Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #65~ the appeal~

[Interested Bystander]

I don't know that I trust any of it ! But if the door had been splintered by battering before the shooting , could splinters
have become embedded if not driven in to an open wound , from being dragged across the toilet to the bathroom, and would have stuck into her hip , but not likely in the arm and head ? seems possible even likely to me .

It is so difficulttto tell anything really , because the C.S. photographs I,ve seen here , are actually TOTALLY different to those I've seen elsewhere , and those were all different in any case !

And I read on a Guardian blog the other day , that the C.S.I. wasn't begun until a month thats 4 wks !!! after 13th Feb. ???

I think you and Colin-de-France must be kindred spirits.

 

[Mr Fossil]

.......he wasn't worried simply because he didn't think she would use it, until then.....i gave a lot of thought to your theory about the gun handle i expect at least you give my ideas some consideration....

And he then fires into the toilet rather than e.g. out of the window because?

I think you'll find I am giving them consideration: I am asking you to explain the logic of what happened in your scenario. It doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

 

[elfie]

Or she was is the process of closing, or had just closed, the door. This explains her leaning slightly too.

I'm very interested to read the new scenario. Please move quickly!

 

[Colin de France]

And he then fires into the toilet rather than e.g. out of the window because?

I think you'll find I am giving them consideration: I am asking you to explain the logic of what happened in your scenario. It doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

....why would he fire out the window ?........are you taking the mickey ?

 

[mrjitty]

I find it completely disrespectful to suggest this of the victim

Just shows how deeply Rape and Domestic Violence culture is ingrained.

People will happily believe in the bogeyman (black obviously!) who invades your home and attacks your family over a few dollars

But a nice white man would never shoot his girlfriend for "no reason"

 

[Mr Fossil]

....why would he fire out the window ?........are you taking the mickey ?

No. You said earlier that he didn't intend to kill her. So, in your scenario, why didn't he fire warning shots?

 

[mrjitty]

And he then fires into the toilet rather than e.g. out of the window because?

I think you'll find I am giving them consideration: I am asking you to explain the logic of what happened in your scenario. It doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

And then OP smuggled the gun out of the house because .... oh wait!

 

[mrjitty]

I think you and Colin-de-France must be kindred spirits.

Sometimes I wonder if the point is simply to disrupt?

 

[Colin de France]

I find it completely disrespectful to suggest this of the victim

Just shows how deeply Rape and Domestic Violence culture is ingrained.

People will happily believe in the bogeyman (black obviously!) who invades your home and attacks your family over a few dollars

But a nice white man would never shoot his girlfriend for "no reason"

.......you know fully well that is not the case.....it's only a theory and as such it's there to be discussed....

 

[Colin de France]

And then OP smuggled the gun out of the house because .... oh wait!

.....not Pistorius, someone else and for the same reason as the telephone, so that everything would fit with the intruder version .....

 

[mrjitty]

How does one explain the very characteristic splintering from the door found on her body which, according to the ballistic forensic teams indicated she was standing very near to it.

By magical thinking

 

[Colin de France]

No. You said earlier that he didn't intend to kill her. So, in your scenario, why didn't he fire warning shots?

...as i said in post 1246 i am putting my own personal opinion aside to discuss this idea objectively.....

 

[mrjitty]

.......you know fully well that is not the case.....it's only a theory and as such it's there to be discussed....

Perhaps its better discussed on a pistorian forum rather than one focussed on justice for the victim?

Just a thought

 

[aftermath]

Well on appeal the shoe is rather on the other foot.

Justice Leach asked Roux to point out the specific findings establishing PPD.

Roux struggled to do that

You always come back to the same old problem with the poor technical quality of the document.

1. Masipa does not clearly state PPD was made out
2. Masipa does not clearly state all the factual findings in respect of PPD

Would you agree that the state did not successfully make its case for DD of Reevafiring the trial ? If so, what else did it present in the way of DE of the intruder?

 

[Colin de France]

Perhaps its better discussed on a pistorian forum rather than one focussed on justice for the victim?

Just a thought

..........i find that disapointing.....when i have always been after the truth on this forum and only on this forum i don't post elsewhere........

 

[elfie]

According to other C.S. photos , only one narrow panel had been removed , about 15 cms or so wide ? In which case you would not be able to reach through it , to pick up a key lying on the floor .
The arm /shoulder would take up all the gap , and pistorius' arm length INC. holding the gun , was put at 2ft (4 or 6 inches ) either way ,quite a bit shorter without the gun extension .
I don't know how high the bottom section with cross board were , but the calculations weren't made to test his story.
I cant see the bottom section being less than than 2ft high.

I think a total of 3 panels were missing: the two next to the tub and one near the threshold of the toilet. Wide enough perhaps but the cubicle was dark and light from the bathroom to the cubicle floor would have been impeded by the bottom half of the door, plus his body going through the opening. Also there are are photos of a shirtless OP from that evening that show no marks on his abdomen or lower of someone that had been leaning over a square edged surface struggling to retrieve a key in the dark. Along with Val's analysis on other aspects of the key the story doesn't add up.

 

[Mr Fossil]

I think a total of 3 panels were missing: the two next to the tub and one near the threshold of the toilet. Wide enough perhaps but the cubicle was dark and light from the bathroom to the cubicle floor would have been impeded by the bottom half of the door, plus his body going through the opening. Also there are are photos of a shirtless OP from that evening that show no marks on his abdomen or lower of someone that had been leaning over a square edged surface struggling to retrieve a key in the dark. Along with Val's analysis on other aspects of the key the story does add up.

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.

 

[mrjitty]

I guess the heart of the issue is that there are two schools of thought. Well three if we include your theory. One is that OP's version is the truth and the whole thing was a tragic accident. Discussion of how avoidable that 'accident' was is rarely entertained but instead brushed aside by claims of fearfulness, but that's a side issue really.

The other is that it was no accident and that OP intended to murder Reeva Steenkamp. This is by far the majority view. If correct, then of course the big question is why. He had virtually everything and no matter what happens in the future it is likely he has thrown most of that away so why he would do that is a crux question and leads to the discussion of reasons. I doubt that even his supporters would argue that he hasn't displayed many instances of a bad and at times uncontrollable temper so there lies the foundation for how it all got so deadly serious but the puzzle remains as to what set it off and escalated it to that extent. It is something we are never likely to know but that is no reason for not delving into it.

I think if you study abuse cases or work at Women's Refuge (as a friend of mine does) it is not a big question at all.

You don't stop being an abuser just because you get rich and famous.

However most people who end up killing their domestic partner are not rich and famous - therefore this case seems unusual.

In sports in NZ for example, there have been many cases of sports stars who were abusive, even though rich.

In the US you recently have a millionaire sports man who murdered someone he knew. Others who badly beat their girlfriends.

None of these murders/assualts make sense.

But DV never does make sense.

Take for example the case of NZ sports personality Tony Veitch. Veitch was a TV presenter "who had it all"

Veitch beat his girlfriend so badly he broke her spine. He then bribed her with 200K to shut up about it.

Unbelievably people back home feel sorry for Veitch - he must have "snapped somehow"

The reality is, abusve guys attack their wives and kids - and sometimes they kill them.

evidenced that Veitch's kicks to her back, whilst she was lying on the ground, caused her spine to fracture in two places, and that Dunne-Powell was forced to use a wheelchair and crutches for several weeks, as a result of Veitch's violent actions towards her

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Veitch

Personally, i think the theories of some argument that led to domestic violence on his part could be right. It is a huge leap from hitting someone to killing them I know, but think about who was involved. A local South African 'name' and a major global one are going to make news if he is charged with or even accused of DV. It would be terrible if maintaining his reputation (and sponsors) required killing someone but it is possible isn't it? That he went too far and knew that the matter would not end there so had one option left - to silence her. Could all be BS of course but it is just as feasible as his version of events. Essentially, if you don't believe his far fetched story then there had to be a reason for what he did. Either blind rage or a cold plan but both require a spark and that is what people are trying to find.

PS Remember that part of his testimony where he said 'I asked Reeva why is she .. is she calling the police'. If that was a slip up on his part then she was calling or threatening to call the cops. Why might that be?

PPS In the interests of fairness, those here who believe OP's story do generally acknowledge his recklessness and that he should be punished for the result of that recklessness. It is elsewhere where you will see the disturbing claims that he has 'suffered enough'.

The myth about DV is that is just happens one day.

The reality is he built up to this - you can see it clearly over the various anecdotes

This is why women are unsafe in houses with guns.

If OP did not have a gun - Reeva probably survives this night.

 

[Colin de France]

I think if you study abuse cases or work at Women's Refuge (as a friend of mine does) it is not a big question at all.

You don't stop being an abuser just because you get rich and famous.

However most people who end up killing their domestic partner are not rich and famous - therefore this case seems unusual.

In sports in NZ for example, there have been many cases of sports stars who were abusive, even though rich.

In the US you recently have a millionaire sports man who murdered someone he knew. Others who badly beat their girlfriends.

None of these murders/assualts make sense.

But DV never does make sense.

Take for example the case of NZ sports personality Tony Veitch. Veitch was a TV presenter "who had it all"

Veitch beat his girlfriend so badly he broke her spine. He then bribed her with 200K to shut up about it.

Unbelievably people back home feel sorry for Veitch - he must have "snapped somehow"

The reality is, abusve guys attack their wives and kids - and sometimes they kill them.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Veitch



The myth about DV is that is just happens one day.

The reality is he built up to this - you can see it clearly over the various anecdotes

This is why women are unsafe in houses with guns.

If OP did not have a gun - Reeva probably survives this night.

......where i live in virtually every house there's a gun, no one gives it any thought, it's normal it's used for hunting......and what's more women don't go around being shot at ....

 

[lithgow1]

Re your post above MrJitty I still think the question of why he snapped to that extent on that particular night is a valid one and I also maintain that it is a leap, and a large one, to murder in this particular case. I was not talking about DV in broad terms but in relation to the Oscar Pistorius case.

Yes there are many anecdotes about his temper but none relate to domestic violence. The closest, to my knowledge, is the slamming the door on the Cassidy girl at the party. And there was also Sam Taylor's evidence and Reeva's text messages but they relate to verbal rather than physical aggression. Nasty and unpleasant for sure but IMO a long way from shooting someone. Not everyone who is verbally abusive is physically so, even over the course of a long relationship. But, if you believe he shot her deliberately, as I do and think you do too, then something happened that night that led to that occurring. By no means as I suggesting any responsbility on the part of the victim but he had never shot anyone before, despite his love of guns and his known temper, but that night he did. 'Why?' is the only question I was posing.