Oscar Pistorius guilty of murder now.

Public opinion here used to be fifty-fifty, IMO the shenanigans he pulled and the general sense of entitlement portrayed by his family have made it seventy-five against.

Of more importance than this silly little man, the confusion in our law caused by the trial judge has been cleared up.

Technical point: he is not out on bail; correctional supervision is generally NOT available for convicted murderers. Possible for the prosecution to move for a lower court order to jail him pending sentencing, let the defence at least apply for bail. Hopping off my soapbox now

ETA: I have now had an opportunity to read the judgement given earlier today. The conviction (culp h) AND sentence were set aside so some commentators are saying the next step is an arrest, not an approach to the court to haggle over bail.

I found the trial judge so confusing. After everything she said I couldn't believe he didn't get Murder. Reeva's family have been so dignified- I hope this helps them a little.

I stuck my neck out (heartily endorsed her) when the J in question was allocated the case. She is a sharp cookie, tough as nails. I was beyond gobsmacked at the circularity of her reasoning; the charitable way of looking at it, with hindsight, is that she was over-cautious and or overawed by the media circus. 

It is convention. She is now bound by the "tariff" (we don't have the same word as you lot in the UK) and, absent mitigating circumstances yada yada she must just apply it.

We were discussing some of these points earlier and now your answers have clarified things, thank you ScrapsontheRocks.  

It does seem more like a just verdict this time around.

Me too.

I'm not sure I have questions, the whole case is murky for me. I see both sides of the case. I can see how he could think it was an intruder and I can see how it could be domestic violence. The case itself and then the random appeal is just... weird... to me. 

Forgive me for sounding naive, I thought once you were tried and convicted of a crime, you could not be tried again. I do realize though that he was tried for manslaughter the first time around and not murder.

And who appealed? The courts, her family?

I'm sorry, the first time around I paid a lot of attention to the story and watched several shows on it. Then just recently I had heard he was due to be released.

Weird, no arguments. Plenty of that. I have to dispute "random" though: we have a hierarchical system. Lower courts (the magistrates' courts) are bound by high court decisions. The Masipa judgement was a mess and left questions of law wide open: a family shooter in another case has already tried to use the Pistorius case to get off. Those who say the prosecution appealed due to their bruised egos, wish to persecute Oscar P etc were way off.

Is your judicial system more similar to Dutch than British? I did not think of the comparison before, but anyone familiar with the Natalee Holloway case 10 years ago might remember how different Dutch procedures were.

I hope the judge can stand up to all of this scrutiny again. Can she recuse herself, or is she obligated to follow through on assigned cases?

Apologies, I am totally unfamiliar with modern Dutch Law. Our criminal system is grounded in Ancient Roman Dutch law but codified in Legislation so the Act of Parliament overrides, older decisions and practices may be used in argument where a gap in the law exists. Off to google the case you mentioned.

ETA: apologies, I did not answer your Q on the judge. If judge M has a good reason not to follow through, it will be handled by another judge in her division. This is not encouraged, though, as it is time consuming and very costly for a new judge to go through YEARS of official court records. If it helps, the Appeal Court ruling this morning was not critical of her character or record in any way- they recognized pressure, complexity and so on and were quite kind. I would not have been kind at all.

Thank you. I see your point. The family of Oscar P may possibly be seen in a similar way. Obscenely wealthy and very connected. 

Caveat:  I am not a lawyer.  In the US, if the original verdict is appealed, a higher court can overturn the ruling. However, it is remanded back to the trial court to be retried if they find the judge made an incorrect ruling or a juror was compromised, for example.  A higher court can not review the case and convict on a higher charge or impose a harsher sentence.   In the US, the defense has the right to decide between a jury trial (or not) so not all cases are decided by a jury.