Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #66~ the appeal~

[lithgow1]

This one perhaps? I recall though that her admonishment was more to the gallery than to Nel. Besides, it is hard not to laugh at a laughable story unless you are one of the victim's family or friends. I thought the not remembering who picked him up and took him back after the 'shot at on the highway' fairy tale was funnier, in a ludicrous, shake my head way.

The prosecutor in the murder trial of Oscar Pistorius was reprimanded by the judge Thursday for laughing incredulously at the Olympian’s answers under cross-examination.

Gerrie Nel broke into laughter when the double-amputee repeatedly said he could not recall details about an incident in which is accused of firing a gun through the sunroof of a car he was traveling in that had been stopped by cops for speeding.

“I don’t remember,” Pistorius said one more time, to murmurs and giggles from the public gallery.

Sensing his advantage, Nel laughed – but immediately apologized to Judge Thokozile Masipa when it became clear she was not amused.

“I apologize, my lady,” he told the judge.

“You possibly think this is entertainment. It is not,” she told Nel. “Please restrain yourself.”

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/pi...dge-rebukes-lawyer-gerrie-nel-laughing-n76606

 

[aftermath]

I don't buy his explanation that it was on the floor.

He wouldn't have been able to pick it up from standing in the bathroom. Its another Pistoryus story.

He would have reached over and picked it up. Why don't you think he would have been able to do that? He was on his prosthetics at this point, (his version)

 

[Tortoise]

He would have reached over and picked it up. Why don't you think he withdrew have been able to do that? He was on his prosthetics at this point, (his version)

a) because he would have had no grip on the tiled bathroom floor (he has wooden feet with socks on, and no shin muscles)
b) he probably can touch his toes because he exercises but with a barrier in front of his knees I'm pretty sure he would not be able to reach the floor of the toilet with his fingertips. Try it. He would have to keep his feet flat on the floor and doesn't have the ability to go on tip toe.
c) His version that he had to remove the panels because it was locked is a and bull story, along with the rest of it.

 

[aftermath]

a) because he would have had no grip on the tiled bathroom floor (he has wooden feet with socks on, and no shin muscles)
b) he probably can touch his toes because he exercises but with a barrier in front of his knees I'm pretty sure he would not be able to reach the floor of the toilet with his fingertips. Try it. He would have to keep his feet flat on the floor and doesn't have the ability to go on tip toe.
c) His version that he had to remove the panels because it was locked is a and bull story, along with the rest of it.

Socks would have offered more grip than no socks. I can't see that he would be incapable of picking things up when standing on a tiled floor. There would have been things to lean on anyway- in this case the door or door frame. There has been nothing presented to suggest he wouldnt be able to reach over. It would depend how high up the lower half of the door was. I don't think he would say he did something he wasn't capable of doing.

 

[lithgow1]

Socks would have offered more grip than no socks. I can't see that he would be incapable of picking things up when standing on a tiled floor. There would have been things to lean on anyway- in this case the door or door frame. There has been nothing presented to suggest he wouldnt be able to reach over. It would depend how high up the lower half of the door was. I don't think he would say he did something he wasn't capable of doing.

Re BIB You could well be right on that but the irony more than the accuracy of your last sentence is what struck me.

 

[Tortoise]

Socks would have offered more grip than no socks. I can't see that he would be incapable of picking things up when standing on a tiled floor. There would have been things to lean on anyway- in this case the door or door frame. There has been nothing presented to suggest he wouldnt be able to reach over. It would depend how high up the lower half of the door was. I don't think he would say he did something he wasn't capable of doing.

Well that is certainly your prerogative to believe him, and I don't join you.

I have presented some reasons of my own and you've said nothing to counter them. I don't suppose Gerrie Nel saw it as worth arguing, it was after the fact. Shame really, it would have been entertaining to see OP falling head first into the cubicle.

 

[aftermath]

Well that is certainly your prerogative to believe him, and I don't join you.

I have presented some reasons of my own and you've said nothing to counter them. I don't suppose Gerrie Nel saw it as worth arguing, it was after the fact. Shame really, it would have been entertaining to see OP falling head first into the cubicle.

I have countered them: he had his legs on, socks offer more grip than no socks , could have leaned against door jamb etc

 

[Tortoise]

I have countered them: he had his legs on, socks offer more grip than no socks , could have leaned against door jamb etc

I also said he had his legs on, but they are as good as blocks of wood, not feet with toes and muscles that can grip and manage surfaces as movements are made.

Anyway, thanks for the replies, but I'll finish up here because it's just not worth arguing. Neither of us knows the truth because we weren't there, I make my best judgement on the logistics of his version, and you accept it's true because he said so. That's the difference between us I guess.

 

[aftermath]

I also said he had his legs on, but they are as good as blocks of wood, not feet with toes and muscles that can grip and manage surfaces as movements are made.

Anyway, thanks for the replies, but I'll finish up here because it's just not worth arguing. Neither of us knows the truth because we weren't there, I make my best judgement on the logistics of his version, and you accept it's true because he said so. That's the difference between us I guess.

That's a little unfair. I don't accept it's true simply because he said so. Neither do I make the assumption that you do not accept it's true simply because he said so. Like you, I also consider the logistics. We just come to a different conclusion.

 

[soozieqtips]

We argue with conviction that if the fan was in front of the door; the duvet was on the floor; and if the denim jeans were lying on top of the duvet, the respondent’s version of events (whichever version the Court preferred) could never have been found to be remotely reasonably, possibly true.

I do find the BIB in the HoA amusing :smile:

 

[Val1]

Plus 5 or so minutes before the Standers arrive. They had to get dressed, get in the car and drive a couple of minutes to OP's.

Though RS would have been fatally injured by the head shot her heart may well have beat for a few minutes after this. I know Jake on this forum is an emergency room doctor. Maybe if she sees this she could run us through the time possibilities. I think she has done this before but I have forgotten what it was she said. Maybe someone on here remembers what she said. I know there was a long discussion about possibilities. Obviously RS's heart would have stopped fairly quickly due to loss of blood and blood pressure but she was still gurgling when she was laid on the floor downstairs. That would have to have been up to 10 minutes after being shot if the fatal shots were fired around 03.16. I know in animals there are recorded incidences of the heart beating for another 17 minutes after fatal head wounds but RS also had a severed artery in her upper arm and severe injuries to her thigh.

Not that this answers the question any clearer than our guesses have, I did find this:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-N...t-upon-hearing-autopsy-results/5291394463275/
"With no blood found in her lungs, Saayman surmised that Steenkamp died after a few breaths."


http://ewn.co.za/2014/03/10/Oscar-Pistorius-Trial-Reeva-Steenkamp-had-significant-internal-trauma

"Saayman says the trauma to Steenkamp’s head was so severe it was instantaneously incapacitating.
He says the model may have taken only a few breaths after sustaining the wound and died soon thereafter. "

 

[Val1]

I don't buy his explanation that it was on the floor.

He wouldn't have been able to pick it up from standing in the bathroom. Its another Pistoryus story.

Besides which, what happened to that whole stack of spare lock keys he had had during one of his interviews in his bedside table drawer?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-first-picture-blade-1724074

 

[Val1]

RSBM: I remember a good one!! There was a mock-up of the WC on display in the Courtroom when one of the expert (?DT) witnesses stood behind the WC door to represent Reeva. Everybody burst out laughing when he explained the obvious by saying something like "ok... you can't see me now because I'm behind the door."

This was a good one, though this witness provided a few... :

http://www.news24.com/Archives/City-Press/Newsmaker-Roger-Dixon-I-used-my-eyes-My-Lady-20150429

"Dixon responded: “The instruments I used were my eyes.”"

 

[Val1]

Socks would have offered more grip than no socks. I can't see that he would be incapable of picking things up when standing on a tiled floor. There would have been things to lean on anyway- in this case the door or door frame. There has been nothing presented to suggest he wouldnt be able to reach over. It would depend how high up the lower half of the door was. I don't think he would say he did something he wasn't capable of doing.

BBM Are you sure? He certainly seems comfortable telling lies as this article shows, here's just two excerpts from it:

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/20...ied-about-reputation-after-altercations-reeva

"Pistorius claimed last year — before the shooting — to have bought himself a McLaren supercar.
He was in fact driving a demo model"

"Pistorius claimed in a magazine interview to have owned a house in Gemona in Italy, where he trained. This was exposed as a lie when he told his bail hearing he did not own property in other countries."

 

[aftermath]

BBM Are you sure? He certainly seems comfortable telling lies as this article shows, here's just two excerpts from it:

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/20...ied-about-reputation-after-altercations-reeva

"Pistorius claimed last year — before the shooting — to have bought himself a McLaren supercar.
He was in fact driving a demo model"

"Pistorius claimed in a magazine interview to have owned a house in Gemona in Italy, where he trained. This was exposed as a lie when he told his bail hearing he did not own property in other countries."

Do you happen to know or have links to where those initial claims about the car and the home in Italy were made by Pistorius?

I do see what you are saying but I was making a slightly different point: that I don't think he would claim to have done something he physically couldn't do.

 

[mrjitty]

I do find the BIB in the HoA amusing :smile:

It really is a strange aspect to Masipa's decision.

There was no evidence from the defence to repudiate those photos.

But conjecture!

 

[mrjitty]

Not that this answers the question any clearer than our guesses have, I did find this:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-N...t-upon-hearing-autopsy-results/5291394463275/
"With no blood found in her lungs, Saayman surmised that Steenkamp died after a few breaths."


http://ewn.co.za/2014/03/10/Oscar-Pistorius-Trial-Reeva-Steenkamp-had-significant-internal-trauma

"Saayman says the trauma to Steenkamp’s head was so severe it was instantaneously incapacitating.
He says the model may have taken only a few breaths after sustaining the wound and died soon thereafter. "

Yes.

So while it might be possible for her heart to be beating 10mins later - more than likely not

Just one more circumstantial evidence point.

Of course we also know that OP had to wait to make sure she was dead.

 

[Tortoise]

Do you happen to know or have links to where those initial claims about the car and the home in Italy were made by Pistorius?

I do see what you are saying but I was making a slightly different point: that I don't think he would claim to have done something he physically couldn't do.

How about firing a gun without pulling the trigger, a la Tasha's

 

[Val1]

Do you happen to know or have links to where those initial claims about the car and the home in Italy were made by Pistorius?

I do see what you are saying but I was making a slightly different point: that I don't think he would claim to have done something he physically couldn't do.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2013/02/26/oscar-vs-mayor

""I have for the past two years had a house in Gemona, Italy. I stay there for four months a year because it is where I practise," Pistorius was quoted as saying in the Afrikaans magazine Sarie's February edition."

http://www.sarie.com/bekendes/ons-praat-met-bekendes/ons-superster-oscar/#/

"Jy het ’n besige skedule. Hoe gereeld is jy by die huis?

Ek is so vier maande van die jaar in Suid-Afrika. Die afgelope twee jaar het ek ’n huis in Gemona, Italië, waar ek vier maande van die jaar bly omdat ek daar oefen. My huis daar is tussen die berge en dis so rustig en stil."

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Pistorius-spoils-himself-a-little-20130120

""I drive a McLaren -- a gift I got for myself for this Christmas and the next one," he told the newspaper.

The car reportedly sells for over R3.5m.

Pistorius said the car was to spoil himself for a "good year"."

 

[Trotterly]

I do find the BIB in the HoA amusing :smile:

Did you also find it amusing that the state dropped the theory that he had a good long think about killing Reeva because he took the time to put on his prostheses before he shot?

Did you also find it amusing that the state suddenly decided at the appeal that OP could have been scared for his life but that didn't make any difference because even if you shoot at an intruder you must always be intending to murder them unlawfully?