Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #68 *Appeal Verdict*

[cottonweaver]

FGS

OP has been convicted of the intentional murder of a human being "to wit reeva Steenkamp". That's it - that's the conviction.

 

[aftermath]

BIB Do you think that Masipa came to her verdict by a proper assessment of all the evidence, and by proper attention to Pistorius' reliability as a witness?

Assuming you don't, because the SCA decided that she did not, do you think proper justice has been served by an appeal restricted by a flawed set of factual findings?

What I see from posters who support Pistorius' version is a tendency to not reply when the flaws in their arguments are pointed out. They vanish, only to reappear days later with more of the same. Their stance does not address the fact that Pistorius got away with murder through manipulation and cunning, and would have been convicted of the DD of Reeva under any rational thinking judge.

Yes and yes but I don't think she expressed her judgement clearly enough or in a way that perhaps folowed the necessary protocol closely enough. Eg I believe she weighed up Mangena's creditable evidence with Wolmarans' creditable evidence and decided that since Wolmarans was reasonably possible she had to give the benefit of the doubt to the defence. ( not that the two were hugely different) However in not explaining this explicitly in her judgement it left a gap where a question could be asked about whether she had in fact ignored it.

For this reason, I can see why the SCA went the way it did, even if I don't personally agree. I can accept it as a legal judgement with no question of bribery or being swayed by public opinion etc. However, if /when there is a further appeal, I will probably find myself agreeing with the defence argument, as I think that DE essentially of an intruder, (but of Reeva in error)is harsh. (although I obviously agree there is a high level of culpability on his part)

There are indeed flaws in the Pistorius version, just as there are flaws in the state version. And I am sorry, but it isn't a fact that he got away with murder - that's just a widely shared opinion. And very few of the many legal commentators around the time of the trial even thought the case for DD was made clearly or convincingly enough to secure conviction, so the judge who would have found DD on the evidence presented, would not have been ' rational thinking ', IMO.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

One thing in all this cheers me.
He has already had to spend time in prison. :behindbar
So he doesn't "always win". :happydance:

But you know that he got an extra bathroom and there was allowed to play with his rubber duckies? :rubberducky: Annoyingly, also a kind of victory.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

On yours and Ochre Blues's point about the "stuffed shoulder", (right shoulder), he was having physio according to his testimony but as Ochre points out, was the extent of that injury ever verified. I very much doubt it. We know that they could not even do the blood tests in a timely fashion, after he murdered her. The subsequent tests done to measure his heights and abilities with Mangena present came much later.

We have all said on here, in the past, how come he could carry Reeva without mentioning the shoulder as an issue? As far as the sleeping side he answered under Nel:
"I had a shoulder injury so I could not place weight on my right shoulder." This affliction was "off and on" and it was not a recent injury.


S he can shoulder charge toilet doors, shoulder charge bedroom doors, use his shoulders for leverage to try and prise the toilet door open, get Reeva out of the bathroom, carry her downstairs and never once actually mentions any right shoulder discomfort. (He shoots with his right hand at "shoulder level" he says.He charges doors with his cocked gun still in his right hand.)

The pain would surely have transferred to the right shoulder even when charging with the left.

We all know, OP said this only to explain why he was "sleeping" supposedly on the wrong bedside.

 

[Tortoise]

Yes and yes but I don't think she expressed her judgement clearly enough or in a way that perhaps folowed the necessary protocol closely enough. Eg I believe she weighed up Mangena's creditable evidence with Wolmarans' creditable evidence and decided that since Wolmarans was reasonably possible she had to give the benefit of the doubt to the defence. ( not that the two were hugely different) However in not explaining this explicitly in her judgement it left a gap where a question could be asked about whether she had in fact ignored it.

For this reason, I can see why the SCA went the way it did, even if I don't personally agree. I can accept it as a legal judgement with no question of bribery or being swayed by public opinion etc. However, if /when there is a further appeal, I will probably find myself agreeing with the defence argument, as I think that DE essentially of an intruder, (but of Reeva in error)is harsh. (although I obviously agree there is a high level of culpability on his part)

There are indeed flaws in the Pistorius version, just as there are flaws in the state version. And I am sorry, but it isn't a fact that he got away with murder - that's just a widely shared opinion. And very few of the many legal commentators around the time of the trial even thought the case for DD was made clearly or convincingly enough to secure conviction, so the judge who would have found DD on the evidence presented, would not have been ' rational thinking ', IMO.

You say you think Masipa gave proper attention to Pistorius' reliability as a witness. Have you seen Greater Than's post #459 which sets out transcripts of Pistorius' testimony? Where he says repeatedly that he fired before he could think, he never fired shots purposely, he didn't fire to protect himself, the shots were accidental etc..

The Supreme Court determined that he was lying. Masipa determined that he was lying also yet erroneously gave him a reason for firing purposely. The SCA has now straightened that error out by applying the legal standards for PPD against his version, which Masipa failed to do. According to his affidavit he wants to appeal on the grounds that he did fire purposely because he feared for his life. Do you not see that he has no chance of ever convincing anyone of this?

I am astounded that you disagree with a unanimous full bench of the Supreme Court, that Masipa erred in her treatment of Pistorius' evidence. And I am sorry to have to bring this to your attention, but it is FACT that he got away with murder at trial, it isn't opinion, it's fact - based on the old conviction of CH and the new conviction of murder.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Thank you FG. That was a very interesting list and accompanying article. I immediately thought of Sam Taylor when I read that list, as well as Reeva. Remember how he locked her up in the house one night and left her there alone without food until he returned in the morning. I was just going to post a reply re that but I see Paul has posted that he's read the Trish's book, and we too know what Sam went through with OP. She's one very lucky girl. Do you and Paul remember how she had to hide his gun from him one night? It's chilling to think about it now.

ST got away, fortunately! She had much good luck.

 

[aftermath]

You say you think Masipa gave proper attention to Pistorius' reliability as a witness. Have you seen Greater Than's post #459 which sets out transcripts of Pistorius' testimony? Where he says repeatedly that he fired before he could think, he never fired shots purposely, he didn't fire to protect himself, the shots were accidental etc..




The Supreme Court determined that he was lying. Masipa determined that he was lying also yet erroneously gave him a reason for firing purposely. The SCA has now straightened that error out by applying the legal standards for PPD against his version, which Masipa failed to do. According to his affidavit he wants to appeal on the grounds that he did fire purposely because he feared for his life. Do you not see that he has no chance of ever convincing anyone of this?

I am astounded that you disagree with a unanimous full bench of the Supreme Court, that Masipa erred in her treatment of Pistorius' evidence. And I am sorry to have to bring this to your attention, but it is FACT that he got away with murder at trial, it isn't opinion, it's fact - based on the old conviction of CH and the new conviction of murder.

Are you really astounded? Are you equally astounded that whilst I think the ' upgrade ' was harsh I still accept the SCA judgement?

The 'he got away with murder ' trap was a good one. Given that it was part of a sentence about DD of Reeva, I hope you will understand why I assumed you meant that he had got away with DD.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

FGS

OP has been convicted of the intentional murder of a human being "to wit reeva Steenkamp". That's it - that's the conviction.

LOL I've been saying that in my head the last 30 or so pages.

 

[Noisy Fan]

He also didn't suffer from any anxiety disorder, but that hasn't stopped you Pistorians claiming he was so out of his mind with anxiety that night he accidentally murdered someone.

He scored 45 on ANT and needed 71 to be classified with an anti-social personality disorder.

Do you remember his score on ARD?

 

[Noisy Fan]

For LemonMousse ...

Just before he got to the tiles at the beginning of the bathroom, he stopped shouting because he didn’t want the intruders to know where he was. He heard a door slam, which could only have been the toilet door. He couldn’t see in the bathroom, but he did hear the door slam which confirmed for him that somebody was in there.
He was certain at this point that the intruders were going to come out. He peered his way in to the bathroom at the entry point.

His mobility is not as good on tiled surfaces. He kept his left arm behind him, his shoulder against the wall and his pistol raised. He was continuously watching the corner of the bathroom.

There was no light on in the bathroom. He could see that the window was open. His back was up against the wall at this point balancing himself, along the left hand side wall. He didn’t know where exactly the people were at this point. He peered around the corner to look toward the shower.

He saw there was nobody in there. The toilet door was closed and the window was open. Once he saw that there wasn’t anybody in there he retreated a step or two back. He balanced against the wall.

He started screaming again at this point for Reeva to call the police. He wasn’t sure where to point the firearm. He had it pointed at the toilet but his eyes were going between the window and the toilet. He stood there for some time, not sure how long.

He didn’t know if somebody was going to come out of the toilet and attack him, or possibly somebody would come up a ladder outside and point a gun in the window and start shooting. So he stayed where he was and screamed some more. He then heard a noise in the toilet room. He perceived that somebody was coming out.

Before he knew it, he fired four shots at the door.

https://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/oscar-trial-day-17-oscar/

So, there was a break where he stopped screaming and moved carefully down the corridor to the bathroom using his left arm on the left wall for balance, he stopped to peer around the corner (so he was not screaming here) and then he retreated and once he had retreated he screamed again ... which was my point that he did not just charge down the hall screaming like an idiot.

 

[mhiforme]

FGS

OP has been convicted of the intentional murder of a human being "to wit reeva Steenkamp". That's it - that's the conviction.

This week, he's a convicted murder.

Last week, he was not a murderer but was convicted of the negligent killing of a person.

Let's see what April brings before we put a final label on him.

 

[Noisy Fan]

Your comment was meant for Noisy Fan but since when does anyone who disagrees with you automatically become a Pistorian? Surely Noisy Fan is trying to have his own questions answered or ensuring that every avenue is explored to ensure that OP doesn't have to face mob justice.

Even if he didn't have a medically diagnosed GAD, one doesn't have to have an anxiety disorder to feel an elevated level of anxiousness.

He was certainly close ... he missed it by 1 point ...

 

[Colin de France]

FGS

OP has been convicted of the intentional murder of a human being "to wit reeva Steenkamp". That's it - that's the conviction.

.....are you sure what you've wrote there is correct ?.........."intentional" ...!

 

[Paul Connelly]

This week, he's a convicted murder.

Last week, he was not a murderer but was convicted of the negligent killing of a person.

Let's see what April brings before we put a final label on him.

He was a murderer last week, he just hadn't been convicted due to an inept judgement. Now it has been put right by a superior court and he is a convicted murderer, as well as being convicted of discharging a handgun in a public place and recklessly endangering lives. He denied that charge too in the face of overwhelming evidence, until Roux finally admitted he had indeed done it.

His label, his shameful status as a murderer, as a man with wilful and reckless disregard for human life, will echo into eternity. That is written indelibly into the court record and the collective human psyche.

 

[cottonweaver]

While you're on-line Paul, what's your take ( as someone who actually knows the Bible) on the endless scripture quotations used by the family and all the very ostentatious piety shown at opportune moments? No doubt you will have an amusing take on it.

 

[Noisy Fan]

He was a murderer last week, he just hadn't been convicted due to an inept judgement. Now it has been put right by a superior court and he is a convicted murderer, as well as being convicted of discharging a handgun in a public place and recklessly endangering lives. He denied that charge too in the face of overwhelming evidence, until Roux finally admitted he had indeed done it.

His label, his shameful status as a murderer, as a man with wilful and reckless disregard for human life, will echo into eternity. That is written indelibly into the court record and the collective human psyche.

The only thing that will echo into eternity is the truth.

 

[Colin de France]

The only thing that will echo into eternity is the truth.

.....which has yet to come .......

 

[Tortoise]

Are you really astounded? Are you equally astounded that whilst I think the ' upgrade ' was harsh I still accept the SCA judgement?

The 'he got away with murder ' trap was a good one. Given that it was part of a sentence about DD of Reeva, I hope you will understand why I assumed you meant that he had got away with DD.

Yes, utterly astounded, that you think not only that your assessment of the trial trumps that of the five judges, but that his evidence was reliable and merited a sound conviction of CH. If you do not agree with the new verdict then saying you accept the SCA judgement is empty words as far as I am concerned. Your use of the word 'harsh' is shocking and abhorrent, considering that Pistorius proved through his own testimony that he did not honestly or genuinely believe his life to be in danger and considering too the way in which he fired 4 devastating bullets mercilessly through the door, at Reeva if you have the common sense to see it, or at any human being, if you do not.

My statement about murder was not a trap, it is interesting that you assume it was, however what is more interesting is that you ignored the main thrust of my post regarding his chances of success at appeal. I see you conveniently sidestepped this and the question I asked in my previous post concerning whether proper justice could be served based on Masipa's flawed factual findings.

 

[Tortoise]

.....are you sure what you've wrote there is correct ?.........."intentional" ...!

yes, murder is always intentional by definition.

 

[Paul Connelly]

While you're on-line Paul, what's your take ( as someone who actually knows the Bible) on the endless scripture quotations used by the family and all the very ostentatious piety shown at opportune moments? No doubt you will have an amusing take on it.

I'm not sure of what they have quoted tbh. If any examples are forthcoming I'd be happy to comment on individual quotes.

In general though, one of the main tools sociopaths will use is to appeal to a higher power, something that transcends, temporal, human authority. Almost like their own Catholic Magisterium. Cult leaders do it all the time; it's an effective and common means to defend oneself in the face of overwhelming guilt. So, his family might quote a passage about not judging lest you be judged. God is his only judge etc.

Trouble is when you claim to be Christian, pious and moral you leave yourself open to scrutiny and accusations of hypocrisy. That's the thing about taking the log out of your own eye before you worry about the splinter in your neighbours eye. So say I go out to my local pub here in England and certain people are scandalised that a man of the cloth would go out drinking. It's nonsense of course because they can do it but they apply different standards to the men of the cloth.

Similarly, when Oscar and his family start sheltering under the convenient umbrella of Christianity they invite a similar expectation lest they be accused of hypocrisy.

Now, here's the thing, I feel no shame going into my local pub and having a few scoops. But had I had a history of violence. Had I expected Mrs C to answer texts within 30 secs and not go out. Had I crashed my boat whilst drunk at my local yacht club. Had I been seen dancing drunk with my gun by the local vicar who is my no1 enemy. Had I murdered my wife and after putting my hand on the holy bible and swearing before Almighty God to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and then been evasive, obfuscate, lie and tailor my evidence in court whilst my whole community watched on... Had I done all these things and then after getting off on a lesser verdict, to my immense joy and surprise, walked into my local with my expensive legal team and ordered drinks for everyone... Champagne for everyone darling!

Had I done all this and more, in that moment those people would be well within their rights to label me a hypocrite and using my faith (small f) to undermine the Faith (big F) of the Church. I could use my knowledge of scripture, homiletics, exegesis, hermeneutics to bombard and bamboozle them but it would be futile because they know what a hypocrite looks like and what a Christian acts like.


In my shame and concern for my victims and their families I would have the good sense and good grace to discern I had lost any right to preach to others. In short I'd take what was coming and STFU!