Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #68 *Appeal Verdict*

[Hazy]

He used those too

I know

 

[soozieqtips]

Also, in his affidavit, the slamming of the toilet door was never mentioned (quite an important detail to leave out considering that was the third 'startle' that made him shoot), and the word 'screamed' is mentioned just once - when he said he screamed at the intruders to get out. Masipa said his screaming was not contested, but he practically contested it himself by mentioning he only screamed once - and only to the intruders. Yet somehow screaming once turned into a lot more screaming (to cover Reeva's screams?) and 'screaming like I'd never screamed before'. My brain is fried (must stop scaling electric fences looking for toilet paper) so off to bed.

 

[Noisy Fan]

A reply to Soozie ... tried quick reply but it did not include the quote ...


I think the doors were open out of necessity. The air conditioning was broken. I think he was paranoid about intruders but with the hot weather you still have to be able to breathe. If the door was locked and jammed with the bat then I would say it was a trade off. Maybe that's why he got up to lock up the room, if indeed that is what happened.

The one area he deviated from my pre-trial model of his reasoning was that he said in testimony that it was warm in the room when he woke up. That was contrary to my model. I had the room quite cool only because of the temperature outside was a lot cooler and the fact that the fan(s) were on and had been for a long time. That testimony of his disturbed me, but the prosecution did not challenge him that the room should have been cool so he gets the benefit of the doubt.

Soozie, I agree that we are dealing with a unique individual here. I must let him have faults without using them against him as I had many of the same faults he had when I was his age although I never killed someone and I got along with most all people.

 

[Noisy Fan]

Also, in his affidavit, the slamming of the toilet door was never mentioned (quite an important detail to leave out considering that was the third 'startle' that made him shoot), and the word 'screamed' is mentioned just once - when he said he screamed at the intruders to get out. Masipa said his screaming was not contested, but he practically contested it himself by only mentioning he screamed once - and only to the intruders. My brain is fried (must stop scaling electric fences looking for toilet paper) so off to bed.

I guess in a perfect world you never add any detail to an original affidavit and maybe that should be the case. The debate would be if he clarified or added lies. What do I do, consider him a liar or give him the benefit of the doubt ... 50/50 ... 60/40 ... I don't know how to reconcile one way or the other so I look where there might be a contradiction and decided that he was clarifying. Again, I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Noisy Fan]

Also, in his affidavit, the slamming of the toilet door was never mentioned (quite an important detail to leave out considering that was the third 'startle' that made him shoot), and the word 'screamed' is mentioned just once - when he said he screamed at the intruders to get out. Masipa said his screaming was not contested, but he practically contested it himself by mentioning he only screamed once - and only to the intruders. Yet somehow screaming once turned into a lot more screaming (to cover Reeva's screams?) and 'screaming like I'd never screamed before'. My brain is fried (must stop scaling electric fences looking for toilet paper) so off to bed.

Yes ... I thought hard on it too ... I'm just not that impressed with ear witnesses, not that they are lying or bad people, they are not but that one witness that corrected his wife and told her it was Oscar screaming coupled with the shooting - cricket bat evidence lead me to determine that although there was a chance the witnesses were right and it was Reeva screaming, there was also a chance they were wrong and it was Oscar.

(you must really value your tp to keep it behind an electric fence) ...

night night ...

 

[Greater Than]

Both cases revolve around whether in the absence of reliable evidence from the accused the court can rule out that the accused might have believed he was under attack or about to be and thought he had the right to shoot. It's plain in the De Oliveira case that he couldn't possibly have been in any danger. He was in his house upstairs I think. The men were outside. The Judge noted that there was no sound of breaking glass that might suggest a break in. In short not even a man of low intelligence could have really believed he might be in danger. Contrast this with op. He's on his stumps. He thinks the danger is very close. It's hard to see the comparison. I'd have thought it was obvious that someone in his place might think he was possibly in danger and would have the right to shoot to defend himself. It doesn't matter whether this is the truth, it's the version the court us working on. The only argument against this is that he did know he shouldn't shoot without seeing his target, but I'd say that what you know when writing on a piece of paper when safe and what you do when you think you're in danger are two different things and the court should put themselves in the place of the accused to answer whether there's a chance he could have believed he was acting in self defence.

First of all, Masipa even said in her judgment that OP was a "very poor witness" who was untruthful and gave contradictory evidence. So for her to admit he gave unreliable evidence, yet accept that he believed his life was in danger is a glaring contradiction.

Nevertheless, are you forgetting that he could have escaped, but chose to confront the danger instead? When Nel asked him why he didn't take Reeva out the bedroom door to safety he said he couldn't explain that. Then he said he wanted to confront the intruder(s) because, "That's my personality. That's how I am." You can't do that and claim self defense. The law requires if you're able to safely escape an imminent threat on your life, you must do so. Killing another human being is only lawful if there if no other option available in order to protect your own life. It must be your last and only resort.

Are you also forgetting that self defense is the lawful intentional killing of another human being? OP said over and over and over on the stand that he "didn't intend to shoot." You can't say you fired in self defense, but you didn't mean to fire.

Also, licensed gun owners are aware that it is illegal to shoot at an unseen or unidentified target, regardless of how frightened you are. Even if you can see the person and you identify them as an intruder, if they are not actively threatening your life you cannot legally shoot. That is the law. You can't just dismiss it by saying knowing the answer on a paper/pencil test isn't the same as real life. He fired knowing someone was on the other side of that locked door, and then he changed his aim and fired again....and again....and again. That is murder all day long.

 

[lithgow1]

Sorry you are wrong. There is a chronology to what he did. The screams of anguish and anger at himself along with calls for help occurred after he realized that it could have been Reeva in the toilet.

Wrong. He testified that he was alternating screaming and silence as he made his way along the hallway and again as he was standing before the door. It is there in the evidence you say you are familiar with.

 

[mhiforme]

Yep. And he handed his gun straight to the police, was desperate to talk to them, answering any questions and then told everyone he'd plead guilty to whatever they charged him with and would go to prison for life if need be. That's remorse.....the direct opposite of everything we saw from "How dare the State even charge me Pistorius".

It's silly to think that he should have to just give up on life and say that he'll plead guilty to whatever the police decides to charge him with. If only everyone did this, we wouldn't need judges then right, just have the police charge you, judge you and punish you on the spot.

People have families and even after a tragic accident, people have to still provide financially, emotionally and in every other manner for the remainder of their family. That's tough to do behind bars.

 

[mhiforme]

BIB - and didn't he get medical assistance straight away instead of sitting with her for "I don't know how long" and then phoning a friend?

He could very easily have been in shock. This commonly happens after a tragic accident. Just think of how people wondered about aimlessly after 911

 

[Noisy Fan]

Wrong. He testified that he was alternating screaming and silence as he made his way along the hallway and again as he was standing before the door. It is there in the evidence you say you are familiar with.

The point I was making was that he did not just charge down the hall screaming like an idiot as has been said here time after time ... there was a chronology to what happened. He yelled at them to leave and waited ... he yelled at Reeva to phone the police ... he yelled at them again to leave ... then, later when he went back slowly into the bedroom while still having the gun pointed at the window he found that Reeva was not in the bed. As it dawned on him that it might have been Reeva in the toilet he started screaming in anguish and calling for help and trying to break through the toilet door ...

Again all I am trying to do is get rid of the "running towards the toilet screaming like and idiot phrase" ...

 

[Deleted member 102539]

The point I was making was that he did not just charge down the hall screaming like an idiot as has been said here time after time ... there was a chronology to what happened. He yelled at them to leave and waited ... he yelled at Reeva to phone the police ... he yelled at them again to leave ... then, later when he went back slowly into the bedroom while still having the gun pointed at the window he found that Reeva was not in the bed. As it dawned on him that it might have been Reeva in the toilet he started screaming in anguish and calling for help and trying to break through the toilet door ...

Again all I am trying to do is get rid of the "running towards the toilet screaming like and idiot phrase" ...

Only his STORY is completely idiotic, otherwise he is simply a murderer.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

He could very easily have been in shock. This commonly happens after a tragic accident. Just think of how people wondered about aimlessly after 911

OP had thought of all: neighbour-lawyer Carice, ex Estate manager Stander, sister/brother/father, lawyer Oldwage, auntie "profiler" Micky, trainer, manager, friend Divaris and so on - I'm sure OP's shock of seconds was long gone before the calls: he had saved his life re media perfectly: the one and only witness 99% dead. He had "no time to think" about rescue of his "beloved" Reeva - in his mind not important at all because too late anyway and beneficial for him and another victory on his private chart.

 

[Colin de France]

Only his STORY is completely idiotic, otherwise he is simply a murderer.

....not "simply" because we don't know nothing about the lead up to the shooting........for the time being we have a sentence but no evidence from before the shooting to back it up ........maybe apart from the screams.......still a long way to go yet.....

 

[mrjitty]

That's it isn't it. When you point out all the inconsistencies, as you have done so systematically, you have to suspend all rational thought to even consider his ridiculous version might ever be reasonably, possibly true. It's not even possible, much less reasonable of truthful. It just beggars belief!

The crime scene photos are decisive on that point.

The curtains were open. The duvet was on the floor. etc

This evidence was not seriously challenged by the defence.

This is why we can say Masipa did a desperately poor job.

 

[Val1]

Sorry you are wrong. There is a chronology to what he did. The screams of anguish and anger at himself along with calls for help occurred after he realized that it could have been Reeva in the toilet.

So the screams that the multiple witnesses were woken/disturbed by that occurred well before 3:12am and then the subsequent first set of "shots" that caused them to call security would most probably have been RS then, right?

 

[soozieqtips]

....not "simply" because we don't know nothing about the lead up to the shooting........for the time being we have a sentence but no evidence from before the shooting to back it up ........maybe apart from the screams.......still a long way to go yet.....

The screams are pretty crucial though, wouldn't you say? OP has to deny Reeva uttered a single sound from the minute she asks if he can't sleep until the moment she's dead, otherwise he's a cold-blooded murderer. Much of it hinges on whether you believe the neighbours who heard a woman screaming in fear were actually hearing OP scream like a woman (which, as we know, Roux was going to absolutely prove, but never did) and Mangena and Saayman's testimony that Reeva would have had time to scream after the first shot. Any noises from Reeva before she was murdered (or any sighting of her) prove OP was lying.

 

[Noisy Fan]

Only his STORY is completely idiotic, otherwise he is simply a murderer.

That is certainly the opinion of most ... but I disagree. I have experienced parts of it myself throughout my life so I know at least certain aspects of his story can happen ...

 

[Noisy Fan]

So the screams that the multiple witnesses were woken/disturbed by that occurred well before 3:12am and then the subsequent first set of "shots" that caused them to call security would most probably have been RS then, right?

That is the states argument. They fit the defence as well. Oscar is yelling before he fires and he is screaming in anguish after he fires. The screams end when he finally breaks through the door and realizes his mistake.

I was disappointed that the ear witnesses had no distinction between the gun shots and the cricket bat breaking through the door. If there had been a distinction made it would have influenced my opinion of their opinions on who was screaming. That coupled with the one witness who corrected his wife by saying it was Oscar screaming was last straw for me.

 

[mrjitty]

Reading that brings home just how odd the SCA judgement was imo. In that case,the accused shot at men outside his property where no one could think he was in danger. He didn't fire a warning shot to scare them away. In those circumstances the judge's conclusions make sense. But in OP's case, he thought he had an intruder in the house. Very close. I don't think it makes any sense to say he should have fired a warning shot or that that is prima facie proof that he knew he wasn't acting lawfully in the circumstances he described. Plainly Leach has tried to use the same logic but he's applied it to very different set of facts in which it's far from obvious that no one could think they were acting lawfully.

I know you think he's guilty of DD of Reeva but I'm surprised you think there's any real comparison between the facts of the two cases that would justify Leach using the same logic.

Surprised?

Given as how 5 Justices of the SCA were in unanimous agreement perhaps you should consider that its you who doesn't understand the doctrine of Stare decisis and how authorities are applied to new cases.

 

[Noisy Fan]

The screams are pretty crucial though, wouldn't you say? OP has to deny Reeva uttered a single sound from the minute she asks if he can't sleep until the moment she's dead, otherwise he's a cold-blooded murderer. Much of it hinges on whether you believe the neighbours who heard a woman screaming in fear were actually hearing OP scream like a woman (which, as we know, Roux was going to absolutely prove, but never did) and Mangena and Saayman's testimony that Reeva would have had time to scream after the first shot. Any noises from Reeva before she was murdered (or any sighting of her) prove OP was lying.

I've thought about this a lot and about the type of person I believe Reeva was. She was a lawyer and had experience in a bad relationship if I remember right. I have her as a pretty smart person and I have trouble seeing her in an actual exchange with Oscar that involves a prolonged shouting match. I see her smarter than this. One who would diffuse and wait to leave as opposed to taking part in a fight. Maybe I'm wrong and I mean no disrespect to her.