#Pistorius Trial Judge has real sense of drama...appeared to be about to say OP guilty of culpable homicide, then adjourned till tomorrow.

@skymartinbrunt it's giving credence to the belief this is nothing but a show trial!

I knew this judge would go lightly on OP...she is a soft touch judge IMO.

As someone on Twitter just said..."Oscar Pistorius doesn't have legs and still managed to walk away from murder"

see you later...must go and sort out...I have to pick daughter up at 3.30 for a doctors appointment  

anything from fine to 15 years and then the gun charges 

Sorry for leaping in here:
I've been following the verdict on a law-based forum, and the word "disgusted" has been flying around a lot over there...

That forum's response to the judge's line: "How could the accused have reasonably foreseen the shot he fired would have killed the deceased? Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this, that he would have killed the person behind the door, let alone the deceased," was:

"Because the toilet room was tiny and he aimed and fired four shots using "zombie stopper" bullets. What else did he expect would happen?"

The legal experts over there are claiming that as well as her findings not being "reasonable", she already appears to have made "mistakes of law" (although I'm not understanding what these mistakes might be ATM).

It's early days, but there are suggestions she could be ripped apart on appeal...

dammit when I got back the  news was about to start on my tellybox so flipped to the plus one channel as wanted to catch up in this thread first and it's all over for the day

oh and nowt to do with the trial but just wanted to say if OP is this big rich man how come the inside of his house looks like a cheap rental in a European seaside resort. .he needs an interior decorator pronto

Are the people on the forum, experts in SA law, because there seems to be quite a few differences between SA and us, in the judicial systems.

Not saying they are wrong, just wondering.

Just popped back on to agree with you Eugene..she can't find him not guilty of DE and use the same argument to find him guilty of CH..gut instinct is Nel will appeal if she lays down a lenient sentence 

 True.

I agree with them legal lot. .if you pick up an armed gun and point it where you think someone is then you can only have one thing on your mind, kill or wound.. unless you took a sudden dislike to the door and wanted to shoot it off its hinges and didn't know anyone was behind it

At least one of them appears to have some understanding of SA law, but yeah: most of them are American or British. I'll post something else in a mo' which might help explain things, but regardless of differences in legal systems, they're having a real problem accepting that "Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this" line as a logical conclusion...

 Thanks Eugene.

This is apparently CNN's take on the judgement. Now, I've no idea ATM if it's actually correct, but it would appear to point towards Culpable Homicide:

If it is correct, then it means that whether or not he thought he was going to kill an intruder is irrelevant to the judgment. However as I said earlier, that line "Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this, that he would have killed the person behind the door, let alone the deceased." still comes across as decidedly odd...

I've been following on twitter and Sky.I agree with the above post by Eugene.

M'Lady does seem to be a tad confused with her own statements, and the evidence that was presented to her. I feel so sorry for the Steenkamps I really do.If the woman that they were pinning their hopes on to get the justice that Reeva deserves is contradictory then what can they do.

Here's the view of a SA Law Professor: 

	James Grant @CriminalLawZA	2h
	State can appeal legal errors. Arguably a legal error to restrict Dolus Eventualis to Reeva when it's irrelevant who was behind the door.
	View details ·

https://mobile.twitter.com/CriminalLawZA

OK: apparently, the latest thinking is that the above graphic is wrong. (Remember that OP claimed self defence.):

"If OP believed it was an intruder, but killed the intruder with what for example was excessive force in the circumstances then self defence does not apply and its murder.

Similarly if you kill someone where there was no imminent threat - self defence does not apply and it is murder."

	James Grant @CriminalLawZA	2h
	Essence: Masipa doesn't accept that accused intended to kill anyone. Huh? His defence was he didn't intend to UNLAWFULLY kill. 1/
	View details ·

all South African houses built in these gated communities have seriously dodgy architecture and what's with the dark wood kitchens and tiles everywhere   considering they're millions of Rand they're also very very tiny 

I always knew it wasn't premeditated murder but I'm totally gobsmacked that DE was ruled out as I think this what he should have been found guilty on.  However, I always suspected it would come down to CH.

She does seem a bit contradictory and I do believe under 310 David Dadiac who is a lawyer said, the state can appeal.  I also agree it will be ripped apart should the State appeal (depends if they want to or if they get the funding to) 

I'm also wondering if M'lady found the burden of this case too much to handle or if she deliberately left the door open for appeal so that someone else could look at it again.  The State if they do appeal, will not be able to bring in any further evidence - the same evidence that M'lady rejected!!!!

I don't think it was premeditated in that he sat down and planned it ....but I do think he did it in temper ....and I find it unbelievable that he didn't know/take into account that it might be Reeva moving about /in the bathroom .....so in my book it's murder .....plain and simple. 

'Legal experts are surprised murder charges against Oscar Pistorius have been dismissed.

Lawyers and legal academics have expressed surprise at the dismissal of murder charges against Oscar Pistorius, with critics saying judge Thokozile Masipa has been too lenient.

“I’m shocked,” said criminal lawyer Martin Hood on Thursday, after Masipa said the prosecution had not made the case for murder or premeditated murder.

“I think she’s going to get quite a lot of criticism from the judiciary and the legal system,” said the Johannesburg-based lawyer.

“The consensus is that she hasn’t got it right.”

“The consensus among the legal community was that he is guilty of murder. This could really open the door to systematic abuse of our legal system by people who shoot their partners and claim self-defence.”

“If someone can shoot in an irresponsible manner, and even in a negligent manner and not be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law, then it means that we are not able to use the law as a tool to address violent crime in this country.”

The sprinter could yet be convicted on a lesser charge of culpable homicide, or the negligent killing of Reeva Steenkamp, who died on Valentine’s Day 2013.

“I think at the very very least she has to convict of culpable homicide because Pistorius said it was an accident,” said Hood.

“(An) accident resulting in the death of another human being doesn’t make it justifiable, it makes it negligent.”

James Grant, Wits University criminal law professor James Grant noted the state could appeal if they believe there has been an legal error.

“Masipa doesn’t accept that accused intended to kill anyone. Huh? His defence was he didn’t intend to UNLAWFULLY kill,” he tweeted.

“How can you voluntarily fire four shots into a toilet cubicle & not foresee the possibility of killing whoever was in there.”'

Tshepiso ‏@bhubaza 3h

@khayadlanga as a lawyer am horrified, how on earth did Masipa miss the dolus eventualis charge? She misinterpreted the law. #OscarTrail
Pretoria

Mr Myagi ‏@Moagi_Moloi 3h

Academically, with due respect, Masipa got dolus eventualis wrong. Oscar was aware of the possibility of whoever he shot at would die.

Exactly ! Once maybe ...just maybe ....but four times

Thread has been excellent reading today thanks 

I actually did a law degree [never used it, only did it to please the Mammy ]  and some of you would have been top of my class   

You have better legal brains than M'Lady   

The argument she's making for CH should have found him guilty of the dolus eventualis, that is why all the legal pundits are in a state of shock 

I think if I had a frontal lobotomy I would have made more sense than m'lady today Rosie 

Martin Hood should know - he's one of Johannesburg's best lawyers 

I smell a rat !  

  Judge Dame!

and here's your conundrum for tonight..see if you can work it out before Judge Masipa explains it to the world tomorrow 

not guilty of DE

"The question is: Did the accused foresee the possibility of the resulting death yet persisted in his deed reckless whether death ensued or not? In the second sentence of this case, the answer has to be no."

But CH and recklessness 

"The accused knew that there was a person behind the toilet door. He chose to use a firearm, which was a lethal weapon, he was competent in the use of firearms as he had undergone some training. I now reverse to the relevant questions. First, would a reasonable person in the same circumstances as the accused have foreseen the reasonable possibility that, if he shot four shots at the door of the toilet, whoever was behind that door might be struck by a bullet and die as a result? The second question is: would a reasonable person have taken steps to guard against that possibility? The answer to both of these questions is Yes."

I wondered why she stopped so abruptly this afternoon, was it a light bulb moment 

Sorry I dropped out. Domestics happening. 

I totally agree about the furore around the judge dismissing the 2nd degree murder charge. He clearly knew he could kill someone in the bathroom. So if he gets charged with CH the same criteria of negligence should apply surely? 

We both posted the same view Damsey. 

Surely ..plus she dismissed not only the neighbours testimony but credible prosecution experts... and gave him not guilty saying he was a very poor witness, with four defences and was contradictory. I'm still stunned  

He was up and awake, so why didn't he shout 'who's there' and Reeva wouldv'e answered surely. Soooo then because he was awake he knew Reeva wasn't in the bed. He killed her point blank!

and the view of most legal experts Xochi...you didn't have to be Rumpole to see her judgement was flawed beyond belief 

I haven't worded that right but I knew what I wanted to say  

he spoke to Reeva, apparently she never replied or so he said ...why then did he shoot into the toilet when she never answered 

Yup

I think she has dismissed a huge amount of rubbish witness testimonies that we were propping our eyelids about. Sadly, I think that she dodged some obvious areas of contention. 

Off to din dins and BB now pals.  

yes, I still think something happened today, The very late return from lunch, both Nel and Roux called to chambers and then the abrupt halt to proceedings nearly in mid sentence