Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #62 ~ the appeal~

[GR_Turner]

Lots of things worth discussing so let`s start with one. We don`t know for sure who took his watch but we do know who took the deceased`s handbag from the crime scene. Aimee Pistorius barely knew Reeva Steenkamp and AFAIK didn`t know her mother at all so what do you think that was all about? Bit of a coincidence too IMO that the only day she was not in court was the day Carice Stander described that incident.

We don't know what happened to the watches but that in itself suggests that the scene wasn't protected and that's the point. The police should have been in control of what went in and what went out and they couldn't do even that most basic thing.

 

[Colin de France]

We don't know what happened to the watches but that in itself suggests that the scene wasn't protected and that's the point. The police should have been in control of what went in and what went out and they couldn't do even that most basic thing.

....i would say that was pretty obvious even to a beginner........the telephone, the handbag, the watch, the toilet window, the fans, etc etc but moreover how strange that the extension cord went missing after the photo was taken ...it's not the sort of item one would think of just like that, it had a specific place in the investigation.......

 

[lithgow1]

We don't know what happened to the watches but that in itself suggests that the scene wasn't protected and that's the point. The police should have been in control of what went in and what went out and they couldn't do even that most basic thing.

Yes the police should have protected the scene but that doesn`t therefore mean that the accused`s sister can walk off with the victim`s handbag! It may be the police`s fault that she was able to do it but it was entirely her choice to do so.

 

[aftermath]

So don`t you believe those claims? There were quite a lot of them from various sources and in a range of situations so I see no reason to disregard them in favour of his Mr Nice Guy image.

In which case wouldn't his behaviour pattern when displeased (loud, sulky, storming off/ shouting/ slamming doors etc) suggest that any argument between them would have been loud and stroppy on his part, rather than an out-of-character quiet attack?

 

[Colin de France]

I agree that he won`t go back to competing. Very few organisations would want him at their events these days IMO. It will be interesting to see what type of community service he gets. They may try to give him something slightly glamorous (he definitely wouldn`t want to do cleaning!) but now that his fame has become infamy that might be a bit tricky.

If he lives at his uncle`s house, I wonder if his uncle will need to remove all the guns he uses to shoot elephants? You would like to think that part of his release conditions would include no access to guns. There will be a special cupboard in the house that Oscar is not allowed to touch, like a kid with the china cabinet!

....i know what he could do though.......................acting ...

 

[lithgow1]

In which case wouldn't his behaviour pattern when displeased (loud, sulky, storming off/ shouting/ slamming doors etc) suggest that any argument between them would have been loud and stroppy on his part, rather than an out-of-character quiet attack?

The question was not related to the claimed argument. It was do you believe all the reports about what a jerk he could be.

 

[Colin de France]

Yes the police should have protected the scene but that doesn`t therefore mean that the accused`s sister can walk off with the victim`s handbag! It may be the police`s fault that she was able to do it but it was entirely her choice to do so.

....and we don't know what was in the handbag.......and woudn't it be easy for a woman to do that......

 

[GR_Turner]

Ok. It's like your "Masipa was well-qualified " point all over again, because you plucked a "since 1998" comment out and that sounded to you like a heap of relevant experience at a relevant level. It doesn't work like that for Judges in most Western, developed countries. But, see my post 2 thread 62.

One must surely compare info. eg. Compare the quals, experience, papers, professional bodies, citations ........not against posters on this site obviously because that's meaningless comparison, it doesn't even deflect effectively
As i said yesterday - WE are not experts you or I.

So take a big trial recent / current today in another country you're familiar with- UK, US wherever. ( Op's was SA's "big" trial. ) Who are the main players and experts? What level are they at? Standards they need to meet?

Then look at the someone operating as a "big name" forensic psychiatrist or psychol but working in the public sphere, for the State. How many hundreds of psyc and competency evals have they done? Are they helping draft guidelines for conducting sanity exams, even helping draft revisions for the DSM. Are they certified forensics? What do their reports look like, how do they read, how many hundreds of pages are they?

So I'm sorry , instead of supplying the examples and links I have in front of me there's a few pointers instead of the direction needed for making a more effective comparison. It won't make one an expert but it might be illuminating.

Your post suggests that this trial should have had 'big names' associated with it. Why - because the media were watching? Neither side had unlimited resources and they probably got what they paid for imo which despite the often poor quality is much better than what most can afford.

Look at most trials by comparison - do you think that we should now conclude that convictions are unsafe because one of the expert witnesses wasn't a 'big name' - because by your reckoning that means that we can as laypeople feel free to ignore their professional opinions and so question the outcome? Does that also apply when it's a police ballistics expert who has only investigated 50 cases compared with the 500 of another expert? At some point you just have to accept that someone is qualified, don't you?

 

[aftermath]

....i would say that was pretty obvious even to a beginner........the telephone, the handbag, the watch, the toilet window, the fans, etc etc but moreover how strange that the extension cord went missing after the photo was taken ...it's not the sort of item one would think of just like that, it had a specific place in the investigation.......

Yes- How strange that it was found to be missing after the state said it wouldn't reach, then showed a photo that didn't prove it wouldn't reach and after pistorius saying that it would reach...

 

[GR_Turner]

....i would say that was pretty obvious even to a beginner........the telephone, the handbag, the watch, the toilet window, the fans, etc etc but moreover how strange that the extension cord went missing after the photo was taken ...it's not the sort of item one would think of just like that, it had a specific place in the investigation.......

If it's obvious that the police didn't protect the scene then why dispute it?

 

[Trotterly]

Yes that is the reason she gave but it still rings a little odd. Reeva`s mother would have rec`vd it in due course so I see no need for her to remove what could be potential evidence from a crime scene. But it may have been done solely out of sympathy for sure.

I agree that at the time Pistorius would have confided in no one had he murdered her. A bit down the track, I think it is possible that if he killed her deliberately then his brother and/or uncle may know the truth. I have no evidence for that of course, it is just a `feeling' which counts for zero I know. Again, just another impression, but there is something quite creepy about Uncle Arnold IMO.

Unless the family were a family of murderers where such behaviour was accepted I have trouble in believing that someone who murdered would risk telling any family member. To admit such a thing would be so shameful. They would risk losing all of their family as well as being found out, the risk of which would increase exponentially the more people were involved. These feelings would be paramount unless we think OP is some kind of monster and there's no evidence, professional or otherwise, for that.

I did consider early in the trial that OP could have turned to a (legal?)l confidant to help bolster his story but he made such a hash of patching up what was a pretty good effort cooked up just after the trauma of a shooting that I eliminated that possibility.

I've come across a few Uncle Arnolds in my time. Not flushed with humility but he seems to want to do the best for a family member he appears to believe in.

 

[Colin de France]

Your post suggests that this trial should have had 'big names' associated with it. Why - because the media were watching? Neither side had unlimited resources and they probably got what they paid for imo which despite the often poor quality is much better than what most can afford.

Look at most trials by comparison - do you think that we should now conclude that convictions are unsafe because one of the expert witnesses wasn't a 'big name' - because by your reckoning that means that we can as laypeople feel free to ignore their professional opinions and so question the outcome? Does that also apply when it's a police ballistics expert who has only investigated 50 cases compared with the 500 of another expert? At some point you just have to accept that someone is qualified, don't you?

.........like the psychologist.....qualified to do the work of the defense.........and the social worker, a disgrace to her profession...............

 

[GR_Turner]

.......awnser my post if you can.....for my personal détails, don't even bother asking.........attack the post not the poster....the test was nothing but a waste of time, it skimmed over the character had no depth to it and on occasions ventured into the legal domain........

It's reasonable to ask about qualifications when a poster implies that they have greater knowledge on a topic and that other posters should accept their opinion for that reason. I think the refusal to answer is the answer however.

 

[Colin de France]

If it's obvious that the police didn't protect the scene then why dispute it?

....i don't think anyone disputing it .........not even you !

 

[aftermath]

The question was not related to the claimed argument. It was do you believe all the reports about what a jerk he could be.

I am sure there was some truth in many of the reports about loud stroppy behaviour. I can't say I trust fully the way some events were described though.
(Hope that makes sense... I mean that I am cynical of the potential sensationalising of incidents of misbehaviour, not that some of the incidents themselves did not happen in some form)

 

[GR_Turner]

.........like the psychologist.....qualified to do the work of the defense.........and the social worker, a disgrace to her profession...............

and the police tool mark expert who wasn't one... I didn't claim they were great experts but we must judge them by their evidence instead of starting to argue that they must be no good because they are less experienced that the 'big names' in their field. At some point everyone is relatively inexperienced.

 

[Trotterly]

.......awnser my post if you can.....for my personal détails, don't even bother asking.........attack the post not the poster....the test was nothing but a waste of time, it skimmed over the character had no depth to it and on occasions ventured into the legal domain........

I have experience of psychiatric and psychological services and I can assure you that OP was lucky enough to receive more attention than many more deserving and more serious cases in the UK.

 

[GR_Turner]

Yes the police should have protected the scene but that doesn`t therefore mean that the accused`s sister can walk off with the victim`s handbag! It may be the police`s fault that she was able to do it but it was entirely her choice to do so.

And what does that have to do with OP's innocence or guilt other than that the police didn't protect the scene?

 

[Colin de France]

It's reasonable to ask about qualifications when a poster implies that they have greater knowledge on a topic and that other posters should accept their opinion for that reason. I think the refusal to answer is the answer however.

....i'm going to be clear with you for the last time........you're going to stop attacking posters..............

 

[lithgow1]

I am sure there was some truth in many of the reports about loud stroppy behaviour. I can't say I trust fully the way some events were described though.
(Hope that makes sense... I mean that I am cynical of the potential sensationalising of incidents of misbehaviour, not that some of the incidents themselves did not happen in some form)

I agree it is best to be cynical when it comes to the media, celebrities and sensational stories. Just as the glowing reports in the days when he was a Golden boy were no doubt gilded somewhat, so too his bad behaviour may have been exaggerated. Enough evidence though IMO to suggest that he swaggered around with a`Don`t you know who I am' attitude. Well everyone certainly knows now!