The charge of murder is very serious, whereas the other charges are more of the misdemeanour variety, offences often comitted but unexposed. This happens all the time, where previous misdemeanours are dragged forward to prejudice the jury against the defendant. This happened to Amanda Knox, who also did not murder.
Good point in that context. I should have paid attention to the direct link between the ammunition possession offence and the death.
I thought I just retracted in my previous post. I ate humble pie. Not tasty but good medicine.
Not my position.
Yes, but become a judge to prove the opposite, I find it incomprehensible that people obey the call of authority to agree with a prosecution case that is a travesty here, just as I find it incomprehensible to agree with prosecuting Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, Susan Mellon, Sabrina Misseri, Cosima Misseri, Teina Pora, Shrien Dewani.
My position now tends to be that if someone has really committed murder, the case is easy to prove, there will be an inescapable connection to the crime. If there is doubt, and particularly if there is another perpetrator known to be involved, or that there is a plausible alternative explanation for each item of evidence, (and indeed there must be to find innocence), then the judge and jury are simply wrong, and the result is innocent people are tossed in jail to rot.
It would be interesting to conjecture his fate outside SA given the same circumstances. I share the judge's view it was an honest mistake. But one hell of a mistake. In NZ the possession of the gun would be so illegal that he would serve at least 6 years. IMO.
Judge Masipa has also sentenced a man to 60 odd years for rape. I doubt she is for sale.
Masipa concluded correctly the shooting was a tragic accident as did the owner of this forum, which is relevant mainly because he is a sharp analyst.
Have you tried beating a crooked lying prosecutor? They usually win, and that jerk is still trying. The SA judges are good, especially the girls. Pistorius told one story and it never varied because it is the truth.
The evidence would be proof he knew she wasn't in the bed. But the answer is obvious. He was concentrating on getting to the intruder in silence, to ambush him. Thus he focused on gun requisition and stalking the hallway, and certainly would not risk alerting the intruder by saying a word to Reeva in a silent house at 3 am. He shoots from a wide angle because that is the earliest he can prove his point, the intruder is busted, and he better not mess with Oscar.
I relied on Icerat in the first instance, and then Leila Schnepps crafted an identical analysis independently. Then did Masipa.If there were no other witnesses present what kind of evidence could the police find to "prove" Pistorius didn't know it was Steenkamp in the bathroom? There isn't going to be any evidence. Turn it around. What evidence is there that he didn't know she was in the bathroom? His statement to that effect? That's not much.
If he was hyper alert -- a stranger in the house -- how did he miss Steenkamp getting out of bed and going into the bathroom? Why did she do that? His story makes little sense but...no tangible evidence to prove he's a liar. Only a killer.
