Oscar Pistorius Found Not Guilty of Murder

by Adie
70 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
I feel sorry for the family of his deceased girlfriend
Oscar Pistorius Found Not Guilty of Murder: Latest Verdict Details and Comments | Bleacher Report
  • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
    There's still a chance that he'll be convicted of culpable homicide (manslaughter) though.
    Signature
    Arguing with an idiot is like playing chess with a pigeon.
    It'll just knock over all the pieces, poop on the board, and strut about like it's won anyway.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9513164].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author lgibbon
      Banned
      Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

      There's still a chance that he'll be convicted of culpable homicide (manslaughter) though.
      There's a bigger chance someone will start a thread about it.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9513196].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Scaramanga
    Ridiculous if he's got away with it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9513494].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Scaramanga View Post

      Ridiculous if he's got away with it.
      He hasn't.

      The judge adjourned for the day after acquitting him of murder (rightly, because the prosecution clearly hadn't proved murder beyond all reasonable doubt), and before convicting him of culpable homicide ("manslaughter") tomorrow. I think.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9513620].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

        He hasn't.

        The judge adjourned for the day after acquitting him of murder (rightly, because the prosecution clearly hadn't proved murder beyond all reasonable doubt), and before convicting him of culpable homicide ("manslaughter") tomorrow. I think.
        Yeah, I am thinking this is spot on.

        Cheers

        -don
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9513628].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Lucian Lada
      Originally Posted by Scaramanga View Post

      Ridiculous if he's got away with it.
      Why do people think like this? Why do you think it's ridiculous? Because the media painted him as a murderer who will can get away because he's rich? How do you know if that is true or false? Really... how do you know?

      Originally Posted by WalkingCarpet View Post

      Same deal, famous guy gets away with murder.
      Have you even read the news? The judge only said "I think you didn't want to kill that lady." She didn't say he wasn't guilty (or not) of manslaughter. He can still go to jail for many years.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9514032].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
        Originally Posted by Lucian Lada View Post

        Why do people think like this? Why do you think it's ridiculous? Because the media painted him as a murder who will can get away because he's rich? How do you know if that is true or false? Really... how do you know?
        .
        I agree. We didn't sit in the courtroom day after day listening to evidence. We weren't there.

        And there is a very strong tendency to assume someone is guilty based on the fact that they have money, and we don't. Or they are famous, and we aren't.

        Has it ever occurred to us that he may actually be not guilty? Or guilty of a lesser crime?

        And if he were poor, would he automatically be guilty..or not guilty?

        I have an opinion, but it's based on a few minutes of news coverage....by people who also don't know if he's guilty. Maybe the judge has information that we don't.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9514104].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Lucian Lada
          Originally Posted by WalkingCarpet View Post

          Maybe the judge has information that we don't.
          Maybe she has, maybe she doesn't. That's not the problem. What we certainly don't have is the experience of a trained judge who's seen more of this cases than I've seen dawns. We just like to throw verdicts left and right based on our easily-influenced emotions. That's a recipe for disaster.

          That's why we're here, and that judge is there. Let's just let her do her job.

          And maybe he did kill her on purpose and gets away because there's no evidence against him. That's still better for us, overall, because every system has its flaws. If there was no system at all, and we were to convict people just because we thought they were guilty, we would end up in some sort of anarchy. Actually, most of us wouldn't have been here, today.

          Ultimately, for most people, this more of an emotional decision than a rational one.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9514122].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Scaramanga
        Originally Posted by Lucian Lada View Post

        Why do people think like this? Why do you think it's ridiculous? Because the media painted him as a murderer who will can get away because he's rich? How do you know if that is true or false? Really... how do you know?

        .

        Because his explanation defies rational belief. It's obvious that he is lying.

        Anyway, at least he will serve time, hopefully a lot of it.

        I hear prisons in S.A aren't very nice as well. Good.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9515913].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author WalkingCarpet
    Banned
    Another O.J.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9513641].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by WalkingCarpet View Post

      Another O.J.
      Far from it, I think you'll find.

      (There was no jury to hoodwink, in this trial.)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9513677].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author WalkingCarpet
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

        Far from it, I think you'll find.

        (There was no jury to hoodwink, in this trial.)
        Same deal, famous guy gets away with murder.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9513844].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

        Far from it, I think you'll find.

        (There was no jury to hoodwink, in this trial.)
        He didn't have a dream team of lawyers, and there was no Mark Furman and there were no serious problems with most of the state's supposed mountain of evidence and no glove that didn't fit.
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9514171].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
          Banned
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          He didn't have a dream team of lawyers, and there was no Mark Furman and there were no serious problems with most of the state's supposed mountain of evidence and no glove that didn't fit.
          Oscar has an awesome team representing him, that's undeniable, plus he admitted to shooting Reeva. This is not exactly an "if the leg don't fit, you must acquit" situation. I have little doubt that the Blade Runner will do prison time for culpable homicide.

          To make his case Pistorius has put together a crack team of lawyers, led by advocate Barry Roux who was described by Tuson as a "very talented and ethical practitioner who will do his best for all his clients."
          Also on the Pistorius team is Kenny Oldwage, who acted for the driver in a 2010 accident that killed former president Nelson Mandela's great-grandchild Zenani. The driver was acquitted.
          Pistorius has also hired one of the country's top forensic pathologists Reggie Perumal.
          Perumal has previously been called on to testify about last year's shooting of 34 striking miners by police at the Marikana mine, as well as on the mysterious death of Zimbabwe's former army general Solomon Mujuru.
          Handling public relations will be Stuart Higgins, a former editor of British tabloid The Sun, whose lengthy list of clients include British Airways, Chelsea FC and Manchester United football club.

          Oscar Pistorius murder charge: legal heavyweights line up for 'South Africa's O J Simpson trial' - Telegraph
          The trial of Oscar Pistorius, the fallen South African OIympian, over the death of his girlfriend begins next month. The star athlete, in the meantime, has set about recruiting an O.J. Simpson-style dream team of lawyers and forensic experts

          South Africa: Oscar Pistorius Hires Dream Team Ahead of Murder Trial
          Cheers

          -don
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9514212].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
            Banned
            Well, I'll stick my neck out against what I think is generally the media/internet consensus and mention that from what I saw/read of the trial, it didn't seem to me that the prosecution had proved murder "beyond all reasonable doubt", at all. I felt some doubt, anyway.

            People do sometimes get away with things. Legal systems work that way. And so they should. (The prosecution witnesses also didn't give anything like "consistent evidence", in this case. I'm just saying.)

            As mentioned above, my guess is that he'll draw a long sentence for "culpable homicide", anyway.

            I felt that over here, he'd almost certainly be acquitted of "murder" and convicted of "manslaughter", and get a long custodial sentence for it.

            .
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9514290].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
              I was surprised at the result, I didn't think he had a leg to stand on.
              Signature

              Where ever you go, there you are.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9514671].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

                I was surprised at the result, I didn't think he had a leg to stand on.
                I thought about how to work that in for about ten minutes earlier today. Some early thoughts;

                The judge held his feet to the fire.

                If he's found not guilty, it's like they just gave him a foot rub.

                I'll bet he was jumping for joy.

                But yours was pretty good. Riffle didn't even try, that worthless bum.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9514842].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
                  Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                  I thought about how to work that in for about ten minutes earlier today. Some early thoughts;

                  The judge held his feet to the fire.

                  If he's found not guilty, it's like they just gave him a foot rub.

                  I'll bet he was jumping for joy.

                  But yours was pretty good. Riffle didn't even try, that worthless bum.
                  My best was that on the night in question he went to the bar and got legless, came home and his girlfriend would not let him get his leg over which made him angry and jumpy.

                  But, at best, these jokes are prosthetic.
                  Signature

                  Where ever you go, there you are.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9514858].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author discrat
        Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

        (There was no jury to hoodwink, in this trial.)

        I love that word, hoodwink
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9514200].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    It's hard to prove premeditated murder without a smoking gun and/or an attempted cover up.

    Look how Zimmerman got away with stalking, confronting and then killing Trayvon Martin all because the prosecution went for a premeditated murder charge instead of something like reckless manslaughter.
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9514155].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      It's hard to prove premeditated murder without a smoking gun and/or an attempted cover up.

      Look how Zimmerman got away with stalking, confronting and then killing Trayvon Martin all because the prosecution went for a premeditated murder charge instead of something like reckless manslaughter.
      I just saw that old George is in trouble again. :/ Good grief!

      Police: Zimmerman Accused of Threatening Driver - ABC News
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9517010].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
        Banned
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        I just saw that old George is in trouble again. :/ Good grief!
        In the dictionary behind the word idiot they need a picture of GZ.

        Cheers

        -don
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9517017].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        I just saw that old George is in trouble again. :/ Good grief!

        Police: Zimmerman Accused of Threatening Driver - ABC News
        Zimmerman is hooked on violence and guns and one day I think he'll kill someone else. He's itching to.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9517079].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author fin
    She should have went for a no-armed boyfriend.

    The guy is a murderer, pure and simple.

    And who locks the bathroom when they go to the toilet in the middle of the night?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9515379].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
      Originally Posted by fin View Post

      And who locks the bathroom when they go to the toilet in the middle of the night?
      I'd lock the door no matter what room I was in if I had cash and lots of it in South Africa.
      Signature

      Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9515436].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author fin
        Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

        I'd lock the door no matter what room I was in if I had cash and lots of it in South Africa.
        Eh?

        Why would you have cash in the bathroom?

        And if you were staying at your girlfriend's house would you get up in the middle of the night and lock yourself in the bathroom with your phone?

        Don't think she was found with her knickers pulled down if you know what I mean.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9515504].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
          Originally Posted by fin View Post

          Eh?

          Why would you have cash in the bathroom?

          And if you were staying at your girlfriend's house would you get up in the middle of the night and lock yourself in the bathroom with your phone?

          Don't think she was found with her knickers pulled down if you know what I mean.
          I said South Africa, I'm not there so no need to even shut the door, even if I'm having a dump.

          In South Africa the burglars are not quite as friendly as over here and some of them don't like white rich people.

          It was also a bit tongue in cheek Fin. I was more angling along the lines it's quite dangerous out there.

          Which way are you voting next week?
          Signature

          Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9515560].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author fin
            Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

            I said South Africa, I'm not there so no need to even shut the door, even if I'm having a dump.

            In South Africa the burglars are not quite as friendly as over here and some of them don't like white rich people.

            It was also a bit tongue in cheek Fin. I was more angling along the lines it's quite dangerous out there.

            Which way are you voting next week?
            Yeah I would be scared too if I lived in a mansion out there.

            Sometimes the law works in mysterious ways. I'm sure a girl from Edinburgh disappeared after leaving work one day and her ex got found guilty of murder even though they never found the body. Guess it comes down to luck at the end of the day, as sad as that sounds.

            Can't vote because I'm abroad at the moment, but I really hope it's a no.

            I'm applying for a new British passport soon, so I'll have 10 years to apply for citizenship to England or another Euro country if it all goes to sh1t
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9515624].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
    BREAKING NEWS:

    He's just been found guilty of culpable homicide.
    Signature
    Arguing with an idiot is like playing chess with a pigeon.
    It'll just knock over all the pieces, poop on the board, and strut about like it's won anyway.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9515486].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Lucian Lada
      Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

      BREAKING NEWS:

      He's just been found guilty of culpable homicide.
      I guess someone will have to get used to liquid soap.

      He'll also have to sleep with the rear-end facing the wall. But the front-end will remain exposed.

      He'll be sent to prison, so he won't have sex for a long time. He hopes.

      I could go on and on.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9515519].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

      BREAKING NEWS:

      He's just been found guilty of culpable homicide.

      Just read that. At least the judge found that. It was 2nd degree murder IMO and pretty clear evidence of such. Neighbors heard screams before and during the gun shot sounds. Tell me he didn't know he was shooting his girlfriend with her screaming like a banshee in the bathroom. Right.

      At least, with any luck, he'll do some time for taking her life way before her time.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9515599].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        Just read that. At least the judge found that. It was 2nd degree murder IMO and pretty clear evidence of such. Neighbors heard screams before and during the gun shot sounds. Tell me he didn't know he was shooting his girlfriend with her screaming like a banshee in the bathroom. Right.
        According to the Judge and the speed in which the 4 shots were let off she discounted the neighbours screaming evidence, that and the fact none of those witnesses that heard it said they heard it at the same time. According to the judge on the evidence she has, Reeva couldn't have screamed.

        I haven't got a clue though but I'm sure being in a prison over there without his legs and his high profile is going to be one hell of a punishment. At least he won't have a play station like the crims here get. Well, not anymore but you know what I mean.

        Signature

        Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9515618].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author fin
          Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post


          I haven't got a clue though but I'm sure being in a prison over there without his legs and his high profile is going to be one hell of a punishment.
          At least he won't have to bend over and mess up his back when he's dishing out BJs.

          Always got to look at the positives.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9515632].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

          According to the judge on the evidence she has, Reeva couldn't have screamed.

          I haven't got a clue though but I'm sure being in a prison over there without his legs and his high profile is going to be one hell of a punishment. At least he won't have a play station like the crims here get. Well, not anymore but you know what I mean.
          The Judge wasn't there. The neighbors were. I give more weight to the neighbors testimony.

          Being in prison isn't nearly the punishment that she got. He could get as little as 5 years and still have a life. Hers is gone.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9515656].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
            Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

            The Judge wasn't there. The neighbors were. I give more weight to the neighbors testimony.
            Of course but they all heard the same scream at different times, that's why she dismissed it. She also did so because of the speed he fired all 4 shots. As someone with a good grasp of shooting, if you shot me 4 times in rapid succession, is it not possible I may not get to scream?

            I don't know but the judge had a reason to dismiss the screaming evidence.

            Perhaps she got it wrong?

            Being in prison isn't nearly the punishment that she got. He could get as little as 5 years and still have a life. Hers is gone.
            I agree. I'm not arguing, just putting thoughts forward. Personally I think life will be very hard for a white guy with lots of cash and no legs in a South African prison. Doesn't help Reeva, won't bring her back but that's just the way it is.

            Anyway, you're convinced from what you've read and seen that the judge got it wrong on the screaming and the neighbours evidence was good to convict him and that is fine but for me, like the judge, I wasn't there, nor did I sit through the court case so I really don't know for sure what happened as I've not seen all the evidence and I doubt I'll ever know either.

            Only two people know that and one is dead.

            I was just showing you a video regarding the screaming after you said...

            ...and pretty clear evidence of such. Neighbors heard screams before and during the gun shot sounds. Tell me he didn't know he was shooting his girlfriend with her screaming like a banshee in the bathroom. Right.
            As I say, maybe they heard these screams but didn't note the times, maybe Oscar shot her slowly and got the one that blew her head off in last.

            I just don't know.
            Signature

            Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9515681].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
              Banned
              Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

              As I say, maybe they heard these screams but didn't note the times, maybe Oscar shot her slowly and got the one that blew her head off in last.

              I just don't know.
              I think it's far more likely that they heard the screams but didn't note the time and were pressed to give a time by investigators. I certainly don't look at the clock all the time (almost never, actually). It's not credible to me that the neighbors were lying about the screams. Why would they?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9515693].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
                Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                I think it's far more likely that they heard the screams but didn't note the time and were pressed to give a time by investigators. I certainly don't look at the clock all the time (almost never, actually). It's not credible to me that the neighbors were lying about the screams. Why would they?
                You're probably right, especially when there's more than one neighbour in different houses hearing the same thing.

                The only thing I can think of is that the bullets came in rapid succession and killed her before she had a chance to scream. Why they'd all say they heard screams though makes that a bit of a crap point.

                Like you say and I agree I don't see any reason for them to lie. In fact the judge actually said...

                and she described witnesses’ claims of hearing “blood curdling” screams before the shots were fired as “unreliable”.
                So being unreliable may mean they did hear them but she can't take that into account because of the time discrepancies.

                Like I said I don't know and he killed her either way.

                Anyway, I'm off, Shane's just updated the Mars thread
                Signature

                Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9515703].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
                Banned
                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                Do they ever have any trials with a jury over there?
                No.

                (That can have advantages, as well as disadvantages, depending on the cases? The OJ trial might have had a different result, without a jury? Juries can sometimes be fooled a little more easily than judges?).

                Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                I think it's far more likely that they heard the screams but didn't note the time and were pressed to give a time by investigators.
                I also think that's far more likely. But clearly their evidence was "inconsistent"?

                That's one of the things that "reasonable doubt" is all about: judges are perhaps reluctant to convict people for murder, with prosecution witnesses giving inconsistent evidence?

                Anyway: a reasonable result, probably? Legally correct verdict, and "justice" done, in so far as it can be by a court, in these circumstances? (Just my perspective).

                .
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9515745].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

                  No.

                  (That can have advantages, as well as disadvantages, depending on the cases? The OJ trial might have had a different result, without a jury? Juries can sometimes be fooled a little more easily than judges?).

                  I also think that's far more likely. But clearly their evidence was "inconsistent"?

                  That's one of the things that "reasonable doubt" is all about: judges are perhaps reluctant to convict people for murder, with prosecution witnesses giving inconsistent evidence?

                  Anyway: a reasonable result, probably? Legally correct verdict, and "justice" done, in so far as it can be by a court, in these circumstances? (Just my perspective).
                  And yet the Judge accepted his ridiculous explanation that he had no clue that she was not in bed and thought it was an intruder. She can accept that story without a grain of evidence of such an intruder, no neighbors reporting an intruder. No corroboration at all. That's the thing ... at least neighbors hearing screams vs Oscar Pistorius praying, and vomiting and crying like a bitch and saying he "thought" it was an intruder. The neighbors don't have a motive to lie. Pistorius does.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9515775].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
                    Banned
                    Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                    And yet the Judge accepted his ridiculous explanation that he had no clue that she was not in bed and thought it was an intruder. She can accept that story without a grain of evidence of such an intruder
                    Yes, I did find that was slightly surprising, I must say.

                    Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                    No corroboration at all.
                    Corroboration, to be fair, is more important in the case of prosecution evidence? They have to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt. All the defence needs to do is demonstrate reasonable doubt. I'm quite reasonable and I had plenty of doubt, from what I saw/heard. I'm not, of course, suggesting that he should have been acquitted of culpable homicide: my "reasonable doubts" related to the burden of proof for a "murder" conviction. I don't doubt that the judge would have convicted him for murder, instead, if she'd had no reasonable doubts.

                    .
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9515818].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                      Banned
                      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

                      Yes, I did find that was slightly surprising, I must say.

                      Corroboration, to be fair, is more important in the case of prosecution evidence? They have to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt. All the defence needs to do is demonstrate reasonable doubt. I'm quite reasonable and I had plenty of doubt, from what I saw/heard. I'm not, of course, suggesting that he should have been acquitted of culpable homicide: my "reasonable doubts" related to the burden of proof for a "murder" conviction. I don't doubt that the judge would have convicted him for murder, instead, if she'd had no reasonable doubts.
                      I have no idea of South African justice, but I'm just comparing it to ... like the Jodi Arias case where she claimed self defense and tried to slander him in every possible way, but the prosecutor more or less proved that she lied about everything and could not be believed. The cases are similar because it's a boyfriend/girlfriend thing and the fact that the defendant killed the victim is not in dispute.

                      At any rate, that's the verdict and I'm glad it wasn't an outright acquittal like OJ and I do hope that his cellmates find him adorable and give him the nickname "stumpy."
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9515844].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
                        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                        I do hope that his cellmates find him adorable and give him the nickname "stumpy."
                        Personally I never pay attention to athletes shorts so wouldn't know much about his 'size' but I'm sure they'll get acquainted with it.

                        No wait...
                        Signature

                        Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9515868].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                  Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

                  No.

                  (That can have advantages, as well as disadvantages, depending on the cases? The OJ trial might have had a different result, without a jury? Juries can sometimes be fooled a little more easily than judges?).



                  I also think that's far more likely. But clearly their evidence was "inconsistent"?

                  That's one of the things that "reasonable doubt" is all about: judges are perhaps reluctant to convict people for murder, with prosecution witnesses giving inconsistent evidence?

                  Anyway: a reasonable result, probably? Legally correct verdict, and "justice" done, in so far as it can be by a court, in these circumstances? (Just my perspective).

                  .

                  Yes, I believe he would have convicted OJ in a heartbeat, become a national hero and would have went on to write a best selling book and maybe he'd still be on the lecture/speaker tour till this day.

                  The real stunner and what really pissed a lot of people off was the jury coming back in only about 4 hours with a verdict - after a 9 month trial.
                  Signature

                  "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9515821].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
                    Banned
                    Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                    The real stunner and what really pissed a lot of people off was the jury coming back in only about 4 hours with a verdict - after a 9 month trial.
                    When the police fabricate/plant evidence, even if the defendant's actually guilty, they sometimes get what they deserve: a fast acquittal.

                    Some juries care more about police corruption than they do about convicting a guilty defendant. I was only 5, when he was tried, and totally unaware of it at the time, but I've seen some of the jurors' books and found them pretty interesting.

                    At an honest trial, he'd have been convicted, even by a jury, IMO. Sometimes the justice system screws up, and dishonest police evidence increases the risk of that.

                    .
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9516042].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                      Banned
                      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

                      At an honest trial, he'd have been convicted, even by a jury, IMO. Sometimes the justice system screws up, and dishonest police evidence increases the risk of that.
                      Karma took care of OJ in the long run and hopefully Pistorius as well. Whatever prison sentence Pistorius gets, I doubt his life will ever be as it intended it to be.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9516209].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

                      When the police fabricate/plant evidence, even if the defendant's actually guilty, they sometimes get what they deserve: a fast acquittal.

                      Some juries care more about police corruption than they do about convicting a guilty defendant.

                      I was only 5, when he was tried, and totally unaware of it at the time, but I've seen some of the jurors' books and found them pretty interesting.

                      At an honest trial, he'd have been convicted, even by a jury, IMO. Sometimes the justice system screws up, and dishonest police evidence increases the risk of that.

                      .
                      One thing is sure in America, if you can't afford good representation and resources the reps of the state can make up anything they want against you and they all too often do.


                      Let's say that someone didn't plant blood on a back gate at the murder site that also had a known blood preservative in it ...

                      ...or drop a bloody sock in the middle of a room at OJ's house when the police photographer didn't see one 10 minutes earlier and a blood splatter expert testified the blood pattern showed that someone had dropped the blood on the sock while no foot was in it or...

                      ... Detective VanAtter did not take a vial of OJ's blood back to the murder scene after he should have checked it in and was caught lying a few times or ...

                      ...the chain of custody in the ford white bronco was a joke when at least 2 civilians testified that they were able to enter and hang out in the car or...

                      ... or the state's time line didn't work as a few people testified they walked past the house on the same side of the street as the house after the state said the murders were committed but didn't see what they should have seen if the murder happened when the state said it happened or...


                      ... cops walking around the bloody murder scene and then getting in the bronco... or...


                      ...the forensic people admitting they spilled and co-mingled OJ's blood with blood from the murder scene

                      or...

                      ... the glove clearly didn't fit with no reasonable explanation as to why it didn't or...


                      ... no murder weapon was ever found.

                      I'm sure there's more and all this is off the top of my head as I recorded the proceedings everyday and watched it with my brother in law every evening.


                      They only question the jury wanted cleared up was what did the limo driver actually see.

                      Did he see OJ try to slink around his house and try to slip into the front door like the state tried to help the jury believe or not?

                      The defense forced him to admit he only saw OJ's back right in front of his door while he was going into the house. The defense says OJ was just putting his luggage outside the front door and went back into the house.


                      IMHO, there were just too many problems with the state's key pieces of evidence IMHO for some juries to convict anyone without a reasonable doubt especially without an eye witness and the murder weapon.
                      Signature

                      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9516290].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paulsunal
    What i know is that if he use money to buy the judge, he can not use money to buy God he must surely reap what he sow
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9515546].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Do they ever have any trials with a jury over there?
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9515712].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      Do they ever have any trials with a jury over there?
      I'm not sure but it brings a whole new thought to that expression "Being Judge and Jury".

      I was quite shocked about that. You only have to get to the judge to influence a trial. Far harder with an entire jury to nobble and we all know that's been done in the past.

      Edit. I don't think they do. According to this place trial by jury was abolished in 1969.

      http://www.businessinsider.com/heres...y-trial-2014-4
      Signature

      Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9515733].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
    Given the high profile nature of this trial, they'd have to choose a judge who's beyond reproach, which as far as I can tell, they've done.

    And let's face it, none of us are experts in the intricacies of the law in our own countries, let alone South Africa.
    Signature
    Arguing with an idiot is like playing chess with a pigeon.
    It'll just knock over all the pieces, poop on the board, and strut about like it's won anyway.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9515751].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    I also watched or listened to the entire proceedings.

    Yes, the state messed up bad (or worse) with the evidence, no doubt about that. The glove did not fit because it was a leather glove that had been wet and it shrunk and old cripple finger OJ was trying (not) to put the glove on over latex gloves. Give me one of my shrunken leather gloves that has not be re-stretched and tell me to put it on over latex gloves and I'll show you how it doesn't fit just like he did. That was just another stupid move by the prosecution.

    Did someone say --> Size 12 Bruno Magli

    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9516328].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

      I also watched or listened to the entire proceedings.

      Yes, the state messed up bad (or worse) with the evidence, no doubt about that. The glove did not fit because it was a leather glove that had been wet and it shrunk and old cripple finger OJ was trying (not) to put the glove on over latex gloves. Give me one of my shrunken leather gloves that has not be re-stretched and tell me to put it on over latex gloves and I'll show you how it doesn't fit just like he did. That was just another stupid move by the prosecution.

      Did someone say --> Size 12 Bruno Magli

      Cheers

      -don

      Even Geroldo who was desperately trying to make a comeback during the trial said the glove didn't come close to fitting. And from what I heard, the shrinking glove theory doesn't hold a lot of water.

      Wasn't the shoe evidence discovered after the trial?

      I really don't know if he did it or not but I personally need beyond a reasonable doubt to send someone to jail.

      BTW I just received a letter from the county to potentially serve on a jury. I'll know in about a month.
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9516431].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
        Banned
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        Even Geroldo who was desperately trying to make a comeback during the trial said the glove didn't come close to fitting. And from what I heard, the shrinking glove theory doesn't hold a lot of water.

        Wasn't the shoe evidence discovered after the trial?

        I really don't know if he did it or not but I personally need beyond a reasonable doubt to send someone to jail.

        BTW I just received a letter from the county to potentially serve on a jury. I'll know in about a month.
        It's seems pretty clear that you may not have ever shoveled snow or done a lot of wet work with leather gloves on. Obviously leather can shrink when it dries after getting wet. In-fact I owned a pair of gloves almost identical to OJ's that I had for a over a decade, and YES they shrink when they dry if you do not stretch them out. Yeah, several peeps in my family actually jokingly refer to those gloves as my OJ gloves.

        If you are a golfer then you know leather golf gloves can shrink up after a sweaty round of golf. If you played baseball then you know leather batting gloves also shrink after playing in the rain, or when they get drenched in sweat.

        People even shrink leather shoes by getting them wet.

        Take a half shriveled shrunken leather glove and try to make it fit over a latex glove when you don't want it to fit --> trust me, it's easy to make it look like it won't fit. Even if the glove has only shrunken a small amount, sliding them on over latex when you don't want to them to slide is a picture not so difficult to paint.

        One of the main reasons you use oils, conditioners, copolymers, polymers and grease base dressings on leather is to prevent shrinkage and damage from the wet/dry processes.

        The shoe evidence was presented at trial.

        1. The 9-1-1 call and the history of Simpson's violence directed at Nicole Brown.
        2. Hair evidence: (1) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on cap at Bundy residence, (2) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.

        3. Fiber evidence: (1) cotton fibers consistent with the carpet in the Bronco found on glove at Rockingham, (2) fibers consistent with the carpet from the Bronco found on cap at Bundy residence.

        4. Blood evidence: (1) killer dropped blood near shoe prints at Bundy, (2) blood dropped at Bundy was of same type as Simpson's (about 0.5% of population would match), (3) Simpson had fresh cuts on left hand on day after murder, (4) blood found in Bronco, (5) blood found in foyer and master bedroom of Simpson home, (5) blood found on Simpson's driveway, (6) blood on socks in OJ's home matched Nicole's.

        5. Glove evidence: (1) left glove found at Bundy and right glove found at Simpson residence are Aris Light gloves, size XL, (2) Nicole Brown bought pair of Aris Light XL gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale's, (3) Simpson wore Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June, 1994.

        6. Shoe evidence: (1) shoe prints found at Bundy were from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe, (2) bloody shoe impression on Bronco carpet is consistent with a Magli shoe, (3) Simpson wore a size 12 shoe.

        7. Other evidence: (1) flight in Bronco, (2) strange reaction to phone call informing him of Nicole Brown's death, etc.

        The O. J. Simpson Trial: The Incriminating Evidence
        Jurors in the O.J. Simpson civil trial Monday pored over 30 just-discovered photos that appear to show Simpson wearing the same type of Bruno Magli shoes that he has denied owning--the type that tracked size-12 bloody footprints by the bodies of his ex-wife and her friend.

        The photos were purportedly taken by freelancer E.J. Flammer at a football game Sept. 26, 1993, nine months before the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman. If genuine, they could corroborate a single full-length snapshot that freelance photographer Harry Scull took at that same football game in Buffalo, N.Y.

        Simpson and his attorneys agree that the shoes in the Scull photo are Bruno Maglis--but they insist that the snapshot is a phony.

        Flammer's pictures, taken the same day, show Simpson's shoes from the side and the top, in clear detail. They appear to match the shoes in the Scull photo. The rest of Simpson's outfit matches as well; he's wearing the same blue blazer, white shirt and baggy gray pants.

        The Bruno Magli shoes linked to the crime scene are a particularly rare and pricey style. FBI Agent William Bodziak, a footprint expert, said only about 299 pairs of the shoes were ever sold in size 12. They sell for about $160 a pair.

        During his pretrial deposition, Simpson testified under oath that he would never own such "ugly" shoes. Later during his deposition, he acknowledged that he has owned "similar" shoes, but said he did not recognize the pair in Scull's photo

        http://articles.latimes.com/1997-01-...o-simpson-shoe
        Bruno Magli shoes were in the spotlight during the O.J. Simpson murder trial. On June 19, 1995, FBI expert William Bodziak testified that the famous bloody shoe prints at the scene of the double murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman had been left by a size-12 pair of $230 Bruno Magli shoes ("Lorenzo" model). Simpson called the Brunos "ugly ass" shoes while denying he ever owned them.[1] Photos were later shown to the jury of Simpson at a September 1993 football game, wearing shoes positively identified by Bodziak as size 12, Lorenzo-style Bruno Maglis.[2] The actual shoes used during the crime have not been recovered.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Magli
        My wife has served on several juries...the longest trial lasted just a week though.

        In my opinion enough good evidence existed to convict OJ, but in the end the prosecution paid for the actions of Furman, Vannatter, Lang and many, many stupid prosecutorial decisions. I think a jury could have went either way, and obviously when some of the evidence looks as funky as it did, and with Furman getting busted lying on the stand the prosecutors did not win the day with the jury.

        I don't give a rat's a$$ about Geraldo, and the moral of this story is --> do it the right way, or don't do it at all.

        Cheers

        -don
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9516503].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

          It's seems pretty clear that you may not have ever shoveled snow or done a lot of wet work with leather gloves on. Obviously leather can shrink when it dries after getting wet. In-fact I owned a pair of gloves almost identical to OJ's that I had for a over a decade, and YES they shrink when they dry if you do not stretch them out. Yeah, several peeps in my family actually jokingly refer to those gloves as my OJ gloves.

          If you are a golfer then you know leather golf gloves can shrink up after a sweaty round of golf. If you played baseball then you know leather betting gloves also shrink after playing in the rain, or when they get drenched in sweat.

          People even shrink leather shoes by getting them wet.

          Take a half shriveled shrunken leather glove and try to make it fit over a latex glove when you don't want it to fit --> trust me, it's easy to make it look like it won't fit. Even if the glove has only shrunken a small amount, sliding them on over latex when you don't want to them to slide is a picture not so difficult to paint.

          One of the main reasons you use oils, conditioners, copolymers, polymers and grease base dressings on leather is to prevent shrinkage and damage from the wet/dry processes.

          The shoe evidence was presented at trial.







          My wife has served on several juries...the longest trial lasted just a week though.

          In my opinion enough good evidence existed to convict OJ, but in the end the prosecution paid for the actions of Furman, Van Atter, Lang and many, many stupid prosecutorial decisions. I think a jury could have went either way, and obviously when some of the evidence looks as funky as it did, and with Furman getting busted lying on the stand the prosecutors did not win the day with the jury.

          I don't give a rat's a$$ about Geraldo, and the moral of this story is --> do it the right way, or don't do it at all.

          Cheers

          -don
          I thought the defense went pretty easy on Lang but VanAtter and Furman got the business.

          The LA D.A. office and the media crush moved the trial to downtown LA and that was a big factor.
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9516693].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
            Banned
            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

            the LA D.A. office and the media crush moved the trial to downtown LA and that was a big factor.
            --> Agreed <--
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9516698].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              I haven't followed this trial at all. What was Pistorius' motive to shoot his girlfriend?
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9516841].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
                Banned
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                I haven't followed this trial at all. What was Pistorius' motive to shoot his girlfriend?
                He says he had no motive. Oscar said he feared for his life and he shot his girlfriend, whom supposedly he was just sleeping next to, through the bathroom door. He says he thought it was intruder inked bathroom and he fired four shots before asking who it was. The prosecution tried to plead the case that he is a hothead and he killed her after an argument and/or fight.

                Cheers

                -don
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9516846].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

                  He says he had no motive, he said feared for his life and he shot his girlfriend whom he was just sleeping next to through the bathroom door. He says he thought it was intruder.

                  Cheers

                  -don
                  OK. But what do others say? The prosecution must have had some sort of idea of why he wanted to kill her.
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9516854].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
                    Banned
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    OK. But what do others say? The prosecution must have had some sort of idea of why he wanted to kill her.
                    Neighbors said they heard screaming and shots. That would make his claim that he thought it was an intruder a lie ... otherwise why would he shoot if his girlfriend was screaming unless he intended to shoot her. They had a fight that night. He was said to be a hot head known for firing guns randomly ... like through the sunroof of a car, in a crowded restaurant.

                    According to him, they were in bed and he heard a noise in the bathroom. He got up and funny thing ... didn't seem to notice his girlfriend wasn't in bed, so he says he thought an intruder was in the bathroom.

                    The judge completely discounted the neighbors testimony that they heard screams and completely believed that Pistorius thought he heard an intruder. That threw out the 1st and 2nd degree murder charges, leaving culpable homicide.

                    The judge also said she didn't think that Pistorius expected the person in the bathroom to die when he shot 4 or 5 rounds into the bathroom. What exactly did he expect?
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9516893].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

                      They had a fight that night. He was said to be a hot head known for firing guns randomly ... like through the sunroof of a car, in a crowded restaurant.
                      Thanks Suzanne. And Don. Got it.
                      Signature
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9516905].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
                    Banned
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    OK. But what do others say? The prosecution must have had some sort of idea of why he wanted to kill her.
                    Oscar has been a hothead with a gun on a previous occasions. Supposedly they "may" have been fighting because of another man. It may have been a jealous and/or paranoid Oscar in a rage over nothing. It was a Valentine's day killing and they figure Reeva locked herself in the bathroom to get away from Oscar not knowing he would shoot her through the door.

                    Texts that were introduced from Oscar to Reeva tried to show Oscar as being insecure, self-centered, hot tempered, and abusive.

                    Cheers

                    -don
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9516897].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        I just received a letter from the county to potentially serve on a jury. I'll know in about a month.
        Ooh, interesting: looking forward to reading the book, when it comes out.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9516506].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    He was actually indicted on the two other gun charges. Who knows how many other unreported gun incidents he may or may not have had.

    Oscar Pistorius was served with new indictment papers Wednesday containing two extra charges believed to allege that he recklessly shot his gun out the open sunroof of a car last year and fired someone else's handgun at a restaurant weeks before he killed girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/ma...pagewanted=all
    Oscar was an avid shooter and his family owned a bunch guns...he would go to the range when he could not sleep.

    I asked what kind of gun he owned, which he seemed to take as an indication of my broader interest in firearms. I had to tell him I didn't own any. "But you've shot one, right?" Actually, I hadn't. Suddenly, I felt like one of those characters in a movie who must be schooled on how to be more manly.

    "We should go to the range," he said. He fetched his 9-millimeter handgun and two boxes of ammunition. We got back in the car and drove to a nearby firing range, where he instructed me on proper technique. Pistorius was a good coach. A couple of my shots got close to the bull's-eye, which delighted him. "Maybe you should do this more," he said. "If you practiced, I think you could be pretty deadly." I asked him how often he came to the range. "Just sometimes when I can't sleep," he said.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/ma...eaJ8GJuJHOWFxg
    Oscar Pistorius, the paralympic athlete accused of murdering his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, paid R48,500 (£2,700) for seven firearms including two pump-action shotguns and a semi-automatic rifle in an order that was cancelled after the model died.
    As part of the sale agreement, the sprinter was required to fill in a series of forms including a questionnaire about when it was acceptable to use a firearm against an intruder, the court was told.
    “You are at home alone in an isolated area far from police or security services,” the document begins, before asking if it is acceptable to shoot at two men jumping over your boundary wall; breaking into your house or taking your hi-fi. Pistorius responded “no” to each scenario.
    He responded ‘yes’ to the final question: “There is no security gate between you and the burglars. They turn around and both are armed, one with a knife and the other with a firearm. When they advance towards you, can you discharge a firearm towards them because you fear for your life?”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-shooting.html
    He owned the guns for protection as well as sport.

    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9516918].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

      He was actually indited on the two other gun charges. Who knows how many other unreported gun incidents he may or may not have had.

      Cheers

      -don
      This judge already threw out the gunshot through the sunroof, but found him guilty of the gun in the restaurant charge. Not guilty on the ammo charge. This judge really likes him. Be interesting to see what the sentence is.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9516929].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
        Banned
        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        This judge already threw out the gunshot through the sunroof, but found him guilty of the gun in the restaurant charge. Not guilty on the ammo charge. This judge really likes him. Be interesting to see what the sentence is.
        Yeah, I just saw that. I hope she does not give him correctional supervision or a suspended sentence.

        Supposedly she is known for handing out tough sentences, taking tough action on domestic violence, and she has previously sentenced a serial rapist to 252 years. I am going to go out on a limb here and guess she may give him around six years. It would be nice if he gets the full 15 on the culpable homicide, but I am crossing my fingers that he gets at least six. The harsher the better in my opinion as this guy was about as negligent as one can get, at best.

        Supposedly he could get a max of 5 years on the restaurant charge alone so hopefully she will judge him as a real danger and in need of some serious hard time.

        Cheers

        -don
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9517014].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
          Banned
          Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

          Supposedly she is known for handing out tough sentences, taking tough action on domestic violence, and she has previously sentenced a serial rapist to 252 years.
          That's a long sentence.

          I'm no lawyer, but I think I can state with a reasonable degree of certainty that no British judge has ever given anyone 252 years.

          Mind you, over here, they'd probably be out on parole after serving only 126 years, anyway.

          .
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9517245].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
          Banned
          Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

          Supposedly she is known for handing out tough sentences, taking tough action on domestic violence, and she has previously sentenced a serial rapist to 252 years. I am going to go out on a limb here and guess she may give him around six years.

          -don
          Finally!

          Oscar Pistorius sentenced to 6 years in prison for girlfriend's murder
          Oscar Pistorius sentenced to 6 years in prison for girlfriend's murder - CNN.com

          This Valentines Day punk should have received sixty years....supposedly he will serve 3 more years. The recommended minimum sentence was 15 years.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10778737].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    Oscar got 5 years max in prison but it's likely he only serve 10-20 months and then he will serve the rest of his sentence under house arrest. The minimum time he must serve in prison is 10 months.

    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9612167].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author DianaHeuser
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      Do they ever have any trials with a jury over there?
      No we don't.

      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

      .... and I do hope that his cellmates find him adorable and give him the nickname "stumpy."
      He is not being put into the general population. They have a section in the prison in Pretoria for high profile criminals. There are only 8 cells and he will be one of two prisoners there.

      Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

      Oscar got 5 years max in prison but it's likely he only serve 10-20 months and then he will serve the rest of his sentence under house arrest. The minimum time he must serve in prison is 10 months.
      Or he will try and pull a stunt like getting medical parole like so many of these high profile convicts do in South Africa.

      Di
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9615092].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    Prosecutors have filed an appeal...

    Oscar Pistorius’s five-year prison term for killing his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, was “shockingly light, inappropriate and would not have been imposed by any reasonable court”, according to prosecutors who have filed for leave to appeal against the sentence and conviction.

    Judge Thokozile Masipa “erred in overemphasising the personal circumstances” of the double-amputee athlete, as well as the fact that he seemed remorseful about shooting four times through a toilet door at his home in Pretoria on Valentine’s Day last year, the legal papers say...

    Oscar Pistorius prosecutors appeal against
    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9645020].message }}

Trending Topics