Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #65~ the appeal~

[Mr Fossil]

I found this fascinating in terms of staging - copied from j13 comments

https://juror13lw.wordpress.com/201...tes-case-been-proven/comment-page-2/#comments

Sorry Lisa! Hope thats ok



One further point - in one version OP claimed he was inside the toilet within a couple of minutes of the incident.

This supports your theory Mr Fossil - later this was amended to be more like 5

Yes, the couple of minutes inadvertently stated by Oscar fits our version perfectly and we use this as part of our supporting argument.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Thank you so much soozieqtips! I searched through the transcripts at the end of the trial to find this quote but could never find it. I heard that so clearly, too. It was always so telling.

It's on page 534.
"I asked Reeva why... if she is phoning the police."

 

[Mr Fossil]

I think you have really hit on something here, Val. If she were pulling on the door handle with all her might to prevent him from entering the cubicle it explains why she was not in the only corner that would have provided any limited protection or on the phone or smashing the window open with the magazine rack, and why she was in front of the door.

Or she was is the process of closing, or had just closed, the door. This explains her leaning slightly too.

 

[Val1]

Just wondering if the room and the door were the only things hit with the bat.

I've questioned the autopsy results re the bruising too. I think they're consistent with having someone forcibly remove a pair of jeans, possibly being chased while someone is swinging a bat at you or perhaps someone poking her with a cricket bat while she lay bleeding to death. There was so little given on the autopsy results that it's a hard call. :/

http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/b7b061...ned-bruising-on-her-back,-buttocks-and-breast
"There were also bruises on the upper part of the right thigh that were not linked to the shooting and behind the left knee and the left shin."

 

[Val1]

Or she was is the process of closing, or had just closed, the door. This explains her leaning slightly too.

Perhaps, though that doesn't fit as well with my theory that OP terrorized her for upwards of the 15 minutes in question between the two sets of "shots", mostly with her in the toilet room, before he killed her. I can see her having screamed at any shooting at the bedroom door and while getting jeans forcibly removed, then having him come after her with the cricket bat and especially if she could see through the missing part of the door when he returned with the gun and opened fire, but I can't see her not taking cover in the toilet room for most of that time if she was being threatened. So unless you believe she had been shot first and just left there while OP set the stage, delivered the second set of "shots", then finally started calling in the troops to assist?

 

[Mr Fossil]

Perhaps, though that doesn't fit as well with my theory that OP terrorized her for upwards of the 15 minutes in question between the two sets of "shots", mostly with her in the toilet room, before he killed her. I can see her having screamed at any shooting at the bedroom door and while getting jeans forcibly removed, then having him come after her with the cricket bat and especially if she could see through the missing part of the door when he returned with the gun and opened fire, but I can't see her not taking cover in the toilet room for most of that time if she was being threatened. So unless you believe she had been shot first and just left there while OP set the stage, delivered the second set of "shots", then finally started calling in the troops to assist?

It fits our version based on the cricket bat before and after the gunshots, but also supported by the abrasions and the bullet trajectories. See www.cc11313.wordpress.com. Is it not also still consistent with your version, at least to some extent?

 

[JudgeJudi]

Just curious, Judge, why would you be uncertain? For reasons you've pointed out, they've had their kick at that can, haven't they?

The Constitutional Court deals almost exclusively with constitutional matters. The very fact that the Defence agreed that the trial could be televised with certain provisos would appear to me to mitigate that it was unfair. You can't just appeal because you want to, you have to have grounds. If the Defence was of the view pre-trial that it was unfair, but then consented, how could they now say that it was unfair? I agree, they've had their kick at the can, but I'm not a lawyer. Hopefully mrjitty can clear this up.

 

[janicelongbright]

I haven't caught up with reading yet , but it occurred to me to mention the Vanity Fair article on Pistorius' family and background . Can't remember now what i'ts called or who by and probably everyone else read it ages ago .
But it's an objective account , with a load of stuff I hadn't known anyway .
Thinking over the pre-meditation and he must represent a big risk to any girlfriends . I was thinking he must have a psycopathic rage about his imperfections which he suppresses constantly . The athletic and fitness stuff , concentrating his mind on persuit of physical perfection ! seem like the worst possible therapy .
Combined with his family's anachronistic colonial fascism.......he should be banned from contact with them too.

 

[Interested Bystander]

In Post 1136 I mention freeing up the timing of the bat sounds. I must have been half asleep. There would have been no bat sounds if hitting the metal plate caused the initial sounds but it would permit the bat MARKS not sounds to be made after shooting through the door.

 

[Marfa Lights]

That's impossible, he took a course that he passed 100% proving he knew it was unlawful, plus he knew what his gun and ammo were capable of(zombiestopper video). Now whether he stopped to consider the consequences of what doing that would actually mean to him just before he opened fire, probably not, but that's no excuse. If I had a flamethrower and used it on a house/car/boat/anything resulting in a death, you can bet I'd be charged and convicted of murder. Ignorance is seldom a viable defence, unless you're proven mentally incompetent.

I wish Nel had focused harder on Sean Rens' testimony (manager of the firearms training academy where Oscar was tested on the law for when you can legally use your firearm)-- or at least driven the point home for Masipa and crew. This was CRITICAL testimony that proved Oscar had knowledge and foresight of the unlawfulness of his actions.

It seemed like on so many occasions Nel made the assumption that Masipa and others would correctly interpret testimony or evidence without taking time to summarize or draw conclusions from each piece of evidence the State presented. I noticed that throughout the trial but thought maybe he did not want to offend the judge by making it seem like she might not draw the right conclusions. Worked for Roux though.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I haven't caught up with reading yet , but it occurred to me to mention the Vanity Fair article on Pistorius' family and background . Can't remember now what i'ts called or who by and probably everyone else read it ages ago .
But it's an objective account , with a load of stuff I hadn't known anyway .
Thinking over the pre-meditation and he must represent a big risk to any girlfriends . I was thinking he must have a psycopathic rage about his imperfections which he suppresses constantly . The athletic and fitness stuff , concentrating his mind on persuit of physical perfection ! seem like the worst possible therapy .
Combined with his family's anachronistic colonial fascism.......he should be banned from contact with them too.

In her messages Reeva clearly indicates she is frightened by him.

I think the article to which you refer was written by Botha who was withdrawn from the trial during the Bail Hearing. Somebody leaked to the press that he had been charged with attempted murder after trying to stop felons by shooting at the vehicle. I think most of us feel it was very conveniently reintroduced during the Bail Hearing to "finger" him. He was one of the first on the scene and walked through the crime scene. Having seen so many before it was his opinion that this was a pretty straightforward murder. He left the police force soon afterwards but since has never been charged with the offence as far as I can find.

This is the article. http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2013/06/oscar-pistorius-murder

 

[Trotterly]

I wish Nel had focused harder on Sean Rens' testimony (manager of the firearms training academy where Oscar was tested on the law for when you can legally use your firearm)-- or at least driven the point home for Masipa and crew. This was CRITICAL testimony that proved Oscar had knowledge and foresight of the unlawfulness of his actions.

It seemed like on so many occasions Nel made the assumption that Masipa and others would correctly interpret testimony or evidence without taking time to summarize or draw conclusions from each piece of evidence the State presented. I noticed that throughout the trial but thought maybe he did not want to offend the judge by making it seem like she might not draw the right conclusions. Worked for Roux though.

I think you're right and that he has continued this in the appeal by gambling that OP's state of mind makes no difference in this case.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

10:15pm: If you wanted to shoot at an intruder, how would you do it?
Pistorius says "probably heigher", makes reference to chest-height.

OP: "I fired because I got a fright."

Nel: "So we can conclude for once and for all that you did not intend to shoot an intruder based on the fact you shot at chest height."

OP: If that's what you say.

Nel: It's not what I say, it's what you say.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/oscar-p...of-grilling-20140414-36nem.html#ixzz3rB0VWMq0

The truth - but as always, he squirms out of it. :banghead:

 

[janicelongbright]

A question for Sherbet or Mr Jitty or anyone else who knows for that matter. Are the SCA judges obliged to accept the issues that Masipa ruled on as matters of fact? I understand that the State cannot appeal against them, but does it then follow that if she accepted something then they must too. I suppose I am asking if in essence they can deem him an unreliable witness when it comes to their looking at his evidence. TIA.

Hopefully the fact that she didn't make any specific findings by cause and effect , eg' Not guilty of D.E. because od GAD and no intention on the following facts.......'?

 

[janicelongbright]

In her messages Reeva clearly indicates she is frightened by him.

I think the article to which you refer was written by Botha who was withdrawn from the trial during the Bail Hearing. Somebody leaked to the press that he had been charged with attempted murder after trying to stop felons by shooting at the vehicle. I think most of us feel it was very conveniently reintroduced during the Bail Hearing to "finger" him. He was one of the first on the scene and walked through the crime scene. Having seen so many before it was his opinion that this was a pretty straightforward murder. He left the police force soon afterwards but since has never been charged with the offence as far as I can find.

This is the article. http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2013/06/oscar-pistorius-murder

Thanks , I have read the one by Botha and Guardian articles on how he was removed after he was found to be too rigorous in treating Pistorius as the prime suspect, ha ha .
This one is a psychologist or something , I think David someone , sorry to be so useless , I'm sure if You do a search on V. F. it shld be findable.........I made a note of it , but where is the note.......

 

[aftermath]

I wish Nel had focused harder on Sean Rens' testimony (manager of the firearms training academy where Oscar was tested on the law for when you can legally use your firearm)-- or at least driven the point home for Masipa and crew. This was CRITICAL testimony that proved Oscar had knowledge and foresight of the unlawfulness of his actions.

It seemed like on so many occasions Nel made the assumption that Masipa and others would correctly interpret testimony or evidence without taking time to summarize or draw conclusions from each piece of evidence the State presented. I noticed that throughout the trial but thought maybe he did not want to offend the judge by making it seem like she might not draw the right conclusions. Worked for Roux though.

BIB - I think what it proved is that when he took the exam, and perhaps by extension, when thinking rationally and reasonably about it, Pistorius knew that shooting at an intruder was only acceptable if his life was in genuine danger. But in pistorius's case he says he did believe it was in danger, (even if we know in hindsight that it wasn't.) And if you lived in SA and heard an intruder in your house, metres away, at three in the morning, you may well believe you were in danger.

I also think, that had he thought reasonably and rationally about it at the time, he would have realised that an attack on his life had not actually begun. However, I don't think he was thinking rationally and reasonably, (Just like Boshoff,and just like Mdunge)- instead, the panic and fear from the belief of an intruder, would have impacted on his ability to think calmly and clearly.

If he believed there was an intruder, it is understandable that he believed his life to be in danger.
If he then heard a noise, believed the door was opening and that an attack was beginning, that would have confirmed his belief that his life was in danger and so in responding by firing, he might (wrongly) have believed he was still defending himself within the law.

 

[mrjitty]

It fits our version based on the cricket bat before and after the gunshots, but also supported by the abrasions and the bullet trajectories. See www.cc11313.wordpress.com. Is it not also still consistent with your version, at least to some extent?

Also - I don't think she could see him

As we know, the trajectories support him coming round the corner and firing, advancing and firing

I think she was probably listening

 

[Giles]

Carte Blance video (11mins) summarizing the appeal.

Nothing new for most posters here except for a brief interview with retired High Court Judge Fred Beckley at the 8:40min mark.

http://carteblanche.dstv.com/player/955964

 

[janicelongbright]

Thanks , I have read the one by Botha and Guardian articles on how he was removed after he was found to be too rigorous in treating Pistorius as the prime suspect, ha ha .
This one is a psychologist or something , I think David someone , sorry to be so useless , I'm sure if You do a search on V. F. it shld be findable.........I made a note of it , but where is the note.......

Aha found it , Mark Seal articles in V.F..........not David at all...

 

[mrjitty]

BIB - I think what it proved is that when he took the exam, and perhaps by extension, when thinking rationally and reasonably about it, Pistorius knew that shooting at an intruder was only acceptable if his life was in genuine danger. But in pistorius's case he says he did believe it was in danger, (even if we know in hindsight that it wasn't.) And if you lived in SA and heard an intruder in your house, metres away, at three in the morning, you may well believe you were in danger.

I also think, that had he thought reasonably and rationally about it at the time, he would have realised that an attack on his life had not actually begun. However, I don't think he was thinking rationally and reasonably, (Just like Boshoff,and just like Mdunge)- instead, the panic and fear from the belief of an intruder, would have impacted on his ability to think calmly and clearly.

If he believed there was an intruder, it is understandable that he believed his life to be in danger.
If he then heard a noise, believed the door was opening and that an attack was beginning, that would have confirmed his belief that his life was in danger and so in responding by firing, he might (wrongly) have believed he was still defending himself within the law.

For the sake of argument, the contrary view is that you can fire because you are scared whilst also knowing that it is not lawful.