Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #68 *Appeal Verdict*

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Noisy Fan said:
It was good to see Mr. Pistorius a little bit brighter than when he was in trial. It would be good to see him get stronger emotionally as he has now had sufficient time to mourn the loss of Reeva Steenkamp and come to terms with his hand in her unfortunate demise.

It was obvious that a broken medicated and remorseful Mr. Pistorius was unable to properly defend himself against a rabid prosecutor in the first trial.

With Mr. Pistorius now studying law and appreciating his hard work ethic and considering the free time he will have to study and learn, I believe he will be bringing much litigation against people both in the court system and those who defamed him in the press and on the internet.
Click to expand...

BBM

Fortunate, then, that he didn't have to.
 
[video=twitter;674271519229534208]https://twitter.com/jamesgrantza/status/674271519229534208[/video]
 
mrjitty said:
I think the criticisms of Nel are quite unfair

We can see the judge was well minded to grant bail and OP has had bail right throughout these proceedings except for when he was sentenced for CH

I agree it seems ridiculous - I would have expected jail in other countries.

But I really don't see what Nel as prosecutor can do differently - and anyway, OP is fortunate with the Court break - but he will have to serve his time eventually.

Unless he is left off by the Con Court - but in that event - he ought not to have served his time.
Click to expand...

Thank God for some sense among the hysteria.

As you said earlier Nel has just won a landmark ruling in the SCA albeit with the help of James Grant, but the credit is mostly his as lead advocate of the prosecution team.

Nel had Oscar nailed from the beginning despite Roux preparing Oscar perfectly. People with a highly empathic disposition are often targeted by sociopaths and Masipa and assessor Janet Henzen Du Toit got the full works at the beginning of the trial. Roux would have known their vulnerabilities and Oscar was prepared for it perfectly and as an out and out sociopath, the perfect man to do it. Dr Jane & Tim McGregor, here in the UK, did some great work on this field of psychology and called it "the empathy trap". Masipa and Du Toit were lambs to the slaughter and this was exacerbated by the snake oil salesman Roux and his machiavellian ministrations.

Against this background Nel enters the fray and in one day of cross examination, like Jesus anger at the moneychangers in the temple, he tells him he is a hypocrite, a liar, and rotten to the core and throws his whole charade of an apology and his version(s) in to the gutter where it belonged.

From the moment he stood and adjusted his robe, all of us watching with our hearts in our mouth he didn't waste one second getting down to business in what was a relentless cross-examination:

Nel: "You killed a person. You killed Reeva Steenkamp, that's what you did. You shot and killed her. "Say 'Yes' - say 'I killed Reeva Steenkamp'."

Pistorius: "I have a responsibility to Reeva and myself to tell the truth."

Nel: "You will not hide things from the court."

Pistorius: "I'm human, I have faults, I have sins. I'm a Christian. The Lord came down to this world for people who have sinned."

Nel: "As a Christian you will not lie."

Pistorius: "The discharge was accidental. I believed there was someone in the toilet coming out to attack me. I never intended to shoot anyone ... I went to the bathroom and felt in danger. I didn't have much time to think. I just discharged my firearm. I didn't intend to shoot someone. I shot out of fear. I didn't shoot at someone. I didn't intend to kill anyone...I didn't have time to think about what I was doing. I had finger on my trigger. I didn't intend to shoot anyone. I fired before I had a moment to comprehend what was happening."

Nel: "Was the only way out for you to shoot an intruder?"

Pistorius: "I didn't have time to think or not think about shooting an intruder. My life was in danger and I was worried what could happen to Reeva. People had been tied up on the estate before. Before thinking I fired four shots. When I realised the scale of what was happening I stopped firing. It was an accident, the way I discharged the firearm. I didn't intend to shoot."

Nel had hounded him all day, switching from one topic to another, leading us to cry out- Just get to the bloody point! All the time he was softening him up. He knew Oscar was a sociopath and forced him into lie after lie and brought together what seemed like a bewildering mess of threads into a scalpel-sharp accusation at the end of the day. Was that the only way out for you to shoot an intruder? This was a massively important piece of testimony for Pistorius and a critical component of the trial. Here's why.

Pistorius was convicted of murder because it was shown that he intended to kill - period. It doesn't matter who - just that he intended to kill someone and that the force he used was disproportionately excessive given the circumstances.

Remember, in order to make out the charge of murder against Pistorius, it had to be shown that he had the requisite intent to kill and followed through on that intent. Pistorius wanted to avoid a murder conviction and look to settle on a lesser charge of culpable homicide, which meant killing someone by accident.

So despite firing four shots through a locked bathroom door at 3am, Pistorius repeatedly declared that he "didn't intend to shoot anyone" and the discharge was an "accident". These statements were designed to establish that Pistorius lacked the intent needed to make out a conviction of murder.

Parts of Pistorius' testimony shows that he was well prepared by Roux. He hit on the key legal points in ordinary English.

However, the issue of plausibility remained. As Nel pointed out, "was the only way out for you to shoot the intruder?". For example, he could have grabbed Reeva and fled. He could have taken up a defensive position and called for the intruder to get out. He could have hidden in a cupboard or barricaded himself in another room. He did none of these things. He went full on assault mode and hunted down the intruder and he fired a pre-loaded, high calibre, zombie-stopping weapon, not once, but four times, switching position and aim throughout.

For all of Roux's charm, eloquence, sharp legal brain and command of English, he whined, pleaded, exhorted, pontificated for weeks in that courtroom but it was the sometimes awkward, incogent, pitbull Nel who brutally led Pistorius and his family on a merry dance that day and asked him a seemingly inconsequential question that barely registered a comment. But it was as a rapier to the heart of Pistorius' defence. There's a saying in Latin: Fides et Ratio... Faith and Reason. I've always had faith in Nell and his reasoning has been tested in the crucible of the SCA. For me he is a hero. I care not for his seemingly poor command of English, or his awkward deference when before a judge and I join you as one of his many apologists. Fides et ratio people!! As Mr Jitty rightly said, he has to do his time eventually. :)
 
Paul Connelly said:
Thank God for some sense among the hysteria.

As you said earlier Nel has just won a landmark ruling in the SCA albeit with the help of James Grant, but the credit is mostly his as lead advocate of the prosecution team.

Nel had Oscar nailed from the beginning despite Roux preparing Oscar perfectly. People with a highly empathic disposition are often targeted by sociopaths and Masipa and assessor Janet Henzen Du Toit got the full works at the beginning of the trial. Roux would have known their vulnerabilities and Oscar was prepared for it perfectly and as an out and out sociopath, the perfect man to do it. Dr Jane & Tim McGregor, here in the UK, did some great work on this field of psychology and called it "the empathy trap". Masipa and Du Toit were lambs to the slaughter and this was exacerbated by the snake oil salesman Roux and his machiavellian ministrations.

Against this background Nel enters the fray and in one day of cross examination, like Jesus anger at the moneychangers in the temple, he tells him he is a hypocrite, a liar, and rotten to the core and throws his whole charade of an apology and his version(s) in to the gutter where it belonged.

From the moment he stood and adjusted his robe, all of us watching with our hearts in our mouth he didn't waste one second getting down to business in what was a relentless cross-examination:

Nel: "You killed a person. You killed Reeva Steenkamp, that's what you did. You shot and killed her. "Say 'Yes' - say 'I killed Reeva Steenkamp'."

Pistorius: "I have a responsibility to Reeva and myself to tell the truth."

Nel: "You will not hide things from the court."

Pistorius: "I'm human, I have faults, I have sins. I'm a Christian. The Lord came down to this world for people who have sinned."

Nel: "As a Christian you will not lie."

Pistorius: "The discharge was accidental. I believed there was someone in the toilet coming out to attack me. I never intended to shoot anyone ... I went to the bathroom and felt in danger. I didn't have much time to think. I just discharged my firearm. I didn't intend to shoot someone. I shot out of fear. I didn't shoot at someone. I didn't intend to kill anyone...I didn't have time to think about what I was doing. I had finger on my trigger. I didn't intend to shoot anyone. I fired before I had a moment to comprehend what was happening."

Nel: "Was the only way out for you to shoot an intruder?"

Pistorius: "I didn't have time to think or not think about shooting an intruder. My life was in danger and I was worried what could happen to Reeva. People had been tied up on the estate before. Before thinking I fired four shots. When I realised the scale of what was happening I stopped firing. It was an accident, the way I discharged the firearm. I didn't intend to shoot."

Nel had hounded him all day, switching from one topic to another, leading us to cry out- Just get to the bloody point! All the time he was softening him up. He knew Oscar was a sociopath and forced him into lie after lie and brought together what seemed like a bewildering mess of threads into a scalpel-sharp accusation at the end of the day. Was that the only way out for you to shoot an intruder? This was a massively important piece of testimony for Pistorius and a critical component of the trial. Here's why.

Pistorius was convicted of murder because it was shown that he intended to kill - period. It doesn't matter who - just that he intended to kill someone and that the force he used was disproportionately excessive given the circumstances.

Remember, in order to make out the charge of murder against Pistorius, it had to be shown that he had the requisite intent to kill and followed through on that intent. Pistorius wanted to avoid a murder conviction and look to settle on a lesser charge of culpable homicide, which meant killing someone by accident.

So despite firing four shots through a locked bathroom door at 3am, Pistorius repeatedly declared that he "didn't intend to shoot anyone" and the discharge was an "accident". These statements were designed to establish that Pistorius lacked the intent needed to make out a conviction of murder.

Parts of Pistorius' testimony shows that he was well prepared by Roux. He hit on the key legal points in ordinary English.

However, the issue of plausibility remained. As Nel pointed out, "was the only way out for you to shoot the intruder?". For example, he could have grabbed Reeva and fled. He could have taken up a defensive position and called for the intruder to get out. He could have hidden in a cupboard or barricaded himself in another room. He did none of these things. He went full on assault mode and hunted down the intruder and he fired a pre-loaded, high calibre, zombie-stopping weapon, not once, but four times, switching position and aim throughout.

For all of Roux's charm, eloquence, sharp legal brain and command of English, he whined, pleaded, exhorted, pontificated for weeks in that courtroom but it was the sometimes awkward, incogent, pitbull Nel who brutally led Pistorius and his family on a merry dance that day and asked him a seemingly inconsequential question that barely registered a comment. But it was as a rapier to the heart of Pistorius' defence. There's a saying in Latin: Fides et Ratio... Faith and Reason. I've always had faith in Nell and his reasoning has been tested in the crucible of the SCA. For me he is a hero. I care not for his seemingly poor command of English, or his awkward deference when before a judge and I join you as one of his many apologists. Fides et ratio people!! As Mr Jitty rightly said, he has to do his time eventually. :)
Click to expand...

:goodpost:

What a truely superb piece of writing Paul.
 
Giles said:
http://citizen.co.za/899861/npa/

"The National Prosecuting Authority wanted the prescribed 15-year minimum sentence imposed on murderer Oscar Pistorius.

“He is convicted of murder, and he is a first offender. Fifteen years is prescribed in terms of the minimum sentencing act as the appropriate sentence for murder,” spokesman Luvuyo Mfaku said outside the North Gauteng High Court on Tuesday.

“We will argue for the imposition of the 15-year minimum sentence.”

He added that the prosecution authority had a responsibility to ensure that the law was applied in accordance with the constitution...


Prosecutor Gerrie Nel earlier told the court that there was no prospect Pistorius’s appeal succeeding."
Click to expand...

I don't quite understand why Nel is arguing for the "minimum sentence" when he stood before this judge and stated by degrees OP's crime was closer to DD than DE - shouldn't he be asking for a sentence closer to the maximum, given his bail argument?

It did not escape my notice that when OP was standing while the judge was reading the bail decision/conditions that he took a runner's posture, unmoving, head up, shoulders tilted forward...his body language said everything about what his brain was thinking imo - 'if this doesn't go my way, I'll run'.
 
WilliamMunter said:
:goodpost:

What a truely superb piece of writing Paul.
Click to expand...

Seconded. It is an excellent post Paul.

Nothing would convince Masipa that this was murder. Not Pistorius' changing testimony in front of her eyes and his not reasonably possibly true accounts, not his obvious lies about the other charges, not Berger's testimony of the screams of a female in mortal fear as well as a pause in the shots, and many other witnesses of female screams of a person in fear for her life, not the impossibility of his version according to the police evidence of the bedroom scene and his own agreement to the placement of the fan being accurate that changed the next day, not Mangena's evidence of a pause in the shots and of Reeva cowering in a defensive position, not pathologists testimony that Reeva had eaten a few hours before death - NOTHING.

What Nel achieved at the SCA was truly remarkable given not only the legal hurdles in his way, but that Masipa had not just approached her judgement from the angle that his version may be reasonably possibly true, but had actually entrenched (right word?) his version as a factual finding in her judgement.

I need to have a look at this new appeal document and see if there is anything in it before I comment on it.
 
Paul Connelly said:
Thank God for some sense among the hysteria.

However, the issue of plausibility remained. As Nel pointed out, "was the only way out for you to shoot the intruder?". For example, he could have grabbed Reeva and fled. He could have taken up a defensive position and called for the intruder to get out. He could have hidden in a cupboard or barricaded himself in another room. He did none of these things. He went full on assault mode and hunted down the intruder and he fired a pre-loaded, high calibre, zombie-stopping weapon, not once, but four times, switching position and aim throughout.
Click to expand...

First off, he did take up a defensive position ... twice ... and told them to get out ... and gave them time to do so. There was no response to either challenge. (understandable given the situation)

Second, as was just posted a little while back, it takes Mr. Pistoriuis 20 seconds to put on his prosthetics and the open window in the bathroom is only 5 seconds away. You do the math. It is most likely that if there were intruders and if they charged the bedroom they would have gotten there before Mr. Pistorius reached his gun. The bedroom door is locked with the cricket bat jammed against it.

I will ask you what you would of done? There is a gun right there and you are instantly scared for the safety of both your partner and yourself. If you have no concern for your partner you stay right there with her maybe fumbling with the cricket bat and door, waiting for whomever to rush into the room ... or you suck it up quickly and the best you can you put yourself (despite your disability) between the perceived threat and your partner.

Every gun used for self defense must be loaded.

The updated version of you so called zombie stomper is used by many many law enforcement officers everywhere ( except South Africa). Why? Because they are the safest bullet to use. You don't want to kill innocent bystanders. They limit collateral damage by expanding in the intended target therefore losing a lot of their energy. To use anything else would be reckless.

A 9mm is a middle of the road caliber, not a high calibre hand gun. Most police use them.
 
Noisy Fan said:
First off, he did take up a defensive position ... twice ... and told them to get out ... and gave them time to do so. There was no response to either challenge. (understandable given the situation)

Second, as was just posted a little while back, it takes Mr. Pistoriuis 20 seconds to put on his prosthetics and the open window in the bathroom is only 5 seconds away. You do the math. It is most likely that if there were intruders and if they charged the bedroom they would have gotten there before Mr. Pistorius reached his gun. The bedroom door is locked with the cricket bat jammed against it.

I will ask you what you would of done? There is a gun right there and you are instantly scared for the safety of both your partner and yourself. If you have no concern for your partner you stay right there with her maybe fumbling with the cricket bat and door, waiting for whomever to rush into the room ... or you suck it up quickly and the best you can you put yourself (despite your disability) between the perceived threat and your partner.

Every gun used for self defense must be loaded.

The updated version of you so called zombie stomper is used by many many law enforcement officers everywhere ( except South Africa). Why? Because they are the safest bullet to use. You don't want to kill innocent bystanders. They limit collateral damage by expanding in the intended target therefore losing a lot of their energy. To use anything else would be reckless.

A 9mm is a middle of the road caliber, not a high calibre hand gun. Most police use them.
Click to expand...

This was murder and was most definitely not putative private defence. Why are you rehashing his excuses?
 
Tortoise said:
This was murder and was most definitely not putative private defence. Why are you rehashing his excuses?
Click to expand...

I was addressing the posters quote you left out. He suggested a list of things that he thought Mr. Pistorius should have done and was in error as to a few of his assumptions.
 
Noisy Fan said:
I was addressing the posters quote you left out. He suggested a list of things that he thought Mr. Pistorius should have done and was in error as to a few of his assumptions.
Click to expand...

I can't be bothered to even entertain his lies as if they were true for the purposes of responding to you.
 
Noisy Fan said:
First off, he did take up a defensive position ... twice ... and told them to get out ... and gave them time to do so. There was no response to either challenge. (understandable given the situation)

Second, as was just posted a little while back, it takes Mr. Pistoriuis 20 seconds to put on his prosthetics and the open window in the bathroom is only 5 seconds away. You do the math. It is most likely that if there were intruders and if they charged the bedroom they would have gotten there before Mr. Pistorius reached his gun. The bedroom door is locked with the cricket bat jammed against it.

I will ask you what you would of done? There is a gun right there and you are instantly scared for the safety of both your partner and yourself. If you have no concern for your partner you stay right there with her maybe fumbling with the cricket bat and door, waiting for whomever to rush into the room ... or you suck it up quickly and the best you can you put yourself (despite your disability) between the perceived threat and your partner.

Every gun used for self defense must be loaded.

The updated version of you so called zombie stomper is used by many many law enforcement officers everywhere ( except South Africa). Why? Because they are the safest bullet to use. You don't want to kill innocent bystanders. They limit collateral damage by expanding in the intended target therefore losing a lot of their energy. To use anything else would be reckless.

A 9mm is a middle of the road caliber, not a high calibre hand gun. Most police use them.
Click to expand...

What would I have done, you ask? That's easy... Not being a sociopath I would have cherished Reeva and I wouldn't have taken umbrage when she chastised me for my sociopathic nature and saw straight through me.

I would have allowed her to leave that night and not in a fit of pique murdered her and blamed it on an imaginary intruder.

I would have telephoned for an ambulance before my friends and acquaintances.

I wouldn't have tried to pick up other girls so soon after Reeva's murder.

I would have been genuinely remorseful and not fed a crock of bs to the wider world.

I wouldn't have got a kick out of trying to buy off Reeva's mum and dad and embarrassed them by revealing it in open court.

I wouldn't have smirked in court today.

I wouldn't have appointed a PR manager.

I wouldn't compound my guilt by appealing to the CC and continue to tear apart the soul of my dead girlfriend's parents, family and friends.

Most of all, I would have enough sense not to ever allow myself to become an apath or an empath to a sociopath. The irony the sociopaths see it as a bigger weakness than I do, that's what attracts them in the first instance. It's why empathic people are always victims of sociopaths.
 
Tortoise said:
Seconded. It is an excellent post Paul. ...
Click to expand...

I've never fully understood where things went off the rails with Masipa's judgment. Every explanation I could think of and most that I read, seemed plausible, but none cemented it for me until this one.

From Paul C's BRILLIANT post #43 (if you haven't read it, don't miss it):

"Roux would have known their vulnerabilities and Oscar was prepared for it perfectly and as an out and out sociopath, the perfect man to do it. Dr Jane & Tim McGregor, here in the UK, did some great work on this field of psychology and called it "the empathy trap". Masipa and Du Toit were lambs to the slaughter and this was exacerbated by the snake oil salesman Roux and his machiavellian ministrations."

I got the empathy issue from the start but felt it had to have been more than that. I got the sociopath issue from the start because it's staggering when viewed with clear sight.

But I hadn't really locked them together.

It WAS a "trap". Intentional, insidious, calculated manipulation -- breathtaking to behold.

Those whom the laser focus locked onto had no idea what hit them.

They still don't.

That's how it works.
 
Paul Connelly said:
What would I have done, you ask? That's easy... Not being a sociopath I would have cherished Reeva and I wouldn't have taken umbrage when she chastised me for my sociopathic nature and saw straight through me.

I would have allowed her to leave that night and not in a fit of pique murdered her and blamed it on an imaginary intruder.

I would have telephoned for an ambulance before my friends and acquaintances.

I wouldn't have tried to pick up other girls so soon after Reeva's murder.

I would have been genuinely remorseful and not fed a crock of bs to the wider world.

I wouldn't have got a kick out of trying to buy off Reeva's mum and dad and embarrassed them by revealing it in open court.

I wouldn't have smirked in court today.

I wouldn't have appointed a PR manager.

I wouldn't compound my guilt by appealing to the CC and continue to tear apart the soul of my dead girlfriend's parents, family and friends.

Most of all, I would have enough sense not to ever allow myself to become an apath or an empath to a sociopath. The irony the sociopaths see it as a bigger weakness than I do, that's what attracts them in the first instance. It's why empathic people are always victims of sociopaths.
Click to expand...


Nice deflection.

I mean specifically in that situation, what would you have done?

You brought it up in the post I quoted.

I will let you off the hook if you like.
 
Noisy Fan said:
First off, he did take up a defensive position ... twice ... and told them to get out ... and gave them time to do so. There was no response to either challenge. (understandable given the situation)

Second, as was just posted a little while back, it takes Mr. Pistoriuis 20 seconds to put on his prosthetics and the open window in the bathroom is only 5 seconds away. You do the math. It is most likely that if there were intruders and if they charged the bedroom they would have gotten there before Mr. Pistorius reached his gun. The bedroom door is locked with the cricket bat jammed against it.

I will ask you what you would of done? There is a gun right there and you are instantly scared for the safety of both your partner and yourself. If you have no concern for your partner you stay right there with her maybe fumbling with the cricket bat and door, waiting for whomever to rush into the room ... or you suck it up quickly and the best you can you put yourself (despite your disability) between the perceived threat and your partner.

Every gun used for self defense must be loaded.

The updated version of you so called zombie stomper is used by many many law enforcement officers everywhere ( except South Africa). Why? Because they are the safest bullet to use. You don't want to kill innocent bystanders. They limit collateral damage by expanding in the intended target therefore losing a lot of their energy. To use anything else would be reckless.

A 9mm is a middle of the road caliber, not a high calibre hand gun. Most police use them.
Click to expand...

Oh dear.

A) Told who to "get out"? There were no intruders...it was his girlfriend in the toilet. Was she supposed to "get out"?

He didn't give anyone a chance to do anything. He tells them to "get out" and then shoots them as soon as they move! How is this giving anyone a chance?

Did he warn them he was armed and had a gun pointed at the toilet? No. Did he fire a warning shot? No.

Did he make the slightest, smallest attempt to do what the law demands and find an alternative to murder? Nope.

B) It takes the murderer 20 seconds to put on his legs. They were right next to him. "Reeva...get the gun, there's someone in the bathroom" would have got him the gun much quicker.

There was NO reason to hobble round the bed, arm himself and then hobble down a corridor screaming like a stuck pig.

What would have happened to him if there had been armed intruders in the bathroom, do you think? Do you think they'd have locked themselves in the loo? No, they'd have waited until the screaming-like-a-woman man showed up and shot him dead. That's why his story is so ridiculous.....no one would behave that suicidally. No one.

C) I would NOT have done what Pistorius did that night. I would have told Reeva to get the gun (she was within reach of it) and covered us both while we left the room & house.

D) Dunno what you're going on about with the bullets. He knew he had them and he knew exactly what he was firing into that toilet. He wanted to kill and he did.

I find your apologetics nauseating, quite honestly.

People here are more interested in the victim than the lies and excuses of the murderer. Just so you know.
 
When taken in total, going back to very start of this forum, there are so many great minds and so many great writers that pass through here, I wish you'd connect, collaborate, and write your own book on this.

There's no word I can think of right now to describe just how awesome it would be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 187 more.
Total: 4,604 (members: 188, guests: 4,416)

Online statistics

Members online
188
Guests online
4,417
Total visitors
4,605
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,475
Messages
17,969,432
Members
228,778
Latest member
jackparsley
Back
Top