Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend

[hornetrider]

Tidy.

[OzzyR1]

"Prosecutors are believed to be targeting a sentence of at least 15 years in jail for Pistorius."

If the bloke wasn't famous and the trial in front of global media I reckon he would have been convicted of murder already.

[hornetrider]

New forensic evidence shows he bashed her with a cricket bat.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3551257/Os...

Given it was pictured at the crime scene spattered with blood, I wonder why it took the genius's that long to figure out?

[HTP99]

I thought the bat was used to "break the bathroom door down" for him to gain entry?

[Laurel Green]

Looks like blood spatter on the cricket bat - not sure it would be there if used for battering down the door.

[Aphex]

What a nasty excuse for a human being

[Legend83]

That's fking horrific.

ETA - I think when they discussed the bat it was concluded at the time that the blood was attributable to when he carried her out after shooting her and her blood dripped on the bat which was on the floor.

Edited by Legend83 on Thursday 21st April 11:59

[Vocal Minority]

hornetrider said:

New forensic evidence shows he bashed her with a cricket bat.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3551257/Os...

Given it was pictured at the crime scene spattered with blood, I wonder why it took the genius's that long to figure out?

Sounds pretty horrific. It always bothers me that this stuff comes to light in a book rather than a court room though. Hopefully it will be verified and can be considered in sentencing? I am aware that may be legally dodgy as it would be evidence after the conviction and would need contesting etc to be admissible.

My understanding was that the conviction was on the basis of he would have known his actions were highly likely to cause death - thus making it murder not culpable homicide, as there was demonstrable intent. However, for the purposes of sentencing, we haven't proved certainty of the identity of the victim in the heat of the moment. That's my understanding of the basis of the conviction (not the public perception of it). I may be wholly wrong.

Now this evidence, puts a much nastier spin on it from an evidential point of view. It demonstrates a higher degree of brutality, and a stark awareness of the identity of the victim - thus disproving any fear or alarm as part of the reason for pulling the trigger. It changes the whole complexion of a case from someone shooting at an unknown person but knowing their actions were likely to result in death, to a very brutal and deliberate killing of a known individual.

It's really material for sentencing. But it may not be admissible, because rather than coming out in a court, its coming out in a book.

That can't be right

[Jonesy23]

People trying to sell book find 'new compelling evidence' which includes a whole set of claimed physical evidence which wasn't at the trial and includes a timeline also not considered at trial.

I suspect they actually just made this up. There's already plenty of evidence about the sequence of events and the real argument was always about motivation I.e. why she was in the bathroom and why he ended up shooting her.

The crime is bad enough without needing to invent things so you can make some cash off the back of someone's death.

[TEKNOPUG]

Vocal Minority said:

Sounds pretty horrific. It always bothers me that this stuff comes to light in a book rather than a court room though. Hopefully it will be verified and can be considered in sentencing? I am aware that may be legally dodgy as it would be evidence after the conviction and would need contesting etc to be admissible.

My understanding was that the conviction was on the basis of he would have known his actions were highly likely to cause death - thus making it murder not culpable homicide, as there was demonstrable intent. However, for the purposes of sentencing, we haven't proved certainty of the identity of the victim in the heat of the moment. That's my understanding of the basis of the conviction (not the public perception of it). I may be wholly wrong.

Now this evidence, puts a much nastier spin on it from an evidential point of view. It demonstrates a higher degree of brutality, and a stark awareness of the identity of the victim - thus disproving any fear or alarm as part of the reason for pulling the trigger. It changes the whole complexion of a case from someone shooting at an unknown person but knowing their actions were likely to result in death, to a very brutal and deliberate killing of a known individual.

It's really material for sentencing. But it may not be admissible, because rather than coming out in a court, its coming out in a book.

That can't be right

The distinction was between his actions could lead to someone being killed (for example, firing a gun in a public place and someone being hit) to knowing that there was someone the other side of the door and he was going to shoot them. Who that person was is irrelevant.

[Vocal Minority]

For the conviction - agreed

For the sentence it is entirely relevant. Behind a closed door there at least a plausibility to an unknown identity fearing for one's life as a mitigating circumstance.

In the circumstances as described above (and as I said before...for a book, not in court) it is the savage beating and then shooting of his girlfriend.

This is all material for sentencing.

If a). correct and b). admissable

Edited by Vocal Minority on Thursday 21st April 13:42

[SilverSpur]

I don't understand why he's still out of jail. He's been convicted of murder, yet gets to spend months waiting to be re-sentenced at his uncles house under house arrest.

There's no doubt he's going back to jail, he should already be there.

madness.

[hornetrider]

So, the top Reeva was wearing when she was shot, and in which she was found, doesn't have any bullet holes, despite there being gunshot wounds to her body

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3553496/Pi...

Edited by hornetrider on Friday 22 April 11:20

[LaurasOtherHalf]

hornetrider said:

So, the top Reeva was wearing when she was shot, and in which she was found, doesn't have any bullet holes, despite their being gunshot wounds to her body

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3553496/Pi...

Sorry but that sounds like pure heresay, not that I'm defending OP. So there wasn't a bullet hole that matched the one on her hip on a long vest? Presumably you lift your vest above your hips when on the crapper.

[Legend83]

LaurasOtherHalf said:

Sorry but that sounds like pure heresay, not that I'm defending OP. So there wasn't a bullet hole that matched the one on her hip on a long vest? Presumably you lift your vest above your hips when on the crapper.

Yes if you are having a wazz, but not necessarily if you are cowering for your life.

[KTF]

Why is all this stuff coming out now rather than at the trial? Did they 'forget' about it or something?

Edited by KTF on Friday 22 April 12:02

[Vocal Minority]

KTF said:

Why is all this stuff coming out now rather than at the trial? Did the 'forget' about it or something?

This is the troubling bit. Why is this being put in a book and not up in front of a court? Is it evidence or speculation dressed up as evidence? If it's the former, someone has really not done their job right somewhere.

[LaurasOtherHalf]

Legend83 said:

LaurasOtherHalf said:

Sorry but that sounds like pure heresay, not that I'm defending OP. So there wasn't a bullet hole that matched the one on her hip on a long vest? Presumably you lift your vest above your hips when on the crapper.

Yes if you are having a wazz, but not necessarily if you are cowering for your life.

i suspect when cowering for your life it matters not where the hem of your vest is. plus the original link is slightly disingenuous, there are bullet holes in the top, just not where the hip one is. complete none story i'd say.

[Bonefish Blues]

The forensics were a complete mess, one presumes - as was being evidenced at the trial, so I'm guessing the State chose not to put some of the evidence forward

[Jonesy23]

Of course it was also part of the argunent at trial whether she was cowering in the bathroom or just in there using it.

So position of clothes and bullet holes supports different things depending on where you start from I.e reckless idiot or something more deliberate.

I still put little weight on any of this 'new evidence' given the source and their motivations.