+6

It is not even like the victim's exact position in the house was not known or that she went to some unexpected or less expected place like a basement or a different room. No, she moved from an exact spot that is the most adjacent to the spot of the defendant and went to the most commonly intended place, especially from the sleeping bed or when one was about to leave (The later is probably what was intended). The defendant (I still call him the defendant because he was not convicted with what involves intentionally targeting the victim with full recognition of her identity) supposedly missed both noticing her absence then her existence or take that into account. He supposedly failed to do both of those things despite how doing that was needed to see if there was a reason for the fear to begin with. He supposedly did not check to search for the answer if there was a valid reason for his fear by checking for the existence of the victim in her spot.Then instead of the failure to do so becoming a reason emphasising even more that he should think if there is a real reason for his fear when the fact of recognizing a person in the toilet area presented itself to him he supposedly also failed to take into account that it could be his girlfriend and ignored this second one. All this allegation of fear supposedly because of a window he heard being opened.

One should also not be confused with the use of the word "fear" here. The defendant stated, which seems to be intended to answer how could he missed noticing the absence of his girlfriend from the bed, that he was too afraid to turn on the lights. Even without the fact that, absent other alternatives like trying to physically reach her, turning on the lights to check for the existence of his girlfriend was needed to see if there is a reason for the fear, that does not sound like what fear would naturally makes someone do. It seems that one would be more inclined to turn on the lights to see what is around him because of that fear. Even horror movies sound much more terrifying in dark than in lighted environment. Instead, the defendant is actually informing us with that allegation of a level of control over his alleged fear that overcame the pull of the much more natural reaction. Yet, despite such control over his fear he supposedly failed to take into account when he recognized someone in the toilet area that it could be his girlfriend. 

+5

Who on earth would recognize that there is somebody in the toilet area then of the first things that comes to mind would not include the possibility that it could be the other occupant in the house and instead thinks it is an intruder? 

What sane person would be more inclined to explain that there is someone in the toilet area with the window he saw open instead of the other way around let alone ignoring that other explanation entirely? 

I could have a roommate or any other occupant with me in the house sign an agreement not to go there and still not be anywhere close to ignoring such possibility in general not to mention enough to fire four bullets through the door. He did not even claim that he called his girlfriend by name asking if she was the one in the toilet area before shooting. 

+4

The fake court proceedings that handled the case of Trayvon Martin here had to pretend honest jury selection. There, on the other hand, no jury needed even for cases like these and you get everything ready in the system.

The statement mentioned about the defendant having a genuine belief that his life was in danger, if was really stated by the higher court , which is a level I don't even know the lower court had reached beyond that of stating a doubt, was like the million ton object that fall on the back of a camel that needed at max a feather to be broken and crushed it like flour. Did the person who stated such claim of certainty really think he could eclipse facts like these because of his position as a judge?   

+3

Look at THIS.How often a bail is given after such conviction and for the price of an IPhone or two?

Also, some say that he was found guilty of murdering his girlfriend and that could be the definition of a misleading statement. No, he was found guilty of murdering a person who happened to be his girlfriend. He was not found guilty of intentionally murdering his girlfriend which the facts seems to be screaming for.

In addition, any doubt in the dishonesty and corruption of this higher court is greatly minimized with a statement like this if the site is correct:

"Leach said although Pistorius had genuine beliefs his life was in danger,.."

So, it was not even seen as being a reasonable doubt but, to this court, it appears to have some how jumped that stage to become an established fact.

Also, remember how the news were reporting that a murder conviction would mean a minimum of 15 years imprisonment according to the South African Law? Now, after that conviction, according to this article the "minimum" appears to have magically transformed into a "maximum" 

"His jail term hasn't been decided, but he faces up to 15 years in prison"

Again, the defense presented does not sound to me anywhere close to put a serious doubt or alter the view of this being a direct killing intended on the victim in her identity.

If you give a free pass on the taking of life what is left? In a just system this defendant probably would had been put to death some time ago.

+2

continuing from the post below

The ruling of the court came as if the facts of the case were that the defendant's girlfriend came through the window and entered the toilet area then the defendant came shooting through the toilet area door thinking that she was an intruder. That couldn't be further from the truth. 

Also, from the excerpts, the court appears to speak about the lack of sufficient existence of a threat or the perception of a threat by the defendant to his life. Actually, before that, he did not show how what happened would make a reasonable person suddenly changes to act as if there was really an intruder in his home to begin with. Whether this was not included in the threat talk or just a higher level of specificity it adds support for that it was an intentional killing targeting that girl. 

In addition, what the court noticed regarding not firing a warning shot, despite all the claims by the defendant that he kept shouting on the allegedly perceived intruder to exit his home, also supports the intentional targeting to that girl.

At least for the lower court, I think that it could be a sever understatement to say that I would be very surprised if it was honest and not corrupt in its ruling on the case.I cant see how any reasonable layman jury would see a reasonable doubt in that girl was intentionally targeted to be killed so how about a jury entirely comprised of judges (or professionals in the judiciary depending on the status of the two other assistants who made the ruling with the lower court judge)?    

+1

continuing from the post below:

THIS still sound like a joke because of how hard  it seems to see a reasonable doubt in the intentional killing of that girl which probably could provide a significantly tougher sentencing range. I wonder if errors in finding of facts at this level did not warrant correcting the lower court there what could? Instead of being made into an escape route, the reasoning of this court could have provided a little bit of fall back support even if we assume the defendant did not intend to kill his girlfriend despite the absence of a reasonable doubt.