Evidentiary argument?

[cee-dee]

We've all seen the recent cases where celebrities have been in Court charged with a variety of offences going back many years and one of the things said by the accusers and Prosecution is that "so many people couldn't have got it wrong"?

Now we see in the Pistorius trial in SA completely the opposite.:-

The judge in the Oscar Pistorius trial has questioned the reliability of several witnesses in court, as she delivers her verdict on the athlete.

Judge Thokozile Masipa said humans were fallible, and may not have heard gunshots or screaming as they thought.

OK, it's different countries and different circumstances and whatever the truth of the matter, it just goes to show that the most unreliable evidence is that of "eye" witnesses and what they say.

[clifford2031]

     New evidence has been found outside the Pistorius home that completely acquits him of his girlfriend's murder. 

Footprints.

[evoman3957]

Guilty of Culpable Homicide ( Manslaughter here ).

Guilty of discharging a Firearm in a Restaurant ( but not guilty of shooting a Gun through the open sunroof of a Car ).

Guilty of possession of Ammunition He was not licenced to possess.

.............and the Judge was not very impressed with quite a few of the various whitnesses.

They reckon there'll now be another adjournment, of 4 weeks or so, before sentencing.

All these Barristers & Legal Bods. on £400 per hour..............no wonder these court Cases cost so much.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

The judge has adjourned until tomorrow for some more over dramatised play-acting.

---

Quite!

Why she needed endless weeks to consider all the evidence, is not clear.  Why she could not just deliver a verdict in one line, as a jury does, is not clear.  Why she needs another extended period to consider a sentence is not clear.  Why she seemed incapable of reading from her typed report in a coherent manner is not clear.

[cee-dee]

I think the correct term (couldn't remember earlier) is "Playing to the gallery".

Next, she'll be writing a book on the "Trial of her career".

[saasher2012]

At £400 an hour she must be laughing all the way to the bank& that's before she starts a book! lol.

[cee-dee]

It's the lawyers that are making the money. The defending lawyer charges anything between £3,000 and £5,500 a DAY.

All I can find out about the judges pay is that it's just over £40,000 a year.

[margaret*e]

Isn't it always.

[saasher2012]

Very true! lol.

[merehazle]

---

@**caution**opinion_ahead wrote:

---

@cee-dee wrote:

The judge has adjourned until tomorrow for some more over dramatised play-acting.

---

Quite!

Why she needed endless weeks to consider all the evidence, is not clear.  Why she could not just deliver a verdict in one line, as a jury does, is not clear.  Why she needs another extended period to consider a sentence is not clear.  Why she seemed incapable of reading from her typed report in a coherent manner is not clear.

---

Yes, it seemed endless weeks.  I'm wondering why the judge did not offer him hope of some reward? Seems likely that he may not do much (if any) jail time. I would give him at least 10 years for his crawling cringing and crying performance. He made me quite sick actually. 

At least O J Simpson avoided that. They say it would take 400 years to read all our laws. America cant be much different - at her rate I would suspect much more. I seemed mostly only to hear what he had not done wrong.

Common sense, available evidence, previous history, and gut instinct all indicate cold- blooded murder.  

Some, among them Miss Steenkemp;s family, argue that judge Masipa got it totally wrong?  Some even links Pistorius to O J Simpson;  both, they say escaped with murder. 

[upthecreekyetagain]

An impossible situation - how could you ever prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Oscar Pistorius knew that his girlfriend was in the toilet.

His actions in calling for help immediately after the shooting together with the fact that she was still alive when that help arrived also makes it difficult to prove an intent to kill.

I think we may find whether or not the judge actually believes OP intended to kill despite the prosecutions inability to prove this when she hands down the sentence - she has a very wide spectrum of penalties she can impose.

[cee-dee]

I think it's been proven that he intended to do serious harm to whoever was behind the door. Firing one shot was bad enough but firing 4 shows intent?

Remorse often means the guilty is very sorry, yes, very sorry they're being brought to book.

[evoman3957]

People seem to be forgetting what sort of ammunition He used, we used to call them Dum Dums; soft nosed bullets, that are designed to spread out on impact. Small hole on entry and a hole the size of a Dinner Plate on exit, whoever was in that Toilet would have been killed for sure.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

I think it's been proven that he intended to do serious harm to whoever was behind the door. Firing one shot was bad enough but firing 4 shows intent?

Remorse often means the guilty is very sorry, yes, very sorry they're being brought to book.

---

Well the judge disagrees with you - that's the difference between murder and culpable homicide - one requires intent to have been proven the other illegal negligence, (reckless disregard), as to whether anyone is killed or not.

[evoman3957]

Unfortunately, if a person goes out to deliberately kill another ( murder ) and kills the wrong Person by mistake; that then becomes Manslaughter. They did not intentionally kill that person, it was by mistake ( Manslaughter ). It could not be proved the He KNEW it was Reeva Steenkamp in the Toilet, hence it could not be proved that it was HER He deliberately killed. He sure as Hell meant to kill whoever was in there though.

http://www.ibtimes.com/what-are-expanding-bullets-dum-dums-used-oscar-pistorius-shoot-reeva-steenkam...

[electric*mayhem*band]

That mumbling idiot Judge - is she tripping out on drugs ? - should be charged with dereliction of duty. This courtroom farce reminds me of Gilbert and Sullivan's 'Trial by Jury' - except there isn't one. He had a blazing row with Reeva due to something he perceived that she'd done wrong, or said something which he disagreed with, she on the other hand, knowing what a raving lunatic he was, took refuge in the toilet, locking the door behind her. In an already blind rage because she had the audacity to answer him back, he picked up his gun and fired four shots through it, into an area the size of a telephone booth, thus killing her. A Burglar ? A Burglar my maiden aunt !

Guilty of murder....and ham acting. Case closed.

Next....

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

I think we may find whether or not the judge actually believes OP intended to kill despite the prosecutions inability to prove this when she hands down the sentence - she has a very wide spectrum of penalties she can impose.

---

Could be.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@evoman3957 wrote:

People seem to be forgetting what sort of ammunition He used, we used to call them Dum Dums; soft nosed bullets, that are designed to spread out on impact. Small hole on entry and a hole the size of a Dinner Plate on exit, whoever was in that Toilet would have been killed for sure.

---

Presumably he used whatever was already loaded in the gun.  All the evidence points to a rash, angry act, not a premediated one.  If she had taken refuge in the toilet because she was scared, knowing she had her mobile with her would have meant he needed to act fast ... assuming the burglar scenario is a fantasy.  So, I'm not sure the type of ammunition used means he deliberately meant to inflicit extra damage on his girlfriend.  Rather, it suggests, when the ammunition was acquired, he knew if he ever used the gun against someone, he would probably kill them.

I see it as a case of a testosterone-fuelled man in a fury over-reacting to a perceived threat.  Whether that threat was Reeva doing something he did not like or an intruder is the question.

[upthecreekyetagain]

Criticism of the judge seems to be very much a case of 'shooting the messenger'

It was the police and prosecution who built and presented a very poor case against OP who should, (if anyone should), be criticised.

The crime scene was contaminated, witness discrepancies, head of the police investigation himself charged with murder, one witness shown to have lied and so on.  What actually happened in that room on that night is just pure speculation and nothing could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt - that's not the judges fault!

If the person who had died in that toilet had been an intruder how likely would it have been that a trial for murder would have ever taken place?

[cee-dee]

I agree that the prosecution presented their case badly.

I think they should have been a bit more focussed on his lack of care and rashness in shooting through a door before establishing who might have been in there.

What I mean is, even in a moment of shock/surprise, wouldn't you normally call out to someone to "come out"?

Why shoot through the door? Why would a burglar lock the door and stay in there? Why shoot at a height which might hit someone? Why no warning shot? Why shoot at all?

The prosecution focussed on trying to establish that he knew who was in there and intended to kill her instead of leading in to it moment by moment.

I don't know what the Law is in South Africa, but here, a defence of "self defence" would hold good if one shot was fired, four shots shows intent?

Here, if you're threatened/attacked by an intruder, hit him once and he's dead, you could plead self-defence. Hit him multiple times and you're likely to face a charge of murder.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

I agree that the prosecution presented their case badly.

I think they should have been a bit more focussed on his lack of care and rashness in shooting through a door before establishing who might have been in there.

What I mean is, even in a moment of shock/surprise, wouldn't you normally call out to someone to "come out"?

Why shoot through the door? Why would a burglar lock the door and stay in there? Why shoot at a height which might hit someone? Why no warning shot? Why shoot at all?

The prosecution focussed on trying to establish that he knew who was in there and intended to kill her instead of leading in to it moment by moment.

I don't know what the Law is in South Africa, but here, a defence of "self defence" would hold good if one shot was fired, four shots shows intent?

Here, if you're threatened/attacked by an intruder, hit him once and he's dead, you could plead self-defence. Hit him multiple times and you're likely to face a charge of murder.

---

I'm sure you are right.

Of course OP was charged with murder, as was Barry-Lee Hastings who stabbed a burglar 12 times.  In that case the jury found him not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-143147/Father-jailed-killing-burglar.html