Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #65~ the appeal~

[Marfa Lights]

.....how about a trial based on the facts/evidence......we're still waiting....if you look at it in depth we don't even "know" if it was Pistorius who fired the gun which killed Reeva......

Colin, I think you need an epistemologist.

 

[Colin de France]

However, I suspect that even if Oscar himself told you why he did it, you might still say that's not a valid reason and makes no sense whatsoever.

......and why would i do that ?.......maybe because it's the type of person i coudn't trust to tell the truth or maybe i just prefer not to go on first impressions .....right or wrong...

 

[Colin de France]

Colin, I think you need an epistemologist.

....maybe....but still undeniably true, we "know" nothing about what led to the killing and how it came about.....

 

[Marfa Lights]

...he admitted to firing at the intruder in his intruder version.......to convict someone for murder i would expect at least some proof....

Actually he killed the "intruder"-- illegally behind a closed door without any attack against him. He did so with knowledge and foresight that shooting the person behind the door with 4 exploding bullets would likely lead to death and still he aimed and fired, reconciling himself to the potential consequences of his actions. That's murder (DE) of the intruder or Reeva, the identity of the deceased does not matter.

 

[Marfa Lights]

....maybe....but still undeniably true, we "know" nothing about what led to the killing and how it came about.....

Yes, I can't wait for Oscar's book to come out so we can read all about it.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Re my post 1136. I have just had a look at Lisa's blog (Juror 13) to see if there was a photo of the metal panel but unfortunately there is not but she does mention the panel and wonders whether it could have caused the first noises. Also, I could not detect whether there was a toe guard on the bat. If it was a presentation bat it may not have had one. Unfortunately the photos are very poor quality and it is very difficult to see whether there was any bruising on the bat and I don't think I would know what I should be looking for anyway. One needs a photo of the steel panel and good close-ups of the bat to make any further comment.

 

[Marfa Lights]

......and why would i do that ?.......maybe because it's the type of person i coudn't trust to tell the truth or maybe i just prefer not to go on first impressions .....right or wrong...

No, I just would not expect there to be a rational explanation for why he killed her.

 

[Colin de France]

Actually he killed the "intruder"-- illegally behind a closed door without any attack against him. He did so with knowledge and foresight that shooting the person behind the door with 4 exploding bullets would likely lead to death and still he aimed and fired, reconciling himself to the potential consequences of his actions. That's murder (DE) of the intruder or Reeva, the identity of the deceased does not matter.

.....you have misquoted me there, the first part is in awnser to a post, that's not being fair......i shall have to pay better attention to how i write.....

 

[Val1]

...he admitted to firing at the intruder in his intruder version.......to convict someone for murder i would expect at least some proof....

https://juror13lw.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/oscar-trial-day-21-oscar/
"Nel asks him if he could see the door and he says yes. Then Nel asks if he could see the door move? Oscar says, “I had fired before I could see the door move.” Nel stops to note that.

Nel confirms again, you never saw the door or the handle move before you fired. Oscar says no he fired “as he heard the noise.”"

 

[Colin de France]

No, I just would not expect there to be a rational explanation for why he killed her.

....at least something plausible.....

 

[Val1]

Re my post 1136. I have just had a look at Lisa's blog (Juror 13) to see if there was a photo of the metal panel but unfortunately there is not but she does mention the panel and wonders whether it could have caused the first noises. Also, I could not detect whether there was a toe guard on the bat. If it was a presentation bat it may not have had one. Unfortunately the photos are very poor quality and it is very difficult to see whether there was any bruising on the bat and I don't think I would know what I should be looking for anyway. One needs a photo of the steel panel and good close-ups of the bat to make any further comment.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Many thanks indeed. I have just found it myself by searching on Google Images. However, I thought it had become detached from the ceramic tiled bath surround. I am sure I have seen a photo with the hole in the surround but it obviously must have been after the forensic team had visited. I have not been able to find that one but it is not really important.

It really does look as though it has been hit very hard. I think Vermeulen commented it had been hit very hard with something but nobody asked OP how it happened.

 

[Val1]

Many thanks indeed. I have just found it myself by searching on Google Images. However, I thought it had become detached from the ceramic tiled bath surround. I am sure I have seen a photo with the hole in the surround but it obviously must have been after the forensic team had visited. I have not been able to find that one but it is not really important.

It really does look as though it has been hit very hard. I think Vermeulen commented it had been hit very hard with something but nobody asked OP how it happened.

When I questioned that previously, at least one poster tried to explain that the plate is very thin... though personally I still think it appears it would take a pretty good kick with a prosthetic foot, or a bat, to have done that.

As for the bat, it doesn't appear there was any kind of guard on it.

 

[jilly]

I hope mrjitty can help me out here. A number of SA lawyers have said that if OP had been convicted of murder at the trial he would have appealed to the SCA. The same lawyers are now saying that if the State wins this appeal, the Defence may well take it to the Constitutional Court, probably on the basis that it was an unfair trial because it was televised.

However going back to the very beginning when the Defence were arguing against it being televised as it would be unfair to their client, they eventually consented on the basis that their witnesses, including OP, only be heard and not seen in the High Court. How could the Defence now take it to the ConCourt on that ground after their request was granted.

I'm uncertain as to whether the ConCourt would allow an appeal grounded on this basis. I would add that I've checked a number of years and you'd be lucky to find more than one or two criminal matters like murder that reach that court. Of those that have, all the ones I've seen have failed.

Just curious, Judge, why would you be uncertain? For reasons you've pointed out, they've had their kick at that can, haven't they?

 

[Interested Bystander]

When I questioned that previously, at least one poster tried to explain that the plate is very thin... though personally I still think it appears it would take a pretty good kick with a prosthetic foot, or a bat, to have done that.

As for the bat, it doesn't appear there was any kind of guard on it.

I think it was thin but it was fixed all round to wooden battens (if I correctly remember the photo of the bath when the plate had been removed). If it was steel it would have been fairly strong, especially if fixed in a number of places. Had it been aluminium I would have expected to see tears at the fixing points. Aluminium is very soft. Yes, it doesn't look as though the bat had a toe guard, thank you.

I do wonder how much noise might have been created by hitting the panel. I can imagine OP hitting it to make a lot of noise to frighten Reeva and with fully tiled walls and floor the noise level could have been considerable. Forensics would have needed to replicate the panel and then hit it to determine just how much force would be needed to create the damage. I really don't understand why OP was not asked about this damage.

 

[sleuth-d-]

I think it was thin but it was fixed all round to wooden battens (if I correctly remember the photo of the bath when the plate had been removed). If it was steel it would have been fairly strong, especially if fixed in a number of places. Had it been aluminium I would have expected to see tears at the fixing points. Aluminium is very soft. Yes, it doesn't look as though the bat had a toe guard, thank you.

I do wonder how much noise might have been created by hitting the panel. I can imagine OP hitting it to make a lot of noise to frighten Reeva and with fully tiled walls and floor the noise level could have been considerable. Forensics would have needed to replicate the panel and then hit it to determine just how much force would be needed to create the damage. I really don't understand why OP was not asked about this damage.

a higher resolution image of the bath panel here:
https://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/invest_10.jpg

option: could it have been damaged by the large wooden panel, as it was removed/thrown away from the door...

 

[soozieqtips]

Isn't it about time we had a new thread? This is 78 pages already!

 

[Interested Bystander]

a higher resolution image of the bath panel here:
https://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/invest_10.jpg

option: could it have been damaged by the large wooden panel, as it was removed/thrown away from the door...

I am not sure from the photos whether when the crime scene was first photographed there was any large piece of wood in the vicinity. There was one piece on the righthand side of the toilet cubicle. I know later, when photos were taken after Forensics had done their first sweep there was a piece of wood (I think the same piece I have already referred to) standing up against the window wall. Here is a photo of the crime scene before it was disturbed.

 

[Val1]

I am not sure from the photos whether when the crime scene was first photographed there was any large piece of wood in the vicinity. There was one piece on the righthand side of the toilet cubicle. I know later, when photos were taken after Forensics had done their first sweep there was a piece of wood (I think the same piece I have already referred to) standing up against the window wall. Here is a photo of the crime scene before it was disturbed.

Thanks though when and where exactly did the towel come from?

 

[sleuth-d-]

I am not sure from the photos whether when the crime scene was first photographed there was any large piece of wood in the vicinity. There was one piece on the righthand side of the toilet cubicle. I know later, when photos were taken after Forensics had done their first sweep there was a piece of wood (I think the same piece I have already referred to) standing up against the window wall. Here is a photo of the crime scene before it was disturbed.

in this carousel [pic 112] the largest section from the door can be seen right by the bath [and just under the panel]
http://www.dnaindia.com/sport/slide...killed-his-girlfriend-reeva-steenkamp-2018395