1048 users online (227 members and 821 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 3 of 72 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 53 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 1080
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,094
    Quote Originally Posted by aftermath View Post
    You told me to ' try taking on the issues of post 11' That's an imperative - a command verb. I was polite- I said please. No need for the persistent tone in your responses to me.
    ............as you want......so what then is your opinion of post 11 ?..............

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Marfa Lights View Post
    Befuddling...

    FROM PAGE 3327 of Masipa's Judgment:
    "I now deal with dolus eventualis or legal intent. The question is:
    1. Did the accused subjectively foresee that it could be the deceased
    behind the toilet door and
    2. Notwithstanding the foresight did he then fire the shots, thereby
    reconciling himself to the possibility that it could be the deceased in
    the toilet."


    FROM PAGE 3328:

    "The question is: Did the accused foresee the possibility of the resultant death, yet persisted in his deed reckless whether death ensued or not? In the circumstances of this case the answer has to be no.
    How could the accused reasonably have foreseen that the shots he fired would kill the deceased? Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door, let
    alone the deceased, as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time."



    FROM PAGE 3329:
    [B]It follows that the accused’s erroneous belief that his life was in danger excludes dolus. The accused therefore cannot be found guilty of murder dolus eventualis. That however, is not the end of the matter, as culpable homicide is a competent verdict.[/I][/B]
    Is there a definitive explanation for 'dolus', as it has varied slightly in different descriptions I have read? Isn't it linked to the principle of something being unlawful?

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,094
    .....taking into consideration his statements looking back at the time ...... can we safely say firing towards the cubicle wasn't a warning shot ?..........i think we can because there were four shots.....

  4. #34
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,189
    Quote Originally Posted by aftermath View Post
    For what it's worth some of the reasons I find myself posting are because the topic interests me enough to want to discuss it with others who share that interest. And because I find it both fascinating and worrying that so many people can't/won't see the reasonable doubt. And because the pervasive influence of the media and social media needs to have a countering balance somewhere. (because 'justice for reeva' does not mean the public enjoyment of the demolition of a man. It means finding out the the truth and holding him to account for it) And because it is interesting how people can read/watch the same things and come to such different interpretations. And because - since the defence version is unlikely (but not impossible) in places, - assessing and reassessing my own views against those who don't agree with me is a good test for the validity of the conclusions I have drawn.
    Yes I can totally see why BIB1 is an concern, from your perspective. ( As I asked GRT before though last pages of thread 62, this in itself is interesting- is it effective, could it even have backfired already on OP in PR terms.)

    BIB2 - Yes, but it does follow, as you agree, that if you are interested in the truth, you have to engage, scrutinise the Defence's case genuinely. Anything else is simply paying "lip-service". And typical replies of: well the Defence "won", the Defence don't need to prove that, insert the next - are irrelevant if you (again you plural) are actually interested in finding truths.

    PS. An incidental but one of the most frequent mainstream journalists specialising in the OP case, who has been quoted on here many many times is a friend of the OP family and is acknowledged as favourable by Pistorians themselves. Now normally I would provide some links and name but........

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,094
    ....on the intruder version we must never forget that he had already shouted for the intruder to "get out"....it was in the middle of the night, there was no noise, no reason whatsoever for him to of not warned the intruder that he was armed......to a point the excuse of panic can be discredited due to the precision of the shots......

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,954
    I remember the Guardian being extremely biased in favour of OP in their reporting. I don't know why practically every supporter bemoans the negative reporting, when there was a lot of defence for OP at the time.

    As you say, it's only paying lip service to repeat over and over that the defence 'won' their case so it doesn't need to be scrutinised. Those who are genuinely interested in the truth would acknowledge that guilty people have often been found innocent thanks to a good defence team. Just because OP was found innocent of murder doesn't mean he was innocent. And surely looking at the massive craters in the defence would go some way towards trying to find out the real truth?

    However, I doubt very much that the small 'group' of supporters care about the truth, despite their protestations otherwise, or else they'd be curious about all the lies, and they're not. They merely justify them with whatever excuse comes up at the time.

    Sorry Cotton - this was a reply to your post, but I must have forgotten to hit 'reply with quote'.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,954
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin de France View Post
    ....on the intruder version we must never forget that he had already shouted for the intruder to "get out"....it was in the middle of the night, there was no noise, no reason whatsoever for him to of not warned the intruder that he was armed......to a point the excuse of panic can be discredited due to the precision of the shots......
    Posted this before many threads ago, but will post again as it's relevant to your point.

    Martin Hood (Sky News) - South African legal expert

    The evidence has been that Oscar was shooting one handedly from a position where the gun was at his waist level, and in my experience, and I own more than one firearm, in order to shoot a group like that, you have to have a very firm grip on the firearm, and normally that group is with two hands. And the fact that the group is relatively small, shows that Oscar knew how to hold the fiream properly, and in all probability in my view, and if I were called to be an expert,

    I would say this - he held it with two hands, and he held it very deliberately to get that grouping at that level.

    When you're holding a firearm with one hand, and you're in that very excited state of mind that Pistorius said he was in, you're going to have a lot of shake, and you're not going to get such a small group as that. It's going to be all over the place. The fact that it isn't, in my view suggests that he had far more control than he actually is prepared to admit.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by cottonweaver View Post
    Yes I can totally see why BIB1 is an concern, from your perspective. ( As I asked GRT before though last pages of thread 62, this in itself is interesting- is it effective, could it even have backfired already on OP in PR terms.)

    BIB2 - Yes, but it does follow, as you agree, that if you are interested in the truth, you have to engage, scrutinise the Defence's case genuinely. Anything else is simply paying "lip-service". And typical replies of: well the Defence "won", the Defence don't need to prove that, insert the next - are irrelevant if you (again you plural) are actually interested in finding truths.

    PS. An incidental but one of the most frequent mainstream journalists specialising in the OP case, who has been quoted on here many many times is a friend of the OP family and is acknowledged as favourable by Pistorians themselves. Now normally I would provide some links and name but........
    Of course the defence case needs to be scrutinised - there are plenty of people doing that on here and other forums. I have considered many of the questions being asked about the defence/experts/witnesses before considering any alternative. However the alternative is underrepresented and my questions Re the defence are usually aleady articulately expressed by other posters. I do try to make sure I acknowledge points against the defence version by saying 'that's one possible explanation '. The thing is, sometimes posters suggest that the defence's failure to do something (eg prove the content of the netcare calls,) is in itself suspicious - but since it was never questioned in court, 'the defence don't need to prove thst' is an appropriate response. That's just one specific example, of course, but it illustrates perhaps some of the gaps that tend to be quickly filled with negative speculation.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,189
    just a quickie before I read the responses and replies properly later....

    Thanks for jogging my memory posters. ..
    Another key journalist who was absolutely unbiased in his reporting - Andrew Harding, covered it all for BBC, as I recollect the Africa corresp for BBC.

    We used to have some posters with media analysis background on WS....
    Anyway, my point is, now I come to think of it , if we really scrutinised this "media bias" argument ( and I'm not suggesting that time is spent doing that) I'm not sure that it would actually hold water - like so many other assertions.

    Marfa - I will come back to dolus e- but after thread 61 I am temporarily dolused out!

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,094
    .....another element to take into consideration is if there was an intruder in the toilet would it of been surprising if they had made a noise..........normally that would of been expected.......


  11. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,954
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin de France View Post
    .....another element to take into consideration is if there was an intruder in the toilet would it of been surprising if they had made a noise..........normally that would of been expected.......
    1. He'd had people staying over before.
    2. Those same people would have made the usual night-time noises (toilet, getting a drink etc)
    3. When Sam Taylor stayed over, OP checked any noises with her first.
    4. It was only with Reeva that he changed his pattern. Hmmm.
    5. Why didn't he tell Reeva what she was supposed to say to the police when she called? "Oh hello. My boyfriend asked me to call you, but he didn't say why..."

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,094
    Quote Originally Posted by soozieqtips View Post
    1. He'd had people staying over before.
    2. Those same people would have made the usual night-time noises (toilet, getting a drink etc)
    3. When Sam Taylor stayed over, OP checked any noises with her first.
    4. It was only with Reeva that he changed his pattern. Hmmm.
    5. Why didn't he tell Reeva what she was supposed to say to the police when she called? "Oh hello. My boyfriend asked me to call you, but he didn't say why..."
    .....what i can't see is if he knew someone was in the toilet why did he react to a noise, even if it sounded like they were coming out.......the jump is too great, between hearing a noise and being threatened....if anything it was the intruder who was threatened after his shouting of "get out"......according to Pistorius the intruder said nothing only a noise as if he/she was coming out....surely if that was true it was a sign of resignation on the behalf of the intruder..........not an attack....the intruder was conforming to what was asked .....put that then into the context of firing four shots, this is why his version just does not make any sense at all ....
    Last edited by Colin de France; 08-06-2015 at 09:37 AM.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    6,279
    <Respectfully snipped>

    Quote Originally Posted by cottonweaver View Post
    BIB2 - Yes, but it does follow, as you agree, that if you are interested in the truth, you have to engage, scrutinise the Defence's case genuinely. Anything else is simply paying "lip-service". And typical replies of: well the Defence "won", the Defence don't need to prove that, insert the next - are irrelevant if you (again you plural) are actually interested in finding truths.

    PS. An incidental but one of the most frequent mainstream journalists specialising in the OP case, who has been quoted on here many many times is a friend of the OP family and is acknowledged as favourable by Pistorians themselves. Now normally I would provide some links and name but........
    Would this be the person you have in mind? There's plenty of other tweets, not to mention the exclusive interview she had with Carl and Aimee on the eve of sentencing.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin de France View Post
    .....what i can't see is if he knew someone was in the toilet why did he react to a noise, even if it sounded like they were coming out.......the jump is too great, between hearing a noise and being threatened....if anything it was the intruder who was threatened after his shouting of "get out"......according to Pistorius the intruder said nothing only a noise as if he/she was coming out....surely if that was true it was a sign of resignation on the behalf of the intruder..........not an attack....the intruder was conforming to what was asked .....put that then into the context of firing four shots, this is why his version just does not make any sense at all ....
    On pistorius's version, he shouted 'get out' on the way up the passage. When he got to the bathroom he described pausing-looking from window to door (presumably a few times). He then says he heard the wood moving noise, panicked and fired. It is different from saying he ordered the intruder to get out, heard the noise and started firing. The intruder could have been getting out as demanded, but equally, the intruder could have been preparing to open fire or to come out and attack both a man with a significant disability and his girlfriend. Plenty of people have commented on the stupidity of his decision to go towards the danger. At that moment when the wood noise was heard, the consequences of his decision were about to become apparent; he was about to come face to face with a (probably armed) intruder. On his stumps, with limited mobility, with a girlfriend also in danger from an attack, (often sexual, often violent, sometimes fatal), it isn't so surprising, IMO, that this caused him to panic and therefore to open fire.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,094
    Quote Originally Posted by aftermath View Post
    On pistorius's version, he shouted 'get out' on the way up the passage. When he got to the bathroom he described pausing-looking from window to door (presumably a few times). He then says he heard the wood moving noise, panicked and fired. It is different from saying he ordered the intruder to get out, heard the noise and started firing. The intruder could have been getting out as demanded, but equally, the intruder could have been preparing to open fire or to come out and attack both a man with a significant disability and his girlfriend. Plenty of people have commented on the stupidity of his decision to go towards the danger. At that moment when the wood noise was heard, the consequences of his decision were about to become apparent; he was about to come face to face with a (probably armed) intruder. On his stumps, with limited mobility, with a girlfriend also in danger from an attack, (often sexual, often violent, sometimes fatal), it isn't so surprising, IMO, that this caused him to panic and therefore to open fire.
    .....i am fully agreed to the idea that once hearing the noise he could of become frightnened but having only just shouted for them to "get out" becoming panicked because they were doing just that is too great a jump to believe........remember he was armed...

Page 3 of 72 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 53 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1157
    Last Post: 12-08-2015, 08:29 AM
  2. Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #66~ the appeal~
    By KateB in forum Oscar Pistorius
    Replies: 701
    Last Post: 12-03-2015, 03:16 AM
  3. Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #65~ the appeal~
    By KateB in forum Oscar Pistorius
    Replies: 1357
    Last Post: 11-12-2015, 08:10 AM
  4. Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #64 ~ the appeal~
    By beach in forum Oscar Pistorius
    Replies: 1071
    Last Post: 10-26-2015, 08:26 PM
  5. Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #62 ~ the appeal~
    By KateB in forum Oscar Pistorius
    Replies: 1087
    Last Post: 08-05-2015, 09:28 PM

Tags for this Thread