blonde poker forum

Anybody been following this?

It always promised to be something of a circus, but it seems to be exceeding expectations just three days in, what with the steady annihilation of the first two witnesses, including identifying them on screen and broadcasting their phone number, a rather random testimony from a fellow sportsman about Pistorius firing a gun under a restaurant table and the daily frenzy outside the court.

I'm also surprised by the fact that there is no jury, and that the verdict will be decided by just one judge.
Can something so important for all involved come down to just one person's opinion?

There are lots of thing I've seen during the proceedings so far that have seemed just bizarre, though thankfully I've never been inside a British crown court, and maybe a high profile murder case over here would look just as sensational if they let the camera's in?
I really don't know, but I can't see this trial having any satisfactory outcome.

Thought she was a burglar, yeah right  ::)

As with a few other countries, there are just too many damn guns in South Africa.

Makes the bribing easier.. if theres one thing more of than guns in South Africa its corruption...

Witnesses and police officers maybe, but the judge? Under the scrutiny of the whole world?

So many of South Africa's issues are highlighted by this case, domestic violence, eliteism, racial and gender inequality, gun crime as Woodsey mentioned and corruption amongst the ruling authorities as you pointed out.
I'd like to think with so much at stake he wont be able to buy his way out, but I worry he may benefit from the incompetence of the prosecuting team.

I dont always think its a bad thing that there is no jury. Jury's can easily be swayed, worn down with irrelevent stuff to create doubts where none exsist, especially in long cases involving famous people.

If it's was me I would prefer a jury, It just seems the fairest way of coming to a Democratic decision. I don't know enough about the justice system to give a reasoned arguement, let alone what it's like in SA, but normal people hearing evidence from both sides and then debating it in private and coming to a decision seems fair.

Getting a jury without prior knowledge of the case would be hard. Zero chance they have no prior views on him as a person and the news coverage he recieved.

Not sure if thats good or bad for him tbh.

Yeah, fair points. Very bad situation for all involved.

It surprises me when I realise that this bright, eloquent, socially aware young woman is the same person who used to sit on my knee and steal bits of my dinner while we discussed the exploits of Zippy and Bungle.

 

Aww!  I'm blushing now.
BTW I still steal bits of your dinner!  ;D

Must take after her mum.

The judge is experienced in law, so knows what 'reasonable doubt' actually means, for example, and is trained to take a balanced view and minimise the influence of emotions of their decisions, whereas juries tend to be less rational and more emotional in their decision-making. In this case, jurors may favour him because of his fame but might be biased against him because of the nature of the crime and his personality flaws that have emerged. This judge has previous for going hard on domestic violence and for speaking out on women's rights, but she is still much less likely to be prejudiced than a jury. Overall, though, the case against him is strong, so he would be better off with a jury due to their less rational and more unpredictable conclusions.

Jury trials were abolished in South Africa in 1969

Of course the judge is the best person for the job, but it's the fact that it's just the one I was surprised at.
I'm not sure but I think I saw a none jury trail in a British court where the verdict was decided by three judges, which seems a much fairer (although as you say wouldn't be of any advantage to Pistorius!)

The case itself is fascinating. The bbc were offering a clickthrough 3d model of his house. I found that a touch spooky.

Contradiction of the month

Its not? He's saying he needs the extra variance as the case is strong.


I think if I was ever prosecuted for something I'd prefer a judge.

So, after weeks of waiting we have finally heard from the man himself.
He began with that tearful apology which I'm sure was perfectly sincere, although it seemed to have little effect on either Reeva's parents or the stony faced Judge.
Then, after telling Ma'am that he has been very sick and is on anti depressants and sleeping tablets
Mr Pistorius quickly composed himself and proceeded to talk very articulately and virtually uninterrupted for around two hours about his life up until last year and what a generally good egg he was.
I have to say his performance in the witness box has come as a complete suprise being as all we have seen him do in the past weeks is weep with his hands over his face or retch.

What was even more suprising is that after hearing him talk so eloquently about his overcoming his disability, losing his mother at a young age, his increasing fear of violence after witnessing and being the victim of many crimes I found myself sympathising with him, really wanting to believe his version of events.

That sympathy was short lived though after hearing read, with barely a falter I might add, dozens of messages between him and Reeva aloud to the court, which in my opinion revealed him to be a possessive and controlling boyfriend and her to be a sweet and sensitive girl.
I really don't know why Mr Roux thought that this would help his defence.

What was a genius move though, was to have Pistorius remove his prosthetic legs just as he was finally getting to the all important part of his testimony, the night of the shooting.
Even though he wasn't on camera, I'm sure he struck a suitably vunerable figure as he recounted his terror of the unseen intruder he was sure was in his bathroom.
I, like half the world, have waited a long time to hear Oscar's version. I was kind of hoping that after all this build up he would at least have a half way plausible account, but no. In fact it sounds even worse now he says that Reeva was awake before him, and he spoke to her just before he heard the burglar, which means she must have some how snuck past him and into the toilet even as he was panicking and getting his gun, and stayed silent the whole time he was screaming and fumbling around in the dark.
I can't wait to see what Mr Nel has to say in the cross examination.

Guilty   ;snoopy'sguns;

It's an interesting case. I work with a South African and he said the problem with this media case is that we simply don't understand, and thus the media doesn't compensate for, the sheer brutality of society in SA. In the opinion of my colleague, the fear and reaction is entirely plausible and he believes that Oscar is innocent.

I can't quite figure out how Reena was fully-clothed behind a locked bathroom door when she was supposed to be in bed with Oscar.

On the contrary I think that it has been made obvious throughout the trial that this kind of violence is an everyday occurrence, almost every witness has refered to some instance of crime or expectation of crime, or their personal security measures and familiarity with guns, so much so that even though before watching I knew S. Africa was a 'rough' place, now I wonder why anyone would dare set foot out of their own front door.

That people would be paranoid over their safety doesn't require much of a stretch of the imagination at all, that's why it's such a brilliant defence.

Unfortunately that still doesn't explain how why when one person was in the grip of this, to him, desperate life or death situation, stumbling around in the dark and at one point screaming for the intruders to come out, his partner can casually slip past him into the toilet and wait there silently to be shot.

I spent the whole of yesterday in bed with a touch of the old gout waiting for the pills to kick in, and watched the whole days court session (and PMQs which was fkn mint).

Seemed pretty amazing what he was able to get away with. He was like a politician really, just saying what he wanted to, not actually answering any questions. He made a few clangers himself though. He should of said he may have put one foot on the balcony (when getting the fan) which would of saved 2 hours of testing his bail statement.

And when he stated in court about "re-working" his movements on the night I cringed. I get the feeling even his own team think he is wasting everyone's time.  The prosecution barrister is just a legend. "Why do you only get emotional when you get a question you cannot answer"?

Can't see me watching any more of it though, My Lady.

She was wearing a t shirt and shorts apparently.

Caught a lot of the trial today, and  OP said something which I thought was very strange, that Nel didn't seem to pick up on.
 With "Duvet gate" OP said that he knows it should still have been on the bed because when he went to put on his legs on after the shooting ....

"I pushed the duvet back as I put the legs on the bed"

I mean given whats just happened.....why on earth would you think about moving the duvet and remember that!??

Now I think about it. That lawyer just let him spew details out all day yesterday and is now tying him in knots. This could be like an episode of Crown Court from daytime telly years ago. He will end up confessing. He is gonna do the ultimate Narcissus, and break down and admit it.

I been with my Mrs 24 years and she ain't never locked the Bathroom door. In fact I wish she had locked it many times, and then again other times it was alright! Boom Boom.

How is he gonna explain to them about the locked door? I think this whole relationship may have been a con. Like a PR stunt?

Mi Lady. Mi Lady. I can't believe I watched it tonight. I feel bad watching it. It's OJ again. Just utterly fascinating how these guys minds work. How long does anyone think this trial will last? Any ideas?

Al

This is exactly whats happening here.  Pistorius has given an incredibley detailed account of what happened on the night, one that covered all the tiny details that they assumed the prosecution would pick up on, even offering witnesses to prove things before they were asked to prove them.

But the thing is Mr Nel hasn't even really touched upon any of the obvious things you and I would be dying to ask, instead going back and forth between various events before and after the shooting, and showing how Oscar's magnificent recall fails him if he has to talk about anything but his well rehearsed story.
He does also seem to be occasionally trying to provoke him out of his 'tired and emotional' state, but I think Oscar is far to clever to lose his composure, I don't think he'll be confessing anytime soon.

If I shot my wife in the way he has suggested, I would be absolutely devastated. I couldn't live with myself and you could throw the book at me, I wouldn't care, it would be just rewards etc etc. I couldn't put up with weeks of questioning and reminding of the incident if it was genuinely an accident, it would push me over the edge. Just lock me up, and leave me to my misery.

This guy seems a happy little bunny away from court and then a wreck the second he is asked a question.

The point Ralph raises about being clothed, smells to all the world like she was sneaking off and he lost it.

Guilty. And throw away the key for wasting all our time.

If he breaks down and fesses up he will be more famous than Michael Jackson,which could be this guys goal in life.

Is he even sane? The whole thing is a farce. I know SA has a young legal system so this is hugely important that they get this right. Does anyone think that this lawyer can get it out of him?

Or not a chance?

This is better than OJ .

There are so many discrepancies it's unbelievable. I'm a pretty level headed person and always ignore peoples responses when it comes to things like this but if he is innocent then I'll be damned. Going with the majority on this one.

At least if he gets away with a manslaughter charge he has up to 15 years to ponder on his mistakes. At some point he will confess anyway. Only problem with some compulsive liars that I know, they tell themselves the lie so well that they believe it themselves, no longer feeling guilty.

This is correct. I can't see him ever making a UK courtroom due to his mental state.

Hey Dan. My two best poker buddies just bought corp membership at Players. We are loving it. When you get back to Bristol you gotta come and play.

Al

So, in keeping with this trial's movie like feeling, Judge has adjourned on a cliffhanger.

Thought Masipa has been amazing delivering her verdict, explaining her decisions clearly and very convincingly and even though I was disappointed when I sensed things were starting to lean Oscar's way, you couldn't fault her reasoning.
That was, until the last hour or so. She explained the error in persona/aberratio ictus stuff so beautifully that even I understood it, then seemed to contradict herself by saying he wouldn't have known someone could be killed if he fired through the door.  ;carlocitrone;

I don't know, but I have complete faith that she will come to the right decision, she seems an incredibly astute lady.
All will be revealed tomorrow.

B.T.W. Pistorious should thank his lucky stars he has Judge Masipa and not a jury, or else the key would have been thrown away.

Why were you disappointed when you "sensed things were starting to lean Oscar's way"?  If her reasoning is sound, isn't her verdict going to be the correct one (as correct as a one-person judge and jury can be with the evidence they have heard and seen)?

He's going to get a manslaughter verdict (I think so anyway) - so he will go to prison.

Not neccesarily.  He could face a heavy financial penalty instead. 

Hi Kin  :hello: Not heard much from you of late.

I probably should have explained myself better.
I'm so thoroughly convinced he's a bad un I was a little dismayed at first when after initially saying guilty to the firearm offences, she started dismissing witness testimonies and stuff, and I thought great, she's going to sell out after all.
But, after listening to her conclusions I realised the points she was making were completely proper and fair and I was allowing my dislike of the man to cloud my views.

As I said, she lost me a little toward the end of the session, but I have no doubt wherever she's going with this it will be the best outcome of a difficult case.

I can't believe he's been cleared of murder... Really didn't think his case would stand up

Literally watching the verdict now on BBC live and Judge Masipa looks totally uninspiring to me. She cant even differentiate between counts 2 and 3, and the day has just started.

You expect all your ducks in a row, if you know billions are watching. Just MHO.

Same as Baldock, this seems a sham.

The problem is that the evidence isn't compelling enough to find him guilty of murder.   I the judge's head she might think that there is a 75% chance he had deliberately killed her, then she still can't find him guilty of murder as it has to be beyond reasonable doubt.  That is pretty much where I am, I think it is more likely that he deliberately killed her, but think the manslaughter verdict is probably the right one.   This is even if I think deep down he has probably got away with murder.  I do hope he is put away for some time. 

Interesting how Pistorius can be acquitted of having illegal ammunition when, like, you know, like, he fired four shots from a gun....

as one wag suggested

"At this rate, the judge is going to end up convicting Reeva Steenkamp of perjury for claiming to be dead."


in general though i can see why the judge has gone where she has gone but would be a real eye opener if he gets off culpable homicide too, in my opinion

I sort of understand it has to be "beyond reasonable doubt" which perhaps it isn't.

But like Tighty said, if he gets off culpable homicide as well it will be ridiculous.

Looks like my previous post is irrelevant as he's just been found guilty of culpable homicide. 

:hello:

I get ya. 

Well, looks like he's not going escape punishment now he's been found guilty of manslaughter.  Wonder what the sentence will be?

I always thought if I was guilty of a crime, but trying to wiggle off the hook I'd have my best chance of walking free if tried by a jury.

Whereas if I was innocent, I'd rather take my chances with just a judge or magistrates.

This trial has proved me wrong I think.

Glad we got some kind of guilty verdict in the end, although I still can't see how you can shoot someone through a door and not forsee their death.
I hope that the reason he was convicted of the lesser charge is because it is the safer conviction and less likely to be overturned on appeal, and she can still give him a lengthy jail term. I am a little doubtful of this though because she has dismissed almost all of the prosecutions case, including discrediting most of their witnesses,  so when the state puts forward its recommendations at the sentencing, there not going to have much to work with.

All in all I think she has come down on Pistorius side, and has taking his version as true, so unfortunately I don't think he'll se the inside of a cell at all.

If she planned to put him away for a long time I doubt she'd grant him bail.

I get the feeling he's going to be treated very lightly.

Its a joke decision.

The judge saying it wasn't proved he was trying to kill her is baffling. What did she think firing 4 shots through a door into a small space going to do?

Just weird that he's been granted bail.

I think the judge is spot on. He couldn't be found innocent and he couldn't be found guilty of premeditated murder. The only option was whether it would be murder (of whoever was behind the door) or manslaughter. I think his story of what happened is quite likely true.

Its a pretty pathetic do if an innocent person gets shot dead by someone who shouldn't have a gun, in their own home, and the perp doesn't see a day of jail time.

I no longer think he knew he was shooting at Reeva.
 But I still think he knew he was shooting to kill the 'intruder', which is a scenario I can imagine he has fantasied about doing frequently, given his obvious penchant for guns, his paranoia and his various other dubious personality traits that have become apparent during the trail.
He may not be technically guilty this time but he's far from innocent, and if not Reeva that night then someone, some other time would have surely copped it.

Definitely not a guy that should be loose in society.

Hold on a minute. You want to convict him because he has probably done other stuff, or is very likely to do so in the future? That's the basis of the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 convictions.

Agree.

Strange judicial system though, loves a slowroll.

Do you think someone without access to the standard of legal team he had would have received the same result?

Don't buy any of it and cannot believe he's not got a murder charge. Whole thing has been a farce from start to finish.

As far as i can tell the reason he didn't get convicted of murder was because of the eye witness accounts do not add up, regardless of the legal team the fact that independent people are saying different things surely means any intelligent human would have reasonable doubt.

The legal team planted the reasonable doubt by strategic cross examination.  I don't think your court appointed lawyer will be as good at that. It's a worrying system. Unless you are on camera or someone physically saw you it would be very difficult to convict anyone if this is what is classed "reasonsable doubt". The judge even described him as a poor witness. Her family are already wealthy, will be interesting if the pursue the civil trial.

Unfortunately, not everyone gets access to the same legal counsel.

I don't understand why he might not up in a prison cell? Surely with his lesser charge he still gets locked up?

I think the judge has effectively said that without credible eye witnesses, she had to go with the physical evidence and also consider Pistorious' testimony.

She's decided that as a premeditated murder, it doesn't make sense, and instead she's gone for the story that he used excessive force in self defence.

I don't understand how the South African legal system works, and I'm not sure we'd slowroll the sentence for a month in this country whist the guilty party is out on bail. It also shows the weakness of a system that relies on the judgement of an individual, even if she's an expert. Maybe a panel of three judges would provide a more satisfactory feeling of justice than one person making the decision.

If I was up for murder (that I hadn't committed), I think I'd prefer to be judged by twelve people guided by a judge, rather than an individual determine my fate, even though the jury system isn't ideal either.

So a court appointed lawyer wouldn't be able to say:

"Witness 1, what did you hear?"

"Witness 2, what did you hear?"

"Judge they have said 2 completely contradictory statements regarding what they heard that night, how can we use any of this evidence to prove murder?"

Yeah you are right, you need a genius to come up with that line of questioning.

Don't know much either but I think it is effectively a panel of 3 - two other people sit in on the whole trial and work with the judge - don't know their official titles

I completely agree with the decision.

Not at any point did I feel it was beyond reasonable doubt that he had intentionally set out to murder Reeva. Personally, I buy in to the story that as a man with a significant disability he feels more vulnerable and threatened. From the South Africans I have spoken to, they have said that it is a very violent and dangerous place for the wealthy and I've heard some stories recounted to me that just don't happen in this country - so what we consider normality doesn't really apply in the same vein to a South African. He was consistent from the beginning, not with absolutely every factual detail - but realistically I wouldn't expect someone to be, but his remorse and explanations over what happened made me side with him.

I also thought trying to paint him in to a violent, wife beating animal was rather harsh in a relationship that has been going on for three months. I'm sorry, but I will hold up my hands and say that I have been told by an ex girlfriend that I scared them when I reacted quite strongly over a certain issue. I wouldn't say it was my proudest moment, as I try to always remain calm and gentle with those I love - but I didn't hit her or verbally abuse her. I find it offensive that the prosecution, and all manner of spectators, used a whatsapp message that mentioned 'scared of you' to try and completely assassinate his character. Obviously I understand why they would do so, but the connection is spurious at best and completely out of context.

He is certainly deserving of a significant sentence, however, as whilst I don't believe he murdered Reeva - I do believe that in his fear (or whatever you choose to believe motivated him) he knew that firing 4 bullets could well be fatal. And for that, unfortunately, there must be an accounting.

I don't believe anything else can happen to him worse than having killed Reeva, an act which he will live with for the rest of his life. I am glad, in a way, that doesn't have to carry the label of murderer around on his back though.

All the same, there's never a winner in such situations. The sum of the story is that an innocent young woman lost her life because of a firearm. They're a tool, I grant you, yet so often a tool at the heart of evil deeds. I am thankful that we're so intolerant of them in the UK.

Great post.

The fact that she was fully-clothed behind a locked bathroom door still sits very awkwardly with me as regards a not guilty to murder verdict.

Surely he would have called out and she would have replied.

No. I want to convict him because he is a arrogant, manipulative man with little or no regard for the safety of others, or the law, if it interferes with him living his life how he sees fit.
I want to convict him because I don't think they should set a precedent where people can get away with killing people because they're a bit highly strung.

I also don't think being rich, white and famous should make you immune to punishment.
Plus, Oscar Pistorius is the only person who has done anything wrong here. While I can sympathise with the fact he feels vulnerable and lives in a violent country, there was no intruder, no threat, nothing except a situation he created in his head, and then decided to act in the most unreasonable way imaginable despite numerous obvious things he could have done.
He should be made to take responsibility for these actions, which he hasn't made any attempt to do so far.

Don't really get your comparison to the Guilford four/Birmingham six. He did it, that's the one thing we do know for sure. I'm not sure how he is managing to come off as the victim in this scenario either, but he really is playing a blinder!

Something I read suggested that the court ruled that it can't have been murder because he didn't know for sure he would kill the person behind the door. Given he seemed to know his way around guns suggests to me he probably did know it would kill them - shooting at someone knowing it'll probably kill them sounds like murder to me.

The bullets he had also suggested he knew what the shots would do.

This is the bit I  have never understood - it stretches my credulity that he wouldn't have made some effort to know where she was before opening fire on a closed door.

I don't really buy the convoluted psychobabble going thru a million texts and circumstantial evidence to try and understand any couple's relationship - literally no one, except the couple knows what a relationship was or wasn't.

What I know is that under no evident or immediate threat and notionally without a clue where she was he decided to shoot through a closed door and kill her. Go to jail, go directly to jail. Hanging's too good chunder chunder

I know South Africa is a dangerous place and all that but it shouldn't mean they have the right to value life any less. Even the most anxious & vulnerable of shooters knows they're gonna kill somebody blasting bullets through the door like that. No doubt he is guilty of murder, even if technically you can't convict him of such. Whether he knew which person he was killing is rather immaterial I think.

People should be held accountable for the free choices they make. This dude has decided that despite all his vulnerability issues and inner demons he wants to own a gun and he wants it lying around to hand should he get frightened at night. He chooses to live in South Africa, where as we've heard, rich white guys are targets. He chooses not to check on his mrs when he senses danger which is not a very dashing trait imo. Chooses not to identify the threat to himself before finally deciding to unload into the cubicle. Then somebody got killed. Think it's pretty irrelevant how arrogant he is, or how we feel about him, or how much snot came out of his nose during the trial or how tall he stands when fully erect on stumps. The dude clearly killed somebody by shooting his gun at them several times.  

He shouted “Get the fuck out of my house!" a couple of times. It is conceivable that she could have assumed that there was an intruder and decided to stay quiet.

even when she heard the eerie stump..stump..stump coming up the hallway. Amaze

Perhaps he should have called "Reeva, is that you in the carsey?"

i had occasion to appear as a witness in a silly little car theft case in the uk,as i was politely invited to wait if i wished in a private waiting room i found my self in a room with several police officers who assumed that i was one of them and chatted about all types of activities that they chose to to pass time as they waited to be called for there cases......the story that relates to south Africa is that one of the officers was over there with a English youth rugby team and despite all there advise to all there young players to not go here and don't wander off on your own he got a report that one of there young lads had left the safe area of the hotel disco and gone with a local girl to a bar down the street,the British cop got the hotel manager who called some cops who turned up very quickly assed the situation and the fact that the British guy was a cop and had had fire arms training....they took him to there car got a gun called a mak some thing or other gave it to him and said were going into these bars looking for your rugby player if any one gets in you re face shoot them.....a search of several bars latter ,missing guy wanders back on his own.
the mind set of the cops  would seem to be take lethal action and worry about the paper work later.....possible there upbringing in south Africa turns them to it.
no DOT hollywood will make a film about the shooting in south Africa and some a Lister star will have a crisis of conscience about playing the lead part then decide that he could do with another 5 million for a extension to his week end house and do it.....please god dint let it be sylvester stallone

Sentencing begins tomorrow.

They reckon its gonna take a week for sentancing...jeez !

Aren't lawyers paid by the hour? :)

So the parents took monthly payments from Pistorius after he shot their daughter cos they were skint.... not if i was starving in the gutter...

I see they made a nice amount selling their story and admitted that their daughter was their meal ticket... they sound a pretty pair... i know I shouldnt be startled at how low human beings will sink for money..but I am

People who have plenty of money are always surprised at what people who don't have enough money will do. It's unfair to impose the principles you can afford to live by onto people who don't have enough to get by.

Possible (even probable) that Reeva was supporting her parents when she died.

My guess is 4 years.

5 years

Glad he got a custodial sentence.
Will be disappointed if he gets out in ten months as his defence reckon though.

will be on house arrest after 10 months

Complete travesty IMO.

I wonder what the sentence would be if Reeva's boyfriend had been a poor, uneducated black man?

So South African court cases always take as ridicuolously long as this one did? I appreciate when there is a media element to it they will inevitably go on longer as there are more biases to account for, but it went on an eternity. I always got the attention that everyone in SA loved every minute of this case including media, politicians, lawyers, the judge etc, it really seems to have been treat like entertainment. 

Tbh I was more about taking money from someone who gunned down your child

catching up on whole thread and not noticing the dates I was about to declare Silo's post the most genius ever :D

:D

The irony is that Oscar Pistorius will wake up this morning and there really will be a burglar using his toilet.

10 months prison and the rest house arrest seems like a fair sentence to me.

Diamond League athletics have said he's unlikely to be invited to compete again after his sentence so his high-flying athletics career and all the sponsorship/prize money associated is gone (and has been since 2012), he's had to sell his house to cover legal costs. I highly doubt he's broke and will obv at some point collect a wedge for selling his story but he's certainly not going back into his A list celebrity lifestyle. His reputation is irreparably destroyed.

I don't believe that depriving him of his liberty at huge cost to the state is really necessary on top of that. He's not a danger to anyone else and he's unlikely to re-offend, I don't think that locking him up for decades is going to act as a deterrent since the court concluded that it was a crime of negligence and not malice. This leaves us with retribution as the other main reason for throwing away the key, but who really wins in that scenario? The family and friends of the deceased I guess but not necessarily. If I were a resident of South Africa I would imagine that there are a lot of things that the money could be spent on that would be of greater benefit to society than locking away Oscar Pistorius.

This

The perhaps he should have thought twice before gunning down someone in his bathroom then.

Oscar Pistorius trial:  South African prosecutors appeal against guilty verdict.

Eh?





http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29786011

It's not just the defendant that can appeal if they're unhappy with either the verdict or the sentence Tom.

The prosecution can too. It's the same in British courts.

The worst thing is that we're going to have to go through the whole damn thing again for another six months or so.

Prosecutors appeal against guilty verdict.

Mis-reported.

The captain of South Africa's national soccer team was shot dead by intruders at his girlfriend's house on Sunday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29785772

I guess this gives Pistorius' position a bit more credibility, as the possibility of dangerous intruders is shown to be a real risk. I assume that this wouldn't affect opinions much in SA, where the level of violence would already be known by everyone, but it helps us to realise the situation they live with.

I saw on the news that he's due to be released in a few days after only 10 months in jail. How can that be?

Yes to go on house arrest.

If his tag goes on his legs how is that going to work.

That happened a few years ago in Britain. Funnily enough, the chap on licence was able to break the terms of his curfew!

So, yes, they'll put the tag somewhere else

I actually know a man that did this!  I won't name him on here but he's from Darfield South Yorkshire.
He used to take his tagged leg of at 7pm, put his spare one on and go down the pub.
He got away with it for months too.
It couldn't possibly be the same man could it?

So one of his legs was both the same?

Anyway, Oscar Pistorius doesn't have legs. He has ligs.

I did a quick Google search and this scenario came up twice,  one of them was the lad I know, there was a small article in the Sun with him pictured holding his tagged leg.
I was amused to read how he says he spent three months fighting the temptation to break his curfew after the police gaff.
Man's a saint. ::)

Oscar Pistorius has left prison, to continue his sentence under House Arrest at the home of a member of his family.


(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/10FEC/production/_86221696_c36c3b01-7b8b-4985-8eeb-2b1f5b25dbaa.jpg)



(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/10/20/11/2D95D8B000000578-3280017-image-a-4_1445336888898.jpg)

Justice in action.

Oscar Pistorius verdict changed to guilty of murder.

"Olympic athlete Oscar Pistorius has been found guilty of murder after a South African appeals court overturned an earlier manslaughter verdict.

He killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp in February 2013 after shooting her four times through a locked toilet door.

He is currently under house arrest after spending one year of his original five-year sentence in jail.

Pistorius will now have to return to court to be re-sentenced, for murder."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34993002

As i was writing my 'breaking news' post I just knew you would be typing one up Tighty.
Beat me to it as usual!  :-)

the heart of the appeal

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVSmDjlUsAACvuv.jpg)

Looks like justice to me.

What %age of the time does the person behind the door have to be an intruder to make people think that a murder convictions is unjust?

You don't ever have to shoot an intruder that is behind a door imo.

An intruder there provides mitigation - still going to be murder though.

What about if the intruder identifies them self as an armed Oscar Pistorius?

Agree with this.

how do we know the intruder doesn't have a gun or knife?

We don't, but I could shoot you on that pretext.

The thing is that armed with a gun why would you not shout something to the person or persons behind the door before firing?

Justice has prevailed imo.

Finally, the SA judicial system has made the correct decision & Justice has prevailed. Only a shame that the Steenkamp (?) family have had to suffer through the trial, the initial verdict, and then the last 9 months or so before this review. I really hope that they can now find some degree of peace and get on with their lives.

Would that not be reasonable then, if I was in your toilet and you didn't know who I was?

Of course not. You could be an my wife's secret lover or an old man with dementia.

Thinking about it, you could be both.

South African Olympian Oscar Pistorius has been granted bail while he awaits sentence for murdering his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp in 2013.

Judges changed his manslaughter conviction to murder last week. He now faces a minimum 15-year jail sentence for the murder of Ms Steenkamp.

The sentencing hearing is due to be held on 18 April next year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-35034292

I wonder how many people have got bail whilst awaiting sentence for murder.

Amazing really.

^^^^

Hard to understand, really. He is, officially & legally, guilty of murder, & yet he gets another 5 months liberty.

Just feels wrong.

I'd assumed he would have been snap taken to prison once the verdict was changed. 

Maybe it's subject to appeal?

What discount on his prison term can he reasonably expect for behaving himself in prison?

...and in surprise news, Oscar Pistorius has had his prison sentence more than doubled to over 13 years.

I think most people will agree that seems reasonable. With 1 exception.


(http://i.imgur.com/SMIUcgp.jpg) (https://imgur.com/SMIUcgp)

I saw this earlier, who was appealing?

Was he appealing to get the sentence reduced and ended up doubling it, or was it the prosecutor/family trying to get it increased?

Pretty big face palm moment if it was the first one!

If I understand it correctly, the Prosecutor's Office appealed, as they felt the sentence was too light & may set a precedent for future sentences.

The revised sentence is the maximum allowable under law (15 years) minus time already served.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-42107701