mdizzle

BBC News - Oscar Pistorius trial: Murder verdicts ruled out

Not guilty of murder. Surely culpable homicide?

Shard

The Sky News pundits say it will be culpable homicide.

It's a bizarre legal process down in SA. From what I can make out, they've had this six month trial presenting evidence, only to find at the end of it that the lone judge has determine that evidence is not relevant and it comes down to OP's testimony and her own evaluation of a reasonable man.

Like the new avatar, despite the fact that AS is...well I can't repeat it here.

Almost Canadian

Thank heavens that justice does not rely upon pundits, but those that have had actually heard the evidence and have been able to assess the evidence appropriately.

From what my South African lawyer friends tell me here, the Judge is a very well respected and competent. I am confident that she will come to the correct decision.

Shard

No question about the judge's competence, she seemed very thorough. Slightly odd that after she rejected the two higher murder charges, and concluded that he was negligent, she broke off JUST before delivering the third verdict on culpable homicide. This is half an hour after lunch with rest of the afternoon remaining. Perhaps she needs to reconsider / redraft something.

I am just surprised that she was able to reject so much of the trial evidence put toward her as being 'irrelevant' and wonder if, give the lack of jury and clear tests that would be made, whether some of the proceedings were redundant.

Almost Canadian

I suspect that she was able to choose when to deliver the judgment and, if this is the case, I doubt very much that she is rewriting her decision. She is fully aware of the attention that her judgment will be exposed to. I suspect that she may have had another matter to deal with. Fortunately, Judges' schedules are not designed simply to satisfy the media's or armchair pundits' desire for a story.

confused_uk

Good, I never believed he intentionally done it

Shard

I thought he had, but on listening to the summation, perhaps it was just a tragic accident. Certainly their is reasonable doubt as to his intention.

confused_uk

I think most people thought he had, the media wasn't on his side which never helps with public opinion.

Hawkmoon77

I think he most certainly intended to kill *whoever* was behind the door. Firing 4 times at point blank range into a confined space with those bullets could not reasonably led to any other outcome. As to who he thought was behind the door, only he will ever know, it was nigh on impossible to prove either way.

Shard

The judge made some very nuanced legal distinctions on the type of intention. If I understood her she deemed that there was no intent to kill, but on the other hand that he is not absolved of the outcome of his actions, because it would be unreasonable for him to assume that shooting as he did would not have a risk of death.

confused_uk

Oh yeah, he obviously meant to kill or seriously injure whoever was behind there but SA is such a dangerous place you would be so on edge if you thought someone had broken in. Not to mention he is someone who is somewhat vulnerable so I think it would be fair to assume he thought his & hers life could be in danger & acted in self defence. He'll serve a life sentence of guilt anyway, it's not really something you would ever get over, I wouldn't be surprised if a part of him was hoping he would be found guilty so he could be punished.

Hawkmoon77

You are quite possibly right on that.

I saw I reporter on the news in the apartment building - after coming in from the balcony, there was an exit to the stairs and front door right off the bedroom. If he felt in danger, he had ample opportunity to avoid confrontation but chose the recourse to violence. Whilst I believe him to be guilty of murder, I also accept that the judge has far better legal grounding than me and has far more knowledge of the case. I respect her judgement, whatever I privately think.

FirstRatofftheShipUK

*the intent*. Or, being more pedantic, his mens rea.

confused_uk

Everyone reacts differently in situations though, you don't really know how you would react until you are there. From his perspective he comes in from the balcony hears a noise, he has to walk towards the bathroom to get to the exit (if you look at the floor plan) so it seems logical he would grab his gun on the way. Now is he really going to think he has time to put his legs on & wake Reeva & leave before the potentially armed 'burglar' leaves the bathroom area, probably not.

Also I think the evidence supports his story, she had gone to the bathroom to use it, & crimes of passion are usually done face to face in a fit of rage not through a closed door while someone is on the loo. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Hawkmoon77

I have no idea whether he intended to kill Reeva, but to walk to her side of the bed to retrieve said pistol, without noticing whether she was in the bed seems far fetched to me. Yes he walked towards the bathroom, but he didn't have to keep walking. If he felt vulnerable, why walk towards potential danger ? Either way, I still believe that someone trained in firearms use, to fire 4 times at that range, with those bullets...he knew whoever was on the other side was very probably going to die, which to me makes the act one of murder, regardless of who he thought was on the other side