Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #65~ the appeal~

[aftermath]

Perhaps. Or perhaps it was just necessary BS. Clutching at doors so to speak. That sounds more likely.

Didn't the door supposedly make a scraping noise from the timber rubbing against the frame when it was opened? Would have to be a very poor fitting door if just leaning on it, while locked, produced a scraping noise.

I don't remember how Pistorius described the noise his door makes, but it wouldn't have to be a scraping noisethat he heard .. Just the noise of the door 'wood moving' in its frame, that could be misinterpreted as the door opening

 

[lithgow1]

I don't remember how Pistorius described the noise his door makes, but it wouldn't have to be a scraping noisethat he heard .. Just the noise of the door 'wood moving' in its frame, that could be misinterpreted as the door opening

Going by the juror13 blog he said, under cross, that it makes a 'knocking noise'. Have pasted the relevant part and link in below. Interesting that Nel points out that this is the first time he has mentioned the noise. Just reading through that day's evidence looking for the info impressed on me again just how much BS his whole story is.

Oscar says he was standing in the bathroom with his gun pointed at the door. His eyes were going back and forth from the window to the door. He heard a noise from inside the toilet. Nel asks what noise. Oscar said it sounded like wood moving. He thought he heard the door opening. Nel points out that this is the first time ever that Oscar has mentioned he heard the door open. He says to Oscar, you perceived a lot of things but it’s not in the record that you heard the door open. Why now?

Oscar says he thought he heard it, not that he heard it, that’s perception.

Oscar says that door doesn’t open properly and when you open it there is a knocking noise. That’s what he thought he heard.

https://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/oscar-trial-day-20-oscar/

PS On the following day, he says it makes a 'clicking' noise. When pressed as to what the noise could have been, since the door didn't open, he says it was probably the magazine rack. But as has been pointed out, it can't have been. Unless of course Nel's theory, that he heard her falling against the rack after the first shot, is the correct one. Again, reading it through it seems so obvious he is just lying. Whenever he is pressed on things he has added he claims he told his legal team and they neglected to include them in his bail app and plea explanation. If he is not tailoring and embellishing then that is shoddy work by one of the country's top defence lawyers.

 

[sorrell skye]

For those of us who watched the trial every day, Oscar Pistorius's BS adjustment of his testimony in response to the brilliant Gerry Nel's cross-examination made it clear as day to anyone with any sense that OP was lying through his teeth (to anyone besides Judge Masipa and the 2 assessors, that is).

IMO, it doesn't matter one whit how OP described the sound of the door, the fact of the matter is that he fired 4 rounds through a door - at a human being.

He was fully aware that those four rounds of Black Talon bullets would kill whomever was in that toilet cubicle.

 

[Marfa Lights]

Reeva was very close to the door when she was shot. Perhaps she leaned against it to listen to what was going on in the bathroom and it made that creaking noise some wooden doors make in their frames (when leaned on). This could have been the 'wood moving' noise that Pistorius said he thought was the door opening.

Re: BIB-- Somewhat less likely when a door is locked, IMO.

I think it was one of those moments when he was able to incorporate a partial truth into his story-- like many others, I think the wood noise he heard was Reeva falling against the magazine rack after the first hip shot. He then re-aimed AT THE NOISE and fired three more rounds, hence the downward trajectory. It was easy for him to "honestly" recall and testify that he heard a noise and fired in reflex without hesitation.

Either way, hearing a noise does not quite meet the standard of an attack being imminent or underway. His failure to identify the threat resulted in the death of Reeva. Is this negligence or a willful assault on an unidentified human target? Is it justifiable to shoot someone just because they are inside your house uninvited?

So, we are still asking:
1) If you accept that he held a genuine belief there was a dangerous intruder in his toilet, and thereby entertain his claim of PPD, then was this just an unfortunate mistake with inadvertent consequences? Was he merely negligent in his response to a genuinely perceived threat and therefore guilty only of culpable homicide?

2) Or should Oscar be held more accountable for creating the dangerous circumstances that night by deliberately responding with such aggressive action and using overwhelming lethal force before properly assessing the threat? We will never know the truth of what was in his mind, but do his apparent decisions and actions indicate an intentional homicide of the perceived intruder (i.e. murder in the form of Dolus eventualis)? Did Oscar execute the intruder?

 

[lithgow1]

I don't remember how Pistorius described the noise his door makes, but it wouldn't have to be a scraping noisethat he heard .. Just the noise of the door 'wood moving' in its frame, that could be misinterpreted as the door opening

Still on this door thing, don't you find it troubling or puzzling that the first time he mentioned his perception of it opening due to a specific noise was during cross examination? It is one of the most critical factors, if not the most critical, in causing Reeva Steenkamp's death and yet what the noise was is not mentioned in his bail app, plea explanation or EIC.

He doesn't specify until he is pushed to do so. By his version this noise directly caused him to kill the 'love of his life' and yet he doesn't bother to even state what it was. You'd think he would have replayed that noise over and over in his head, trying to figure out why it led to him making such a terrible error, tried to explain to the court what it was so they would understand his reaction but nah. Just a noise.

 

[janicelongbright]

W

Re: BIB-- Somewhat less likely when a door is locked, IMO.

I think it was one of those moments when he was able to incorporate a partial truth into his story-- like many others, I think the wood noise he heard was Reeva falling against the magazine rack after the first hip shot. He then re-aimed AT THE NOISE and fired three more rounds, hence the downward trajectory. It was easy for him to "honestly" recall and testify that he heard a noise and fired in reflex without hesitation.

Either way, hearing a noise does not quite meet the standard of an attack being imminent or underway. His failure to identify the threat resulted in the death of Reeva. Is this negligence or a willful assault on an unidentified human target? Is it justifiable to shoot someone just because they are inside your house uninvited?

So, we are still asking:
1) If you accept that he held a genuine belief there was a dangerous intruder in his toilet, and thereby entertain his claim of PPD, then was this just an unfortunate mistake with inadvertent consequences? Was he merely negligent in his response to a genuinely perceived threat and therefore guilty only of culpable homicide?

2) Or should Oscar be held more accountable for creating the dangerous circumstances that night by deliberately responding with such aggressive action and using overwhelming lethal force before properly assessing the threat? We will never know the truth of what was in his mind, but do his apparent decisions and actions indicate an intentional homicide of the perceived intruder (i.e. murder in the form of Dolus eventualis)? Did Oscar execute the intruder?

WE Know ,because the evidence that convicts him of D.D. adduced in the trial itself wasn't persued, someof the most glaring being :

1. They conceded he was on stumps , at 5 ft tall. From between 6 and 9 ft from the door and the downward projection , he would have had to have held the gun above his head .

2 In any case he said he held the gun at waist level with arm bent . At waist level a 5ft tall person cant produce downward projection at around 4f high tbullet holes.They would have entered the door at around 18 inches high.

3. The 2 ballistics experts reports all record, and they testified in court, that the bullet holes height and their projections downwards could not , by all the laws of physics, match the crime scene . They said they couldn't explain how why the bullets would have to have to have entered and exited in a downward projectory and turned upwards in mid-air. in the case of some bullet hloles , and in others they posited all manner of crazy senarios to try have the bullets hit the other side of the door .

There are countless other farcical facts of this trial . That the door was put physically in the courtroom , as a stage set , added to the farce , of 'how can we appear to give pistorius an excuse for materially evidential D.D.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

The State versus Oscar Pistorius
Monty Fossil and Judge Judi take another look at the evidence

Just to say that our site is back (links above and below). Judi and I will be adding more posts soon but I have another commitment to attend to first so the roll out rate will slow (I'll try and get a couple of shorter ones out next). I'll also be updating and adding links to the various resources I've posted in the past (e.g. phone charts, timeline etc.) so that they're accessible in one place.

Reappraising the evidence

• The abrasions on Reeva’s back – impressions of the gun?
• The bathroom window - the moment that everything changed? (coming next)
• The bedroom door – when was it damaged?
• The bullet trajectories – what does the maths tell us?
• The cricket bat – which came first?
• The phone data – was someone awake?

“That’s correct M’Lady. I don’t remember phoning the security (btw= great BS, IMO) though but I … from the phone records I see that there was a call made … from my cell phone to the security [pause 28 seconds].

Umm, after, it was after I got off the phone with the, with the, umm, Netcare 911 call centre I ran downstairs to open the front door. I could barely pick Reeva up. I wouldn’t have been able to open the doors and carry her so I ran … I opened my bedroom door, umm, and I opened the front door [pause 11 seconds].
There is a 28 second pause before he starts this part of his testimony. Is this significant?

28 seconds pause= He is thinking how to say, he has called Netcare 'call center' after "not knowing" to have called security, BUT simultaneously NOT to say he has called Netcare. Then he is stuttering "after - after -I got off". I think, the problem is an untruth re Netcare.
IMO of course.

 

[janicelongbright]

IMO, it would be good news if the law in SA were changed, so that, in a case such as this, ie., a case where a wholly innocent person is shot, the burden of proof were reversed, so that the accused has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he shot because he genuinely believed his life was in danger.

On one of the news items on video posted here , there is , I think the guy who was on with Phelps , saying that " the burden of proof WAS on the defence", to prove any defence they relied on . So it must say so somewhere in S.A. law ,according these ,indefensible cicumstances .

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Mr Fossil + JudgeJudi

I opened my bedroom door, umm, and I opened the front door [pause 11 seconds].

... 11 seconds pause to think "yeah and let Frankie in" ... IMO.

I then ran back up to my room and on the way into my room I tried to sh… tried to force the door open.

Which word did he choose first and then said instead of "to force ...", I would like to know.

So I ran into the door and, umm, it didn’t break open and I, I unlatched the bottom latch and when I unlatched the bottom latch the door, the door opened.

He had a shoulder injury and "had to sleep on the other side of the bed", but RAN INTO THE DOOR and if I remember well, he did the same with the toilet door as he said. Tough, this guy!
I'm 100% believing his running into doors; I'm not believing his reason for supposedly to have changed the bedsides.

 

[cottonweaver]

Apols for posting the video on the error previous page - It would not edit to remove. There is nothing worth listening to in that video really.

 

[janicelongbright]

BBM

I agree..I also believe that during the gap between the two sets of sounds..he was thinking of a story to tell. There is no question in my mind that he murdered Reeva..

Except that there weren't 2 sets of sounds .' Ear' witnesses heard only gunshots . The bats sounds were invented to SUBSTITUTE for the gunshots heard . No one HEARD 2 sets of sounds .

 

[cottonweaver]

Mr Fossil + JudgeJudi



... 11 seconds pause to think "yeah and let Frankie in" ... IMO.

I agree all his pauses are suspicious ( but excused by others as due to grief) but FG, I would have thought Frankie had his own set of keys to the house as he was the housekeeper for many years.

I do now wonder whether when OP shouted " GTF Out of my house!" , it was actually shouted to Frankie who entered the house due to the commotion.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Mr Fossil + JudgeJudi


... 11 seconds pause to think "yeah and let Frankie in" ... IMO.


Which word did he choose first and then said instead of "to force ...", I would like to know.


He had a shoulder injury and "had to sleep on the other side of the bed", but RAN INTO THE DOOR and if I remember well, he did the same with the toilet door as he said. Tough, this guy!

BIB I would suggest 'shoulder'. He had previously barged the toilet door using his left, uninjured shoulder.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Except that there weren't 2 sets of sounds .' Ear' witnesses heard only gunshots . The bats sounds were invented to SUBSTITUTE for the gunshots heard . No one HEARD 2 sets of sounds .

Both the Stipps said they did.

 

[lithgow1]

I agree all his pauses are suspicious ( but excused by others as due to grief) but FG, I would have thought Frankie had his own set of keys to the house as he was the housekeeper for many years.

I do now wonder whether when OP shouted " GTF Out of my house!" , it was actually shouted to Frankie who entered the house due to the commotion.

Virtually everything is excused by 'grief' or some variation thereof but 'self interest' never gets a mention. All tailoring, embellishments and lies are accepted and then brushed aside. On the other site that I know you read too, someone has claimed that if he were lying he could have just said he warned the intruder, so I am now awaiting someone to ask the obvious question of 'And then what?'. Intruder doesn't answer so he shoots anyway? Reeva answers but sounds like a dangerous intruder (fear would excuse that you see) and shoots anyway?

I have no doubt that the 'GTF out of my house' was shouted at Reeva. It fits with an angry argument, it is the sort of last resort thing someone would say in such a scenario, and unlike most of his testimony it had the ring of truth. Surrounded by lies IMO, but a kernel of truth.

 

[Mr Fossil]

28 seconds pause= He is thinking how to say, he has called Netcare 'call center' after "not knowing" to have called security, BUT simultaneously NOT to say he has called Netcare. Then he is stuttering "after - after -I got off". I think, the problem is an untruth re Netcare.
IMO of course.

I don't think so. JJ and I will give our version after we've put up some more evidence. At this point he is about to give new detail in his version for the first time and he is thinking about what he has to cover.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Mr Fossil + JudgeJudi

Would it be quite impossible, that OP had carried Reeva (alive, bleeding) downstairs, then someone said to him "not a good idea re intruder" and he carried her upstairs again (alive, bleeding), then finally first witnesses showed up and he again carried Reeva downstairs (now dead, not bleeding)?? - That would explain the many blood spatters to the left and the right up-/downstairs, on top of couch on the first floor etc.

 

[mrjitty]

IMO, it would be good news if the law in SA were changed, so that, in a case such as this, ie., a case where a wholly innocent person is shot, the burden of proof were reversed, so that the accused has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he shot because he genuinely believed his life was in danger.

I would not go that far, re reversal of burden, but I do believe there is still room for particular reforms and Judges also need to perform.

The key point is that the facts as proven by the prosecution give rise to natural and obvious inferences.

The victim has been found dead from multiple gunshot wounds. The weapon is recovered. The shooting is effectively intentional, even if mistaken.

The first thing which needs to be carefully policed is the evidential burden on the accused to prove at least some facts to form the basis of self defence. It has never been the case that this defence can simply be alleged. Although burden of proof is always on the prosecution - the accused must create an evidential foundation.

IMO Masipa failed this aspect by claiming merely that OP's version was not disproved. Firstly this was in many respects incorrect (e.g photos). But secondly the burden was on OP to prove such facts. And what facts did he actually prove in this regard?

Second - I think the kind of reforms seen in England should be applied.

If you wish to rely on key matters at trial in the nature of self defence, alibi etc - these should be reasonably disclosed at police interview.

IMO it is not valid that OP should be relying on key factual assertions (screaming like a woman/bats etc etc) without a pretrial statement.

The detail of his version should have been provided at police interview.

That prevents this kind of nonsense!

 

[mrjitty]

RSBM

Yes, she definitely did misdirect herself as far as her reference to his belief that Reeva was in the bedroom was concerned.

But I don't see how that impacts upon her factual finding that OP lacked dolus vis a vis the intruder.

Even if OP did everything else wrong, surely her acceptance of his belief that he was under attack saves him from DE?

Do you think that excessive force and subjective foresight of death is all that the State needs to prove to win the Appeal?

These are really great questions.

IMO the path way for state is that followed by Justice Leach - which is why I hope he writes the lead judgement.

At the moment there are 2 findings of the trial Court that the state needs reversed

Finding 1. The accused lacked the requisite Dolus/Intention for murder (DE)

Submission. The Judge asked the wrong question/misdirected herself.

IMO the State has a good chance here. The misdirection is on the face of the judgement. The Court can then strike out Masipa's application of the legal test and effectively say that is not the right question to ask here. Its obvious there must be foresight (even to a child!) and on top of that PPD is pleaded which implies foresight.


Finding 2. The accused acted in PPD

Submissions. The Judge found a genuine belief of an intruder. But there was no evidence/finding of an immediate threat or life in danger. The Judge did not correctly apply the test.

IMO this leg could have been difficult if Masipa had bothered to write a coherent judgement.

But again she actually failed to

a) State the PPD test correctly in relation to the facts
b) Outline all the facts relevant to the test

So while I agree the state has work to do, on the face of it - this is a very strong appeal - and the Justice's clearly recognise that

If it were weak sauce, you would have seen them challenging Nel on that - but instead they were challenging Roux on it.

So in summary - I do actually think that the excessive and unreasonable force proven at trial, is actually sufficient for the state to rely on.

I always return to a simple legal substitution argument.

If we open the door and there is an intruder in the toilet - could self defence succeed?

Legally not IMO.

(of course practically speaking , if you open the toilet and there is a man with a gun in there, this case never goes to trial!)

 

[mrjitty]

The State versus Oscar Pistorius
Monty Fossil and Judge Judi take another look at the evidence

Just to say that our site is back (links above and below). Judi and I will be adding more posts soon but I have another commitment to attend to first so the roll out rate will slow (I'll try and get a couple of shorter ones out next). I'll also be updating and adding links to the various resources I've posted in the past (e.g. phone charts, timeline etc.) so that they're accessible in one place.

Reappraising the evidence

• The abrasions on Reeva’s back – impressions of the gun?
• The bathroom window - the moment that everything changed? (coming next)
• The bedroom door – when was it damaged?
• The bullet trajectories – what does the maths tell us?
• The cricket bat – which came first?
• The phone data – was someone awake?

Fantastic work this!

IMO the phone data is slam dunk.

I can't for the life of me understand why the prosecution did not demand that the defence show how the "random" connections could happen?

This is something that can so easily be tested

From my investigations -there are not many apps that would create these autonomous connections