Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #64 ~ the appeal~

[Viper]

BIB - he shot to 'nullify' the threat and chose ammunition especially designed to cause maximum tissue damage. OP knew exactly what the bullets were capable of (watermelon, anyone?) therefore he sure as hell wasn't planning to gently graze the intruder into submission.

OP was fully aware of what could happen if he fired even one shot in that bathroom, he admitted that the reason he did not fire a warning shot in to the glass enclosed empty shower was because he was afraid the bullet would ricochet and come back and strike him. Yes, that is something he really did say.

OP did not aim at the doorknob or the lock, he said he would have if he had wanted to hit Mr. Intruder as he was coming out of the WC, but OP steadfastly denied wanting to actually put a bullet in to Mr. Intruder. The trouble is he did not aim obviously high or obviously low to warn, although even that would likely have hurt and possibly killed anyone in the WC because of the ricocheting bullets. No he aimed at about the midsection of an average person and fired four bullets in a good grouping; law enforcement and firearms instructors teach people to shoot at the midsection of their target because that will seriously injure or kill the target. That is intent to kill, although there is more separately.

If folks read the HOA this and much more is all in there.

 

[soozieqtips]

But you don't agree with what Oscar said DID happen, so why would that be an issue? I don't agree with Colin about what happened, but his suggestion is still valid and worthy of consideration. IMO.

Believing OP is a liar, and therefore not believing his version/versions, is not really related to not 'considering' someone else's new version for him...

 

[cottonweaver]

Just been reading a free sample of Juror 13/NVDLeek's new e-book

http://www.amazon.com/FUGITIVE-Oscar-Pistorius-SHAKEDOWN-Title-ebook/dp/B0149YRKW8/#customerReviews

interesting so far- (i bought a few of the others and they were good)
shot 1 at the light coming from her phone/stop her using the phone aka limb amputation in anyone's book
remaining shots to kill her .

although personally, i don't want to go back down this particular path either on WS- the weekly new revelations leading up to the Appeal/strengths of state's appeal and what is coming next are interesting enough for me. )

 

[Colin de France]

Um, FYI Oscar never said anything like that.

....how could he ? ........once the decision was made about the intruder version he's stuck.....

 

[Colin de France]

Believing OP is a liar, and therefore not believing his version/versions, is not really related to not 'considering' someone else's new version for him...

....so tell me why is it not related ?.....we have the intruder version, the murder version and now the door version each has it's merits depending on one's opinions, imagine for a momment that the intention was to make a hole in the door where the bat had failed and at the same time to intimidate, how could he possibly admit that ? ......he weighed that up against the intruder version and went for it .....not only is it an equally valid theory but it also has a lot going for it...........

 

[cottonweaver]

OP was fully aware of what could happen if he fired even one shot in that bathroom, he admitted that the reason he did not fire a warning shot in to the glass enclosed empty shower was because he was afraid the bullet would ricochet and come back and strike him. Yes, that is something he really did say.

If folks read the HOA this and much more is all in there.

BIB Absolutely. It's as if people aren't fully getting that the toilet is tiled just like the shower ergo in his total clarity OP was absolutely aware of bouncing bullet fatality to RS not just to himself. ( or to the intruder to those so inclined. )

If folks also re-visited the crime scene photos on lisa's blog ( linked in my post a page of two back) they could have a look at the DAMAGE those bullets do to hard tiles and then imagine their effect on flesh. ( Can't rem if they are limestone or ceramic but the crime scene photos in general really are brutal and telling.)

Let's hope Aimee Princess has not smuggled-in a new sim card in watermelon slices to OP, to cool his sweating brow. And I hope now, as his release date has slipped away and the Appeal comes nearer, he knows a little of what panic feels like. ( although nothing can match her terror that night)

 

[Colin de France]

BIB Absolutely. It's as if people aren't fully getting that the toilet is tiled just like the shower ergo in his total clarity OP was absolutely aware of bouncing bullet fatality to RS not just to himself. ( or to the intruder to those so inclined. )

If folks also re-visited the crime scene photos on lisa's blog ( linked in my post a page of two back) they could have a look at the DAMAGE those bullets do to hard tiles and then imagine their effect on flesh. ( Can't rem if they are limestone or ceramic but the crime scene photos in general really are brutal and telling.)

Let's hope Aimee Princess has not smuggled-in a new sim card in watermelon slices to OP, to cool his sweating brow. And I hope now, as his release date has slipped away and the Appeal comes nearer, he knows a little of what panic feels like. ( although nothing can match her terror that night)

.....some "people" think that he did not take into consideration the bouncing bullets......it's far too easy to say he should of known after the fact but show me evidence that he knew beforehand ....as for his statement made in court, that was simply having seen first hand and needing an excuse quickly.......

 

[Viper]

Remorseless Pistorius didn't deserve judge's mercy

http://mg.co.za/article/2015-08-25-remorseless-pistorius-didnt-deserve-judges-mercy

 

[cottonweaver]

.....some "people" think that he did not take into consideration the bouncing bullets..

True

it's far too easy to say he should of known after the fact but show me evidence that he knew beforehand

in the State's Heads he is quoted from the transcript, from his own very words which statement was made in retrospect and which of his statements was not a hindsight interpretation.

as for his statement made in court, that was simply having seen first hand and needing an excuse quickly.

you have lost me on that one.

 

[cottonweaver]

Remorseless Pistorius didn't deserve judge's mercy

http://mg.co.za/article/2015-08-25-remorseless-pistorius-didnt-deserve-judges-mercy

Yes, that's a really good article.
hence, she's in the passenger seat "Night Flight to Mozambique" .

Having just purchased Lisa's latest, this appalling Satellite service is now telling me it's going to take 5 hours to download 50MB:banghead:

 

[Colin de France]

True



in the State's Heads he is quoted from the transcript, from his own very words which statement was made in retrospect and which of his statements was not a hindsight interpretation.



you have lost me on that one.

.......i would be interested to see evidence that he knew the effect of the bouncing bullets beforehand and that taking simple avoiding action would not be enough.......i can't find anything.....!

 

[cottonweaver]

.......i would be interested to see evidence that he knew the effect of the bouncing bullets beforehand and that taking simple avoiding action would not be enough.......i can't find anything.....!

I forget things too, it’s been 2 years, but, that notwithstanding we have been here before in August Colin. ie You just asked to be "shown the evidence" ( your expression.) But it was done in thread 63 post 969 and 967 AFAIK - ie. quotes of his own words in the heads. (But, tbh a clearer u'standing comes from watching cross x op/nel- listening to dialogue, what he u'stood at the time in contrast to what he conceded in retrospect when pressed by Nel .)

But even in the retrospective comment he made a huge blunder, as he stated had he known s.o was behind that door , in retro, yes he would have judged his actions would result in a fatality.
( Obviously his entire evidence, his every statement had been had been predicated on s.o/ an intruder was behind that door, made the wood move etc . He did foresee, subjectively, and had intent IMO.)

The retrospective comment :
" “ … 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”

( This was NOT the ricochet comment, latter was NOT retrospective .)


Therefore dolus eventualis................. done and dustedalis. IMO*

*Not for Masipa of course, just as she isn't really clambering into the crop-duster to accompany OP to Mozamb. , to teach "Logic" to barefoot kids while Op delivers "Sportsmanship: my versions" . That's just a joke. But hopefully for the SCA, it's a coup de grace.......that is my u'standing, happy to be corrected.. here to learn, share opinions, share info. etc etc.

 

[cottonweaver]

saw this a while back - links to Viper's previous post, albeit tenuously I admit, to "scrapes" running in the family

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Oscar-Pistorius-uncle-booted-off-land-20150628

"Villagers revoke Theo Pistorius’ lease over prime hunting property, claiming he did not keep his promises to improve their poverty-stricken lives

A 20-year lease agreement between businessman Theo Pistorius and a rural community in Limpopo has ended in a bitter row over missing money and allegations of exploitation....Villagers want hunting banned there, as they say the rich profits it makes do not trickle down to them. But Pistorius maintains that the termination of the 20-year game-hunting lease contract is invalid, and he will lodge an application in the North Gauteng High Court to contest it....This is the very court where Oscar was tried last year for killing girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.
The 70-year-old Pretoria tycoon is one of four brothers who head the multimillion-rand Pistorius family empire, which has interests in mining, tourism and property development.

A deed search shows he is the director of hospitality ventures in Botswana and Mozambique, a local air-charter company and three South African big-game hunting companies. This includes the Mthimkhulu Game Reserve, where trophy-hunting excursions are hosted at a bush camp decorated with elephant skulls......t is a veritable gold mine, with international tourists paying up to R600 000 to shoot an elephant........while the villagers – the government-appointed custodians of the rich land – remain extremely poor.... earning R750 a month"

How come the women are never in trouble with the law?

 

[G.bng]

.......i would be interested to see evidence that he knew the effect of the bouncing bullets beforehand and that taking simple avoiding action would not be enough.......i can't find anything.....!

I remember watching that section of his testimony very well because Nel was trying hard to get OP to say he didn't fire a warning shot into the shower because he thought ("foresaw") a ricochet could end up hitting him. I can't find the section just now but below is the relevant dialogue in full (not just the 2 lines quoted by the State in its HOA's which take it out of context) from the official transcript and it is clear, at least to me, that OP's answer about the ricochet was hindsight and not what had happened at the time:

Nel: Did you ever think of firing into the shower, a warning shot?
Oscar: M'Lady, if I had fired a shot into the shower, it would have ricocheted and possibly hit me.

Nel: That is the next question. Firing into that door, in that small toilet, a ricochet of that ammunition would be possible and it would hit somebody? Am I right?
Oscar: That is correct, M'Lady.

Nel: So, you foresaw the possibility. If I fire in there and there is somebody in there, I will hit them?
Oscar: That is not what I said, M'Lady.

Nel: No, but I ask you. Did you?
Oscar: No, M'Lady.

Nel: What then? When you fired in there, what did you think?
Oscar: As I said, I did not think. My firearm was pointed at the door at that time, M'Lady.

Nel: But you thought of not firing in the shower, because there will be a ricochet? Is that what you thought?Oscar: No, I never said that.

Nel: What then?
Oscar: I never said I did not think of firing into the shower. It is put to me now: Why did I not fire into the shower.

Nel: I ask you again, why did you not fire into the shower, a warning shot?
Oscar: M'Lady, I did not intend to fire my gun. My gun was pointed at the door and when I heard the noise, I fired.
Nel: Okay, but then for… then, you did not intend to fire your gun. Your gun just went off. Can we… is that what we can accept for going forward in this matter?
Oscar: No, my gun did not just go off, M'Lady.

Nel: Now...[intervenes]
Oscar: I did not intend to fire, but I did fire. It did not just go off.

Nel: But is it like the Glock? Did it just go off? Or did you pull the trigger?
Oscar: I pulled the trigger, M'Lady.

Nel: Into the…in…why?
Oscar: Because I perceived danger to be coming out to attack me, M'Lady.

Nel: But you did not…then when you said you did not fire at the danger, did you fire at the danger?
Oscar: I fired where the firearm was pointed, where I perceived the danger to be. That is correct.

 

[cottonweaver]

I remember watching that section of his testimony very well because Nel was trying hard to get OP to say he didn't fire a warning shot into the shower because he thought ("foresaw") a ricochet could end up hitting him. I can't find the section just now but below is the relevant dialogue in full (not just the 2 lines quoted by the State in its HOA's which take it out of context) from the official transcript and it is clear, at least to me, that OP's answer about the ricochet was hindsight and not what had happened at the time:

Yes G.bng you’ll interpret that no doubt as Op’s use of the less–used past subjunctive tense( ?) ,ie. an imaginary scenario.
OP was certainly clumsy with English (even though was his first language) that was striking for me, and his tenses were all over the place throughout his days on the stand.

I don’t expect SCA judges to be grammarists but I do think they will be experts in dealing with the deviations in witness testimony under cross, under pressure. ( I'm hoping Roux's blatant misinterpretations will be equally crystal clear to them.)

For me and countless others watching back then, his first two lines of the dialogue you quote, are past perfect tense. (I didn’t do x, cause if I had done x , y would have happened. )
For me, Nel’s unfortunate use of the word “foresaw’ triggered OP into another of his deviations, a quick swerve once he had realised the implications of “foresaw”. ( He was after all an “evasive”, “very poor “ witness. ) This is exactly why the fuller context is better. (But TBH the preceding section is very useful as it deals with the detailed sequence in the past not “could’ve, would’ve should’ve…)

It is a brilliant piece of “dialogue” to quote- if you come across any more, please quote them.
For Nel, I think Afrikaans is his first language so occasionally I don’t think he was as clever as he could be, simply with his choice of words in setting his “traps” for OP. I mean “did you” combined “ever” wasn’t great when he meant "did you consider"

I know this is a poor example but here goes…..but need one to explain fatal risk to self
So “if I had swallowed that bottle labelled Poison next to me it would have killed me. “ therefore I didn’t swallow at the time, as I was aware of it being poison ) ie. I WAS thinking at the time, foresaw risk.)
Contrast
“If I had swallowed the poison it would have killed me but I didn’t swallow it just because I wasn’t thinking at the time of the risk to me”. It could be reduced to semantics, but the logic is clear.

NOTE OP did not say - no, nel, at that time I actually was not aware that bullets can ricochet but I have since learned that about bullets,
...........as in no, at the time i could not read English and did not u'stand word poison.

 

[cottonweaver]

I remember watching that section of his testimony very well because Nel was trying hard to get OP to say he didn't fire a warning shot into the shower because he thought ("foresaw") a ricochet could end up hitting him. I can't find the section just now but below is the relevant dialogue in full (not just the 2 lines quoted by the State in its HOA's which take it out of context) from the official transcript and it is clear, at least to me, that OP's answer about the ricochet was hindsight and not what had happened at the time:

Can you please post your link? TIA

 

[cottonweaver]

They say a pic speaks a thousand words, Van Aardt's expression when Op issues his disclaimer about what what he knew then as opposed to what will be reconstructed memories in hi s testimony

 

[Colin de France]

I forget things too, it’s been 2 years, but, that notwithstanding we have been here before in August Colin. ie You just asked to be "shown the evidence" ( your expression.) But it was done in thread 63 post 969 and 967 AFAIK - ie. quotes of his own words in the heads. (But, tbh a clearer u'standing comes from watching cross x op/nel- listening to dialogue, what he u'stood at the time in contrast to what he conceded in retrospect when pressed by Nel .)

But even in the retrospective comment he made a huge blunder, as he stated had he known s.o was behind that door , in retro, yes he would have judged his actions would result in a fatality.
( Obviously his entire evidence, his every statement had been had been predicated on s.o/ an intruder was behind that door, made the wood move etc . He did foresee, subjectively, and had intent IMO.)

The retrospective comment :
" “ … 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”

( This was NOT the ricochet comment, latter was NOT retrospective .)


Therefore dolus eventualis................. done and dustedalis. IMO*

*Not for Masipa of course, just as she isn't really clambering into the crop-duster to accompany OP to Mozamb. , to teach "Logic" to barefoot kids while Op delivers "Sportsmanship: my versions" . That's just a joke. But hopefully for the SCA, it's a coup de grace.......that is my u'standing, happy to be corrected.. here to learn, share opinions, share info. etc etc.

........"if i think back today my lady" about say's it all........if that's not hindsight i don't know what is.............but i shall go on.....it's all very well those who are saying he should of known about bouncing bullets, in reality it's not like that......unless one has actually seen a bouncing bullet and how it reacts it's not going to be the first thought when firing a gun....i have personal experience of a bouncing bullet doing the tour of a whole room, in other words coming right back round after having bounced off four walls, unless i had seen it for myself i would never have believed it....that's reality......so it is well possible he didn't give it a thought when firing at the door..........and lastly for the reference to having been here before (very little in comparison) , i think we need to put things into perspective, we are constantly being bombarded with Pistorius murdered her etc etc.......... about time we opened up to other possibilities.......

 

[cottonweaver]

Colin De France quote : i think we need to put things into perspective, we are constantly being bombarded with Pistorius murdered her etc etc.......... about time we opened up to other possibilities.......

What about a new thread on it? You can start one as a Forum member.

 

[Colin de France]

What about a new thread on it? You can start one as a Forum member.

......i'm trying to see further than the appeal.......and what may happen afterwards.......it's a shame the thread title restricts one just to the appeal because the discussion seems general.....yourself and other's included....