http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-28724230 Judge Thokozile Masipa smiled inscrutably from time to time. But she asked surprisingly few questions, and gave no hint as to which way she was leaning, as Oscar Pistorius's lawyer Barry Roux presented his final arguments in court on Friday. Both prosecution and defence had already submitted their detailed written arguments to the judge. With no jury to sway, the last two days in court felt, in some ways, rather overblown. On Thursday prosecutor Gerrie Nel - a study in incredulity - focused on attacking the athlete's "deceitful" character. On Friday Mr Roux responded with his own display of sustained indignation. He angrily accused the prosecution of manipulating and ignoring key evidence before proceeding to lay out - in forensic detail - the defence's timeline of events, screams, phone calls and bangs, the night Reeva Steenkamp was killed. Given that the only eyewitness to the killing is rather firmly on the defence's team, Mr Roux was always going to have a more compelling reconstruction to offer the judge than Mr Nel. But will that be enough? Mr Roux avoided - and occasionally mocked - his adversary's rather florid rhetorical style. But he too sometimes laboured his points, and made one discernable slip - when he tried to compare the disabled Mr Pistorius's "primal" reaction as he fired his gun to the case of an abused woman finally turning on her spouse. Perhaps it was calculated to appeal to Judge Masipa's strength of feeling on the issue of women's rights. If so, it was, at best, a clumsy manoeuvre. Mr Roux and Mr Nel both spent a good deal of time stressing the "impossibility" of various aspects of each other's versions. But my sense, as this trial has progressed, is that the disputed claims of experts and neighbours have cancelled each other out and faded into the background - leaving the judicial spotlight firmly on the shooting itself and both sides' attempts to explain Oscar Pistorius's precise state of mind as he repeatedly pulled that trigger. It is my impression that the prosecution knows it over-reached when it sought to argue premeditated murder. It is also my impression that the defence knows that an acquittal now looks rather unlikely. As Judge Masipa goes off to write up her verdict over the next month, I suspect she will focus on the options that lie between those two extremes. One of them is murder - dolus eventualis - which means the judge didn't feel the state proved that Oscar Pistorius deliberately sought to kill either Reeva Steenkamp or a putative intruder, but by firing into such a small area he must have foreseen the likely consequences of his actions. A 20-year sentence is possible. Another is culpable homicide, South Africa's version of manslaughter - which would essentially mean that the judge found the state had not proved murder beyond reasonable doubt, but that Pistorius was criminally negligent. A 10- to 15-year sentence would not be unusual. Still giving nothing away, Judge Masipa smiled and thanked the prosecution and defence for their efforts and then walked out of courtroom D. Oscar Pistorius turned to face his relatives. His father, Henke gave a thumbs up.
Guilty. Whole thing makes no sense... even if he didn't know it was his girlfriend on the other side of the door- he still shot an unknown person with the intent to kill them without knowing if they posed a thread or not. He didn't even call out "who's in there?" Even if you don't know who you are murdering- it is still murder.
The judge in the Oscar Pistorius trial has begun delivering her verdict on the athlete, a process that may take hours. The Olympic double-amputee sprinter faces 25 years in jail if found guilty of premeditated murder. He denies intentionally killing his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine's Day last year, saying he thought there was an intruder. The judge could also find him guilty of culpable homicide, or manslaughter, for which he would face a long jail term. Mr Pistorius, 27, has pleaded not guilty to all the charges he faces, including two counts of shooting a firearm in public and the illegal possession of ammunition. Judge Thokosile Masipa began by detailing the charges against the athlete and repeating extracts of his testimony, reading in a slow, measured way. A tense-looking Mr Pistorius looked on from the dock. Correspondents say the judge appeared to be moving much more quickly than expected through the evidence, in a process which had been expected take hours or even days. During his closing remarks last month, his lawyer Barry Roux conceded that the athlete should be found guilty of negligence for discharging a firearm in a restaurant - which carries a maximum penalty of five years.
My guess...... They will never be able to prove whether or not it was premeditated murder, so if I had to guess I will say he will get found guilty of homicide by negligence and discharging a firearm in a residential area without due care and will get anywhere between 6-12 years in prison.
Called it There's no way it could be proven, unless he had written down or mentioned to someone that he planned on killing her. Manslaughter and fire arms charges it will be, and between 6-12 years on prison, like I said. thing is, in South Africa, owning fire arm ammunition and discharging a fire arm in a residential area alone carry 6 years in prison, and he is without question guilty of both of those things, so there is no way he is walking free from the court today, even if he is acquitted of killing Reeva. Unless he gets a suspended sentence maybe, but I cannot see that happening.
11:51: Former judge Willem Heath tells the BBC many people will be unhappy that Oscar Pistorius has been acquitted of the more serious charges. However, public opinion is irrelevant to a judgement, he says.
He was never going to be found guilty of premeditated murder. Comes down to the famous "beyond reasonable doubt" line again
He's been cleared of all murder though, not just premeditated. I've said from the start if you shoot someone through a door it's not manslaughter, regardless of who you think it it. The law obviously disagrees..
All goes to show- if you're rich, famous, and a sports star you can get away with murder no matter what country you live in. OJ, Oscar Pistol. I'm suspicious of anyone whose first name begins with an "O". He shot a gun at someone. Regardless of who was behind that door- the intent was to kill or harm them. There is no other explanation for firing a gun at a door. That is murder - or at least intent to kill. That's what I understand too. The reasonable thing is to call the cops and tell the "intruder" behind the door. "I've called the cops- stay in there- if you try to leave I'll shoot you." If he didn't think it was his girlfriend he could have yelled for her to call the police. Personally though, I'm fairly sure he DID know who it was and did know what he was doing. Almost impossible for him not to know. It's murder to deliberately kill someone who is not threatening you- regardless of whether you know who you are killing.
Forget law, his story is pants, getting ou of bed and not noticing your other half is not there? Getting up getting your gun and not copping the bed is empty. I hear noises during the night, usually my 3 year old going to the loo. Does that give me justification to go round the house shooting through doors? Not premeditated murder, but an argument, rage and bullets fired. The guy called his lawyer 30 minutes before calling paramedics so, in essence he pronounced yer woman dead all by himself by calling his lawyer first who was already there when the police and medics arrived. If this c**t was not an international athelte he'd be looking at serious time, they used his lack of legs as a defence to portray him as this helpless poor man who was scared when the truth is he is a control freak rage monster roaming his own home with a gun. The first thing anyone does in a house they know is occupied by others is call out "is that you in there" or some such. No he just fired his gun. Bollocks. Money gets you off with crimes, always has always will, he wasnt using free legal aid Guilty all day, he killed that girl out of rage but you are not allowed call a guy with no feet a violent control freak. His brother was just cleared last year after a woman was killed on her motorbike when he jammed on the breaks and she slammed into his car. Pistorius men seem to have a knack for killing women by accident
