Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #68 *Appeal Verdict*

[KarenUK]

I'm a dedicated "lurker" following the case very closely and find the whole unfolding detail incomprehensible. A small point, but irritating, is the media reporting that OP "agreed" to have an electrononic tag fitted. Yes, he would have to agree, but with all his Bail dreams fulfilled one would think this was a given. Why did Nel agree to Bail? The Judge then went on to give more freedom than both parties had agreed on! Hoping time will tell that Nel has a plan that we can't see at this time and OP will not be smirking for long! IMO

Hi Hag - welcome out of the "lurking" zone, I spend quite a lot of time there myself! :lurk:

I was confused by Nel's stance, I am trusting there is some bigger picture reasoning behind it....

 

[Trotterly]

Why on earth would having a disability make him fear for his life when otherwise he wouldn't?

His disability affects his legs not his brain.

It is perfectly understandable if a disabled person has to take action that an able bodied wouldn't if, for example, they are trapped and cannot escape before an intruder comes into their bedroom.

That's if there really is an intruder and they haven't just pumped their unarmed wife with four bullets for walking into a room, as she has done every day for years. Under those circumstances they'd have a case to answer.

Pistorius was not trapped.....if anything, he was the trapper. He did not have a rationally held belief that his life was in danger even though he was rational enough to avoid wanting to hurt himself. He heard a noise and from then on was fixated on neutralising whoever it was that made it. If you believe this is the way most disabled people in that boat would behave you are absolutely kidding yourself.

I have to wonder why you are not accepting the SCA decision in the way that you demanded the rest of us should....before you heard what it was, of course.

But there was expert testimony that he was especially anxious. I think such a finding is not based on what happened post shooting but is from his character and his character as a disabled person. He claims he felt very vulnerable on his stumps and the SCA seems to have disregarded the finding he was scared for his life. Even though he put himself in that position as he had done before when investigating noises.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Anti-domestic violence campaigner Rosie Batty (Australian of the Year in recognition for her national campaign against domestic violence) stunned after downgrade of Gerard Baden-Clay's murder conviction to manslaughter, mentions OP.


"It absolutely sends the same message that I'm saying all of the time, that we undermine, disregard a victim in a violent relationship," she said.

"You know, the other high-profile case in South Africa [of Oscar Pistorius], the same thing.

"Why is it so hard to believe when there is history of violence that that murder is not intentional?"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-...gerard-baden-clay-manslaughter-ruling/7015492

 

[Susza]

PC, if you're not a writer you definitely should be! This is an amazing post on many levels.

GREAT read!

Absolutely d'accord! Paul, you are a writer, aren't you?
It's a big pleasure to read you.
Thank you!

 

[saraomar]

Nel was utterly frustrated and looked it, especially when the judge asked him what a 'reasonable' radius would be/ Nel gave a sigh and looked at Johnson. I believe this was against his wishes and against his grain - to oppose bail. We have no idea what kind of pressures they are under, after taking on one of the most powerful, influential and rich families head on in SA. Lets us not foegt this team has overturned a ridiculous verdict with a proper and fitting one, won on brilliant argument in front of 5 intellectual giants at the SCA. Somewhere where Roux seemed like a blubbering idiot!

And that man......Pistorius.....

He swanned into the courtroom like he owned it, immaturely smirked and made faces, like a 5 year old brat. Oh he was not medicated, he was on a high...of arrogance! This is what comes with such a priviledged family and over indulgence!

In time, fingers crossed, he will have to face the music!

We just need to be patient!

 

[mrjitty]

This is quite interesting. I see Pistorius' chances of succeeding at the CC getting better and better. One of the judges that sits on the CC is Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng. He was appointed by Zuma who as we all know is owned by Pistorius and his family. So we know there is influence here. Not just that, this is probably just one of many judges that have been appointed by Zuma that can be influenced.

You are a frightening individual.

I don't care if i get banned for saying that.

Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[Susza]

I've explained previously. Like Tortoise, I won't humour your delusions and will answer according to what I know to be true. The prosecution haven't conceded the point at all except out of pragmatism. Nel believes it was DD. So, incidentally does Oscar and Roux. The difference between is Nel is forced into doing so by the vagaries of the legal framework he is bound by. Roux and Pistorius are acting out of greed and self preservation respectively.

Last edited by Paul Connelly; Today at 12:48 AM. Reason: Typo due to too much gin and too small a keyboard!

Too much gin for you, Paul?
I think I'm not the only person here who would have been enchanté to share with you
Next time!

 

[Hag]

How can a judge think something is too severe that the convict has already agreed to as terms for his bail?

I'm on the verge of giving up caring.[/QUOTE

Incomprehensible. One can hardly believe what was said at that bail hearing. I was waiting for the Judge to ask OP if there was anything else he would like included in the conditions.......to make his time on bail more comfortable. MOO

 

[PrimeSuspect]

But there was expert testimony that he was especially anxious. I think such a finding is not based on what happened post shooting but is from his character and his character as a disabled person. He claims he felt very vulnerable on his stumps and the SCA seems to have disregarded the finding he was scared for his life. Even though he put himself in that position as he had done before when investigating noises.

I've investigated noises armed with a baseball bat, big deal! LOL Could I use that in court if I killed someone?

Anxiety my foot! OP has a violent temper, he should never have a gun. No one shoots an 'unknown' person in a tiny loo 4 times unless he means to kill, even in SA. Those shots were fired in anger, he's not some vulnerable scared little kitten, he's a force to be reckoned with and if circumstances were different, as in, he didn't kill Reeva, he would be highly offended by the comments made by his supporters, isn't it ironic?

OP was/is a globe trotting spoiled brat who used his disability to defy the odds, compete against able bodied athletes, attract fame, fortune and beautiful women, but still couldn't mask the demon inside, his jealousy and insecurities got the better of him, and Reeva is dead.
Conveniently during his trial and since, he wants his disability to be a licence to kill because he's at the mercy of his anxiety!! :scared:
This man is going to use this excuse for everything under the sun, to get what he wants or to get out of trouble!

I was once a fan too, couldn't give two hoots about him now.

JMO

 

[Ochre Blue]

There's probably a shorter way, but I only know this way.

Okay. Edited to say I found the short way! Find the user you want to ignore. Click on their username and choose 'view profile'. Then look at the left hand side of the page and you should see this:

View attachment 85475

Thanks for that..... But I can't find the 'ignore' button in the Tapatalk app. Any clues WSers?

 

[JudgeJudi]

Hi mrjitty,

Is it possible that the reason why bail was granted and it was unopposed was because if the ConCourt were to overturn the SCA decision then incarceration would be a miscarriage of justice (para 43) e.g. he would have been unjustly locked up?

 

[Susza]

Thank you for pointing that out. Sensible suggestion.
Personally I don't use the ignore button, just cause you never know, someone might surprise me!!! Hasn't happened yet. Only one was "reasonable" for me and that one hasn't posted here for months.

As per that excellent post by Col.Mustard, IMO the repetition and quantity of errors gets very wearing, side tracks the discussion, wastes time and is so very rarely informative, doesn't sharpen debate-the opposite. It's almost like someone asking me endless questions on a long running series when I am actually watching the finale of Season 7. I would reasonably answer - you need to go and watch seasons 1-6 first. :bang:

Cotton, my post certainly won't sharpen the debate here nevertheless please don't :bang: at me

While watching the video yesterday I was surprised/disappointed by this little Lord compared to the BIG FIVE that overturned the verdict. He seemed to have a hard time to read fluently, express himself and in my eyes there was a lack of respect in the way he behaved regarding Nel.
He interrupted him in important moments and "pushed" him somehow as if Nel had to defend himself.
Sure, I'm everything but an expert but the BIG FIVE finally did agree with Nel, the verdict was overturned and the little lord could have manifested to NEL at least as much respect as he did to Roux.
It was weird - like Masipa, it seemed as if he wanted to protect a convicted murderer.
It was so strange that I started thinking that I probably didn't understand well what was said because of me not knowing well the english language.

 

[Ochre Blue]

BIB - yes he is. No more community work and God forbid he should have to give something back to the community during 4 months of freedom, so 'win' for him there. A 12-mile radius isn't that restrictive. He now has 5 hours a day where he can pretty much do as he likes (boozing included) so he can meet up with his imaginary friends and share nostalgic chit chat about such times before he was outed as a murderer. He can probably get himself some new g/friends too now, although they should probably wear bullet-proof vests in the interests of staying alive if he gets wound up by any gum chewing. So yes, cotton - it does seem that as a convicted murderer he's deemed more 'safe' than when he wasn't a convicted murderer. I feel as if I've entered the Twilight Zone.

Totally concur! Ludicrous!
I was wondering whether any restrictions were placed on his gun-loving activities?

 

[Susza]

FOUND the ignore button!! ...and added a name.

Who knew?

Susza???
Naaa - by the way: I like your motto (right word?)

You must be the change you wish to see in the world. - Gandhi

It's my daily challenge. It's my daily struggle!!!

 

[mrjitty]

Hi mrjitty,

Is it possible that the reason why bail was granted and it was unopposed was because if the ConCourt were to overturn the SCA decision then incarceration would be a miscarriage of justice (para 43) e.g. he would have been unjustly locked up?

My guess is that it is simply that

1. the SC voided his current sentence,
2. he was already in home detention,
3. he is awaiting a new sentence
4. he got bail at all points previously whilst awaiting conviction/sentence

Remember that when Masipa found him guilty of CH - he didn't go straight to jail, even though a custodial sentence was obvious.

 

[cottonweaver]

Cotton, my post certainly won't sharpen the debate here nevertheless please don't :bang: at me

While watching the video yesterday I was surprised/disappointed by this little Lord compared to the BIG FIVE that overturned the verdict. He seemed to have a hard time to read fluently, express himself and in my eyes there was a lack of respect in the way he behaved regarding Nel.
He interrupted him in important moments and "pushed" him somehow as if Nel had to defend himself.
Sure, I'm everything but an expert but the BIG FIVE finally did agree with Nel, the verdict was overturned and the little lord could have manifested to NEL at least as much respect as he did to Roux.
It was weird - like Masipa, it seemed as if he wanted to protect a convicted murderer.
It was so strange that I started thinking that I probably didn't understand well what was said because of me not knowing well the english language.

Hi Susza, no that emoji represents me shooting myself in the head, in mock despair, as regards some provocative posts on here recently. (Go back upthread and it will become clear, perhaps if you read Lemon's & Mustard's post and then mine, I think you will see what I am referring to.)

Anyway to get back to your post, I agree Judge Aubrey's manner towards Nel seemed slightly off to me too, more curt and defensive. I think you're right in sensing that - your English is great .

So why would that be?

I wonder if some of the less experienced judges somehow need to make a show of their impartiality in terms of the State's cases. (Yes we could speculate corruption but I am looking for the most ordinary answer first. ) What do you think? I have no issue with his lack of fluency as I am sure English is not the Judge's first language and I expect he has never been televised before, but yes one really got the impression that Nel was the underdog in that hearing.

It was interesting to read PConnolly posts about empaths, apaths, sociopaths etc upthread, and his interpretation of Masipa and du Toit as empaths to OP's sociopathy. If we follow that logic, it means Nel's approach , whilst right for me, rubbed ex-social worker Masipa up the wrong way, if she is hard-wired for pity.

 

[LemonMousse]

But there was expert testimony that he was especially anxious. I think such a finding is not based on what happened post shooting but is from his character and his character as a disabled person. He claims he felt very vulnerable on his stumps and the SCA seems to have disregarded the finding he was scared for his life. Even though he put himself in that position as he had done before when investigating noises.

There was a psychiatric report stating that he did not have any anxiety disorder on the night in question...signed by three doctors.

I don't care what his mate Derman said. A more biased witness it's hard to imagine.

The SCA did not disregard the finding that he was "scared for his life" - they addressed it and found it to be untrue.

From the top:

Being scared does not justify murder. Do you fully comprehend this?

It is a crime to shoot someone without good reason. This you accept too?

From everything he said in his own testimony, it is impossible to conclude that he held a genuine, rational belief that his life was in danger. Because it was based on nothing.

We cannot put it down to "he wasn't thinking rationally because of his fear" because he clearly was thinking rationally about other things, scared or not.

Even taking into account his "fear" (if it existed), even taking into account that his disability might have provoked more fear than the average person might feel there was still no justification at all for his actions in arming himself, heading off to confront someone, trap them and then kill them.

Fight or flight is irrelevant. That's an instananeous response when under threat. It would make total sense if Pistorius shot an intruder who leapt out at him...having to fight because he couldn't flee.

But fetching your gun and deliberately hunting down a human being does not count as a "fight or flight" response.

His intention to kill began the moment he fetched his gun. And, far from trying to use his disability to explain why he did this, it actually gives lie to his entire version....because a disabled person is the least likely of all to behave in such a reckless manner.

He would have been dead if there had been an armed intruder. They would have heard his shrieks run out and shot him.

But this is a bit academic. There was no intruder...he killed his girlfriend, and he knew that's what he was doing. You know it, he knows it, we all know it.

 

[Interested Bystander]

I've investigated noises armed with a baseball bat, big deal! LOL Could I use that in court if I killed someone?

Anxiety my foot! OP has a violent temper, he should never have a gun. No one shoots an 'unknown' person in a tiny loo 4 times unless he means to kill, even in SA. Those shots were fired in anger, he's not some vulnerable scared little kitten, he's a force to be reckoned with and if circumstances were different, as in, he didn't kill Reeva, he would be highly offended by the comments made by his supporters, isn't it ironic?

OP was/is a globe trotting spoiled brat who used his disability to defy the odds, compete against able bodied athletes, attract fame, fortune and beautiful women, but still couldn't mask the demon inside, his jealousy and insecurities got the better of him, and Reeva is dead.
Conveniently during his trial and since, he wants his disability to be a licence to kill because he's at the mercy of his anxiety!! :scared:
This man is going to use this excuse for everything under the sun, to get what he wants or to get out of trouble!

I was once a fan too, couldn't give two hoots about him now.

JMO

He has publicly so many times said he doesn't consider himself disabled until now when it suits him to become a snivelling, wimpish, frightened, helpless individual. He is well known for his aggression. Please excuse the pun, but I don't think he has a leg to stand on. He could have left the house, sounded the alarm which would have called security BUT, of course, there really never was an intruder. I believe even for self defence one is meant to seek a safe exit from the scene if it is possible. How I wish there had been a retrial but I suppose we would be seeing the same chain of events had he then been sentenced to life. I get the impression he is always aching to use a gun.

Like you, I used to admire him but now I see him as a murderer and an inveterate liar. I think my opinion of him went downhill fast when he was in the UK at the Olympics and threw a temper tantrum after being beaten. Furniture thrown about, shouting and swearing at people; such a reasonable person who is never violent, NOT!

 

[Susza]

Anti-domestic violence campaigner Rosie Batty (Australian of the Year in recognition for her national campaign against domestic violence) stunned after downgrade of Gerard Baden-Clay's murder conviction to manslaughter, mentions OP.


"It absolutely sends the same message that I'm saying all of the time, that we undermine, disregard a victim in a violent relationship," she said.

"You know, the other high-profile case in South Africa [of Oscar Pistorius], the same thing.

"Why is it so hard to believe when there is history of violence that that murder is not intentional?"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-...gerard-baden-clay-manslaughter-ruling/7015492

BBM:
Hi Prime, has that trial been televised, too?

 

[LemonMousse]

Anyway....it's nearly Christmas and the snivelling toe rag has taken up enough of my time already.

I wish you all the very, very happiest of Christmases, and a peaceful, safe New Year!

See you in April