Pistorius's version(s) of events (whichever one he's currently relying on) are so far removed from reality that for the Judge to even entertain them, let alone allow the case to rely on them, is nothing short of absurd. Nothing he said makes any sense or provides any sort of reasonable explanation for the events of that fateful (and fatal) night.
She addressed both sides of this though. The first is that Pistorius's account has to take some weight because he's the only person who is able to relate what actually happened. However she also described him as a poor witness, among other comments about him and the reliability of that testimony.
More to the point, he doesn't have to provide any kind of reasonable explanation, and she dealt with that part too. He's presumed innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. It's up to the prosecution to prove - beyond reasonable doubt - that Pistorius murdered Steenkamp. Masipa has laid out in some detail why she doesn't feel they've achieved that; and the sticking point is proving intent in a case where most of the evidence is circumstantial, where witnesses have contradicted each other and where she's had to lay aside a fair amount of irrelevant evidence (such as the WhatsApp messages). She made it clear that from a legal standpoint Pistorious being unreliable and "evasive" is not in itself proof of the detail of the prosecution's case.
It's with good reason that cases are heard by independent judges and not the victim's families, and whatever Steenkamp's family (and we) may think the judge must and will weigh the evidence objectively and in consideration of the requirements of the law. It's likely he will be found guilty of culpable homicide - Masipa outlined that no-one can prove Pistorius knew shooting through the door would definitely kill the person behind it, but a reasonable person should know that was a possible outcome - which I think was always the most likely verdict having followed the trial throughout.
It never ceases to amaze me how people can judge from a distance having consumed little more than media reports. Masipa has heard every single piece of evidence over 6 months, has taken her time in coming to her judgement and is laying out her thinking in line with the detail of South African law - and I'm quite sure no-one on here has any depth of knowledge of that either.
One thing that most people seem to have overlooked is that this is a black judge with a (famous) white man. If you've ever worked or lived in SA recently you will know that since BEE , there is an implicit and overt reverse apartheid in operation, with the black population feeling they have a need to 'get back' at their previously oppressive white brethren. Therefore i wouldnt be surprised if she did send him down for a longer period than most people seem to think.
Masipa is famously harsh on men who commit violence against women. It will be interesting what sentence she hands out, but we ought to bear that in mind as well when considering the level of objectivity in her verdict (so far).
There is a fair amount of baying for blood on this thread, and while I don't believe anyone locks the door at that time of night to take a pee, let alone take their phone with them, I'm happy to say a professional judge is far better positioned to get the law right than I am. Or most on this thread are. If he's cleared, it's because he wasn't proven guilty right? Not necessarily that he was proven innocent? I'm not even sure on that, so happy to let a judge decide.
Also, anybody who has spoken to the man agrees; he ain't faking the tears. We just don't know for sure why he's crying.
The state argued that Mr Pistorius had had an argument with Ms Steenkamp, after which he deliberately shot her dead.
The judge ruled this had not been proved, as there was only circumstantial evidence of an argument - uncorroborated witnesses' statements.
She also dismissed witnesses who said they had heard Ms Steenkamp scream before the shots were fired, or before the final shot.
"The state has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder," she said. "There are just not enough facts to support such a finding."
The judge found that he consistently said he had fired in the belief there was an intruder and she had no reason to disbelieve him.
However, he could also have been convicted of premeditated murder if he had intended to unlawfully kill an intruder but had instead killed his girlfriend.
She also ruled this out, saying: "The accused had the intention to shoot at the person behind the door, not to kill."
Common-law murder
He could also have been convicted of a lesser charge of murder, if he had unlawfully intended to kill in the heat of the moment but without "malice aforethought".
This could have covered either shooting at the door intending to kill, or knowing someone might be killed and still firing a gun.
But judge Masipa also dismissed this, saying: "The evidence failed to prove the accused had intention."
"Clearly he did not objectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door."
Culpable homicide (manslaughter)
This means there was no intention to kill but the actions were negligent and not in keeping with a reasonable person.
Judge Masipa was critical of Mr Pistorius' actions, saying that he had ample time to call for help, rather than going to confront a perceived intruder with a loaded gun.
"The accused had reasonable time to reflect, to think and conduct himself reasonably.
"The accused knew that there was a person behind the door, he chose to use a firearm which was a lethal weapon, was competent in the use of firearms as he had received training," she said.
The judge also took time to reject the defence arguments that Mr Pistorius is more likely to confront danger because of his disability - both his legs have been amputated.
"Vulnerability is not unique - There are many people in this country without any form of security at all," she said.
She summed up by saying: "The accused acted too hastily and used excessive force."
"It is clear that his conduct was negligent."
And then, she adjourned the hearing until Friday.
The sentence for culpable homicide is a maximum of 15 years in jail. Legal experts say seven to 10 years is more likely.
Other charges
Mr Pistorius also faces two charges of illegally discharging firearms in public and illegal possession of ammunition.
He could also be jailed for several years if convicted on these counts.
The state argued that Mr Pistorius had had an argument with Ms Steenkamp, after which he deliberately shot her dead.
The judge ruled this had not been proved, as there was only circumstantial evidence of an argument - uncorroborated witnesses' statements.
She also dismissed witnesses who said they had heard Ms Steenkamp scream before the shots were fired, or before the final shot.
"The state has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder," she said. "There are just not enough facts to support such a finding."
The judge found that he consistently said he had fired in the belief there was an intruder and she had no reason to disbelieve him.
However, he could also have been convicted of premeditated murder if he had intended to unlawfully kill an intruder but had instead killed his girlfriend.
She also ruled this out, saying: "The accused had the intention to shoot at the person behind the door, not to kill."
Common-law murder
He could also have been convicted of a lesser charge of murder, if he had unlawfully intended to kill in the heat of the moment but without "malice aforethought".
This could have covered either shooting at the door intending to kill, or knowing someone might be killed and still firing a gun.
But judge Masipa also dismissed this, saying: "The evidence failed to prove the accused had intention."
"Clearly he did not objectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door."
Culpable homicide (manslaughter)
This means there was no intention to kill but the actions were negligent and not in keeping with a reasonable person.
Judge Masipa was critical of Mr Pistorius' actions, saying that he had ample time to call for help, rather than going to confront a perceived intruder with a loaded gun.
"The accused had reasonable time to reflect, to think and conduct himself reasonably.
"The accused knew that there was a person behind the door, he chose to use a firearm which was a lethal weapon, was competent in the use of firearms as he had received training," she said.
The judge also took time to reject the defence arguments that Mr Pistorius is more likely to confront danger because of his disability - both his legs have been amputated.
"Vulnerability is not unique - There are many people in this country without any form of security at all," she said.
She summed up by saying: "The accused acted too hastily and used excessive force."
"It is clear that his conduct was negligent."
And then, she adjourned the hearing until Friday.
The sentence for culpable homicide is a maximum of 15 years in jail. Legal experts say seven to 10 years is more likely.
Other charges
Mr Pistorius also faces two charges of illegally discharging firearms in public and illegal possession of ammunition.
He could also be jailed for several years if convicted on these counts.
So he fired 4 shots through a door at a person in a tiny bathroom, yet could not foresee it killing someone?!
The state argued that Mr Pistorius had had an argument with Ms Steenkamp, after which he deliberately shot her dead.
The judge ruled this had not been proved, as there was only circumstantial evidence of an argument - uncorroborated witnesses' statements.
She also dismissed witnesses who said they had heard Ms Steenkamp scream before the shots were fired, or before the final shot.
"The state has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder," she said. "There are just not enough facts to support such a finding."
The judge found that he consistently said he had fired in the belief there was an intruder and she had no reason to disbelieve him.
However, he could also have been convicted of premeditated murder if he had intended to unlawfully kill an intruder but had instead killed his girlfriend.
She also ruled this out, saying: "The accused had the intention to shoot at the person behind the door, not to kill."
Common-law murder
He could also have been convicted of a lesser charge of murder, if he had unlawfully intended to kill in the heat of the moment but without "malice aforethought".
This could have covered either shooting at the door intending to kill, or knowing someone might be killed and still firing a gun.
But judge Masipa also dismissed this, saying: "The evidence failed to prove the accused had intention."
"Clearly he did not objectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door."
Culpable homicide (manslaughter)
This means there was no intention to kill but the actions were negligent and not in keeping with a reasonable person.
Judge Masipa was critical of Mr Pistorius' actions, saying that he had ample time to call for help, rather than going to confront a perceived intruder with a loaded gun.
"The accused had reasonable time to reflect, to think and conduct himself reasonably.
"The accused knew that there was a person behind the door, he chose to use a firearm which was a lethal weapon, was competent in the use of firearms as he had received training," she said.
The judge also took time to reject the defence arguments that Mr Pistorius is more likely to confront danger because of his disability - both his legs have been amputated.
"Vulnerability is not unique - There are many people in this country without any form of security at all," she said.
She summed up by saying: "The accused acted too hastily and used excessive force."
"It is clear that his conduct was negligent."
And then, she adjourned the hearing until Friday.
The sentence for culpable homicide is a maximum of 15 years in jail. Legal experts say seven to 10 years is more likely.
Other charges
Mr Pistorius also faces two charges of illegally discharging firearms in public and illegal possession of ammunition.
He could also be jailed for several years if convicted on these counts.
So he fired 4 shots through a door at a person in a tiny bathroom, yet could not foresee it killing someone?!
From what I've heard here, the general consensus is the tears were not genuine remorse for what he had done, but for himself. The consensus here is also he'll get orff (as they say here) lightly and won't even serve any full sentence he might be given. Whilst it is third hand, various people I know, know people who know him fairly well
"The judge found that he consistently said he had fired in the belief there was an intruder and she had no reason to disbelieve him."
Come on, really?!
The bit about she had to take his evidence as they only one there seems crazy too, of course he's going to say he didn't mean to do it, that's not evidence.
The state argued that Mr Pistorius had had an argument with Ms Steenkamp, after which he deliberately shot her dead.
The judge ruled this had not been proved, as there was only circumstantial evidence of an argument - uncorroborated witnesses' statements.
She also dismissed witnesses who said they had heard Ms Steenkamp scream before the shots were fired, or before the final shot.
"The state has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder," she said. "There are just not enough facts to support such a finding."
The judge found that he consistently said he had fired in the belief there was an intruder and she had no reason to disbelieve him.
However, he could also have been convicted of premeditated murder if he had intended to unlawfully kill an intruder but had instead killed his girlfriend.
She also ruled this out, saying: "The accused had the intention to shoot at the person behind the door, not to kill."
Common-law murder
He could also have been convicted of a lesser charge of murder, if he had unlawfully intended to kill in the heat of the moment but without "malice aforethought".
This could have covered either shooting at the door intending to kill, or knowing someone might be killed and still firing a gun.
But judge Masipa also dismissed this, saying: "The evidence failed to prove the accused had intention."
"Clearly he did not objectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door."
Culpable homicide (manslaughter)
This means there was no intention to kill but the actions were negligent and not in keeping with a reasonable person.
Judge Masipa was critical of Mr Pistorius' actions, saying that he had ample time to call for help, rather than going to confront a perceived intruder with a loaded gun.
"The accused had reasonable time to reflect, to think and conduct himself reasonably.
"The accused knew that there was a person behind the door, he chose to use a firearm which was a lethal weapon, was competent in the use of firearms as he had received training," she said.
The judge also took time to reject the defence arguments that Mr Pistorius is more likely to confront danger because of his disability - both his legs have been amputated.
"Vulnerability is not unique - There are many people in this country without any form of security at all," she said.
She summed up by saying: "The accused acted too hastily and used excessive force."
"It is clear that his conduct was negligent."
And then, she adjourned the hearing until Friday.
The sentence for culpable homicide is a maximum of 15 years in jail. Legal experts say seven to 10 years is more likely.
Other charges
Mr Pistorius also faces two charges of illegally discharging firearms in public and illegal possession of ammunition.
He could also be jailed for several years if convicted on these counts.
So he fired 4 shots through a door at a person in a tiny bathroom, yet could not foresee it killing someone?!
Exactly the problem I have with this verdict.
Thirded. Seems to hinge on this and he knew, of course he did, that the shooting would likely kill.
There is a fair amount of baying for blood on this thread, and while I don't believe anyone locks the door at that time of night to take a pee, let alone take their phone with them, I'm happy to say a professional judge is far better positioned to get the law right than I am. Or most on this thread are. If he's cleared, it's because he wasn't proven guilty right? Not necessarily that he was proven innocent? I'm not even sure on that, so happy to let a judge decide.
Also, anybody who has spoken to the man agrees; he ain't faking the tears. We just don't know for sure why he's crying.
Gerrie Nel was pretty sure he was faking when he was talking to him.
I appreciate my opinion is only an opinion. But I am flabbergasted that a judge could possibly say with any credence that they believed he thought there was an intruder
All these questions have to be approached from the opposite direction. It's innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.
But he admits shooting her. If he didn't say a word beyond that, they'd not need any more proof than they have, I reckon. So if his story doesn't add up, why do they need more proof?
You've been caught shooting someone pretty point blank, some responsibility falls on you to explain it, surely? Failing which all the evidence points to murder.
My understanding is that the prosecution case was always that Pistorious deliberately and intentionally set out to murder Reeva Steenkamp. The fact that his actions lead to her death is undeniable, but if they cannot PROVE his actions were entirely and specifically to kill her and her alone, under the letter of the law he cannot be found guilty of that crime. Now the fact that he was fully aware that he could/would kill the person behind the door is actually not the question - that is NOT the crime he was charged with.
It seems unfair but from the Judge's comments as the law stands her verdict is the only option. He can still go down for a number of other offences and will always be held as responsible for Reeva Steenkamp's death - but not her murder. No consolation to her parents I am sure, but that is the law... not always the same as justice sad to say.
All these questions have to be approached from the opposite direction. It's innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.
But he admits shooting her. If he didn't say a word beyond that, they'd not need any more proof than they have, I reckon. So if his story doesn't add up, why do they need more proof?
You've been caught shooting someone pretty point blank, some responsibility falls on you to explain it, surely? Failing which all the evidence points to murder.
Agree with this. I don't understand how you would ever evidence 'intent' in a domestic situation such as this to meet the apparent burden of proof required. The claim that the perpetrator thought there was an intruder could become a very popular defence after this case. In most domestic situations there are not going to be other witnesses.
All these questions have to be approached from the opposite direction. It's innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.
But he admits shooting her. If he didn't say a word beyond that, they'd not need any more proof than they have, I reckon. So if his story doesn't add up, why do they need more proof?
You've been caught shooting someone pretty point blank, some responsibility falls on you to explain it, surely? Failing which all the evidence points to murder.
Agree with this. I don't understand how you would ever evidence 'intent' in a domestic situation such as this to meet the apparent burden of proof required. The claim that the perpetrator thought there was an intruder could become a very popular defence after this case. In most domestic situations there are not going to be other witnesses.
The whole issue comes down to the prosecution case being that Pistorious knowingly attempted to murder Reeva Steenkamp specifically, and they just can't prove that. He was responsible for her death and will no doubt be jailed accordingly but the judge's statement is pretty clear as to why she feels the charge of murder is not correct. It's sad but it is the law.
Why doesn't discrediting the 'intruder' story prove it? If that isn't true there's no doubt what else happened.
Because from the Judge's statements, the prosecution have not/cannot prove that Pistorious didn't think it was an intruder. He fired in the knowledge he COULD kill whoever was behind the door and possibly with the intent to kill whoever it was... but the prosecution have not proven he knew it was Steenkamp and deliberately wanted to kill her specifically. The implications are there, but that isn't enough to send someone down for murder, it has to be proven - and in the Judge's eyes, and by extension the laws', it has not.
I do not for one instant condone what Pistorious did and I hope he goes down for as long as the law allows. BUT it does seem clear to me how and why the Judge reached the conclusion that she has, and has acted accordingly.
Listening to the guys on the radio tonight from sky news, there is generally a feeling in SA the judge has made an error on her interpretation of the murder verdict and that there is a belief that if the sentence is not lengthy and strong an appeal will be lodged
There are cases already of precadent that contradict her decision
There's a very good chance he will get in excess of 10 yrs for the 4 cases against him
There is a fair amount of baying for blood on this thread, and while I don't believe anyone locks the door at that time of night to take a pee, let alone take their phone with them, I'm happy to say a professional judge is far better positioned to get the law right than I am. Or most on this thread are. If he's cleared, it's because he wasn't proven guilty right? Not necessarily that he was proven innocent? I'm not even sure on that, so happy to let a judge decide.
Also, anybody who has spoken to the man agrees; he ain't faking the tears. We just don't know for sure why he's crying.
Listening to the guys on the radio tonight from sky news, there is generally a feeling in SA the judge has made an error on her interpretation of the murder verdict and that there is a belief that if the sentence is not lengthy and strong an appeal will be lodged
There are cases already of precadent that contradict her decision
There's a very good chance he will get in excess of 10 yrs for the 4 cases against him
She has to be persuaded beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecution have proved Pistorius murdered Steenkamp, that is, intentionally killed her. In simple terms, in her view they didn't achieve that.
She has set the scene for him to be sent down for culpable homicide, which attracts up to 15 years. On top of that are firearms charges. That's hardly 'getting away with it'.
There is a technical thing to understand in terms of the difference between 'common law murder' and 'culpable homicide'. The issue regarding the intent to kill is key, and there was a latin term used in the case (dolus eventualis) which basically requires that Pistorius knew that shooting at the door would kill the person behind it; that is, it was a direct consequence of his actions that he must have foreseen happening. (An example of this could be planting a bomb on a train to kill its driver knowing that the passengers will certainly be killed as well, but doing it anyway). If the judge felt that the state had failed to prove this, she can't issue a verdict of murder. The latter, culpable homicide, is the most likely here because - as the judge stated - any reasonable person should know that a person might have been killed if you shot at a door with someone behind it. Knowing with certainty and reasonably knowing there's a risk are very different things.
There's also a fundamental point that many of us are missing: it's not up to Pistorius to prove his innocence, no matter what he says in court and how reliable it is. The burden of proof is the prosecution's. It's up to the state to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he intended to kill Steenkamp. He has consistently stated he didn't know it was her behind the door, and in the absence of any hard evidence - what is there is circumstantial - there is clearly some doubt. Even if the judge believes Pistorius's testimony is dodgy, if the objective proof beyond reasonable doubt doesn't exist then she cannot issue a verdict of murder.
As others have said, the prosecution need to provide evidence of murder. I cant help but think the judge believed it was murder but perhaps thought that he was more likely to successfully appeal the charges. Whereas the evidence for manslaughter is concrete and would therefore ensure he spends a long time behind bars?
I don't understand the bomb analogy. Firstly this is surely an example that includes malice afore thought so doesn't explain why the lesser charge of common law murder doesn't apply in the pistorius case. Secondly what difference do the passengers make, it would surely still be murder if there was just a driver?
The key issue is about proving 'intent' beyond reasonable doubt as you say. In concluding that there isn't sufficient evidence of this the judge appears to have accepted pistorius story that he thought his girlfriend was in bed as a possibility. It follows that she has therefore accepted as a possibility that he thought he was firing at an intruder which may mean a much lower sentence than the 15 years you quote.
I don't understand the bomb analogy. Firstly this is surely an example that includes malice afore thought so doesn't explain why the lesser charge of common law murder doesn't apply in the pistorius case. Secondly what difference do the passengers make, it would surely still be murder if there was just a driver?
The key issue is about proving 'intent' beyond reasonable doubt as you say. In concluding that there isn't sufficient evidence of this the judge appears to have accepted pistorius story that he thought his girlfriend was in bed as a possibility. It follows that she has therefore accepted as a possibility that he thought he was firing at an intruder which may mean a much lower sentence than the 15 years you quote.
For malice aforethought the prosecution would need to prove Pistorious actually intended/wanted to kill whoever was behind the door instead of 'just' acting in a way that he knew might (probably would?) kill them. On the other hand his defense case is weak and his story inconsistent and so whilst the proof is not there it sounds from reports that the general opinion is that he murdered Reeva but the prosecution just couldn't quite make it stick. The judge is reportedly hardline on male to female violence so I am confident she will hand down as tough a sentence as she can in the circumstances.
Comments
More to the point, he doesn't have to provide any kind of reasonable explanation, and she dealt with that part too. He's presumed innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. It's up to the prosecution to prove - beyond reasonable doubt - that Pistorius murdered Steenkamp. Masipa has laid out in some detail why she doesn't feel they've achieved that; and the sticking point is proving intent in a case where most of the evidence is circumstantial, where witnesses have contradicted each other and where she's had to lay aside a fair amount of irrelevant evidence (such as the WhatsApp messages). She made it clear that from a legal standpoint Pistorious being unreliable and "evasive" is not in itself proof of the detail of the prosecution's case.
It's with good reason that cases are heard by independent judges and not the victim's families, and whatever Steenkamp's family (and we) may think the judge must and will weigh the evidence objectively and in consideration of the requirements of the law. It's likely he will be found guilty of culpable homicide - Masipa outlined that no-one can prove Pistorius knew shooting through the door would definitely kill the person behind it, but a reasonable person should know that was a possible outcome - which I think was always the most likely verdict having followed the trial throughout.
It never ceases to amaze me how people can judge from a distance having consumed little more than media reports. Masipa has heard every single piece of evidence over 6 months, has taken her time in coming to her judgement and is laying out her thinking in line with the detail of South African law - and I'm quite sure no-one on here has any depth of knowledge of that either.
Also, anybody who has spoken to the man agrees; he ain't faking the tears. We just don't know for sure why he's crying.
Oscar Pistorius trial: Why murder was ruled out
Premeditated murder
The state argued that Mr Pistorius had had an argument with Ms Steenkamp, after which he deliberately shot her dead.
The judge ruled this had not been proved, as there was only circumstantial evidence of an argument - uncorroborated witnesses' statements.
She also dismissed witnesses who said they had heard Ms Steenkamp scream before the shots were fired, or before the final shot.
"The state has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder," she said. "There are just not enough facts to support such a finding."
The judge found that he consistently said he had fired in the belief there was an intruder and she had no reason to disbelieve him.
However, he could also have been convicted of premeditated murder if he had intended to unlawfully kill an intruder but had instead killed his girlfriend.
She also ruled this out, saying: "The accused had the intention to shoot at the person behind the door, not to kill."
Common-law murder
He could also have been convicted of a lesser charge of murder, if he had unlawfully intended to kill in the heat of the moment but without "malice aforethought".
This could have covered either shooting at the door intending to kill, or knowing someone might be killed and still firing a gun.
But judge Masipa also dismissed this, saying: "The evidence failed to prove the accused had intention."
"Clearly he did not objectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door."
Culpable homicide (manslaughter)
This means there was no intention to kill but the actions were negligent and not in keeping with a reasonable person.
Judge Masipa was critical of Mr Pistorius' actions, saying that he had ample time to call for help, rather than going to confront a perceived intruder with a loaded gun.
"The accused had reasonable time to reflect, to think and conduct himself reasonably.
"The accused knew that there was a person behind the door, he chose to use a firearm which was a lethal weapon, was competent in the use of firearms as he had received training," she said.
The judge also took time to reject the defence arguments that Mr Pistorius is more likely to confront danger because of his disability - both his legs have been amputated.
"Vulnerability is not unique - There are many people in this country without any form of security at all," she said.
She summed up by saying: "The accused acted too hastily and used excessive force."
"It is clear that his conduct was negligent."
And then, she adjourned the hearing until Friday.
The sentence for culpable homicide is a maximum of 15 years in jail. Legal experts say seven to 10 years is more likely.
Other charges
Mr Pistorius also faces two charges of illegally discharging firearms in public and illegal possession of ammunition.
He could also be jailed for several years if convicted on these counts.
Come on, really?!
The bit about she had to take his evidence as they only one there seems crazy too, of course he's going to say he didn't mean to do it, that's not evidence.
The genuine tears are self pity, pure and simple.
You've been caught shooting someone pretty point blank, some responsibility falls on you to explain it, surely? Failing which all the evidence points to murder.
It seems unfair but from the Judge's comments as the law stands her verdict is the only option. He can still go down for a number of other offences and will always be held as responsible for Reeva Steenkamp's death - but not her murder. No consolation to her parents I am sure, but that is the law... not always the same as justice sad to say.
I do not for one instant condone what Pistorious did and I hope he goes down for as long as the law allows. BUT it does seem clear to me how and why the Judge reached the conclusion that she has, and has acted accordingly.
There are cases already of precadent that contradict her decision
There's a very good chance he will get in excess of 10 yrs for the 4 cases against him
She has set the scene for him to be sent down for culpable homicide, which attracts up to 15 years. On top of that are firearms charges. That's hardly 'getting away with it'.
There is a technical thing to understand in terms of the difference between 'common law murder' and 'culpable homicide'. The issue regarding the intent to kill is key, and there was a latin term used in the case (dolus eventualis) which basically requires that Pistorius knew that shooting at the door would kill the person behind it; that is, it was a direct consequence of his actions that he must have foreseen happening. (An example of this could be planting a bomb on a train to kill its driver knowing that the passengers will certainly be killed as well, but doing it anyway). If the judge felt that the state had failed to prove this, she can't issue a verdict of murder. The latter, culpable homicide, is the most likely here because - as the judge stated - any reasonable person should know that a person might have been killed if you shot at a door with someone behind it. Knowing with certainty and reasonably knowing there's a risk are very different things.
There's also a fundamental point that many of us are missing: it's not up to Pistorius to prove his innocence, no matter what he says in court and how reliable it is. The burden of proof is the prosecution's. It's up to the state to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he intended to kill Steenkamp. He has consistently stated he didn't know it was her behind the door, and in the absence of any hard evidence - what is there is circumstantial - there is clearly some doubt. Even if the judge believes Pistorius's testimony is dodgy, if the objective proof beyond reasonable doubt doesn't exist then she cannot issue a verdict of murder.
The key issue is about proving 'intent' beyond reasonable doubt as you say. In concluding that there isn't sufficient evidence of this the judge appears to have accepted pistorius story that he thought his girlfriend was in bed as a possibility. It follows that she has therefore accepted as a possibility that he thought he was firing at an intruder which may mean a much lower sentence than the 15 years you quote.
What utter nonsense.