Oscar Pistorius

[AQMP]

Not Guilty on Culpable Homicide either. That's 'Manslaughter' here yeah? So basically he's got off on all aspects of killing her. I can't believe that.

13.24 Court adjourns - Pistorius 'negligent'
Judge Masipa says Pistorius "acted too hastily and used excessive force" and was "negligent". She didn't, however, find him guilty of culpable homicide. She has adjourned until tomorrow, when she will deliver a verdict.

No verdict yet on culpable homicide according to most sources??

[AZOffaly]

My mistake. I read the following

13.24 Court adjourns - Pistorius 'negligent'
Judge Masipa says Pistorius "acted too hastily and used excessive force" and was "negligent". She didn't, however, find him guilty of culpable homicide. She has adjourned until tomorrow, when she will deliver a verdict.

I assumed that meant she had found him not guilty. What they actually mean, I presume, is that no verdict at all was returned.

[screenexile]

Guilty of culpable homicide. . . it sounds very much like the prosecution's case wasn't good enough for the Murder verdict!!

[GJL]

Guilty of culpable homicide. . . it sounds very much like the prosecution's case wasn't good enough for the Murder verdict!!

To prove murder they had to prove that there was a premeditated intend to kill her, which of course they couldn't.

[muppet]

Guilty of culpable homicide. . . it sounds very much like the prosecution's case wasn't good enough for the Murder verdict!!

To prove murder they had to prove that there was a premeditated intend to kill her, which of course they couldn't.

Which means they must have accepted to some degree his story about thinking it was a burglar. Because if you don't accept that story, there isn't much left other than two people were in apartment and one shot the other knowingly.

[BennyHarp]

Guilty of culpable homicide. . . it sounds very much like the prosecution's case wasn't good enough for the Murder verdict!!

To prove murder they had to prove that there was a premeditated intend to kill her, which of course they couldn't.

Which means they must have accepted to some degree his story about thinking it was a burglar. Because if you don't accept that story, there isn't much left other than two people were in apartment and one shot the other knowingly.

I can't work out where he thought she was when went gun toting into the bathroom. If she's not with him in the bedroom and he knows she's in the apartment and there's someone in the toilet - the first thought isn't, oh it's a burglar lets riddle the place with bullets, it's oh Reeva must be in there! The man has literally got away with murder. 

[Agent Orange]

Guilty of culpable homicide. . . it sounds very much like the prosecution's case wasn't good enough for the Murder verdict!!

To prove murder they had to prove that there was a premeditated intend to kill her, which of course they couldn't.

Which means they must have accepted to some degree his story about thinking it was a burglar. Because if you don't accept that story, there isn't much left other than two people were in apartment and one shot the other knowingly.

I can't work out where he thought she was when went gun toting into the bathroom. If she's not with him in the bedroom and he knows she's in the apartment and there's someone in the toilet - the first thought isn't, oh it's a burglar lets riddle the place with bullets, it's oh Reeva must be in there! The man has literally got away with murder.

Everyone knows what happened, but the prosecution are unable or maybe even unwilling to prove it. His story about the burglar was absolute bullcrap, but he has stuck to it and without any other witnesses he is literally walking away from a murder. He is unlikely to serve any time in prison for the offence that he has been found guilty of.

[Hardy]

I never thought he was guilty myself of intentionally killing her and I actually bought his burglar story, but that was based only on hearsay and media. The judge heard six months of evidence and came to the same conclusion. Good enough for me.

[ONeill]

Was there any evidence of alcohol or drugs involved - or was this a sober shooting?

[rrhf]

 legless.

[GJL]

He was totally legless.

Predictable. Boom boom.

[Main Street]

Guilty of culpable homicide. . . it sounds very much like the prosecution's case wasn't good enough for the Murder verdict!!

To prove murder they had to prove that there was a premeditated intend to kill her, which of course they couldn't.

Which means they must have accepted to some degree his story about thinking it was a burglar. Because if you don't accept that story, there isn't much left other than two people were in apartment and one shot the other knowingly.

I can't work out where he thought she was when went gun toting into the bathroom. If she's not with him in the bedroom and he knows she's in the apartment and there's someone in the toilet - the first thought isn't, oh it's a burglar lets riddle the place with bullets, it's oh Reeva must be in there! The man has literally got away with murder.

Everyone knows what happened, but the prosecution are unable or maybe even unwilling to prove it. His story about the burglar was absolute bullcrap, but he has stuck to it and without any other witnesses he is literally walking away from a murder. He is unlikely to serve any time in prison for the offence that he has been found guilty of.

It has been a true  feat of endurance to listen to his method acting evidence, his simpleton whiny, servile and  obsequious manner. Maybe it can't be  proven beyond a reasonable doubt to contradict his story that when he allegedly woke up to find his partner not in bed,  he then took out a shotgun and blew a hole in the bathroom door because he feared there was an intruder in there.
It does appear absolutely stupendous that this obvious pile of dung evidence has passed legal scrutiny and the prosecution have failed to prove otherwise.

[Hardy]

I may be wrong, but I don't think he ever claimed to have woken up and found his partner not in bet. I understood his whole case was that he believed she WAS still in bed and therefore the person in the toilet had to be an intruder.

[BennyHarp]

I may be wrong, but I don't think he ever claimed to have woken up and found his partner not in bet. I understood his whole case was that he believed she WAS still in bed and therefore the person in the toilet had to be an intruder.

Was she not in bed with him?

[Tony Baloney]

I may be wrong, but I don't think he ever claimed to have woken up and found his partner not in bet. I understood his whole case was that he believed she WAS still in bed and therefore the person in the toilet had to be an intruder.

Was she not in bed with him?

Go and read up on the case