D
Deleted member 102539
Guest
Where is the evidence that this sentence ever had been said? Maybe it is also construction on OP's side because it fits with the intruder and fear story or with whatever.
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #62 ~ the appeal~
- Thread starter KateB
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Where is the evidence that this sentence ever had been said? Maybe it is also construction on OP's side because it fits with the intruder and fear story or with whatever.
Where is the evidence that this sentence ever had been said? Maybe it is also construction on OP's side because it fits with the intruder and fear story or with whatever.
If OP said it court then it's evidence. It doesn't mean it has to be accepted but it is evidence.
cottonweaver
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 8,837
- Reaction score
- 30,089
I would have the same (bad) picture of a man with these characteristics if it had been another guy. If another perp had been more uggly, with less well-built body and with less charming skills, then my opinion would be even more negative, I admit.
I understand what you are saying but in addition do you think that's the reason why his "SupportforOscar" fans still love him- his looks etc ?
cottonweaver
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 8,837
- Reaction score
- 30,089
Where is the evidence that this sentence ever had been said? Maybe it is also construction on OP's side because it fits with the intruder and fear story or with whatever.
Exactly - most judges would say they cannot rely on the evidence of someone they have judged to be lying and then have no choice but to discount all of their evidence.
It makes sense in as much as on his version he asked reeva to bring in the fans and close the curtains before she went to sleep. The female psychologist Dr Vorster testified that people with anxiety like pistorius would still be able to trust their partner to close windows and doors.
However she also said that she would have expected a homeowner to lock up ladders outside his home.
You are right that he asked her to close the windows but even so, he goes to sleep, leaving her awake and ladders lying around. So the exact same scenario that he claims took place could have happened with an awake Reeva and a sleeping Pistorius suddenly confronted by intruder/s.
Merryl Vorster's psych assessment, paid for the Defence was GAD.
GAD was not found after the full assessment by the forensic psychs panel.
MV's view carried no weight.
And to pre-empt the same refrain - yes, personally I do accept the psych panel's view. (It's a full panel. One psych view - no I would treat with caution.) So , if I was him and had killed my GF in a rage, faced long stretch in Kgosi, lost my income, career and reputation I would be having flashbacks, hallmarks of PTSD (very common ) and depressed- You betcha!
Of course pre-crime, I guess that if OP had seen a professional - yes they may have found something wrong with him. Borderline case - yes. Personality disorder - maybe? PD is not a mental defect though - criminally sane & culpable either way.
It is worth bearing in mind too that he was allowed to do it on an outpatient basis when normally the testing is done with the patient in residence. And his aunt is a clinical psychologist or similar who could have helped coach him. Was`nt the reason for this change in normal testing procedures because Masipa didn`t want to punish him twice? So IMO the results of the testing could have been compromised by the special circumstances allowed for OP. And please Trotterly et al don`t tell me that the state didn`t object to this. I know they didn`t, but many professionals said it was not the best way to preform this type of testing.
Exactly - most judges would say they cannot rely on the evidence of someone they have judged to be lying and then have no choice but to discount all of their evidence.
Did you think it an odd conclusion of her`s that because he was so distraught after the shooting that meant he couldn`t have intended to do it? That seemed quite bizarre thinking: that being remorseful after doing something means you can`t have intended to do it. I am sure many crimes of passion, which is what this was IMO, are instances of rage, violence and immediate regret. We can even think of much more ordinary examples in our own lives when in the heat of an argument you say something cutting which you immediately wish you could take back.
It is worth bearing in mind too that he was allowed to do it on an outpatient basis when normally the testing is done with the patient in residence. And his aunt is a clinical psychologist or similar who could have helped coach him. Was`nt the reason for this change in normal testing procedures because Masipa didn`t want to punish him twice? So IMO the results of the testing could have been compromised by the special circumstances allowed for OP. And please Trotterly et al don`t tell me that the state didn`t object to this. I know they didn`t, but many professionals said it was not the best way to preform this type of testing.
In inpatient assessment is still better than an assessment by a layperson who has never even met him!
Colin de France
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2014
- Messages
- 1,094
- Reaction score
- 0
In inpatient assessment is still better than an assessment by a layperson who has never even met him!
.....so how do you know that he's innocent of murder then .............
Did you think it an odd conclusion of her`s that because he was so distraught after the shooting that meant he couldn`t have intended to do it? That seemed quite bizarre thinking: that being remorseful after doing something means you can`t have intended to do it. I am sure many crimes of passion, which is what this was IMO, are instances of rage, violence and immediate regret. We can even think of much more ordinary examples in our own lives when in the heat of an argument you say something cutting which you immediately wish you could take back.
I think you misunderstand her. She had already concluded that he didn't mean to shoot her and was at that point examining the DE of Reeva. I suppose her logic is that he seemed genuinely distraught and so it's unlikely that he would have gone ahead and shot anyway if he had had any idea it was Reeva.
In inpatient assessment is still better than an assessment by a layperson who has never even met him!
But the best would be the way the experts recommend wouldn`t it?
.....so how do you know that he's innocent of murder then .............
I don't know that. I have seen the evidence and don't think the state made their case.
Colin de France
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2014
- Messages
- 1,094
- Reaction score
- 0
Did you think it an odd conclusion of her`s that because he was so distraught after the shooting that meant he couldn`t have intended to do it? That seemed quite bizarre thinking: that being remorseful after doing something means you can`t have intended to do it. I am sure many crimes of passion, which is what this was IMO, are instances of rage, violence and immediate regret. We can even think of much more ordinary examples in our own lives when in the heat of an argument you say something cutting which you immediately wish you could take back.
.............taking Reeva downstairs to meet any oncoming accusation and throwing on the tears is a perfectly normal way of reacting for someone being calculative........
I don't know that. I have seen the evidence and don't think the state made their case.
Do you think he intended to kill the `intruder` in the toilet and it was a justified act of self defence?
But the best would be the way the experts recommend wouldn`t it?
Yes, it would have been but that doesn't alter the point that the professionals who interviewed and tested him over the course of many days know what they are doing. The advantages of training, experience and having actually met him (!) are a good basis for their views I'd say - which were generally pretty positive about him in fact.
Colin de France
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2014
- Messages
- 1,094
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't know that. I have seen the evidence and don't think the state made their case.
....you don't think the state made their case, nor do i, but i still have no doubt whatsoever that he's guilty of murder.......
Yes, it would have been but that doesn't alter the point that the professionals who interviewed and tested him over the course of many days know what they are doing. The advantages of training, experience and having actually met him (!) are a good basis for their views I'd say - which were generally pretty positive about him in fact.
Makes one wonder why Roux fought tooth and nail against it.
Colin de France
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2014
- Messages
- 1,094
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes, it would have been but that doesn't alter the point that the professionals who interviewed and tested him over the course of many days know what they are doing. The advantages of training, experience and having actually met him (!) are a good basis for their views I'd say - which were generally pretty positive about him in fact.
.........pretty positive meaning what exactly...........that he wasn't mentally ill for example ?.........
I think you misunderstand her. She had already concluded that he didn't mean to shoot her and was at that point examining the DE of Reeva. I suppose her logic is that he seemed genuinely distraught and so it's unlikely that he would have gone ahead and shot anyway if he had had any idea it was Reeva.
Not only lithgow1, Nel and Prof Grant as well.
Do you think he intended to kill the `intruder` in the toilet and it was a justified act of self defence?
I really don't know. I've said before that we must bear in mind the context. He will have heard of many horrible cases of home invasions (a quick google brings up many such examples) so such things are pretty routine there - Reeva had been through one so he'd probably have heard all about it from her too. The SA police and legal system seems to treat people who kill intruders or people they believe are intruders kindly - no prosecution or CH and no jail time. If this happened in the UK it would be murder for sure of course. But it didn't. I'm unsure about the arguments for and against DE though I am sure that they aren't as simple as some posts make out. I mean, have you read Grant's blog on this? He doesn't actually say that Masipa had no legitimate way of finding OP not guilty of DE, rather that she didn't use any of them. Moreover he seems to suggest that something being an error in objecto situation which is simply a description of how a murder can happen and PPD somehow makes it murder. This makes no sense at all.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
DNASolves
Online statistics
- Members online
- 86
- Guests online
- 4,219
- Total visitors
- 4,305
Totals may include hidden visitors.