Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #70 *Appeal Verdict*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interested Bystander said:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/oscar-pistorius-denies-partying-drinking-shots-groped-457120

This is one. I hope it works. There are others around I believe. I am sure you will say it is only a newspaper report but that is the normal route for this sort of information to be made public.
Click to expand...

I don't know how much experience you have had with the press but let me tell you about one experience I had.

Firstly let me say that the truth must tread a precarious path on its way into print but that's not to say that any manipulation is necessarily deliberate or nefarious.

I was closely involved in the clean up and investigation of a major industrial accident and got to witness "reporting" at first hand and saw all the resultant media reports.

Not a single fact was entirely correct in a week of reporting in various outlets. Many were just wrong, plain speculation or from grossly unsuitable or unauthorised sources and this was for a major incident which was debated in parliament and for which the final reports changed the industry.

Not that any of this misreporting was taken lying down but lets just say none of the attempts to correct the misinformation ever made it into print.

So you'll excuse me if I have a quiet smile about all this media "evidence"
 
Trotterly said:
I don't know how much experience you have had with the press but let me tell you about one experience I had.

Firstly let me say that the truth must tread a precarious path on its way into print but that's not to say that any manipulation is necessarily deliberate or nefarious.

I was closely involved in the clean up and investigation of a major industrial accident and got to witness "reporting" at first hand and saw all the resultant media reports.

Not a single fact was entirely correct in a week of reporting in various outlets. Many were just wrong, plain speculation or from grossly unsuitable or unauthorised sources and this was for a major incident which was debated in parliament and for which the final reports changed the industry.

Not that any of this misreporting was taken lying down but lets just say none of the attempts to correct the misinformation ever made it into print.

So you'll excuse me if I have a quiet smile about all this media "evidence"
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Based solely on the one single occasion you witnessed some facts wrong in the press then all press reports that portray Pistorius in bad light have to be dismissed.

You couldn’t make it up!!
 
aftermath said:
And not one photo taken by a single guest of this flirting behaviour, to be shared via media /social media? Not one guest who witnessed it actually prepared to put their name to their account?
Click to expand...


Am I right in thinking you never believe anything you read in a newspaper unless it has a photo to prove the article is true? I have come to the conclusion that you will never believe anything written about OP even if true if it doesn't fit your predetermined opinion of this IMO wreckless young man.
 
Tortoise said:
I've just found the Oliveira judgement for his sentencing appeal http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/1993/62.html

His sentence was reduced to 9 years on appeal, but I do see quite a difference between his and Pistorius' cases.

As far as the courts rejecting that either of them had a valid defence of PPD, the cases are the same. However, in Oliveira's case there was no question that he thought the men outside were strangers/intruders on his driveway, he saw them and didn't recognise them. So there was an overreaction and while there was intent to harm them, there was nothing dishonest or to raise suspicion about his evidence, that he was hiding a reason for taking his gun and shooting.

In Pistorius' case, I have to say that if Masipa had drawn the correct legal inference during the trial, and concluded that he was not in genuine fear for his life and not acting in private defence, there was a much bigger inference to be drawn from this, an irresistible inference which would have required her to revisit the State's main charge and reject his version as a fabrication. This alternative version/charge/motive was absent from Oliveira's case.

I believe that without a genuine justification for shooting the perceived intruder he should be sentenced on the grounds that he is an unconfessed murderer, and he has gone to exceptional lengths to deceive the court and avoid responsibility.

That is my personal view, that he has so far not explained to anyone what happened, so the courts should not have mercy. I don't think Oliveira is comparable in that respect.
Click to expand...


Spot on the knocker, Tortoise!

Especially this:
'I believe that without a genuine justification for shooting the perceived intruder he should be sentenced on the grounds that he is an unconfessed murderer, and he has gone to exceptional lengths to deceive the court and avoid responsibility.'

Totally nailed it! Thank you!
 
Interested Bystander said:
Am I right in thinking you never believe anything you read in a newspaper unless it has a photo to prove the article is true? I have come to the conclusion that you will never believe anything written about OP even if true if it doesn't fit your predetermined opinion of this IMO wreckless young man.
Click to expand...

I am certainly not going to believe unsubstantiated reports from unnamed people with no better evidence than their anonymous word. Are you saying that the word of an anonymous ' partygoer' is enough proof for you?

Given the way you have drawn conclusions about Pistorius from nothing more concrete than a nameless tip off to the media, the conclusion you have drawn about me - whilst inaccurate - is no real surprise.
 
Trotterly said:
I don't know how much experience you have had with the press but let me tell you about one experience I had.

Firstly let me say that the truth must tread a precarious path on its way into print but that's not to say that any manipulation is necessarily deliberate or nefarious.

I was closely involved in the clean up and investigation of a major industrial accident and got to witness "reporting" at first hand and saw all the resultant media reports.

Not a single fact was entirely correct in a week of reporting in various outlets. Many were just wrong, plain speculation or from grossly unsuitable or unauthorised sources and this was for a major incident which was debated in parliament and for which the final reports changed the industry.

Not that any of this misreporting was taken lying down but lets just say none of the attempts to correct the misinformation ever made it into print.

So you'll excuse me if I have a quiet smile about all this media "evidence"
Click to expand...


In fact I have had a great deal of experience with the press. My husband is (or should I say was) an international and Olympic Sportsman and the press was part of daily life. Never once did they misreport anything about him. All interviews and appearances were very fairly reported. So we have different experiences.
 
Belgarion said:
Are you serious? Based solely on the one single occasion you witnessed some facts wrong in the press then all press reports that portray Pistorius in bad light have to be dismissed.

You couldn’t make it up!!
Click to expand...

Who said my view is based on that one occasion?

Pardon me for saying but you seem to have a rather naive outlook on the way these things work.

Once again, I'd rather deal with the evidence from the court not the evidence from the tabloids.
 
Interested Bystander said:
In fact I have had a great deal of experience with the press. My husband is (or should I say was) an international and Olympic Sportsman and the press was part of daily life. Never once did they misreport anything about him. All interviews and appearances were very fairly reported. So we have different experiences.
Click to expand...

We certainly do.
 
Trotterly said:
Who said my view is based on that one occasion?

Pardon me for saying but you seem to have a rather naive outlook on the way these things work.

Once again, I'd rather deal with the evidence from the court not the evidence from the tabloids.
Click to expand...
BIB - evidence from the court proved the murderer to be a liar, dishonest and evasive. How do you deal with that evidence? Or are you referring only to evidence which excludes his dishonesty?
 
Trotterly said:
Who said my view is based on that one occasion?

Pardon me for saying but you seem to have a rather naive outlook on the way these things work.

Once again, I'd rather deal with the evidence from the court not the evidence from the tabloids.
Click to expand...


Are the International Business Times and the SA Times tabloid papers?
 
soozieqtips said:
BIB - evidence from the court proved the murderer to be a liar, dishonest and evasive. How do you deal with that evidence? Or are you referring only to evidence which excludes his dishonesty?
Click to expand...

The same way the judge did.
 
Interested Bystander said:
Trotterly said:
Who said my view is based on that one occasion?

Pardon me for saying but you seem to have a rather naive outlook on the way these things work.

Once again, I'd rather deal with the evidence from the court not the evidence from the tabloids.
Click to expand...


Are the International Business Times and the SA Times tabloid papers?
Click to expand...

I don't know whether they specialise in sensational celebrity stories if that's what you're asking.

If you get one of the "unnamed sources" into court then I'd be interested in what they had to say under oath.

It's interesting, for example, that so many rejected Mr EVDM evidence as it was only from his wife's lips yet media stories somehow magically have greater credibility.
 
aftermath said:
And not one photo taken by a single guest of this flirting behaviour, to be shared via media /social media? Not one guest who witnessed it actually prepared to put their name to their account?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't want to put my name to that account knowing OP would be gunning for me.

He is a convicted murderer after all. And a convicted murderer who doesn't take kindly to betrayal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 65 more.
Total: 2,370 (members: 66, guests: 2,304)

Online statistics

Members online
66
Guests online
2,304
Total visitors
2,370
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,474
Messages
18,109,136
Members
230,991
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top