Oscar Pistorius could compete abroad after winning an appeal to relax his bail conditons.
Lawyers for the South African athlete, who is charged with murdering his girlfriend, successfully challenged bail restrictions relating to international travel at a court hearing on Thursday.
Pistorius was released on bail by magistrate Desmond Nair last month subject to several conditions, including that he handed over his passports and paid a £73,000 bond.
But he has now been cleared to leave the country, providing he notifies authorities of his travel plans in advance and surrenders his passport to the court within 24 hours of his return.
Judge Bert Bam told the High Court in Pretoria: "I find that the magistrate's decision not to grant the appellant his passport to travel abroad was wrong".
Pistorius, who was not present on Thursday, was also cleared to return to his Pretoria home where he shot dead Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine's Day.
The six-time Paralympic sprint champion denies the charge of premeditated murder, claiming he shot 30-year-old Ms Steenkamp after mistaking her for an intruder.
He is likely to stand trial before the end of the year, the High Court heard, and is due back in court on June 4.
Clip of a BBC radio station 'accidentally' playing a woman's screams over the news bulletin reporting the details of the murder trial currently ongoing.
Immoral to bet on the outcome, and a bit ridiculous the trial is going to go on for so long. I mean he shot her and nobody else was there so common sense has to be applied, which basically is that he is as guilty as sin. All this stuff I am reading in the paper arguing how many shots there were - does it matter - nobody is denying he shot her - I'd tell his defence to stop messing about if I was teh judge!
Immoral to bet on the outcome, and a bit ridiculous the trial is going to go on for so long. I mean he shot her and nobody else was there so common sense has to be applied, which basically is that he is as guilty as sin.
That's definitely not the outcome of applying "common sense"
Immoral to bet on the outcome, and a bit ridiculous the trial is going to go on for so long. I mean he shot her and nobody else was there so common sense has to be applied, which basically is that he is as guilty as sin.
That's definitely not the outcome of applying "common sense"
I think it is - common says that you don't shoot your wife/girlfriend with multiple shots and nobody else in the house by accident. It doesn't matter if you nearly shot somebody in a bar - it doesn't matter if one neighbour heard x shots and one neighbour heard y. What matters is the ridiculous notion that he did it by accident!
Immoral to bet on the outcome, and a bit ridiculous the trial is going to go on for so long. I mean he shot her and nobody else was there so common sense has to be applied, which basically is that he is as guilty as sin.
That's definitely not the outcome of applying "common sense"
I think it is - common says that you don't shoot your wife/girlfriend with multiple shots and nobody else in the house by accident. It doesn't matter if you nearly shot somebody in a bar - it doesn't matter if one neighbour heard x shots and one neighbour heard y. What matters is the ridiculous notion that he did it by accident!
The purpose of the trial isn't to establish if he shot his girlfriend, he's already admitted that. He's on trial for pre-meditated murder, the trial is to establish if his actions were pre-meditated or not. I do not think it would be "common sense" to convict someone of pre-meditated murder without first allowing a court of law to decide if his actions were pre-meditated or not.
Only person on the scene, owns a gun, admits to shooting his girlfriend, she's a blonde superstar model... he'd of most probably (almost definitely) had to see her to hit her, unless she was walking around wearing a black onesie with her hood up.. doesn't seem very accidental.Has to be guilty for me
Anyone who's ever shared a bed with a woman knows he's guilty. They take up far too much room for anyone to wake up and not know if they are still in there or not.
Only person on the scene, owns a gun, admits to shooting his girlfriend, she's a blonde superstar model... he'd of most probably (almost definitely) had to see her to hit her, unless she was walking around wearing a black onesie with her hood up.. doesn't seem very accidental.Has to be guilty for me
And this ^^ is why there is a trial with things like evidence, juries and judges. He (allegedly) fired the shots through the bathroom door so it wouldn't really matter what she was wearing would it?
Only person on the scene, owns a gun, admits to shooting his girlfriend, she's a blonde superstar model... he'd of most probably (almost definitely) had to see her to hit her, unless she was walking around wearing a black onesie with her hood up.. doesn't seem very accidental.Has to be guilty for me
And this ^^ is why there is a trial with things like evidence, juries and judges. He (allegedly) fired the shots through the bathroom door so it wouldn't really matter what she was wearing would it?
Except there isn't a Jury...just a judge.
Appreciate the need for a trial, but cannot possibly see how he can be anything other than guilty. Still, lets wait and see what comes out of it all.
Only person on the scene, owns a gun, admits to shooting his girlfriend, she's a blonde superstar model... he'd of most probably (almost definitely) had to see her to hit her, unless she was walking around wearing a black onesie with her hood up.. doesn't seem very accidental.Has to be guilty for me
And this ^^ is why there is a trial with things like evidence, juries and judges. He (allegedly) fired the shots through the bathroom door so it wouldn't really matter what she was wearing would it?
Except there isn't a Jury...just a judge.
Appreciate the need for a trial, but cannot possibly see how he can be anything other than guilty. Still, lets wait and see what comes out of it all.
Fair enough. I forgot there was no jury but the point still stands. I think he's guilty as hell but I don't want to see him convicted without a proper trial.
That being said, I have a nasty feeling his lawyers will manage to get him off somehow.
Only person on the scene, owns a gun, admits to shooting his girlfriend, she's a blonde superstar model... he'd of most probably (almost definitely) had to see her to hit her, unless she was walking around wearing a black onesie with her hood up.. doesn't seem very accidental.Has to be guilty for me
And this ^^ is why there is a trial with things like evidence, juries and judges. He (allegedly) fired the shots through the bathroom door so it wouldn't really matter what she was wearing would it?
Except there isn't a Jury...just a judge.
Appreciate the need for a trial, but cannot possibly see how he can be anything other than guilty. Still, lets wait and see what comes out of it all.
Fair enough. I forgot there was no jury but the point still stands. I think he's guilty as hell but I don't want to see him convicted without a proper trial.
That being said, I have a nasty feeling his lawyers will manage to get him off somehow.
That's the problem with a high profile case like this, if he's not sent down for anything less than pre-meditated. deliberate murder, it will be seen in some quarters as him somehow getting away with it. Of course it may be that indeed he did set out to kill that night, but that's what the trial is for!
Only person on the scene, owns a gun, admits to shooting his girlfriend, she's a blonde superstar model... he'd of most probably (almost definitely) had to see her to hit her, unless she was walking around wearing a black onesie with her hood up.. doesn't seem very accidental.Has to be guilty for me
And this ^^ is why there is a trial with things like evidence, juries and judges. He (allegedly) fired the shots through the bathroom door so it wouldn't really matter what she was wearing would it?
Except there isn't a Jury...just a judge.
Appreciate the need for a trial, but cannot possibly see how he can be anything other than guilty. Still, lets wait and see what comes out of it all.
How many years of legal training is that opinion based on?
What gets my goat is arguments over how many shots one neighbour heard and that differing from how many shots his wife heard - what does that matter when nobody is denying he shot her? Then the gun going off in the bar - what does that matter? Lawyers go down all these routes and drag everything out - when the facts to be discussed should be pretty clear. The only relevant information surely is any row between the couple that people observed.
But at the end of the day, he was the only one present and that is where common sense has to be applied. If anybody suspected there was an intruder in their house, their first thoughts would surely go to the safety of their loved ones. They wouldn't hear a nose in the bathroom and not check who it was before shooting and not knowing where their loved one was - more ridiculous a notion you couldn't imagine - and I hear the trial could take over a month!!!
Only person on the scene, owns a gun, admits to shooting his girlfriend, she's a blonde superstar model... he'd of most probably (almost definitely) had to see her to hit her, unless she was walking around wearing a black onesie with her hood up.. doesn't seem very accidental.Has to be guilty for me
And this ^^ is why there is a trial with things like evidence, juries and judges. He (allegedly) fired the shots through the bathroom door so it wouldn't really matter what she was wearing would it?
Except there isn't a Jury...just a judge.
Appreciate the need for a trial, but cannot possibly see how he can be anything other than guilty. Still, lets wait and see what comes out of it all.
How many years of legal training is that opinion based on?
None. As I said ' I cannot possibly see how he can be anything other than guilty'. That is based on my opinion of the case.
As I also said, lets wait and see what happens and what the judge decides.
What gets my goat is arguments over how many shots one neighbour heard and that differing from how many shots his wife heard - what does that matter when nobody is denying he shot her? Then the gun going off in the bar - what does that matter? Lawyers go down all these routes and drag everything out - when the facts to be discussed should be pretty clear. The only relevant information surely is any row between the couple that people observed.
But at the end of the day, he was the only one present and that is where common sense has to be applied. If anybody suspected there was an intruder in their house, their first thoughts would surely go to the safety of their loved ones. They wouldn't hear a nose in the bathroom and not check who it was before shooting and not knowing where their loved one was - more ridiculous a notion you couldn't imagine - and I hear the trial could take over a month!!!
Mainly the defense lawyers trying to claim they're unreliable witnesses to boost OP's story if it differs from theirs.
Comments
Lawyers for the South African athlete, who is charged with murdering his girlfriend, successfully challenged bail restrictions relating to international travel at a court hearing on Thursday.
Pistorius was released on bail by magistrate Desmond Nair last month subject to several conditions, including that he handed over his passports and paid a £73,000 bond.
But he has now been cleared to leave the country, providing he notifies authorities of his travel plans in advance and surrenders his passport to the court within 24 hours of his return.
Judge Bert Bam told the High Court in Pretoria: "I find that the magistrate's decision not to grant the appellant his passport to travel abroad was wrong".
Pistorius, who was not present on Thursday, was also cleared to return to his Pretoria home where he shot dead Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine's Day.
The six-time Paralympic sprint champion denies the charge of premeditated murder, claiming he shot 30-year-old Ms Steenkamp after mistaking her for an intruder.
He is likely to stand trial before the end of the year, the High Court heard, and is due back in court on June 4.
Can you imagine everyone shitting themselves when the starter's pistol goes off.
Clip of a BBC radio station 'accidentally' playing a woman's screams over the news bulletin reporting the details of the murder trial currently ongoing.
Worth every penny!
Appreciate the need for a trial, but cannot possibly see how he can be anything other than guilty. Still, lets wait and see what comes out of it all.
That being said, I have a nasty feeling his lawyers will manage to get him off somehow.
But at the end of the day, he was the only one present and that is where common sense has to be applied. If anybody suspected there was an intruder in their house, their first thoughts would surely go to the safety of their loved ones. They wouldn't hear a nose in the bathroom and not check who it was before shooting and not knowing where their loved one was - more ridiculous a notion you couldn't imagine - and I hear the trial could take over a month!!!
None. As I said ' I cannot possibly see how he can be anything other than guilty'. That is based on my opinion of the case.
As I also said, lets wait and see what happens and what the judge decides.
Not guilty 4/6
At those odds I would be inclined to chuck £50 on not guilty.