidence supports.

People with physical disabilities often have higher anxiety levels than normal. Dd is severely disabled and freaks out if someone enters the house. Why? Because she can't turn herself around to look let alone get up and walk to meet them as DS does. My sympathies do NOT lie with OP because of this but my understanding does. My sympathy is for the victim.

Sigh.

RIP Reeva.

Au revoir, NoMary.

In the case of this trial it was black and white. He either murdered her in a rage or he thought there was an intruder. The evidence points more to the second instance, therefore it's not a case of him getting away with murder but murder never being the case. If you accept it was not murder then his account has to have been truthful.

People have pointed to the locked toilet door as evidence RS was trying to get away from OP. To me this is evidence that the relationship was in its early honeymoon phase and the idea of your world famous boyfriend walking in on you sitting on the toilet would have been acutely embarrassing. Far more believable than locking herself away from a man in a rage

Sorry but I couldn't disagree more than that this case was and it wasn't the case that it was either murder in a rage or an intruder at all.
The fact of the matter is that he had no idea who was behind the closed door because he hadn't established where Reeva was.

I wholly disagree about the locked toilet door and embarrassment argument. They were sleeping in the same bed, had previously had sex together and the toilet is behind two doors from the bedroom, at least one of which was closed, so no clue as to why it would need to be locked, especially if she'd left Oscar resting peacefully in bed. I wouldn't for a moment buy that Reeva was SO incredibly shy that she thought she'd be seen urinating behind a closed door within a dark room by a world famous boyfriend - not sure what that snippet has to do with anything because it's not as though he'd be likely to give world wide interviews talking about seeing his girlfriend on the toilet - it's a massive stretch to even postulate that.

Re the locked door that might not mean anything - could have been an automatic action, though does seem a bit weird. The thing that gets me is that he must have known she was not in bed, surely. Even if you have a huge bed if you're used to sleeping next to someone you can tell when they're not there. (And hearing noises from the bathroom and sensing them not there most folk would put 2+2 together in a millisecond)?! But if you then get out of that bed and walk round it to the bathroom (on stumps or not) you must surely know they're not in the bed, even if you hadn't made a deliberate check (which you surely would to reassure yourself they were safe).

But could he have been in a total panicked rush 'OMG I left the balcony open & someone's got in must kill/disable them now' and leapt out of bed to defend himself & her who he presumed was still there but didn't check? Well - maybe. Though if really paranoid re security hard to believe he didn't check his locks twice, know I always do. Either way history seemed to suggest he's overly trigger-happy and not surprising he ended up hurting/killing someone.

One point I was disturbed by in the judge's summing up though was where she said she had no reason to disbelieve a statement OP had made. Hello?! If he was a murderer he would have said that wouldn't he?!!... Ultimately, I don't think we'll ever really know.

Remind me never to sleep with a man who keeps a gun under his pillow.

RIP Reeva.

Keeps a gun on your side if the bed and is so deeply in observant that when he reaches for it is likely not to notice you not there would be more accurate.

Seems some people will go to any lengths to defend violent men, how sad.

Hopefully now Reeva can now rest in peace.

My thought on the toilet is that Reeva was in the toilet using it with the door slightly closed. I don't think it is odd that she would use the bathroom with the door closed (My husband does this every night and we have been together 18 years.) She heard Oscar scream out to the intruder, she jumped up pulled the door shut and locked it. (I would have done the exact same thing). She was standing in front of the door listening trying to determine what was going on in the bedroom without saying a word so as not to give away her location.(again, I would have done the exact same thing) I believe she may have been fumbling with the phone and dropped it on the floor which Oscar heard thinking someone was coming out to attack him.

My thought is she would not have thought to shout out to Oscar that it was her in the toilet as he had just spoken to him and assumed he saw her go to the toilet. She knew he was messing with the fans and thought maybe someone had entered the bedroom through the balcony. He made the fatal mistake of assuming she was in the bed as he had just spoken to her. As for him not seeing her in the bed. Yet again, my husband can get up and go to the bathroom and I have no idea he has gotten up and not in bed with me until he gets back into bed. And this is when I am already awake and usually just returned from the toilet myself.

These are just my thoughts and how I can find it possible to understand how this whole thing happened.

It's quite simple. We will never really know if his version is true, or if others' assumptions are true. We all have our own thoughts, and they will be coloured by our own experiences, our personalities, our backgrounds, our feelings.

Judge Masipa and her two Assessors agreed on the verdict. 'Reasonable doubt' exists, it's not 100% proven for either scenario. OP's punishment will continue long after 5 years, quite rightly. I hope Reeva's family can now start to look forward, and be left in peace (and the same with OP's family), now that the trial is over.

We will never know whether he is telling the truth (I personally doubt it) but as far as I'm concerned, he should still have been convicted of murder.

He walked to that bathroom with his gun cocked KNOWING that there was a human being there. He shot four times into a box that he knew contained a human being.

NoMary You'd shoot someone who was in your toilet with a machete? Would you really?

You'd ignore any of a number of possible ways of escape, would you? You would not attempt to call for help, or make absolutely sure that your loved ones were in a safe place? You would simply arm yourself, go out of your way to confront them and then murder them? I'm very glad that gun ownership in the country is not widespread because, with this sort of attitude, we'd all be screwed.

And how would you know they had a machete unless you'd seen them, by the way? Pistorius had not seen anyone, let alone a weapon, but he executed them in the toilet anyway. He executed someone who he believed was hiding from him in the toilet.

Tragic accident? No, this was no accident. Not even the court found that. He acted with intention and deliberation that went way beyond "recklessness".

The defence's version of events do not make more sense than the States....unless we are in a twilight zone where a man can scream like a woman and yell like a man in the same instant and be heard by four separate people.

The State were unable to prove what happened that night - but all the defence were able to do was raise the necessary doubt, they most certainly did not prove that Pistorius was innocent. And there's no way that his bizarre story about screaming his head off in different tones as he chose to confront an intruder is "more believable" than the sadly everyday occurrence of a man killing his partner.

And I can't believe anyone would try the "but she told him she loved him" nonsense. So? What does how Reeva felt have to do with whether Pistorius killed her? Where was his Valentine's to her?

"They were happy together". What a naive attitude, not one I expected on MN of all places. How many women drop cases against violent men because "he loves me really". Women want to see the best in their partners, perhaps because the reality is too difficult to face. Was Reeva so different?

Having said that, there's no evidence that he'd been violent to her before - but again, this proves nothing. I read somewhere recently that, in SA, 66% of DV murders happened in instances where no violent behaviour was reported before.

I hope the State bring an appeal - many legal people believe they have grounds. That man, IMO (based on logic, not legal expertise) deliberately murdered the human being he knew was in the toilet. I am pretty certain he knew it was Reeva, but even if he didn't, it is still murder.