Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #69 *Appeal Verdict*

[aftermath]

Of course it is...

Air raid siren perhaps

Could it never be anything more subtle than that?

 

[aftermath]

Not even remotely. A blind person doesn't have the choice of vision. The murderer did.

Was it light in the bathroom?

ETA because I don't think the light was reported as being on at the time of shooting, so clear vision was compromised...

 

[Marfa Lights]

Was it light in the bathroom?

ETA because I don't think the light was reported as being on at the time of shooting, so clear vision was compromised...

That would depend on whether you wanted to believe Oscar's account (lights off) or the Stipps' testimony (lights on).

 

[Trotterly]

Not even remotely. A blind person doesn't have the choice of vision. The murderer did.

What has choice got to do with it? We get it, he put himself into the position where he was at a disadvantage for a number of reasons. But that's the position from which to judge his defence.

 

[Trotterly]

The completely blind person faces an interesting decision as to when to fire in self defence and also avoid being found guilty of DE murder in a SA court.

After maybe a lifetime of disability they would be well aware of their limitations.

I would suggest an important part of the enquiry would be when the person was sure that their life was about to be ended.

 

[Belgarion]

That would depend on whether you wanted to believe Oscar's account (lights off) or the Stipps' testimony (lights on).

Well Dr Stipp as an impartial witness has nothing whatsoever to gain from saying the light was on when it wasn’t.

As opposed to Pistorius who has everything to gain from lying and saying the light was off otherwise his version of events goes down the plughole along with his lifestyle and liberty.

So no contest really. The light was on.

 

[soozieqtips]

What has choice got to do with it? We get it, he put himself into the position where he was at a disadvantage for a number of reasons. But that's the position from which to judge his defence.

?? What do you mean what does choice have to do with it? Does a blind person have the choice to see or not see? No. Did the murderer have a choice to wait and SEE if an attack was imminent? Yes.

 

[Trotterly]

?? What do you mean what does choice have to do with it? Does a blind person have the choice to see or not see? No. Did the murderer have a choice to wait and SEE if an attack was imminent? Yes.

That's not the point. He could have done a lot of things but he didn't. Those are to do with CH not DE.

 

[aftermath]

Well Dr Stipp as an impartial witness has nothing whatsoever to gain from saying the light was on when it wasn’t.

As opposed to Pistorius who has everything to gain from lying and saying the light was off otherwise his version of events goes down the plughole along with his lifestyle and liberty.

So no contest really. The light was on.

If the light was on from the outset, how long did the Stipps leave it between hearing the first shots and calling security during the second set of shot sounds, and is this a realistic time gap? Or is it possible that when Dr Stipp saw a light on in the bathroom and in the house next door, that he was seeing Pistorius return to the bathroom after the shooting, to kick and then hit the door open?

 

[Belgarion]

If the light was on from the outset, how long did the Stipps leave it between hearing the first shots and calling security during the second set of shot sounds, and is this a realistic time gap? Or is it possible that when Dr Stipp saw a light on in the bathroom and in the house next door, that he was seeing Pistorius return to the bathroom after the shooting, to kick and then hit the door open?

Questions, questions and yet more questions that can only be met with no more than guesswork. With respect it does seem you are just casting around on the periphery searching for any reason to purely prolong a discussion unnecessarily.

It is noticeable that some posters have spent a lot of time and patience answering your questions and the response has been the same each time, yet more ‘questions’ that become more and more unrelated.

Is it not about time to stop and accept Pistorius has been judged a murderer and that is not going to change no matter how much you may like it to be so.

 

[aftermath]

Questions, questions and yet more questions that can only be met with no more than guesswork. With respect it does seem you are just casting around on the periphery searching for any reason to purely prolong a pointless discussion.

It is noticeable that some posters have spent a lot of time and patience answering your questions and the response has been the same each time, yet more ‘questions’ that become more and more unrelated.

Is it not about time to stop and accept Pistorius has been judged a murderer and that is not going to change no matter how much you may like it to be so.

Perhaps, ignore me? Ooops- another question, but if you ignore me..the good thing will be it's the last you have to see.

Okay.. My last post rephrased with no question marks - just for you :
I think there is an unlikely and unrealistic distance of time between when the Stipps say they heard the first shots/initially saw lights on and then when they waited and finally called security during the second set of shot sounds. In fact, I think that it is more likely that when Dr Stipp saw a light on in the bathroom and in the house next door, that he was seeing Pistorius return to the bathroom after the shooting, to kick and then hit the door open.

 

[aftermath]

So...blind homeowner hears noise of a window opening at around 3am. Having just spoken to partner and having not heard partner leave room, blind person assumes partner is still in bedroom and that therefore the noise of the window opening is a sign of someone else gaining access.

Grabs gun and makes way down passage. shouts at intruder to leave and hears door slam, confirming the presence of an uninvited stranger. Physically feels/discovers window is open. Physically feels/discovers door is closed. Hears noise from behind the door of what blind person believes to be the door opening. Given what blind person already knows about high rate of violent home invasions, he believes the door open indicates an attack commencing and out of fear, fires in the direction of the noise of the door opening.

Even if it is later discovered that the person behind the door was an armed intruder /unarmed intruder / partner, does the noise of (what the blind person believed to be) the door opening provide a convincing enough basis for the assumption that an attack was beginning?

Because I think it does provide a starting basis

 

[Marfa Lights]

Perhaps, ignore me? Ooops- another question, but if you ignore me..the good thing will be it's the last you have to see.

Okay.. My last post rephrased with no question marks - just for you :
I think there is an unlikely and unrealistic distance of time between when the Stipps say they heard the first shots/initially saw lights on and then when they waited and finally called security during the second set of shot sounds. In fact, I think that it is more likely that when Dr Stipp saw a light on in the bathroom and in the house next door, that he was seeing Pistorius return to the bathroom after the shooting, to kick and then hit the door open.

Not according to Dr. Stipps or Mrs. Stipps testimony. They both said the lights were on from the initial screams through the final shots.

https://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/oscar-pistorius-trial-day-14/
https://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/oscar-pistorius-trial-day-4/
https://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/oscar-pistorius-trial-day-5-part-1/

 

[Marfa Lights]

So...blind homeowner hears noise of a window opening at around 3am. Having just spoken to partner and having not heard partner leave room, blind person assumes partner is still in bedroom and that therefore the noise of the window opening is a sign of someone else gaining access.

Grabs gun and makes way down passage. shouts at intruder to leave and hears door slam, confirming the presence of an uninvited stranger. Physically feels/discovers window is open. Physically feels/discovers door is closed. Hears noise from behind the door of what blind person believes to be the door opening. Given what blind person already knows about high rate of violent home invasions, he believes the door open indicates an attack commencing and out of fear, fires in the direction of the noise of the door opening.

Even if it is later discovered that the person behind the door was an armed intruder /unarmed intruder / partner, does the noise of (what the blind person believed to be) the door opening provide a convincing enough basis for the assumption that an attack was beginning?

Because I think it does provide a starting basis

That blind person would have hit the panic button in a New York minute and asked their bed partner to cover them both with his gun until they got downstairs safely and security arrived.

How about a story where a gun nut goes screaming down the passageway in a blind rage and shoots his girlfriend hiding in a locked toilet cubicle?

 

[Trotterly]

Not according to Dr. Stipps or Mrs. Stipps testimony. They both said the lights were on from the initial screams through the final shots.


https://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/oscar-pistorius-trial-day-4/
https://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/oscar-pistorius-trial-day-5-part-1/

Dr Stipp said he saw lights at Mike's house when Mike said they were not on.

Mrs Stipp changed her evidence and lied about being present when photographs were taken and about not drawing her curtains which would have allowed her views of OP's house.

 

[soozieqtips]

Dr Stipp said he saw lights at Mike's house when Mike said they were not on.

Mrs Stipp changed her evidence and lied about being present when photographs were taken and about not drawing her curtains which would have allowed her views of OP's house.

She made a mistake and admitted it. Funny how you resort to calling her a liar while blatantly ignoring each and every lie from the convicted murderer who never once admitted to anything. I guess a genuine witness who makes a mistake should be more severely berated than a washed-up has-been murdering liar. Interesting

 

[soozieqtips]

That blind person would have hit the panic button in a New York minute and asked their bed partner to cover them both with his gun until they got downstairs safely and security arrived.

How about a story where a gun nut goes screaming down the passageway in a blind rage and shoots his girlfriend hiding in a locked toilet cubicle?

Coincidence that the blind man also had a partner who was completely mute. What are the odds?

 

[Belgarion]

That blind person would have hit the panic button in a New York minute and asked their bed partner to cover them both with his gun until they got downstairs safely and security arrived.

How about a story where a gun nut goes screaming down the passageway in a blind rage and shoots his girlfriend hiding in a locked toilet cubicle?

......then after murdering her in the blind rage he starts praying to God saying he would dedicate HER life to him if only he would save her…… Pistorius the dominating control freak right to the end

 

[aftermath]

That blind person would have hit the panic button in a New York minute and asked their bed partner to cover them both with his gun until they got downstairs safely and security arrived.

How about a story where a gun nut goes screaming down the passageway in a blind rage and shoots his girlfriend hiding in a locked toilet cubicle?

Another person might have hit a panic button but for the purpose of exploring the principle of whether a sound can ever be a sufficient basis upon which to place a genuine belief of an attack commencing, the one in my scenario didn't.

In the scenario where a gun nut goes screaming down the pasageway in a blind rage to deliberately shoot his girlfriend, I would hope that the prosecution team would be able to prove DD beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Belgarion]

Coincidence that the blind man also had a partner who was completely mute. What are the odds?

Pistorius only cast her and the intruder in a non speaking roles in his production of events