IS HE GUILTY?

I think he did it in a rage!!!...............but as to the verdict? ......still no evidence of the "argument" or motive for the "argument"
That is the weakness surely and I am not convinced it has been proven!

Roux playing on the Courts Emotion..

Culpable homicide...reckless / negligent...no "intent" extracted or admitted to under cross-examination...

Guilty on other "minor" charges...factual events with witnesses and he does not have the credibility to cast doubt on the evidence presented by the witnesses...

Interesting that Barry Roux's re-examination was virtually a non-event.

Satisfied or resigned???????

Firstly, if he had no intention to kill someone then the shots should have been fired in an upward direction (warning shots), not at body height in the direction the person is standing.

Secondly, how can he claim that he acted out of fear when he's the one with a gun and the other person is behind a locked door? Clearly Reeva was more scared than him.

Too many contradictions in his statements... the fact remains that he deliberately shot someone, hope the court sees it like it is...

if i were a movie producer..dont you think i would have put in sub plots like the TASHA'S incident,the boating incident,the drive back from the vaal incident,the shooting range incident with the water melon....i mean no wonder his name is OSCAR....this whole life of his cant be produced more perfectly than even SPIELSBERG could dream off

All u hearing is its an accident, Its an Accident.. Pulling the Trigger 4 times is not a accident.. no gun can accidentally discharge 4 times in rapidly succession..

Does anyone knw wht nel said in closing statement missed it as eskom up to usual tricks again

Mr P, this was Nel's closing statement.

Looking sternly at Pistorius, he said the court would find that Steenkamp had eaten three hours prior to being shot dead. Pistorius had told the court the couple had eaten hours before.

The arguments that a neighbour claimed to have heard prior to the shootings happened as Steenkamp was eating.

The "blood-curdling" screams that several neighbours claimed to have heard came from Steenkamp. Pistorius had testified that he was the one who was screaming as he tried to break down the door, trying to reach Steenkamp.

Pistorius fired four shots through the locked toilet door knowing that Steenkamp was behind it, he said.

Pistorius had said he mistook her for an intruder.

Nel said Steenkamp had run to the toilet, and Pistorius armed himself with the sole purpose of killing her. Pistorius had testified he did not see Steenkamp heading to the toilet. He claimed to have told her to call the police.

The reason for Pistorius being so emotional was due to him being overcome by what he had done, Nel said.

Thanks ou ryperd

He is guilty imo of intending to kill her..Ive watched most of the trial..Im not a judge however in my mind without any bias this accused is trying to get off...I doubt we will see him again after the verdict

The fact that there was no warning shot, that he went towards the perceived danger with a loaded cocked gun, thereby becoming the aggressor. At no time was his life in danger, no threat had been made to him. he by putting 4 bullets through the door intended to kill. He may say that he did not "think" it was Reeva behind the door, but his intention was to kill, surely?