Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #70 *Appeal Verdict*

[Trotterly]

Even when his numerous lies have been neatly listed, the supporters (who always deny they're supporters) constantly try and justify the lies (unsuccessfully). And if someone dares to speak negatively about the murderer, then it's all "unsubstantiated" or from '"bitter and jealous" people

I must say I'm endlessly surprised that some have to equate analysis as "support"

Maybe it's just me but when I get the impression that the bile is barely contained, like the person is just bursting with rage and indignation but just can't hide it then I start to think that maybe that person is not taking a calm, dispassionate and fair look at the evidence.

Why does someone get that worked up about people they don't know, have never and will never meet?

"Dares to speak negatively" is an interesting slant on it. What about all those that condemned him before day 1?

 

[Trotterly]

Still hanging onto this BIB above?? You do recall, of course, that Mr. VDM reportedly said that he heard Oscar "crying" (not screaming) and this was after the last shot sounds. Right?

Not my point. It's a done deal. Do you really want to get into all that again?

 

[Marfa Lights]

It'll always be easy to take small one off observations that get hyped in the media as a means to prove your case but on the flip side of the coin, there's also Oscar who built a shrine for Reeva in his home where he recognizes her spirit daily. Of course, this side of Oscar won't fit your model of a murder so you will disregard it as just a show for the media and a play for sympathy.

Actually, I bet the good Christian Oscar kneels at that shrine and begs Reeva for forgiveness every morning and again every night. Makes it all okay, somehow. You know the saying-- "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven."

 

[Marfa Lights]

Not my point. It's a done deal. Do you really want to get into all that again?

Well, what was your point?

 

[Trotterly]

Well, what was your point?

It was about trusting evidence from court rather than from the paper or website of a for-profit business whose raison d'etre is to attract more readers.

 

[Marfa Lights]

It was about trusting evidence from court rather than from the paper or website of a for-profit business whose raison d'etre is to attract more readers.

Wouldn't that have been "hearsay" anyway since it was second-hand testimony by Mrs. EVDM? Not to mention that it did not actually support Pistorius' screaming like a woman since it was Oscar crying that they heard.

 

[Marfa Lights]

I don't really see Leech as Father Christmas although he does have the beard and glasses.

You think he's a big fat liar then?

I thought he (or the SCA) was being overly-generous to Masipa, yes.

 

[Tortoise]

The screams are a fact yes.

Masipa said she considered the identity of the person who screamed with the same caution as she would consider visual identification as the law dictates.

The identity of who screamed is not a primary fact in this case. Do keep up.

I have no desire to argue something that isn't even debatable. Masipa's finding on the screams was not a misapplication of the law and it can't be appealed or revisited.

 

[Trotterly]

I have no desire to argue something that isn't even debatable. Masipa's finding on the screams was not a misapplication of the law and it can't be appealed or revisited.

You misunderstand. I agree it was not a misapplication of the law.

You said I had failed to keep up with not being able to appeal primary facts but the identity of the screams is not a primary fact it is a fact found by legal inference. As much an inference as any other in the case derived from the circumstantial facts.

My point was that the PT could have appealed that the inference on the screams was just as unsafe using its "overall consideration of the circumstantial evidence" argument where it claimed Masipa had not taken into account all the evidence. They did not.

 

[soozieqtips]

I must say I'm endlessly surprised that some have to equate analysis as "support"

Maybe it's just me but when I get the impression that the bile is barely contained, like the person is just bursting with rage and indignation but just can't hide it then I start to think that maybe that person is not taking a calm, dispassionate and fair look at the evidence.

Why does someone get that worked up about people they don't know, have never and will never meet?

"Dares to speak negatively" is an interesting slant on it. What about all those that condemned him before day 1?

BIB - so you get that feeling from the supporters, too?

I've seen posters (who claim not to be supporters) on this very site getting extremely worked up about Reeva and completely unable to rein in their not even thinly veiled rage-filled comments towards her. Using your reasoning "maybe that person (or those people) is/are not taking a calm, dispassionate and fair look at the evidence"?

 

[Tortoise]

You misunderstand. I agree it was not a misapplication of the law.

You said I had failed to keep up with not being able to appeal primary facts but the identity of the screams is not a primary fact it is a fact found by legal inference. As much an inference as any other in the case derived from the circumstantial facts.

My point was that the PT could have appealed that the inference on the screams was just as unsafe using its "overall consideration of the circumstantial evidence" argument where it claimed Masipa had not taken into account all the evidence. They did not.

I didn't mention the word primary, you did.

The PT cannot appeal against a factual finding on any basis. She considered it. It's not the same as saying evidence was ignored which is a legal error and a failure to make a finding.

 

[mrjitty]

I have no desire to argue something that isn't even debatable. Masipa's finding on the screams was not a misapplication of the law and it can't be appealed or revisited.

Mr Fossil deserves massive sleuthing kudos for his cell tower analysis.

Any reality based discussion needs to include that aspect.

But sadly the legal ship already sailed.

 

[Coldpizza]

Admin Note

The topic of this thread is the Appeal not each other.

If you can't stay on topic then the thread will be closed until April when the Court makes a decision.

No more warnings.

 

[mrjitty]

Wouldn't that have been "hearsay" anyway since it was second-hand testimony by Mrs. EVDM? Not to mention that it did not actually support Pistorius' screaming like a woman since it was Oscar crying that they heard.

Hearsay can be tricky.

"Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay

Mrs EVDM is allowed to testify that her husband made the statement which can go to evidence that he did in fact say it to her - i.e context/timing.

It cannot be offered as proof of the matter asserted - i.e. who mr EVDM heard.

So as testimony from Mrs EVDM it could offer corroboration as to the sequence of events.

 

[Sherbert]

Hearsay can be tricky.

"Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay

Mrs EVDM is allowed to testify that her husband made the statement which can go to evidence that he did in fact say it to her - i.e context/timing.

It cannot be offered as proof of the matter asserted - i.e. who mr EVDM heard.

So as testimony from Mrs EVDM it could offer corroboration as to the sequence of events.

It occurred to me the other day that, if EVDM thought that Pistorius sounded like a woman when crying, could it also have been him, and not Reeva, that she heard speaking in a raised voice prior to the shooting?

 

[Marfa Lights]

Hearsay can be tricky.

"Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay

Mrs EVDM is allowed to testify that her husband made the statement which can go to evidence that he did in fact say it to her - i.e context/timing.

It cannot be offered as proof of the matter asserted - i.e. who mr EVDM heard.

So as testimony from Mrs EVDM it could offer corroboration as to the sequence of events.

Thanks, Mr. J. That was my objection to the earlier post. If I understand correctly, they would be entitled to quote Ms. EVDM's testimony but not draw conclusions based on what Mr. VDM reportedly said.

 

[mrjitty]

Thanks, Mr. J. That was my objection to the earlier post. If I understand correctly, they would be entitled to quote Ms. EVDM's testimony but not draw conclusions based on what Mr. VDM reportedly said.

Yes - its proof of the nature of the conversation between them - but not proof of what he heard.

 

[LemonMousse]

Innocent of murder yes.

This Donmack piece is all about him knowing it was Reeva.

That's dead and gone but it won't stop it coming up again and again. Oh dear. Yawn.

What a very odd thing for you to say - but I can see why you might.

I wrote it, as you know and it wasn't "based on him knowing it was Reeva". It was based on his own testimony, given under oath, highlighting the stunning and almost comical inconsistencies it contained.

His evidence remains his evidence...the inconsistencies remain inconsistent regardless of the fact that a single judge (who declared him a liar, by the way) was obliged to give him the benefit of the doubt that the defence raised.

My piece remains relevant and you know it in spite of your unconvincing and ostentatious "yawn".

 

[LemonMousse]

BIB - so you get that feeling from the supporters, too?

I've seen posters (who claim not to be supporters) on this very site getting extremely worked up about Reeva and completely unable to rein in their not even thinly veiled rage-filled comments towards her. Using your reasoning "maybe that person (or those people) is/are not taking a calm, dispassionate and fair look at the evidence"?

Calm, dispassionate view of the evidence?

Evidence from two very experienced pathologists, supported by peer reviewed articles - Reeva's stomach was most unlikely to be full of food 8 hours after eating.

Calm, dispassionate Pistorian analysis? Can't be right....my mate once threw up a Pot Noodle 6 hours after eating it...I watched him do it*

Pffff.

(*Not a made up example, sadly. Direct quote from a very piggy person).

 

[sleuth-d-]

I've read that before and it's brilliant for highlighting just how beyond ludicrous OP's fairytale really is. Hilarious.

it certainly highlights the ludicrous nature of the fabrication. that such fabrication was believed to such an extent in a courtroom - and continues to be believed/supported for page after page of these threads - i find far from hilarious.