Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #66~ the appeal~

Here is a useful reminder list of some the nonsense Nel weeded out during the trial. OP specifically blames his defence team for not putting in his affidavit that he heard the toilet door slam. As if a detail that crucial would have been left out.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...claims-and-how-the-two-different-9724393.html

If OP goes back to jail, then Matt Di Angelo can be his new and prettier lookalike.

He can stand in for him at parties and fights.


Image Courtesy TV UK MSN

http://trendymatter.com/exchange-hot-words-matt-di-angelo-eastenders-boss/

soozieqtips said:

I think his list of 'misdemeanours' is almost as long as the people he blamed at his trial!

Click to expand...

I would like to have a list of all the institutions which had requests, lawsuits, complaints, negotiations of him against them. There are many other fights, I think.

soozieqtips said:

If OP goes back to jail, then Matt Di Angelo can be his new and prettier lookalike.

He can stand in for him at parties and fights.



View attachment 84216 View attachment 84217

Image Courtesy TV UK MSN


http://trendymatter.com/exchange-hot-words-matt-di-angelo-eastenders-boss/

Click to expand...

Fascinating! Not prettier but mostly the same, IMO. A playmate for CP, if OP isn't available for a longer term ...

janicelongbright said:

Wow , thanks , One thing so far , I hadn't read about the injuries first hand . It turns out that there is nothing saying that splinters were integral to any bullet wounds , in fact quite the opposite :

' there were bullet wounds ......etc......and there wereadditional injuries from splinters .....

Pathologists have to be accurate with language . This language might be error, but it clearly separates bullet wounds on the one hand: splinter wounds elsewhere ... ..

Click to expand...

I'm sure he probably was, the problem for us as observers(most if not all of us from outside the courtroom) is that this testimony was not even allowed to be quoted let alone televised or recorded, by order of the judge. Even twitter was silenced for at least the first part iirc. Iow's, all we have is paraphrasing by those who were privy to the testimony, at least until someone is able to get a translated copy of the pathologist's report released for public consumption.

janicelongbright said:

Wow , thanks , One thing so far , I hadn't read about the injuries first hand . It turns out that there is nothing saying that splinters were integral to any bullet wounds , in fact quite the opposite :

' there were bullet wounds ......etc......and there wereadditional injuries from splinters .....

Pathologists have to be accurate with language . This language might be error, but it clearly separates bullet wounds on the one hand: splinter wounds elsewhere ... ..

Click to expand...

Probably best not to rely on newspapers though we don't have a lot else to go on, not having Saayman's report. The newspaper reports are rarely truly accurate. You could listen to Mangena and I think it was Dixon and Wolmarans who both said the splinters were around the bullet injuries. Here are a few links. My memory of the trial tells me that the splinters were indeed associated with the gunshot wounds.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/oscar-p...examination-20140415-36plu.html#ixzz3rI3hCqva

10:41pm: Dixon suggests Reeva must have been within 20cm of the door when Pistorius shot her, judging by the arm splinters around wounds. State claims she fell back almost a metre


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-open-toilet-door-shot-her.html#ixzz3rI1KEgYv

Pistorius held his head in the dock as Wollie Wolmarans testified that the pattern of wood splinter marks around a wound on Reeva Steenkamp's right arm indicated she was between six and 20 centimetres from the door.
This suggests, the defence claims, that Miss Steenkamp was about to open the door at the time she was struck.


http://www.enca.com/south-africa/oscar-retches-during-pathologists-testimony

Pathologist Gert Saayman took the court through Steenkamp's wounds.
He described wounds to her head, arm and hip, indicating that there were wooden splinters surrounding the wounds.

Marking my spot....just wanted to say that all of you are amazing.

Mr Fossil said:

Have you considered that if Mr Nhlengethwa could see Security talking to the Stipps from his bedroom window then so could Oscar from the open bathroom window? This might have had an effect on his post-shooting thinking.

Click to expand...

Interesting!

mrjitty said:

Interesting!

Click to expand...

How do you think that might have changed what OP did?

Trotterly said:

How do you think that might have changed what OP did?

Click to expand...

Have you found those quotes from the Judge yet?

mrjitty said:

Have you found those quotes from the Judge yet?

Click to expand...

But I was saying that there was no such quote. I cannot find it because it's not there.

The starting point really is Roux's argument on DE Reeva. If you don't follow that then I don't think we are going to get very far.

An interview with Pistorius's biographer the day after the shooting. Not one I've seen before. Apologies if already posted. It will be interesting to see if he has made any more recent comments post trial.

[video=youtu;jo9hXK35ogg]http://youtu.be/jo9hXK35ogg[/video]

To those of you who are just waking up, this is the gruesome news of the multiple terrorist attacks in Paris overnight.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...gles-Death-Metal-concert-hostages-killed.html

Just in.....Pistorius arrives for community service.... After 3 weeks of being released???

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...s-first-day-of-community-service-south-africa

◾No access to firearms
◾No taking of drugs or alcohol, and can be randomly tested by officials
◾Continue with psychotherapy sessions
◾No going out at night
◾Can work; will not be electronically tagged
◾His lawyers say track and field training is part of work, but this is still unclear

I'm not quite sure how Uncle Arnold is going to prevent OP's access to firearms when many are no doubt stored within the house. I very much doubt his home safe is more secure than the large walk-in safe that was accessed at his work premises when the precious rhino horns were stolen.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34820598

JudgeJudi said:

◾No access to firearms
◾No taking of drugs or alcohol, and can be randomly tested by officials
◾Continue with psychotherapy sessions
◾No going out at night
◾Can work; will not be electronically tagged
◾His lawyers say track and field training is part of work, but this is still unclear

I'm not quite sure how Uncle Arnold is going to prevent OP's access to firearms when many are no doubt stored within the house. I very much doubt his home safe is more secure than the large walk-in safe that was accessed at his work premises when the precious rhino horns were stolen.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34820598

Click to expand...

I wondered about the access to Uncle A's guns. If they're all locked away, does that count as no access? And who will check the property on a regular basis to ensure OP really does have no access? As for the drinking, even though officials can 'randomly' check him, I just cannot see that happening if he is at home indoors. Does anyone really believe officials are going to come knocking on Uncle A's door to test OP for drink and drugs?? More likely he'll have parties, drink as and when he wants, and hook up with some adoring female fans online, so he can once again be adored, even if it's just through a screen.

This is my first post in this thread, although I recognise a few of you from the Becky Watts threads. So hi!

Am in complete awe of Judge Judi and Monty Fossil for their painstaking and brilliant work and blog. Very grateful to you both.

I am just going to throw my thoughts into the mix.

I think the outcome of the appeal will be DD of the person behind the door, which I base on the following -

1. I think there was an appetite for it from the SCA judges.
2. I don't think Nel's case for DE will stand in the way of a substituted verdict of DD, because SCA has the authority* to deliver the verdict that ought have been made by the judge a quo.
3. If the question of law regarding the approach to assessing the circumstantial evidence by Masipa succeeds, the SCA may decide that the case should be evaluated on the objective facts.
4. It may decide that the requirements for PPD were not met. Pistorius was not entitled to believe he was acting lawfully. His evidence is that he did not shoot willfully.
5. It may look at the objective evidence for the finding that Pistorius said he was fearful and that he thought someone was coming out of the toilet, and find there is none.
6. It may find that his defence of automatism does not support his claim to have acted on a thought, and reject his defences.
7. It may say that Cpt Mangena's evidence negates Pistorius' evidence that he fired in rapid succession. If he paused for a second or two, he was in thinking mode and in control.
8. It may say that four bullets shows intent to cause fatal injury, where the person behind the door is given no warning and has no room for manoeuvre.


ETA * and the judicial obligation in terms of defining what took place in terms of the law of SA

Hi there Tortoise! Nice to see you. Good post. I think the main issue will be quite simply that he had no reason to believe he was under attack. There is no factual finding that he had reason to believe he was under attack, and it is know he had several other options to choose from that didn't involve blasting 4 times through a door without checking where his g/friend was. Allowing the verdict to stand could open a potential floodgate of trigger-happy nutcases killing their 'loved' ones in cold blood and then citing anxiety as justification. One of the judges did say "we can't give people with anxiety a licence to kill". We shouldn't give people with anxiety a gun, either.

Hi soozieq,

Another thing - I don't think Masipa found him to be suffering from an anxiety disorder either, but I may just have a rusty memory.

I agree with you, and the other point to consider is that if this gets passed as DE then how does that impact future cases of DD, a very messy precedent will be set.

(although I realise I may be in a minority of 1 expecting this to come out as DD )

Tortoise said:

Hi soozieq,

Another thing - I don't think Masipa found him to be suffering from an anxiety disorder either, but I may just have a rusty memory.

I agree with you, and the other point to consider is that if this gets passed as DE then how does that impact future cases of DD, a very messy precedent will be set.

(although I realise I may be in a minority of 1 expecting this to come out as DD )

Click to expand...

BIB - You're right. I don't think she did. OP's psychological tests found he wasn't suffering from GAD at the time of the killing, but that he'd developed an anxiety disorder in the weeks/months afterwards.