Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #62 ~ the appeal~

[GR_Turner]

moving away from the timeline's distortions

I do think this one is worth quoting for a different perspective as it is not all based on missing phone data, faulty records:

"The problem in this case is that OP's version was demonstrably false.

1. He said they were asleep from 10pm to 3am. False. Reeva at least was awake and eating.

2. He said they didn't argue. False. Their argument was heard at around 2am.

3. He said Reeva didn't scream. False. 4 separate witnesses heard her screaming for her life, stopping only when the fatal shot hit her.

4. He said that Reeva was still alive when he carried her downstairs. False. She died within a few seconds of the fatal shot.

5. He said he brought the fans inside and ran to the balcony later. False. The picture shows the position of the fans. They were in his way.

6. He says the room was so dark he could see nothing. False. The balcony light was on.

7. He says that he saw Reeva's shape under the duvet when he awoke. False. The duvet is on the floor, Reeva's jeans on top, blood spatter on both.

It is only by doing as Masipa did, discarding the entirety of the physical and witness testimony that his story can be reasonably possible. This is quite apart from the utterly preposterous central assumption which is that: a) he didn't check where Reeva was, b) he didn't realise that she wasn't in bed when he got his gun and c) it didn't cross his mind that it was her in the toilet

So not only is his story beyond reasonable belief in its inception, but it is contradicted at almost every key point by the evidence."

Repeat - standard is "beyond reasonable doubt" not beyond doubt" nor beyond theoretical possibility.

But it's really worth looking at the whole link for context

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?p=75692199

But all your examples above weren't proven in any way were they?

1. even if reeva was awake, it doesn't prove he was or that they argued
2. the witness heard a woman only, far away and had no idea where the sound was coming from. No one else heard anything which is surprising if it really had been them having a huge fight for an hour in the middle of the night.
3. There is ample evidence that these witnesses may have been mistaken. This is the essence of the timeline debate as well as the witnesses who heard screaming as crying and male crying as female crying.
4. He may have thought she was still alive.
5. The pictures show the position of the fans at 6am and the state didn't call all the police witnesses who attended the scene to say what they saw and did and in fact seem to have actively avoided calling key witnesses.
6. Did the state show that you can see with the curtains closed and the light on outside? I don't think so and if the light is always on at night then it's likely he'd have blackout curtains anyway.
7. The duvet was on the floor probably after the shooting. We don't know where it was before the shooting.

And you wonder why Masipa didn't convict?

 

[lithgow1]

OK so then you think that all the cases in SA where people have shot through opening doors at 'intruders' should also be murder?

Would need to read up on the particular factors involved in each case. So, for the umpteenth time, let`s just stick to the case that this forum deals with. No more questions re your hypotheticals. Well you can ask the questions, but no more answers from me. IMO OP is at the very least guilty of DE OK.

 

[cottonweaver]

But all your examples above weren't proven in any way were they?

1. even if reeva was awake, it doesn't prove he was or that they argued
2. the witness heard a woman only, far away and had no idea where the sound was coming from. No one else heard anything which is surprising if it really had been them having a huge fight for an hour in the middle of the night.
3. There is ample evidence that these witnesses may have been mistaken. This is the essence of the timeline debate as well as the witnesses who heard screaming as crying and male crying as female crying.
4. He may have thought she was still alive.
5. The pictures show the position of the fans at 6am and the state didn't call all the police witnesses who attended the scene to say what they saw and did and in fact seem to have actively avoided calling key witnesses.
6. Did the state show that you can see with the curtains closed and the light on outside? I don't think so and if the light is always on at night then it's likely he'd have blackout curtains anyway.
7. The duvet was on the floor probably after the shooting. We don't know where it was before the shooting.

And you wonder why Masipa didn't convict?

as i said, refer to the link, very helpful:

All of the points were of course disputed (as any good defence should do). Seeing them summarised in your post, you can see I think why most people found these 'explanations' to be desperate and/or hard to believe.

On the other hand, the state's version was credible, backed by crime-scene evidence and supported by multiple witnesses. "

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?p=75692199

I'll deal with 1-7 later!

 

[Trotterly]

Would need to read up on the particular factors involved in each case. So, for the umpteenth time, let`s just stick to the case that this forum deals with. No more questions re your hypotheticals. Well you can ask the questions, but no more answers from me. IMO OP is at the very least guilty of DE OK.

Not you specifically but some posters seem frightened to explore analogous situations which seek to put the shooting into context and shed light on or explain elements of the verdict. Its almost as if they feel OP's crime is so heinous that such speculation is somehow an affront to how Reeva died. A shame that the appeal cannot be discussed dispassionately.

 

[GR_Turner]

as i said, refer to the link, very helpful:

All of the points were of course disputed (as any good defence should do). Seeing them summarised in your post, you can see I think why most people found these 'explanations' to be desperate and/or hard to believe.

On the other hand, the state's version was credible, backed by crime-scene evidence and supported by multiple witnesses. "

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?p=75692199

I'll deal with 1-7 later!

I don't think the DS discussion helps at all really. The quotations are just a poster's opinion about reasonable doubt and which version is credible after all. One poster argues it's impossible she could have got up in the night and the other says, of course it's possible.

 

[lithgow1]

Not you specifically but some posters seem frightened to explore analogous situations which seek to put the shooting into context and shed light on or explain elements of the verdict. Its almost as if they feel OP's crime is so heinous that such speculation is somehow an affront to how Reeva died. A shame that the appeal cannot be discussed dispassionately.

I think the appeal is discussed quite dispassionately here though of course at times people`s frustrations arise. My issue is not so much looking at similar cases in South Africa but changing the facts of this one and then demanding an answer to the question 'Would you find him guilty then?'. That is not what happened so it is a moot point IMO. There were no intruders armed with knives and had there been the charges would likely have been different. IMO it is provocative questioning that is aiming for a `gotcha` moment and I no longer have any interest in playing that game.

 

[lithgow1]

Look at the media coverage. This is the sort of thing I mean and there are hundreds of articles like this out there:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...ison-terms-for-domestic-violence-9811721.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nsenga-burton/ray-rice-and-oscar-pistorius_b_5803770.html
http://time.com/3345520/denise-brown-o-j-simpson-ray-rice-oscar-pistorius/

They all in effect link this case with domestic violence which is only true if he meant to shoot her, which is murder. They might pay lip service to reporting that he wasn't found guilty but then why are they referencing the state's allegations at all?

I really don't know whether the memorial service was 'leaked' to the media. It doesn't matter. They didn't invite the media in and gave a one line statement as far as I remember which was turned into a huge media storm by people who wanted to find any excuse to write a negative article about OP. The same with everything - his only option is to stay indoors and do nothing because everything he does in public is likely to appear all over the papers with people saying 'how dare he!'. Cue outrage. Watch what happens when he is released next month. The papers will be full of stories of him lounging around in his uncles' expensive house (how dare he!) and if he tries to do any work they'll insist that it be as demeaning as possible (or, OP gets special treatment!). If he isn't in prison again next year and tries to do anything at all to rebuild his life, the media and some sections of the public will be there insisting he shouldn't be allowed to make money or do anything he wants to do because 'he's a killer' and 'we all know he's guilty anyway'. You really can't see the problem with this?

Read those three articles and would agree with you that they link him with domestic violence when that was not the verdict. So yes, that is not fair nor right. Articles linking him with gross gun recklessness and negligence would be quite in order though IMO. What do you reckon re that?

Re the leaking of the media service to the media, it may not matter to you, but to many, myself included, it came across as a cynical attempt to curry public favour. Most people don't like that kind of thing and react to it with the scepticism it deserves.

Why do you seem to have a problem with him doing what you label as `demeaning work`? Roux couldn`t jump up quick enough to suggest alternatives to `cleaning` so I for one would like to see him having to perform something that he believes is beneath him. Do you think he or his legal team should be allowed to choose what community service he performs?

Re the going out issues, do you not understand that there is justifiable anger in the community that a wealthy white man, who already had his trial fast tracked, will serve the vast majority of his sentence in conditions better than those that most of the community live in. He may well be bearing the brunt of a greater anger but sometimes that happens, whether it is fair or not. He was a positive symbol before and now he is a negative one and that stems from his own actions. He made this bed and now he will have to lie in it but at least it will be wide and the sheets freshly laundered. He went out nightclubbing during the trial and that didn`t end well. Once more it came down to the word of someone else vs that of Oscar Pistorius and I have little doubt as to who you would choose to believe as no doubt you can tell where I would stand on that issue - I believe the one who AFAIK doesn`t have form when it comes to telling lies.

 

[GR_Turner]

Read those three articles and would agree with you that they link him with domestic violence when that was not the verdict. So yes, that is not fair nor right. Articles linking him with gross gun recklessness and negligence would be quite in order though IMO. What do you reckon re that?

Re the leaking of the media service to the media, it may not matter to you, but to many, myself included, it came across as a cynical attempt to curry public favour. Most people don't like that kind of thing and react to it with the scepticism it deserves.

Why do you seem to have a problem with him doing what you label as `demeaning work`? Roux couldn`t jump up quick enough to suggest alternatives to `cleaning` so I for one would like to see him having to perform something that he believes is beneath him. Do you think he or his legal team should be allowed to choose what community service he performs?

Re the going out issues, do you not understand that there is justifiable anger in the community that a wealthy white man, who already had his trial fast tracked, will serve the vast majority of his sentence in conditions better than those that most of the community live in. He may well be bearing the brunt of a greater anger but sometimes that happens, whether it is fair or not. He was a positive symbol before and now he is a negative one and that stems from his own actions. He made this bed and now he will have to lie in it but at least it will be wide and the sheets freshly laundered. He went out nightclubbing during the trial and that didn`t end well. Once more it came down to the word of someone else vs that of Oscar Pistorius and I have little doubt as to who you would choose to believe as no doubt you can tell where I would stand on that issue - I believe the one who AFAIK doesn`t have form when it comes to telling lies.

It's not just those three articles - there are so many along those lines. I don't mind any article that is fair.

We'll just have to disagree about the service.

I don't have a problem with whatever he does but it should be whatever an appropriate authority thinks is right and not based on public opinion. But I think we can all see that whatever it is someone will kick up a huge fuss saying it isn't good enough.

I don't think that going out for a drink in a club was at all wise but if anyone else in his legal situation can go out then so can he. As for what happened, I have no idea who's telling the truth and neither do you. It might be worth remembering that the person approaching him had nothing to lose and could even make money and friends telling the story, but OP had nothing to gain by starting a fight and might have seen his bail revoked. And Nel could have asked this person to be a witness in court if he was telling the truth - and I think there was cc tv of the incident - and yet he chose not to.

 

[GR_Turner]

I think the appeal is discussed quite dispassionately here though of course at times people`s frustrations arise. My issue is not so much looking at similar cases in South Africa but changing the facts of this one and then demanding an answer to the question 'Would you find him guilty then?'. That is not what happened so it is a moot point IMO. There were no intruders armed with knives and had there been the charges would likely have been different. IMO it is provocative questioning that is aiming for a `gotcha` moment and I no longer have any interest in playing that game.

I don't think it's wrong to ask whether you would want a murder conviction where a person did exactly the same as OP but there was actually an intruder.

 

[lithgow1]

I don't think it's wrong to ask whether you would want a murder conviction where a person did exactly the same as OP but there was actually an intruder.

Yes a verdict of DE would be appropriate if that person shot at the same point that OP did. That is, before any supposed threat was seen, identified or posing an actual immediate threat. Which is exactly what many SA legal commentators were saying.

 

[soozieqtips]

~snipped~

It might be worth remembering that the person approaching him had nothing to lose and could even make money and friends telling the story, but OP had nothing to gain by starting a fight and might have seen his bail revoked.

BIB - you're taking the stance that OP would have been thinking rationally. But he wasn't a rational person. He was a loose canon, firing out of a sunroof, speeding like a maniac, messing around with a gun in Tasha's when there was a child at the next table. He had a short and filthy temper, so it's most unlikely that he'd back down from a fight. He even said he wasn't the type to walk away from danger, but that he would confront it. He didn't just confront it, he courted it, because that's the sort of pathetic lowlife he is. Carry on making excuses for him, but it doesn't change what everybody learned about his mean and volatile streak in court. Him starting a fight would simply have been him acting within character.

 

[GR_Turner]

Yes a verdict of DE would be appropriate if that person shot at the same point that OP did. That is, before any supposed threat was seen, identified or posing an actual immediate threat. Which is exactly what many SA legal commentators were saying.

At the risk of just annoying you, apparently shooting through a roof where there was no immediate threat seen or identified was CH and yet no one is trying to get that man sent to jail for 15 years. The legal commentators have largely stayed silent about these other cases apart from a few who have pointed out that these cases don't normally result in a murder conviction. Anyway, let's see both sets of Heads and we'll be in a better position to predict what the SCA might conclude

 

[Suthrnqt]

Marking my spot....

 

[Marfa Lights]

Why are you comparing this case with completely different scenarios in other countries? We're talking about SA.

I've never said I'd give him the benefit of the doubt because he seems nice. I base it on similar scenarios and how sa law has treated those people.

Who mentioned Dixon? Mrs Vdm is the only witness to hear the four shots for sure and she heard four in a row. The ballistics experts disagreed with each other so I don't think we can really say from their evidence who is right.

I think this case has broader societal implications beyond S.A., particularly for the U.S. where there continues to be a proliferation of private gun ownership, and there are a growing number of self-defense claims based on a perceived threat that "triggered" an overly aggressive response and the use of deadly force against an unarmed victim.

I appreciate the need to apply the law equally in similar cases. But it is also understood that the courts must take into consideration the character of the defendant and their role in the relationship and the death of a loved one or family member. Not all cases of mistaken identity are equal. Most parents do not intentionally shoot their young children, but I would not automatically grant the same benefit of the doubt to a hot-headed, jealous boyfriend.

I believe Michelle Burger was pretty emphatic that she heard 4 shots that night and in the 1-3 sequence. I am still of the opinion that the first shot hit Reeva in the hip and she fell back upon the magazine rack, causing Oscar to re-aim and fire the final three shots. This made it easy for him to testify to hearing the sound of wood moving inside the toilet cubicle which startled him and caused him to involuntarily shoot at the noise. The only problem, of course, is that he claimed to have heard the wood moving before he fired the first shot.

 

[aftermath]

I think this case has broader societal implications beyond S.A., particularly for the U.S. where there continues to be a proliferation of private gun ownership, and there are a growing number of self-defense claims based on a perceived threat that "triggered" an overly aggressive response and the use of deadly force against an unarmed victim.

I appreciate the need to apply the law equally in similar cases. But it is also understood that the courts must take into consideration the character of the defendant and their role in the relationship and the death of a loved one or family member. Not all cases of mistaken identity are equal. Most parents do not intentionally shoot their young children, but I would not automatically grant the same benefit of the doubt to a hot-headed, jealous boyfriend.

I believe Michelle Burger was pretty emphatic that she heard 4 shots that night and in the 1-3 sequence. I am still of the opinion that the first shot hit Reeva in the hip and she fell back upon the magazine rack, causing Oscar to re-aim and fire the final three shots. This made it easy for him to testify to hearing the sound of wood moving inside the toilet cubicle which startled him and caused him to involuntarily shoot at the noise. The only problem, of course, is that he claimed to have heard the wood moving before he fired the first shot.

How would he hear someone falling after firing a gun without wearing ear protection?

 

[GR_Turner]

I think this case has broader societal implications beyond S.A., particularly for the U.S. where there continues to be a proliferation of private gun ownership, and there are a growing number of self-defense claims based on a perceived threat that "triggered" an overly aggressive response and the use of deadly force against an unarmed victim.

I appreciate the need to apply the law equally in similar cases. But it is also understood that the courts must take into consideration the character of the defendant and their role in the relationship and the death of a loved one or family member. Not all cases of mistaken identity are equal. Most parents do not intentionally shoot their young children, but I would not automatically grant the same benefit of the doubt to a hot-headed, jealous boyfriend.

I believe Michelle Burger was pretty emphatic that she heard 4 shots that night and in the 1-3 sequence. I am still of the opinion that the first shot hit Reeva in the hip and she fell back upon the magazine rack, causing Oscar to re-aim and fire the final three shots. This made it easy for him to testify to hearing the sound of wood moving inside the toilet cubicle which startled him and caused him to involuntarily shoot at the noise. The only problem, of course, is that he claimed to have heard the wood moving before he fired the first shot.

Well I don't think private citizens should be allowed to keep or carry guns. That way it's clear where everyone stands. If you shoot someone in the UK the first question would be why you had a gun in the first place.

I think your point about who has been shot and the attitude of the police and the law is really about whether the police/courts think the killing was a genuine mistake or not. But if you think about it, it should make no difference. It's what the shooter thought at the time or what they did (depending on how the law treats these things in that country). Otherwise you have two people one of whom is treated as a serious criminal and the other sent off with a slap on the wrists for doing the same thing. That's surely against all ideas of justice.

Yes Burger was emphatic but that doesn't make her right. If the bangs she heard were the real shots and they were really 1-3 then don't you think it's odd that not a single other person heard the same thing? We have the three people in the Stipps house hearing 3 bangs only - they were wide awake at the time and much closer - and Johnson hearing many shots. Burger probably heard the 3 bat strikes with echoes which would explain why Johnson heard a volley of shots and not 3. Burger was indoors too so she probably just heard less. And we also have Mrs VdM, a state witness, who described the four shots she heard (probably the real shots) as one after the other.

 

[GR_Turner]

Well I don't think private citizens should be allowed to keep or carry guns. That way it's clear where everyone stands. If you shoot someone in the UK the first question would be why you had a gun in the first place.

I think your point about who has been shot and the attitude of the police and the law is really about whether the police/courts think the killing was a genuine mistake or not. But if you think about it, it should make no difference. It's what the shooter thought at the time or what they did (depending on how the law treats these things in that country). Otherwise you have two people one of whom is treated as a serious criminal and the other sent off with a slap on the wrists for doing the same thing. That's surely against all ideas of justice.

Yes Burger was emphatic but that doesn't make her right. If the bangs she heard were the real shots and they were really 1-3 then don't you think it's odd that not a single other person heard the same thing? We have the three people in the Stipps house hearing 3 bangs only - they were wide awake at the time and much closer - and Johnson hearing many shots. Burger probably heard the 3 bat strikes with echoes which would explain why Johnson heard a volley of shots and not 3. Burger was indoors too so she probably just heard less. And we also have Mrs VdM, a state witness, who described the four shots she heard (probably the real shots) as one after the other.

Weird replying to myself but just to clarify:

I think the police should charge people with murder if they think that's what the evidence shows. It's when that is rejected by a court that they should be treated in the same way as anyone else who shot in the same circumstances. It should not be the case that people are treated more severely for the same crime just because the police had suspicions they then couldn't prove.

 

[Marfa Lights]

Weird replying to myself but just to clarify:

I think the police should charge people with murder if they think that's what the evidence shows. It's when that is rejected by a court that they should be treated in the same way as anyone else who shot in the same circumstances. It should not be the case that people are treated more severely for the same crime just because the police had suspicions they then couldn't prove.

It depends on what you mean by the "same circumstances." Are all cases of putative private defense to be simplified to a defendant's unsubstantiated claim "I felt threatened by XYZ. I happened to have a gun handy and I shot impulsively and killed ABC in the mistaken belief that they were about to harm me."

And if they cry convincingly and show remorse, then the courts must excuse one and all?? We would not want to punish them twice, as Masipa said.

I am afraid Oscar's ten month prison sentence will seem more like a couple of semesters in a third-rate boarding school. Somehow I doubt this has been enough time for him to fully appreciate the consequences of his actions that night.

 

[aftermath]

It depends on what you mean by the "same circumstances." Are all cases of putative private defense to be simplified to a defendant's unsubstantiated claim "I felt threatened by XYZ. I happened to have a gun handy and I shot impulsively and killed ABC in the mistaken belief that they were about to harm me."

And if they cry convincingly and show remorse, then the courts must excuse one and all?? We would not want to punish them twice, as Masipa said.

I am afraid Oscar's ten month prison sentence will seem more like a couple of semesters in a third-rate boarding school. Somehow I doubt this has been enough time for him to fully appreciate the consequences of his actions that night.

But some cases might well come down to such a claim and if there was nothing to prove otherwise beyond reasonable doubt, then I think it would have to be accepted however unsatisfactory it might feel to any of us observing. People can't be convicted of murder if it is reasonably possible that they didn't murder anyone. That doesn't mean that the putative self defence claim would lead to an acquittal though - in pistorius's case, although the self defence explanation was accepted, he was found to have acted too hastily and excessively, hence the culp hom.

The ten months in prison plus remaining time of 5year sentence under house arrest is in keeping with the sentence, which was in keeping with the verdict. I don't know whether prison is like boarding school, but I would have thought that someone who psychologists reported to be deeply traumatised by what he had done has already realised the consequences of his actions and is struggling to cope with them.

 

[JudgeJudi]

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.

5 May 2014 – Session 2 @ 0:00:43

Evidence in Chief of Carice Viljoen (nee Stander)

BR: ... What then was the next event?
CV: ... I was lying on my bed thinking “Oh my gosh, how am I going to sleep now?” because the voice I heard – I know for a – it sounded to be- it’s a man’s voice. I could hear a man shouting means that there must be terrible trouble because then where’s the lady?