Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/unfinished-oscar-pistorius-portrait-painted-5897000



She said: “I remember I was interviewing him and he slipped off his prosthetics.

“He was so relaxed about it, like they were slippers. I asked if I could keep taking his photo and he said yes.

“He arrived at one meeting in a t-shirt and jeans, like a normal guy. Then he’d changed in to his blades and his posture changed.

“He went from Clark Kent to Superman. His personality changed and he became more focused. He went from a young guy to Oscar Pistorius, Blade Runner.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Again at work: The OP-PR office and Mrs Kelly Phelps

http://www.health24.com/Columnists/Why-parole-for-Oscar-Pistorius-is-perfectly-legitimate-20150623

Not only can the conditions of correctional supervision be made appropriately punitive but there are significant benefits to society, both financially and socially, of punishing offenders in the community. Prison costs the taxpayer dearly. The daily cost of accommodating a prisoner is R329.20 (US$26.54). This amounts to just under R10 000 per month and more than R118 500 a year.

If an offender can shoulder some of the expense of their own punishment – without putting the public at risk – it is right that they do so.

Extended time in prison increases the likelihood that the offender will become a strain on society when released, either through becoming unemployable or through the well-documented cycle of violence in prison that sends people back into society more damaged, having increased their criminal contacts and de-socialised from the outside world.

Far from being a deterrent from serious crime, prisons contribute to a cycle of offending and should be reserved for use in the most serious of cases.

bbm= I see

 

[JudgeJudi]

Well I've checked back and OP never said that he put down his gun and picked it up again when putting on his socks. So it was not that I had forgotten in this instance it is that whoever posted this "evidence" was wrong.

You are wrong once again. Are you suggesting that he not only put on his socks but also his prosthetics with one hand?

p.553 of transcript of evidence

You came back and you put your legs on? --- That is correct, My Lady.
Which was next to the bed? --- That is correct, My Lady.

On the right hand side, as you stand in front of the bed? --- That is correct, My Lady.

And that you said you could put your prosthetic legs on in half a minute? ---
I remember the other day here, it being more or less half a minute. I do not know what time it took me that night.

Ja, no, that was timed, it was just over 20 seconds. But is that what you normally do, how quickly you put on your prosthetic legs? ---
No, My Lady. I put my legs on as quick as I could. I was trying to find the socks on the floor and I put them on as quick as I could.


p.554

Mr Pistorius, so let... So you went back, you put on your prosthetic legs, what happened then? ---
When I put my prosthetic legs on, my firearm was next to my side on the bed. I put on my prosthetic legs, I ran back to the toilet. I ran straight into the door. I tried to shoulder charge the door. Nothing happened.

But before you go there, you took your gun along? --- That is correct, My Lady.

Why? Why would you at that stage, Mr Pistorius, take your gun along? It does not make sense. ---
It does not make sense, My Lady. I do not know why I would have.

No, you see it is because you are building a version that is so improbable that nobody would ever believe it. ---
My Lady, if I was building a version I would have said I left the gun there earlier. I did not. I understand that it does not sound rational, but I did not have a rational set of mind... rational frame of mind. I wanted to get into the toilet. I do not know why I ...[intervened]

No, you see, Mr Pistorius, it is because that gun was left there after you shot and killed Reeva, just after. You fired the shots, you left the gun there. That is what happened. --- That is incorrect, My Lady.

 

[Trotterly]

You are wrong once again. Are you suggesting that he not only put on his socks but also his prosthetics with one hand?

p.553 of transcript of evidence

You came back and you put your legs on? --- That is correct, My Lady.
Which was next to the bed? --- That is correct, My Lady.

On the right hand side, as you stand in front of the bed? --- That is correct, My Lady.

And that you said you could put your prosthetic legs on in half a minute? ---
I remember the other day here, it being more or less half a minute. I do not know what time it took me that night.

Ja, no, that was timed, it was just over 20 seconds. But is that what you normally do, how quickly you put on your prosthetic legs? ---
No, My Lady. I put my legs on as quick as I could. I was trying to find the socks on the floor and I put them on as quick as I could.


p.554

Mr Pistorius, so let... So you went back, you put on your prosthetic legs, what happened then? ---
When I put my prosthetic legs on, my firearm was next to my side on the bed. I put on my prosthetic legs, I ran back to the toilet. I ran straight into the door. I tried to shoulder charge the door. Nothing happened.

But before you go there, you took your gun along? --- That is correct, My Lady.

Why? Why would you at that stage, Mr Pistorius, take your gun along? It does not make sense. ---
It does not make sense, My Lady. I do not know why I would have.

No, you see it is because you are building a version that is so improbable that nobody would ever believe it. ---
My Lady, if I was building a version I would have said I left the gun there earlier. I did not. I understand that it does not sound rational, but I did not have a rational set of mind... rational frame of mind. I wanted to get into the toilet. I do not know why I ...[intervened]

No, you see, Mr Pistorius, it is because that gun was left there after you shot and killed Reeva, just after. You fired the shots, you left the gun there. That is what happened. --- That is incorrect, My Lady.

Thanks, that's what I was looking for.

 

[Colin de France]

....the whole discussion is now turning around Trotterly....

 

[Trotterly]

....the whole discussion is now turning around Trotterly....

You think so?

I think some are stuck in blizzard of suggestive "facts" that don't prove what they are supposed to prove.

You know, stuff like he must have been aware of the dangers of ricochet when he fired because in court he was aware of it. Rather than some real hard evidence like him firing a warning shot out of the window which would have proved it was in his mind at the time.

I don't think there's anyone left who seriously think he's headed for a premeditated murder conviction but there is a possibility of an upgrade to DE. But once again we're missing hard evidence as in the example above to support his thoughts at the time.

 

[lithgow1]

You think so?

I think some are stuck in blizzard of suggestive "facts" that don't prove what they are supposed to prove.

You know, stuff like he must have been aware of the dangers of ricochet when he fired because in court he was aware of it. Rather than some real hard evidence like him firing a warning shot out of the window which would have proved it was in his mind at the time.

I don't think there's anyone left who seriously think he's headed for a premeditated murder conviction but there is a possibility of an upgrade to DE. But once again we're missing hard evidence as in the example above to support his thoughts at the time.

The only evidence we have to support his thoughts is what he says isn`t it? Like `I was saddened` or when asked why he didn`t scream when he first saw her body and realised what he had done to her `What would have been the point?`.

People provide you with hard evidence that proves he was lying in his account of events, like the photo of the blood splatter, and you ignore it. So there doesn`t seem much point in providing you evidence, hard or otherwise, since if it doesn`t back your belief that OP was telling the truth you discount it.

 

[LemonMousse]

You are wrong once again. Are you suggesting that he not only put on his socks but also his prosthetics with one hand?

p.553 of transcript of evidence

You came back and you put your legs on? --- That is correct, My Lady.
Which was next to the bed? --- That is correct, My Lady.

On the right hand side, as you stand in front of the bed? --- That is correct, My Lady.

And that you said you could put your prosthetic legs on in half a minute? ---
I remember the other day here, it being more or less half a minute. I do not know what time it took me that night.

Ja, no, that was timed, it was just over 20 seconds. But is that what you normally do, how quickly you put on your prosthetic legs? ---
No, My Lady. I put my legs on as quick as I could. I was trying to find the socks on the floor and I put them on as quick as I could.


p.554

Mr Pistorius, so let... So you went back, you put on your prosthetic legs, what happened then? ---
When I put my prosthetic legs on, my firearm was next to my side on the bed. I put on my prosthetic legs, I ran back to the toilet. I ran straight into the door. I tried to shoulder charge the door. Nothing happened.

But before you go there, you took your gun along? --- That is correct, My Lady.

Why? Why would you at that stage, Mr Pistorius, take your gun along? It does not make sense. ---
It does not make sense, My Lady. I do not know why I would have.

No, you see it is because you are building a version that is so improbable that nobody would ever believe it. ---
My Lady, if I was building a version I would have said I left the gun there earlier. I did not. I understand that it does not sound rational, but I did not have a rational set of mind... rational frame of mind. I wanted to get into the toilet. I do not know why I ...[intervened]

No, you see, Mr Pistorius, it is because that gun was left there after you shot and killed Reeva, just after. You fired the shots, you left the gun there. That is what happened. --- That is incorrect, My Lady.

Thank you, JJ. I knew he said it but couldn't be bothered to go and find it. Shortly after that he described coming back for the bat and running to the bathroom with the bat in one hand and the cocked gun in the other. Which is pretty ridiculous too.

 

[LemonMousse]

With a gunshot injury if the person dies it is usually because blood has been lost from torn blood vessels. The only way to effectively stop this bleeding is surgery so getting the person to hospital as quickly as possible is critical. If it was me and I had the presence of mind to act I would get the person to hospital asap. In the middle of the night unless an ambulance was very close the back of a car would be a great alternative.

I am going to do you an enormous favour and assume that you don't actually mean this. You would stick someone who has been shot in the head and is not breathing in the back of your car?

No, you would not. Only an irresponsible idiot would do that....or someone stuck in a jungle, or desert where there were no ambulances.

And, lets remember...Pistorius apparently called Netcare. According to him (although there's no evidence) they told him to bring her to hospital. If that was his desperate intention, why did he not tell the Standers this when they arrived? He did not tell them he was taking her to hospital, or that Netcare had told him to, or ask them to help him do this. He never breathed a word, which is decidedly odd given that he had apparently been given expert medical advice of what to do.

If his sole aim was to get her some help, why did this need disappear when they walked through the door?

Incidentally, he also testified that he called Stander because he needed help lifting Reeva to take her to hospital. But he called Stander before Netcare, so how did he know he'd be told to stick her in the back of his car when he hadn't spoken to them yet?

And exactly when did he have the opportunity to go into the kitchen, switch on the light and plug in the mobile phone? He clearly stated remembering putting his phone in his pocket and then carrying Reeva down the stairs. The Standers arrived while he was still on the stairs and the phone was not in his pocket, it was plugged in in the kitchen.

This is impossible to explain.

 

[soozieqtips]

LemonMousse - in his affidavit, OP said he called Stander and asked him to call an ambulance, which was a complete lie. Now why would OP start lying so early on, unless he thought he could get Stander to lie for him (like the incident in the restaurant when he got a friend to cover for him firing a shot). OP knew that he himself hadn't called an ambulance, and he knew he hadn't asked Stander to call for one. It was Stipp who asked if someone had called an ambulance, and at that point - still no one had. So much for trying to help his "beloved".

OP couldn't have made it more clear that he wasn't going to try and get help for Reeva. No one, but no one (medically trained at least) would ever suggest moving someone with a head shot and bringing them to hospital, when an ambulance could have been there in minutes.

Trotterly, why do you think OP started lying right from the affidavit? You always want proof of everything. Well, the proof is in his signed document. Why do you think he lied about asking Stander to call an ambulance, when actually what he did was ask for help with lifting Reeva (before he'd even called Netcare??) Not even close, is it??

I phoned Johan Stander (“Stander&#8221 who was involved in the administration of the estate and asked him to phone the ambulance. I phoned Netcare and asked for help. I went downstairs to open the front door.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/in-full-oscar-pistoriuss-defence-affidavit-8501265.html

 

[LemonMousse]

LemonMousse - in his affidavit, OP said he called Stander and asked him to call an ambulance, which was a complete lie. Now why would OP start lying so early on, unless he thought he could get Stander to lie for him (like the incident in the restaurant when he got a friend to cover for him firing a shot). OP knew that he himself hadn't called an ambulance, and he knew he hadn't asked Stander to call for one. It was Stipp who asked if someone had called an ambulance, and at that point - still no one had. So much for trying to help his "beloved".

OP couldn't have made it more clear that he wasn't going to try and get help for Reeva. No one, but no one (medically trained at least) would ever suggest moving someone with a head shot and bringing them to hospital, when an ambulance could have been there in minutes.

Trotterly, why do you think OP started lying right from the affidavit? You always want proof of everything. Well, the proof is in his signed document. Why do you think he lied about asking Stander to call an ambulance, when actually what he did was ask for help with lifting Reeva (before he'd even called Netcare??) Not even close, is it??



http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/in-full-oscar-pistoriuss-defence-affidavit-8501265.html

Oh yes..I complete forgot that bit about him supposedly asking Stander to call an ambulance. As you say, a complete lie. Of course, this was changed when he got on the stand and knew exactly what Stander's testimony would be.

 

[LemonMousse]

You think so?

I think some are stuck in blizzard of suggestive "facts" that don't prove what they are supposed to prove.

You know, stuff like he must have been aware of the dangers of ricochet when he fired because in court he was aware of it. Rather than some real hard evidence like him firing a warning shot out of the window which would have proved it was in his mind at the time.

I don't think there's anyone left who seriously think he's headed for a premeditated murder conviction but there is a possibility of an upgrade to DE. But once again we're missing hard evidence as in the example above to support his thoughts at the time.

No one is stuck in any kind of blizzard. We're utilising the evidence and seeing where it leads. Which is what we're supposed to do.

Conversely, you are either ignoring the evidence or trying to come up with the most unlikely explanations for it and convincing yourself this amounts to "reasonable doubt".

There is no evidence whatsoever that supports Pistorius' version. None. Even Roux's timeline contradicts what Pistorius said. All of the evidence available contradicts him...all of it.

Lights were on when they were supposed to be off, female screams when there were supposed to be male, full stomachs that were meant to be empty, loud female voices when there should have been silence, phones plugged into sockets that should have been in a pocket, duvets on floors that were supposed to be on beds, fans not plugged in where they should have been...the list is endless.

What evidence is there that directly supports his version? There is none. All you can produce is your personal speculation, unsupported by any evidence, as to why evidence that shouldn't exist does.

This doesn't strike you as odd in any way?

If Pistorius were telling the truth, everything found at the scene would support him. Of course it would. Yet absolutely nothing does.

Stop trying to pretend that you're the only open minded person on the thread and the rest of us are just following a biased narrative.

We believe he's guilty because of the evidence.
You believe he's innocent in spite of the evidence.

These are not equal positions. One is justifiable, the other is not.

 

[Trotterly]

I am going to do you an enormous favour and assume that you don't actually mean this. You would stick someone who has been shot in the head and is not breathing in the back of your car?

No, you would not. Only an irresponsible idiot would do that....or someone stuck in a jungle, or desert where there were no ambulances.

And, lets remember...Pistorius apparently called Netcare. According to him (although there's no evidence) they told him to bring her to hospital. If that was his desperate intention, why did he not tell the Standers this when they arrived? He did not tell them he was taking her to hospital, or that Netcare had told him to, or ask them to help him do this. He never breathed a word, which is decidedly odd given that he had apparently been given expert medical advice of what to do.

If his sole aim was to get her some help, why did this need disappear when they walked through the door?

Incidentally, he also testified that he called Stander because he needed help lifting Reeva to take her to hospital. But he called Stander before Netcare, so how did he know he'd be told to stick her in the back of his car when he hadn't spoken to them yet?

And exactly when did he have the opportunity to go into the kitchen, switch on the light and plug in the mobile phone? He clearly stated remembering putting his phone in his pocket and then carrying Reeva down the stairs. The Standers arrived while he was still on the stairs and the phone was not in his pocket, it was plugged in in the kitchen.

This is impossible to explain.

That's not true.

Carice Stander testified that:

"He was walking rather fast. From the second we walked into that house he was frantic, when he saw us (he said) Carice please Carice please, can we just put her in the car and get her to the hospital. He just wanted to get her to the hospital and I told him when he got to the bottom of the stairs to put her down, put her down so we could just see what's wrong"

So OP wanted to get her to the hospital but Carice Stander insisted he put her down at the bottom of the stairs.

 

[cottonweaver]

Again at work: The OP-PR office and Mrs Kelly Phelps

http://www.health24.com/Columnists/Why-parole-for-Oscar-Pistorius-is-perfectly-legitimate-20150623

Not only can the conditions of correctional supervision be made appropriately punitive but there are significant benefits to society, both financially and socially, of punishing offenders in the community. Prison costs the taxpayer dearly. The daily cost of accommodating a prisoner is R329.20 (US$26.54). This amounts to just under R10 000 per month and more than R118 500 a year.

If an offender can shoulder some of the expense of their own punishment – without putting the public at risk – it is right that they do so.

Extended time in prison increases the likelihood that the offender will become a strain on society when released, either through becoming unemployable or through the well-documented cycle of violence in prison that sends people back into society more damaged, having increased their criminal contacts and de-socialised from the outside world.

Far from being a deterrent from serious crime, prisons contribute to a cycle of offending and should be reserved for use in the most serious of cases.

bbm= I see

:sick:
Bet Kelly has already booked her exclusive interviews with OP's PR rep. (presumably booked for after completion of house arrest - as not sure if he is allowed whilst still on house arrest. )

Whenever it's broadcast it will be so predictable that I could almost write the script for them, in advance.

Wonder if Annaliese ( sp?) Burgess is still heading up the PR or if she has moved on as she doesn't want to damage her career permanently. Arnold has deep pockets so doubtless he will fund whoever is in charge, as the family have been, rightly or wrongly, damaged by association, so it's in his interests.

 

[LemonMousse]

That's not true.

Carice Stander testified that:

"He was walking rather fast. From the second we walked into that house he was frantic, when he saw us (he said) Carice please Carice please, can we just put her in the car and get her to the hospital. He just wanted to get her to the hospital and I told him when he got to the bottom of the stairs to put her down, put her down so we could just see what's wrong"

So OP wanted to get her to the hospital but Carice Stander insisted he put her down at the bottom of the stairs.

Then why not tell medically-unqualified Carice Stander that he'd been given advice by professionals to take her to hospital himself?

If he was acting on advice given, how come he abandoned that on the say so of a mate?

Pretty soon, by the way, I am going to start listing all of the points and questions you're ignoring. And it's most of them.

I have to say that it is attitudes like yours that pretty much seal the deal for me where OP's guilt is concerned. If he was actually innocent and telling the truth, the arguments supporting him would be considerably better than the speculative "what ifs" you keep trotting out.

 

[cottonweaver]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/unfinished-oscar-pistorius-portrait-painted-5897000



She said: “I remember I was interviewing him and he slipped off his prosthetics.

“He was so relaxed about it, like they were slippers. I asked if I could keep taking his photo and he said yes.

“He arrived at one meeting in a t-shirt and jeans, like a normal guy. Then he’d changed in to his blades and his posture changed.

“He went from Clark Kent to Superman. His personality changed and he became more focused. He went from a young guy to Oscar Pistorius, Blade Runner.

Indeed. OP has been "role playing" for years. (Public face and private face.)

 

[Colin de France]

I'm wondering if the public reaction at his release will have a bearing on the appeal .....

 

[cottonweaver]

BUT Reeva was already dead when OP still had the intent to bring her away from his home to ...................* hospital .................* or whatever. And OP had the expectation, "Mr. befriended Neighbour" of course would like to help him, additional not only in OP's car but neighbour's own car. That's a more than great alternative, at least for OP.


* the more dots the more questionable

BIB Yes, clear as day that she was already dead.

OP frantic at this point, according to all witness testimony..... again I would speculate playing a role again, all for show for the witnesses.....?

ie. This sudden frantic activity doesn't sit well with his 5 minutes of stasis crying over a body - his testimony.

 

[cottonweaver]

No one is stuck in any kind of blizzard. We're utilising the evidence and seeing where it leads. Which is what we're supposed to do.

Conversely, you are either ignoring the evidence or trying to come up with the most unlikely explanations for it and convincing yourself this amounts to "reasonable doubt".

.

RSBM

BIB. Not so sure about that Lemon.
I think the original comment was akin to a Freudian slip. :thinking:

 

[cottonweaver]

I'm wondering if the public reaction at his release will have a bearing on the appeal .....

Perhaps not in the sense you mean, although I may have mis-read your post Colin.

The appeal has to be done "by the book" this time. And i mean the very big books, not the "Law for Dummies" paperback that Masipa was thumbing through in the evenings at her hotel.

The kind that line the offices of Prof Grant and his ilk (an academic recently returned to the Bench was assisting Nel as you know.)

All those Appeal judges will have to be seen to get it right. Masipa did a lot of damage. SAPS was seen to be under-resourced - which confirmed a reputation already held in SA. So , yes very embarrassing in that sense.

The decision will be scrutinised and so surely great care will be taken, whatever the outcome, to avoid any further embarrassment re. SA establishment .
I would like to think the Appeal judges will be the best/most experienced they can throw at it.