Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #63 ~ the appeal~

[soozieqtips]

"Pistorius sobbed and vomited his way through his trial as though he, rather than the woman he killed, deserved public sympathy. Now it seems as though those tearful histrionics have served their purpose.

In a country where gender inequality is entrenched, this is how easy it is for a well-known man to usurp the role of victim."

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ar-pistorius-freed-from-prison-not-surprising

Joan Smith obviously didn't get it that wrong after all.

I still can't get over him saying that he was taking responsibility for his actions by putting his life on "hold" to attend his own murder trial. Like he had a choice! Talk about arrogant. He killed a defenceless woman for no apparent reason, and he was whining that he had to put his life on hold. I guess with both brothers having now killed women - a loss of female life (by their hands) doesn't even figure on their radar.

 

[soozieqtips]

Are you saying that firing without ear protection would not have affected his hearing?

No. I didn't say that and I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that he wasn't rendered totally deaf and could hear Reeva screaming through the shots. It would also explain why he stopped shooting after firing 4 bullets... because the screaming (that he heard) had stopped.

 

[GR_Turner]

I didn't diss him. I just said I would stick to ballistics /gun experts' opinions without knowing Martin Hood's own experience and knowledge in such matters.

He's an expert on gun law it seems. However if a ballistics expert could conclude what he concluded you'd think at least on of the expert witnesses would have given this opinion too.

 

[Colin de France]

No. I didn't say that and I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that he wasn't rendered totally deaf and could hear Reeva screaming through the shots. It would also explain why he stopped shooting after firing 4 bullets... because the screaming (that he heard) had stopped.

....and calmly went back to the bed to put his legs on .......

 

[cottonweaver]

Yes, that "putting life on hold" was very striking indeed.

Is there any positive way that phrase, in it's context, could be interpreted ( in OP's favour I mean?)

 

[aftermath]

No. I didn't say that and I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that he wasn't rendered totally deaf and could hear Reeva screaming through the shots. It would also explain why he stopped shooting after firing 4 bullets... because the screaming (that he heard) had stopped.

If that were the case I would have thought Nel would have established this ability to hear screams on top of the gunfire sounds.

 

[aftermath]

....glad you agree ....

Of course - I don't think the witnesses are lying about what they believe they heard. I just think they interpreted what they heard incorrectly

 

[Colin de France]

Of course - I don't think the witnesses are lying about what they believe they heard. I just think they interpreted what they heard incorrectly

.....incorrectly..............meaning what exactly ? .......are you now saying the neighbours didn't hear screams ?

 

[aftermath]

.....incorrectly..............meaning what exactly ? .......are you now saying the neighbours didn't hear screams ?

Of course not. Meaning they incorrectly interpreted the screams as belonging to a woman.

 

[cottonweaver]

No he's not a forensics expert but as I have the link to hand , here's Judge Greenland on the grouping of the shots.

He's not an expert but seeing as the Defence had non-experts giving "expert" testimony, why not?!
( The latter being something an experienced judge would have disallowed of course.)

"JG: And what I'll say about what I'll call the expert testimony of the path of the bullets and the positions... is that it was completely consistent with these shots being grouped. In other words, purposeful firing as opposed to, let’s say, a gun going off in the hands of a man who has lost control completely and doesn’t even know he’s firing. When you fire that weapon, each time you pull the trigger it kicks up and it requires real control to group those shots in that way.

So everything, the circumstantial evidence, the hard facts of the matter, the undeniable evidence, all is consistent only with purposeful firing of the weapon, only consistent with purposeful firing of the weapon, and the judge in her judgment actually is discounting purposeful firing, and we still don’t know what her finding is. We still don’t know what the court’s finding was on the issue of what was it in Oscar’s mind, what was in his mind when he was firing. We don’t know. We know she has said what was not in his mind. She says it's not that he intended to kill… But she hasn’t told us what was his intention."

https://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/judge-greenland-interview-transcript-part-21.pdf

 

[lithgow1]

Of course not. Meaning they incorrectly interpreted the screams as belonging to a woman.

So you really believe that the screams that multiple witnesses heard as those of a woman in terror were really those of Oscar Pistorius, who happens to sound just like a woman in terror when he screams. I don`t believe it for a second, though I would believe that he absolutely hated that his defence had to claim it.

 

[Colin de France]

Of course not. Meaning they incorrectly interpreted the screams as belonging to a woman.

.....really....do you honestly believe that ? .........do you really believe Pistorius screams like a woman......how far must you go to deny reality.......why and how can anyone mistake a womans scream for a man shouting or Pistorius attempting to imitate Reevas screams afterwards with the idea of blocking any idea that she screamed before being shot is nothing but a joke.......somewhere or other this feels too much and i would even go as far as to say it's being disrespectful to the neighbours who were sincere and had no doubts on what they heard and where the screams came from..........and yes i do know that it's the most disturbing aspect for the naive who believe in his innocence........

 

[aftermath]

So you really believe that the screams that multiple witnesses heard as those of a woman in terror were really those of Oscar Pistorius, who happens to sound just like a woman in terror when he screams. I don`t believe it for a second, though I would believe that he absolutely hated that his defence had to claim it.

Short answer, yes. Longer answer- how many times had any of the witnesses heard a man screaming in desperation? And how many times had they heard a woman screaming for her life? And where had they heard any of these- in real life?on TV/film? I believe that it is clearly possible, (given all the witness evidence, timelines, the fact that a witness mistook pistorius crying for a woman etc), that in the early hours of the morning, two couples jumped to the wrong conclusion when trying to make sense of what they heard.

 

[lithgow1]

To be believed:

Oscar Pistorius
Carl Pistorius
Aimee Pistorius
Arnold Pistorius
John Stander
Carice Stander
Wollie Wolmerans
Roger Dixon

To be treated with scepticism:

Gert Saayman (pathologist)
Chris Mangena
Johan Stipp
Annette Stipp
Michele Burger
Charl Johnson
Estelle van der Merwe
crime scene photos

Interesting article for all of us I think:

http://mathsontrial.blogspot.com/2014/04/pistorius-trial-witness-timelines.html

 

[aftermath]

.....really....do you honestly believe that ? .........do you really believe Pistorius screams like a woman......how far must you go to deny reality.......why and how can anyone mistake a womans scream for a man shouting or Pistorius attempting to immitate Reevas screams afterwards with the idea of blocking any idea that she screamed before being shot is nothing but a joke.......somwhere or other this feels too much and i would even go as far as to say it's being disrespectful to the neighbours who were sincere and had no doubts on what they heard and where the screams came from..........and yes i do know that it's the most disturbing aspect for the naive who believe in his innocence........

See post 113.

 

[Colin de France]

Short answer, yes. Longer answer- how many times had any of the witnesses heard a man screaming in desperation? And how many times had they heard a woman screaming for her life? And where had they heard any of these- in real life?on TV/film? I believe that it is clearly possible, (given all the witness evidence, timelines, the fact that a witness mistook pistorius crying for a woman etc), that in the early hours of the morning, two couples jumped to the wrong conclusion when trying to make sense of what they heard.

....Aftermath......i don't believe you.....i'm sorry, i'm not being rude.....you're far from convincing me that you yourself believe in what you've wrote........

 

[soozieqtips]

Short answer, yes. Longer answer- how many times had any of the witnesses heard a man screaming in desperation? And how many times had they heard a woman screaming for her life? And where had they heard any of these- in real life?on TV/film? I believe that it is clearly possible, (given all the witness evidence, timelines, the fact that a witness mistook pistorius crying for a woman etc), that in the early hours of the morning, two couples jumped to the wrong conclusion when trying to make sense of what they heard.

BIB - But you don't think it's clearly possible that they did hear a woman screaming and that OP murdered Reeva and lied to cover it up? That's not clearly possible? But dismissing independent witnesses who heard what they heard (just before a woman was in fact shot dead...) is not possible?

 

[aftermath]

....Aftermath......i don't believe you.....i'm sorry, i'm not being rude.....you're far from convincing me that you yourself believe in what you've wrote........

You are being rude.

So you aren't convinced that I believe what I post? Oh well - nevermind. That's unfortunate but ultimately irrelevant. Why do you have to make this personal? Why not either engage with the content of my posts or simply ignore them?

 

[aftermath]

BIB - But you don't think it's clearly possible that they did hear a woman screaming and that OP murdered Reeva and lied to cover it up? That's not clearly possible? But dismissing independent witnesses who heard what they heard (just before a woman was in fact shot dead...) is not possible?

Yes it's possible - if the phone timeline is all messed up. Of course. I just don't think that on balance that's what happened. There were too many alternatives offered by the defence and often supported by evidence/experts that weren't closed down enough by the state for them not to be clearly and reasonably possible.

 

[Colin de France]

You are being rude.

So you aren't convinced that I believe what I post? Oh well - nevermind. That's unfortunate but ultimately irrelevant. Why do you have to make this personal? Why not either engage with the content of my posts or simply ignore them?

.....i can assure you my intention was certainly not to be rude.......i don't believe at all that you sincerly meant what you wrote...you don't sound convincing at all, it's the way the post comes across.......that's the way i perceived it and as i said i'm sorry but i don't believe it.......nothing personal just part of the discussion....