Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #63 ~ the appeal~

[soozieqtips]

Whose opinion is it, -Martin Hood's? Difficult to comment without having some idea of what he is basing his opinion on... In the meantime I would opt to stick with comparing the expert opinions of Mangena and Wolmarans

How did I know you'd dismiss that as well as anything else that shows the killer in a negative light? This isn't about truth or justice at all. Plus, if you hadn't dismissed it so fast, you'd have seen what he was basing his opinion on - the grouping of the shots and the fact it appeared OP was using both hands, not one. Hood is a South African legal expert who is experienced with guns himself. Funny (or predictable) that you'd diss him as well...

 

[Colin de France]

You believe that witnesses heard Reeva screaming. How would pistorius hear her screams as he fired, without ear protection?

....if he had ear protection he woudn't hear anything at all......never mind ..

 

[soozieqtips]

You believe that witnesses heard Reeva screaming. How would pistorius hear her screams as he fired, without ear protection?

If he was so deafened by the shots, how was he able to phone his friend after? How do you know he was rendered totally deaf - because he said so?

 

[cottonweaver]

Agreed. There is also freeze. I'll refer to it as the Fff response from now on to save on typing.

My implication was that it was something that apparently , "expert" Derman, conveniently left out in his testimony. ( Engaging critically with the erroneous or distorted evidence in the Defence's case as we all like to do .....)

 

[GR_Turner]

I can think of three people who won`t like this article, but I thought it was good.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ar-pistorius-freed-from-prison-not-surprising

You're right about the reaction . The following could hardly be further from the truth (unless you watched CNN, apparently):

"The case remains controversial for very good reasons. From the moment news of the killing broke in February 2013, Pistorius was given a sympathetic hearing by much of the world’s press. Long before the case came to court, reporters uncritically repeated his defence, framing the story as a piece of tragic news involving a world-famous athlete and divorcing it from any wider context."

I particularly like the way the writer objects to reporters who 'uncritically repeated his defense'. How should they report his defense then? Bizarre.

 

[aftermath]

Yes it is Martin Hood`s and he is basing it on the same evidence we all saw and heard. He was a commentator throughout the whole trial. But OK, ignore it since it doesn`t fit with your panicked shooting standpoint.

Is he a ballistics expert or firing instructor? If not, then I would choose to prioritise the considered opinion of those who are. What's wrong with that? In the extract you posted he said he owns more than one firearm, which certainly gives him more experience with guns than me, but that doesn't make him qualified to give an expert opinion. His opinion is valid, but without knowing hid experience/ ability to make accurate judgement Re gun grip, grouping, etc, it is hard to know what to say in response to his comments

 

[aftermath]

....if he had ear protection he woudn't hear anything at all......never mind ..

....so firing either with or without ear protection he wouldn't hear screams?...

 

[cottonweaver]

I can think of three people who won`t like this article, but I thought it was good.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ar-pistorius-freed-from-prison-not-surprising

I appreciate this isn't what your'e currently discussing , I'm playing catch up with old posts but before the article get's lost, for future reference here's a snippet....


"The case remains controversial for very good reasons. From the moment news of the killing broke in February 2013, Pistorius was given a sympathetic hearing by much of the world’s press. Long before the case came to court, reporters uncritically repeated his defence, framing the story as a piece of tragic news involving a world-famous athlete and divorcing it from any wider context."

 

[lithgow1]

You're right about the reaction . The following could hardly be further from the truth (unless you watched CNN, apparently):

"The case remains controversial for very good reasons. From the moment news of the killing broke in February 2013, Pistorius was given a sympathetic hearing by much of the world’s press. Long before the case came to court, reporters uncritically repeated his defence, framing the story as a piece of tragic news involving a world-famous athlete and divorcing it from any wider context."

I particularly like the way the writer objects to reporters who 'uncritically repeated his defense'. How should they report his defense then? Bizarre.

I think the article is referring to his version of events, not the defence case in itself. The same version of events that the bail magistrate noted had serious flaws that required explanation. And why shouldn`t they report it with a critical (as in dissecting it) view? Seems any scepticism would be viewed by you as bias, despite his `story' sounding incredibly far fetched. And while on the subject many SA reporters were sympathetic in their coverage of the trial, probably they were all hoping for a scoop interview. It wasn't just CNN.

 

[aftermath]

If he was so deafened by the shots, how was he able to phone his friend after? How do you know he was rendered totally deaf - because he said so?

How long would the impact on hearing of shooting inside without ear protection last? On the defence version, there was a significant period of time between the shots ( did Roux say 3:12ish?)and the 3:19 call to Stander. I don't know that he was rendered totally deaf, and didn't say that.

 

[cottonweaver]

Ah GRT.......didn't see you'd already picked it up.

You clearly are familiar with the Guardian's initial coverage of the case. What stood out for you? Why has writer Joan SMith got it so very wrong?

 

[Colin de France]

....so firing either with or without ear protection he wouldn't hear screams?...

........well the neighbours certainly heard the screams that's for sure .....

 

[cottonweaver]

"Pistorius sobbed and vomited his way through his trial as though he, rather than the woman he killed, deserved public sympathy. Now it seems as though those tearful histrionics have served their purpose.

In a country where gender inequality is entrenched, this is how easy it is for a well-known man to usurp the role of victim."

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ar-pistorius-freed-from-prison-not-surprising

Joan Smith obviously didn't get it that wrong after all.

 

[aftermath]

How did I know you'd dismiss that as well as anything else that shows the killer in a negative light? This isn't about truth or justice at all. Plus, if you hadn't dismissed it so fast, you'd have seen what he was basing his opinion on - the grouping of the shots and the fact it appeared OP was using both hands, not one. Hood is a South African legal expert who is experienced with guns himself. Funny (or predictable) that you'd diss him as well...

I didn't diss him. I just said I would stick to ballistics /gun experts' opinions without knowing Martin Hood's own experience and knowledge in such matters.

 

[aftermath]

........well the neighbours certainly heard the screams that's for sure .....

Some neighbours certainly believe they heard her screams...

 

[Colin de France]

"Pistorius sobbed and vomited his way through his trial as though he, rather than the woman he killed, deserved public sympathy. Now it seems as though those tearful histrionics have served their purpose.

In a country where gender inequality is entrenched, this is how easy it is for a well-known man to usurp the role of victim."

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ar-pistorius-freed-from-prison-not-surprising

Joan Smith obviously didn't get it that wrong after all.

.....reminds me of something i thought of before about how strange the trial was....it seemed as if the role of the prosecution and the defense was reversed as if the defense became the prosecution against the state for having falsely accused an innocent and the prosecution became the defense defending Reevas right to justice......

 

[Colin de France]

Some neighbours certainly believe they heard her screams...

....glad you agree ....

 

[soozieqtips]

How long would the impact on hearing of shooting inside without ear protection last? On the defence version, there was a significant period of time between the shots ( did Roux say 3:12ish?)and the 3:19 call to Stander. I don't know that he was rendered totally deaf, and didn't say that.

He didn't say a word about being rendered deaf/partially deaf by the gunshots in his affidavit. It only came up during his testimony when he was blustering his way through the "no female screamed that night" garbage.

 

[aftermath]

He didn't say a word about being rendered deaf/partially deaf by the gunshots in his affidavit. It only came up during his testimony when he was blustering his way through the "no female screamed that night" garbage.

Are you saying that firing without ear protection would not have affected his hearing?

 

[Colin de France]

Are you saying that firing without ear protection would not have affected his hearing?

......taking it that he coudn't hear anything maybe that would explain why he fired four shots ........just to make sure she was dead ..........