Oscar Pistorius on trial

Certainly everyone knows that double amputee and Olympic "blade runner" Oscar Pistorius has been on trial for killing his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp. The only relevant question is whether he did it intentionally, or if the shooting was a tragic accident.

Though the incident itself took place well over a year ago on Valentine's day, with Pistorius himself finally taking the witness stand for the last few days, the trial is at its climax. Because there's no jury system in South Africa where this is taking place, it all boils down to what lady Judge Thokozile Masipa chooses to believe.

Let's face it. Only Oscar knows for sure if he fired those bullets through the bathroom door knowing Reeva was behind it -- or whether he indeed suspected it to be an intruder in violent crime-ridden South Africa.

Enter a typical rabid prosecutor, throwing various guilty scenarios at the wall hoping one of them will stick. First up, he accused Pistorius of being an egotist. He might well be, but that's hardly relevant to making one a murderer. If such were the case, most professional athletes, everybody in Hollywood, and every last politician would be serving a life sentence. So let's dismiss that nonsense.

Ah, but Oscar allegedly discharged a firearm through the sun-roof of a vehicle a few years ago. Though Oscar denied it ever happened, this juicy tidbit comes courtesy of a former girlfriend (and one of HER "friends") he dumped a while back. Hell hath no fury like -- but draw your own conclusions.

The bull-dog prosecutor, one Gerrie Nel, has seized on Oscar's emotional testimony. Because Oscar has broken down and cried while having to relive that horrible night under cross-examination, Nel maintains he's faking it for effect. Think about that, and the alternative. If Pistorius was to remain stoic, the prosecutor would no doubt accuse him of being stone cold and showing no remorse over the death of his girlfriend. In other words, Oscar's demeanor while testifying makes no difference. The prosecutor's going to paint him as guilty either way. Heads I win -- tails you lose.

Whether Pistorius had his prosthetic legs on at the time, hence the angle of the bullets going through the door, is also irrelevant. So is the fact bumbling cops contaminated the "crime" scene. None of this matters. Everyone on all sides universally accepts that Oscar fired four shots through that door, and Reeva was behind it, causing her to suffer fatal wounds.

The most important question is why, but there are a few others as well. One can believe Oscar feared for his (and Reeva's) life and justifiably shot at what he thought was in intruder in their home. Or one can believe Oscar knew it was Reeva behind that door all along.

But what possible motive would he have to intentionally kill her in such a fashion? Perhaps because they had an argument? Please. Couples occasionally arguing is certainly nothing out of the ordinary. It happens all the time. And even prosecutor Nel hasn't insinuated Oscar is stupid. Surely, Pistorius would have known discharging his weapon at whoever was behind the door in such a manner would bring incredible scrutiny from the cops.

To boot, if he wanted shed of Steenkamp for whatever reasons, intentionally killing her in his own house is probably the dumbest possible thing he could have done. Also, even the prosecutor can't seem to find other typical motives -- like the faintest hint of any "blackmail" thing Reeva could have been holding over Oscar's head. Much easier to just show her the door. It's over. Hit the road. And it's not like a guy like Pistorius wouldn't have other beautiful women standing in line wanting to hook up with him.

Such prosecutorial arguments based on "guilty" theories, without evidence to back them up, can and have swayed juries in the past into voting for a conviction. And let's face it -- these days as soon as someone is charged with a crime -- hordes of knee-jerk, lemming arm-chair prosecutors presume they're guilty -- before all the evidence, or lack thereof, has even been presented in a court of law. While prosecutors no doubt love this phenomenon -- it hardly makes it righteous in the whole scheme of how the justice system is supposed to work.

But as mentioned above, there is no jury of laypeople to be swayed in the Pistorius murder trial by Nel's accusations and unfounded theories. Judge Masipa has a sterling reputation as being respected, competent, eloquent, and reserved. She is also unlikely to be swayed by frivolous arguments from either side. In the end, the long term future of Oscar Pistorius will rest in her hands.

Was it a tragic accident, as Pistorius has claimed? Or was it an intentional act of murder, as the prosecutor is desperately trying to prove?

Beats me, but assuming he's innocent until proven guilty going in, so far I've seen nothing anywhere near close enough to be convincing at the trial to warrant Oscar being convicted of murder.

We'll see how it plays out next week.....