Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #62 ~ the appeal~

[aftermath]

OK. You can choose to believe they were the words of a distraught man who didn`t know what he was saying. I choose to believe they were the words of a distraught man who knew exactly what he was saying.

Not sure if you will think it makes much difference, but there was a discrepancy over what the security guard heard pistorius say on the phone. In court he said pistorius said 'everything is fine' but roux argued that in his initial statement he said Pistorius had said 'I'm okay' (or 'I am fine'). This could easily have been in response to a question like 'are you okay?' Or 'are you hurt?'

 

[lithgow1]

It's a double standard full stop. Now you can argue about the number of shots - but then the woman who shot her husband wasn't charged with attempted murder. You can argue that he had no reason to fire but then the man who shot through a roof had much less and wasn't charged with murder. Someone can fire off a gun in a restaurant and not hit anyone and no one is charged with an offence and indeed the police aren't called. But when it's OP and the world and media are watching, suddenly the number of shots and not being in any danger are presumed to mean that it's DE murder and the shooting in Tasha's is a serious offence. My point is that when other people do these things they are treated with sympathy or the situation isn't regarded as very serious but not when it's OP.

You are changing the subject when you talk about OP's attitude to the Tasha's incident. My impression was that he didn't mean to shoot the gun and didn't think he had touched the trigger. Clearly he must have done but that was it. Nothing more. He shouldn't have asked for it clearly but then again I don't think people should be allowed to carry guns around anyway or foolish things like this will happen.

The shooting in Tasha`s was a serious offence, or do you not think it was? Are you trying to say that people would treat someone who shot a firearm in a crowded restaurant with sympathy but because it was Oscar he got picked on for it? That is how that reads though I think it may not have been your intent. As for the state charging him with it, fair enough. They wanted to show he is a reckless idiot when it comes to guns, because he is.

 

[lithgow1]

Not sure if you will think it makes much difference, but there was a discrepancy over what the security guard heard pistorius say on the phone. In court he said pistorius said 'everything is fine' but roux argued that in his initial statement he said Pistorius had said 'I'm okay' (or 'I am fine'). This could easily have been in response to a question like 'are you okay?' Or 'are you hurt?'

I do recall that. In court the security guy insisted he said `Everything ...` but you are right in that it makes little difference to me. If he did say `I am fine ..` and followed it up with `but my girlfriend...` then we would be in different territory.

 

[GR_Turner]

He got a friend to take the blame and then later lied about it and kept insisting he didn`t pull the trigger when he obviously did and even after all that you attempt to defend him to the point where you almost make it sound like he is the victim. You are staunch, I will say that.

Yes because he knew the press would make a big deal of it and he was right. If he thought he didn't pull the trigger he was right to say so though clearly he must have been mistaken. I don't much care about what he said on the phone after the shooting simply because it's open to interpretation and doesn't help decide on the case. Neither does the Tasha's incident.

 

[lithgow1]

Yes because he knew the press would make a big deal of it and he was right. If he thought he didn't pull the trigger he was right to say so though clearly he must have been mistaken. I don't much care about what he said on the phone after the shooting simply because it's open to interpretation and doesn't help decide on the case. Neither does the Tasha's incident.

No disrespect meant but it seems that you don`t care much about anything that shows Oscar Pistorius in a bad light. As I said, you are staunch in your defence of everything he said and did, no matter how damning it may appear.

 

[GR_Turner]

The shooting in Tasha`s was a serious offence, or do you not think it was? Are you trying to say that people would treat someone who shot a firearm in a crowded restaurant with sympathy but because it was Oscar he got picked on for it? That is how that reads though I think it may not have been your intent. As for the state charging him with it, fair enough. They wanted to show he is a reckless idiot when it comes to guns, because he is.

I think it shows he was careless but there was no intention to fire or to hurt anyone.

My point about double standards is a serious one though. Suppose you live in SA and have a gun for self defense. You live alone, hear someone in your bathroom, go to investigate taking your gun for self-defense and then you think the toilet door is opening. You shoot multiple times in fright and because the threat is very close to you. You find an intruder armed with several knives. On the basis of this and other cases, how will you be treated? Does it depend on public opinion, whether the police believe your story or not, how interested the media are or does it depend on what you actually did? This is the problem with double standards - how will anyone know how they will be treated by the law if the law only applies sometimes and to some people?

 

[GR_Turner]

No disrespect meant but it seems that you don`t care much about anything that shows Oscar Pistorius in a bad light. As I said, you are staunch in your defence of everything he said and did, no matter how damning it may appear.

Perhaps it's a reaction to the underlying implication always there in most posts that everything points towards OP being guilty of murdering Reeva. I don't see it that way. It doesn't matter to me what the media say (though some people seem to believe everything they read) or these incidental matters that genuinely could mean nothing or very little. It's all rather pointless imo. The only thing that matters is the key evidence, say, around the screams and the helps and the shots etc. If that points to guilt then he's guilty and if not then not. The rest is just noise imo.

 

[lithgow1]

I think it shows he was careless but there was no intention to fire or to hurt anyone.

My point about double standards is a serious one though. Suppose you live in SA and have a gun for self defense. You live alone, hear someone in your bathroom, go to investigate taking your gun for self-defense and then you think the toilet door is opening. You shoot multiple times in fright and because the threat is very close to you. You find an intruder armed with several knives. On the basis of this and other cases, how will you be treated? Does it depend on public opinion, whether the police believe your story or not, how interested the media are or does it depend on what you actually did? This is the problem with double standards - how will anyone know how they will be treated by the law if the law only applies sometimes and to some people?

Celebrity is a double edged sword and you could argue that in this case it has helped Pistorius as well as hurt him. How many poor, non-famous, black South Africans would get bail for the charge of DD? Not many - they languish in remand. How many poor disabled SA prisoners are housed for the duration of their sentence in the hospital wing? Not many - they struggle in general population. How many poor South Africans can afford the services of Roux, Oldwage et al and spend thousands on recreation videos that then don`t get used? None.

As for the intruder with several knives, I must have missed that part in the trial. All I can recall is a young woman with a cell phone and a shot away arm, hip and head.

 

[GR_Turner]

Celebrity is a double edged sword and you could argue that in this case it has helped Pistorius as well as hurt him. How many poor, non-famous, black South Africans would get bail for the charge of DD? Not many - they languish in remand. How many poor disabled SA prisoners are housed for the duration of their sentence in the hospital wing? Not many - they struggle in general population. How many poor South Africans can afford the services of Roux, Oldwage et al and spend thousands on recreation videos that then don`t get used? None.

As for the intruder with several knives, I must have missed that part in the trial. All I can recall is a young woman with a cell phone and a shot away arm, hip and head.

Getting bail is about money, not celebrity though. And poor people in SA get a raw deal when charged with many crimes, not just murder. And they get a raw deal in jail and in the court system.

Yes his celebrity has helped him in jail in that they don't want him hurt or they would look bad. But on the whole it has been very bad indeed for him I'd say. Look at all the extensive media publicity particularly around the prosecution version and all the highly prejudiced media articles. It's interesting that there are people posting who are sure he's guilty but who when pressed admit to not knowing the key evidence. So what are they basing their opinion on? The media, other people's opinions?

 

[aftermath]

I do recall that. In court the security guy insisted he said `Everything ...` but you are right in that it makes little difference to me. If he did say `I am fine ..` and followed it up with `but my girlfriend...` then we would be in different territory.

He was crying as he spoke to Pieter Baba the first time. The call was very short. He tried to phone back but was crying too much to speak. It seems reasonable to think that he probably would have said more to Baba had he been less emotional. Since he had already called stander and netcare for help by this time, it seems unlikely that he was suddenly playing down the situation only a couple of minutes later whilst convincingly crying.

 

[GR_Turner]

Celebrity is a double edged sword and you could argue that in this case it has helped Pistorius as well as hurt him. How many poor, non-famous, black South Africans would get bail for the charge of DD? Not many - they languish in remand. How many poor disabled SA prisoners are housed for the duration of their sentence in the hospital wing? Not many - they struggle in general population. How many poor South Africans can afford the services of Roux, Oldwage et al and spend thousands on recreation videos that then don`t get used? None.

As for the intruder with several knives, I must have missed that part in the trial. All I can recall is a young woman with a cell phone and a shot away arm, hip and head

But it's the same situation as far as the actions of the shooter is concerned. If the state don't prove OP knew it was Reeva, it's exactly the same situation. The man in the example didn't know who was there or how dangerous the intruder might be. Would you want that man charged with DE?

 

[lithgow1]

Perhaps it's a reaction to the underlying implication always there in most posts that everything points towards OP being guilty of murdering Reeva. I don't see it that way. It doesn't matter to me what the media say (though some people seem to believe everything they read) or these incidental matters that genuinely could mean nothing or very little. It's all rather pointless imo. The only thing that matters is the key evidence, say, around the screams and the helps and the shots etc. If that points to guilt then he's guilty and if not then not. The rest is just noise imo.

I understand the reaction element, but you have to remember that most people, by a wide margin both here and in the wider world, believe him to be guilty. I will admit that I am not good at sorting out all that complicated business with the phone call timelines but other people are and I trust their compiling and interpretation of them which show that the defence timeline is not necessarily correct. Yes it may have been a major error on the part of the State to not contest them, but an error on the part of the prosecution does not make OP innocent just as a tight shrunken glove did not make OJ Simpson not guilty.

I will also admit that I found his story suspicious right from hearing it at his bail application as many people, from the magistrate down, did. It is a very suss story with so many unlikely elements that needed to come into play to make it work that I just do not believe it. We`ve rehashed them all countless times now so you are as familiar with them as we all are. Maybe even more so because you and the other two are continually having to come up with justifications, escape clauses and excuses for him to make his story work. IMO when the whole thing is looked at like a jigsaw or mosaic it does not `work`. Yes there are missing pieces, but the picture that emerges for me is of a man who shot his girlfriend in a fit of rage and since then has tried all he could to avoid the consequences. Just too many things that do not make sense in his story and subsequent retelling of it in court.

 

[lithgow1]

But it's the same situation as far as the actions of the shooter is concerned. If the state don't prove OP knew it was Reeva, it's exactly the same situation. The man in the example didn't know who was there or how dangerous the intruder might be. Would you want that man charged with DE?

Which man are you talking about? The one with the knives is a hypothetical isn`t it? In any case, if someone shot at an intruder who was coming at them with a weapon with the intention to harm them, then no, I wouldn`t want them charged. If someone shot a person who presented no imminent danger to them then, depending on the circumstances I may well want them charged.

 

[lithgow1]

Getting bail is about money, not celebrity though. And poor people in SA get a raw deal when charged with many crimes, not just murder. And they get a raw deal in jail and in the court system.

Yes his celebrity has helped him in jail in that they don't want him hurt or they would look bad. But on the whole it has been very bad indeed for him I'd say. Look at all the extensive media publicity particularly around the prosecution version and all the highly prejudiced media articles. It's interesting that there are people posting who are sure he's guilty but who when pressed admit to not knowing the key evidence. So what are they basing their opinion on? The media, other people's opinions?

Yes they have existed, particularly early on. But he has also had a highly paid PR team to try and counter that and if they have done so clumsily, such as releasing details of the private memorial service in an effort to make him look good, then that is their own poor judgement. He has also had a small but dedicated group of Pistorians supporting him on social media and outside the courtroom. And the many many ill judged tweets by his family members have not helped either and that cannot be laid at anyone`s feet (or fingers more accurately) than their own. Still i would agree with you that on the whole his fame has not helped but that is what happens when a celebrity gets in strife with the law, be it Hugh Grant with a hooker right up to the serious charges faced by OP, OJ, Phil Spector et al. It comes with the territory and I guess the flipside is that at least you can afford the lawyers.

 

[GR_Turner]

I understand the reaction element, but you have to remember that most people, by a wide margin both here and in the wider world, believe him to be guilty. I will admit that I am not good at sorting out all that complicated business with the phone call timelines but other people are and I trust their compiling and interpretation of them which show that the defence timeline is not necessarily correct. Yes it may have been a major error on the part of the State to not contest them, but an error on the part of the prosecution does not make OP innocent just as a tight shrunken glove did not make OJ Simpson not guilty.

I will also admit that I found his story suspicious right from hearing it at his bail application as many people, from the magistrate down, did. It is a very suss story with so many unlikely elements that needed to come into play to make it work that I just do not believe it. We`ve rehashed them all countless times now so you are as familiar with them as we all are. Maybe even more so because you and the other two are continually having to come up with justifications, escape clauses and excuses for him to make his story work. IMO when the whole thing is looked at like a jigsaw or mosaic it does not `work`. Yes there are missing pieces, but the picture that emerges for me is of a man who shot his girlfriend in a fit of rage and since then has tried all he could to avoid the consequences. Just too many things that do not make sense in his story and subsequent retelling of it in court.

BIB1: but you realise that what's important in the timeline debate is how you interpret the evidence. Some people say we can move Johnson's phone call to earlier on the basis of no evidence at all but they ignore Stipp's 10111 call which also places the second bangs at 3.17 on the basis that we only know that time from Roux (who couldn't have lied about it though). And that's the source of people posting that the shots were at 3.15 - decision to move Johnson's call earlier to make it fit with the state's case. Similarly if you go on to, say, Juror 13's website, you'll find lots of information and opinions but you won't find all the evidence or any balance in the opinions. So by trusting other people's evidence you are taking on their viewpoint and may have come to other conclusions if you had looked at the evidence dispassionately.

Yes, there are things that don't make sense about his story but not as many as some wish to make out. I'm amazed how often people claim that something makes no sense when in fact they just don't understand what OP's version actually was.

If you want to argue that OP must be guilty because his story seems suss then you must also think that the state's case isn't. Yet we have a one sided argument only heard by one person 100m away, OP shooting on his stumps (probably), two sets of shot sounds but only one set of shots - the defense can explain this but the state can't, a man who commits murder without any reason or any history or violence against any of his girlfriends, someone who chooses to shoot through a door to kill when he could just have easily broken the door down if he really did want to attack his girlfriend. It all just seems so farfetched to me. I don't doubt that things like this do happen but I'd expect to see some previous evidence of violence against a girlfriend before a full-blown shooting, particularly when there was absolutely no reason to do it.

Finally, the only way to say that you are sure he's guilty seems to me to ignore evidence that indicates otherwise. Take the screams evidence for example. Why do people keep saying there's no evidence that his cries could have been mistaken for screams when there seems to me to be rather a lot of evidence?

 

[GR_Turner]

Which man are you talking about? The one with the knives is a hypothetical isn`t it? In any case, if someone shot at an intruder who was coming at them with a weapon with the intention to harm them, then no, I wouldn`t want them charged. If someone shot a person who presented no imminent danger to them then, depending on the circumstances I may well want them charged.

The shooter. What would they charge a dead intruder with?

I've told you the circumstances. Would you want the shooter charged with murder - or more importantly convicted and sent to jail for 15 years?

 

[ApplesInMyBra]

Yes, the number of shots is a difference indeed. Though there's a case of a woman who shot her husband twice in their garden as he broke in having lost his keys. To hit him twice she must have fired at least twice (obviously) and was very likely aiming right at him. He didn't die wasn't this attempted murder for sure? No - the court said it was a family matter and there was no charge. Why no public outcry?

As for the man on the roof - the shooter actually hit him with one shot. Sounds like he was aiming for him, doesn't it. So it doesn't matter how big the roof was really.

I don't see why the size of the cubicle matters in fact. He thought someone was coming out to attack and so he shot. It doesn't matter how big the room behind the door was. I think this is imposing an alternative logic onto the situation ie imagining that the person was trying to avoid being hit. Surely he was trying to defend himself and that's the essence of the PPD defense.

BiB: The size of the cubicle DOES matter because by pumping four bullets into that tiny space, he intended to kill the person behind the door, whether he thought it was an intruder or if he knew it was Reeva. If you shoot four black talon bullets into a very small space, you know that you WILL kill whoever or whatever (I recall Masipa saying it could have been a stray animal...oh lordy!) in that space, equalling intent.

I'm curious to know if you think it is ok for Person A in a crowded city, say New York City for instance, sees Person B running towards them and thinks that Person B is coming towards him to attack Person A, it is ok for Person A to shoot Person B dead??

 

[GR_Turner]

Yes they have existed, particularly early on. But he has also had a highly paid PR team to try and counter that and if they have done so clumsily, such as releasing details of the private memorial service in an effort to make him look good, then that is their own poor judgement. He has also had a small but dedicated group of Pistorians supporting him on social media and outside the courtroom. And the many many ill judged tweets by his family members have not helped either and that cannot be laid at anyone`s feet (or fingers more accurately) than their own. Still i would agree with you that on the whole his fame has not helped but that is what happens when a celebrity gets in strife with the law, be it Hugh Grant with a hooker right up to the serious charges faced by OP, OJ, Phil Spector et al. It comes with the territory and I guess the flipside is that at least you can afford the lawyers.

Why do people keep mentioning his PR team? It went way beyond anything any PR could possibly handle right from the start. They released the details of the memorial not because they wanted to make him look good but because someone told the media and so they had to make a statement. Why do you care about his family's tweets anyway? Or about the Pistorians? They are a drop in the ocean compared with the vast majority of biased media reports against OP.

And I think all his money went a long time ago so his wealth is non-existent at this point. I don't think he paid his lawyers after July last year.

 

[GR_Turner]

BiB: The size of the cubicle DOES matter because by pumping four bullets into that tiny space, he intended to kill the person behind the door, whether he thought it was an intruder or if he knew it was Reeva. If you shoot four black talon bullets into a very small space, you know that you WILL kill whoever or whatever (I recall Masipa saying it could have been a stray animal...oh lordy!) in that space, equalling intent.

I'm curious to know if you think it is ok for Person A in a crowded city, say New York City for instance, sees Person B running towards them and thinks that Person B is coming towards him to attack Person A, it is ok for Person A to shoot Person B dead??

Yes, but you are assuming that he was thinking about killing someone and not about defending himself. Surely that's the primary point of shooting if you think you are under attack and why the law distinguishes between different kinds of shootings.

I know nothing about the law in NYC so can't say.

 

[lithgow1]

Why do people keep mentioning his PR team? It went way beyond anything any PR could possibly handle right from the start. They released the details of the memorial not because they wanted to make him look good but because someone told the media and so they had to make a statement. Why do you care about his family's tweets anyway? Or about the Pistorians? They are a drop in the ocean compared with the vast majority of biased media reports against OP.

And I think all his money went a long time ago so his wealth is non-existent at this point. I don't think he paid his lawyers after July last year.

I care about his family`s tweets because his uncle tweeted things like `As light conquers darkness may good destroy evil` in relation to the trial. The police believed him to be guilty of murder in what looked like a typical domestic violence incident and as a result he was charged and forced to account for his actions and his uncle tweets things like that? Was everyone just supposed to believe his story? Even OP seemed outraged that he had to put his life on hold for a year. Well mate you shot and killed someone and that usually has consequences that tend to disrupt the normal pattern of life.

As for the PR team it is the first time I have mentioned them and it was in response to your comments about media treatment of him, to show that he has also tried to use the media to his own advantage.

`Yes his money went a long time ago because he spent it on some of SA`s highest priced lawyers. The point is that he was able to afford them in the first place.

Finally, where are all these biased media reports? I agreed with you that early on there was bias and misinformation, but once the trial got going they were largely reporting the evidence being given, from both sides. If you want to talk biased media though, ever watch Robyn Curnow and Kelly Phelps on CNN?