Amazon.com Widgets
  • Guilty as hell

    Who would lock a toilet door in the middle of the night? He said he was screaming and shouting to Reeva so there is no way she wouldn't respond to let him know she was there. Nel has it spot on. OP's whole testimony just doesn't make sense. The episodes in the restaurant and on the motorway have exposed him too. He must think we are all idiots or else he has some sort of mental condition.

  • Guilty as Anything

    Oh, please. Common sense is the biggest threat to poor Blade Runner, here. Obviously the first thing an intruder would do is lock themselves in the bathroom. He woke up to sounds in the bathroom, and his girlfriend wasn't beside him in bed. So naturally the only thing to do is fire through the door, right? RIDICULOUS! It's so stupid it's funny. As far as common sense goes, Pistorius doesn't have a leg to stand on.

  • Yes he's guilty!

    Apparently they both woke up and she said"Can't you sleep my babba?"Then after bringing fans in straight after he heard noise from bathroom of window opening,then how the hell could he have not noticed Reeva going into the toilet???She could not have gone there as he said, it doesn't fit at all??Also notice how he distances himself in defence by saying "It isn't true"etc if I was innocent of a murder I'd be more passionate and yelling "No I didn't" his answers are too constructed,no feeling to his defences at all. But Nel is right none of this makes sense,also Reeva's sister sister describes her as outspoken and feisty she would not have remained silent!To be honest who would not scream out not to shoot if they were in the toilet with him being hysterical and waving a gun around!!He may not have intended on killing her but lets face it you don't play with guns as if they're toys!

  • He's clearly guilty

    Anyone fearing an intruder would be concerned for the safety of their loved one. He'd have been concentrating on her safety and would have known where she was.

    His testimony lacks credibility, his lies over gun conditions surrounding his ND in restaurant show he is not prepared to tell the truth, he carries his own gun one up, makes out that having a gun handed to him one up was the cause of the ND.

    He is trying to blame anyone except himself. He deserves a life sentence.

  • He had motive to kill her

    The thought that the beautiful Reeva might leave him, the legless man, sent him into a jealous rage. It was Valentine's Day, they probably had an argument (heard by neighbors) and she sought privacy in the toilet so she could call someone on her mobile phone. He snapped and shot her in cold blood. His crocodile tears in court are fake. He's just sorry for himself and the idea of spending a long time in prison.

  • "Accidentally" fired the gun 4 times

    It is impossible to believe OP shot the gun through the bathroom cubicle 4 times "accidentally". A gun fired once maybe, but three more times??! Nor is it believable that he shouted to Reeva to call the police, yelled at the make-believe intruders, and throughout it all Reeva never made a sound. Lastly, there is no way Reeva didn't make a sound after she was hit 3 times with the bullets. More than 1 neighbor testified to hearing Reeva scream before the shots.

  • Guilty as Sin

    He kept repeating in court that he wanted to come between the intruder and Reeva and that his sole aim was to protect her from the intruder yet he didn't think to check up on her or call to her quietly as he was walking down the hallway he had plenty of time. As he was approaching the cubicle she would have heard his voice getting closer and she would have called out to him.
    If she had her phone she had time to call the police as he said he was shouting as he was walking down the hall. She could have sent a text if she didn't want to speak. The poor woman must have been scared to death Man. She took her phone and locked the door.

  • Why 4 Shots

    Oscar fired 1 shot - she screamed .. He paused a moment (split second) shocked that he actaully did shoot her (He intended to in his rage, but was not sure he would actually do that) then decide it's best for him to finish this and claim he thought it's a intruder, and he shot until he her screaming stopped, bam (screams from reeva) bam (screams continue) bam (screams stop)! He was ready for a 5th shot standing there and waiting for any noise a couple of seconds, then put the gun down...

  • No- one would shoot

    1. You would only would shoot if you had a reason to fear for your life. He firstly had no reason to fear for his life. But if he did fear for his life, he would not risk shooting through a door as he may more easily miss and aggravate whoever was in there.

    2. No- one grabs his gun and shoots without first checking on the status of the person next to him and making sure she is safe. There is no way he could not have realized she was not there in such a small apartment.

    3. His evidence is not believable and full of inconsistencies and holes. For example claiming the fans were in places it serms they could not be based on the length of chord and capacity of the multi plug.

    4. This is not really supporting argument, but at times in court when he is acting most disorientated and emotional, he still has the composure never to forget to say "my lady" which is not that easy to consistently do when being questioned by a man under apparent stress. His sad monotone voice reminds me of a child when caught eating candy and denying it. As a parent of little kids I can recognize a voice lying and trying to act honest. All fake.

    He is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

  • Rot in Hell Oscar, you liar!

    You are awaken at night by a sound in your bathroom. What is the first thing you do?
    99% of people will turn to see if their partner is in bed next to them first. The other 1% will just assume that it is their partner in the bathroom - Especially if the noise is coming from the toilet.
    This scenario happens to everyone around the world, and is quite common.

    So how can someone like Oscar, who appears to be an intelligent man, claim that he did not even check to see where his gf is, and proceed to go into the bathroom and open fire into a toilet door without asking who it is that is in there? It just doesn't make sense and his story of events is a plain insult to our intelligence!

  • Not guilty innocent not guilty innocent

    It was in the middle of the night,he has fears and these make him behave differently,with limited mobility he can only use the gun,his remorse looks that he didnt have the intention to kill,he is an honest person with so much talents to give to others.His body language shows honesty.

  • I really hope not!

    No facts were presented that this was premeditated. I firmly believe his story and that it was a horrible accident. You can tell how torn up he is over this. It's so heartbreaking. I hope he is found not guilty. Love you Oscar! Forever a fan!

    -Sending love from the USA

  • Not Guilty of Murder (but Guilty of Culpable Homicide, and Guilty on firearm/ammunition charges).

    I think he knew exactly who was in the toilet; that he chased her during a violent argument and when she managed to lock the toilet door before he could reach her, he went into a blind rage and shot repeatedly before she had time to ring anyone for help. However, unless there's harder evidence to come, I think he'll get the lesser charge. He may be sentenced to a minimal jail sentence but even if he walks free, life as he knew it, is over. He'll never be able to shake off the 'killer' label and for a man who overcame such adversity to become a world class star, admired and respected by millions, this will be his punishment and a life long sentence.

  • Not Guilty Of Premeditated Murder

    Prosecutors are overreaching. Its become a default rule in high-profile cases, in my opinion that's what led to the acquittal of George Zimmerman. Ambitious prosecutors overreach for the highest murder charge when the evidence just isn't there. In the Pistorius trial, as in the Zimmerman trial, a conviction on a lesser charge, in this case culpable homicide, would be almost automatic. Now nothing short of life in prison will satisfy as justice to Reeva Steenkamp's family, and that's understandable, but from a legal perspective, it's an unlikely success for prosecutors. Premeditated murder requires planning and deliberation. Let's get even more specific: It requires the time to form the conscious intent to kill and then act on it after enough time for a reasonable person to second-guess that decision. If you look at the facts of the Pistorius case, you'll find that there is simply no evidence to prove this type of planning and deliberation. The prosecution can't just speculate on state of mind.

    So far there has been a rumor that a witness heard the couple fighting intensely about an hour prior to the shooting. If they were fighting, who knows how long the fight lasted? How can we guess whether the shooting did or did not occur in the heat of passion immediately following or in the midst of a fight, thereby ruling out premeditation? There must be evidence.

    However, the Pistorius case presents no such evidence of planning. To the contrary, if there is testimony that a heated argument preceded the murder, then that is more supportive of negligent homicide than premeditated murder.

    The prosecution tried to base its whole theory of premeditation around Pistorius' prosthetic legs. Initially, prosecutors claimed that Pistorius took the time to put on his prosthetic legs. They claimed that the time that passed while he put on his prosthetic legs was sufficient to allow him to think out and plan the murder. But just recently we heard a ballistics expert testify that Pistorius likely shot Steenkamp while on his stumps. This evidence completely belied the prosecution's theory, and with no one to contradict it, it seems the prosecution has or will concede that he was not wearing his prosthetics. Now the prosecution appears to be left with zero evidence to prove intent.

    Theres just too much doubt about what went on in Pistorius' mind and in that house that evening. In my opinion, the rest of the evidence is just irrelevant. How he acted after the fact and whether he screamed or she screamed does not prove deliberation and planning. Unless the prosecution can find some solid evidence from inside that house, it will not succeed. Neither circumstantial witnesses like neighbors nor experts can speak to Pistorius' state of mind. The judge has the discretion to convict on a lesser charge, but the prosecution is undermining the strength of such a conviction by focusing all its efforts on trying to prove premeditation. This is what happened with George Zimmerman, and he was acquitted.

  • The s.African law is in his favour

    It will be culpable murder/homicide - I feel he's guilty, the facts are there e.g. why he didn't call out to reeva when he walked to the b/room or as he approached the door? Surely you wake your partner up if you think someone's in the house!? And you check before loading shots thro the door. Point is the absence of a jury, as a judge she is bound more than a jury to act within the law. It is on the prosecution to present uncertain doubt that it was murder, if there is any doubt at all the judge has to offer a lesser sentence.

  • Not guilty. Innocent.

    SA is a violent place and if you are suddenly awaken and think there is an intruder you react and it has to be fast otherwise you will be killed. America , Mexico, most of South America are the same. I believe he was trying to protect Reeva. It was a big mistake as he didn't hear her get out of bed and reacted knowing in his mind Reeva is asleep and I must protect her.

  • I believe OP is not guilty of murder but guilty of culpable homicide.

    OP shot out of fear or anger. SA is a violent society, fear of crime is very high. OP is a young man who has been blessed with fame and success. He has also had many difficult times. He has been selfish and unwise but also caring and well meaning.

  • Not guilty. Did not intentionally shoot Reeva.

    It was 3 in the morning... If you hear noises in the bathroom (like those Oscar claims) then you would question what the hell is going on. Considering it is South Africa, its a volatile country and there are many cases of intruding, so Oscar would have already made that judgement. Also, saying he should have waited to see who was in the bathroom, in hindsight was the right/best thing to do, but this is in hindsight and it would have been different on the night. If it was the worst case scenario and he waited to see who was in the bathroom and then got burgled/killed, it would be the opposite of todays case. Additionally, the case that neighbours heard what happened or arguments is unsure, as some of these 'witnesses' were up to 600m metres away and this evidence has been disputed by Oscars representatives. I hope justice will be done if he did it intentionally, but I believe that until substantial evidence is shown, then he cannot be guilty. There are many questions that are asked in hindsight, for example, why did he not call out or go to inform/check on Reeva. But these need to be explored fully by the prosecution.

    Posted by: jobs
  • Not guilty not

    His remorse is not that of a person that had intent to kill. We saw of the "monster's" trial last year the guy seemed not to care and should no emmotions at all. If he is found guilty that means the court allows Saps to tamper with crime scenes and not answer for them..The issues of missing watches police men unplugging the fan to charge his phone wearing unprotective clothes and all that.

  • Not innocent, but not guilty in the eyes of the law.

    I believe that in all probability he did intentionally kill her, but in the legal system (even in South Africa) the prosecution has responsibility to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the defense doesn't have to prove innocence. There has always been a bias towards the defense. If the prosecution cannot prove guilt BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT (that's the key here), the judge has no option other than to rule not guilty. The prosecution in this trial has done a very good job to show that he is probably guilty, but they haven't removed all reasonable doubt. Nor do they have the evidence to do so. So unfortunately the judge has to rule not guilty on the charge of intentionally murdering her.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.