Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - Part 2

[Dissolution]

Not my position.
I have repeatedly said there is no motive.
It is theater of the absurd to suggest a man resolves a domestic dispute by killing his paramour in cold blood.

It happens all the time, especially in hot tempered, jealous guys who have little respect for firearms, all of which appear to be boxes that Pistorius ticks.

I suspect that the motive could easily have been discovered on the locked mobile phone that his brother appears to have wiped by synchronising it with his computer.
It may even have been the discovery of his allegedly ongoing relationship with a girl that was believed to have been his ex, but who he had a phone conversation with on the night of the murder.

None of this could ever be proved now, of course, but his story simply doesn't make any sense and he committed a series of offences, regardless.
The idea that he should be let off now because he claims to be sorry is utterly ludicrous, frankly.
He killed someone, either by intent or by reckless action.
That's not a trivial matter, in my opinion.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

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.

All the above are completely uninvolved in the crimes they have done jail time for.

Admittedly Pistorius is a careless but regretful member of the human race. He is doing time for his huge error.

Is there anyone you believe to be guilty?

 

[MontagK505]

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.

All the above are completely uninvolved in the crimes they have done jail time for.

Admittedly Pistorius is a careless but regretful member of the human race. He is doing time for his huge error.

Not enough time. I have stated the prosecution failed to prove Oscar knew it was Reeva behind the door. That doesn't make his story believable. What has been demonstrated is that Oscar consistently shows bad judgement. He clearly intended to kill somebody when he fired 4 hollow point rounds through a closed door. It amazes me you think his sentence is appropriate for his "error".

 

[Samson]

Is there anyone you believe to be guilty?

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.
In the case of Pistorius, I could not understand the motive, but was surprised to find he was declared a premeditated killer universally by anyone I happened to discuss the case with. "Guilty as sin".
It is also worth remembering that Reeva was rather to very unlucky to be struck in the head.

Judge Masipa suffers the traditional punishment for disobeying the wishes of the people, seemingly always led by the families of victims.

She says

"I do not think the criticism was about me at all. It was about the outcome. Because people were expecting a different outcome, they were just expressing frustration. I don't think I'm stigmatised ... perhaps I am too naive about that."

http://www.breathecast.com/articles...e-masipa-faces-backlash-after-decision-26856/

Meanwhile Oscar Pistorius is to be released in three months.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-wants-work-disadvantaged-5669679

 

[MikeG]

Oscar has (almost) done his time, it seems. He'll be released in August.

 

[GlennB]

BBC World news just reported he'd be under house arrest, or "correctional supervision".

But the prosecution appeal against his (lenient) conviction still stands.

 

[MikeG]

It seems that not only is he still in gaol, but likely he'll remain there for some time. BBC

 

[Samson]

It seems that not only is he still in gaol, but likely he'll remain there for some time. BBC

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.

 

[lionking]

It seems that not only is he still in gaol, but likely he'll remain there for some time. BBC

Good. He got off lightly the first time around. I'm certain SA will leave no stone unturned to see him serve a fair sentance.

 

[Matthew Best]

Good. He got off lightly the first time around. I'm certain SA will leave no stone unturned to see him serve a fair sentance.

Leaving prison on Tuesday, reports the BBC.

 

[a_unique_person]

He's out. It pays to buy the best justice that is available.

 

[Samson]

He's out. It pays to buy the best justice that is available.

Judge Masipa has also sentenced a man to 60 odd years for rape. I doubt she is for sale.

 

[a_unique_person]

Judge Masipa has also sentenced a man to 60 odd years for rape. I doubt she is for sale.

I doubt that man had access to the same lawyers Pistorious did.

 

[Samson]

I doubt that man had access to the same lawyers Pistorious did.

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.

 

[GlennB]

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.

Looks like a lot of assertion you got going there, buddy.

 

[Samson]

Looks like a lot of assertion you got going there, buddy.

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.

 

[newyorkguy]

I agree with those who argue Pistorius' story did not ring true. Not even ballpark and we have already discussed why and in detail. And let's remember, Pistorius was not found Not Guilty either; he was found guilty of culpable homicide which South African law defines as "the unlawful negligent killing of a human being."

Which was as much as the evidence would support. What kind of evidence would the police have been likely to find to prove deliberate murder? Pistorius admits he's the killer, he fired the shots. But why? What was he thinking? I can see only two ways the police and prosecutor could prove Pistorius meant to kill Reeva Steenkamp. One would be eye witness testimony. Say a guest in their home. But there were only two witnesses to the events that unfolded in the early hours of February 14th 2013. One witness was Pistorius; the other witness was the victim, the person killed by Pistorius. The other way to prove it was deliberate murder was if Pistorius had made incriminating statements. He never did.

So that pretty much leaves a verdict of culpable homicide: Even if Pistorius really did think there was an intruder in his bathroom, he instead wound up killing a totally innocent person. If that's not negligence what would be?

 

[Samson]

I agree with those who argue Pistorius' story did not ring true. Not even ballpark and we have already discussed why and in detail. And let's remember, Pistorius was not found Not Guilty either; he was found guilty of culpable homicide which South African law defines as "the unlawful negligent killing of a human being."

Which was as much as the evidence would support. What kind of evidence would the police have been likely to find to prove deliberate murder? Pistorius admits he's the killer, he fired the shots. But why? What was he thinking? I can see only two ways the police and prosecutor could prove Pistorius meant to kill Reeva Steenkamp. One would be eye witness testimony. Say a guest in their home. But there were only two witnesses to the events that unfolded in the early hours of February 14th 2013. One witness was Pistorius; the other witness was the victim, the person killed by Pistorius. The other way to prove it was deliberate murder was if Pistorius had made incriminating statements. He never did.

So that pretty much leaves a verdict of culpable homicide: Even if Pistorius really did think there was an intruder in his bathroom, he instead wound up killing a totally innocent person. If that's not negligence what would be?

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.
The problem for the prosecutor is to explain any part of this if Oscar knows Reeva is in the toilet. Apart from anything there is no earthly motive suggested.

 

[newyorkguy]

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.

 

[Samson]

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.

I relied on Icerat in the first instance, and then Leila Schnepps crafted an identical analysis independently. Then did Masipa.
Essentially he was on the balcony when Reeva went to the bathroom. He detected an intruder, and became singularly focussed on protecting himself and Reeva from the intruder. Surely you can see this makes all sense, and killing a girl friend in cold blood when he is the only possible suspect makes no sense. Empty your mind, and start again.