Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #62 ~ the appeal~

[lithgow1]

How very honest It might be preferable to read it so you can judge it for yourself.

I am reading it now. Reading the extract below, I didn`t know if I was coming or going.

The shooting was an accident. The accused said he shot in the belief that the intruders were coming out to attack him. He did not have time to think. He never intended to shoot anyone. He pulled the trigger when he heard the noise. He fired into the toilet door. He did not purposefully fire into the door. He fired shots at the door, but he did not do so deliberately. He never aimed at the door. The firearm was pointed at the door when he discharged his firearm as he got a fright.

 

[cottonweaver]

I am reading it now. Reading the extract below, I didn`t know if I was coming or going.

RSBM - I missed some posts - are you reading the MH documents or something else?
ie. these?
https://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/oscar-pistorius-mental-evaluation-documents/

 

[lithgow1]

RSBM - I missed some posts - are you reading the MH documents or something else?
ie. these?
https://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/oscar-pistorius-mental-evaluation-documents/

Masipa`s judgement at the link below. To be fair about my post above, it is not her saying it, it is her summation of OP`s evidence. But it certainly is a stew of i did, i didn`t, I meant to, I never meant to.

http://citizen.co.za/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2014/09/140915OPJudgment.pdf?c121c0

 

[Colin de France]

We're not talking about mental illness, we're talking about his character which you have disparaged and I have pointed out that there is evidence that your views are wrong.

BIB - I've just said what I think about that. Perhaps read my posts...?

....and i have pointed out that there is evidence that your views are wrong and i'm also happy to inform you that you are in the minority.......Firstly an objective account has to be taken of how effective these test's are, there exist's a percentage factor....secondly it also needs to be seen whether there was a particular examination made on his anger.....thirdly, i agree completely with the post depression, normal with what he lost, but this post depression would have had the effect of calming him adding onto that any medication that he was under at the time...... i'm saying that the examination didn't address his anger and woudn't of been able to work correctly due primarily to being covered and clouded by his depression during the examination.......in total the examination would of been more in the interests of the defense than the prosecution......and we must not forget that he was taking private consultation at the time ....and that is my opinion.

 

[lithgow1]

I don`t get this part of the judgment at all. OK, she concludes that he can`t have foreseen the killing of Reeva Steenkamp as he thought she was in the bedroom but why does that let him off the hook for the killing of the intruder he believed he was shooting at? This is essentially the basis of the appeal eh? The part where the state and others believe Masipa got it wrong?

The question is: Did the accused foresee the possibility of the resultant death, yet persisted in his deed reckless whether death ensued or not? In the circumstances of this case the answer has to be no.

How could the accused reasonably have foreseen that the shots he fired would kill the deceased? Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door, let 20 alone the deceased, as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time.

 

[lithgow1]

We're not talking about mental illness, we're talking about his character which you have disparaged and I have pointed out that there is evidence that your views are wrong.

BIB - I've just said what I think about that. Perhaps read my posts...?

BIB - oh, i think there is much about his character that could be disparaged. Oodles of things.

 

[Trotterly]

Then I am in good company.

I think the problem with understanding the verdict really comes back to the same thing that impedes understanding of so much of the trial. One must read it with an open mind having judged OP's evidence in the same way as all the other witnesses.

 

[cottonweaver]

Masipa`s judgement at the link below. To be fair about my post above, it is not her saying it, it is her summation of OP`s evidence. But it certainly is a stew of i did, i didn`t, I meant to, I never meant to.

http://citizen.co.za/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2014/09/140915OPJudgment.pdf?c121c0

Thanks - well yes, the judgment reasoning is a howler.

MHealth documents - read those back then - interesting if you're interested in that kind of thing and I was at the time, but again, don't know how the standards measure up internationally and can't remember anything salient from in so far as it impacted miscarriage IMO. I might go read them again, but they are "after the crime" and as you reminded me, compromised.

 

[Colin de France]

I think the problem with understanding the verdict really comes back to the same thing that impedes understanding of so much of the trial. One must read it with an open mind having judged OP's evidence in the same way as all the other witnesses.

.....Trotterly, you make me laugh...how can you possibly read the verdict with an open mind unless it was done by eeeeny meeeeny mineee mo ......

 

[Trotterly]

....and i have pointed out that there is evidence that your views are wrong and i'm also happy to inform you that you are in the minority.......Firstly an objective account has to be taken of how effective these test's are, there exist's a percentage factor....secondly it also needs to be seen whether there was a particular examination made on his anger.....thirdly, i agree completely with the post depression, normal with what he lost, but this post depression would have had the effect of calming him adding onto that any medication that he was under at the time...... i'm saying that the examination didn't address his anger and woudn't of been able to work correctly due primarily to being covered and clouded by his depression during the examination.......in total the examination would of been more in the interests of the defense than the prosecution......and we must not forget that he was taking private consultation at the time ....and that is my opinion.

The examination was more in the interests of the defence and I was stunned when Nel pushed for it and it was granted. I understand why he did it but it backfired spectacularly allowing OP to bounce a lot of what he was saying about what played a part in the incident right back into the record with an expert stamp all over it.

 

[Trotterly]

.....Trotterly, you make me laugh...how can you possibly read the verdict with an open mind unless it was done by eeeeny meeeeny mineee mo ......

It's not too difficult. Just judgement not judgemental.

 

[aftermath]

....and i have pointed out that there is evidence that your views are wrong and i'm also happy to inform you that you are in the minority.......Firstly an objective account has to be taken of how effective these test's are, there exist's a percentage factor....secondly it also needs to be seen whether there was a particular examination made on his anger.....thirdly, i agree completely with the post depression, normal with what he lost, but this post depression would have had the effect of calming him adding onto that any medication that he was under at the time...... i'm saying that the examination didn't address his anger and woudn't of been able to work correctly due primarily to being covered and clouded by his depression during the examination.......in total the examination would of been more in the interests of the defense than the prosecution......and we must not forget that he was taking private consultation at the time ....and that is my opinion.

There has been no evidence presented that the psychologists and psychiatrists were wrong.

Majorities are not always right.

 

[Colin de France]

The examination was more in the interests of the defence and I was stunned when Nel pushed for it and it was granted. I understand why he did it but it backfired spectacularly allowing OP to bounce a lot of what he was saying about what played a part in the incident right back into the record with an expert stamp all over it.

....and with this i agree ............entirely

 

[cottonweaver]

I don`t get this part of the judgment at all. OK, she concludes that he can`t have foreseen the killing of Reeva Steenkamp as he thought she was in the bedroom but why does that let him off the hook for the killing of the intruder he believed he was shooting at? This is essentially the basis of the appeal eh? The part where the state and others believe Masipa got it wrong?

The question is: Did the accused foresee the possibility of the resultant death, yet persisted in his deed reckless whether death ensued or not? In the circumstances of this case the answer has to be no.

How could the accused reasonably have foreseen that the shots he fired would kill the deceased? Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door, let 20 alone the deceased, as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time.

howler no.1

http://www.dw.com/en/pistorius-judge-interpreted-the-law-incorrectly/a-17917095
From D.Dadic
" Q. You said the judge should expect an appeal. Why is that?
A. A few people have said, and I agree, that she's interpreted the law regarding forseeability incorrectly. The foreseeability test applies to eventualis, and not to culpable homicide. So from that point of view, if the state feels she applied the law incorrectly in terms of section 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the state can appeal the decision based on the wrong application of law by the judge."

 

[Colin de France]

There has been no evidence presented that the psychologists and psychiatrists were wrong.

Majorities are not always right.

.....aftermath,... there's been no evidence to prove they were right ........we could go on all evening with this, i did say it's my opinion...and i feel happy with it ...

 

[cottonweaver]

BIB - oh, i think there is much about his character that could be disparaged. Oodles of things.

and Mr.de France's " we could go on all night with this.."

Mother's ideal son-in-law? Dream lover? Eligible bachelor?:thinking:

Mad,
bad
or just dangerous to know....

Take your pick.

 

[aftermath]

.....aftermath,... there's been no evidence to prove they were right ........we could go on all evening with this, i did say it's my opinion...and i feel happy with it ...

Fair enough - your opinion. But as you didn't assess him professionally and in person, I think the panel's opinion both individually and collectively holds more water. It was accepted by both sides so obviously didn't need to be defended.

 

[GR_Turner]

.....aftermath,... there's been no evidence to prove they were right ........we could go on all evening with this, i did say it's my opinion...and i feel happy with it ...

They were giving their expert opinions based on their tests and conversations
It is no different from any of the expert witness evidence and in this case it went totally unrefuted.

 

[Colin de France]

...what do you expect .............an appeal of the report ......

 

[cottonweaver]

...what do you expect .............an appeal of the report ......

I just reacquainted myself with psychologist Stoltzs part. His report is here -

https://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/scholtz-report.pdf

After a quick scan what comes back to me is
a) the lack of interviews Stoltz did - of course he some of OP's family members eg sister

b) Stoltz has only done 90 forensic assessments across his career of 23 years. ( 4-5 a year, in high profile US cases - the forensic appointed for an NGRI would have done hundreds within that time frame. )

c) "Inconsistencies". eg. taken at face value and reported in it are comments form OP to Stoltz such as he doesn't drink much except "odd social occasions." He "never reacted to the offers from beautiful women models" . Obviously we have all seen the photos of models he has dated. he was buying a house for him & RS. He had never taken a woman to a big sporting event before( remember Nel's cross x of Van Zyl re Sam Taylor as OP had wanted ST to go to Olympics with him previously.) Anyway that's from interviews with OP! TBH a huge chunk of it is like a doctored biography.

"Inconsistencies". aka economical with the verite

Don't know if i can be bothered looking at the rest - would be so much easier to bring my up old posts from 2013 but you cant do that any more with WS.


And lest we forget, no-one ( ie Pros) refuted the MH assessment precisely because it's result what the Pros needed to head off the Defence moves- he could not be NGRI for want of a better term. If you recall, at the time the Pros requested this report Vorster was claiming GAD. OP's defence was veering to automatism and even later Derman was trying to claim a startle response as if OP was physiologically different.
No one refuted it - it didn't matter - it just resolved a possible escape plan of the Defences based on Vorster.

Now I do have to ask myself - why am I bothering? It's as I said 2 threads back - time-wasting!