Oscar Pistorius

[the sceptic]

Justice prevails. I did not follow every audition, but the accusation was not strong let alone convincing. Well done.

rich white man walks away from charges. great justice.

 

[BigMac]

rich white man walks away from charges. great justice.

Well, either you're guilty or not, I trust justice in this case. The prosecuting attorney's arguments and narrative always looked too synthetic to me. He always seemed to be looking for something else other than truth, taking too much time denigrating Pistorius and screaming ''He did it, Your Honor'', ''He did it!'', and taking little time to explain it. No wonder the judge did not buy it or thought the evidence was noth enough. I don't think the fact that he is rich played a role here. His case seemed solid to me. Again, this from the audiences I've watched.

 

[the sceptic]

his defence was pathetic and its obvious that he murdered his girlfriend. Just because this joke of a trial has let him off doesnt mean he isnt guilty.

 

[Merckx index]

I accept the judge’s conclusions about the strength of the key evidence. But the fact remains that to believe this wasn’t murder you have to accept an overwhelmingly unlikely version of what happened:

1) that either Steenkamp went to the bathroom during a short interval when OP was out of bed, and he didn't hear her until she actually got there and closed the door - or that he got out of bed without noticing she wasn’t in it;

2) that when OP heard someone in the bathroom, he didn’t check to see if Steenkamp was still in bed, even though the gun that he fetched was right by or under the bed, and in fact he had to pass right by the bed to reach the bathroom, anyway;

3) that after calling out a warning to her he didn’t wait a few seconds for her to reply;

4) that he believed a burglar would lock himself in the bathroom;

5) that he regarded a burglar locked in the bathroom as an immediate threat to his safety;

and much more.

OP’s story was always possible in the sense that there was no hard evidence definitely refuting it. The question is whether anyone would actually behave in that manner. Who in his right mind would pass right by his bed to investigate the source of a noise without first confirming that his partner was in the bed? If Pistorius was so fearful that someone locked in a bathroom would shoot him before he could shoot the intruder, why did he come right up next to the bathroom door, and shout something to announce his position?

There are many, many things about his version that don’t make any sense at all. But you can always conclude, as the judge did, that OP was a really rare individual who does things differently. I’ll bet if you really wanted to, you could prove that the probability that he would act in that manner was less than the probability that hard evidence proved guilt in many cases in which it was assumed it did.

But there is no question that he acted negligently in a sense that, according to my understanding of SA law, is a pretty serious matter. And this judge does have a record of being pretty harsh on offenders whose guilt she was certain of. So I would not be surprised if she gives him a lengthy jail sentence.

 

[ILovecycling]

I accept the judge’s conclusions about the strength of the key evidence. But the fact remains that to believe this wasn’t murder you have to accept an overwhelmingly unlikely version of what happened:

1) that either Steenkamp went to the bathroom during a short interval when OP was out of bed, and he didn't hear her until she actually got there and closed the door - or that he got out of bed without noticing she wasn’t in it;

2) that when OP heard someone in the bathroom, he didn’t check to see if Steenkamp was still in bed, even though the gun that he fetched was right by or under the bed, and in fact he had to pass right by the bed to reach the bathroom, anyway;

3) that after calling out a warning to her he didn’t wait a few seconds for her to reply;

4) that he believed a burglar would lock himself in the bathroom;

5) that he regarded a burglar locked in the bathroom as an immediate threat to his safety;

and much more.

OP’s story was always possible in the sense that there was no hard evidence definitely refuting it. The question is whether anyone would actually behave in that manner. Who in his right mind would pass right by his bed to investigate the source of a noise without first confirming that his partner was in the bed? If Pistorius was so fearful that someone locked in a bathroom would shoot him before he could shoot the intruder, why did he come right up next to the bathroom door, and shout something to announce his position?

There are many, many things about his version that don’t make any sense at all. But you can always conclude, as the judge did, that OP was a really rare individual who does things differently. I’ll bet if you really wanted to, you could prove that the probability that he would act in that manner was less than the probability that hard evidence proved guilt in many cases in which it was assumed it did.

But there is no question that he acted negligently in a sense that, according to my understanding of SA law, is a pretty serious matter. And this judge does have a record of being pretty harsh on offenders whose guilt she was certain of. So I would not be surprised if she gives him a lengthy jail sentence.

very good post.I followed this interesting case for a long time, quite shocked about it now,looked like he will be found guilty.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Simple:
The rich prevailed. OJ did, now Pistol Man did, even (high positioned) gang members in Germany come away with murder.*

We have to live with it: Most judical systems suck beyond help. If you have no(t enough) money you are in the hands of the judge like the old roman fighters were in the hand of "thumb up thumb down Ceasar".
OTOH, if you are rich (or a diplomat in a foreign country), you can do whatever you want.

But after all, I think the US (of all systems ) is the best of all those bad ones. I´d rather try my luck with 12 men/women, than one corrupt and/or dumb judge.

* There was a police officer shot to death trou a closed door of the mobsters home. The killer got trou the trial unharmed as the judge called it "self-defence". One of the biggest judicial scandals in Germany (and there are many). Every walking person with a single brain cell knows that judge was either paid or blackmailed or both.

 

[kingjr]

The sun will rise in the west before the day comes when Foxxy writes a post that does not contain a direct or indirect reference to Germany

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

The sun will rise in the west before the day comes when Foxxy writes a post that does not contain a direct or indirect reference to Germany

The whole GGTG thread is full of posts with no relation to Germany.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I think if one uses what Merckx concluded fairly logically, steps back and thinks with Occam's Razor about what did happen, the most likely scenario is this:

They got into a big fight. He grabbed the shotgun. She ran into the bathroom and locked the door. He shot through it and killed her.

Why this? It's known they fought a lot. It's known he had a very hot temper. It's known he was somewhat of a gun nut. It's presumed he was abusive to her.

Is this exactly what happened? No one knows. But this is what makes most sense. Thus he didn't commit premeditated murder. In the US we would call this 2nd degree murder, and he would serve anywhere between 10-30 years in prison for it, depending on the State, background, and other factors.

But the judge ruled against the equivalent of that. But she also stated that he "acted too hastily and used excessive force" and that, "It is clear that his conduct was negligent". This puzzles me. She either believes his story, for the most part (how, I don't know), or is she saying the gun went off on accident? Four times?

I guess we'll know tomorrow!

 

[Merckx index]

I think if one uses what Merckx concluded fairly logically, steps back and thinks with Occam's Razor about what did happen, the most likely scenario is this:

They got into a big fight. He grabbed the shotgun. She ran into the bathroom and locked the door. He shot through it and killed her.

Why this? It's known they fought a lot. It's known he had a very hot temper. It's known he was somewhat of a gun nut. It's presumed he was abusive to her.

Is this exactly what happened? No one knows. But this is what makes most sense. Thus he didn't commit premeditated murder. In the US we would call this 2nd degree murder, and he would serve anywhere between 10-30 years in prison for it, depending on the State, background, and other factors.

But the judge ruled against the equivalent of that. But she also stated that he "acted too hastily and used excessive force" and that, "It is clear that his conduct was negligent". This puzzles me. She either believes his story, for the most part (how, I don't know), or is she saying the gun went off on accident? Four times?

I guess we'll know tomorrow!

It wasn't a shotgun, it was a pistol. But more important, premeditated murder is defined differently in SA. You're correct that the likely scenario you've described would not be considered premeditated in America. But in SA, a spur of the moment, crime of passion killing can be premeditated. Basically, if even a bare second or two elapses between the thought and the action, it can be premeditated. This came out during the trial, and like most Americans, I was very surprised to learn this.

Very much aware of this, during the trial, OP claimed at one point that he didn't intend to pull the trigger, that in fact it was an accident. It was a really clumsy moment, in which he had to explain how his finger pulled the trigger if he didn't intend it to. And he fell into a trap, too. Because he also claimed he aimed low in order to avoid killing the alleged burglar--obviously with an aim to alleviating the excessive force charge--but if he did that, he must have fired intentionally.

I don't think the judge buys his story that he didn't know it was Steenkamp. She just doesn't believe the evidence supports that beyond a reasonable doubt. That being the case, she has to look what he did as if he really thought there was an intruder. And from that point of view, his actions were hasty and excessive. In fact, as discussed upthread, in order to purchase his guns, OP had to sign a legal document stating he was aware of what he was and was not allowed to do in case of an intruder, and his actions, by his own account, clearly were in violation of that document.

 

[l.Harm]

I think if one uses what Merckx concluded fairly logically, steps back and thinks with Occam's Razor about what did happen, the most likely scenario is this:

They got into a big fight. He grabbed the shotgun. She ran into the bathroom and locked the door. He shot through it and killed her.

Why this? It's known they fought a lot. It's known he had a very hot temper. It's known he was somewhat of a gun nut. It's presumed he was abusive to her.

Is this exactly what happened? No one knows. But this is what makes most sense. Thus he didn't commit premeditated murder. In the US we would call this 2nd degree murder, and he would serve anywhere between 10-30 years in prison for it, depending on the State, background, and other factors.

But the judge ruled against the equivalent of that. But she also stated that he "acted too hastily and used excessive force" and that, "It is clear that his conduct was negligent". This puzzles me. She either believes his story, for the most part (how, I don't know), or is she saying the gun went off on accident? Four times?

I guess we'll know tomorrow!

In law it's not about 'what is the most likely that happened', but about the proof that can be provided. What I heard, the judge said there was not enough evidence to claim that he knew that his wife was in that room.

No of course she's not saying it was by accident. But he can still get like... 15 to 20 years?


edit: oh 3rd alinea previous post says basically the same

 

[Bosco10]

The stuff I've read on Twitter (obviously a great source of information ) suggests that she only applied the murder charge to Reeva i.e. she's saying he didn't intend to kill Reeva, rather than he didn't intend to kill anyone. I would have thought that someone who was used to shooting a gun would have some idea that four bullets would kill someone.

I've been reading the fallout from today's court session. A general consensus among legal minds is that judge Masipa's verdict was correct on the premeditated murder charge because conclusive evidence was lacking. However, she got mixed up and erred in her judgement on the 'dolus eventualis' murder charge. In fact, they said Masipa contradicted herself during her explanations. In South Africa, the state can appeal on questions of law, so things may get even more interesting after Friday.

 

[mewmewmew13]

I've been reading the fallout from today's court session. A general consensus among legal minds is that judge Masipa's verdict was correct on the premeditated murder charge because conclusive evidence was lacking. However, she got mixed up and erred in her judgement on the 'dolus eventualis' murder charge. In fact, they said Masipa contradicted herself during her explanations. In South Africa, the state can appeal on questions of law, so things may get even more interesting after Friday.

Yes I read a bbd report that this may be a plus for the prosecution. She did not ask the proper question..."did he have intent to kill WHOMEVER was behind the door" not just about his gf.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/oscar-pistorius-judge-error-prosecutors-article-1.1936371

 

[oldcrank]

rich white man walks away from charges. great justice.

Are you suggesting the (poor?) black female judge is corrupt?
If so, on what basis?

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

In law it's not about 'what is the most likely that happened', but about the proof that can be provided.

True. Take a look at the OJ case, some 20 years ago now. The prosecution made a few key gaffs, while the defense was both wisely strategic and impeccable in defending him - arguably as deft as any in the history of law.

Thanks Merckx for the clarifications.

 

[Bosco10]

Rio 2016 here we come. Has he written an autobiography yet?

Oscar Pistorius will be allowed to compete at the 2016 Paralympic Games if he is not in jail, the International Paralympic Committee has revealed.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/disability-sport/29179210

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Oscar Pistorius will be allowed to compete at the 2016 Paralympic Games if he is not in jail, the International Paralympic Committee has revealed.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/disability-sport/29179210

He would need to be nominated first. It probably hinges on SASCOC's view on Pistorius. the following selection rule applies:

1.2.2 The athlete shall be a member in good standing with the NF affiliated to SASCOC, and is also a member in good standing with SASCOC;

http://www.sascoc.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/General-Selection-Policy-20131.pdf

So I suppose enough money would do it.

 

[l.Harm]

So he's getting a couple of years with a maximum of five years.

 

[Merckx index]

Pistorius' defence lawyer Barry Roux said he expected the jailed athlete to serve only 10 months of the five-year sentence behind bars, and the remainder under house arrest.

However, South Africa's state prosecuting authority disputed this opinion, saying Pistorius was likely to serve at least a third of his sentence in prison - effectively 20 months.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/1-grim..._ylu=X3oDMTBmMnFmanUyBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQ--

Steenkamp's family said justice was served, but I wonder if they said that knowing how much of the five year sentence OP would likely serve. Ten months in jail for what he did is absurd. Twenty months is still far too light a sentence. Frankly, I think five years is too light, even if he served it all. And this is assuming he doesn't appeal.

He will able to continue his spin that it was all a tragic mistake, and no doubt resume his track career, albeit with fewer endorsements. But I assume Steenkamp's family will now start the civil proceedings against him.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Wow!

I'm not sure what else to say. I guess just like in the US, if you're rich and famous you get better lawyers and better chances than the rest of us.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Wow!

I'm not sure what else to say. I guess just like in the US, if you're rich and famous you get better lawyers and better chances than the rest of us.

In Germany you are even worse off. One judge say yes or no. He is not bound to weight in all witnesses or evidence. And appeals have a 0.1 % chance to prevail. 90+ % that end up in a courtroom are convicted. It´s 3rd world "justice", plain arbitrariness...

I´d rather have a 12 people jury and "only" 80% conviction rate a la USA. At least you got a chance there to prevent jail or hefty fines if you are innocent... Your judges are not allowed to play God and/or Cesar with thumbs up/down rulings.

OK, that was off topic. So my last few words towards OP. I don´t know. I guess the judge had reasons to give a 5 year only penalty.

 

[blackcat]

In Germany you are even worse off. One judge say yes or no. He is not bound to weight in all witnesses or evidence. And appeals have a 0.1 % chance to prevail. 90+ % that end up in a courtroom are convicted. It´s 3rd world "justice", plain arbitrariness...

I´d rather have a 12 people jury and "only" 80% conviction rate a la USA. At least you got a chance there to prevent jail or hefty fines if you are innocent... Your judges are not allowed to play God and/or Cesar with thumbs up/down rulings.

OK, that was off topic. So my last few words towards OP. I don´t know. I guess the judge had reasons to give a 5 year only penalty.

wonder if Nissan Trek Radio Shack will underwrite his comeback. Mellow Johnny's? US Postal? Smith & Wesson?

 

[Pazuzu]

2) that when OP heard someone in the bathroom, he didn’t check to see if Steenkamp was still in bed, even though the gun that he fetched was right by or under the bed, and in fact he had to pass right by the bed to reach the bathroom, anyway;

This more than anything else, doesn't make sense. But added to the other incongruities you cited in your post, and the whole thing becomes farcical.

I hope the prosecution appeals.

 

[Merckx index]

Prosecution is appealing:

The NPA said in a statement its decision to appeal was based on a "question of law," meaning it believes that Judge Masipa misapplied the law when she acquitted Pistorius of murder.

"The merits and the demerits of the NPA's argument ... will become evident when we file papers for leave to appeal," the national prosecuting body said. "The prosecutors are now preparing the necessary papers in order to be able to file within the next few days."

Prosecutors must apply initially to Masipa for permission to appeal within 14 days of Pistorius' Oct. 21 sentencing. If Masipa grants them permission, Pistorius' case would be reviewed by a panel of three or five judges in the Supreme Court of Appeal, legal expert Marius du Toit said. They could overturn the manslaughter conviction and find Pistorius guilty of murder.

Experts say there are grounds for an appeal, partly because the judge may have misapplied a part of the law called "dolus eventualis" — which says someone should be found guilty of murder if they foresaw the possibility of killing someone through their actions and went ahead anyway. The experts questioned how Masipa ruled that Pistorius did not predict that someone might die when he decided to shoot four times from close range into the small toilet cubicle in his Pretoria home, hitting Steenkamp in the hip, arm and head.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

wonder if Nissan Trek Radio Shack will underwrite his comeback. Mellow Johnny's? US Postal? Smith & Wesson?

Taurus handgun..