Guilty or not guilty?

I think, based on what has been reported, that he did kill her but I do not think it was premeditated. (Which is what he has been charged with) so technically not guilty. I think the Scottish Courts have a nice concept that describes how I feel: "Not Proven". I don't think he's innocent but I'm unconvinced he has done the crime he has been charged with.

I think he's already admitted to killing her hasn't he? Just accidentally.

I think so, yeah. I don't really buy the premeditated side to it though. Maybe I'm giving him more smarts than he's due, but if you were planning on killing someone you wouldn't do it in your bathroom with a gun that isn't silenced through a door. I can see the killing after an argument thing but that would be 'Crime of Passion' in my book and not premeditation.

 

 

I think my issue is more with what he has been charged with than if he killed her or not as I don't think it matches the description of the crime.

The fact that he killed her is not in dispute at all as far as I understand (it is presumably legal in South Africa to shoot and kill someone if you have reasonable suspicion tha they are going to attack you), it's just whether or not the court buys his defence that he mistook her for a burglar. For the reason that Silas just said in the post above I am inclined to believe that, but at the end of the day no one except him knows or ever will know.

 

I'm morally against ever using deadly force against someone even if you do have suspicion that they're going to attack you first, simply because if your suspicion is wrong then that leads to a completely needless death - but as what he did, according to his story, is not illegal, he shouldn't be found guilty of anything if the court believe his story.

He is guilty and that is the large majority of the general public's opinion in SA. Pistorius shot Steenkamp FOUR times through the bathroom, surely if his 'burglar excuse' was true, he would have recognized her by the first shot. Their neighbours reported repetitive screaming from a female, surely Pistorius would have recognized this as Steenkamp? Burglars are 9.9 times out of 10 not females. In court, he came up with the excuse that it was him who was screaming like a female. Even if he's not guilty of premeditated murder, I'd still say he's an idiot and a terrible excuse for a person. Even if there were clear signs of the noise being an intruder, which, of course, there were not, he still would have been acting in total disregard for the safety of his girlfriend. You really don't check to see if she's safe and sound before running out of the room with your pistol? How selfish and grossly inconsiderate is that? His behavior on that night suggests either that he completely forgot Steenkamp was in the house, or that he's a murderer. The defence attorney Barry Roux also said in court he had consulted three specialists and the autopsy and asked a witness, Stipp: "That person after the shots would not have been able to scream. That person would be nonresponsive, does that make sense to you as a medical doctor?" "It does," Stipp replied. The prosecution interjected, saying Steenkamp could have screamed after the first shot. The prosecutor Gerrie Nel, reading a report from an expert, told the court that of the four bullets fired toward Steenkamp "the fourth bullet hit her in the head. She then died."

 

The argument that the couple were fighting and Steenkamp locked herself in the bathroom makes a lot more sense than the burglar breaking in through the bathroom (a bathroom of all places? Seriously?), there was also no breaking of windows or forced entry evident whatsoever, that argument falls flat imo. An intruder wouldn't lock

themself in a toilet! Also revealed in court, a friend of Pistorius had once been asked to take the blame for him accidentally firing a gun at the floor of a restaurant, this adds further doubt to the professed innocence of Pistorius. Also the radiologist who is one of the neighbours said the lights were on contradicting Pistorius' claim that it was pitch dark. Also if he was afraid he would try to wake Reeva and stay away from the bathroom as he would have suspected more than one intruder and going where they are without putting his legs on does not make sense. And forgetting the password of his mobile phone claim? Please! It's also no secret in SA, and if you saw Steenkamp's last tweets that Pistorius was suspecting she was interested in her ex, Pistorious was riddled with jealousy and is insecure and lost it in fear she was going to dump him - they were arguing not only that night but months before and they had been on an unstable level in their relationship for some time, Pistorius had paranoia re:Steenkamp's ex who is a renowned rugby players here in SA. His behaviour in court also suggests that he is not mentally stable.

 

With regard to murder laws in South Africa if Pistorius is convicted of premeditated murder, then he'll get life in prison with no opportunity for parole for at least 25 years. If Pistorius is convicted of murder, he'll get 15 years in prison. Unlike in the U.S. for example, the case is decided by a judge, not a jury (though U.S. defendants sometimes have this option). The rules on hearsay are much looser in South Africa. There are fewer objections, and the questioning is different, allowing witnesses to tell stories, and allowing defense attorneys more leeway in cross-examining witnesses.

I'm pretty much with Silas/Bre on this, obviously he killed her but I really do not believe that he was stupid enough to commit premeditated murder in this way, jealous/angry or not. If he has been charged with premeditated murder, then on what we know and have found out I can't say I would find him guilty.

 

He does seem to have been a bit of a twat, but at the end of the day that doesn't make him guilty. And all the excuses I've seen of people trying to apply logic to a panic situation: don't. People think 'Oh, I would NEVER BE LIKE THAT', but the truth is you can never say never until you are faced with that situation and your reaction might surprise you. His reaction is extreme, but in a country where the use of guns for force in home invasions isn't illegal (I think) then his behaviour isn't that far beyond the scope if he truly was acting on impulse/instinct.

He has already pleaded guilty for the possession of an illegal firearm. Firearms are illegal for the GP in SA if you do not posses a permit for one. Crime is shockingly high here but the place in which Pistorius and Steenkamp stayed is extremely upmarket and situated in a very secure estate/complex where there has never been murder etc - which manifests another flaw in Pistorius' argument.

Well, it doesn't rule it out either. As I say, I am inclined to believe he is not guilty of premeditated murder, which is what he has been charged with. Had it simply been 'wrongful death'/manslaughter or whatever the equivalent would be in SA then that's an entirely different story.

Oscar Pistorius murder trial: March 18 as it happened

 

11.52 Oscar Pistorius stands beside his sister Aimee during court proceedings at the North Gauteng High Court:

 

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02856/Oscar-PISTORIUS_2856385c.jpg

 

11.48 A report from AFP on why the prosecution asked to adjourn the court. Prosecutors asked for extra time to consult with their final witnesses before closing their case against the Paralympian.

 

"It's a reasonable request that I cannot refuse. We shall postpone this matter until Monday," Judge Thokozile Masipa said..

 

The state aims to close its case against the athlete early next week, prosecutor Gerrie Nel told the court.

 

But he argued it would be "irresponsible" to call the last four or five witnesses without consulting them again first.

 



10.48 Judge agrees to adjourn so back in court on Monday morning

 

10.46 Nel asks for an adjournment until Monday because the State is coming close to wrapping up its case. He wants to consult witnesses over the weekend and will look to close the case early next week. Roux doesn't want to wait court time but agrees to adjourn.

 

10.47 Roux asks Col Sales if he accessed the websites on iPad 2 or 3. Asks if he knew who it was that was using those search terms. He says no. Roux finishes his questioning.

 

10.43 Sales confirms he also checked an iPad 3, and handed both to the defence

 

10.42 Last site visited at 09.19pm on the 13th, Pistorius googled a Morgan Aeromax. So the first two searches were for porn at 430pm, the nine later ones were for cars.

 

10.41 Other Pistorius searches were for Ford Ranger, Aston Martin, Autotrader SA, Daytona Group

 

10.18 Col. Sales says that he was given an iPad for analysis . He downloaded the info using forensic tool. He focussed on the web history and the bookmarks. He says there was no browser history on the device prior to February 13 2013. The owner must have deleted it.

 

10.13 Van der Nest is finished and the next witness is sworn in. Colonel Mike Sales takes the oath. He is a police mobile phone expert.

 

10.00 Van der Nest said that the blood spatter analysis supports the reconstruction of events by Captain Mangena. Nel finishes his questioning so Roux is up next.

 

09.58 He says her arm would have to have been raised for the tissue deposits he found around her vest. There was no evidence she was hit by blunt force.

 

09.55 Van der Nest says that there is evidence Steenkamp's shorts were in a "normal wearing position" when she was shot so she wasn't going to the toilet.

 

09.54 Van der Nest says that he did not see any evidence of a foot print in the blood.

 

09.50 Van der Nest analysing blood spatter on toilet lid. Saying it would be consistent with the damage to the head. Consistent with her receiving the wound close to the toilet seat.

 

09.42 Van der Nest says that two of the wounds, the one to the head, and the one to the right arm could have resulted in arterial spurting.

 

09.32 We have adjourned now for tea.

 

09.14 Arriving at the scene Van der Nest says that the deceased had obviously sustained wounds in the toilet, gunshot wounds and three of these wounds could have resulted in severe bleeding.

 

09.10 Nel asks what caused blood spots in downstairs lounge. Van der Nest says he was asked to find out if was blunt force trauma in that room. He says it wasn't. "This was the result of arterial spurt that had arisen from above, from the landing of stairwell above."

 

09.07 He said he attended the crime scene and was also asked to attend Steenkamp's post mortem examination.

 

09.02 Van der Nest says he's done over 1,300 investigations himself, and assisted in others

 

08.57 Mangena is excused. The next witness is about to be sworn in. Court calls Col Ian Van Der Nest, the blood spatter expert.

 

08.55 Nel has no more questions. Roux wants to ask would the height of her hip be the same whether she was leaning forward or standing? Mangena says he never said otherwise.

 

08.46 Roux says that he has no further questions. Back to Nel and the prosecution. If Reeva was leaning, where was she facing? Mangena- she must be facing the door. Nel says that only bullet A could have hit Reeva in the hip. Mangena agrees that C and D were too high but says bullet D could have hit her.

 

08.44 Back after a quick interlude. Mangena says that Reeva was definitely standing but he can't exclude possibility of her leaning.

 

08.34 Roux asking if Mangena had done tests to determine similarity of sounds between a cricket bat on door and a firearm. No he says. He doesn't specialise in sounds and he wouldn't be able to differentiate between them.

 

08.31 Roux is picking fights with the state, saying they "made up" versions to fit their premeditated murder charge. Mangena says he doesn't know where the versions came from.

 

08.22 Roux suggesting that the magazine rack caused the bruising on Reeva's back. Mangena disagrees but Roux says that he hasn't tested it. Roux says he can't be sure it wasn't the first shot, rather than the second shot, that missed Reeva. "I disagree with that," Mangena says again.

 

08.14 Roux says that Dr Stipp's eyewitness account showed quick succession bullets but Mangena argues they could not have been that quick. There was definitely a break between the 1st shot and the 2nd.She changed position from a standing position. That creates a break. Mangena says it's possible the second round of shots (2,3 and 4) were double tap but not 1st to 2nd

 

08.13 Roux is beginning his cross examination. He asks asks if Mangena has ever heard the expression "double tap", pulling the trigger twice. "It was four in quick successions, rapid?" However Mangena says that if the shots were fired as two "double taps" the wounds would have been in the same place on Reeva's body and she would not have had time to change position.

 

08.09 Prosecution asking about the incident when Pistorius shot through the sunroof. "Is it dangerous?" he asks. Mangena says it is because the bullet can kill a person when it travels.

 

08.01 Mangena says that Pistorius shooting without his prosthetics on his stumps, shooting from the shoulder is the most probable position. Mangena adds that Pistorius could have fired from waist position wearing his prostheses but it was "not the most probable" position.

 

07.58 Mangena says that the type of ammunition Pistorius used creates "maximum wounding". Mangena says that Black Talon ammunition doesn't break up on hard surfaces, only "most targets" like human flesh. He shows an image of bullets being fired into a water tank. When a shot is fired, if it hits a human being it opens up into six sharp talons and cuts through human organs.

 

07.54 Prosecution asks, "How far from that door was the accused when he fired?" Mangena: "I cannot say the exact distance." Mangena says he was unable to determine anything from the position of the cartridge cases as they may have been moved at the crime scene.

 

07.48 The last bullet, which penetrated her skull, Mangena believes was fired as Steenkamp had her hands on her head. He said when the wound hit her head her head dropped immediately.

 

07.43 Mangena said Bullet B missed her, ricocheted and hit her in the back, causing bruises but not breaking the skin. He says that the deceased was most likely then in a defensive position, with the arm most likely lifted up in front of her chest when the next bullets hit.

 

07.38 Mangena says that he ascertained Steenkamp was first shot and wounded, not when she was on the toilet, but when she was standing in front of the door facing the door. The next shot hit, and broke, her hip and then she fell down backwards, onto the magazine rack in a seated position which, he says, are in line with the bullet holes on the bathroom door.

 

07.34 We start the morning with Capt Christiaan Mangena, the ballistics expert working on the case who yesterday told how only one of the four bullets Pistorius fired through the door ricocheted off the walls - the rest immediately found their target, Reeva Steenkamp.

 

07.18 Good morning and welcome to day 13 of Oscar Pistorius's trial.

 

Premeditated murder couldn't be more obvious. My heart absolutely breaks for Reeva - just the thought of what she went through during this makes me want to burst out in tears. Absolutely gruesome. Pistorius is one sick human being and he deserves life in prison. On another note, what an absolute idiot thinking he can plead not guilty for premeditated murder in this day and age where detectives and technology is as advanced as it is, a total fool thinking the burglar excuse will conveniently cover this up.

Again, none of that proves he is guilty of premeditated murder. It all seems to me to back up a heat of the moment type affair, although it does also seem to have been rather more personal in nature than his story.

Anyone here been following this then as I have? It's been live on Sky News, without showing his face of course, from 8.30 am UK time. The Prosecutor Nel is great, like a dog with a bone. I don't know what to think but he's kept breaking down and been sick in court a couple of times. Just read that should the judge find him guilty of murder he can appeal and may get bail until his appeal is heard, so this could drag on for years yet. :rolleyes:

 

After tomorrow they take a break until May 5th after the prosecution asked for this and the defence and judge agreed to it. Bit too long in my opinion and a week's break would have been better.

Edited April 16, 201411 yr by Common Sense

I'm starting to think that Nel's questioning style could completely backfire.

I think the amount of "My Lady's" he says, I think he is turning in to Parker off of Thunderbirds, he will be given a Pink Limousine to drive around next.

I think the amount of "My Lady's" he says, I think he is turning in to Parker off of Thunderbirds, he will be given a Pink Limousine to drive around next.

 

 

Someone asked about this on Sky News and they said his defence team have told him to address every answer to the judge like that, rather than to the person questioning him. :)

I'm starting to think that Nel's questioning style could completely backfire.

I find I'm in agreement with you. He could ruin the case for the prosecution with this badgering.

 

Someone asked about this on Sky News and they said his defence team have told him to address every answer to the judge like that, rather than to the person questioning him. :)

It's the same here where witnesses have to address the judge. Similarly, all remarks in the House Of Commons are addressed to the Speaker.

I find I'm in agreement with you. He could ruin the case for the prosecution with this badgering.

There's no jury though. I can't see a judge making a decision based on the prosecution's style.

Sentenced to 5 years in prison. The judge said "A non-custodial sentence would send wrong message to the community". The family have apparently confirmed there will be no appeal.

Sentenced to 5 years in prison. The judge said "A non-custodial sentence would send wrong message to the community". The family have apparently confirmed there will be no appeal.

 

Disgusting.

 

The sentencing would have been completely different had he been in the United Kingdom. He will sell his story and no doubt make up for any money he's lost! He's also expected to spend 10 months in prison with the remainder being house arrest. Disgusting.