It is a contentious point (the intention). The judge seemed to dismiss so much evidence so that the decision came down to a very finely balanced judicial opinion on intention. I wonder if she took into account the enormous remorse and life impact the accident has had on OP and decided to give him a large benefit of doubt.

BBC News - Oscar Pistorius verdicts divide South Africa

Until you live in a country where the slightest noise or sound of a break in brings out real terror in you, coupled with the fact you are disabled and wanting to perhaps take action "as a man" as most SA men are brought up to believe, you cannot really know how he was feeling. I lived there for years and even on visits back always "look over my shoulder" and fear being attacked! If you suffer a burglary in South Africa, unlike other countries, there is a very likely possibility that you may be killed or injured. Carjackings are also rife in Johannesburg.

Initially I thought how can he not see that Reeva was not in bed and a couple of nights after this, I left our bed due to OH snoring and went to lay on couch. He did not notice I was not there and I heard him get up in middle of night to go to loo! He had to go around my side of bed too! In morning he came out and asked me how long I was there? I mentioned it to him that it was therefore possible that Pistorius did not notice Reeva not there.

Problem comes with him firing 1 shot and then 3 successive shots. Surely she would have shouted out after the first shot? Lots of possibilities but in his fear, he may not have heard behind the door and remember walls are made of brick and cement unlike plywood here.

On the subject of murder. The prosecution should not have pushed for murder 1 as that is know in SA as pre-meditated, or murder 2 is killing in passion. Looking at evidence the only course was culpable homicide and I do hope he gets some sort of sentence to send a message out. It was a horrible tragedy. Opinions are divided in SA too!

SA law is "Roman Dutch" law and different to Canada and UK. Having a judge with two assessors (all highly trained and respected professionals) is sometimes better than a jury who is using their emotions not to mention the press to convict. In the old days when they invented juries there were only newspapers and the jury was kept away from that! I know I would rather rely on legal expert than Joe Public!

A horrible tragedy that left two lives destroyed.

I think the verdict was correct (IMHO). It's the sentence that will be most telling.

It says five years but he might only serve 10 - 20 months in jail and do the remainder under house arrest.

The problem these days is that so much media attention is given to the suspects that they become the victims.

Amanda Knox another case in point.

No drama in giving the poor dead person justice as they are not around to tell a story.

Maybe Foxy Knoxy and Oscar can get together and sort each other out.

Foxy Knoxy bringing a knife to a gun fight?????

Come on, Foxy would have him on his knees in no time.

I don't quite understand that 'count 2' is both suspended for the duration of 'count 1' and also to be served concurrently with 'count 1'

Does it mean that if he is caught, in prison, committing a gun crime, two years into his prison sentence, then he only has to serve one additional year?

It seems a lenient sentence. I think he is expected to be out of prison in 10months+ and wearing a tagging device, hence the odd timings.

If this were some white trash guy, with a trigger happy history, I think the verdict or sentencing would be quite different.

My favourite part of the sentencing was where the judge said "Mr. Pistorius, you will finally hear what a criminal really sounds like when using your toilet".

Did she say that?

I think the sentence was too light. Reeva's life and the loss would have called for a stronger sentence. I would have expected 8 to 10 years, a minimum of 6 or 7 to be served, and after that the potential of an early release for good behavior.

What I think is that the shooting was no real accident for the following reason: After having fired the first shot, Oscar would have heard Reeva's voice, most likely she was screaming. It's hard to believe that he would not recognize the voice of his girl friend. And it's also hard to believe that Reeva would not have screamed, - anybody would have in this situation. Most likely the first shot would also not have killed her, since she was behind the door and not a clear target.

After having heard Reeva's scream it would have been obvious to him that it was clearly no burglar in the bathroom. The 2nd and following shots would have clearly been intent to kill the person who screamed. If it happened this way, it was premeditated, and not accidental anymore.

Also, Oscar has been trained in the use of a firearm, - if there was a threat of a burglar, he would have to verbally challenge the suspected burglar. Nobody who has been trained in using a firearm for protection would fire blindly, not even in a country like South Africa. He sure would have recognized Reeva's voice.

The case established early on that she did not scream. Not improbable that she froze with fear and then was incapacitated by four bullets.

Or the police get so caught up in the media attention, they completely forget proper police work and go after the wrong person, and then deny it for 2 years. (not about this case, just an example of media influencing police and courts.)

I read an article last night about a guy who was arrested and jailed for 2 years on 2 counts of murder. The case was being filmed by the first 48, and it appears the police were trying to look good for the camera's and wanted to solve it quickly.

The guy they arrested for it never wavered from his story that it was not him, and was always consistent in his story, but his story didn't match the evidence so the police called him a f**king lier (and this was aired on TV) and the guy pleaded for a polygraph of which one at the time was never done.

He was lucky in the fact he was appointed a public defender who actually investigated the case, and didn't just tell him to plea like some would have, and another lucky turn of events is the guy who actually did the shooting ended up in the same jail and had a big mouth and was telling other inmates that he did it, and how they put that other guy in jail for it.

In the end it never went to trial, the DA dropped charges and admitted mistakes were made, and did 2 polygraph tests and both times the experts agreed there was high probability the truth was being told.

The guy was 18 or 19, black guy, and I really think the police were just hoping that was enough to close the case, but fortunately for the guy charged incorrectly, a perfect storm of events came together or he could very likely have spent life in prison or executed.

The sad thing is A/E has refused to pull or update that episode and are still airing it, and apparently there is nothing that can be done legally against the network and the network has no legal responsibility to update the episode.

I have noticed in the new season the disclaimer has been changed and says something along the lines of charges are often dropped or reduced and all suspects are innocent until proven guilty.

One thing I have learned from watching the first 48, if the police have their minds set that you did something, nothing else matters, your guilty to them and nothing you say will change that, and secondly, the only words you should say to the police is " I would like to speak to a lawyer" and repeat that and nothing but that until you have a lawyer there to represent you. Its amazing how many suspects on that show talk to the police with no lawyer present.


And apologies for going off topic.