Oscar Pistorius trial

[MintTrav]

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.

[BigAdz]

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.

[Redsgirl]

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.

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.

[MintTrav]

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.

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.

[kinboshi]

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.

Agree.

Strange judicial system though, loves a slowroll.

[OverTheBorder]

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.

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?

[George2Loose]

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.

[Royal Flush]

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.

[OverTheBorder]

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.

[kinboshi]

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.

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?

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

[baldock92]

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

[kinboshi]

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.

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.

[Royal Flush]

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.

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.

[nirvana]

Maybe a panel of three judges would provide a more satisfactory feeling of justice than one person making the decision.

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

[relaedgc]

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.