Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #62 ~ the appeal~

[aftermath]

BIB

I thought the three shouts were after the shooting. Am I misremembering? Are you referring to the ones that Miss Stander alluded to when she was tucked up in bed listening to the dogs barking? Or maybe there was more than one set of "help" and I have inconveniently forgotten. It is becoming a bit of a blur after so much time. Alternatively did Miss Stander get this part of her testimony completely wrong when she said she heard the "help, help, help" because, doubtless, she also would have heard the shots that followed, if that is when you are saying the shots occurred. Something tells me that perhaps "help, help, help" may have been shouted on more than one occasion.

I think it depends on which set of bangs you believe to have been the gunshots. Personally, I am inclined to believe that the first bangs were the shots and that the helps came after these but before the last set of bangs (which the state claim to be the gunshots)

 

[aftermath]

I think he was completely aware of what he was doing in the moments leading up to her killing and almost immediately horrified at what he had done but also thinking foremost about how he could get out of this. I agree with those that think the first shot was done knowingly but while in a rage and then the others were necessary to silence her.

I also believe that issues such as the swearing he didn`t pull the trigger in Tasha`s stemmed from a belief that he could get off all those charges and the career and sponsors would come back. His uncle was tone deaf enough to public opinion to state during the trial that he wanted to see him back at the olympics!

I imagine you will now ask what the `helps` were all about? I have no problem with the said in sarcasm view. He emerged as a very unpleasant person during the trial so I can imagine this sulky boy-man acting like that. You won`t agree, but no worries. I am confident in my belief that he meant to kill her. If his incredibly far fetched story is actually a case of truth being stranger .... then I have no doubts that he intended to kill the person in the toilet.

Would that mean that rather than being deliberately shouted from an open door/window (to attract help), the three helps were sarcastic, (presumably directed at reeva?), and just happened to have been shouted close enough to an open door/window to be heard by neighbours, or were sarcastic and deliberately shouted from an open door/window to lay the groundwork for an intruder defence for a possible murder charge?

If he was so aware of what he was doing, why take the risk of shooting through the door? If he must have known the possible/likely damage inflicted by his choice of ammo, and he must have known that he was likely to kill if he shot four times, given the size of the cubicle/consideration of the ricochet, then mustn't he have also known that in shooting through a closed door the law could not support him and he risked his career and freedom? Especially if there was screaming before the shots were fired which neighbours may already have heard?

 

[Interested Bystander]

I think it depends on which set of bangs you believe to have been the gunshots. Personally, I am inclined to believe that the first bangs were the shots and that the helps came after these but before the last set of bangs (which the state claim to be the gunshots)

Miss Stander then should have heard the gunshots if she heard the "help, help, help" because she got up and went out on her balcony to see where the shouting was coming from. Also, she said (I think) she could not get back to sleep. If one believes her testimony, there must have been at least two sequences of "helps" because did not other immediate neighbours hear them too? Only they heard no shots (apart from one one bang which woke one of the wives up) immediately after which they heard three "helps" but this was around 3.15pm, I think. There is something not quite right here. What am I missing or what have I got wrong?

I don't have the timeline to look at so I may not be correct but I will listen again to the immediate neighbours' testimony as it was not too long.

 

[GR_Turner]

Regarding P's shooting into the cubicle and his intentional/unintentional??? killing, there was a more than interesting statement P made under oath: when asked why he didn't fire a warning shot elsewhere than into the cubicle he said he was afraid it could ricochet and hurt/kill him.

This is also interesting for those who might think the stressful/threatening??? situation triggered a "tunnel vision" - in this case it was a tunnel with transparent walls

This could just be a justification given in court for an action he never thought about at the time though.

 

[lithgow1]

Would that mean that rather than being deliberately shouted from an open door/window (to attract help), the three helps were sarcastic, (presumably directed at reeva?), and just happened to have been shouted close enough to an open door/window to be heard by neighbours, or were sarcastic and deliberately shouted from an open door/window to lay the groundwork for an intruder defence for a possible murder charge?

If he was so aware of what he was doing, why take the risk of shooting through the door? If he must have known the possible/likely damage inflicted by his choice of ammo, and he must have known that he was likely to kill if he shot four times, given the size of the cubicle/consideration of the ricochet, then mustn't he have also known that in shooting through a closed door the law could not support him and he risked his career and freedom? Especially if there was screaming before the shots were fired which neighbours may already have heard?

I forgot re the shouts for help that it is disputed whether they came before or after the shooting. I think they were after he shot her and part of the intruder cover story and because he thought it likely people had heard all the commotion. You know, desperately trying to cover his ...

Re your second point, if people always stopped to consider the repercussions of their actions when in a rage then we would have a lot less incidents of murder and assault wouldn`t we? Or do you dispute that people ever lose it and commit crimes when in a state of extreme anger only to think `What the ... did I just do!`. You try to have it both ways, continually coming up with reasons (excuses) as to why all of Pistorius's actions and assumptions that night can be logically explained away only to suddenly switch to some sort of panicked automatism at the moment of the shooting. So please tell me for the purpose of the debate, your reasoning as to how his act of shooting four bullets into that cubicle were reasonable and justifiable and what you think he intended by it.

 

[lithgow1]

This could just be a justification given in court for an action he never thought about at the time though.

And your reply could be just another justification for the killer you seem determined to defend at every turn. He was asked why he didn`t fire a warning shot and he replied because it might have ricochet and injured him. That was his answer. You seem quite content to accept as truth everything he said when it supported his version so why not accept this particular statement? Could it be because it shows him having considerable control over his thought processes and actions?

 

[GR_Turner]

Miss Stander then should have heard the gunshots if she heard the "help, help, help" because she got up and went out on her balcony to see where the shouting was coming from. Also, she said (I think) she could not get back to sleep. If one believes her testimony, there must have been at least two sequences of "helps" because did not other immediate neighbours hear them too? Only they heard no shots (apart from one one bang which woke one of the wives up) immediately after which they heard three "helps" but this was around 3.15pm, I think. There is something not quite right here. What am I missing or what have I got wrong?

I don't have the timeline to look at so I may not be correct but I will listen again to the immediate neighbours' testimony as it was not too long.

Ms Stander didn't hear the shots at any point either before or after the helps. The near neighbours heard male crying after being woken by a single bang (only heard by the wife) and she heard the 3 helps during the male crying while her husband was checking their house before he made 2 calls at 3.16 so the helps probably were at 3.15 on that reckoning. The other close neighbour didn't hear any helps. Burger/Johnson both heard male helps during the 5 minutes when they heard female screaming, so around 3.15 also by his 3.16 phone call (if you accept that time). Mr Stipp heard male helps I think just after he had talked on the phone to security (at 3.15) which would place them around 3.15/16 (but we aren't really clear about timings from the Stipps because the phone evidence doesn't match their testimony).

It's interesting that two sets of neighbours only heard one set of 3 male 'helps' and they both heard them in the midst of either female screaming or the male crying and if Johnson's phone time is correct, they heard them at the same time. This offers further evidence that the male crying was in fact mistaken for female screaming.

 

[GR_Turner]

And your reply could be just another justification for the killer you seem determined to defend at every turn. He was asked why he didn`t fire a warning shot and he replied because it might have ricochet and injured him. That was his answer. You seem quite content to accept as truth everything he said when it supported his version so why not accept this particular statement? Could it be because it shows him having considerable control over his thought processes and actions?

No, it's because later on OP explains that he didn't think about firing a warning shot at the time because he wasn't planning to shoot which suggests that his answer before was an explanation given in hindsight.

 

[Colin de France]

This could just be a justification given in court for an action he never thought about at the time though.

.......so why make it up then ?.....he was obviously remembering back to the moment otherwise he could have simply said "i don't know m'lady"......no i'm afraid that statement of his say's a lot about the final seconds before shooting hopefully the judges are going to pick up on this at the appeal.......this has to be pushed......

 

[Colin de France]

No, it's because later on OP explains that he didn't think about firing a warning shot at the time because he wasn't planning to shoot which suggests that his answer before was an explanation given in hindsight.

........he wasn't planning to shoot (ignoring gun in hand).....but when he did decide to shoot he made sure it wasn't at himself.....it's just a matter of time.....the intent to kill is in my opinion proven simply because of the choice that he thought at the time ......and which he admitted to......

 

[lithgow1]

Would be interested to know what GR Turner, aftermath etc make of this statement by Carice Stander.

Early in the morning of 14 February 2012, Carice Stander’s dogs grew restless as several screams pierced the silence of the Silver Woods Country Estate where she lived with her father Johan. Stander’s (who has since married and is now a Viljoen) heart raced and she was afraid.

At first she said she had tried to calm her dogs and go back to sleep but lay in bed worrying about what might have happened. It had been a man’s scream she had heard but she wondered, “Where’s the lady?”

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/arti...rs-recount-early-morning-horror/#.VbpO-Pmqqko

Why would you wonder that unless you knew there was a lady involved at some point? It is totally illogical. And I know the State did not pursue it. Am just interested in your opinion.

 

[aftermath]

Miss Stander then should have heard the gunshots if she heard the "help, help, help" because she got up and went out on her balcony to see where the shouting was coming from. Also, she said (I think) she could not get back to sleep. If one believes her testimony, there must have been at least two sequences of "helps" because did not other immediate neighbours hear them too? Only they heard no shots (apart from one one bang which woke one of the wives up) immediately after which they heard three "helps" but this was around 3.15pm, I think. There is something not quite right here. What am I missing or what have I got wrong?

I don't have the timeline to look at so I may not be correct but I will listen again to the immediate neighbours' testimony as it was not too long.

Sorry - I don't have the timeline here. I was given a link to Mr Fossil's spreadsheet a few pages back. I'll have a quick look back and see if it's on there... hang on......

 

[lithgow1]

No, it's because later on OP explains that he didn't think about firing a warning shot at the time because he wasn't planning to shoot which suggests that his answer before was an explanation given in hindsight.

That works, if you believe him. And even if it was said in hindsight it still shows he was fully aware of the capabilities of the weapon he didn't plan to shoot. IIRC even Masipa discounted the didn`t plan to shoot testimony.

 

[Colin de France]

That works, if you believe him. And even if it was said in hindsight it still shows he was fully aware of the capabilities of the weapon he didn't plan to shoot. IIRC even Masipa discounted the didn`t plan to shoot testimony.

.....belief is subjective......looking at the cold facts objectively, he had no reason to give that reply unless it was true......

 

[GR_Turner]

Would be interested to know what GR Turner, aftermath etc make of this statement by Carice Stander.

Early in the morning of 14 February 2012, Carice Stander’s dogs grew restless as several screams pierced the silence of the Silver Woods Country Estate where she lived with her father Johan. Stander’s (who has since married and is now a Viljoen) heart raced and she was afraid.

At first she said she had tried to calm her dogs and go back to sleep but lay in bed worrying about what might have happened. It had been a man’s scream she had heard but she wondered, “Where’s the lady?”

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/arti...rs-recount-early-morning-horror/#.VbpO-Pmqqko

Why would you wonder that unless you knew there was a lady involved at some point? It is totally illogical. And I know the State did not pursue it. Am just interested in your opinion.

Well what did Carice say about this herself? Nothing as far as I can see. She said nothing about hearing a woman so we can't conclude anything much from this.

 

[GR_Turner]

That works, if you believe him. And even if it was said in hindsight it still shows he was fully aware of the capabilities of the weapon he didn't plan to shoot. IIRC even Masipa discounted the didn`t plan to shoot testimony.

I don't think anyone ever claimed that he wasn't aware of what a gun can do. Just that he believed he was about to be attacked and shot through the door probably in panic. I didn't really see the distinction around planning to shoot vs not planning to shoot - surely it's about planning to shoot when. In other words, he picked up the gun with the intention of using it if attacked but we can't assume that he therefore picked up the gun with the intention to shoot whoever was there no matter what. There is a distinction.

 

[lithgow1]

Well what did Carice say about this herself? Nothing as far as I can see. She said nothing about hearing a woman so we can't conclude anything much from this.

That is what Carice said. `Where`s the lady?`. What lady is she referring to? Has to have been some lady involved in her thought processes for her to wonder where she was doesn`t there.

 

[lithgow1]

I don't think anyone ever claimed that he wasn't aware of what a gun can do. Just that he believed he was about to be attacked and shot through the door probably in panic. I didn't really see the distinction around planning to shoot vs not planning to shoot - surely it's about planning to shoot when. In other words, he picked up the gun with the intention of using it if attacked but we can't assume that he therefore picked up the gun with the intention to shoot whoever was there no matter what. There is a distinction.

Well in hindsight, he pretty much did shoot no matter what since he was not about to be attacked and had no good reason to think he was. There were a number of options he could have chosen on hearing the `wood moving` noise. You are good at coming up with alternative scenarios like armed gangs about to raid the bedroom, so why not consider his options and then think about whether what he chose to do was justified under the circumstances, bearing in mind that all his testimony about his actions prior to shooting are considered and calculated despite his fear - shouting, not shouting, hugging the wall, screaming for Reeva to call the police etc etc.

 

[GR_Turner]

Well in hindsight, he pretty much did shoot no matter what since he was not about to be attacked and had no good reason to think he was. There were a number of options he could have chosen on hearing the `wood moving` noise. You are good at coming up with alternative scenarios like armed gangs about to raid the bedroom, so why not consider his options and then think about whether what he chose to do was justified under the circumstances, bearing in mind that all his testimony about his actions prior to shooting are considered and calculated despite his fear - shouting, not shouting, hugging the wall, screaming for Reeva to call the police etc etc.

I have said several times that I don't know what to think about the DE charge but that if a man in SA can apparently shoot through a roof to kill an intruder who hadn't even entered the house then it would seem that a double-amputee less than 2 metres from a 'threat' and hearing a noise he thinks is the door opening has much more reason to fire than that man. And the first man wasn't pursued for murder - and there was no outcry about this anywhere.

 

[lithgow1]

I have said several times that I don't know what to think about the DE charge but that if a man in SA can apparently shoot through a roof to kill an intruder who hadn't even entered the house then it would seem that a double-amputee less than 2 metres from a 'threat' and hearing a noise he thinks is the door opening has much more reason to fire than that man. And the first man wasn't pursued for murder - and there was no outcry about this anywhere.

Maybe that was a miscarriage of justice too. At least that guy pleaded guilty to culpable homicide instead of trying to get off every charge, including the ridiculous Tasha`s one. I asked you once before but IIRC you never answered: which version of OP`s did you believe, the 1st or the 2nd?