Oscar Pistorius - Sentencing - 6.13.2016 #2

[cottonweaver]

Prof Michael Simpson, a very brief article on the sentencing trial

on barry
http://www.health24.com/Columnists/pistorius-sentencing-barry-steenkamps-brave-evidence-20160615

Apols in advance to chief supporter, lead campaign writer Heather Malcherczyk ( who some posters may be familiar with ), for whom Simpson is a great irritant.
Good time to post up some of his many articles for new/returning posters who haven't seen them.

and Simpsons advice to him in 2015 for his House arrest release phase
"I wonder whether Oscar yet realises how much his histrionics turned many otherwise sympathetic people against him. Maybe this swayed the judge, who seemed quietly sympathetic and indulgent of his performances. But he would be very wise to avoid any such melodramatic displays from now on. Quiet dignity is what he needs to portray."
http://www.health24.com/Columnists/Oscars-three-sources-of-danger-20150817

another old article, which is an "open letter to Oscar ", 2014
http://www.health24.com/Columnists/An-open-letter-to-Oscar-20141022

his views on LHarzenberg from 2014
http://www.health24.com/Columnists/Oscar-has-never-shown-any-real-remorse-20141014

 

[Paul Connelly]

I had a proper look at the pity walk, ( I'd only seen a news site clip before now) , and it's quite interesting looking at it "frame by frame". I wonder what other posters think,

it's 2hrs 29mins til 2.33 here on the video, if anyone can bear to see it again.

I am reminded of associations, intended?, with Christ's walk to the cross and his humiliations en route.

But more than that I am reminded of a poor actor following stage directions but pretending he hasn't rehearsed it many times already.So, Oscar makes some mistakes IMO, he is actually "waiting for his lines" before his cues are given!

[video=youtube;NSHDcmWM2m4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSHDcmWM2m4[/video]

Indeed, Oscar's very own Via Delarosa. If it was intentional he failed desperately. As we know Christ voluntarily walked that walk to show humanity that even the most humiliating, scary, painful sufferings we can endure as human beings and yes, even death, could be turned into something glorious and life giving. He did it to give hope and healing to humanity. It was the ultimate selfless example of what theologians call "kenosis" or self-emptying. Compare this with Oscar's selfish walk. He did it to escape punishment and humiliation, he did it to avoid justice. He didn't want to save the whole of creation; he wanted to save his own miserable *advertiser censored*.

 

[LemonMousse]

What I'm finding really interesting is the almost total absence of support for Pistorius these days.

The usual suspects are still mouthing off, of course, but anywhere that has any kind of thread about this weeks events has about 98% of people certain he knowingly murdered Reeva and hoping that he gets a very long sentence.

He is almost universally loathed and I am glad. As Jake18 noted a few days ago, for a narcissist like Pistorius this complete fall from grace will be almost more than he can bear and probably more painful that any prison sentence.

And it didn't have to be like this. His murder of Reeva would always be unforgivable, but if he'd held his hands up, told the truth and put himself at the mercy of the court he could perhaps have maintained some semblance of integrity. But he disprespected his victim, her family, the court and the whole of South Africa - the country that had idolised him as a hero - by placing his hand on a Bible and then lying, lying, lying and lying.

I genuinely can't get over him claiming in prison that he didn't deserve to be there because he hadn't done anything wrong.

HADN'T DONE ANYTHING WRONG? How can any sane human being remember the state of Reeva's body that night and think he "hadn't done anything wrong"? Even if his frankly risible story were true he still behaved in a murderous, savage way that night, showing no regard for anyone's welfare except his own.

He wanted to destroy someone's head that night even if it wasn't Reeva's. He has displayed no genuine remorse at all - almost every word out of his mouth has been about himself and how much he's struggling. And it is IMPOSSIBLE to be remorseful if you don't even believe you did anything wrong.

I hope Masipa comes to her senses. I hope she's paid close attention to what Nel's said and has been as repelled by the "walk" as most of the rest of the world. This lady struggles up and down the steps to her chair...she understand disability. I hope she asks herself whether someone who can barely walk on their stumps without clutching at a wall really, truly grabbed a gun and headed down a dark passage to confront an able bodied person that he believed was standing just around the corner.

It. Did. Not. Happen. The only person he wanted to confront was a terrified, unarmed screaming girl. What a big, brave man, eh? Needed a ******* gun to deal with his girlfriend who was terrified of him.

I hate his guts. Truly.

 

[mrjitty]

I'd like to ask the buffoon just how many incidents he attended where, by pure coincidence, there just happened to be a dead woman killed with four black talon rounds, where only minutes before a fox had been outside screaming?

He's a parasite, sucking on the teat of Pistorius' infamy and Reeva's suffering.

Agreed.

Look at his "analysis" of the McCann case.

He comes up with a theory of the case which flies in the face of the opinions of the English specialists working the case, not to mention the evidence.

A few days later, we welcome Mark Harrison, a specialist in murder, and the search for missing persons and victims of natural disasters. National advisor to the British police, he is well known for his exceptional professional experience. He has already participated in dozens of international criminal investigations.

Then when you look at this case, he simply does not bother to seriously analyse any evidence which doesn't fit his theory

 

[mrjitty]

What I'm finding really interesting is the almost total absence of support for Pistorius these days.

The usual suspects are still mouthing off, of course, but anywhere that has any kind of thread about this weeks events has about 98% of people certain he knowingly murdered Reeva and hoping that he gets a very long sentence.

He is almost universally loathed and I am glad. As Jake18 noted a few days ago, for a narcissist like Pistorius this complete fall from grace will be almost more than he can bear and probably more painful that any prison sentence.

And it didn't have to be like this. His murder of Reeva would always be unforgivable, but if he'd held his hands up, told the truth and put himself at the mercy of the court he could perhaps have maintained some semblance of integrity. But he disprespected his victim, her family, the court and the whole of South Africa - the country that had idolised him as a hero - by placing his hand on a Bible and then lying, lying, lying and lying.

I genuinely can't get over him claiming in prison that he didn't deserve to be there because he hadn't done anything wrong.

HADN'T DONE ANYTHING WRONG? How can any sane human being remember the state of Reeva's body that night and think he "hadn't done anything wrong"? Even if his frankly risible story were true he still behaved in a murderous, savage way that night, showing no regard for anyone's welfare except his own.

He wanted to destroy someone's head that night even if it wasn't Reeva's. He has displayed no genuine remorse at all - almost every word out of his mouth has been about himself and how much he's struggling. And it is IMPOSSIBLE to be remorseful if you don't even believe you did anything wrong.

I hope Masipa comes to her senses. I hope she's paid close attention to what Nel's said and has been as repelled by the "walk" as most of the rest of the world. This lady struggles up and down the steps to her chair...she understand disability. I hope she asks herself whether someone who can barely walk on their stumps without clutching at a wall really, truly grabbed a gun and headed down a dark passage to confront an able bodied person that he believed was standing just around the corner.

It. Did. Not. Happen. The only person he wanted to confront was a terrified, unarmed screaming girl. What a big, brave man, eh? Needed a ******* gun to deal with his girlfriend who was terrified of him.

I hate his guts. Truly.

I am glad Nel made that point.

He wanted to murder someone that night.

 

[aftermath]

I am glad Nel made that point.

He wanted to murder someone that night.

I don't think any court made that finding!

 

[LemonMousse]

I don't think any court made that finding!

He picked up the gun with the intention of murdering the human being who was in the toilet, whoever it was.

So yes, very sorry, but that was the finding.

 

[Paul Connelly]

Hi Aftermath, respectfully, Sophistry won't alter the fact he intended to murder whoever was behind the door that night and he did so with extreme prejudice.

 

[LemonMousse]

Sophistry won't alter the fact he intended to murder whoever was behind the door that night and he did so with extreme prejudice.

"Sophistry" is really not the word that leaps to my mind! Desperate word semantics, possibly.....

I have to say, I have wondered over the past few days whether certain Pistorians have looked at the photographs of Reeva's shattered head and maintained their view that the whole thing was somewhat excusable because Pistorius struggled to walk on tiles.

I could ask, but they'd only deny saying it as usual.

 

[aftermath]

He picked up the gun with the intention of murdering the human being who was in the toilet, whoever it was.

So yes, very sorry, but that was the finding.

No. He wasn't found to have picked up the gun with the intent of murdering the person in the toilet. That would be DD. He was found not ti have had a rational basis for believing his life was in imminent danger and ultimately for firing. It was also found that he must have known and reconciled himself to the fact that in firing four times in such a small space, death was a likely possibility.

 

[Paul Connelly]

Agreed.

Look at his "analysis" of the McCann case.

He comes up with a theory of the case which flies in the face of the opinions of the English specialists working the case, not to mention the evidence.



Then when you look at this case, he simply does not bother to seriously analyse any evidence which doesn't fit his theory

Couldn't agree more! He's not that well regarded or even known here in the UK. Like Oscar, he's just a avid self-promoter and jumps on any bandwagon that will ensure he gets an audience. Like I said... a parasite.

 

[Paul Connelly]

No. He wasn't found to have picked up the gun with the intent of murdering the person in the toilet. That would be DD. He was found not ti have had a rational basis for believing his life was in imminent danger and ultimately for firing. It was also found that he must have known and reconciled himself to the fact that in firing four times in such a small space, death was a likely possibility.

Nel: "M'lady, he armed himself and holding the gun in the firing position he proceeded down the corridor, into the bathroom and he shot four times into the toilet. We say that is bordering on dolus directus".

 

[aftermath]

Nel: "M'lady, he armed himself and holding the gun in the firing position he proceeded down the corridor, into the bathroom and he shot four times into the toilet. We say that is bordering on dolus directus".

That is what the state says.

(And even then they don't actually say 'he wanted to murder' or 'he picked up the gun with the intention of murdering'.)

The SCA and original trial court didn't find that.

 

[LemonMousse]

No. He wasn't found to have picked up the gun with the intent of murdering the person in the toilet. That would be DD. He was found not ti have had a rational basis for believing his life was in imminent danger and ultimately for firing. It was also found that he must have known and reconciled himself to the fact that in firing four times in such a small space, death was a likely possibility.

"Consequently, although frightened, the accused armed himself to shoot if there was someone in the bathroom and when there was he did".

SCA Judgement page 30.

And yes...it is Dolus Directus. That is why Leach lamented that this was not put before them.

As Nel said, the intention was formed in the bedroom.

You are mistaken.

 

[Paul Connelly]

That is what the state says.

(And even then they don't actually say 'he wanted to murder' or 'he picked up the gun with the intention of murdering'.)

The SCA and original trial court didn't find that.

I can only explain it to you, I can't make you understand it.

It wasn't just The State, the SCA found it to. Why do you think Nel kept reinforcing it? He wanted to kill, and he did. I know it, Mr J knows it, 99.9% of people know it. I also know the sun will rise tomorrow because it's obvious on empirical evidence but I cannot say it definitely will. So it is with Pistorius intention to murder. By virtue of his conviction he had to have intent and foresight. Ergo, he meant to murder. I really cannot see what's so difficult about a perfectly factual statement.

 

[aftermath]

"Consequently, although frightened, the accused armed himself to shoot if there was someone in the bathroom and when there was he did".

SCA Judgement page 30.

And yes...it is Dolus Directus. That is why Leach lamented that this was not put before them.

As Nel said, the intention was formed in the bedroom.

You are mistaken.

What the SCA says in that extract is not the same as 'wanting to murder. '

Where is this infamous lament of justice Leach over DD?

 

[aftermath]

I can only explain it to you, I can't make you understand it.

It wasn't just The State, the SCA found it to. Why do you think Nel kept reinforcing it? He wanted to kill, and he did. I know it, Mr J knows it, 99.9% of people know it. I also know the sun will rise tomorrow because it's obvious on empirical evidence but I cannot say it definitely will. So it is with Pistorius intention to murder. By virtue of his conviction he had to have intent and foresight. Ergo, he meant to murder. I really cannot see what's so difficult about a perfectly factual statement.

No. The SCA did not find that he ' wanted to murder someone ' or that he 'picked up the gun intending to murder the person in the toilet '.

Pretty sure I explained this earlier. It seems we are destined to keep explaining things to each other that we consequently feel are not fully understood by the other party.

 

[Paul Connelly]

What the SCA says in that extract is not the same as 'wanting to murder. '

The relativism in that statement is simply staggering. A "Rouxism" rather than a truism.

 

[Paul Connelly]

No. The SCA did not find that he ' wanted to murder someone ' or that he 'picked up the gun intending to murder the person in the toilet '.

Pretty sure I explained this earlier. It seems we are destined to keep explaining things to each other that we consequently feel are not fully understood by the other party.

Thank you for debating the matter. I'll "roll and scroll" now if it's all the same to you. I mean that respectfully.

 

[aftermath]

Thank you for debating the matter. I'll "roll and scroll" now if it's all the same to you. I mean that respectfully.

No problem