Pistorius' Family Appear Confident Of Outcome - Is this the longest running trial in history????

The Pistorius family hugged, smiled and kissed each other at the end of the defence summing up.

The athlete's uncle, Arnold, turned to reporters and, describing the two lawyers' performances, said: "It's a Mercedes versus a Fiat."

I asked: "Has Barry Roux done enough?"

Mr Pistorius answered: "Oh yes. More than enough."

In just over a month, we'll find out if he's right.

udge Thokozile Masipa has retired to consider more than four hundreds pages of summing up arguments from both sides.

She'll deliver her verdict on September 11. As one reporter put it: "Oscar Pistorius' very own 9/11."

Friday was the defence fightback and his lawyer's last chance to prove his innocence.

The day before was spent hearing from the prosecution how the paralympian had constructed a "snowball of lies" to avoid taking the blame for killing Reeva Steenkamp. On Friday, his defence team weighed in with 243 pages of reasons why the State had got it wrong.

The athlete's lawyer, Barry Roux, turned to the crux of the defence case before the mid-morning tea break - pleading with the Judge not to forget that Oscar Pistorius had lived with disability all his life, disability which would mean he reacted like no able-bodied person and which ultimately meant he could not be held responsible for the death of his girlfriend.

His reactions that night were involuntary, Barry Roux argued, they were primal instincts due to a lifelong "slow burn" which meant he didn't even know what he was doing when he fired the shots.

Even as a little boy, the lawyer argued, Oscar Pistorius lived with fear and vulnerability due to not having legs. The effect was a "slow burn" on him and his behaviour. Mr Roux likened the "bladerunner's" reaction on that morning to that of an abused woman who finally snaps after years of abuse to shoot her abuser.

http://news.sky.com/story/1315489/pistorius-family-appear-confident-of-outcome

OK, I'm exaggerating but this trial was scheduled for 3 weeks but has taken 6 months??!! And the guy actually shot his girlfriend of that there is no doubt, 6 months to estabish if he meant to shoot her? Unbelievable.

Not enough evidence to find him guilty. Even the prosecutors have practically admitted that. They are relying on "overwhelming circumstantial evidence".

That's not good enough to find a person guilty, without reasonable doubt.

 

MAYBE the sheer arrogance, self-centredness and cold bloody-mindedness of the whole Pistorius clan as demonstrated in that interview with his Uncle Arnie, shows us a good deal about how Oscar Pistorius turned out to be the weak and snivelling spoilt bully-boy brat that he is ???

IT will be very interesting to see that family's reaction if he is found "Guilty" of murder, then, won't it..

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Not enough evidence to find him guilty. Even the prosecutors have practically admitted that. They are relying on "overwhelming circumstantial evidence".

That's not good enough to find a person guilty, without reasonable doubt.

A bullet, a gun and an admission that he did it is not circumstantial.  It is remarkable how non-circumstantial the prosecution's case has been.

What is circumstantial is the defense.  All it has offered is that a spoiled brat, who commits murder, should be entitled to special treatment.  Has anyone considered that 'special treatment' is how this killer got so twisted in the first place?

Is every one to give up their lives, as Re'eva Steenkamp has done, so that this killer can continue to be the freak he has become, with the special entitlements he now asks for?  Mark my word, if he gets off he'll do it again.

Original Quill wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Not enough evidence to find him guilty. Even the prosecutors have practically admitted that. They are relying on "overwhelming circumstantial evidence".

That's not good enough to find a person guilty, without reasonable doubt.

A bullet, a gun and an admission that he did it is not circumstantial.  It is remarkable how non-circumstantial the prosecution's case has been.

What is circumstantial is the defense.  All it has offered is that a spoiled brat, who commits murder, should be entitled to special treatment.  Has anyone considered that 'special treatment' is how this killer got so twisted in the first place?

Is every one to give up their lives, as Re'eva Steenkamp has done, so that this killer can continue to be the freak he has become, with the special entitlements he now asks for?  Mark my word, if he gets off he'll do it again.

Good afternoon Quill.

Would you bet your $5 on a guilty or non guilty verdict for the murder charge?

Shady wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

A bullet, a gun and an admission that he did it is not circumstantial.  It is remarkable how non-circumstantial the prosecution's case has been.

What is circumstantial is the defense.  All it has offered is that a spoiled brat, who commits murder, should be entitled to special treatment.  Has anyone considered that 'special treatment' is how this killer got so twisted in the first place?

Is every one to give up their lives, as Re'eva Steenkamp has done, so that this killer can continue to be the freak he has become, with the special entitlements he now asks for?  Mark my word, if he gets off he'll do it again.

Good afternoon Quill.

Would you bet your $5 on a guilty or non guilty verdict for the murder charge?

G'morning Shady.  Are you suggesting the judge will play games with the level of the charge?  I think the public is sophisticated enough to see through that.  Look what happened in the Jordan Davis murder.

I think this is another in a long line of cases going back to OJ Simpsion.  Is the system so indulgent of women killers that it will tolerate another I was not myself that day, excuse.

Original Quill wrote:

Shady wrote:

Good afternoon Quill.

Would you bet your $5 on a guilty or non guilty verdict for the murder charge?

G'morning Shady.  Are you suggesting the judge will play games with the level of the charge?  I think the public is sophisticated enough to see through that.  Look what happened in the Jordan Davis murder.

I think this is another in a long line of cases going back to OJ Simpsion.  Is the system so indulgent of women killers that it will tolerate another I was not myself that day, excuse.

So are you going for a guilty or non guilty verdict?

Shady wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

G'morning Shady.  Are you suggesting the judge will play games with the level of the charge?  I think the public is sophisticated enough to see through that.  Look what happened in the Jordan Davis murder.

I think this is another in a long line of cases going back to OJ Simpsion.  Is the system so indulgent of women killers that it will tolerate another I was not myself that day, excuse.

So are you going for a guilty or non guilty verdict?

My view is that, even under the premises that the defense proffers, Oscar Pistorius should be removed from society so that he is not a danger to others.  If he is a special case because of his disability, it is nonetheless incumbent upon the judge to remove that case from actual society.

Original Quill wrote:

Shady wrote:

So are you going for a guilty or non guilty verdict?

My view is that, even under the premises that the defense proffers, Oscar Pistorius should be removed from society so that he is not a danger to others.  If he is a special case because of his disability, it is nonetheless incumbent upon the judge to remove that case from actual society.

In UK courts we use the words guilty or not guilty.

But all of that notwithstanding, I see nothing special about this case.  Like all killers, it takes a person able to step outside of normal morality and decency to take a life in a peaceful society.  

Pistorius' history, while it may make a good film someday, is not unique from everyday murders in this country for which we commonly issue the death penalty.  

Original Quill wrote:But all of that notwithstanding, I see nothing special about this case.  Like all killers, it takes a person able to step outside of normal morality and decency to take a life in a peaceful society.  

Pistorius' history, while it may make a good film someday, is not unique from everyday murders in this country for which we commonly issue the death penalty.

Remind me never to ask you for directions.

Imagine if he were Black and being tried in Florida, and he tried that precious little boy defense. Pffftt...gone in sixty seconds!

Shady wrote:

Original Quill wrote:But all of that notwithstanding, I see nothing special about this case.  Like all killers, it takes a person able to step outside of normal morality and decency to take a life in a peaceful society.  

Pistorius' history, while it may make a good film someday, is not unique from everyday murders in this country for which we commonly issue the death penalty.

Remind me never to ask you for directions.

Especially if I'm on the bench.   

Comparing what he did to a woman shooting her abuser is awful! The poor lady wasn't abusing him at all. What an horrible thing to say.

I think he will be found guilty

Shady wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Shady wrote:

So are you going for a guilty or non guilty verdict?

My view is that, even under the premises that the defense proffers, Oscar Pistorius should be removed from society so that he is not a danger to others.  If he is a special case because of his disability, it is nonetheless incumbent upon the judge to remove that case from actual society.

In UK courts we use the words guilty or not guilty.

Lol

I think he's guilty but whether that will be the verdict or not is another matter

eddie wrote:

Shady wrote:

In UK courts we use the words guilty or not guilty.

Lol

I think he's guilty but whether that will be the verdict or not is another matter

I'm pretty confident he will be found guilty given the defense he has put on. If I understand it, he's saying he should have a license to kill because he is disabled.

Would that all murderers got such special treatment.

Raggamuffin wrote:Comparing what he did to a woman shooting her abuser is awful! The poor lady wasn't abusing him at all. What an horrible thing to say.

What woman? Have you got the right thread? :\\:[: 

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Comparing what he did to a woman shooting her abuser is awful! The poor lady wasn't abusing him at all. What an horrible thing to say.

What woman?  Have you got the right thread? :\\:[: 

Reeva Steenkamp.

I'm referring to this bit of the OP.

Even as a little boy, the lawyer argued, Oscar Pistorius lived with fear and vulnerability due to not having legs. The effect was a "slow burn" on him and his behaviour. Mr Roux likened the "bladerunner's" reaction on that morning to that of an abused woman who finally snaps after years of abuse to shoot her abuser.

At any rate, isn't the claim that he shot an alleged "abuser" in pretty much direct conflict with the claim he thought he was shooting an intruder?

Ben_Reilly wrote:At any rate, isn't the claim that he shot an alleged "abuser" in pretty much direct conflict with the claim he thought he was shooting an intruder?

Hi Ben, I think they are trying to say that all his life he has lived in fear and felt vulnerable because he had no legs.  The article goes on to say......

His reactions that night were involuntary, Barry Roux argued, they were primal instincts due to a lifelong "slow burn" which meant he didn't even know what he was doing when he fired the shots.

Even as a little boy, the lawyer argued, Oscar Pistorius lived with fear and vulnerability due to not having legs. The effect was a "slow burn" on him and his behaviour. Mr Roux likened the "bladerunner's" reaction on that morning to that of an abused woman who finally snaps after years of abuse to shoot her abuser.

On being asked by the Judge to explain the analogy, Mr Roux said he wasn't suggesting the athlete was abused but that his reactions were similar, that he wouldn't even know what he'd done because he was startled and his response was an "involuntary reflexive response". That, the defence said, meant he could not be held criminally responsible for his actions.

http://news.sky.com/story/1315489/pistorius-family-appear-confident-of-outcome

Certainly no excuse  

Original Quill wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Not enough evidence to find him guilty. Even the prosecutors have practically admitted that. They are relying on "overwhelming circumstantial evidence".

That's not good enough to find a person guilty, without reasonable doubt.

A bullet, a gun and an admission that he did it is not circumstantial.  It is remarkable how non-circumstantial the prosecution's case has been.

What is circumstantial is the defense.  All it has offered is that a spoiled brat, who commits murder, should be entitled to special treatment.  Has anyone considered that 'special treatment' is how this killer got so twisted in the first place?

Is every one to give up their lives, as Re'eva Steenkamp has done, so that this killer can continue to be the freak he has become, with the special entitlements he now asks for?  Mark my word, if he gets off he'll do it again.

Lol! Nobody denies he did it.

The only question is about intent. And the prosecution case has been circumstantial. Even Gerrie Nel has practically admitted so.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

A bullet, a gun and an admission that he did it is not circumstantial.  It is remarkable how non-circumstantial the prosecution's case has been.

What is circumstantial is the defense.  All it has offered is that a spoiled brat, who commits murder, should be entitled to special treatment.  Has anyone considered that 'special treatment' is how this killer got so twisted in the first place?

Is every one to give up their lives, as Re'eva Steenkamp has done, so that this killer can continue to be the freak he has become, with the special entitlements he now asks for?  Mark my word, if he gets off he'll do it again.

Lol! Nobody denies he did it.

The only question is about intent. And the prosecution case has been circumstantial. Even Gerrie Nel has practically admitted so.

I remain unconvinced, Zack.  A direct evidence case is where all of the elements are made out by evidence that, if believed, proves existence of the fact in issue without inference or presumption.   A circumstantial case is one where there is no evidence or incomplete evidence...where one must use inference to complete the theory.  The prosecutor's prima facie case in the Pistorius matter is ironclad...it was Oscar's firearm that killed Re'eva and it was Oscar that shot off the firearm.  The direct evidence clearly makes out all of the elements of the crime.

Where the case turns circumstantial is in the defense.  Pistorius claims a hybrid of (1) mistake and (2) self-defense.  He claims mistake in thinking that Re'eva was a burglar.  He claims self-defense in that, had Re'eva been a burglar, he would have been justified in using reasonable force.  An ancillary question is: Was it reasonable to use the firearm in the case of an unseen person, where it is uncertain that there was any threat?  In this case, because Oscar is disabled, his claim is that the shooting would have been reasonable for him.

It is the prosecutor's burden to prove the elements of the prima facie case.  It is the defendant's burden to prove the defense case.

We have to infer the state of mind that would justify making the mistake that it was a burglar rather than Re'eva.  We have to make that inference (that it was a mistake) against evidence that there was a loud fight between Oscar and Re'eva that was heard by neighbors—suggesting, to the contrary, that the shooting was for malice. We finally have to infer that Oscar's disability was such as to put him in a state of mind that would make it reasonable for him to use a lethal weapon.  So it is the defense that is circumstantial, not the main case.

Where I have problems, first, is in making the inference that Oscar perceived it was a burglary.  Where was Re'eva and wouldn't it be more reasonable to expect that any noise was her rather than a burglar?  Add in the evidence that there was an argument heard by neighbors, and the picture is that this shooting was in anger and malice, not a response to a burglary.  Second, I don't see the connection between Oscar's disability and the need to shoot, particularly when the victim is unseen.  How does Oscar not having legs give rise to a threat in another person altogether?  There's no evidence that anyone is posing a threat to anyone, in fact.

So the defense fails.  I have to comment that Pistorius' lawyers knew the arguments were losers, but are simply trying to evoke sympathy for the poor, legless boy.  I don't have any sympathy for murder of a beautiful, young woman with her life in front of her...I'm all out of pity today.

In the failure of these points of the defense, we have a man, with a smoking gun, standing over a dead body.  Classic case of murder.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Not enough evidence to find him guilty. Even the prosecutors have practically admitted that. They are relying on "overwhelming circumstantial evidence".

That's not good enough to find a person guilty, without reasonable doubt.

He did shoot and kill someone, even if he claims not to have known it was Reeva, so he's got to be guilty of something. It can't be self defence if it was through a locked door. He could have left the building.

My tuppence worth is not guilty of murder. He might get a very brief custodial sentence to satisify the marauding media.

Frazzled wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Not enough evidence to find him guilty. Even the prosecutors have practically admitted that. They are relying on "overwhelming circumstantial evidence".

That's not good enough to find a person guilty, without reasonable doubt.

He did shoot and kill someone, even if he claims not to have known it was Reeva, so he's got to be guilty of something.  It can't be self defence if it was through a locked door.  He could have left the building.

Yep it 2nd degree murder or manslaughter at least.

Even if it isn't on purpose, for exactly the reason you have said.

We have only his word for his defense, and if we know anything...it is that crooks lie.

Sure he's had a rough life without legs, but is that society's problem? At some point you've got to take responsibility for your own actions. If not, I could argue that my nephew is a drug addict and because of his addiction, poor boy, he was hyper defensive when he killed 26 people.

The point is we have a criminal justice system built upon personal responsibility. If we start making excuses of every little thing in life, we eliminate responsibility and hence the whole notion of right and wrong.

And gerbs geeeezus, not everything is the media's fault.

Original Quill wrote:We have only his word for his defense, and if we know anything...it is that crooks lie.

Sure he's had a rough life without legs, but is that society's problem?  At some point you've got to take responsibility for your own actions.  If not, I could argue that my nephew is a drug addict and because of his addiction, poor boy, he was hyper defensive when he killed 26 people.

The point is we have a criminal justice system built upon personal responsibility.  If we start making excuses of every little thing in life, we eliminate responsibility and hence the whole notion of right and wrong.

And gerbs geeeezus, not everything is the media's fault.

Accepted but they do have a tendancy to have opinions which can sway the readers judgements.

gerber wrote:

Original Quill wrote:We have only his word for his defense, and if we know anything...it is that crooks lie.

Sure he's had a rough life without legs, but is that society's problem?  At some point you've got to take responsibility for your own actions.  If not, I could argue that my nephew is a drug addict and because of his addiction, poor boy, he was hyper defensive when he killed 26 people.

The point is we have a criminal justice system built upon personal responsibility.  If we start making excuses of every little thing in life, we eliminate responsibility and hence the whole notion of right and wrong.

And gerbs geeeezus, not everything is the media's fault.

Accepted but they do have a tendancy to have opinions which can sway the readers judgements.

Well, I'm the first to agree with you there.  The press frames what they tell us, and can completely color the message.  Take a look at Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (1980).

But that said, there is enough structural fact in the Pistorius story to know what is going on, and how you would evaluate it...independent of colorful language and opinions of others.  My point is that you can't abdicate your own responsibility to try to get to the value, just because there are other viewpoints out there.

gerber wrote:
My tuppence worth is not guilty of murder.  He might get a very brief custodial sentence to satisify the marauding media.

COLD BLOODED and calculated murder...

ALL the necessary evidence is in ~ dead body, smoking gun, bad acting..

Deserves 25 years, with no chance of early parole..

Verdict to be announced tomorrow.

Take him down surely?

I can't see how a judge could let him off????
He shot her. Simple!

Said on the news today the verdict could take two days.

How?

Original Quill wrote:Said on the news today the verdict could take two days.

How?

Judge Masiba is a very slow speaker 

Sounds like the judge is gonna let him off.

Unbelievable!


Not guilty of murder.



How could anyone seriously believe his bullshit 'thought it was a burglar' story???

Bet Shrien Dewani is praying for the same judge.

Yes I'll bet he is!

Unbelievable.
This is why I have no faith in the courts or justice system, only karma.

Manslaughter is still available. Could get up to 25-years.

She has already laid out that he acted irresponsibily, over the grounds of self defense and And his actions were unreasonable.


Adding that he could have and should have called security first etc.



So I am pretty sure she will return guilty on culpable homicide.


As it is clear that whoever ya, in The bathroom, I believe he knew it was her, but he knew someone was in there and still fired the gun multiple times at them.



So knowingly shot and killed them with intent to do so.

Four dumdums through a door into a tiny toilet cubicle and it's an accident?

Frazzled wrote:Four dumdums through a door into a tiny toilet cubicle and it's an accident?

I don't think she (the judge) is saying it's an accident; she is saying that there was insufficient evidence to say there was an intent to kill Re'eva by Oscar. I think that is pretty stupid given that there was no evidence of anyone else in the house. But, she is buying into Oscar's theory that such was his state of mind.

She will complete her decision tomorrow. I would expect, given the rulings today, that the culpable homicide charge will be the real verdict. Anyhow...Oscar will appeal.

After watching this trial, I see why Amy Biehl's parents didn't press murder charges against their daughter's killer in So. Africa.

Unbelievable, how could he not be guilty? This trial is a complete farce.  It's taken months and even the verdict is now given over 2 days???

Farce is the only word that comes close

Surely he intended to kill whoever it was behind the door?


So is murder isn't it?


It certainly wasn't self defense....



He was on the offensive.



And it is obvious to an idiot that he would have shouted towards the door first, tried to establish that it wasn't girlfriend for fear of shooting her unless she was the intended target.



His whole story is completely lacking in reality and common sense.

Perhaps it's poor taste but.....

Tommy Monk wrote:Surely he intended to kill whoever it was behind the door?


So is murder isn't it?


It certainly wasn't self defense....



He was on the offensive.



And it is obvious to an idiot that he would have shouted towards the door first, tried to establish that it wasn't girlfriend for fear of shooting her unless she was the intended target.



His whole story is completely lacking in reality and common sense.

+1
Agree I cant see how it isn't murder,
he was murdering who ever was behind the door

Exactly Veya, was well beyond the realms of self defense.



And come on, who in their right mind believes that he wouldn't have known his girlfriend was in there?



Or seriously considered that his girlfriend MIGHT have been in there...!?



Or even if she was there unexpectedly, you would still shout 'hello!' etc, maybe smell perfume etc, or presume that it was her until knew for sure otherwise and faced with immediate attack.

Fortunately, in So. Africa the state can appeal.  It particular, the state can appeal the judge's ruling that there is no evidence of malice toward Re'eva, and hence there was no malice aforethought.  

There certainly was the evidence that Re'eva was in the home, that Re'eva was not in the bed, and that Re'eva must have been the person in the bathroom.  That would lead to the conclusion that Oscar knew he was shooting at Re'eva, and such action would be evidence of malice sufficient to convict for murder.  Further, there is all the evidence of an argument, which the judge seems to have ignored.  The neighbors heard shouting and the voices were of both a man and a woman (for some).  The judge cannot just wipe that away from the record, as she seems to have done.  The argument is further evidence of malice that needs to be taken into consideration by the judge.

I think this judge's main focus is presently to steer clear of controversy, regardless of the outcome.  She appears to be trying to avoid criticism of her own person, rather than achieving the correct outcome...perhaps she is worried about a racial element.  The state needs to make as much noise as the defense and stop playing this prissy little game of avoiding the appearance of impropriety.

I think the judge did a poor job.  One way or the other, it's going to be overturned and sent back down to the trial level (with instructions). That's my prognosis.  Then, let's see if the judge can craft another outcome with the same result, if that's what she wants.