Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #63 ~ the appeal~

[JudgeJudi]

......the murder version........intention to use.

......the intruder version.......no intention to use.

......the door hole version.....intention to use.

So what, in your opinion, was his intention in the intruder version?

Also, do you believe that he fired at the perceived threatening noise made by the perceived intruder?

OP lied during his testimony and we only have his word that he heard a noise at all.
Where is the proof that he heard anything?
Therefore it's more that reasonable to postulate that he didn't hear a noise at all.

If so, then it was dolus directus because he knew it was Reeva behind the door.

 

[Colin de France]

OP lied during his testimony and we only have his word that he heard a noise at all.
Where is the proof that he heard anything?
Therefore it's more that reasonable to postulate that he didn't hear a noise at all.

If so, it was dolus directus irrespective of who was behind the door.

.........true....but we only have his version to go by.....

 

[Trotterly]

OP lied during his testimony and we only have his word that he heard a noise at all.
Where is the proof that he heard anything?
Therefore it's more that reasonable to postulate that he didn't hear a noise at all.

If so, it was dolus directus irrespective of who was behind the door.

Which bits do we know he lied about?

Masipa said he lied but wasn't clear about the extent of his lies or what he lied about.

I keep seeing rhetoric about not being able to believe anything the liar says but I'd like to get a grasp of what the lies were before I decide. I believe the law allows for a certain amount of lying by the accused.

 

[mrjitty]

The real question for the SC is this

Masipa herself inferred OP deliberately pulled the trigger (contrary to his testimony)
Masipa herself inferred "The Respondent deliberately fired shots into the door with the aim “to shoot the intruder”.

Given those 2 findings - how can it be that a trained firearms owner, would not foresee the possibility of death?

or as Pistorius himself stated:

“ … If I think back today, My Lady, If there was someone inside the toilet and I
knew about that and I fired at the door, then that would be a possibility, My
Lady…That they could get shot, My Lady… It is a probability? --- Yes, My Lady”

 

[JudgeJudi]

Please note correction to last sentence of my previous post.

 

[Colin de France]

The real question for the SC is this

Masipa herself inferred OP deliberately pulled the trigger (contrary to his testimony)
Masipa herself inferred "The Respondent deliberately fired shots into the door with the aim “to shoot the intruder”.

Given those 2 findings - how can it be that a trained firearms owner, would not foresee the possibility of death?

or as Pistorius himself stated:

...........i mentioned this in post 743, here it is again.............."if i think back today m'lady"...... if i knew then what i know now ......he is saying that at the time he didn't think that someone would get shot by a bouncing bullet ...........it's retrospective thinking....the court should have asked the question directly "did you know at the time that you fired that someone could possibly be hit by a richochet bullet" ? .......

 

[cottonweaver]

“ …

If I think back today, My Lady, If there was someone inside the toilet and I
knew about that and I fired at the door, then that would be a possibility, My
Lady…That they could get shot, My Lady… It is a probability? --- Yes, My Lady”

Can we conclude this angle is fully covered now with that last post of Jitty's?
I am happy to give the last word to to OP on this and move on - anyone else agree?

 

[lithgow1]

RSBM: In summary, to all those wanting to slam the door for 15 years, he is a human being not an animal and will be judged (again) as such.


As indeed is every guilty person serving time in prison for the crimes they committed so what is the point of that comment? No one has said he is an animal, but many here believe him to be a murderer.

 

[cottonweaver]

this is the quote I meant - my post 863

Having refrained from quoting the record, it is, with respect apt to quote the respondent’s
own views as to the foreseeability in relation to dolus eventualis:

OP :“… M”Lady, if I had fired a shot into the shower, it would have ricocheted and
possibly hit me … Firing into that door, in the small toilet, a ricochet of that
ammunition would be possible and it would hit someone? Am I right? --- That is
correct, M’Lady…

”

The hindsight quote came later on in his testimony

 

[Colin de France]

“ …

Can we conclude this angle is fully covered now with that last post of Jitty's?
I am happy to give the last word to to OP on this and move on - anyone else agree?

........what for ? ............that is interferring with the discussion and an attempt to influence the contents of the debate .......

 

[Colin de France]

this is the quote I meant - my post 863

Having refrained from quoting the record, it is, with respect apt to quote the respondent’s
own views as to the foreseeability in relation to dolus eventualis:

”

The hindsight quote came later on in his testimony

......i think poster's have the right to reply to this and i disagree with the idea of orientating and interferring with the debate as to suit the defenders of one version.......i'm surprised that you could even suggest such a thing ......

 

[Interested Bystander]

Breaking news on Sky, OP will not be released this week-end. I will update when I hear more.

 

[Marfa Lights]

..........dry cornflakes ......

Certainly, one may well prefer creme brûlée to The Rules of Evidence

 

[Colin de France]

Certainly, one may well prefer creme brûlée to The Rules of Evidence

.......evidence will do just fine .......otherwise you're right ....

 

[cottonweaver]

Breaking news on Sky, OP will not be released this week-end. I will update when I hear more.

Wow - now that is strange and novel.

If that's due to that womens' group petition about "sensitivities in Women's Month " then I must say I don't think that is right

 

[Interested Bystander]

SA Justice Minister confirmed to Sky News that OP would not now be freed on Friday. His release has been put on hold.

Nothing more at the moment.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Karyn Maughan ‏@karynmaughan 22m22 minutes ago
BREAKING: #OscarPistorius can only be released if and when parole review board rules in his favour.

Karyn Maughan ‏@karynmaughan 23m23 minutes ago
BREAKING: decision to release #OscarPistorius on probation has been suspended

Karyn Maughan ‏@karynmaughan 25m25 minutes ago
BREAKING: Minister Michael Masutha says decision to release #OscarPistorius was made prematurely and "without any legal basis"

Karyn Maughan ‏@karynmaughan 30m30 minutes ago
BREAKING: Minister Michael Masutha has referred #OscarPistorius parole decision to the Correctional Supervision and Parole Review Board

 

[Interested Bystander]

Wow - now that is strange and novel.

If that's due to that womens' group petition about "sensitivities in Women's Month " then I must say I don't think that is right

I totally agree. 'Fringe groups' should not be allowed to interfere with what is a legal determintion that he is due for release. Apparently his release was discussed in June and all agreed. I think the Justice Minister is attention seeking (I am being flippant) LOL!

 

[cottonweaver]

Karyn Maughan

"Correctional Services dept appears to be arguing that #OscarPistorius should only have been considered for release after Friday, not before"

So they got their dates mixed up rather than bowed to pressure?
see
https://twitter.com/karynmaughan

 

[aftermath]

The real question for the SC is this

Masipa herself inferred OP deliberately pulled the trigger (contrary to his testimony)
Masipa herself inferred "The Respondent deliberately fired shots into the door with the aim “to shoot the intruder”.

Given those 2 findings - how can it be that a trained firearms owner, would not foresee the possibility of death?

or as Pistorius himself stated:

What was the extent of his training, does anyone really know? Reference to the written theory test has been made in the past, but perhaps his training didn't cover the physical reality of an armed confrontation or how to master the effects of the fight-flight-freeze panic-response.