Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #69 *Appeal Verdict*

[Marfa Lights]

You make the mistake again. It's not that he was or wasn't defenceless it is that it is not beyond the realms of reasonable possibility that he felt he was. In fact not even that he reasoned to himself at that point that he was or wasn't defenceless but that his "instinct" told him so. A lifetime of conditioning trumps the training of a weekend cowboy who answered a few questions. He didn't answer those questions when his life was under threat did he?

I'm not saying that firearms rules are pointless but they are not the be all and end all when it comes to determining murder not in South Africa anyway.

Yes, I believe it was the (ex?) wife of the doctor who did OP's amputations who voluntarily came to court and wanted to testify on OP's behalf about all his early childhood traumas-- was that what you are thinking about to legally have established how he internalized his defenseless vulnerable anxieties?

I think Masipa told her to take a number, right?

 

[Trotterly]

Yes, I believe it was the (ex?) wife of the doctor who did OP's amputations who voluntarily came to court and wanted to testify on OP's behalf about all his early childhood traumas-- was that what you are thinking about to legally have established how he internalized his defenseless vulnerable anxieties?

I think Masipa told her to take a number, right?

Nope. Try again.

 

[Colin de France]

Yes

And if he hadn't had three different versions at trial and if his brother hadn't stupidly deleted an innocent mans iPhone data then perhaps the SCA Justices would have had sympathy for this hero

....but that's not proof nor evidence that he intended to murder anyone.......if he's got to go to prison it's better that he goes for a reason backed up by hard evidence which for the moment is sadly lacking.....if not inexistent...

 

[Interested Bystander]

BIB You are going to have to provide a link to that one.

I hope this will be sufficient. OP seems to fit ll of the 13 prerequisite traits to fall into the pathological liar category.


http://blogs.psychcentral.com/caregivers/2014/09/6-subtle-characteristics-of-the-pathological-liar/

Certain personality traits where pathological lying may occur include:

1. Narcissism or self-centered behaviors and thought patterns
2. Selfishness
3. Abusive attitude
4. Obsessive, controlling, and compulsive behaviors
5. Impulsivity
6. Aggressiveness
7. Jealous behavior
8. Manipulative behaviors
9. Deceptiveness
10. Socially awkward, uncomfortable, or isolated
11. Low self-esteem
12. Tempermentalness
13. Anger

 

[Trotterly]

I hope this will be sufficient. OP seems to fit ll of the 13 prerequisite traits to fall into the pathological liar category.


http://blogs.psychcentral.com/caregivers/2014/09/6-subtle-characteristics-of-the-pathological-liar/

Certain personality traits where pathological lying may occur include:

1. Narcissism or self-centered behaviors and thought patterns
2. Selfishness
3. Abusive attitude
4. Obsessive, controlling, and compulsive behaviors
5. Impulsivity
6. Aggressiveness
7. Jealous behavior
8. Manipulative behaviors
9. Deceptiveness
10. Socially awkward, uncomfortable, or isolated
11. Low self-esteem
12. Tempermentalness
13. Anger

That's just your opinion not expert evidence that he is a pathological liar.

Where's the evidence?

If it's any help none of the experts who had any contact with him even suggested your "diagnosis"

 

[Trotterly]

....it's always best to let the guilty go free than to send an innocent to prison......nevertheless as it stands, regardless of what we know, no reasonable conclusion can be made regarding guilt so how come the judges sent him to prison.....

If you mean the SCA then search me!

 

[Colin de France]

...the state has failed to prove it's case and yet he's going to prison for murder......the whole situation has gone off the rails, it makes no sense.......instead of a knee-jerk reaction the situation needs to be looked at for what it is ......a judicial mess...

 

[Interested Bystander]

That's just your opinion not expert evidence that he is a pathological liar.

Where's the evidence?

If it's any help none of the experts who had any contact with him even suggested your "diagnosis"

Yes it is my opinion not that of the SCA judges. However there is evidence in his behaviour in eleven of thirteen prerequisite personality traits. I am sure you don't need me to list them as they were all covered in the trial during his testimony and that of his friends.

 

[Colin de France]

Yes it is my opinion not that of the SCA judges. However there is evidence in his behaviour in eleven of thirteen prerequisite personality traits. I am sure you don't need me to list them as they were all covered in the trial during his testimony and that of his friends.

......personality traits don't make him a murderer......it needs a little more than that......

 

[Marfa Lights]

Nope. Try again.

The lady with the Zebra hair??

 

[Trotterly]

The lady with the Zebra hair??

Not her. It was skunk hair anyway wasn't it?

 

[Trotterly]

Yes it is my opinion not that of the SCA judges. However there is evidence in his behaviour in eleven of thirteen prerequisite personality traits. I am sure you don't need me to list them as they were all covered in the trial during his testimony and that of his friends.

When you say "covered in the trial" do you mean in court?

 

[Interested Bystander]

......personality traits don't make him a murderer......it needs a little more than that......

The point in question was that I think he was a pathological liar. Nothing to do with it making him a murderer, just that if he were he would inevitably lie about it :gaah:

 

[Interested Bystander]

When you say "covered in the trial" do you mean in court?

In the High Court AND in the general court of public opinion. His whole testimony was a complete pack of lies IMO and I fail to see how a very few of you can be hoodwinked into believing anything else.

 

[sleuth-d-]

Welcome Datchery! Did anyone warn you this forum is addictive?

I think it is also important to remember that Oscar was originally charged with intentionally killing "a person, to wit, REEVA STEENKAMP" (emphasis mine)-- The State indicted Oscar on the original charge of:

COUNT 1: MURDER -- READ WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 51(1) OF ACT 105 OF 1997

In that upon or about 14 February 2013 and at or near 286 Bushwillow Street, Silverwoods Country Estate, Silver Lakes in the District of Pretoria the accused did unlawfully kill a person, to wit, REEVA STEENKAMP, a 29 year old female.

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/18...llow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll

So I think it was clear from the beginning that the State sought murder charges with respect to the killing of "a person." The identity of the person was established as Reeva Steenkamp. So while the State charged Oscar with unlawfully killing Reeva, they did not limit their case to proving premeditated murder (DD).

forgive me, snipped to point of reply.

re: the murder charge. and the recent 40 pages to/fro over ppd.
pistorius plea was not guilty.
his defence was ppd.

he had plenty of time to re-tell events of the evening to defence counsel. being the lone witness [and if he was telling the truth] i am sure his counsel advised him that ppd was the correct defence, and under that defence he would walk from the court room a free man at the end of the trial.

so, my question is, when masipa found him guilty of ch, why did he not appeal this?
was he happy with the ch verdict? surely an innocent man [i.e. one who acted genuinely under ppd] would not have been.

 

[Marfa Lights]

Well we are also working with Masipa immutables, at least we are supposed to be.

DE could only apply if it was an intruder in the cubicle yes.

As he purportedly believed.

 

[Trotterly]

In the High Court AND in the general court of public opinion. His whole testimony was a complete pack of lies IMO and I fail to see how a very few of you can be hoodwinked into believing anything else.

Yes I see that. It's the accusation of being a pathological liar I'm taking issue with.

A courtroom is not the usual place to determine such a diagnosis.

Why do you think none of the medical professionals who actually carried out any assessment of his mental state gave any indication of this diagnosis?

 

[sleuth-d-]

I think you are getting in a muddle because you are making a false equivalence.

If OP shoots a real armed intruder, then the shooting is justified.

However in this case, it was never possible, to a rational person, that there was an armed intruder.

Instead he shot his girlfriend in "peculiar" circumstances.

re: bold
interesting. if the circumstances surrounding the shooting are the same... closed door/4 bullets/confined space/no attack commenced, then surely legally - even if the person behind the door is an armed intruder - op has still failed to pass the ppd defence.

 

[Trotterly]

re: bold
interesting. if the circumstances surrounding the shooting are the same... closed door/4 bullets/confined space/no attack commenced, then surely legally - even if the person behind the door is an armed intruder - op has still failed to pass the ppd defence.

But it's PD rather than PPD if there's actually an intruder.

 

[sleuth-d-]

But it's PD rather than PPD if there's actually an intruder.

thanks. even when, at the time of the shooting the identity of the person behind the door is unknown [i.e. could be either friend or foe].