Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #67 *Appeal Verdict*

[akp]

BBM

However, Roux was not able to confuse most of us..there is no excuse for Masipa's performance..or miserable performance. It was obvious to me that he intentionally murdered Reeva!

Sure, he has not confused me either, I am still in the DD club. And I am not presenting any excuse for Masipa's verdict. To this day, her written judgement is a big puzzle to me - whether it is just incompetence or something else.

 

[mister happy]

BBM

Exactly! Why should he? He has already been convicted of murder. IMO, the bail system is designed/based on this concept ---> Innocent until proven guilty. However, if there is a potential of flight..a bail would still be denied. So in OP case..he was already found guilty of murder which could get him a 15-year jail sentence..this would increase the likelihood of a flight + He's well to do financially and his family is pretty powerful..this would also increase the likelihood of a flight = He should not be entitled to bail.

This bail thing is pure craziness. Does being out on bail count as time served?

 

[CriLondon]

Sure, he has not confused me either, I am still in the DD club. And I am not presenting any excuse for Masipa's verdict. To this day, her written judgement is a big puzzle to me - whether it is just incompetence or something else.

Somewhat comforting is the fact that even IF there was "something else" , it didn't get as far as the SCA , that I think we can say. So this hypothetical something else was "localized" and not "corporate" , this part is reassuring , assuming it exists.

 

[Val1]

Prior to the appeal, Roux asked the SCA to read only the most relevant parts of the trial record. Nel failed to convince the SCA to read the entire record. Judge President Mpati agreed with Roux and asked that the most relevant parts only be submitted. However, if they wanted anything else, they were able to access it.

BBM Thanks, that's what I was wondering about.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I am sure he was. Indeed, I am very sure he knows what happened that night. As I said, I never liked him one bit. But there is no denying that he did his best to save his client and did a fine job.

Those rules are there, but I doubt they are followed by everyone - if they were, half the court cases in this world would be resolved even before the trials started.

Yes, he fought tooth and nail for OP. I doubt whether OP appreciates just how hard.

I am sure you are right about the rules not being always followed but it does make a nonsense of the law if someone gets off because their barrister is prepared to be dishonest to do it. OP nearly got off a murder charge which cannot be right. If Nel hadn't had Prof G encouraging him I doubt whether he would have gone for an appeal. He readily admitted at the Appeal that "they know a lot more than me".

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

...i find it hard to imagine he will accept prison if he's innocent .....

What do you mean "If he's innocent"? He shot four black talon bullets into a tiny cubicle and shot dead Reeva.

 

[Val1]

‘Oscar told me how let down he had felt because I had testified against him,’ said Lerena, South Africa’s cruiserweight champion.
‘I explained that I didn’t have any choice, that I had been subpoenaed to give evidence and that it had been hard for me to do it. But he wouldn’t accept it. He insisted that I could have refused to do it. - Typically Oscar, nothing learned in prison. Me, me, me.

-.-.-.-

'He’s obviously kept up with everyone’s news while he was inside, and it must be painful to know that everyone else is getting on with their lives.'
Aha. Laptop, phone, all with Internet access? Or only visitors?
-.-.-.-

'No-one knows what happened that night Reeva was killed. I asked Oscar outright what had gone on. He told me "God knows what really happened that night". He said he didn’t feel he had to justify his actions to anyone as he and God knew the true story.
Pretty easy to say, "good" idea.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...just-days-convicted-murder.html#ixzz3tMsLF1Nq

I honestly have to admit, I feel sorry for him a little bit, when I'm reading the interview. But he has to learn of his guilt and of prison being punishment for murdering his girlfriend Reeva. Will he ever understand?

Wow, talk about manipulation.
" 'I can’t think about anything else right now apart from what’s coming up next for me, it’s big.'"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...just-days-convicted-murder.html#ixzz3tNZww1ua

Sounds to me like OP was rounding up his troops in the event there was a retrial, or at best, using emotional blackmail to guilt those who had betrayed him into improving his mitigation chances by way of his new mantra that he might "‘do something stupid’" to replace the old one of I thought she was a burglar to convince his supporters that he deserves better than prison because "He kept talking about how hard prison had been for him". It seems OP thinks prison shouldn't be any harder than his normal life....


Apparently it's working too... "Yesterday, after South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal dramatically overturned Pistorius’ manslaughter conviction and found him guilty of murdering Reeva instead, Lerena tried to phone him and sent a message of support."

 

[Colin de France]

What do you mean "If he's innocent"? He shot four black talon bullets into a tiny cubicle and shot dead Reeva.

........there's still not proof of murder.....the only person who really knows what happened is Pistorius....i think we've never been so close to getting the truth as now.....let's see how he reacts....

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

........there's still not proof of murder.....the only person who really knows what happened is Pistorius....i think we've never been so close to getting the truth as now.....let's see how he reacts....

You didn't explain what you meant with "If he's innocent". Do you think the verdict of Culpable Homicide = being innocent? Or do you think he never even pulled the trigger, which means he is innocent?

 

[Colin de France]

You didn't explain what you meant with "If he's innocent". Do you think the verdict of Culpable Homicide = being innocent? Or do you think he never even pulled the trigger, which means he is innocent?

........what i'm saying is that like everyone else on here i don't know what happened....if he is innocent of murder for example if there really was an intruder or any other unthought of reason why he shot then i can't see him going to prison without reacting ....for me murder is intentional....

 

[IfIMay]

........what i'm saying is that like everyone else on here i don't know what happened....if he is innocent of murder for example if there really was an intruder or any other unthought of reason why he shot then i can't see him going to prison without reacting ....for me murder is intentional....

we know a lot about what DIDN'T happen. Bless your naive heart. There is no "innocent" when we KNOW he shot through the door at a human being.

 

[Colin de France]

we know a lot about what DIDN'T happen. Bless your naive heart. There is no "innocent" when we KNOW he shot through the door at a human being.

.......it's not a question of being naive.....we don't know why he shot....i'm hoping something is going to happen which will make him admit the truth whatever it may be...

 

[Val1]

........what i'm saying is that like everyone else on here i don't know what happened....if he is innocent of murder for example if there really was an intruder or any other unthought of reason why he shot then i can't see him going to prison without reacting ....for me murder is intentional....

BBM - Just because he refused to say the words in court, compared to spouting them off to anyone who would listen and advance his story from the crime scene, equates innocence to you?

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1409/12/cspo.01.html
"PISTORIUS: My mistake is that I took Reeva's life.
NEL: You killed her. You shot and killed her. Won't you take responsibility for that?
PISTORIUS: I did, my lady.
NEL: Then say it. Say, yes, I killed -- I shot and killed Reeva Steenkamp.
PISTORIUS: I did, my lady."

 

[Colin de France]

BBM - Just because he refused to say the words in court, compared to spouting them off to anyone who would listen and advance his story from the crime scene, equates innocence to you?

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1409/12/cspo.01.html
"PISTORIUS: My mistake is that I took Reeva's life.
NEL: You killed her. You shot and killed her. Won't you take responsibility for that?
PISTORIUS: I did, my lady.
NEL: Then say it. Say, yes, I killed -- I shot and killed Reeva Steenkamp.
PISTORIUS: I did, my lady."

.....the context is missing.....that's the problem.

 

[Val1]

.....the context is missing.....that's the problem.

Which is something that only OP(the self-admitted killer), RS(the victim) and God(an entity that OP has been using to invoke public support since his arrest) knows for certain and two of them are unable to testify.

Therefore the only reasonable reliable context left is what evidence was left on scene(first hurdle), made it unscathed into court(second hurdle) and finally allowed by a sympathetic judge into evidence(third hurdle) could give us. So unless you expect OP to break and without reservation and truthfulness confess all, or some untampered with video of the whole event surfaces, then I think you're going to be disappointed.

 

[Susza]

[video=youtube;GArREWcB87o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GArREWcB87o[/video]

[BREAKING NEWS] NPA issues warrant of arrest for Pistorius

I don't understand this video. What does the scene filmed correspond to? Has OP been arrested or are this old pictures?

 

[Madeleine74]

The evidence is there were only 2 people in that house and 1 of them well-known to OP, was in the little loo. The evidence is OP took his gun with hollow point bullets and shot into that tiny loo 4 times. The intent was to hit whoever was in there with at least 1 bullet. He knew the outcome of that could be death.

That right there is culpable homicide and you don't need to know anything else for that charge.

I actually now believe it may well have been more than that. I think OP might have known it was Reeva, she ran in the loo to get away from him, and he grabbed his gun and shot 4 times at her. I think it was first degree murder.

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

........what i'm saying is that like everyone else on here i don't know what happened....if he is innocent of murder for example if there really was an intruder or any other unthought of reason why he shot then i can't see him going to prison without reacting ....for me murder is intentional....

I am really confused by your reasoning. BIB: "if he is innocent of murder for example if there really was an intruder". There was no intruder!
Are you saying that if there really was an intruder he would make a stink about going back to jail because he in innocent?????
For me, murder is intentional too, and that is just what he did, and what they 5 judges on the SCA found he did - shot with intent to kill. So that equals murder.

 

[Colin de France]

I am really confused by your reasoning. BIB: "if he is innocent of murder for example if there really was an intruder". There was no intruder!
Are you saying that if there really was an intruder he would make a stink about going back to jail because he in innocent?????
For me, murder is intentional too, and that is just what he did, and what they 5 judges on the SCA found he did - shot with intent to kill. So that equals murder.

....unless of course everyone's got it wrong and Pistorius comes out with the truth possibly for mitigating reasons......let's see how things play out .....

 

[soozieqtips]

Which is something that only OP(the self-admitted killer), RS(the victim) and God(an entity that OP has been using to invoke public support since his arrest) knows for certain and two of them are unable to testify.

Therefore the only reasonable reliable context left is what evidence was left on scene(first hurdle), made it unscathed into court(second hurdle) and finally allowed by a sympathetic judge into evidence(third hurdle) could give us. So unless you expect OP to break and without reservation and truthfulness confess all, or some untampered with video of the whole event surfaces, then I think you're going to be disappointed.

I remember this subject taking up several pages in the last thread. If OP murdered Reeva in a blind rage, what are the odds of him ever admitting it. Less than winning the lottery, I'd imagine. His image was very important to him, hence trying to get someone else to take the blame for Tasha's. I'm sure he's begun to realise that those who were on the fence about his guilt are now dumping him like radioactive waste since the murder conviction. At least with him sticking to his version/versions, there's the remote possibility that some people will still think it was just a tragic accident and not despise him for what he did. I'm sure after the adoration he enjoyed for so long that the disgust and revulsion must be hard to deal with. I don't ever see him admitting anything, and if his version/versions were true, then when Lerena asked what happened that night, why didn't OP just say "I already said what happened in court." If that's what happened, then wouldn't he say God knows, he knows and so does everyone who followed the trial?