Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #62 ~ the appeal~

[aftermath]

Some doors? What about that door? Oscar did not even claim that, he had to make up another excuse.



When is something poor memory and when is it a lie? Remember he insists it was in a different location to the photos. If he is mistaken then what caused the noise to cause him to shoot. Where is the evidence of this? This is vital.



Oh ok, the accused claims the crime scene was not preserved and the court just accepts it and throws out the crime scene photos, the most objective evidence in the case? Doesn't work like that.

Oscar claims he put the fans inside, in front of the bed, which is when Reeva slipped past into the bathroom, so this moment is crucial. The problem is the large fan was photographed unmoved infront of the balcony door, and photos show the power adapter had no room for the other small fan to be plugged in, which Oscar INSISTS. If the Duvet was on the floor then he would not have put the fans on it when he moved them , and Reeva was supposed to be under the duvet at this point as well, so as you can see its all a connected web.

So the court is to believe all these vital bits of evidence were just accidental moved, and co incidently just moved into places which contradict Oscars story? You think this is credible argument?

The photos were compromised. I don't know if that means the court should throw them all out, but it certainly should mean that they treat them with caution and don't rely on them too much to make the case for murder.

Because the photos were compromised there is no way of knowing for sure whether the big fan was unmoved. The big fan might not have been moved to exactly where pistorius indicated. Is there no margin for memory inaccuracy? Is the expectation that a person remembers every precise detail?

The duvet could have fallen to the floor when he was searching for her or after getting his legs on, for example. It could have fallen on the floor when she left the bed.

Weirdly, even if you are right about the reliability of the photos and none of the possibilities mentioned above were applicable, Pistorius could have lied about the whole fan-moving incident and still be innocent of deliberately killing Reeva Steenkamp.

 

[lithgow1]

The photos were compromised. I don't know if that means the court should throw them all out, but it certainly should mean that they treat them with caution and don't rely on them too much to make the case for murder.

Because the photos were compromised there is no way of knowing for sure whether the big fan was unmoved. The big fan might not have been moved to exactly where pistorius indicated. Is there no margin for memory inaccuracy? Is the expectation that a person remembers every precise detail?

The duvet could have fallen to the floor when he was searching for her or after getting his legs on, for example. It could have fallen on the floor when she left the bed.

Weirdly, even if you are right about the reliability of the photos and none of the possibilities mentioned above were applicable, Pistorius could have lied about the whole fan-moving incident and still be innocent of deliberately killing Reeva Steenkamp.

How many lies would it take for you to start considering his story with the skepticism it deserves?

 

[GR_Turner]

Because its irrelevant? Police confusion as to who and and when the scene was attended = police corruption? I am sure they had other issues to focus on. This is just a red herring attempt to smear the damning evidence as was done with OJ simpson trial.

It's not irrelevant at all. The state called van Rensberg as the police witness to what happened to the scene from when the police arrived up till when the photos were taken. His evidence indicated that he was in a position to give this evidence because he was the first on the scene and controlled the scene throughout up to and including when the photos were taken. However, his evidence was contradicted by police affidavits and Botha's bail hearing evidence. How can you then say the state can rely on photos when they didn't call all the relevant police witnesses and there's evidence that the main police witness may at the least have been mistaken about who was on the scene?

By the way, I can't see what corruption has to do with it. It's incompetence that's being alleged.

 

[GR_Turner]

He is the one telling the story so it needs to be plausible. He testified he heard 'wood movement' and the state proved he was lying. The door was not opened, and the magazine rack was out of reach of reeva, so what made the noise? fairys?

The crime scene photos are accurate.

As I've said before just because it probably wasn't the rack it doesn't follow that he was lying about noise. It could have been the door moving in the frame as it was leaned on.

 

[aftermath]

How many lies would it take for you to start considering his story with the skepticism it deserves?

I have considered his story with scepticism. .. but since the state failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and since ultimately it is reasonably possible that Pistorius mistook Reeva for an intruder and panicked, I believe the current verdict and sentence to be appropriate.

 

[lithgow1]

As I've said before just because it probably wasn't the rack it doesn't follow that he was lying about noise. It could have been the door moving in the frame as it was leaned on.

And whatever made that noise, that was justification in your opinion for him to fire four bullets at it? Not random shots remember, but grouped shots aimed at a door that may (or may not) have made a `noise`. Again it comes back to his intention doesn`t it. In your opinion he fired at an intruder, in mine he fired at Reeva Steenkamp, in either scenario he fired to kill as I hope the appeal will conclude.

 

[GR_Turner]

So the state produced evidence of 2 independent witnesses hearing a female scream. Pretty damning evidence don't you think? The exact timing of the screams is secondary and will naturally vary because of the so many different variables. If Oscar claims he screamed like a woman he needed to produce evidence, for it to be taken seriously. We both know why he didn't.

Er, there were 4 witnesses who heard female screams, 2 who heard female crying, 3 who heard male crying and 1 who heard OP crying. BIB - huh? The timings are of vital importance. Clearly 2 different perceptions of a sound at the same time indicates that someone misheard something and so the state can't claim that the screams had to be Reeva's. I have just given the evidence but it has been ignored as far as I can see.

 

[GR_Turner]

And whatever made that noise, that was justification in your opinion for him to fire four bullets at it? Not random shots remember, but grouped shots aimed at a door that may (or may not) have made a `noise`. Again it comes back to his intention doesn`t it. In your opinion he fired at an intruder, in mine he fired at Reeva Steenkamp, in either scenario he fired to kill as I hope the appeal will conclude.

Ah now we are on to DE not DD of Reeva.

I don't know whether it was justified or not. My view is that we must look at other cases in SA to see what else has been regarded as justification for shooting an 'intruder' and why.

It makes all the difference who he thought he was shooting at. If it were an intruder then it's possible the court might conclude he meant to defend himself but there's no way that could be the case if he knew it was Reeva.

 

[Colin de France]

The photos were compromised. I don't know if that means the court should throw them all out, but it certainly should mean that they treat them with caution and don't rely on them too much to make the case for murder.

Because the photos were compromised there is no way of knowing for sure whether the big fan was unmoved. The big fan might not have been moved to exactly where pistorius indicated. Is there no margin for memory inaccuracy? Is the expectation that a person remembers every precise detail?

The duvet could have fallen to the floor when he was searching for her or after getting his legs on, for example. It could have fallen on the floor when she left the bed.

Weirdly, even if you are right about the reliability of the photos and none of the possibilities mentioned above were applicable, Pistorius could have lied about the whole fan-moving incident and still be innocent of deliberately killing Reeva Steenkamp.

.........how can a photo be compromised ? ........photoshop ?

 

[Colin de France]

Er, there were 4 witnesses who heard female screams, 2 who heard female crying, 3 who heard male crying and 1 who heard OP crying. BIB - huh? The timings are of vital importance. Clearly 2 different perceptions of a sound at the same time indicates that someone misheard something and so the state can't claim that the screams had to be Reeva's. I have just given the evidence but it has been ignored as far as I can see.

Er .....a good jury would of thought otherwise.......

 

[aftermath]

.........how can a photo be compromised ? ........photoshop ?

Reliability of what they showed was compromised as things were moved but the movement wasn't always catalogued..

 

[lithgow1]

Reliability of what they showed was compromised as things were moved but the movement wasn't always catalogued..

How do you know things were moved? IIRC the police never said that they moved anything.

 

[soozieqtips]

How do you know things were moved? IIRC the police never said that they moved anything.

No, but OP said they must have moved things, so it must be true because OP is so honest...

 

[soozieqtips]

As I've said before just because it probably wasn't the rack it doesn't follow that he was lying about noise. It could have been the door moving in the frame as it was leaned on.

Well, as he was proven to be a liar about so many other things during testimony, it's more than reasonably possibly true that he was lying about the mysterious noise.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Oscar screams like a woman
(Reeva screams like a wild animal from the animal reserve)


Well here's an animal that sounds like wood moving


:crazy::crazy::crazy:
from today's Daily Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/t...-bizarre-screeching-noise-tourists-Japan.html

:silly:

 

[cottonweaver]

Even Lady Masipa, prime OP apologist agrees with you :

"The accused was a very poor witness........he accused’s poor performance........accused was, amongst other things, an evasive witness."

We know she has her admirers.
Of course she then goes on to explain why untruthfulness of the only eye witness/killer doesn't matter. :facepalm:

 

[aftermath]

How do you know things were moved? IIRC the police never said that they moved anything.

Off the top of my head, pretty sure Reeva's flip flops were in different places in different photos. Photographer said he didn't know who moved them. Same with some stuff by the side of the bed.

 

[aftermath]

Even Lady Masipa, prime OP apologist agrees with you :

"The accused was a very poor witness........he accused’s poor performance........accused was, amongst other things, an evasive witness."

We know she has her admirers.
Of course she then goes on to explain why untruthfulness of the only eye witness/killer doesn't matter. :facepalm:

It wasn't that it doesn't matter, but that it doesn't inevitably equate to being guilty of murder

 

[cottonweaver]

:silly:

Glad you liked it FG. I didn't even watch it or read the article but it seemed very appropriate. :laugh:

 

[cottonweaver]

" The conclusion, that because an accused is untruthful he is therefore probably guilty, must be guided against, as a false statement does not always justify the most extreme conclusion."

T.Masipa LLB.
:ignore:
:sweep:
:lookingitup: