Been watching this trial when it's been televised and the Judge is giving her verdict today. My own view is that he may well get off the premiditated murder charge but will struggle on culpable homicide (manslaughter). I base this on his own evidence that he "didn't really think" when he fired into the bathroom door. Doesn't add up imo. She's an hour and a half into the judgment and has already dismissed as irrelevant some of the prosecution's circumstantial evidence. It's a must watch if you can get to a TV but maybe that's just me. The guy is probably finished as far as commercial endorsements are concerned even if he's acquitted.
Judge has given him the benefit of the doubt that he believed an intruder was behind the door. Not enough evidence to suggest otherwise. But can still be guilty....
Acquitted of second degree murder too. Now for culpable homicide (manslaughter).......lunch break. How can someone "not foresee" that someone would be killed when you fire a 9mm into a wooden door with someone standing on the other side? Don't get that. Still think he'll get nailed on culpable homicide.
WTF??? She's just adjourned until tomorrow!! Amazing. That wouldn't happen here. But she has more or less already convicted him of culpable homicide. Blade Runner's going down.
Haven't followed the trial but what I can't grasp is this - surely you wake up, don't see your missus but think there's an intruder so you MUST call out for her. She calls back from the bathroom "Yes I'm just dropping a load", and you go back to bed.
He is as guilty as sin and should go down for murder one .It don't wash he did not know who was behind the door He knew she was in the house ffs, you dont go shooting through a door without finding out who is behind it especially when your girlfriend is in the house. What if he had kids would he shoot then....this case stinks the same as oj Simpsons...
my view after the trial was that the defence did enough to muddy the waters enough so that he would not be convicted of premeditated murder, but would get done for firing recklessly when the RP wouldn't have done so. i was right on the murder charge, and i think he'll get done on the manslaughter. anyway, i believe he murdered her. i think there was an argument in which pistorius (trigger happy and obsessed with guns), fired into the bathroom that he chased her into, and fired in rage, not planned, but in the heat of the moment he shot at the room in which she was in, which is enough for murder. he'll get done on manslaughter anyway, they said he was negligent. would a RP act as recklessly as he did? absolutely not. according to his testimony, he didnt check if steenkamp was next to him, and fired into a burglar who decided to lock himself in the bathroom? he never checked who was in there by shouting at the person to get out. surely steenkamp would have made her position to pistorius known if she was in the bed, as he said he believed was the case?
Spot on Swamp. You have to remember that the bar is set high for all prosecution cases - proving something beyond a reasonable doubt means you have to convince the jury (judge in this case) so that they (she) is sure. That's a big ask in a case where there were no eye witnesses. We all strongly suspect he killed Reeva in a fit of rage but suspicion won't convict him. I called manslaughter halfway through this trial and it looks like he's going down for that. Here he'd get 8 years or so and be out in 5. In the States, 15 without parole - South Africa? Not sure, but the legal pundits are going for around 6. We'll see....
If it was just Joe public and not a well known celebrity then the trial would have lasted a 10th of the time and a verdict of murder one reached easily and he would have got life with no parole....I feel sorry for the girls family that wont get the justice they deserve...
Dai I cant disagree with you on this. I am convinced the guy knew exactly what he was doing, nothing more than my opinion. There is only one person who knows exactly what happened that day and he will have to live with that.
Utter bollcks. He's killed her and got away with murder, literally. I was expecting it though, as he is their version of Beckham. He's guilty in my view, and got away with it. As others have said, RS would be guilty of murder as would we.
pistorius sold his house to pay legal costs. he got the best legal representation he could afford, the same as anyone else would do. as dragon born said, the proof has to be beyond reasonable doubt, thats the way its got to be, such that the law takes the view that its always better that a guilty man walks free than an innocent man jailed. celebrities do not get favourable treatment from courts despite public perception. if anything courts seek to create an example of them in order to create the illusion that all offences are punished heavily. for example, i read the judgement from john terry's racist remark trial. his lawyer played a blinder, and got him off the charge. however, if it was joe public, its such a petty offence that it would never have gone to trial in the first place. being a celebrity is a double edged sword as any lawyer will tell you. as dragon also said, it showed that as in 99% of rape trials, it can be very difficult to prove something BARD without any witnesses. pistorius will get a couple of years for manslaughter, and can count himself lucky.
Absolute balderdash (not you Swamp - I typed this before seeing your reply). I'm sorry but I've watched this trial and the Judge's reasoning has been absolutely sound. She has applied the law correctly and come to the correct conclusions based on the evidence. The only time fame and, more importantly, money comes into it is the ability to buy very competent lawyers and they have done their job very well. If you're poor you wouldn't have been able to afford that but sadly that's the way of the world. As it is he had to sell the house to pay for it. If you think as a layman then yes, I'd probably agree that he knew full well she was behind that door but proving it so that you know you're sure of that? A very different matter. Based on what I've seen (all the televised parts of the trial so far) then the judge has got it right imo. His explanation may have been implausible but was enough imo to doubt the Prosecution's version of events in a trial - you certianly couldn't discount it. He's almost certainly going to go down for a long time and is finished. Little consolation for Reeva's family maybe, but it's something.
So then, if we want to shoot dead somebody, stick in a door in front of them. I cannot believe that the judge didn't find him guilty of murder
