bust Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 Oscar Pistorius has been cleared of murder over the killing of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp. Judge Thokozile Matilda Masipa tonight found the Paralympian had no intent to kill when he shot Steenkamp through the bathroom door of his Pretoria home on Valentine’s Day, 2013. She dismissed charges of both premeditated murder and common-law murder. "The state clearly has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder," Judge Masipa said. "Viewed in its totality the evidence failed to establish that the accused had the requisite intention to kill the deceased let alone with premeditation. "Clearly he did not objectively foresee this as a possibility, that he would kill the person behind the door." The 27-year-old sat in the dock and burying his head in his hands after the finding was made. He still faces possible charges of culpable homicide, equivalent to manslaughter. The court has adjourned for lunch, with a final verdict set to be delivered after the hour break. Culpable homicide has no set minimum jail term, with a maximum of 15 years. It has been touted as the trial of the century. http://www.9news.com...CAUPe9It6LrI.99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Munchmaster Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 No trial by jury in SA I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 BBC now says she has adjourned the court for the day. Bizarre judgements ... 1) So he didn't know it was her in the loo when he shot the crap out of the door. Fair enough, but then to say he didn't know if he'd kill whomever was in there is a far stretch. 2) "Clearly he did not objectively foresee this as a possibility, that he would kill the person behind the door." What the hell does she think happens when you unload a pistol at a small room with someone inside it? Bullets do tend to kill the person they hit, especially when you empty your weapon at them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 No trial by jury in SA I believe. Apparently it is entirely this gal's call, with maybe someone to advise her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bust Posted September 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 Sounding like she may convict on the lesser charge. Can't see him getting off scott free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaiRai Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 History of significant domestic violence incidents on record, along with threatening texts and conversation in the days up to the shooting. But since he shot her through the bathroom door he didn't realize it was her - and no intent to kill?? wtf. Patently absurd to let him off for trivial and naive reasoning. If he doesn't receive something it's a farce. Tragic for her family. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 Why did he think it was an intruder, and not just his girlfriend in the bathroom ? Surley to come to the decision that it was an intruder, by logical deduction he would first check to see if his girlfriend was still there beside him in bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baa99 Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 There are 2 "advisers" on the panel that could over rule the judge. Obviously, they didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaiRai Posted September 11, 2014 Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 ^^ not sure what your point is. That makes the verdict correct? Curious to see what they do with manslaughter. One of my favorite quotes from the judge on the case: ""During his evidence, he seemed composed and logical ... (but) under cross-examination he lost his composure ... (and it seemed) the accused was suffering from enormous emotional stress and was traumatized by reliving the incident," she said. "The accused therefore cannot be found guilty of murder dolus eventualis (legal intent)..." Really? Are you fucking serious. It's like the opposite of Camus' "The Stranger" where his lack of emotion made him guilty (when he wasn't), in this case his 'emotional stress' on the stand indicates innocence? Puh-leaze. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bust Posted September 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 Favourite defence quote............Barry Roux SC said: "All I'm saying when he's anxious his voice pitches and it sounds like a woman screaming." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now