Oh, I agree, and am very suprised by the verdict. Particularly as at the start of the trial it was announced that this trial would prove that being white and rich does not mean you can get away with criminal acts. However it's to some extent understandable, in a country that has a murder rate over 30 times higher than the UK does, that Pistroius could have a fear for his life if he thought an intruder had broken into the house.

Where did I say "almost identical" ?

I agree to an extent. I've never been in the house whilst an intruder was there but I do know the fear and vulnerability I felt after coming home to find my house had been burgled a few years ago. So I could maybe understand that fear, especially in a country where guns are more easily available.
However the rest of the story - not trying to get help in any fashion before, not shouting some kind of challenge or warning, firing 4 shots, being seperated by a door and, crucially for me, not noticing his girlfriend wasn't in bed with him - just makes me disbelieve his entire story.

indeed

but I can't understand his motive to kill her either, it just doesn't add up, in any way, shape or form.

She was a stunning woman, he was a celebrity athlete, it makes no sense at all, either way?

I agree. Though whether she was stunning or not doesn't make much difference to a motive to kill her.
I didn't watch everything in the trial but I didn't hear much about relationship issues beyond what could be described as normal ups and downs.

But then he did kill her. And I suppose in that situation you've to explain why, and I don't think he has. Nothing about his story rings true and if you combine that with allegations from neighbours they heard screams before the shots?

And the judge discounted ALL of them ... on what basis?

to be fair, she can hardly form a coherent sentence, it seems SA is about as messed up as it can be legally

Well, if I were in position of legal power in SA, I wouldn't be happy with this circus being played out to the world and at the end of it all being such an embarrassment to the system.

I agree, the whole thing appears to be a sham.

They were (apparently) alone in the house, she went to the toilet, and locked herself in, he shot 4 times through the door, sorry, but I think he's guilty of murder, she is dead, he fired the gun.

If it had been a black guy in Soweto he'd be serving life by now, not having fights in nightclubs.

There's fear and there's fear. If he saw some guy coming towards him that would be more understandable. And specifically it was one leg (sorry!) of his Defence that he genuinely believed that there was such a threat to his life and hence did not have the intention unlawfully to kill anyone. This defence would have succeeded if the judge had found that he'd genuinely believed that his life was in danger. However if you recall, Pistorius breathtakingly changed his defence horse half way through and claimed a second defence of "involuntary action".Basically, he ended up shooting but didn't somehow do it as a voluntary action. This was also rightly rejected.

The point being, it doesn't really matter whether you fear your life is in danger, if what you're saying is you never consciously or intentionally shot the gun at all, it just sort of inexplicably happened.

5 years in the Big House.
Good result for the defence team.

*Well 10 months in the Big House followed by house arrest.
Still, her parents believe justice has been done and I suppose there the most important ones.

im sure they do considering the blood money they received from him

regards

king james

They said he didn't have a leg to stand on, but it was no walk in the park for the prosecution, and it is probably the first case where the defence had more legs than the defendant. I think the judge has gone out on a limb with his sentence, though.

If he does spend 4 years under "house arrest" then I would advise any lady visitors to bring a she-wee and a bedpan.

No doubt you'll come up with some BS defence of yourself, but that's completely out of order.

I'm amazed the Steenkamps weren't ordered to replace the bathrrom door

Yup. She ain't coming back so may as well be compensated financially.

Ten months for blowing away his girlfriend & I thought our sentencing was skinny.

So, he gets out of bed & doesn’t notice his girlfriend is not in it, then goes to the toilet & pops four through the door, but doesn’t hear anyone scream out when hit

.

His defence team and the wider media did a pretty good job at turning the tables and portraying him as the victim.
All them tears weren't for nowt thee knows.

Yes, but in yer average circus case the job has been to hoodwink or brainwash gullible or biased jurors. In this case, such tactics [ishould[/i have been a waste of time given that a judge wouldn't be fooled or swayed ...

I think the length of sentence, 5 years, is probably about right as they couldn't prove murder. But he should be in jail for a good portion of that. This house arrest stuff is just rubbish and proves that if you're rich you get treated differently to everybody else.

I'm far from an expert on law, but the whole situation of such an important case not being decided by a jury and by one person instead just doesn't feel right. And the amount of time it took to come to a verdict and then the sentence is ridiculous.

If you couldn't get enough of the case, then you'll be made up that the prosecution have put in an appeal against a) unduly lenient sentence and b) the murder acquittal www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29895786 [url=http://www.pod702.co.za/Eyewitnessnews/docs/141104NPA.pdfThe Appeal documents[/url

If you couldn't get enough of the case, then you'll be made up that the prosecution have put in an appeal against a) unduly lenient sentence and b) the murder acquittal www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29895786 [url=http://www.pod702.co.za/Eyewitnessnews/docs/141104NPA.pdfThe Appeal documents[/url

The circus rolls on.

The judge was under enormous pressure from the outset. And when I say "pressure" I mean the kind that gently puts a hand on your shoulder promising that [i"good things can happen to those who don't 'rock the boat'"[/i straight down to [i"do you want to see your family again?"[/i

Reading between the lines of the judgement (and knowing one or two things about the case) I'd say she did as much as she could to provide some form of justice to the families. But criticising her for not putting Oscar away for life is very brave - in the safety of your own homes. One wonders how brave these people might have been under similar conditions?

So far as I can tell, people are simply commenting on the given that this was a self-contained criminal trial under that country's system of due process. Therefore "bravery" don't enter into it.

You are the first I know of to suggest that the judge is corrupt, and instead of reaching an honest decision, acted otherwise than in due exercise of her judicial powers, and perverted justice by reaching a finding and a sentence for extraneous reasons, under duress.

I don't believe you.

To be honest I attach no significance to your belief. But I'll give you points for brazen self-flattery.