Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend

[Octavo]

I guess I have to stick with the prediction I made right at the start - that he would get off altogether, except for the minor firearms stuff. My thinking was police incompetence + celebrity and money = acquittal, but now I would add my own view that his account is not more far-fetched than the idea that he deliberately shot his girlfriend through the bathroom door. Accidents with guns happen and he had already gone up against the washing machine. The state needed to find one piece of evidence that refuted his story and has failed to do so. Therefore, there is reasonable doubt on murder and, if I were on the jury, had what he says he believed actually been true, I would say he used reasonable force to protect himself and Reeva. Therefore, he walks. Oh, sorry.

Your prediction will be wrong.

Indeed. (a) No jury. (b) The judge may and most likely will find him guilty of culpable homicide

 

[Samson]

Nor from me. His version of events is nonsense, and he's going down.

LK, not looking good after the judge finds only one person screamed and that was OP.

 

[anglolawyer]

Your prediction will be wrong.

I predict your prediction of my prediction is wrong.

 

[DarthFishy]

Judge Masipa saying that the State has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that OP is guilt of murder (of Reeve Steenkamp I'm assuming).

Which jives with my (and other's) prediction so far...

Still think he will get convicted of a culpable homicide or something similar.

 

[DarthFishy]

Judge Masipa saying that the State has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that OP is guilt of murder (of Reeve Steenkamp I'm assuming).

Which jives with my (and other's) prediction so far...

Still think he will get convicted of a culpable homicide or something similar.

 

[LondonJohn]

Judge Masipa saying that the State has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that OP is guilt of murder (of Reeve Steenkamp I'm assuming).

Which jives with my (and other's) prediction so far...

Still think he will get convicted of a culpable homicide or something similar.

As I understand it, he can still be found guilty of murder (and I think he will be). The "premeditation" part was the state's charge, but it's the equivalent of 1st degree murder in the US, where a defendant can still be found guilty of murder 2 or 3.

 

[LondonJohn]

ETA: so long as the court finds intent (to kill or to seriously injure) at the point of action, it's murder. "Premeditation" only applies to an intent formed as a distinct prior event (whether that premeditation event was seconds, minutes or hours before the act)

 

[lionking]

Judge Masipa saying that the State has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that OP is guilt of murder (of Reeve Steenkamp I'm assuming).

Which jives with my (and other's) prediction so far...

Still think he will get convicted of a culpable homicide or something similar.

He will get away with murder then. A sad indictment of the SA legal system.q

Let's hope for a decent term of imprisonment. He surely won't get off scott free.

 

[DarthFishy]

ETA: so long as the court finds intent (to kill or to seriously injure) at the point of action, it's murder. "Premeditation" only applies to an intent formed as a distinct prior event (whether that premeditation event was seconds, minutes or hours before the act)

I agree, I'm relatively unsure of what the correct legal terms are so thanks for the correction.

 

[LondonJohn]

duplicate (board behaving badly)

ETA: looks like it's culpable homicide. No intent found

Woah now she's saying that he couldn't have thought his shots might kill!!!! holy moly!

 

[LondonJohn]

It's definitely now culpable homicide IMO

ETA: It sounds like she messed up transferred malice very badly. She "reasoned" that Pistorius could not have intended to kill (or seriously harm) Reeva because it was not her behind the door. That looks like an appealable grounds to me right there: the point is of whether or not he intended to kill (or seriously harm) whoever was behind that door (regardless of who he thought it was)

ETA2: the UK broadcast media are predictably being utterly dreadful at picking up what's actually been said by the judge and its implications. Dreadfully poor reportage journalism. You'd think they would brief themselves on the potential outcomes and have plenty of people telling them exactly what is implied or stated within the judge's ruling.

ETA3: the BBC News ticker is now scrolling "Pistorius not guilty of murder with intent to kill.... Pistorius not guilty of murder through recklessness". Someone needs to tell these idiots that recklessness never equals murder and intent to kill is a mandatory element of murder. Shockingly inept and ill-informed journalism

ETA4: is everyone missing that the judge, just before the lunch recess, said "culpable homicide is a COMPETENT verdict"? Everyone seems to reporting it as a "possible" verdict. To me, "competent" means something else altogether.

ETA5: The BBC's correspondent just said a zinger about Pistorius "being cleared by the judge of the lowest form of murder: dolus eventualis". Seriously, why can't an organisation like the BBC get competent, properly-informed people to commentate on this case? He also started his exchange with the nonsensical "Everyone thought it was going to be a charge of murder" (hint to Harding: Pistorius was charged with murder a very long time ago. What we're doing today is finding out whether he's going to be found guilty on that charge)

 

[DarthFishy]

He will get away with murder then. A sad indictment of the SA legal system.q

Let's hope for a decent term of imprisonment. He surely won't get off scott free.

It seems as if he's going to get away with the pre-meditated murder of Reeva Steenkamp, but not with the unlawful killing of the unknown person behind the door.

While I personally think he is guilty of fighting with and then killing Reeva, there's not enough proof. Seems the SA legal system is working quite well.

 

[DarthFishy]

It's definitely now either culpable homicide or murder

ETA: It sounds like she messed up transferred malice very badly. She "reasoned" that Pistorius could not have intended to kill (or seriously harm) Reeva because it was not her behind the door. That looks like an appealable grounds to me right there: the point is of whether or not he intended to kill (or seriously harm) whoever was behind that door (regardless of who he thought it was)

Yeah this is moving fast. Should maybe hold off on making rush judgements of our own until the final verdict comes out.

 

[anglolawyer]

Cleared of murder according to the Daily Mail

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Well that's surprising.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well that's surprising.

Actually, reading to the bottom of the article, it seems it's only not guilty of premeditated murder. As it's the Daily Mail, we must discount it somewhat.

 

[LondonJohn]

Cleared of murder according to the Daily Mail

That's correct.

Incidentally, part of the judge's "reasoning" on accepting that Pistorius genuinely thought his life was in danger was along the lines that he (Pistorius) wouldn't have been able (in the judge's view) to "make up" the whole story so soon after the act, before the state had put its case etc. Ans she also quoted Pistorius' remorse, his genuine grief ("praying to God, wailing and gnashing of teeth etc) as factors in support of his version of events.

I find this an astonishing conclusion. We know that there were several minutes between the shooting and Pistorius making first contact, and that he called a friend first before calling the security guards. To me, it's blindingly obvious that he could indeed have murdered Reeva (knowing full well it was her behind the door), then have been overcome with remorse and grief once his rage at her was replaced by guilt at his own actions. And if that were the case, then he clearly had time to construct an alternative narrative. In fact, I'd suggest that the strange delay in Pistorius making contact with the relevant services actually points in the direction of this sort of thing having taken place. I also don't doubt that Pistorius genuinely was overcome with grief once he realised what he had done, but I find it shocking that the judge could take this in and of itself as supporting evidence for his "horrible accident" version of events.

Plus, it's also of course entirely plausible that Pistorius - if he genuinely thought the person behind the door was an intruder - shot with criminal intent (ie murder) and was then doubly overcome with grief and remorse when he realised what a horrible mistake in identification he had made. If that had been the case, it wouldn't have required any "making up" of events, other than making the claim that he'd only fired "accidentally" when he felt his life was in danger - which would be a logical lie for someone in that position to invent and recount.

Lastly, the other charges - particularly the gun discharge in the restaurant - show that Pistorius is likely rather good at lying to suit himself when necessary, and that he is a very quick thinker when it comes to forming the lie and maintaining it.

 

[anglolawyer]

He will get away with murder then. A sad indictment of the SA legal system.q

Let's hope for a decent term of imprisonment. He surely won't get off scott free.

No, it is a tribute to the system that it actually works by applying the standard of proof properly. Any why would we be 'hoping' for any particular outcome? None of us (AFAIK) knows Reeva Steenkamp or her family. We have no stake in the outcome. I have neither hopes nor fears.

Anyway, still a long way to go. You may still get your wish.

 

[LondonJohn]

Actually, reading to the bottom of the article, it seems it's only not guilty of premeditated murder. As it's the Daily Mail, we must discount it somewhat.

Then the Mail is behind the game. The judge has unequivocally found no intent, and has explicitly therefore said that a conviction for murder is not possible. But once again, I think the media are shockingly ill-informed and ignorant when it comes to this sort of real-time interpretation and reportage. I guess that some part of it is a concern about saying something that's incorrect, but even so......

As I said in an earlier post, the judge - having ruled out conviction on the murder charge - said (in her final words before lunch) that culpable homicide is a "competent" verdict. I am wondering whether this actually means she is going to convict on that charge: it seems like a strange choice of words to use if she only meant that culpable homicide was still a possible verdict.

 

[katy_did]

I can't disagree with her finding that "Human beings are fallible." Not sure how she concluded that the only person who could have screamed on the night of the shooting was Pistorius.

Because the defence provided a timeline explaining why witnesses heard two sets of 'shots' - the first being the gunshots, the second the sound of the cricket bat breaking down the door - and the prosecution weren't able to provide any alternative explanation, nor to challenge their own expert's evidence that the door was broken down after the shots.

Once that was established, it was obvious that it couldn't have been Reeva screaming because she died from the gunshots, which, since they came first, happened before any witnesses heard shouting or screaming.