Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #62 ~ the appeal~

[aftermath]

" The conclusion, that because an accused is untruthful he is therefore probably guilty, must be guided against, as a false statement does not always justify the most extreme conclusion."

T.Masipa LLB.
:facepalm:

She is absolutely right though!

 

[cottonweaver]

In Masipa-world, of course she is right.

 

[soozieqtips]

In Masipa-world, of course she is right.

Yes, bless her. And don't forget if you cry and show remorse, that also indicates you didn't mean to kill anyone, because let's face it, no murderer in the history of the world has ever cried or shown remorse in the hope of passing off the murder as an "accident"

 

[aftermath]

Yes, bless her. And don't forget if you cry and show remorse, that also indicates you didn't mean to kill anyone, because let's face it, no murderer in the history of the world has ever cried or shown remorse in the hope of passing off the murder as an "accident"

How would someone who killed a loved one by mistake then found themselves accused of their murder behave?

 

[soozieqtips]

How would someone who killed a loved one by mistake then found themselves accused of their murder behave?

The point was Masipa implied that because OP cried... he couldn't have intended to kill Reeva. That's absolute rubbish because murderers often cry and feign remorse when trying to get off a murder charge. If this were about a nobody, I'm sure people would find the invisible intruder story laughable in the extreme. OP's not special just because he's famous. Try approaching his fairytale from a non-celebrity point of view and see if you're still willing to believe it.

 

[Colin de France]

The point was Masipa implied that because OP cried... he couldn't have intended to kill Reeva. That's absolute rubbish because murderers often cry and feign remorse when trying to get off a murder charge. If this were about a nobody, I'm sure people would find the invisible intruder story laughable in the extreme. OP's not special just because he's famous. Try approaching his fairytale from a non-celebrity point of view and see if you're still willing to believe it.

....exactly.......isn't this case surely one of the greatest judicial farces ever to have existed......if Pistorius was some unheard of kid from a local council estate he would of been doing his life sentence by now and no one would of even noticed............

 

[aftermath]

The point was Masipa implied that because OP cried... he couldn't have intended to kill Reeva. That's absolute rubbish because murderers often cry and feign remorse when trying to get off a murder charge. If this were about a nobody, I'm sure people would find the invisible intruder story laughable in the extreme. OP's not special just because he's famous. Try approaching his fairytale from a non-celebrity point of view and see if you're still willing to believe it.

His celebrity status has nothing to do with how I have formed my opinions on this case. Conversely, however, I think that for some there may well have been a bit of celebrity schadenfreude in the media demolition of a sporting 'hero'.

I don't think that Mdunge's account of what happened when he shot his pregnant wife was laughed at?

 

[cottonweaver]

If this were about a nobody, I'm sure people would find the invisible intruder story laughable in the extreme. OP's not special just because he's famous. Try approaching his fairytale from a non-celebrity point of view and see if you're still willing to believe it.

RSBM

Plus factor in his youth & good looks. Without those the majority of his overwhelmingly female supporters would not be interested and I'm not the first to say that is quite disturbing.
If you look at the petition page FromGermany posted 3 pages back - they are nearly all women on there. Some of them have signed it 3 times under different variations of their own name!

 

[Interested Bystander]

The point was Masipa implied that because OP cried... he couldn't have intended to kill Reeva. That's absolute rubbish because murderers often cry and feign remorse when trying to get off a murder charge. If this were about a nobody, I'm sure people would find the invisible intruder story laughable in the extreme. OP's not special just because he's famous. Try approaching his fairytale from a non-celebrity point of view and see if you're still willing to believe it.

I am sure you know that Masipa was originally a social worker before she took up law. She sees him as a "naughty boy" rather than a violent criminal. How wrong she is. There is every chance he will get into more trouble once he gets out into the big wide world again. His uncontrollable temper will let him down.

 

[soozieqtips]

His celebrity status has nothing to do with how I have formed my opinions on this case. Conversely, however, I think that for some there may well have been a bit of celebrity schadenfreude in the media demolition of a sporting 'hero'.

I don't think that Mdunge's account of what happened when he shot his pregnant wife was laughed at?

BIB - depends if one was aware he was a sporting hero in the first place. I'd never heard of him until he killed Reeva, and many others here had never heard of him either. So maybe the "some" you're referring to are on other forums?

As for Mdunge's account... wasn't his wife coming out of the bathroom when he shot? He actually saw the door open, shot once- unlike OP who shot four times at a perceived sound and never laid eyes on the so-called threat. Mdunge then rushed his wife to hospital if I recall.

He didn't delay getting medical help for her, unlike the "celebrity" who was too "saddened" to get help, but wasn't too sad to phone a friend or ensure his phone "disappeared". You may know more details about the Mdunge case than I do, but from what I know, his wife was still alive when he rushed her to the hospital. OP didn't give Reeva that chance with his delaying tactics.

Interestingly, I do remember OP borrowing parts of Mdunges story in his own testimony when he talked about a window opening, moving slowly down the hall, and being in 'fear' for his life. Do you remember that? Why would people laugh at Mdunge's defence? It's nothing like OP's fairytale.

 

[cottonweaver]

His celebrity status has nothing to do with how I have formed my opinions on this case. Conversely, however, I think that for some there may well have been a bit of celebrity schadenfreude in the media demolition of a sporting 'hero'.

I don't think that Mdunge's account of what happened when he shot his pregnant wife was laughed at?

BIB I have heard that before. I very much doubt this is a "Tall Poppies" instance. Where was he so celebrated? S.Africa.
But the SA public were hugely dismayed by all of this.
The SA establishment used him in every way they could - this is partly why he had had so much special treatment over the years. Even post sentencing the sports minister did not want to exclude a future role. OP was good news for a govt. that was "drifting".
Their sports minister:
"“(Oscar’s sentencing) has been a very sad moment for us in sport, in the sense that he was the epitome of wisdom, skill and triumph over adversity...Mbalula admits he was a big supporter of the “golden boy” and used his pulling power for several sports campaigns.

He said that Pistorius would have been the perfect ambassador for the Unite 4 Mandela campaign due to take place in Tshwane next month.

“One of the ambassadors of such a campaign would have been Pistorius to unite us as a nation… a white Afrikaner boy who triumphed over adversity. He made blade running fashionable.”
Asked whether he foresaw a future role for Pistorius in any capacity in South African sport, Mbalula said: “We will cross that road when we get there.”"

 

[Marfa Lights]

Er, there were 4 witnesses who heard female screams, 2 who heard female crying, 3 who heard male crying and 1 who heard OP crying. BIB - huh? The timings are of vital importance. Clearly 2 different perceptions of a sound at the same time indicates that someone misheard something and so the state can't claim that the screams had to be Reeva's. I have just given the evidence but it has been ignored as far as I can see.

Okay, but that means you are willing to ignore (or dismiss) Estelle van der Merwe's testimony about hearing a woman with an irritating voice arguing sometime between 2:00 and 3:00 a.m. (Oh, yes... well, of course, she could have simply been mistaken.)

You are also willing to ignore the testimony of four neighbors (the Stipps and Burger/Johnson) who all claim to have heard, distinctly and without doubt, a woman screaming in mortal fear immediately after the first bang/shots between 3:00 and 3:08. (Impossible you say... she could not have screamed after the first bang/shots because as we all know, Oscar had already killed her.)

These screams, however, continued until the final 4 bang/shots were heard at approximately 3:15 after which time the woman's screams ceased. Moments later a man is heard shouting 3X for help and then the next door neighbors report hearing Oscar crying in great anguish.

Yes, timing does matter and the fact that neighbors heard Oscar crying in anguish AFTER the last bang/shots does not in any way discredit the four witnesses who claim to have clearly heard a woman's screams after the first bang/shots, when Oscar claims to have shot and killed Reeva.

That's what's hard for me to ignore.

 

[Fuskier]

http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/The-P...mmies-20140928

Here is an excerpt taken from Judge Greenland in The Problem with the Oscar Pistorius Judgment – For Dummies. 28 September 2014

"...Was the Court right to simply accept that Oscar’s story was “reasonably, possibly true”?...
The answer is NO..."
"... The supporters of the judgment are saying no more, no less than that that the Court was right in accepting Oscar’s story “hook, line and sinker”...given that he was the only witness I will accept that Yes the Court was not wrong to accept the story “hook and line”...
"In terms of “hook and line” we accept his story until the stage he is at the door and pointing the firearm. What we cannot accept is the “sinker” that firing 4 shots was without any purpose whatsoever and involved no intention to disable a perceived human threat and excluded any foreseeabilty that a human MIGHT be killed"...
"A Court of justice simply must not be that gullible...Such a finding is not only NOT possibly, reasonably true. It is arbitrary and irrational. Arbitrary and irrational are to justice as oil is to water".

 

[mirage1]

The photos were compromised. I don't know if that means the court should throw them all out, but it certainly should mean that they treat them with caution and don't rely on them too much to make the case for murder.

Where is the evidence the photos were compromised? This is a huge allegation and needs to be supported.

Because the photos were compromised there is no way of knowing for sure whether the big fan was unmoved. The big fan might not have been moved to exactly where pistorius indicated. Is there no margin for memory inaccuracy? Is the expectation that a person remembers every precise detail?

The duvet could have fallen to the floor when he was searching for her or after getting his legs on, for example. It could have fallen on the floor when she left the bed.

The Duvet could not have fallen on the floor because Oscar claims thats where the fans were.

Weirdly, even if you are right about the reliability of the photos and none of the possibilities mentioned above were applicable, Pistorius could have lied about the whole fan-moving incident and still be innocent of deliberately killing Reeva Steenkamp

Oh really? Considering the fan moving incident is the entire reason Reeva slipped behind him unnoticed into the bathroom, can you explain how he can be innocent? You just admitted Oscars story can be a lie yet it can still be considered reasonable probably true?? lol

 

[mirage1]

It's not irrelevant at all. The state called van Rensberg as the police witness to what happened to the scene from when the police arrived up till when the photos were taken. His evidence indicated that he was in a position to give this evidence because he was the first on the scene and controlled the scene throughout up to and including when the photos were taken. However, his evidence was contradicted by police affidavits and Botha's bail hearing evidence. How can you then say the state can rely on photos when they didn't call all the relevant police witnesses and there's evidence that the main police witness may at the least have been mistaken about who was on the scene?
.

What do the photos have to do with who was at the scene?

 

[mirage1]

Er, there were 4 witnesses who heard female screams, 2 who heard female crying, 3 who heard male crying and 1 who heard OP crying. BIB - huh? The timings are of vital importance. Clearly 2 different perceptions of a sound at the same time indicates that someone misheard something and so the state can't claim that the screams had to be Reeva's. I have just given the evidence but it has been ignored as far as I can see.

So 6 different people heard a female either crying of screaming? How much more damning you can get? Do you need 20? Ever heard of someone mistaking a male scream for a female? The timing is secondary because there were multiple noises, heard from multiple locations. Someone might perceive a scream as crying, people were being woken from a sleep so exact details might not be accurate etc, but the key is they heard a female. You cant just ignore that because of semantics.

 

[GR_Turner]

" The conclusion, that because an accused is untruthful he is therefore probably guilty, must be guided against, as a false statement does not always justify the most extreme conclusion."

T.Masipa LLB.
:ignore:
:sweep:
:lookingitup:

This is Masipa quoting another judgement!! S v Mtsweni 1985 (1) 590 (AD) Other judges have also quoted this judgement for this very same thing.

 

[aftermath]

Where is the evidence the photos were compromised? This is a huge allegation and needs to be supported.



The Duvet could not have fallen on the floor because Oscar claims thats where the fans were.




Oh really? Considering the fan moving incident is the entire reason Reeva slipped behind him unnoticed into the bathroom, can you explain how he can be innocent? You just admitted Oscars story can be a lie yet it can still be considered reasonable probably true?? lol

Reliability of photos compromised as things were moved (see earlier post). Also, key photos were omitted from what pros presented, times on photos showed two photographers not one.

Fans might not have been exactly where pistorius indicated (mentioned in earlier post). Why the expectation of total accuracy as to remembering where something was?

Yes I can.... what if fan was just outside on the balcony, then he got up to move it in just inside - and not so the cord was stretched out, or where the duvet appears to have fallen, but where it is in some of the photos - in the middle, just inside. He then closed doors, locked doors, sorted curtains etc and during this time reeva went to the bathroom. It gives less time for her to have gone unnoticed but that doesn't mean she couldn't go unnoticed. ... Realising later the trouble he was in, (murder charge) and possibly even as confused and disbelieving that he didn't register she had left the room as many of those who followed the case, it is possible that Pistorius embellished the fan movement to convince those in judgement that he would have been too preoccupied moving fans to see reeva leave, ( and to stretch out the 'leaving the room' time). This is all just speculation and hypothetical of course. If he did exaggerate the fan movement it would be an incredibly stupid thing to do. But it still wouldn't make him guilty of the deliberate murder of reeva steenkamp.

 

[GR_Turner]

So 6 different people heard a female either crying of screaming? How much more damning you can get? Do you need 20? Ever heard of someone mistaking a male scream for a female? The timing is secondary because there were multiple noises, heard from multiple locations. Someone might perceive a scream as crying, people were being woken from a sleep so exact details might not be accurate etc, but the key is they heard a female. You cant just ignore that because of semantics.

The state's case is that female screaming must be Reeva and the defense case is that high pitched male crying (heard by the close neighbours) was heard as female screaming by other neighbours. If you look at the evidence it shows both that male crying was mistaken for female crying that night, and that female crying was heard at the same time as female screaming. It's not semantics - its the evidence that you said in your earlier post doesn't exist.

 

[GR_Turner]

What do the photos have to do with who was at the scene?

The police appear not to have been honest about who was there and when and yet they claim the photos taken at 6am show the scene at 4am. How do they know this if there were other people coming and going?