Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[Deleted member 102539]

...is there anywhere that says in an official manner whether or not she was pregnant .....during the bail hearing "no information was heard by Magistrate Desmond Nair relating to whether Reeva was pregnant".....http://www.ibtimes.com/reeva-steenk...e-her-death-alleges-national-enquirer-1103126 ...in the autopsy it's general practise to check for pregnancy and why was there only one autopsy....even more so why has this part of the affair been so hushed up ?

On the top this: Body of Reeva Steenkamp cremated in Port Elizabeth 19 February 2013

http://www.demotix.com/news/1811354/body-reeva-steenkamp-cremated-port-elizabeth#media-1811347

 

[Interested Bystander]

Reeva was NOT pregnant: Model's family says post-mortem proves media speculation is untrue

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...pregnant-say-models-family.html#ixzz3eNOBh28c


Both the PT and DT Pathologists were present at the same post mortem obviating the need for separate post mortems. Prof Botha chose to use Sayman's Path report rather than Perumal's, saying it was more detailed. Not sure whether anything can be read into that, ie was he telling the truth or was there something in Perumal's report they didn't want made public??

 

[Estelle]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-trial.html?_r=0

Perumal refused to give reasons why he was not going to testify.

 

[L2L]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-trial.html?_r=0

Perumal refused to give reasons why he was not going to testify.

Why would he refuse to give reasons?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Why would he refuse to give reasons?

http://mg.co.za/article/2014-05-05-new-defence-witness-expected-as-pistorius-trial-resumes

But Agence France-Presse reported in April that private forensic pathologist Reggie Perumal – who joined Pistorius’s hand-picked team soon after Steenkamp was killed on Valentine’s Day in 2013 – would not take the stand, amid suggestions his postmortem findings support key parts of the prosecution’s case.

 

[Colin de France]

Reeva was NOT pregnant: Model's family says post-mortem proves media speculation is untrue

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...pregnant-say-models-family.html#ixzz3eNOBh28c


Both the PT and DT Pathologists were present at the same post mortem obviating the need for separate post mortems. Prof Botha chose to use Sayman's Path report rather than Perumal's, saying it was more detailed. Not sure whether anything can be read into that, ie was he telling the truth or was there something in Perumal's report they didn't want made public??

....the word "NOT" is a little definitive to say the least even more so when there is no official judicial denial on record that she was not pregnant by someone who had actual proven knowledge......apart from that, where did this come from (on your link) "The National Enquirer reported earlier this week that Steenkamp told the athlete that she was pregnant to placate him after he accused her of cheating on him." the truth or a lie, the result is the same ....

 

[Deleted member 102539]

IF Reeva was pregnant and IF she nevertheless had had enough this night, then it seems normal to me to argue much more serious as if there had been no pregnancy.

But there wasn't a violent and verbal dispute incl. "war sound" but only a brazen burglary (or NOT).


P.S. Reeva's mother June had said, Reeva wasn't pregnant otherwise she had told her mum. I think, Reeva would have postphoned these news until she would have had a perspective with the difficult father of that unborn child.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...tm_hp_ref=science&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000047

Here's More Evidence That Good-Looking People Can Get Away With Anything

"This study finds that people are also more forgiving toward attractive people when they behave 'unfairly' in the game, which suggests that attractive people can get away with being meaner in life because their beauty means that people forgive them."

 

[Deleted member 102539]

What OP deserves when he is "free", IMO:

http://metro.co.uk/2015/06/26/jerem...-with-tasteless-oscar-pistorius-joke-5267418/



UKRants ‏@uk_rants 27. Juni
@Independent And what? The public nature & poor justice of the #Pistorius murder made the whole country a joke.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2015/06/12/Oscar-will-have-tough-time-returning-to-the-track

Oscar Pistorius's options in resuming his running career after being paroled are severely limited.

But one thing is certain: Pistorius would not be able to join Van Zyl in New York. The US has some of the strictest entry laws in the world and, as a "convicted felon", Pistorius would not be allowed to enter the Land of the Free.

Japan is as tough on felony convicts as the US but Pistorius's eligibility to enter other countries varies.

Britain would automatically bar Pistorius for at least 10 years - when the sentence might be regarded as "spent" - whereas Canada, Australia and New Zealand allow someone to argue for rehabilitation. All three would be unlikely to admit him while he is on parole.

Germany would be an absolute "nein", and the Low Countries might allow him entry after three years.

For big - and lucrative - meetings, Pistorius might have to look to countries such as those in the United Arab Emirates, where entry requirements can be waived at the behest of government agencies.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/africa...y-release-tells-us-about-being-white-and-male

What Oscar Pistorius's early release tells us about being white and male

While these cases are happening in different countries, they nonetheless demonstrate how the law can cruelly fail those who need it most. Both Steenkamp and Alexander were women who were in very real danger. Alexander was punished by a legal system that has trouble seeing black people as innocent, while Steenkamp was let down by one that is far more lenient on violent white men than it has any right to be.

Pistorius was acquitted of murder because he claimed to be scared of an intruder that didn't exist. If he is indeed released come August, then what South Africa's legal system would be reinforcing is the notion that an abstract fear of violent crime, one that is informed by paranoia rather than facts, is a reasonable justification for taking a human life. Meanwhile, people like Alexander, who acted out of a very real and present danger are prosecuted as far as the law will allow.

Is the system broken or is it serving exactly who it's designed to?

 

[GR_Turner]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/africa...y-release-tells-us-about-being-white-and-male

What Oscar Pistorius's early release tells us about being white and male

While these cases are happening in different countries, they nonetheless demonstrate how the law can cruelly fail those who need it most. Both Steenkamp and Alexander were women who were in very real danger. Alexander was punished by a legal system that has trouble seeing black people as innocent, while Steenkamp was let down by one that is far more lenient on violent white men than it has any right to be.

Pistorius was acquitted of murder because he claimed to be scared of an intruder that didn't exist. If he is indeed released come August, then what South Africa's legal system would be reinforcing is the notion that an abstract fear of violent crime, one that is informed by paranoia rather than facts, is a reasonable justification for taking a human life. Meanwhile, people like Alexander, who acted out of a very real and present danger are prosecuted as far as the law will allow.

Is the system broken or is it serving exactly who it's designed to?

There's a danger that it'll be not just rich white people who are affected if the SCA conclude that it's not ok to shoot at a perceived intruder if you think you may be in danger. The guy who shot through his roof and killed a man couldn't see who it was, could have been in no danger and had other options..and the woman who shot her husband twice in their garden. Likewise she had other options, was clearly shooting at a person she couldn't see and must have shot accurately twice or many times inaccurately to hit him twice. Neither sound wealthy and the man is black. These cases might end with murder convictions or attempted murder in the case of the woman if the things some on here say should make OPs case murder are considered. There are differences but it's not clear that in either case they could say they were in greater perceived danger than Op. It seems pointless to keep saying that there was no danger as though this makes a relevant point. Surely you mean that he could not have perceived any danger. Though that could be true in both of the cases mentioned above.

 

[Marfa Lights]

There's a danger that it'll be not just rich white people who are affected if the SCA conclude that it's not ok to shoot at a perceived intruder if you think you may be in danger. The guy who shot through his roof and killed a man couldn't see who it was, could have been in no danger and had other options..and the woman who shot her husband twice in their garden. Likewise she had other options, was clearly shooting at a person she couldn't see and must have shot accurately twice or many times inaccurately to hit him twice. Neither sound wealthy and the man is black. These cases might end with murder convictions or attempted murder in the case of the woman if the things some on here say should make OPs case murder are considered. There are differences but it's not clear that in either case they could say they were in greater perceived danger than Op. It seems pointless to keep saying that there was no danger as though this makes a relevant point. Surely you mean that he could not have perceived any danger. Though that could be true in both of the cases mentioned above.

I guess there is a fine line from exercising the right to protect yourself from what you may perceive as an imminent threat of bodily harm and "going commando" at every bump in the night, but identifying your target with a simple "Who goes there?" would prevent many of these cases of mistaken identity where a family member is accidentally shot and killed. That a trained and licensed gun owner like Oscar failed to do so resulted in the CH verdict-- he was clearly negligent in not identifying his target when he had ample time to do so (no one jumped him or actually attacked him, nor did he actually see anyone breaking and entering his home.)

I would go further though-- his actions were not simply negligent, Oscar granted himself the authority and permission to shoot to kill whoever was behind the toilet door. His excuse was that he was afraid of what might be behind the door. He did not feel obliged to find out if there was or was not an actual intruder behind the toilet door, he felt entitled to kill them regardless.

This word "regardless" is key for me in understanding the degree of culpability for his criminal actions. Oscar over-reacted to the simple sound of a window opening and a toilet door closing in his own en suite bathroom when an overnight guest would quite naturally be expected to be using these facilities. (I personally believe there was an argument, the victim's screams were indeed heard by neighbors, and he knew it was Reeva in the toilet, thus premeditated murder.)

However, even if you are unwilling to accept the totality of the circumstantial evidence, you should be able to evaluate if Oscar used deadly force in a reasonable (and legal) manner. I do not believe he did-- even if his intention were to protect himself and Reeva from an intruder, he chose, or allowed himself to be judge and executioner of the perceived intruder. Oscar, acting like some over-inflated superhero (an annoying trait of the Pistorius brothers) was always ready with a loaded gun, prepared to use it at the slightest provocation or opportunity. The only problem is that he lacked the maturity and judgement to know what constituted an appropriate use of deadly force. It was more than a simple case of putative private defense-- I don't care how bad your crime rate is, no one should be allowed or encouraged to blast away at every creak in the floorboards or the mere sound of a window opening on a hot night when the a/c is not working. This is beyond negligent-- it requires a willful and reckless disregard for human life, something Oscar frequently exhibited by driving at deadly speeds and mishandling a loaded firearm in a crowded public place.

He knew full well that he killed whoever was inside the toilet cubicle after unloading four Black Talon type bullets into that space and he did so intentionally. If you are willing to excuse his actions as a simple mistake, it tells me that you value his life much more than that of his victim, just as he did.

 

[mrjitty]

There's a danger that it'll be not just rich white people who are affected if the SCA conclude that it's not ok to shoot at a perceived intruder if you think you may be in danger.

Why?

This never has been legal and even Masipa didn't find it was OK

The danger is people buying guns for self defence in the home not realising that shooting someone is only legally justified in very narrow circumstances.

 

[mrjitty]

Reeva was NOT pregnant: Model's family says post-mortem proves media speculation is untrue

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...pregnant-say-models-family.html#ixzz3eNOBh28c


Both the PT and DT Pathologists were present at the same post mortem obviating the need for separate post mortems. Prof Botha chose to use Sayman's Path report rather than Perumal's, saying it was more detailed. Not sure whether anything can be read into that, ie was he telling the truth or was there something in Perumal's report they didn't want made public??

In order for Botha to refer to Perumal's report - it would have to be introduced into evidence.

And to be introduced into evidence Perumal would have to be a witness in the case, in order that Prosecution can examine him on the contents.

So that is why Botha had to use the prosecutions report.

 

[katydid23]

:juanettes:

 

[mrjitty]

However, even if you are unwilling to accept the totality of the circumstantial evidence, you should be able to evaluate if Oscar used deadly force in a reasonable (and legal) manner.

I think there is a cognitive dissonance between public attitude to defence of the home and the law of self defence - which after all - is effectively the same throughout the original common law jurisdictions.

People in RSA appear to be buying guns in contemplation of being able to "defend their house/person" without appearing to appreciate the high standard required to justify such lethal force

In NZ - though many families had guns in the home 30-40 years ago, we kept them locked up - because the idea of using them on intruder was off the table

If the prevailing social attitude in RSA is that guns for self defence should be allowed as first resort - the law needs to be changed to reflect it

The other thing is that prosecution seems to allow some of these which look strictly like murder to be watered down to Manslaughter

Because hunting down intruders with a gun is usually going to result in at least manslaughter - there needs to be a law change defining active/aggressive intervention within your own home as reasonable.

Of course the real issue is the proliferation of firearms which demonstrably place women and children at risk.

 

[mrjitty]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/africa...y-release-tells-us-about-being-white-and-male

What Oscar Pistorius's early release tells us about being white and male

While these cases are happening in different countries, they nonetheless demonstrate how the law can cruelly fail those who need it most. Both Steenkamp and Alexander were women who were in very real danger. Alexander was punished by a legal system that has trouble seeing black people as innocent, while Steenkamp was let down by one that is far more lenient on violent white men than it has any right to be.

Pistorius was acquitted of murder because he claimed to be scared of an intruder that didn't exist. If he is indeed released come August, then what South Africa's legal system would be reinforcing is the notion that an abstract fear of violent crime, one that is informed by paranoia rather than facts, is a reasonable justification for taking a human life. Meanwhile, people like Alexander, who acted out of a very real and present danger are prosecuted as far as the law will allow.

Is the system broken or is it serving exactly who it's designed to?

I think it shows the advantage of being rich and white if you compare to other recent RSA cases

 

[Colin de France]

....to think that it's next month he comes out .......

 

[Interested Bystander]

In order for Botha to refer to Perumal's report - it would have to be introduced into evidence.

And to be introduced into evidence Perumal would have to be a witness in the case, in order that Prosecution can examine him on the contents.

So that is why Botha had to use the prosecutions report.

Thank you Mr Jitty. It is good to know why. I do wonder why Nel made a point of Perumal's report not being used, because he surely knew it would be going nowhere if the report had not been admitted as evidence.