Pistorius murder trial: Prosecutor accuses athlete of using emotional outbursts to dodge questions

[thailiketoo]

People commit first degree murder with sticks, rocks, knifes and whatever is available to do the job. Never heard of the he used a pistol so he could not have intended death defense . . .

OK I'll go with that. Have you ever heard of a person trying to shoot through a door to kill someone?

He had two choices. He could open the door and shoot or leave the door closed and shoot. Which would a murderer do?

[Soutpeel]

While TV,s finest legal minds in US law, argue about US law,

The gentleman concerned will not be convicted of premeditated murder, however he will get done for manslaughter which could get him 15 years, however one suspects he will get a 5 to 10 year sentence and will be out in 3

Haha, so correct. I apologize for the digression.

I think dude is guilty of first degree and the evidence is there to support such a conviction. He would most likely be convicted of first degree under normal circumstances. Unfortunately, these media circus trials tend to have bizarre outcomes. So many factors at play here. Who knows what will happen.

I agree with you he is as guilty as sin, but there isn't enough evidence to convict him on 1st degree murder, hence the reason the prosecutor is trying to "crack him"

He got in an argument with her, she locked herself in the bathroom, he used the cricket bat to try and get the door open, didn't work, so he let rip with the firearm, killing her in the process

[uptheos]

While TV,s finest legal minds in US law, argue about US law,

The gentleman concerned will not be convicted of premeditated murder, however he will get done for manslaughter which could get him 15 years, however one suspects he will get a 5 to 10 year sentence and will be out in 3

Haha, so correct. I apologize for the digression.

I think dude is guilty of first degree and the evidence is there to support such a conviction. He would most likely be convicted of first degree under normal circumstances. Unfortunately, these media circus trials tend to have bizarre outcomes. So many factors at play here. Who knows what will happen.

I agree with you he is as guilty as sin, but there isn't enough evidence to convict him on 1st degree murder, hence the reason the prosecutor is trying to "crack him"

He got in an argument with her, she locked herself in the bathroom, he used the cricket bat to try and get the door open, didn't work, so he let rip with the firearm, killing her in the process

The only problem I have with your second statement, is that if he had been smashing away at the door with the cricket bat AND THEN went to get a gun, that lessens the spontaneous element somewhat.

[F430murci]

While TV,s finest legal minds in US law, argue about US law,

The gentleman concerned will not be convicted of premeditated murder, however he will get done for manslaughter which could get him 15 years, however one suspects he will get a 5 to 10 year sentence and will be out in 3

Haha, so correct. I apologize for the digression.

I think dude is guilty of first degree and the evidence is there to support such a conviction. He would most likely be convicted of first degree under normal circumstances. Unfortunately, these media circus trials tend to have bizarre outcomes. So many factors at play here. Who knows what will happen.

I agreed with you he is as guilty as sin, but there isn't enough evidence to convict him on 1st degree murder, hence the reason the prosecutor is trying to "crack him"

He got in an argument with her, she locked herself in the bathroom, he used the cricket bat to try and get the door open, didn't work, so he let rip with the firearm, killing her in the process

I have seen 1st degree convictions on less. Finder of fact gets much deference on credibility issues. The judge has enough to go other way. Judge may say legally insufficient as opposed to credibility just to make it more palatable to that portion of the public that would tend to side with victim.

[F430murci]

While TV,s finest legal minds in US law, argue about US law,

The gentleman concerned will not be convicted of premeditated murder, however he will get done for manslaughter which could get him 15 years, however one suspects he will get a 5 to 10 year sentence and will be out in 3

Haha, so correct. I apologize for the digression.

I think dude is guilty of first degree and the evidence is there to support such a conviction. He would most likely be convicted of first degree under normal circumstances. Unfortunately, these media circus trials tend to have bizarre outcomes. So many factors at play here. Who knows what will happen.

I agree with you he is as guilty as sin, but there isn't enough evidence to convict him on 1st degree murder, hence the reason the prosecutor is trying to "crack him"

He got in an argument with her, she locked herself in the bathroom, he used the cricket bat to try and get the door open, didn't work, so he let rip with the firearm, killing her in the process

The only problem I have with your second statement, is that if he had been smashing away at the door with the cricket bat AND THEN went to get a gun, that lessens the spontaneous element somewhat.

True that, but the issue may be much cleaner. Is the evidence, circumstantial or direct, sufficient to support a finding that he intended to kill her when he fired through that door. If so, the act of gathering the gun and traversing to the bathroom door to shoot would be sufficient for premeditation. Again, much credibility issues so judge has basis to go either way.

[uptheos]

When he entered the bathroom from the passage, I don't understand why he didn't stay far away from the toilet door and shout "I have a gun" and discharge a round, knowing that he had plenty ammo left should someone come rushing out?

[Soutpeel]

When he entered the bathroom from the passage, I don't understand why he didn't stay far away from the toilet door and shout "I have a gun" and discharge a round, knowing that he had plenty ammo left should someone come rushing out?

Because he knew who was in the toilet ?

[thailiketoo]

While TV,s finest legal minds in US law, argue about US law,

The gentleman concerned will not be convicted of premeditated murder, however he will get done for manslaughter which could get him 15 years, however one suspects he will get a 5 to 10 year sentence and will be out in 3

Haha, so correct. I apologize for the digression.

I think dude is guilty of first degree and the evidence is there to support such a conviction. He would most likely be convicted of first degree under normal circumstances. Unfortunately, these media circus trials tend to have bizarre outcomes. So many factors at play here. Who knows what will happen.

I agree with you he is as guilty as sin, but there isn't enough evidence to convict him on 1st degree murder, hence the reason the prosecutor is trying to "crack him"

He got in an argument with her, she locked herself in the bathroom, he used the cricket bat to try and get the door open, didn't work, so he let rip with the firearm, killing her in the process

The only problem I have with your second statement, is that if he had been smashing away at the door with the cricket bat AND THEN went to get a gun, that lessens the spontaneous element somewhat.

The marks on the door are actually consistent with him not having his legs on and I suspect they must be similar to the height that he was when he fired the shots," he told the court.

The prosecution argues that Mr Pistorius hit the door with the cricket bat before the shots were fired, but the defence claims it was the other way round.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26417240

[uptheos]

When he entered the bathroom from the passage, I don't understand why he didn't stay far away from the toilet door and shout "I have a gun" and discharge a round, knowing that he had plenty ammo left should someone come rushing out?

Because he knew who was in the toilet ?

That makes sense and for that very reason he approached the door.

I think this might come into play.....

'The bullets, made by arms and ammunition company Winchester, are themselves grotesque, let alone the outcome they promise. They are modelled on a design called "Black Talon", said to be famous, and so named because once they impact the body, the bullets expand into jagged "talons" that tear through flesh and maximise organ damage. Such expanding bullets, also called hollow-point bullets or "dum dums", are considered so cruel they were banned from use in international warfare under the Hague Convention of 1899'.

[Soutpeel]

When he entered the bathroom from the passage, I don't understand why he didn't stay far away from the toilet door and shout "I have a gun" and discharge a round, knowing that he had plenty ammo left should someone come rushing out?

Because he knew who was in the toilet ?

That makes sense and for that very reason he approached the door.

I think this might come into play.....

'The bullets, made by arms and ammunition company Winchester, are themselves grotesque, let alone the outcome they promise. They are modelled on a design called "Black Talon", said to be famous, and so named because once they impact the body, the bullets expand into jagged "talons" that tear through flesh and maximise organ damage. Such expanding bullets, also called hollow-point bullets or "dum dums", are considered so cruel they were banned from use in international warfare under the Hague Convention of 1899'.

Hollow point rounds as far as I remember are not illegal in south Africa, or at least they weren't when I carried a firearm in SA, which was in the mid 90,s.....not common rounds but they were available

[uptheos]

When he entered the bathroom from the passage, I don't understand why he didn't stay far away from the toilet door and shout "I have a gun" and discharge a round, knowing that he had plenty ammo left should someone come rushing out?

Because he knew who was in the toilet ?

That makes sense and for that very reason he approached the door.

I think this might come into play.....

'The bullets, made by arms and ammunition company Winchester, are themselves grotesque, let alone the outcome they promise. They are modelled on a design called "Black Talon", said to be famous, and so named because once they impact the body, the bullets expand into jagged "talons" that tear through flesh and maximise organ damage. Such expanding bullets, also called hollow-point bullets or "dum dums", are considered so cruel they were banned from use in international warfare under the Hague Convention of 1899'.

Hollow point rounds as far as I remember are not illegal in south Africa, or at least they weren't when I carried a firearm in SA, which was in the mid 90,s.....not common rounds but they were available

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that those bullets would make mincemeat of a door and anything behind it. Pistorious must have known this.

In South Africa, police and the military are not allowed to use expanding bullets, but private citizens can buy them. Pistorius (or his father) was free to go into a gun store and order something designed to kill with great efficiency. http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/2215190/the-ugly-truth-behind-oscar-pistorius-bullet-choice/?cs=304

[thailiketoo]

Because he knew who was in the toilet ?

That makes sense and for that very reason he approached the door.

I think this might come into play.....

'The bullets, made by arms and ammunition company Winchester, are themselves grotesque, let alone the outcome they promise. They are modelled on a design called "Black Talon", said to be famous, and so named because once they impact the body, the bullets expand into jagged "talons" that tear through flesh and maximise organ damage. Such expanding bullets, also called hollow-point bullets or "dum dums", are considered so cruel they were banned from use in international warfare under the Hague Convention of 1899'.

Hollow point rounds as far as I remember are not illegal in south Africa, or at least they weren't when I carried a firearm in SA, which was in the mid 90,s.....not common rounds but they were available

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that those bullets would make mincemeat of a door and anything behind it. Pistorious must have known this.

In South Africa, police and the military are not allowed to use expanding bullets, but private citizens can buy them. Pistorius (or his father) was free to go into a gun store and order something designed to kill with great efficiency. http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/2215190/the-ugly-truth-behind-oscar-pistorius-bullet-choice/?cs=304

Is this what mincemeat holes look like?

[Gillyflower]

Even when the question comes from the Public Prosecutor or the defence lawyer, the answers are always addressed to the judge. In this case it is a woman, henceforth the 'milady'. Actually I find this form of address rather amusing. I am of course used to Your Honour. Plus many of the witnesses had to have an interpreter.

I watched hours of it on CNN and found it rather easy that when the going got tough, Oscar broke down. I think that it was demonstrated very early on, that he was rather volatile and easy with the gun.

[Scott]

A number of posts about US law have been deleted. This case isn't being tried in the US courts. If you wish to have a legal discussion then please use SA law and how it applies to this case.

[uptheos]

Is this what mincemeat holes look like?

Point taken bullet went through clean as a whistle, must be some bullet. Just one would have taken the lock off.

I'm just re-quoting what I posted earlier

"Black Talon", said to be famous, and so named because once they impact the body, the bullets expand into jagged "talons" that tear through flesh and maximise organ damage. Such expanding bullets, also called hollow-point bullets or "dum dums", are considered so cruel they were banned from use in international warfare under the Hague Convention of 1899'.

[Soutpeel]

Is this what mincemeat holes look like?

Point taken bullet went through clean as a whistle, must be some bullet. Just one would have taken the lock off.

I'm just re-quoting what I posted earlier

"Black Talon", said to be famous, and so named because once they impact the body, the bullets expand into jagged "talons" that tear through flesh and maximise organ damage. Such expanding bullets, also called hollow-point bullets or "dum dums", are considered so cruel they were banned from use in international warfare under the Hague Convention of 1899'.

The door in question looks like a hollow core door, so highly unlikely a hollow point would expand out going through about 6mm of veneer and some cardboard

[uptheos]

Is this what mincemeat holes look like?

Point taken bullet went through clean as a whistle, must be some bullet. Just one would have taken the lock off.

I'm just re-quoting what I posted earlier

"Black Talon", said to be famous, and so named because once they impact the body, the bullets expand into jagged "talons" that tear through flesh and maximise organ damage. Such expanding bullets, also called hollow-point bullets or "dum dums", are considered so cruel they were banned from use in international warfare under the Hague Convention of 1899'.

The door in question looks like a hollow core door, so highly unlikely a hollow point would expand out going through about 6mm of veneer and some cardboard

Right, so the shooter would most likely know this and also know what damage would be done, if someone was behind the door.

I think what you answered in reply to my question about why approach the door instead of retreating, shouting 'I have a gun' or firing a warning shot, is very important.

[F430murci]

A number of posts about US law have been deleted. This case isn't being tried in the US courts. If you wish to have a legal discussion then please use SA law and how it applies to this case.

Actually, US mirrors English common law for murder grades and mens rea. The cases I cited of shooting through the doors would actually be the same law applicable under English common law and has many corollaries with South Africa law. I actually think the law is the same here and would support conviction for murder in the Pistorious case.

I believe the primary differences are simply terminology and not necessarily substance.

Pistorious is essentially asserting a claim of self defense, i.e., the killing was done mistakenly in self defense because he erroneously believed an intruder was in the home when he fired four shots through a locked bathroom door. While referred to as "ground for justification" in South Africa, it appears to be the same as our affirmative defense of self defense from an element and proof stand point.

Under both systems, the defendant bears the burden of proof to show that he or she had a reasonable belief that his or her life was in danger. The judge can reject this on the basis of credibility and the objective reasonable person standard and find Pistorious guilty of murder based on the same reasoning I cited in the two US cases. The elements, burden of proof and threshold findings appear to be identical.

[Soutpeel]

A number of posts about US law have been deleted. This case isn't being tried in the US courts. If you wish to have a legal discussion then please use SA law and how it applies to this case.

Actually, US mirrors English common law for murder grades and mens rea. The cases I cited of shooting through the doors would actually be the same law applicable under English common law and has many corollaries with South Africa law. I actually think the law is the same here and would support conviction for murder in the Pistorious case.

I believe the primary differences are simply terminology and not necessarily substance.

Pistorious is essentially asserting a claim of self defense, i.e., the killing was done mistakenly in self defense because he erroneously believed an intruder was in the home when he fired four shots through a locked bathroom door. While referred to as "ground for justification" in South Africa, it appears to be the same as our affirmative defense of self defense from an element and proof stand point.

Under both systems, the defendant bears the burden of proof to show that he or she had a reasonable belief that his or her life was in danger. The judge can reject this on the basis of credibility and the objective reasonable person standard and find Pistorious guilty of murder based on the same reasoning I cited in the two US cases. The elements, burden of proof and threshold findings appear to be identical.

Problem is SA law is not based wholely on English common law, a large part of the law is based on Dutch law with "local" modifications, so your whole premise that US law is similar to English common law therefore its the same under SA law is incorrect

[F430murci]

A number of posts about US law have been deleted. This case isn't being tried in the US courts. If you wish to have a legal discussion then please use SA law and how it applies to this case.

Actually, US mirrors English common law for murder grades and mens rea. The cases I cited of shooting through the doors would actually be the same law applicable under English common law and has many corollaries with South Africa law. I actually think the law is the same here and would support conviction for murder in the Pistorious case.

I believe the primary differences are simply terminology and not necessarily substance.

Pistorious is essentially asserting a claim of self defense, i.e., the killing was done mistakenly in self defense because he erroneously believed an intruder was in the home when he fired four shots through a locked bathroom door. While referred to as "ground for justification" in South Africa, it appears to be the same as our affirmative defense of self defense from an element and proof stand point.

Under both systems, the defendant bears the burden of proof to show that he or she had a reasonable belief that his or her life was in danger. The judge can reject this on the basis of credibility and the objective reasonable person standard and find Pistorious guilty of murder based on the same reasoning I cited in the two US cases. The elements, burden of proof and threshold findings appear to be identical.

Problem is SA law is not based wholely on English common law, a large part of the law is based on Dutch law with "local" modifications, so your whole premise that US law is similar to English common law therefore its the same under SA law is incorrect

There will always be subtle differences here in there, but I believe the substantive crux of the offenses and the defenses are very similar. Difference may be more pronounced in procedure. My comment related to the applicable mens rea which I believe is the same in SA and US.

Can you identify the differences between US's self defense v. SA's ground for justification defense or how the crimes with which he is charged in SA differ from murder in the US? The primary difference I see (Dutch difference) is that provocation may be a complete defense in SA as opposed to reduced means rea culpability offense. If you cannot identify any substantive differences, then how can you say my whole premise is incorrect?

[Calach]

This trial is going to cost him an arm.

[thailiketoo]

A number of posts about US law have been deleted. This case isn't being tried in the US courts. If you wish to have a legal discussion then please use SA law and how it applies to this case.

Actually, US mirrors English common law for murder grades and mens rea. The cases I cited of shooting through the doors would actually be the same law applicable under English common law and has many corollaries with South Africa law. I actually think the law is the same here and would support conviction for murder in the Pistorious case.

I believe the primary differences are simply terminology and not necessarily substance.

Pistorious is essentially asserting a claim of self defense, i.e., the killing was done mistakenly in self defense because he erroneously believed an intruder was in the home when he fired four shots through a locked bathroom door. While referred to as "ground for justification" in South Africa, it appears to be the same as our affirmative defense of self defense from an element and proof stand point.

Under both systems, the defendant bears the burden of proof to show that he or she had a reasonable belief that his or her life was in danger. The judge can reject this on the basis of credibility and the objective reasonable person standard and find Pistorious guilty of murder based on the same reasoning I cited in the two US cases. The elements, burden of proof and threshold findings appear to be identical.

Problem is SA law is not based wholely on English common law, a large part of the law is based on Dutch law with "local" modifications, so your whole premise that US law is similar to English common law therefore its the same under SA law is incorrect

There will always be subtle differences here in there, but I believe the substantive crux of the offenses and the defenses are very similar. Difference may be more pronounced in procedure. My comment related to the applicable mens rea which I believe is the same in SA and US.

Can you identify the differences between US's self defense v. SA's ground for justification defense or how the crimes with which he is charged in SA differ from murder in the US? The primary difference I see (Dutch difference) is that provocation may be a complete defense in SA as opposed to reduced means rea culpability offense. If you cannot identify any substantive differences, then how can you say my whole premise is incorrect?

In U.S. criminal cases, a defendant pleads not guilty and asserts self-defense. The prosecution would still retain the burden of proof to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but the “burden of production” would shift to the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she had a “reasonable belief” his or her life was in danger,

This commonly requires that the defendant prove the alleged victim threatened them, creating the appearance that “the victim is being put on trial.” That is not the case in the Pistorious trial since the issue is the defendant’s mistaken belief an intruder invaded his home.

Pistorious faces the challenge of convincing an experienced judge that he made an honest mistake in believing that he was firing at an intruder.

If Pistorious fails to prove that his mistake was reasonable, he faces a possible “culpable homicide,” conviction, which is the equivalent of manslaughter under U.S. law

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/12/shapiro-pistorius-and-south-african-law/

[thailiketoo]

Is this what mincemeat holes look like?

Point taken bullet went through clean as a whistle, must be some bullet. Just one would have taken the lock off.

I'm just re-quoting what I posted earlier

"Black Talon", said to be famous, and so named because once they impact the body, the bullets expand into jagged "talons" that tear through flesh and maximise organ damage. Such expanding bullets, also called hollow-point bullets or "dum dums", are considered so cruel they were banned from use in international warfare under the Hague Convention of 1899'.

The door in question looks like a hollow core door, so highly unlikely a hollow point would expand out going through about 6mm of veneer and some cardboard

Right, so the shooter would most likely know this and also know what damage would be done, if someone was behind the door.

I think what you answered in reply to my question about why approach the door instead of retreating, shouting 'I have a gun' or firing a warning shot, is very important.

I got robbed once. I put five shots into the intruders truck as he was trying to make a getaway. I didn't tell him I had a gun. I thought that was obvious after the first shot. Shoot first and ask questions later comes to mind when confronting a burglar who has broken into your home.

In the movies people talk a lot before they shoot. That has not been my experience in real life. If a person pulls out a loaded gun in real life I think we can assume he is going to shoot and not ask the bad guys to put their hands up.

[F430murci]

Actually, US mirrors English common law for murder grades and mens rea. The cases I cited of shooting through the doors would actually be the same law applicable under English common law and has many corollaries with South Africa law. I actually think the law is the same here and would support conviction for murder in the Pistorious case.

I believe the primary differences are simply terminology and not necessarily substance.

Pistorious is essentially asserting a claim of self defense, i.e., the killing was done mistakenly in self defense because he erroneously believed an intruder was in the home when he fired four shots through a locked bathroom door. While referred to as "ground for justification" in South Africa, it appears to be the same as our affirmative defense of self defense from an element and proof stand point.

Under both systems, the defendant bears the burden of proof to show that he or she had a reasonable belief that his or her life was in danger. The judge can reject this on the basis of credibility and the objective reasonable person standard and find Pistorious guilty of murder based on the same reasoning I cited in the two US cases. The elements, burden of proof and threshold findings appear to be identical.

Problem is SA law is not based wholely on English common law, a large part of the law is based on Dutch law with "local" modifications, so your whole premise that US law is similar to English common law therefore its the same under SA law is incorrect

There will always be subtle differences here in there, but I believe the substantive crux of the offenses and the defenses are very similar. Difference may be more pronounced in procedure. My comment related to the applicable mens rea which I believe is the same in SA and US.

Can you identify the differences between US's self defense v. SA's ground for justification defense or how the crimes with which he is charged in SA differ from murder in the US? The primary difference I see (Dutch difference) is that provocation may be a complete defense in SA as opposed to reduced means rea culpability offense. If you cannot identify any substantive differences, then how can you say my whole premise is incorrect?

In U.S. criminal cases, a defendant pleads not guilty and asserts self-defense. The prosecution would still retain the burden of proof to prove the defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but the burden of production would shift to the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she had a reasonable belief his or her life was in danger,

This commonly requires that the defendant prove the alleged victim threatened them, creating the appearance that the victim is being put on trial. That is not the case in the Pistorious trial since the issue is the defendants mistaken belief an intruder invaded his home.

Pistorious faces the challenge of convincing an experienced judge that he made an honest mistake in believing that he was firing at an intruder.

If Pistorious fails to prove that his mistake was reasonable, he faces a possible culpable homicide, conviction, which is the equivalent of manslaughter under U.S. law

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/12/shapiro-pistorius-and-south-african-law/

Yes, but you left out first step.

(1) Murder can be reduced to manslaughter grade if judge finds Pistorious' mistake was honest in his belief he was shooting at an intruder.

(2) If honest mistake, the judge then examines lesser grade offense. If honest mistake and mistake was reasonable, then judge can acquit Pistorious of manslaughter grade offense.

From a murder conviction mens rea stand point, this is same as US law and the two US murder conviction cases I quoted from that involved shooting through doors. Honest mistake believing victim was intruder would also negate mens rea for murder in US and reduce to manslaughter.

[thailiketoo]

Problem is SA law is not based wholely on English common law, a large part of the law is based on Dutch law with "local" modifications, so your whole premise that US law is similar to English common law therefore its the same under SA law is incorrect

There will always be subtle differences here in there, but I believe the substantive crux of the offenses and the defenses are very similar. Difference may be more pronounced in procedure. My comment related to the applicable mens rea which I believe is the same in SA and US.

Can you identify the differences between US's self defense v. SA's ground for justification defense or how the crimes with which he is charged in SA differ from murder in the US? The primary difference I see (Dutch difference) is that provocation may be a complete defense in SA as opposed to reduced means rea culpability offense. If you cannot identify any substantive differences, then how can you say my whole premise is incorrect?

In U.S. criminal cases, a defendant pleads not guilty and asserts self-defense. The prosecution would still retain the burden of proof to prove the defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but the burden of production would shift to the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she had a reasonable belief his or her life was in danger,

This commonly requires that the defendant prove the alleged victim threatened them, creating the appearance that the victim is being put on trial. That is not the case in the Pistorious trial since the issue is the defendants mistaken belief an intruder invaded his home.

Pistorious faces the challenge of convincing an experienced judge that he made an honest mistake in believing that he was firing at an intruder.

If Pistorious fails to prove that his mistake was reasonable, he faces a possible culpable homicide, conviction, which is the equivalent of manslaughter under U.S. law

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/12/shapiro-pistorius-and-south-african-law/

Yes, but you left out first step.

(1) Murder can be reduced to manslaughter grade if judge finds Pistorious' mistake was honest in his belief he was shooting at an intruder.

(2) If honest mistake, the judge then examines lesser grade offense. If honest mistake and mistake was reasonable, then judge can acquit Pistorious of manslaughter grade offense.

From a murder conviction mens rea stand point, this is same as US law and the two US murder conviction cases I quoted from that involved shooting through doors. Honest mistake believing victim was intruder would also negate mens rea for murder in US and reduce to manslaughter.

That the point. No one who wanted to kill someone would shoot through a door. Scare them or make them go away but not kill them. But then according to SA law he must convince the judge that his mistake was reasonable. A mistake that an average person would make. If he fails to do that which I assume he will fail to do then he may be convicted of culpable homicide which is SA speak for manslaughter. According to police statistics, around 45 people are murdered every day and home burglaries are up 70% in the past decade in SA so he had a right to be afraid.

[steelepulse]

I find it remarkable he has a very accurate memory when it serves him, but when it doesn't " I can't remember milady" comes out. One example is when he was driving and supposedly shot at. he clearly recollects the vehicle ( a black mercedes), but can't remember who he called to come and help him. Of course you can remember who you called, and it wasn't ghostbusters.

[Asiantravel]

Are any lawyers on here still following the procedures live? And if they are has anyone here been following the testimony of the forensic expert witness- Mr Dixon?

[Gillyflower]

I was following this when I was in CM, but now that I am at home for a while, it is hardly mentioned. Maybe someone could enlighten me. He sleeps in the same room and same bed (I suppose) with his partner.. He hears noises in the bathroom. Surely when he gets up he sees that she is not there in bed. Wouldn't it be reasonably obvious to suppose that the noises come from her in the bathroom. So you say Is that you dear.......? And as she was there she would have replied. Has he had any explanation ?

[bigbamboo]

I guess he's lucky that in South Africa they don't have juries. What they have is something akin to a British magistrates court and that improves his chances as aspects may come into play a jury might not give the same credence to . The gut feeling of everyone I know who've followed this trial is that he is guilty as sin.

[thailiketoo]

Are any lawyers on here still following the procedures live? And if they are has anyone here been following the testimony of the forensic expert witness- Mr Dixon?

I read about it. Turns out he is not an expert. Seems like the defense could have done a lot better choosing a forensics person. The case is postponed now till May 5th I think.