She may well have been using the phone as a light for the toilet. Might not have called emergency services from the cubicle for fear of being heard. Or didn't have time between realising something was happening, listening at the door and the shots being fired.
Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #63 ~ the appeal~
- Thread starter KateB
- Start date
-
-
-
FL FL - Watson Island, BlkFem 790UFFL, 16-26, in Japanese Gardens, Feb'81
- Latest: justbrowsingiguess
- Status
She may well have been using the phone as a light for the toilet. Might not have called emergency services from the cubicle for fear of being heard. Or didn't have time between realising something was happening, listening at the door and the shots being fired.
GR Turner`s idea was that she left the phone outside the cubicle. I was questioning him/her as to why she would do that, especially if she was using it as a light since the toilet light was broken. Of course she could have just turned on the bathroom light at the same time as she opened the window but then that would make OP a liar wouldn't it. Can`t have that.
If it all happened as quickly as Turner suggests what fear of being heard would she have? According to him/her OP would have been standing there when she would have been making the call. Now fear of him I would agree with.
Colin de France
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2014
- Messages
- 1,094
- Reaction score
- 0
.....she was certainly panic stricken with him at the door with the bat........if she had managed to compose a number and the person at the other end didn't awnser due to it being the middle of the night.....that would surely leave a trace somewhere .......no ? .......if she was trying to contact someone it doesn't have to be the emergency services.........
Colin de France
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2014
- Messages
- 1,094
- Reaction score
- 0
.....what i would seriously like to know were the mobile phone antenna détails checked that night ?.........anyone know anything anywhere ? ......every service operator keeps détails of calls passed and by which antenna.....
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,431
- Reaction score
- 35,710
Apols for breaking the current train of debate here but maybe put this on the back-burner for later
A view on Masipa's reasoning - not full of legalese:
"Let's look, firstly, at the following important part of the judge's ruling.
As anyone following the case will know, Pistorius lodged a putative self defense claim. That is, he said that he thought that he was in such a threatening situation that self defense (shooting through the closed toilet door, thereby killing his girlfriend) was justified.
This is what the judge said about this defense.
She first set out that when it comes to putative self defense, a subjective norm should be applied. The question is not whether a reasonable man in similar circumstances would have assumed that self defense was justified; the question is, on the contrary, what Pistorius himself assumed. The question is, phrased another way, whether Pistorius honestly believed that he was under (severe) threat.
The judge then states, rather baldly, that "there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that this belief was not honestly entertained" by Pistorius. To substantiate this, she points out that:
the bathroom window was indeed open, "so that it was not his imagination at work when he thought he heard the window slide open";
Pistorius "armed himself with a loaded firearm and went to the direction of the noise";
he "heard a door slam shut; the toilet door was, indeed, shut";
he "heard a movement inside the toilet";
and that, "in his version, he was scared because he thought the intruder was coming out to attack him".
I will make a few comments about each of these aspects..."
http://startlingglass.blogspot.co.u...d-max=2015-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=5
Not a lot of details on the writer's legal credentials but he's very clear but it's a good read. he wrote 4 articles as the case progressed.
A view on Masipa's reasoning - not full of legalese:
"Let's look, firstly, at the following important part of the judge's ruling.
As anyone following the case will know, Pistorius lodged a putative self defense claim. That is, he said that he thought that he was in such a threatening situation that self defense (shooting through the closed toilet door, thereby killing his girlfriend) was justified.
This is what the judge said about this defense.
She first set out that when it comes to putative self defense, a subjective norm should be applied. The question is not whether a reasonable man in similar circumstances would have assumed that self defense was justified; the question is, on the contrary, what Pistorius himself assumed. The question is, phrased another way, whether Pistorius honestly believed that he was under (severe) threat.
The judge then states, rather baldly, that "there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that this belief was not honestly entertained" by Pistorius. To substantiate this, she points out that:
the bathroom window was indeed open, "so that it was not his imagination at work when he thought he heard the window slide open";
Pistorius "armed himself with a loaded firearm and went to the direction of the noise";
he "heard a door slam shut; the toilet door was, indeed, shut";
he "heard a movement inside the toilet";
and that, "in his version, he was scared because he thought the intruder was coming out to attack him".
I will make a few comments about each of these aspects..."
http://startlingglass.blogspot.co.u...d-max=2015-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=5
Not a lot of details on the writer's legal credentials but he's very clear but it's a good read. he wrote 4 articles as the case progressed.
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,431
- Reaction score
- 35,710
Part 2 of the paste - for the backburner
Alex Van den berg on Masipa's account of Oscar's testimony :
"Firstly, the bathroom window. From any point of view it clearly does not follow from the fact that the window was open that Pistorius heard the window opening. There is simply no logic to that assertion whatsoever. The same mistake is made with regard to the toilet door; the fact that it was closed in no way implies that Pistorius actually heard it "slamming". A third and similar mistake is made when it comes to the "movement" inside the toilet, since all we have is Pistorius's word on this. In other words, we simply don't know if Pistorius did or did not hear any of these sounds and the simple fact that he claims to have done so in no way asserts his "honesty".
Secondly, there is the fact that Pistorius armed himself and headed towards the bathroom. That's true, of course, but it should be remembered that every single putative self defense case starts with some similar sort of action by the accused. The accused always acts and always causes harm, which is why he is accused in the first place. You simply cannot in good conscience argue that the defendant's aggression is itself a valid argument for assuming his innocence; such an assertion again clearly seems to defy logic.
Finally, I am not sure what to make of Pistorius's assertion that he was "scared". This is, once more, just his own assertion; it does not mean that it should be held to be either true or false.
So all in all, when looking at these various elements, the conclusion must surely be that none of them in any way substantiate the notion that Pistorius acted "honestly". If, however, that is the case, then there simply is no substantiation for that belief at all (*).
There is a further problem in the court's reasoning. It's this: even if one where to assume that Pistorius heard various noises (the window opening, the toilet door closing, the sound of movement inside the toilet), the question arises whether this could constitute such a threat as to make Pistorius "honestly" believe he must act in defense. After all, self defense against what? Pistorius was not in any way being attacked; I simply do not see how a few noises - which, if they were made at all, were simply made by his girlfriend going to the toilet - would nevertheless make his belief "honest". (I accept that Pistorius may have an "anxious" disposition; it may also be true that, as one of the experts in the trial testified, he has a "fight not flight" reaction to danger. But those elements are, to my mind, clearly insufficient in this regard.)
And then, it must be added, there seems to be a third problem, which is not just down to this specific court but also stems from South African law itself. It has to do with the subjectivity of the norm descried above. It should be pointed out that the more "subjective" the norm becomes - the more it comes down to what the defendant himself claims, without any real objective substantiation - the easier it becomes for a putative self defense claim to be abused. If the law imposes upon you to judge according to what the defendant says, you are going to find it somewhat hard to convict all that many murderers.
Ultimately, however, it seems that we may perhaps forget all the above. Remarkably, you see, the judge doesn't give an answer to the question of whether or not the putative self defense claim is or is not justified.
Instead, it seems, she rejects the basic premiss of this argument altogether, by stating that she believes that, whilst Pistorius may have shot four times through the closed toilet door (thereby killing his girlfriend) he did not have any intent to kill anyone. As a result, whilst she starts to discuss the putative claim, she then veers off to a different aspect altogether. That aspect deals with the issue of "dolus eventualis"......
Alex Van den berg on Masipa's account of Oscar's testimony :
"Firstly, the bathroom window. From any point of view it clearly does not follow from the fact that the window was open that Pistorius heard the window opening. There is simply no logic to that assertion whatsoever. The same mistake is made with regard to the toilet door; the fact that it was closed in no way implies that Pistorius actually heard it "slamming". A third and similar mistake is made when it comes to the "movement" inside the toilet, since all we have is Pistorius's word on this. In other words, we simply don't know if Pistorius did or did not hear any of these sounds and the simple fact that he claims to have done so in no way asserts his "honesty".
Secondly, there is the fact that Pistorius armed himself and headed towards the bathroom. That's true, of course, but it should be remembered that every single putative self defense case starts with some similar sort of action by the accused. The accused always acts and always causes harm, which is why he is accused in the first place. You simply cannot in good conscience argue that the defendant's aggression is itself a valid argument for assuming his innocence; such an assertion again clearly seems to defy logic.
Finally, I am not sure what to make of Pistorius's assertion that he was "scared". This is, once more, just his own assertion; it does not mean that it should be held to be either true or false.
So all in all, when looking at these various elements, the conclusion must surely be that none of them in any way substantiate the notion that Pistorius acted "honestly". If, however, that is the case, then there simply is no substantiation for that belief at all (*).
There is a further problem in the court's reasoning. It's this: even if one where to assume that Pistorius heard various noises (the window opening, the toilet door closing, the sound of movement inside the toilet), the question arises whether this could constitute such a threat as to make Pistorius "honestly" believe he must act in defense. After all, self defense against what? Pistorius was not in any way being attacked; I simply do not see how a few noises - which, if they were made at all, were simply made by his girlfriend going to the toilet - would nevertheless make his belief "honest". (I accept that Pistorius may have an "anxious" disposition; it may also be true that, as one of the experts in the trial testified, he has a "fight not flight" reaction to danger. But those elements are, to my mind, clearly insufficient in this regard.)
And then, it must be added, there seems to be a third problem, which is not just down to this specific court but also stems from South African law itself. It has to do with the subjectivity of the norm descried above. It should be pointed out that the more "subjective" the norm becomes - the more it comes down to what the defendant himself claims, without any real objective substantiation - the easier it becomes for a putative self defense claim to be abused. If the law imposes upon you to judge according to what the defendant says, you are going to find it somewhat hard to convict all that many murderers.
Ultimately, however, it seems that we may perhaps forget all the above. Remarkably, you see, the judge doesn't give an answer to the question of whether or not the putative self defense claim is or is not justified.
Instead, it seems, she rejects the basic premiss of this argument altogether, by stating that she believes that, whilst Pistorius may have shot four times through the closed toilet door (thereby killing his girlfriend) he did not have any intent to kill anyone. As a result, whilst she starts to discuss the putative claim, she then veers off to a different aspect altogether. That aspect deals with the issue of "dolus eventualis"......
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,431
- Reaction score
- 35,710
Genuinely, that's a long held view of yours? Or is this a response to Fossil's posting BIB1 and mine BIB2 upthread ?
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,431
- Reaction score
- 35,710
How does the news report pass your standards on citation though? ( ie. You objected previously vis-a-vis Traced, sourced, verified - your words/objections to similar news reports upthread?)
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,431
- Reaction score
- 35,710
[QUOTE said:
Staggering - the total control he had on Stipp's testimony. No wonder she rolled her eyes when she got off the stand.
It's only when you watch again ( very time -consuming), you remember how "bad" it was.
Thanks Fossil for providing verbatims accounts.
Again , pity that SA dragged it's heels so that SCA can't hear Appeals on "matters of fact".
It has nothing to do with Pistorius` innocence or guilt but I found Oldwadge to be a particularly odious example of the arrogant, public school boy type. The kind of person that makes me think wistfully of tumbrels, guillotines, Che Guevara and up against the wall. Well maybe not that far. Bankruptcy and a particularly lurid sex scandal that leads to disbarment would be enough. For all his twisting and turning I didn`t find Roux to be personally repellant in the way Oldwadge was. 
D
Deleted member 102539
Guest
"A blanket restriction on speaking to residents is unfair'' and infringes on Pistorius's rights to consult people on the estate to prepare for his trial, the appeal said.
That's also important ...... IMO.
Remember too how at his bail hearing his lawyers said he would conform to any restrictions imposed on him and then within a couple of weeks they were applying to have half of them lifted, including the no alcohol one? He was lucky to get bail with such a serious charge and even then won`t accept the court`s decision. I so hope his community service includes cleaning. Yes aftermath, GR Turner and Trotterly I am being vindictive, and under the circumstances I am really quite comfortable with it.
soozieqtips
Owned by a cat...
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,954
- Reaction score
- 0
I wish exactly the same thing. Cleaning toilets would be a start.
And anyway, I'd rather be vindictive than a killer.
Interested Bystander
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2013
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 345
I have listened again to the whole of the evidence in chief and cross examination and I do not agree with your interpretation of the time differences. To me it was quite clear that she had been awake and had a coughing fit and was then lying her bed for a short while (no length of time given). She then leant over her husband to look at the clock and registered it was 03.02. She decided that she would get a drink and was getting up when she heard the shots. IMO she was getting up immediately after registering the time (which was how Olwage interpreted it). She first went onto the small balcony before going to the larger balcony and as she was returning she heard the second shots and registed 03.17 on her clock. My interpretation is that she got up to go for a drink almost immediately after registering 03.02.
Perhaps someone else would like to listen to the evidence in chief and first part of the cross examination where this subject arises and give their interpretation. You can find it here:-
[video=youtube;9AzYslyjzmY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AzYslyjzmY&list=PLPWoQvCMB4gIIt8dDH4mZ82NU-PD80VlW&index=39[/video]
D
Deleted member 102539
Guest
I thought you had decided against this theory
Oh yes, I didn't have a look on the phone list, maybe.
Interested Bystander
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2013
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 345
Sorry, you have misunderstood my point. None of this happened. It all depends on whether you believe what Oscar said he whispered, spoke in a low tone or shouted. I don't believe any of it.
Colin de France
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2014
- Messages
- 1,094
- Reaction score
- 0
.......i'm starting to have serious doubts about the appeal.........after all the discussion on here there's been nothing to prove murder of Reeva and nothing either to prove murder of the intruder.......now with the theory of firing on the door to get into the WC.....does the state have any chance of winning.......?............at least the screams are nearly universally accepted....
Lithgow1 was asking about any reference to Reeva hiding in her previous experience of a break-in, that came from outside of pistorius's own testimony. I found an old article. I don't know how accurate it is, but as she and her mother definitely did experience a home invasion,(Reeva wrote a letter today newspaper about it)And since these details came from a named source: her uncle-who was willing to put his name to the interview - it certainly seems more reliable than unsubstantiated reports from anonymous partygoers of pistorius behaving badly . Also - there was no denial of pistorius's similar account of her experience from the steenkamp family when it came upo in court.
RSBM
I agree that her initial testimony to Nel does read as you say but the point she later stresses to Oldwage is that the observed time of 03:02 was when she woke coughing (as per her quoted testimony) not the time of the first sounds. She doesn't know how long after 03:02 they occurred.
Thanks, but I am not the poster who asked the question. But while we are chatting, do you have any ideas as to why Reeva would have opened the window in the bathroom but not turned on the light? Seems the odd way around to me.
As for her being too scared to talk, by OP`s version he was metres away and still screaming (his evidence is that after going quiet on reaching the bathroom he began to scream again, thinking the intruder was in the toilet). There is no logical reason why she would not have spoken at that point had this whole scenario been the misunderstanding he claims it to be. She cannot have thought that the intruder was between her and him as all there was separating them was a couple of metres of empty space. If his story to this point is true, there is absolutely no logical reason why she would not have said `Oscar it`s me`. None at all.
- Status
Similar threads
Staff online
-
friendlysleutherModerator -
TriciaManager Websleuths.com
Online statistics
- Members online
- 101
- Guests online
- 2,463
- Total visitors
- 2,564