Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #63 ~ the appeal~

[Colin de France]

.........Dr Stipp seems pretty sure of what he heard that night ......." He then heard screaming which sounded like a female. She screamed 3 or 4 times. He later states in his testimony that she sounded extremely fearful".....

 

[aftermath]

.....no....it's the sequence.....so you're saying again she didn't scream ?...........

If the first set of bangs were the gunshots, then probably not, no.

 

[aftermath]

I posted the defence HOA a couple of pages back (post # 183) where they put the shots at just after 3 am. Not 3.12. Just after 3 am, based on Mrs VdW hearing them at 3 and her clock being a couple of minutes slow. So if they have not revised that since then, and you are using the defence timeline as your basis, then that is at least 15 minutes between the shooting and the call to Stander at 3.19. So what was he doing, other than screaming?

Also from the defence heads :

206.4 What is clear from Mrs van der Merwe’s evidence is that the crying out loud, which sounded like a woman, was after the first shots.
206.5 We will demonstrate hereunder that the crying out loud (or screaming) occurred between approximately 03:12 and 03:17.
206.6 It is thus clear that the four shots heard by Mrs van der Merwe occurred prior to 03:12 which is consistent with her statement of "round about 03:00”.

 

[Marfa Lights]

Also from the defence heads :

206.4 What is clear from Mrs van der Merwe’s evidence is that the crying out loud, which sounded like a woman, was after the first shots.
206.5 We will demonstrate hereunder that the crying out loud (or screaming) occurred between approximately 03:12 and 03:17.
206.6 It is thus clear that the four shots heard by Mrs van der Merwe occurred prior to 03:12 which is consistent with her statement of "round about 03:00”.

Now that is a perfect example of Roux obfuscating at his best!

 

[cottonweaver]

Lithgow, I'm going to bump up the link.

https://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/defense-heads-of-argument.pdf

 

[Mr Fossil]

Carte Blanche ‏@carteblanchetv Aug 5
Could crucial evidence in the #OscarTrial have been overlooked? Watch #OscarEvidence 9 Aug 7pm http://bit.ly/1IWTNxX

See also The Oscar Trial: Overlooked Evidence? http://carteblanche.dstv.com/oscar-trial-evidence

When several pictures of the crime scene were made public during the trial, this led to the suggestion that curious patterns observed in the blood in the toilet bowl alongside Reeva, where she fell after she was shot, could point to the fact that the toilet was flushed seconds before she was shot. This could possibly help shed light on events before the bullets were fired.

Why wasn’t this evidence presented in court? Could it be that experts for both the prosecution and defence could have overlooked this possibly crucial evidence?

See also Reeva's Family http://carteblanche.dstv.com/player/897264 from 19 Jul (duration 10:42)

On the 21st of August this year, Oscar Pistorius will be released from prison under correctional supervision. He will by then have spent ten months in prison for killing his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp in February 2013. With a month to go before his release, Carte Blanche speaks to those closest to the family: Kim Martin (Reeva’s first cousin) and Jennifer Strydom (close friend of June and Barry Steenkamp) for candid insight into the family’s reaction to Oscar’s pending house arrest.

 

[Colin de France]

.....there is a possibility that being tied down by the timeline is blinding us from seeing other possibilities.........in otherwords if we to construct the sequence of events according to the witnesses without putting the timeline in it may well direct us towards another theory and in particular the theory that the cricket bat was being used to break the WC door down before the shooting......for example in the Dr Stipps version it would be ....bangs/screams/bangs/nothing.....

 

[aftermath]

.....there is a possibility that being tied down by the timeline is blinding us from seeing other possibilities.........in otherwords if we to construct the sequence of events according to the witnesses without putting the timeline in it may well direct us towards another theory and in particular the theory that the cricket bat was being used to break the WC door down before the shooting......for example in the Dr Stipps version it would be ....bangs/screams/bangs/nothing.....

So he broke panels out of the door first, then deliberately fired through the door while he could see her? Lots of factors make that scenario seem far more unlikely than pistorius's own version...

 

[cottonweaver]

Carte Blanche ‏@carteblanchetv Aug 5
Could crucial evidence in the #OscarTrial have been overlooked? Watch #OscarEvidence 9 Aug 7pm http://bit.ly/1IWTNxX

RSBM

If Carte Blanche have brought Frank back from Malawi for an interview,
managed to get a confession from Carl re. the cell phone and info from Jenna Edkins regarding her contact with Oscar that night... (Insert your favourites) .... "
........then I will definitely be watching.

 

[Colin de France]

So he broke panels out of the door first, then deliberately fired through the door while he could see her? Lots of factors make that scenario seem far more unlikely than pistorius's own version...

..... you're not keeping an open mind.......going by the theory of the bat being used before the shooting, she would of been alive and the situation confused and highly charged, it's all very well making a hole with the bat but to put a hand through whilst someone is in the WC is a different matter ......if she was resisting him doing that he would of became even more enraged.......

 

[aftermath]

..... you're not keeping an open mind.......going by the theory of the bat being used before the shooting, she would of been alive and the situation confused and highly charged, it's all very well making a hole with the bat but to put a hand through whilst someone is in the WC is a different matter ......if she was resisting him doing that he would of became even more enraged.......

How does that tie in with vermeulen's evidence re shots before bat? And wouldn't that still end up with him shooting through the door whilst able to see her?

 

[Colin de France]

How does that tie in with vermeulen's evidence really shots before bat? And wouldn't that still end up with him shooting through the door whilst able to see her?

....yes you're quite right to bring that up about the crack and the bullet hole, but you must concede to the idea that the door could have been already extensively damaged before the shots requiring less work to do after ........this also brings me around to my initial post's on here that i had doubts over the intention of at least the first shot.....the idea that Pistorius was thinking above all about opening the door does help in bridging the gap about why he went for his gun........

 

[aftermath]

....yes you're quite right to bring that up about the crack and the bullet hole, but you must concede to the idea that the door could have been already extensively damaged before the shots requiring less work to do after ........this also brings me around to my initial post's on here that i had doubts over the intention of at least the first shot.....the idea that Pistorius was thinking above all about opening the door does help in bridging the gap about why he went for his gun........

Of course it's possible, I just think that on balance it is significantly less likely than pistorius's own version.
By extensively damaged, do you mean panels already out before the shooting?

 

[soozieqtips]

Unbelievable! The verified gun incident in the restaurant you choose to ignore in an another attempt to validate OP by invalidating a friend of his. There are times I am gobsmacked when I read some posts on this forum.

And this is all under the supposed pretext of keeping an open mind. Supporters can't admit they're supporters, but what they say proves (beyond a reasonable doubt) that they are. That's fine. Just admit it!

 

[Colin de France]

Of course it's possible, I just think that on balance it is significantly less likely than pistorius's own version.
By extensively damaged, do you mean panels already out before the shooting?

....if Pistorius was to turn around and say yes i knew Reeva was in the WC but my intention was to open the door and i just wasn't thinking......that would feel right to me, i could accept that.....

 

[cottonweaver]

RSBM

If Carte Blanche have brought Frank back from Malawi for an interview,
managed to get a confession from Carl re. the cell phone and info from Jenna Edkins regarding her contact with Oscar that night... (Insert your favourites) .... "
........then I will definitely be watching.

........instead of the content being lazy journalists" rehashed debate from WS posts of old. A lot of time was spent on the toilet bowl streaks!

 

[JudgeJudi]

And this is all under the supposed pretext of keeping an open mind. Supporters can't admit they're supporters, but what they say proves (beyond a reasonable doubt) that they are. That's fine. Just admit it!

The expression "run with the fox and hunt with the hounds" springs to mind.

 

[Marfa Lights]

Sorry to break away from discussions about the timeline and screams testimony (my usual obsessions) and I know most of you are burned out on questions of Dolus eventualis but I am getting psyched up up for the appeal and was searching online to see if Putative Private Defense (PPD) alone excludes DE. According to Prof. James Grant, apparently it does.

http://criminallawza.net/2014/05/04/...r-human-being/

"It is worth remembering – because this issue continues to be misunderstood: one may intentionally kill another human being – so long as you are justified (such as in self/private defence) and you know/believe you are justified.

If you are not justified (such as you are not under attack), you are only liable to a murder conviction if you know/believe you were not justified – if you know that you were not under attack. If you know you were not justified, you have intention in South African law. Intention is an entirely subjective enquiry. It turns on what the accused was actually thinking.

If you are not justified, and you did not know that you were not justified (that is, you were mistaken) you cannot be convicted of murder. In this scenario (of mistake) you can still be convicted of culpable homicide, if the mistake you made was not one that the reasonable person, in the circumstances, would make. The enquiry into negligence is objective and essentially a comparison between the conduct of the accused, and what the reasonable person would have done in the circumstances that the accused was in."

NOTE: to avoid another one of my usual obnoxiously long essays, I will break this up into several posts.

 

[Marfa Lights]

I took another look at Nel's appeal-- and as I recall he was not allowed to appeal on the sentence being "shockingly" light nor was he (inexplicably) allowed to appeal on the illegal ammo possession charge either-- but he was allowed to appeal on the verdict of CH versus DE.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/245475257/State-papers-for-Oscar-Pistorius-sentencing-appeal#scribd

In reading the appeal, Nel seems almost to focus exclusively on the issue of Oscar having multiple defenses that were mutually exclusive. His claims of "I did not intend to shoot. I shot involuntarily. I shot without thinking. I fired my gun but I did not intend to kill anyone", according to Nel, effectively negate his PPD claim that he (deliberately) killed someone because he thought they were an intruder.

I have to ask-- is this all there is for the basis for appeal? And is it enough?

 

[aftermath]

Sorry to break away from discussions about the timeline and screams testimony (my usual obsessions) and I know most of you are burned out on questions of Dolus eventualis but I am getting psyched up up for the appeal and was searching online to see if Putative Private Defense (PPD) alone excludes DE. According to Prof. James Grant, apparently it does.

http://criminallawza.net/2014/05/04/...r-human-being/

"It is worth remembering – because this issue continues to be misunderstood: one may intentionally kill another human being – so long as you are justified (such as in self/private defence) and you know/believe you are justified.

If you are not justified (such as you are not under attack), you are only liable to a murder conviction if you know/believe you were not justified – if you know that you were not under attack. If you know you were not justified, you have intention in South African law. Intention is an entirely subjective enquiry. It turns on what the accused was actually thinking.

If you are not justified, and you did not know that you were not justified (that is, you were mistaken) you cannot be convicted of murder. In this scenario (of mistake) you can still be convicted of culpable homicide, if the mistake you made was not one that the reasonable person, in the circumstances, would make. The enquiry into negligence is objective and essentially a comparison between the conduct of the accused, and what the reasonable person would have done in the circumstances that the accused was in."

NOTE: to avoid another one of my usual obnoxiously long essays, I will break this up into several posts.

This links into a question I asked a while back about whether dolus is linked to the idea of accepting that you are or may be doing something unlawful. And I think it also links to Masipa saying that on accepting the possibility of the intruder version, Pistorius then lacked the required dolus for DE: in other words if he did not believe that what he was doing and the consequent risks of what he was doing were unlawful, then he cannot be guilty of murder... (?)