Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #64 ~ the appeal~

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr Fossil JJ

I hope you have , in the first instance sent your blog to Juror 13 and her co-author, so that they can reference it?
I have had a look at forensics science blog sites - there are so many out there, some might be worth approaching.
I started here http://www.forensicscolleges.com/blog/resources/cool-forensic-science-blogs
and then had a look at a few:

*The Chick and the Dead
Ask a Forensic Artist
Dr. G Medical Examiner. You’ve probably know Dr. Jan Garavaglia from her TV show on Discovery channel. Know that she’s a great forensic expert, which luckily shares much of her wisdom in the online videos.!!!
http://www.discoverylife.com/tv-shows/dr-g-medical-examiner/

So many out there, wouldn't know where you would want it going?
am sure you already gone well beyond this, but here is something on Cell Phone Tracking via Call Detail Records
http://exforensis.blogspot.co.uk/

another A Rubik's Approach: Casey Anthony Google Searches Overlooked & Lessons Learned
http://forensicsource.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/a-rubiks-approach-casey-anthony-google.html

I can't post the obvious social media links for ToS rules as per Cold Pizza posted upthread.
 
aftermath said:
Does there need to be a ridge though? If Reeva fell back heavily, her back could have hit against the front edge of the rack as she fell, or even the slightly knobblier side edge.
Click to expand...

....aftermath.....what does it take to convince you ? ...with those rounded off edges and the finition of that wood there is zero chance of getting a bruise with an imprint as perfect as was shown by Mr Fossil and JJ's blog, there is absolutely nothing, nowhere on that rack which could of created lines as perfect as that.........whereas the gun matches exactly the form of the indentations found inside the bruise........
 
Colin de France said:
....aftermath.....what does it take to convince you ? ...with those rounded off edges and the finition of that wood there is zero chance of getting a bruise with an imprint as perfect as was shown by Mr Fossil and JJ's blog, there is absolutely nothing, nowhere on that rack which could of created lines as perfect as that.........whereas the gun matches exactly the form of the indentations found inside the bruise.....
Click to expand...

I don't think the lines were wood grain from the rack though. I think they are most likely the pattern of her vest. So the bony part of her back where the two small marks ended up -with the vest on- hit an edge of the rack as she falls back and down.
 
aftermath said:
I don't think the lines were wood grain from the rack though. I think they are most likely the pattern of her vest. So the bony part of her back where the two small marks ended up -with the vest on- hit an edge of the rack as she falls back and down.
Click to expand...

...i am trying to work out if there is a way of calculating the time the bruises were made....so far i have this http://jcp.bmj.com/content/54/5/348.long
 
Oscar Pistorius: why state might have 'good' case for murder 21 oct
Criminal law expert William Booth claims

“South African prosecutors have a strong case to elevate Oscar Pistorius's culpable homicide conviction to murder”
William Booth told*News24*” My feeling has always been that if you look at the facts – four shots into a tiny little toilet knowing that there is somebody behind the door and that person isn't attacking Oscar – well does that not really equal murder? I mean, one doesn't have to be a fantastic lawyer to determine that," said Booth.Under South African law, a judge's factual findings in a case cannot be appealed. Instead, prosecutors will argue on 3 November that Judge Thokozile Masipa was mistaken in her application of the law....Nevertheless, Booth says the Supreme Court will need to look at the definitions of murder and culpable homicide and use the facts to see whether the prosecution has proved the charges beyond all reasonable doubt.
"I believe they have a fairly good argument based on the facts of the case," said Booth.
Click to expand...

http://www.theweek.co.uk/oscar-pist...ius-why-state-might-have-good-case-for-murder
 
cottonweaver said:
Bear in mind that Curlweis, over time has made a lot of wrong calls on this case too. There are quite a few videos, radio interviews from him as he has often been called on to give his legal opinion. ( Hence the DJ's interview that I referenced with the Judge Greenland link)

Here;s Curlewis commentating previously , saying why there was not going to be an appeal by State,

““The National Director of Public Prosecutions, whose department is running the case against Pistorius, is a political appointee of the government,” he said. “Over the last few years there have been some issues with that role. Some national directors have resigned.
“The current national director has only been in office a few months and I am not sure that he would approve of lodging an appeal. It would not be in the interests of two government departments to be at loggerheads.”
http://www.news.com.au/world/africa...pa-has-tough-job/story-fnh81gzi-1227089252163

Another later example, here he is on Appeal : if they find CH is correct that is “the end of the matter, unless for some reason some kind of constitutional issue comes into play in which case we may be in for another round in the constitutions court” Baffling.
But he does make perfectly clear that SCA have to decide on on interpretation on question of DE – major issue needs to be settled, for later precedent.
[video=youtube;RS7E1uUEKIg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS7E1uUEKIg[/video]
Click to expand...

Just including Curlewis's opinion - along with others - all open to critical thinking. Thanks Cottonweaver. ;)
 
...i wonder if Pistorius's family would have stuck with him like they have if he really had intended to kill her ? ......i think they know what happened, to have the truth may of even been a prerequisite for their help ....another reason why if it does turn out that he knew she was in the WC but shot anyway but without aiming in her direction intentionally, it won't be a surprise...
 
..in post 1029 i mentioned the idea that if the marks in the bruise are really that of the gun it would be reasonable to think that Reeva didn't have her vest on at that particular moment...it's possible that some length of time may of passed between being hit with the gun and going into the toilet....?
 
aftermath said:
I guess it depends if they think he knew he wasn't under attack
Click to expand...
Well he did know he wasn't under attack because there was no visible threat whatsoever. The 'threat' (noise...) was contained behind a closed door. He couldn't ever have 'known' he was under attack since he was never actually under attack. You can't know you're under attack just because you hear a 'noise' in a toilet.
 
It's all about perception though isn't it? It's about what he thought he knew at the tine.

If at that moment he ' (thought he) knew ' Reeva was in the bedroom then he also ' (thought he)knew ' the noise in the bathroom came from someone who shouldn't be there. Prior knowledge means that he knew the high rate of home invasions, he knew the high number of these that end in violence and even death of the householders, meaning a natural albeit mistaken conclusion to draw would be that an intruder was dangerous. He knew he was more vulnerable on his stumps - an effective, quick escape without prosthetics on would be compromised. So he ' (thought he) knew ' he had to face the intruder. Increasing panic /fear meant that when faced with the noise the he interpreted as the door opening (in that moment he ' (thought he )knew ' it was the door), he '(thought he) knew ' the attack had begun.

Obviously what he thought he knew was wrong and so his actions were unlawful and excessive ... But can anyone prove that he didn't believe he was under attack?
 
aftermath said:
It's all about perception though isn't it? It's about what he thought he knew at the tine.

If at that moment he ' (thought he) knew ' Reeva was in the bedroom then he also ' (thought he)knew ' the noise in the bathroom came from someone who shouldn't be there. Prior knowledge means that he knew the high rate of home invasions, he knew the high number of these that end in violence and even death of the householders, meaning a natural albeit mistaken conclusion to draw would be that an intruder was dangerous. He knew he was more vulnerable on his stumps - an effective, quick escape without prosthetics on would be compromised. So he ' (thought he) knew ' he had to face the intruder. Increasing panic /fear meant that when faced with the noise the he interpreted as the door opening (in that moment he ' (thought he )knew ' it was the door), he '(thought he) knew ' the attack had begun.

Obviously what he thought he knew was wrong and so his actions were unlawful and excessive ... But can anyone prove that he didn't believe he was under attack?
Click to expand...

.......in the intruder version (which i had thought was long ago buried) the question is ...who had the gun ? ...when he fired he hadn't had the slightest indication who or what was in the WC....this is fantasy land....is anyone going to fire on an intruder after having screamed for them to get out !........Pistorius is done for, what's needed is a decent prosecution who will do their job properly......
 
aftermath said:
It's all about perception though isn't it? It's about what he thought he knew at the tine.

If at that moment he ' (thought he) knew ' Reeva was in the bedroom then he also ' (thought he)knew ' the noise in the bathroom came from someone who shouldn't be there. Prior knowledge means that he knew the high rate of home invasions, he knew the high number of these that end in violence and even death of the householders, meaning a natural albeit mistaken conclusion to draw would be that an intruder was dangerous. He knew he was more vulnerable on his stumps - an effective, quick escape without prosthetics on would be compromised. So he ' (thought he) knew ' he had to face the intruder. Increasing panic /fear meant that when faced with the noise the he interpreted as the door opening (in that moment he ' (thought he )knew ' it was the door), he '(thought he) knew ' the attack had begun.

Obviously what he thought he knew was wrong and so his actions were unlawful and excessive ... But can anyone prove that he didn't believe he was under attack?
Click to expand...
The point is that he didn't see anyone. The toilet door didn't open. He didn't hear anyone threaten him. No one started to come out of the toilet. He admitted this himself. Therefore, he knew he wasn't under attack. Unless someone actually opened the toilet door, even an inch, then there was absolutely no reason for him to think or 'know' he was under attack. And you know that no one can 'prove' he didn't believe he was under attack, just as no one can prove he did , so it's not a question that can be answered.

However, being a licensed firearms owner, he knew what constituted a threat to his life, so he knew under what conditions he was permitted to shoot. He was never under threat. A 'noise' is not reason to pump bullets into a small room knowing there is a person behind the door. A person who hasn't shown themselves, and hasn't started to emerge from the room. Factor in that the 'intruder' would have been walking straight into danger (OP with a gun) and it's far more logical to assume he did know he wasn't under imminent attack than to assume he didn't, seeing as he could have just blasted away as soon as the door started to open (which it didn't).
 
soozieqtips said:
The point is that he didn't see anyone. The toilet door didn't open. He didn't hear anyone threaten him. No one started to come out of the toilet. He admitted this himself. Therefore, he knew he wasn't under attack. Unless someone actually opened the toilet door, even an inch, then there was absolutely no reason for him to think or 'know' he was under attack. And you know that no one can 'prove' he didn't believe he was under attack, just as no one can prove he did , so it's not a question that can be answered.

However, being a licensed firearms owner, he knew what constituted a threat to his life, so he knew under what conditions he was permitted to shoot. He was never under threat. A 'noise' is not reason to pump bullets into a small room knowing there is a person behind the door. A person who hasn't shown themselves, and hasn't started to emerge from the room. Factor in that the 'intruder' would have been walking straight into danger (OP with a gun) and it's far more logical to assume he did know he wasn't under imminent attack than to assume he didn't, seeing as he could have just blasted away as soon as the door started to open (which it didn't).
Click to expand...

If we accept for the moment that Pistorius thought there was an intruder, then why is it more logical to assume that he shot deliberately at a person he knew was not attacking him, unsighted through a door, knowing from his training that what he was doing was unlawful? Wouldn't it be easier to believe that he was frightened by what he thought was an intruder opening the door to come out and attack him, panicked and fired, thinking he was defending himself from attack?
 
aftermath said:
If we accept for the moment that Pistorius thought there was an intruder, then why is it more logical to assume that he shot deliberately at a person he knew was not attacking him, unsighted through a door, knowing from his training that what he was doing was unlawful? Wouldn't it be easier to believe that he was frightened by what he thought was an intruder opening the door to come out and attack him, panicked and fired, thinking he was defending himself from attack?
Click to expand...
BIB - As you know, I don't think (and have never thought) that OP thought there was an intruder. Just as your posts always reflect your view (that he thought there was an intruder...) mine reflect that he didn't, and that he knew it was Reeva behind the door. It's easier for you to believe he thought he was under attack because you don't believe he knew Reeva was behind the door, whereas I firmly believe he did.

Since I'm well aware of your views, I wouldn't bother to suggest to you that "we accept for a moment OP knew who was behind the door and fired anyway" as I know you wouldn't consider that. So it's pointless asking me to "accept for a moment" that he thought there was an intruder, because I never have done - just as you have never accepted he knew who he was firing at, correct?
 
cottonweaver said:
Mr Fossil JJ

I hope you have , in the first instance sent your blog to Juror 13 and her co-author, so that they can reference it?
I have had a look at forensics science blog sites - there are so many out there, some might be worth approaching.
I started here http://www.forensicscolleges.com/blog/resources/cool-forensic-science-blogs
and then had a look at a few:

*The Chick and the Dead
Ask a Forensic Artist
Dr. G Medical Examiner. You’ve probably know Dr. Jan Garavaglia from her TV show on Discovery channel. Know that she’s a great forensic expert, which luckily
shares much of her wisdom in the online videos.!!!
http://www.discoverylife.com/tv-shows/dr-g-medical-examiner/

So many out there, wouldn't know where you would want it going?
am sure you already gone well beyond this, but here is something on Cell Phone Tracking via Call Detail Records
http://exforensis.blogspot.co.uk/

another A Rubik's Approach: Casey Anthony Google Searches Overlooked & Lessons Learned
http://forensicsource.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/a-rubiks-approach-casey-anthony-google.html

I can't post the obvious social media links for ToS rules as per Cold Pizza posted upthread.
Click to expand...

I was thinking of Dr Garavaglia, too. She's extremely impressive, IMO.
 
http://tenplay.com.au/news/2015/10/26/reeva-s-father-says-he-wants-to-meet-pistorius

This is from the interview aired on SA TV over the weekend.

The father of Oscar Pistorius's girlfriend said in an interview on Sunday that he wants to meet the Paralympic athlete to seek closure over the killing of his daughter."I think I will get more closure one day if I get the chance to speak to Oscar myself," Reeva's father Barry Steenkamp told South Africa's M-Net TV channel
"Most probably I wouldn't have to say anything. I will just have to look at him... but that is what I would like to do one day."
"How could I feel sorry for him?" Barry Steenkamp said, choking with tears as he spoke at the family home near Port Elizabeth where he trains racehorses.
"I just thought to myself -- man, you brought this on yourself and you have been very lucky with the sentence."
"Once that has all come to an end it will give us time to settle down," Barry Steenkamp said about the state appeal.
"It will give a lot of us closure, whether it is good or bad."
Reeva's mother June said she wanted him to understand "how he has destroyed our lives."
"I would just want him to realise actually what he has taken away from us," she said.
Click to expand...
 
Sherbert said:
I was thinking of Dr Garavaglia, too. She's extremely impressive, IMO.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that input - I am unfamilar with all those I listed and have not watched the above scientist.

It would be fantastic if any WS members who are twitter users, would consider Tweeting the link to the duo''s blog ?
I don't have a Tw account or I would.

I could suggest some obvious recipients who would be interested in it and this might get their research to a wider audience but if I were to tweet the addresses I would again have the admin alerted again .:facepalm:
 
aftermath said:
If we accept for the moment that Pistorius thought there was an intruder, then why is it more logical to assume that he shot deliberately at a person he knew was not attacking him, unsighted through a door, knowing from his training that what he was doing was unlawful? Wouldn't it be easier to believe that he was frightened by what he thought was an intruder opening the door to come out and attack him, panicked and fired, thinking he was defending himself from attack?
Click to expand...

bbm

"Easier" - yes, BUT we want the truth and that isn't it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 55 more.
Total: 4,058 (members: 56, guests: 4,002)

Online statistics

Members online
56
Guests online
4,002
Total visitors
4,058
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,490
Messages
17,969,776
Members
228,789
Latest member
Soccergirl500
Back
Top