JCC Oscar Pistorius? More like Oscar Pistolius.

I lol'd.

 

I did too.

 

Cool story, bro!

 

So you CAN see humor through the PBR!

 

I see humor in everything.




EVERYTHING

 

Apparently the autopsy confirmed the initial reports that there was massive damage to her skull, possibly inflicted by the cricket bat.He claims he used the bat to break down the bathroom door.

 

it is tragic his response got two likes and yours none. i have attempted to rectify this BROTHER

 

i'm sure i read that he had to actually walk past the bedroom to get to the bathroom door anyway. so.... wouldn't you kinda check to see if your gf was ok if a) you had to walk past her anyway and b) you actually did think there was a crazed lunatic in your house (apparently in need to take a dump first before stealing stuff and/or murdering everyone).

 

Thank you. I often wonder whether some people here need to have some sense beaten into their heads with a cricket bat.

 

I heard his brother is now being charged in a separate murder case?

 

From now on I'm leaving the door open when I poop.

 

Culpable homicide in the death of a motorist, I think. Not sure of the details other than it was about 4 years ago.

They'll both probably be receiving the baton in 8 by 10 relay races.

 

So, unbelievably he was acquitted of all murder charges. Culpable Homicide charges still to be decided.

 

The judge bought his story that he thought there was an intruder in the bathroom, I guess. Pretty stunning, imo.

 

Wow.

Edit: Had to turn onto ESPN for coverage of the verdict. Everybody else is focused on the 9/11 anniversary.

 

People still focus on 9/11 anniversaries?

 

used to be such a good day to fly

 

Yes.

 

Well, no. I know the media reports it this way, but I watched a bit of it (Pretoria's close to our time zone). Crucially the judge was saying that she did not feel the Prosecution had made the case for premeditated murder. She believed him, yes, but only in the absence of a credible alternative in the Court.

 

Yeah, it's like sometimes when a US jury gives a not - guilty verdict. They may think a defendent is guilty of something (re: Casey Anthony), but in their view the prosecution did not prove their case to the definition of 'beyond resonable doubt' to get a conviction.

 

In English Common Law, murder can only be proven by the Crown (or Prosecution for those silly enough to become republics) when both mens rea and actus reus can be established. Establishing actus reus is easier than establishing mens rea for obvious means; proving who pulled the metaphoric trigger is easier than establishing they pre-planned the event.

Failure to establish both mens rea and actus reus is what typically leads to the manslaughter charge being brought (in South African law, it's called "culpable homicide".

In the US, I believe you have the inchoate charge of second degree murder (murder with malicious afterthought) and then the voluntarily/involuntary manslaughter charges. These aren't British Common Law principles per se, so you wouldn't be best placed to try and equate the RSA Court verdict to US law.

 

I didn't follow the trial very closely, but from what I read, it seemed like the Crown spent most of its case trying to prove mens rea indirectly by showing his history of violence. I guess the judge felt that wasn't enough to show premeditation in this specific instance?

 

This is where LostOnHoth and Saintheart should be better able to comment but for me I would have thought the attempt to demolish his character by painting a history of violence would undermine any suggestion of mens rea - it simply speaks to an angry person who acts on that anger impulsively.

 

That's a practical question, though: how are you going to show that he intended to kill her when there are no witnesses other than the accused and the victim -- you try to show the prior history of the defendant. Ideally you would maybe have witnesses who heard him threaten to kill her.

In any event, he was convicted of "culpable" (ie negligent) homicide. Essentially, he may have legitimately believed it was a burglar in he bathroom, but a reasonable person would have realized it was his girlfriend. That doesn't mean the judge necessarily believed his story, just that the prosecution hadn't brought forth enough evidence to completely discredit it/show that he intended to kill her.

BBC cites experts who expect a prison term of 7-10 years. Max would be 15.

 

A BBC analysis of why it was neither premeditated nor common-law murder. Specifically on the second charge:

I have to say, this leaves me scratching my head a bit. He intended to fire a loaded gun at someone, but didn't foresee that it was possible he would kill them?