Oh well, then you must enjoy your fiction served up by an acknowledged fabricator with more reason than most convicted murders to lie.

I suppose it is inevitable he will fool a few people but thankfully the vast majority can apply simple common sense to see straight through his obvious charade.

Not at all. I just don't buy into over-simplistic, predictable and familiar fiction-plots that quickly categorise its characters into binary good or bad.

Life and people - like the fiction I prefer to read - are far more messy and complex. As your favourite judge, Eric Leach, said: this was a human tragedy of Shakespearean proportions.

For god sake how is this so bloody difficult. A man lifts a gun and walks towards another human with the intent to shoot them, takes a position and fires 4 lethal bullets with the intent to kill that person regardless , and kills them ,then it's NOT AN ACCIDENT. It can never be an accident , it can never bea mistake , it's murder. It really is that simple. It's MURDER.

I don't really like the word "accident". It is better to say that he murdered Reeva by mistake thinking that she was an intruder.

No arguments that it's murder. It's what the court decided.

So he murdered Reeva in the mistaken belief he was murdering someone else ? ok . Well that's an interesting excuse.

I don't read fiction myself but I'm surprised that it is a reliable predictor of how someone views the OP case.

Why does it have to be an excuse? It's just what the courts found.

Eventually! . And with a luck and a fair wind the court will find that murder should be appropriately punished for a bloody horrible shocking crime.

Similar comments to the one in your first post ... Perhaps smh.com has scoured the pistorious fan threads ?

"But we think it could actually backfire against the state now. The Supreme Court of Appeal judges won't do anything with the sentence to make it longer, they could actually make it shorter and Oscar could be out sooner. We feel relaxed about it, justice will take its course."

Myra Hindley put forward mitigating arguments and a defense. It is not too late to put in an application for a posthumous royal pardon

The evidence suggests that there is nothing in mitigation to suggest that the public are safe in future from OP and plenty to be fearful of.

You don’t read fiction yet you chose to believe all the ‘fiction’ Pistorius spouts.

I am assuming you believe his noisy intruder who scales walls without a ladder merely to use the toilet story

Only Masipa's court found that. I am sure that if they where prompted by the prosecution then they may have revisited that finding and came to a different conclusion.
You porky can not pretend that they agreed with Masipa so your statement above is untrue

In truth there are no substantial and compelling mitigating factors except in Masipa’s imagination

On the other hand there are several substantial and compelling aggravating factors.

Just a thought, would Masipa be so incompetent as not to know the difference!

Indeed Masipa’s ignorance is shown by the fact she gave as a mitigating factor the fact Pistorius was a first offender. This is a misapplication of the law. The minimum for a first offender is 15 years. For a second offender the minimum increases to 20 years. The fact that he is a first offender is already taken into account by the provision of the lesser minimum sentence of 15 years.

A breathtaking ignorance of the law.

The next time I hear someone breaking in I'll try to remember to waste time thinking about how they got there .

The SCA found that he murdered Reeva and the High Court found that he thought she was an intruder so it's not untrue.

Spot on Jeremy old chap

Your inference was that the high court concurred with Masipa. They did not. They simply did not disturb the findings due to the fact the prosecution turned down the high courts invitation to revisit those findings.
Your statement I referred to is untrue

No one broke into Oscars. Even if he did he had many options to avail himself and Reeva of the position he thought he was in. The evidence provided was totally implausible that he did not know of Reeva's position in that situation. Further to that his testimony was rejected yet believed on the vital points that mitigated his sentence.
I regret giving you as much credence as I did in the earlier part of this trial.

I made no such inference.

Follow the thread. I said:

"I don't really like the word "accident". It is better to say that he murdered Reeva by mistake thinking that she was an intruder.

No arguments that it's murder. It's what the court decided."

and then:

"Why does it have to be an excuse? It's just what the courts found."

The courts did not and do not need to concur that he mistakenly murdered Reeva.

So in essence you believe Pistorius' intruder story then despite the SCA finding there were 'inherent improbabilities in his version'

Just check your family are all safely tucked up in their beds, especially the person sleeping next to you

Tissy stop confusing the issue with what is blindingly obvious to most but not all.

In this case Pistorius was on a very urgent mission to shoot someone in the toilet, a real person this time, not a washing machine, so he just didn’t have time to do a stock check of who was in his house!

It is an extraordinary story but it fits the relevant evidence better than the bits of story that the prosecution were able to come up with.

No Porky , Roux came up with the extraordinary and mostly unbelievable arguments to try and patch together a credible defence for Pistorius's bollox story. A very few bought it. Sadly one of them was Masipa. And a few gullible Pistorius fans.
There was nothing extra ordinary about this case. It was in fact rather mundane run of the mill stuff.