Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #65~ the appeal~

[DexterMorgan]

No we won't. What we do know, from the evidence is that he was previously verbally abusive to Reeva. It's no secret that verbal domestic abuse can escalate to physical abuse.

By all accounts, we know that Reeva was a loving person. It's no secret that women involved with abusive partners see the good in abusive men, even after a physical beating. Unfortunately, it's a fact.
Reeva, according to the evidence, didn't call the police on that fateful nite. Obviously, she had no idea (behind that closed door) that he had retrieved his gun.

Imo, she ran into that cubicle to escape his angry abuse. Had she had an inkling that he was going to kill her, I think she would have run down the stairs

If you ask your girlfriend is she going to call the police. And then shoot her later on that night. Then you're guilty.

I agree.

 

[DexterMorgan]

Let's put our cards on the table. Massipa was very bias due to reeva looks and plus reevas accomplishments in getting her law degree.

Imo. Massipa was jealous of reeva because she felt that reeva had it easy in life.

So lets look back at Massipas sentencing records on the similar cases and see how she handled things. Now it was stated that Massipa was very strong on domestic violence against women. But does this only mean women who she identified with. Idk.

I just simply think that she was either paid off or didn't respect reeva at all for being a pretty model with a law degree.

But i definitely would like to see Massipas past cases on how she usually dealt with spousal or domestic murder. Jmo

 

[janicelongbright]

Do you mean http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...d-photos-show-crime-scene-for-first-time.html ?

They are from Telegraph issue 31st May 2013 and show the door after partial reconstruction by forensics team. Note the stickers on the door and the moved magazine rack.

https://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/crime_24.jpg is crime scene as found showing all but one panel removed.

Im not sure what you mean your ref. shows more than one panel removed ?
Im talking abouty a photo with only I panel removed .

Maybe if I put this another way , WTF would the police put a 2 panel piece back in the door just to stick tape on the holes ? why not the 4th panel as well to stick a tape on that hole too ? . And since the door was being taken apart why reconstruct it first ? and since the ballistics exam didnt take place until much later , Wolmarans a month later ... They reconstructed the door a long time afterwards to do a ballistics . There was no reason whatsoever to(HALF) reconstruct the door on the 14 Feb.
Please tell me A GOOD , mind , reason .??

 

[Interested Bystander]

I also saved a photo of the door when it had been fitted to a full scale model of OP's toilet cubicle. You will be able to see the height of the cross bar compared to the guy standing alongside. Whilst I cannot guarantee he is exactly the same height, OP was wearing his prostheses when he broke down the door which makes him 1.84 metres.

 

[janicelongbright]

Two panels by the bath? Can you point me to them please. I only know of the one wide, middle panel. Then, of course, the panel in the toilet.

Re. marks on Oscar's torso: consider the height of the middle strut across the door. It is very low, much lower than you'd expect. We recreated it and it is relatively easy to lean over and pick a key up off the floor without touching the strut.

There is another perhaps oddity about the one panel being smashed to bits in order to be removed : Whilst the 2 stuck together have only one bat mark at its very top ,and is complete ?

Do you still know the height of the middle panel ?

 

[DexterMorgan]

I don't know. If I'm trying to unlock a bathroom door. I may go with a screw driver or allen key or credit card before a bat. But hey. Massipa called it a factual encounter of events. So who am i to doubt her.

I just hope that reeva haunts both of them at night while they are sleeping .Jmo

 

[WilliamMunter]

Im not sure what you mean your ref. shows more than one panel removed ?
Im talking abouty a photo with only I panel removed .

Maybe if I put this another way , WTF would the police put a 2 panel piece back in the door just to stick tape on the holes ? why not the 4th panel as well to stick a tape on that hole too ? . And since the door was being taken apart why reconstruct it first ? and since the ballistics exam didnt take place until much later , Wolmarans a month later ... They reconstructed the door a long time afterwards to do a ballistics . There was no reason whatsoever to(HALF) reconstruct the door on the 14 Feb.
Please tell me A GOOD , mind , reason .??

I'm sorry, I can't help you any more.

 

[jilly]

Let's put our cards on the table. Massipa was very bias due to reeva looks and plus reevas accomplishments in getting her law degree. this would be speculation, of course.

Imo. Massipa was jealous of reeva because she felt that reeva had it easy in life.

So lets look back at Massipas sentencing records on the similar cases and see how she handled things. Now it was stated that Massipa was very strong on domestic violence against women. But does this only mean women who she identified with. Idk.

I just simply think that she was either paid off or didn't respect reeva at all for being a pretty model with a law degree.

But i definitely would like to see Massipas past cases on how she usually dealt with spousal or domestic murder. Jmo

With respect, it doesn't matter. We have to deal with the evidence of the trial at hand.

What's apparent, is that she bought Oscar's testimony, hook, line and sinker.

On the same note one could say that Masipa could have been more sympathetic towards Oscar's disability. Upon observation, it seems like she could have had a disability herself the way she had to be helped through the courtroom. Either way....I don't want to go there.

Just trying to stick to the facts here.

 

[DexterMorgan]

With respect, it doesn't matter. We have to deal with the evidence of the trial at hand.

What's apparent, is that she bought Oscar's testimony, hook, line and sinker.

On the same note one could say that Masipa could have been more sympathetic towards Oscar's disability. Upon observation, it seems like she could have had a disability herself the way she had to be helped through the courtroom. Either way....I don't want to go there.

Just trying to stick to the facts here.

And the fact is that Massipa would have done things differently if oscar murdered her daughter. Jmo

 

[janicelongbright]

Unfortunately you are looking at a newspaper article where it shows a reconstruction of the door and not the crime scene evidence presented in court of what was seen on the morning of the crime. I think perhaps you have not seen much of the actual court proceedings or videos of the same. Those of us posting here, apart from a very few, were fortunate enough to be able to watch the entire court proceedings and are very aware of almost everything that was shown in evidence.

I have searched this out for you so that you can watch the court in progress where the photographs of the crime scene are being recorded into evidence. I hope it is of some help. There are videos on You Tube produced by SABC of the entire trial. If it helps I will find the appropriate link and post it for you.

This is the video of Vermeulen being taken through the photographic evidence. If you forward to circa 12 minutes 18 seconds you will be able to see the door as it was found at around 6am on the morning of 14[SUP]th[/SUP] February.

[video=youtube;ovA-k3pO3Dk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovA-k3pO3Dk[/video]

Really that IS, VERY kind of you ,TST! Actually I did watch some of the trial , and I watched it in a version which didn't go behind a pillar , when Pistorius showed how he held the gun , WHEN , in fact SHOOTING .

I also read the Guardian live blogs , through the rest .

[modsnip]

 

[sleuth-d-]

I don't know. If I'm trying to unlock a bathroom door. I may go with a screw driver or allen key or credit card before a bat. But hey. Massipa called it a factual encounter of events. So who am i to doubt her.

I just hope that reeva haunts both of them at night while they are sleeping .Jmo

re: bold
thanks for that.
when you put it like that the bat is SO out of place.
also, re: tools... he had a gardener/handyman downstairs, who could have provided help, and who would have had the necessary tools and skills.

i remember in op's eic, his explanation of how he used the bat in the bedroom, to block the door [which apparently didn't close/lock very well]. it seemed contrived and unnecessary at the time

on reflection, i believe the explanation had to be made to allow the bat to be included in the contents of his 'confined space'. the bedroom, the bathroom and the toilet. the bat really had no place there, but due to this little 'door-blocking trick' no-one ever questioned it's place at the scene.

he had a year to build a story that nobody could disprove for the bat.
[i wonder whether the fresh 'prizing open' marks in the bedroom door were also made by the bat? or were they made by the air gun barrel?]

 

[Interested Bystander]

Really that IS, VERY kind of you ,TST! Actually I did watch some of the trial , and I watched it in a version which didn't go behind a pillar , when Pistorius showed how he held the gun , WHEN , in fact SHOOTING .

I also read the Guardian live blogs , through the rest .

Perhaps it is you who need to look at'NOT what the trial 'said . Even for a short time .

Unfortunately a trial is a trial and whilst we all form ideas of what might have happened OP can only be judged by what is presented in court. I am sure many elements can be criticised. We have done plenty of that on here over the last nearly three years but visual evidence is an element that doesn't lie unless one is going to start accusing people of setting something up. I am afraid I don't go there. I feel the PT did their best to provide a fair trial. I am not so sure the DT were quite to honest.

 

[Val1]

Perhaps you would like to supply the reason that millions of women are murdered by their 'loving' partners every second of the day and night all over the world . What do you think ?

If you mean domestic violence, how deep of an answer are you looking for since the roots for DV are many. For me personally, I think it stems from at its core narcissism, whereas the person committing the violence has little true regard for anyone else until it impacts them and then they reward the "good" behaviour and punish the "bad" with anything from belittling comments to physical aggression/abuse. Of course what's good or bad are all dependent on the whims/moods of the abuser.

 

[janicelongbright]

If you mean domestic violence, how deep of an answer are you looking for since the roots for DV are many. For me personally, I think it stems from at its core narcissism, whereas the person committing the violence has little true regard for anyone else until it impacts them and then they reward the "good" behaviour and punish the "bad" with anything from belittling comments to physical aggression/abuse. Of course what's good or bad are all dependent on the whims/moods of the abuser.

I agree , I have seen plenty of it , in various degrees . And I believe it is exactly selfishness , The fashion for saying men are victims of D.A / V. Is infuriating , I mean it is a generalization but , its overwhelmin gly a fact that men can never be in the same helplessly defenceless position as women especially when attacked by surprize .

I think because they have innate nurturing instict women are adept at forgetting their own problems , being always taken up with being sorry for someone else ! , Men are usually not taught nurturing , and they have no idea how to cope with inadequacy, failings etc. I feel sorry for them , but they sre actually much softer than women . Maybe tha'ts what they resent ,

I mean Pistorius must be a prime example , taught to hunt and kill animals for fun etc , and you'd think his Mum would have encouraged him to be artistic ; academic , anything but focus on trying not to be physically handycapped , That just seems mad to me .Cruel really .

 

[janicelongbright]

BIB What precisely are you referring to?

I agree that Mangena and Wolmarans differ in their opinions of what happened, which is to be expected, but much of what they said is in their reports and wasn't made up on the hoof. Can I suggest if you want to make specific points that you provide references.

I have [provided some reference for the Pistorius' testimony, at ' Juror !3 ' , But I don't think you have looked at it . There is ome thing for sure and that is that is that {Pistorius absolutely never claimed to hold the gun at shoulder height , nor that he held his arm straight : that was ehat Mel goaded him with < Had he conceded that position, it would have demonstrated AIM and agrresive puposefulness . And would have totally undermined his defence of firing without knowing and without aimimg .

I hope you can see that it makes sense , whereas if he was to say that he held the gun as you maintain , it doesn't .

He also elaborates , saying that he2 would never hold the gun out out like that when under attack because an assailant could easily knock it out of his hand . And he says that he was 4 or 5 metres from the door ,bacause he was so scared

It would make no difference anyway he can't reach the heights at only 155 cms tall or 5ft 1inch .

Mangena has all the angles downward and repeats that at trial , but in his its written ' bullets can't go down then up ' Wolmarans says . In testimony Wolmarans says the door "must have deflected the bullets upwards " ,and you have him , "the door deflected the bullets upwards" : It is not the same . And it is unheard of nonsense .

 

[Val1]

Two panels by the bath? Can you point me to them please. I only know of the one wide, middle panel. Then, of course, the panel in the toilet.

Re. marks on Oscar's torso: consider the height of the middle strut across the door. It is very low, much lower than you'd expect. We recreated it and it is relatively easy to lean over and pick a key up off the floor without touching the strut.

Not to dispute you, I haven't done the actual math, but is that with OP on his stumps or on his prosthetics? Also, unless I read/heard his testimony wrong, he said he actually entered through the partition then reached back through it to insert and unlock the door. Did anyone else read it like that?

Re the two panels, I think what's being referred to is the big one by the tub where the two panels are still together.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Not to dispute you, I haven't done the actual math, but is that with OP on his stumps or on his prosthetics? Also, unless I read/heard his testimony wrong, he said he actually entered through the partition then reached back through it to insert and unlock the door. Did anyone else read it like that?

Re the two panels, I think what's being referred to is the big one by the tub where the two panels are still together.

On his prostheses, as he says. I'm not commenting on whether what he says is true here, only the the fact that it is perfectly possible to do as he says. I have tried it and I am the same height as him (when he is on prostheses).

No, he doesn't say that. He reaches over to grab the key from the floor and then unlocks the door from the outside (where the key is found and photographed, in the lock).

I leant over the middle partition. I'd tried to open the door from the inside but there was no key in the door and I leant over the middle partition of the door and I saw the key was on the floor - at that point all I wanted to do was just climb into the toilet over the middle part of the door. I, umm, whilst I leant over the partition to get in, I saw the key so I took it and I unlocked the door and I flung the door open and I threw it open and I sat over Reeva and I cried. (p122)

Ok, if you're calling the wider middle panel two because it's two stuck together that's fine (perhaps pedantically correct but a bit misleading). They are never apart - I have always referred to it as the larger middle panel. The court & Oscar only ever describe it as one unit ("a big plank").

 

[Mr Fossil]

I have [provided some reference for the Pistorius' testimony, at ' Juror !3 ' , But I don't think you have looked at it . There is ome thing for sure and that is that is that {Pistorius absolutely never claimed to hold the gun at shoulder height , nor that he held his arm straight : that was ehat Mel goaded him with < Had he conceded that position, it would have demonstrated AIM and agrresive puposefulness . And would have totally undermined his defence of firing without knowing and without aimimg .

I hope you can see that it makes sense , whereas if he was to say that he held the gun as you maintain , it doesn't .

He also elaborates , saying that he2 would never hold the gun out out like that when under attack because an assailant could easily knock it out of his hand . And he says that he was 4 or 5 metres from the door ,bacause he was so scared It would make no difference anyway he can't reach the heights at only 155 cms tall or 5ft 1inch .

Mangena has all the angles downward and repeats that at trial , but in his its written ' bullets can't go down then up ' Wolmarans says . In testimony Wolmarans says the door "must have deflected the bullets upwards " ,and you have him , "the door deflected the bullets upwards" : It is not the same . And it is unheard of nonsense .

BIB I have and I even quoted it to you in an earlier reply. You are mistaken.

I'm sorry, I can't help you any more.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Recently Judge Masipa gave a talk in London about the South African judicial system. It's 80 mins long. I only skimmed it and I highly doubt any reference is made to the Pistorius case. Something to watch with a cup of tea and a digestive.

Thank you. She talks for about 40 minutes. At ~20 minutes in she talks about the Minimum Sentence Act: the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences, how the judiciary was upset by their introduction but why it's not so bad (e.g. because judges still have a lot of leeway). Mitigation is clearly going to play a major role in sentencing if the SCA upgrade the judgement.

 

[Val1]

If you would like to see the evidence that only one small board had been removed at the crime scene : not three , as said:

See: The Telegraph Wed 11 Nov 2015

Headline : Oscar Pistorius leaked Photographs Show Crime Scene For THe Fist Time ( That's today's paper )

I'd just like to point out a quote from that article and then to say it's pretty obvious that those pics were not of the original scene, starting with the markers, let alone all the other missing things like the plank and the magazine rack in the toilet room. Also, the original article is dated May 31, 2013.:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...d-photos-show-crime-scene-for-first-time.html
"It is not clear if the images, which were originally leaked to Sky News, are official police photographs."