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

I really don't care about OP, he's been shown up to be a pretty unpleasant character and will never regain his previous status or be seen through the rose-tinted glow of his former 'charisma' - we've seen the real OP. I feel deeply sad for Reeva's family, they've lost her in the most horrific circumstances and must feel there as been no justice for her totally unnecessary death, whatever the SA legal constraints on the Judge's ruling. I hope that they have recourse through a civil suit, though it may drag out the coruscating misery for them. The fact that OP felt comfortable clubbing during the trial speaks volumes about his sense of entitlement and self-regard, which seems undiminished by the terrible act he has committed.

truly ohmymimi I agree with every word

The televising/conduct of the trial is another issue. It was mentioned on ENCA,prior to the verdict, that OP could appeal to the Constitutional Court about the fairness of his trial.

I do think the judge + assessors wanted a verdict that would stand.

The combined maximum sentences for both charges would be 20 years, that will probably come down with mitigation (no previous criminal convictions, remorse), but would still leave a custodial sentence.

mumtosome61 it's not his parent's address ( his mother is dead & his father practically estranged from OP although has recently started coming to court), it's his Uncle Arnold and Aunt Lois' address. Same address on Indictment papers & widely available by googling.

The picture of Reeva's head wound was very much meant to be seen, it was shown by the State on purpose after a video showing OP comparing shooting watermelons as softer than human brains. The broadcasters did not know it would be shown. June Steenkamp knew it would be shown & was told by their family lawyer when to avert her gaze.

The legal expert on Sky seems to suggest he won't get any jail time as its a first offence!

Bail extended by the sound of it.

Sentencing hearing requested to be October 13th onwards.

Sentencing to take place 13th October

Bail granted, same conditions as before. Nel criticised for hurried and circumstantial claims.
Court adjourned.

jacky And now Reeva's family have to wait for a month to find out if he will serve any time in prison. It must be torture for them.

The fact that he has been given bail, do you think that is an indication of whether he will serve time in prison? If she plans for a custodial sentence, would she not have him in, starting his time in prison now?

The legal expert on Sky News seems to think no jail time, Bobble.

The Steenkamps do not feel they have justice. They don't believe Oscar's version. They are apparently now ready to meet with him. They don't want revenge.

Her family are so dignified.
I'd barely be able to stop myself leaping across the court room and caving his head in.

That's the crux I think; whether it's called murder or culpable homicide doesn't bring Reeva back but the Steenkamps wanted to hear the truth. Masipa herself acknowledged Pistorius' testimony was not about telling the truth.

The way I see it, he has got off on a technicality. Masipa said that OP was an unreliable and untruthful witness - but that doesn't make him guilty. Nel hadn't proved his case for murder beyond reasonable doubt, and Masipa said that where an alternative version of events is deemed reasonable, or even possible, by a court, then the court must acquit.

Personally, I fell OP's account of events is so full of holes as to be completely unbelievable (unless the man is an aggressive, paranoid imbecile....oh, wait...)

No. You are innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof rests with the prosecution.

The Judge and her assessors unanimously agreed that the state had failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, hence they did not find him guilty of murder.

That is not a technicality, these are the basic principles of the law.

Here is quite a good look at Judge Masipa's ruling, with links to opposing views too

thelawthinker.com/judge-masipa-got-it-right-oscar-pistorius-and-the-intention-to-kill/

I still think he's got away with murder.

^ And he's got away with it because he's rich and can afford to spend god knows how much on a whizz defence team who have cast just enough doubt on each part of the prosecution case.

I'm staggered that so much of the witness evidence was just dismissed - people heard her screaming. People heard them arguing. But because the defence make up some story about OP sounding like a woman when he's scared... honestly, I'm disgusted.

Reeva's family have not got justice for their beautiful daughter.

Funny how before the verdict everyone on the threads thought Roux was rubbish compared to Nel. Now however, the judge is a fool and Roux is some hot shot lawyer.

I don't remember saying Roux was rubbish. He's very well paid for what he does - which is get people off murder charges. When they've murdered someone.

Not you directly. The general tone ore verdict was that way and now it's very different

Oscar Pistorius culpable homicide verdict causes uproar in South Africa

Interesting comment from other lawyers there, and comparison with another case.

It seems to me that the judge has considered each piece of evidence separately rather than as an overall picture, and although I am somewhat surprised at the outcome, that is probably the fairest way to do it. Because in the case of each piece of evidence, there are alternative explanations which are possible - e.g. the time of eating - not an exact science (although quite a good indication), the screams - maybe a woman's but possibly could be Oscar's, the text messages - may be abusive but also loving etc Whilst I feel that if you look at them as an overall picture the balance of probability is against OP, it is actually true that there is no one piece of evidence that is indisputably against him and for that reason I don't think she could find him guilty of premediatated murder.

The thing I disagree with the judge about is that shooting 4 black talon bullets through a door into a confined space isn't 'intent to kill.'

To me, he absolutely could not expect to fire 4 times into a tiny toilet without realising he would kill the occupant - whether he believed it was Reeva or an intruder. His thought processes were clear at the time - he didn't fire a warning shot, he says, because it could have ricocheted off the tiles. It was no accident - there was intent when he fired that gun.

He shouldn't have been acquitted of the 2nd murder charge.