Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #68 *Appeal Verdict*

[mister happy]

^^What is DS?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Well said ... and if there was a motive or if he had threatened a previous girlfriend with a gun ... or done more than slam a door in someones face but he had not and if there is a motive they were unable to convince me of one. As the latest judge put it they were an ordinary couple with a few ups and downs in their relationship. (something like that)

I will admit that if I sit and listen to all the bad things that Oscar ever did I end up with a pretty bad picture of him. It is Nel's job to paint that picture.

Then I do the same for me with my past and if I only consider my bad qualities I might turn myself in to the police for reckless behavior ... so, I try and figure out like everyone else why in the world this guy might want to shoot his girlfriend and I can't come up with anything ...

There are possibilities but that is all they are ...

" a rollercoaster ride of extreme highs and dangerous lows as Pistorius’s growing international celebrity, emotional fragility, broken promises and recklessness": Oscar: An accident waiting to happen - OP found himself in a downward spiral and on 13.2. the low point finally was reached, the "accident" - murder - happened. The motives he has veiled (whiping phone and so on) and he knows why. He "can't think", when he is just killing, but otherwise he is able to think (like a criminal).

 

[aftermath]

on the defences EVIDENCE

This is why OP testified to screaming before the shots

Remember the defence is not guaranteed that THE TIMELINE ® will be accepted in full.

Hence the need to have variation to cover different eventualities.

Well, yes, on the defence's evidence, because it's only the defence saying he went to the bathroom to investigate an intruder. But even on the prosecution’s evidence, Dr Stipo didn't report any screams before the first bang.

I understand what you are saying about him needing to account for screams heard- and I wouldn't even be surprised if he had over-egged his own truth a bit 'never screamed like that in my life, milady'(or wtte). But in terms of which screams were mistaken for a woman...It wasn't those initial ' investigate-the -intruder ' ones. And the term ' scream' can mean a few different things.

 

[aftermath]

Hi there mrjitty,

I think we should join together in singing ...

Round like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel
Never ending or beginning on an ever spinning reel
Like a tunnel that you follow to a tunnel of its own
Down a hollow to a cavern where the sun has never shone

Does it ever stop? That's why I prefer to roll and scroll. It is a never-ending circle.

A balanced circle though, of posters holding different views and arguing them. There is much repetition of points, ideas and arguments on all 'sides' of the discussion. It isn’t simply those holding the minority view in here who are prone to repetition and spiralling discussion.

 

[CriLondon]

^^What is DS?

I think that refers to DigitalSpy forums .

 

[Susza]

Ty for this link to a full copy of the SCA Judgment! I find this version/format much easier to work with and print than pdf.... Can any of you tell me what this format is called... is it "HMTL"? (I'm only asking because it might help me in trying to google another doc I've been trying to find for days now!)

I did a two-finger clic on the document (with touch pad) and that offers a number of options... one is: "informations sur la page"; concerning the type of text, it is indicated html.
Hmm, I'm probably a bit late, sorry.

 

[Tortoise]

Regarding 6., from a quick scan of the bail application, it looks as though Roux is seeking to argue that, as Masipa found that there was intention to shoot, the Defence of PPD should be available, in principle.

Reveals his lack of intelligence - if he doesn't understand that it is Pistorius' version that counts and not what the court found against him. Even Masipa said PPD could not succeed with his version (that he repeated til the cows came home) that he fired by accident. The fact that she then found he didn't fire accidentally isn't and never will be his version, and will bar him from succeeding with PPD in his appeal, if it is heard. He can never claim that his version is now reduced to the one Masipa constructed, it's laughable.

 

[Tortoise]

Yea but ... I don't see anywhere where he used a gun in anger with anyone. He did shoot a dog that was suffering but that is not the same or in anger. The shot thru the sunroof was just plain stupid and was not in anger. The gun in the restaurant caught him by surprise being passed to him because he was told only that there was one up not that it also had the clip still in it. Still his fault for even receiving a loaded gun but again it was just plain stupid and not done in anger.

Not saying it couldn't happen but there is no history ...

I got the distinct impression it was in anger, and that he was very angry that the cop touched his gun (and said his name wrong ).

 

[Susza]

In the moment of hearing a sound in the toilet of the door opening, what were his options? On his version, which wasn't rejected by the court. Is it utterly ridiculous to try to scare an intruder out of your house? I don't think it is.

BiB1: Well, OP was thinking about quite a good option, he spoke about that when crossed by Nel: firing a warning shot. But, he said, he was afraid of being injured by the ricochet.

BIB2: No, it's not utterly ridiculous, far away! When you "try to scare a SUPPOSED intruder" by shooting 4 hollow-point bullets through a closed door into a confined space it's called MURDER.

It seems OP prefered killing to warning.

 

[mrjitty]

Reveals his lack of intelligence - if he doesn't understand that it is Pistorius' version that counts and not what the court found against him. Even Masipa said PPD could not succeed with his version (that he repeated til the cows came home) that he fired by accident. The fact that she then found he didn't fire accidentally isn't and never will be his version, and will bar him from succeeding with PPD in his appeal, if it is heard. He can never claim that his version is now reduced to the one Masipa constructed, it's laughable.

Exactly.

 

[soozieqtips]

I got the distinct impression it was in anger, and that he was very angry that the cop touched his gun (and said his name wrong ).

BIB - That's right! He was extremely miffed that his precious gun had been touched.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/11/oscar-pistorius-clashed-police-officer-gun-court

"Shortly after being issued with a speeding fine they drove off, Fresco said, with Pistorius "furious someone else had touched his gun". "Then, without prior warning, he shot out the sunroof," he added. Fresco "instinctively" moved over to the right side of the vehicle and away from where the gun was shot, he said".

I know there will be those who say Fresco was lying, but at some point, it can't always be anyone other than OP who is lying. Sam Taylor backed it up too. And it sounds just like OP to lose it because he (the mighty and revered) had been challenged by a cop (a nobody to him). The audacity of it! But it goes to show you just how short OP's fuse was and how he liked to use his gun to make a point...

 

[Tortoise]

Another howler in the 'draft' appeal.

(After submitting that the SCA found his version was that he did not intend to shoot) - "The difficulty with the rejection of my version is that if I did not believe that I discharged the shots because of the perceived danger, and I did not have dolus directus, then why did I shoot?"

1. how is this of great public importance?
2. The SCA already decided that they did not need to have a motive for the murder.
3. You sound like a whining child
4. Whose difficulty is it exactly?
5. That's what you get for putting up two conflicting versions, neither of which was that you fired intentionally, to try and avoid a conviction of intentional murder
6. Masipa did not just reject the accidental shooting, she created a new version which excluded automatic accidental shooting; it was never your version that you positively acted and shot because you feared for your life, it was just no-time-to-think / think-the door-will-open shots, so you can't claim that the SCA left you without a version - you never had Masipa's version at trial.
7. because you are a murderer. off you go to jail.

:jail:

 

[Tortoise]

BIB - That's right! He was extremely miffed that his precious gun had been touched.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/11/oscar-pistorius-clashed-police-officer-gun-court

"Shortly after being issued with a speeding fine they drove off, Fresco said, with Pistorius "furious someone else had touched his gun". "Then, without prior warning, he shot out the sunroof," he added. Fresco "instinctively" moved over to the right side of the vehicle and away from where the gun was shot, he said".

I know there will be those who say Fresco was lying, but at some point, it can't always be anyone other than OP who is lying. Sam Taylor backed it up too. And it sounds just like OP to lose it because he (the mighty and revered) had been challenged by a cop (a nobody to him). The audacity of it! But it goes to show you just how short OP's fuse was and how he liked to use his gun to make a point...

Dicing with danger. Could have given Fresco hearing problems or even shot his ear. Who knows where the bullet might have come down? A car behind could have been hit, a fatal accident could have occurred. You'd think he was about 8 not 28.

 

[Colin de France]

Dicing with danger. Could have given Fresco hearing problems or even shot his ear. Who knows where the bullet might have come down? A car behind could have been hit, a fatal accident could have occurred. You'd think he was about 8 not 28.

.....pseudo gangster ....?

 

[aftermath]

.....pseudo gangster ....?

Maybe over compensating?

 

[DexterMorgan]

Imo. Judge Masipa was from the Winnie Mandela times. So Reevas case didn't stand too much of a chance. Jmo.

 

[Paul Connelly]

I've been thinking about this again, since someone posted a couple of days ago that it his disability gave him the power to do what he did (I'll see if I can go back and find it, I didn't think much about it at the time but it's been swilling around in the back of my mind ever since and it hit me this morning that it actually makes perfect sense).

Obviously its conjecture, but I think in that moment he felt entitled to kill Reeva because somehow or other, whether it was because she wanted to leave him or because of something else they argued about, he saw himself as an impotent victim with his amputated legs, and he was enraged by it. It has a strong possibility for me because he doesn't seem to feel any compunction about claiming he felt vulnerable when he shot her. I know he lies about everything though, but with it being such an ongoing massive issue for him even though he has lived all his life like that, there may be a grain of truth in there somewhere.

Hi Tortoise. I agree with almost everything but I think that his disability has never and will never leave him feeling impotent. I think he is a sociopath and he is all about control and imposing his will on his victims. I imagine that somehow Reeva discovered his dark side that had until then only flashed warning signs. I believe the evidence points to her leaving him that night and he could not stand for it. No sociopath ever would.

Fortune was not with Reeva that night because of Oscar's deep love affair with hand guns and particularly destructive rounds of ammunition. In my experience in the UK such partners are usually able to walk away without the sociopath murdering or seriously harming them. Even then though the sociopath will continue to target them and victimise them. It's hard to shake them off without help.

Oscar however, had the perfect means to dominate and instil fear into Reeva. He didn't need to suffer the indignity of her walking out on him. He had his ultimate symbol of power, his beloved handgun and he used it mercilessly as he got high, feeding on the the euphoria of Reeva's primordial screams and pitiful pleading.

In that moment he felt like a God, he'd showed her, she'd never again have the temerity to think she had any say in the matter. He owned her and now he'd ended her.

Since then, he's never quite had such an intense rush. Sure the PR campaign, applying the the acting lessons properly in court, manipulating Masipa and Du Toit, watching Roux humiliate himself on his behalf, all these gave him some reminder of the high he felt the night he taught Reeva who was really in control. But Oscar always wins... He'll bide his time, he can wait because he controls everything. The world is his playground, his personal running track, he is the champion and he's just biding his time so he can beat his personal best and relive once more the adrenaline rush he felt that night.

I honestly don't think Oscar gave a thought to his disability that night. I have little doubt it affects his personality at a subconscious level but he is incapable of feeling impotent. Impotence is the antithesis of what he feels and Reeva will forever be a testimony to that fact.

 

[cottonweaver]

Lord Owen in collaboration with a psychiatrist developed this in relation to politicians, I was reading about it re. Blair & Zuma. Equally Pistorius shares some of the characteristics. Here's the checklist, only some are expected to be present. The background is in the article linked.

1. A narcissistic propensity to see their world primarily as an arena in which to exercise power and seek glory; NPD.6
2. A predisposition to take actions which seem likely to cast the individual in a good light—i.e. in order to enhance image; NPD.1
3. A disproportionate concern with image and presentation; NPD.3
4. A messianic manner of talking about current activities and a tendency to exaltation; NPD.2
5. An identification with the nation, or organization to the extent that the individual regards his/her outlook and interests as identical; (unique)
6. A tendency to speak in the third person or use the royal ‘we’; (unique)
7. Excessive confidence in the individual's own judgement and contempt for the advice or criticism of others; NPD.9
8. Exaggerated self-belief, bordering on a sense of omnipotence, in what they personally can achieve; NPD.1 and 2 combined
9. A belief that rather than being accountable to the mundane court of colleagues or public opinion, the court to which they answer is: History or God; NPD.3
10. An unshakable belief that in that court they will be vindicated; (unique)
11. Loss of contact with reality; often associated with progressive isolation; APD 3 and 5
12. Restlessness, recklessness and impulsiveness; (unique)
13. A tendency to allow their ‘broad vision’, about the moral rectitude of a proposed course, to obviate the need to consider practicality, cost or outcomes; (unique)

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2009/02/12/brain.awp008.full

 

[Greater Than]

Regarding 6., from a quick scan of the bail application, it looks as though Roux is seeking to argue that, as Masipa found that there was intention to shoot, the Defence of PPD should be available, in principle.

Roux: At any time did you intend to kill reeva
Oscar: I did not intend to kill Reeva or anybody else Mi'Lady.

http://live.nydailynews.com/Event/Oscar_Pistorius_Murder_Trial_for_Reeva_Steenkamps_Death?Page=49


Oscar: It was accidental. My understanding is I didn't intent to shoot the intruder. I got a fright from someone inside the toilet.
Nel: You never fired at the intruders intentionally, the gun went off unintentionally?
Oscar: I didn't have much time to think. I dealt with a set of circumstances.
Nel: you're giving evidence. Did you shoot intentionally?
Oscar: I shot out of fear.
Nel: Because of fear you shot at them.
Oscar: I didn't intend to shoot at them, I didnt intend to kill someone. When I heard the noise from the toilet, I thought someone was coming out to kill me. I didn't have time to think.

Nel: Did your gun accidentally go off or did you fire at the intruders
Oscar: My firearm went off, it was an accident it happened. I fired my firearm before I could think

Oscar: At the time I fired the shot, I didn't have time to think. I didn't intend to shoot at anyone. I can't say I didn't. I never fired shots purposely into a door.

http://live.nydailynews.com/Event/Oscar_Pistorius_Murder_Trial_for_Reeva_Steenkamps_Death?Page=50


Nel: Did you fire deliberately, still accidentally.
Oscar: I'm still that I fired the gun out of fear. I didn't mean to pull the trigger so in that sense it was an accident.
Nel: I never meant to pull the trigger. You never wanted to shoot at intruders coming out of the bathroom.
Oscar: I didn't have time to think. I didn't want to shoot at anyone.
Nel: Whatever happened never caused you to shoot - it happened accidentally.
Oscar: The noise came from the toilet, caused me to pull the trigger. I didn't have time to think about it, I heard a noise, and I discharged my firearm.

http://live.nydailynews.com/Event/Oscar_Pistorius_Murder_Trial_for_Reeva_Steenkamps_Death?Page=52


Oscar: I didn't intend to shoot, when I heard a noise, I didn't have time to think. I fired my weapon. It was an accident.

http://live.nydailynews.com/Event/Oscar_Pistorius_Murder_Trial_for_Reeva_Steenkamps_Death?Page=53


Nel: If you did not want to shoot the person, what did you want to do.
Oscar: My intention was to make the person flee.
Nel: Nothing else.
Oscar: correct
Nel: And when you got into the bathroom there was nobody there.
Oscar: correct

http://live.nydailynews.com/Event/Oscar_Pistorius_Murder_Trial_for_Reeva_Steenkamps_Death?Page=55


Nel: But isn't your defence that you thought you were in danger and wanted to shoot the person in the bathroom.
Oscar: No
Nel: Is it your defence that you fired at the perceived attacker.
Oscar: I fired at the door

Nel: Is it your defence that you fired at the perceived attacker.
Oscar: No.
Nel: Then what is your defence
Oscar: I heard the noise and I didn't have time to interpret it and I fired my firearm out of fear.

Nel: I don't understand your defence you can't have two
Oscar: I understand
Nel: The way I understand the defence is that you acted in putitive self defence. that you fired at the attacker to ward off an attack.
Oscar: I didn't have time to think. I fired my firearm.
Nel: you defence has changed from putitive self defence to involuntary action.
Oscar: I don't understand the law.

http://live.nydailynews.com/Event/Oscar_Pistorius_Murder_Trial_for_Reeva_Steenkamps_Death?Page=56


Nel: IF your version now is that you fired because you were scared? Why only four, why not empty the magazine? Why not fire at the window. Did you not think there was someone on the window.
Oscar: My firearm was pointed at the door.
Nel: Did you not think of firing into the shower
Oscar: If I fired into the shower it could ricochet and hit me.
Nel: But firing into the door you should know it could hit someone.
Oscar: I didn't intend to fire my gun.

Nel: you thought the intuder was coming out, and they would have to turned the door handle. For them to get out the door they have to use the handle, and you could see it.
Oscar: I guess I didn't focus on the handle, I focused on the door as a whole.
Nel: Did you not fire at the handle.
Oscar: I can see that is not the case
Nel: If you wanted to fire at the intruder, where would you have fired.
Oscar: Probably at chest height, probably on the right.
Nel: So we can exclude that you fired to protect yourself.Did you fire to shoot an intruder.
Oscar: No I fired because I had a fright.
Nel: If there was an intruder in the toilet, would it have been an accident.
Oscar: I never intended to shoot anyone, yes.

http://live.nydailynews.com/Event/Oscar_Pistorius_Murder_Trial_for_Reeva_Steenkamps_Death?Page=57

 

[Paul Connelly]

Lord Owen in collaboration with a psychiatrist developed this in relation to politicians, I was reading about it re. Blair & Zuma. Equally Pistorius shares some of the characteristics. Here's the checklist, only some are expected to be present. The background is in the article linked.

1. A narcissistic propensity to see their world primarily as an arena in which to exercise power and seek glory; NPD.6
2. A predisposition to take actions which seem likely to cast the individual in a good light—i.e. in order to enhance image; NPD.1
3. A disproportionate concern with image and presentation; NPD.3
4. A messianic manner of talking about current activities and a tendency to exaltation; NPD.2
5. An identification with the nation, or organization to the extent that the individual regards his/her outlook and interests as identical; (unique)
6. A tendency to speak in the third person or use the royal ‘we’; (unique)
7. Excessive confidence in the individual's own judgement and contempt for the advice or criticism of others; NPD.9
8. Exaggerated self-belief, bordering on a sense of omnipotence, in what they personally can achieve; NPD.1 and 2 combined
9. A belief that rather than being accountable to the mundane court of colleagues or public opinion, the court to which they answer is: History or God; NPD.3
10. An unshakable belief that in that court they will be vindicated; (unique)
11. Loss of contact with reality; often associated with progressive isolation; APD 3 and 5
12. Restlessness, recklessness and impulsiveness; (unique)
13. A tendency to allow their ‘broad vision’, about the moral rectitude of a proposed course, to obviate the need to consider practicality, cost or outcomes; (unique)

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2009/02/12/brain.awp008.full

It is well known that a high percentage of politicians in senior positions display traits within the sociopathic and psychopathic spectrums. Psychopathy can actually be useful in such positions of responsibility and can be productive. Sociopathy is never useful because it is always destructive and sociopaths are out and out predators and their motivations are different to psychopaths despite sharing a number of the above traits.

Whereas a psychopath is always careful to keep their true nature concealed, a sociopath will frequently revel in eventually revealing their true nature to their victims. This is how they get their kicks. Whereas psychopaths can be dangerous, sociopaths are always dangerous. Few psychopaths end up in prison, whereas, in comparison, prisons are full of sociopaths.

I'm glad you raised this because it's my belief that this is where we sleuths should be focussing our attention, rather than the hypothetical debates around the "intruder".

I suppose the Weskoppies refferal put paid to further discussion in this area but for me this is where we can find answers to the many questions raised.