International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Trials and Errors (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=106)
-   -   Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - Part 2 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=285175)

newyorkguy 20th February 2016 07:26 AM

The police also found Steenkamp had taken not one but two smartphones with her to the bathroom. What seems ironic is, Samson you are professing to be absolutely certain Pistorius shot Steenkamp accidentally yet once again you have demonstrated you actually know little about the case.

The most telling was your argument that Steenkamp's "empty bladder" meant she had urinated within moments of being shot. You placed great importance on that. In fact, it turned out that only meant she had gone to the bathroom within an hour of being shot. It could actually be viewed as evidence Steenkamp had not gone to the bathroom because she had to go -- she had already gone -- but for another reason.

Desert Fox 20th February 2016 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyorkguy (Post 11135916)
The police also found Steenkamp had taken not one but two smartphones with her to the bathroom. What seems ironic is, Samson you are professing to be absolutely certain Pistorius shot Steenkamp accidentally yet once again you have demonstrated you actually know little about the case.

The most telling was your argument that Steenkamp's "empty bladder" meant she had urinated within moments of being shot. You placed great importance on that. In fact, it turned out that only meant she had gone to the bathroom within an hour of being shot. It could actually be viewed as evidence Steenkamp had not gone to the bathroom because she had to go -- she had already gone -- but for another reason.

The only issue I have is that argument can be used in any case where you disagree with the judgement of the jury and/or judge.

Samson 20th February 2016 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyorkguy (Post 11135916)
The police also found Steenkamp had taken not one but two smartphones with her to the bathroom. What seems ironic is, Samson you are professing to be absolutely certain Pistorius shot Steenkamp accidentally yet once again you have demonstrated you actually know little about the case.

The most telling was your argument that Steenkamp's "empty bladder" meant she had urinated within moments of being shot. You placed great importance on that. In fact, it turned out that only meant she had gone to the bathroom within an hour of being shot. It could actually be viewed as evidence Steenkamp had not gone to the bathroom because she had to go -- she had already gone -- but for another reason.

If you are saying she got dressed to go to the bathroom that is unheard of, and I would concede, but if she kipped in those clothes there is an opposite inference to be made. The evidence is clear that she had urinated in that bathroom before being shot, due to normal volumes, and if accepting the post mortem.
I am drawing a line through common sense and Masipa's judgement in believing OP's story in other words.

The Atheist 20th February 2016 02:42 PM

Mark Twain makes the comment in Tom Sawyer that there are some people in society who will defend the innocence of the worst and most guilty criminals alive.

Now, I know what he means.

GlennB 20th February 2016 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11136371)
If you are saying she got dressed to go to the bathroom that is unheard of, and I would concede, but if she kipped in those clothes there is an opposite inference to be made. The evidence is clear that she had urinated in that bathroom before being shot, due to normal volumes, and if accepting the post mortem.
I am drawing a line through common sense and Masipa's judgement in believing OP's story in other words.

It was a hot night, to the extent that OP supposedly brought fans in from the balcony to cool them. Who sleeps in their clothes - however flimsy - on such a night? I suspect she never undressed fully for bed, following a major spat. Thinking OP was asleep she took both phones to the bathroom to investigate the contents of his, perhaps.

Desert Fox 20th February 2016 02:55 PM

I think I would actually be more sympathetic if he had been in the bedroom and she had been in the other room with the suggestion that she had just gotten there. That is one reason why the case out of North Carolina was seen as more likely to be mistaken identity with regards to self defense.

Samson 20th February 2016 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desert Fox (Post 11136410)
I think I would actually be more sympathetic if he had been in the bedroom and she had been in the other room with the suggestion that she had just gotten there. That is one reason why the case out of North Carolina was seen as more likely to be mistaken identity with regards to self defense.

I am not sympathetic anyway, just interested in the academic pursuit of his state of knowledge/belief. Common sense says he was certain it was an intruder or certain it was Reeva, nothing in between.
The likelihood of a gun nut deciding his big moment had arrived, a girlfriend to shoot at is ridiculous, but the converse, an intruder to shoot at fills textbooks on gun nuttery.

But maybe Pistorius is a ridiculous man? Until now there is little evidence outside his puerile fetish with guns.

Desert Fox 20th February 2016 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11136450)
I am not sympathetic anyway, just interested in the academic pursuit of his state of knowledge/belief. Common sense says he was certain it was an intruder or certain it was Reeva, nothing in between.
The likelihood of a gun nut deciding his big moment had arrived, a girlfriend to shoot at is ridiculous, but the converse, an intruder to shoot at fills textbooks on gun nuttery.

But maybe Pistorius is a ridiculous man? Until now there is little evidence outside his puerile fetish with guns.

Good judges will try to be conservative with their decisions. Little "c," not big "C" where the decision try to avoid as much interpretation as possible. As such, they are trying to avoid looking at if he was trying to kill her specifically (even though my opinion was that he knew he was shooting at her and I suspect they are of the same opinion) but no matter what, firing into a bathroom with a locked / closed door is not acceptable.

newyorkguy 20th February 2016 04:31 PM

I don't think the trial judge was being conservative by failing to find for premeditated murder. The state didn't provide enough evidence to prove it. There was still room for a reasonable doubt.

Samson 20th February 2016 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyorkguy (Post 11136520)
I don't think the trial judge was being conservative by failing to find for premeditated murder. The state didn't provide enough evidence to prove it. There was still room for a reasonable doubt.

I think the case can be solved by a thorough analysis which has not happened. This will include all the phone transcripts and recordings in sequence, real time, and more study on the question whether the screaming was Pistorius only. These long winded stories almost always show the original account shows the way, and ironically resolve in favour of the accused. I will not list them here but I am thinking of a dozen right now.

The Atheist 20th February 2016 04:47 PM

I hear there's a move to exonerate Crippen.

Anyone interested in signing up?

Samson 20th February 2016 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 11136539)
I hear there's a move to exonerate Crippen.

Anyone interested in signing up?

Risking ridicule for taking you seriously, we could throw in Wallace James Bolton and the poisoned professor locally, and start a thread.

Desert Fox 20th February 2016 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 11136539)
I hear there's a move to exonerate Crippen.

Anyone interested in signing up?

I will argue that the evidence used against him was BS even if he was probably guilty.

Desert Fox 20th February 2016 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyorkguy (Post 11136520)
I don't think the trial judge was being conservative by failing to find for premeditated murder. The state didn't provide enough evidence to prove it. There was still room for a reasonable doubt.

Getting angry and shooting at her because of it would not be premeditated either.

What I mean by conservative is this - marked by moderation or caution. We forget that definition these days.

Samson 20th February 2016 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desert Fox (Post 11136471)
Good judges will try to be conservative with their decisions. Little "c," not big "C" where the decision try to avoid as much interpretation as possible. As such, they are trying to avoid looking at if he was trying to kill her specifically (even though my opinion was that he knew he was shooting at her and I suspect they are of the same opinion) but no matter what, firing into a bathroom with a locked / closed door is not acceptable.

DF, as a gun man of the world, can you say if Reeva would have survived if the head shot had missed completely?

Desert Fox 20th February 2016 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11136571)
DF, as a gun man of the world, can you say if Reeva would have survived if the head shot had missed completely?

I have never killed anyone, hopefully I never will have to. I am not sure where she was hit otherwise. Looking what I can find quickly, was she hit twice in the head?

Samson 20th February 2016 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desert Fox (Post 11136585)
I have never killed anyone, hopefully I never will have to. I am not sure where she was hit otherwise. Looking what I can find quickly, was she hit twice in the head?

Ok here it is

Reeva Steenkamp was standing in a toilet cubicle and facing the closed door when she was hit in the right hip by the first of four hollow-point bullets fired at her by Oscar Pistorius, a police ballistics expert testified on Wednesday at the double-amputee Olympic runner's murder trial.

Steenkamp then fell back on to a magazine holder in the cubicle and was struck in the right arm and head by the last two shots fired by Pistorius with his 9mm pistol through the door. Pistorius's girlfriend crossed her arms over her head to protect herself, Captain Christian Mangena said, when she was hit in the arm and head. He testified that he believed the second bullet shot missed Steenkamp and ricocheted off a wall inside the cubicle and broke into fragments, which caused bruising on her back.

Mangena concluded through his analysis of the shooting scene and wounds on Steenkamp's body from postmortem photographs that one of the final two bullets went through Steenkamp's left hand before penetrating her skull as she held it over her head. The policeman said he couldn't determine the order of the last two shots.

Samson 20th February 2016 05:47 PM

Also

Steenkamp was wearing a pair of sports shorts with a Nike logo, a former sponsor of Pistorius and a black undershirt when she was shot, he said.

.................................................. .........
Sounds like sensible attire for a modest woman.

Desert Fox 20th February 2016 07:20 PM

As a lay person with a bit of knowledge, unless the other injuries hit another vial organ or cause severe blood loss, the odds are good that she could have survived.

However, I am not sure why this would be important.

Samson 20th February 2016 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desert Fox (Post 11136706)
As a lay person with a bit of knowledge, unless the other injuries hit another vial organ or cause severe blood loss, the odds are good that she could have survived.

However, I am not sure why this would be important.

50/50 I see one pathologist says. Important? It sure would have been helpful to truth finding if she had, but also it has a bearing on whether Oscar thought he was a killing machine or firing serious warning shots in a semi safe direction. There is no point in everyone declaring they know what he thought without considering alternative outcomes with the same blind shooting.
What amazes me is that there is such ready acceptance that a man would deliberately end his career this way. Extremely unlikely, but not impossible. If there is a plausibility about each and every thing Oscar has said, then we can eliminate as sure thing he knew who was in there. Then we have an infinitely more common scenario, man at war with gun to defend his territory.

Think of the number of ways Oscar could have proceeded if his GF was saying I'm leaving, without killing her. Isn't it normal for successful people to disengage in a more sane way? No one ever suggests a remotely similar case, to the proposal here.
I don't buy into it without a data point that he can't explain in an innocent way.

newyorkguy 20th February 2016 07:39 PM

A modest woman? She was a model and obviously proud of her body. Among her modeling assignments were those for lingerie (see below) and bikinis. In fact, in reading about her it is hard not to get the idea that she was probably murdered deliberately by Oscar Pistorius.

Pistorius was known for having a fascination with handguns and had used them recklessly in the past. He could be bad-tempered, he had an anxiety disorder. Steenkamp told her mother there were times she was afraid of him. That they fought constantly. Pistorius is facing a 10-15 year prison sentence. He'll be out before he's forty-five. He can pick up his life and go on.

Steenkamp's modeling and television career had been going very well, she had a law degree to fall back on. She was gritty; in her early 20s she broke her back when she fell from a horse she was riding and had to learn to walk again. She deserved an infinitely better fate than what she got.


Desert Fox 20th February 2016 07:39 PM

You agree that OJ Simpson killed his ex-wife?
There are others such as former assistant Attorney General Thomas Capano who killed his mistress.

The Atheist 20th February 2016 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desert Fox (Post 11136564)
I will argue that the evidence used against him was BS even if he was probably guilty.

Funnily enough, I reckon you could actually make a case for Crippen.

It's ok though - I'm not going to!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11136593)
.... four hollow-point bullets fired ....

Yet you defend him with vigour.

All I can is thank christ the appeal court isn't full of morons. In my view, little Oscar should have pled insanity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desert Fox (Post 11136720)
You agree that OJ Simpson killed his ex-wife?

That would be a good subject to resurrect; there must be threads on it. I have no idea - I know three things about OJ & his murder trial:

1 He was found not guilty
2 The glove didn't fit
3 His lawyer is the reason the Kardashians are known outside of places where revolting things live under rocks

Desert Fox 20th February 2016 11:51 PM

There have been a number of famous people who have committed murder even when their star seems to be still rising . . . Don't see why Oscar Pistorius would be any different.

Samson 21st February 2016 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desert Fox (Post 11136868)
There have been a number of famous people who have committed murder even when their star seems to be still rising . . . Don't see why Oscar Pistorius would be any different.

Who?

Desert Fox 21st February 2016 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11136902)
Who?

Hmm, some names:
Michael Jace, Rae Carruth, Michael Brae, Sid Vicious, Robert Blake, Phil Spector, Gig Young, Aaron Hernandez, and Fay DeWitt

Samson 21st February 2016 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desert Fox (Post 11136916)
Hmm, some names:
Michael Jace, Rae Carruth, Michael Brae, Sid Vicious, Robert Blake, Phil Spector, Gig Young, Aaron Hernandez, and Fay DeWitt

Ok this should be easy. None of them will be quite like Pistorius :D

Desert Fox 21st February 2016 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11136981)
Ok this should be easy. None of them will be quite like Pistorius :D

No, not many people fire 9 mm pistols through closed bathroom doors at somebody hiding in the bathroom.

Samson 21st February 2016 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desert Fox (Post 11137021)
No, not many people fire 9 mm pistols through closed bathroom doors at somebody hiding in the bathroom.

DF, many people take action against unproved threats.

Try this

https://www.cartoons.ac.uk/record/AC2135

Desert Fox 21st February 2016 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11137045)
DF, many people take action against unproved threats.

Try this

https://www.cartoons.ac.uk/record/AC2135

And, unless you live in Texas or Florida, those actions have consequences.. . . . .And if you a black woman in Florida, they still have consequences in Florida.

Belgian thought 3rd March 2016 11:53 AM

Oscar Pistorius denied leave to appeal for Steenkamp murder

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35720684

Sentencing on 18th April

I for one am glad.

The Atheist 3rd March 2016 12:39 PM

Yep. Bravo to the RSA Court of Appeal.

I hope he rots there, although I bet there is very strong favourable sentiment towards him by white prison guards at the very least.

Samson 3rd March 2016 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 11156995)
Yep. Bravo to the RSA Court of Appeal.

I hope he rots there, although I bet there is very strong favourable sentiment towards him by white prison guards at the very least.

Clearly you missed the punchline. Wise judge Masipa has total control.

lionking 3rd March 2016 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11157020)
Clearly you missed the punchline. Wise judge Masipa has total control.

Utter rot. Masipa was wrong. The end of the line for Oscar, and justice for Reeva. 15 years hard time for the murderer.

Samson 3rd March 2016 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 11157104)
Utter rot. Masipa was wrong. The end of the line for Oscar, and justice for Reeva. 15 years hard time for the murderer.

As always I respectfully disagree.
However, minds are seldom changed in these discussions, but I am sure that he thought he was shooting at an intruder, and whatever term you choose, murder, homicide, self defence is up to the individual.

LondonJohn 3rd March 2016 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11157200)
As always I respectfully disagree.
However, minds are seldom changed in these discussions, but I am sure that he thought he was shooting at an intruder, and whatever term you choose, murder, homicide, self defence is up to the individual.


Well no - "whatever term you choose" is up to legislation and to the way that legislation is enforced. Otherwise it would be a mad free-for-all, where anything could be categorisable as "self-defence" or even "accident".

And I'm not sure you understand the conviction either. In fact, the conviction is agnostic on who Pistorius thought he was shooting at. The murder conviction comes because regardless of who Pistorius genuinely did think he was shooting at, he a) was not acting in self-defence as the law defines it, b) deliberately aimed and fired the shots through the closed door, knowing there to be a human on the other side of the door, and c) had to have known that his deliberate act was likely to have caused the death or very serious injury of whoever was behind that door.

It's on that last point that Masipa made such a dreadful error in law in her original erroneous verdict - one which the SC (and now the CC) corrected. And Masipa is bound by law to apply the appropriate sentence for a murder conviction of this nature - so I think you're also wrong to imply that she might somehow impose a lenient sentence.

Personally, I think (and I believe the SC and CC probably think) that the only rational narrative that fits all the available evidence (and lack of evidence) is that Pistorius knowingly fired at Steenkamp that night - and that the "intruder" story is a) incompatible with the totality of the evidence, and b) a hasty concoction by Pistorius to try to justify his actions. But it's critical to understand that this case was NEVER about determining whether or not Pistorius knew it was Steenkamp behind the door - and thus the state never even needed to set out to prove that in any way. The point is that Pistorius knew - by his own admission - that there was a human behind that door, in a very small toilet room whose layout and dimensions Pistorius knew very well. Pistorius therefore had to have known that when he raised, aimed and fired his powerful handgun through the door, the military ammunition (which he knew the gun was loaded with) would almost certainly hit whoever was behind the door, with a high possibility of a fatal outcome. And regardless of whether Pistorius truly believed it was Steenkamp or an intruder behind that door, Pistorius cannot have been in imminent mortal danger at that point. He himself admitted that the door never opened - that he reacted simply to "a noise" from within the toilet. And by definition (since in fact it was Steenkamp behind the door), Pistorius cannot have heard any vocal threats from a mythical intruder, nor can he even have had any reason to believe that the person behind the door was armed.

So I very very strongly believe that the murder conviction against Pistorius was justified and appropriate. I hope that he will serve his punishment quietly and diligently, and that he'll make efforts to rehabilitate himself and reform himself. In this instance, I also happen to think that there's a strong "public protection" element to his inevitable long incarceration - I think he genuinely would pose a significant threat were he to remain within the community without any punishment, reform or rehabilitation.

All very sad. And all very disquieting, by the way, to read the "sceptics" here making rabid comments along the lines of "I hope he rots" and so on. Shame.

The Atheist 3rd March 2016 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11157200)
... but I am sure that he thought he was shooting at an intruder,...

Love your confidence!

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonJohn (Post 11157329)
All very sad. And all very disquieting, by the way, to read the "sceptics" here making rabid comments along the lines of "I hope he rots" and so on. Shame.

I hope you're not including me in that, because I don't identify as a sceptic.

I'm also happy to stand by the "rotting in jail".

This isn't some sad event - this is a bloke who has killed a beautiful young woman in a fit of pique*, then tried to manipulate everyone around him, creating a coldly calculated sympathetic figure to preserve his place at the head of Afrikaner pride. Throwing up in court was supposed to be the master stroke no doubt. The trial judge bought it to the extent that she clearly subverted South African law with her judgement.

Lots of people are disabled; few are crippled, and Oscar is clearly one of those.

*Most likely because Rena was moving on to a bloke with the usual number of legs.

Desert Fox 3rd March 2016 05:59 PM

I would far prefer Steenkamp was alive and Pistorius never fired into the bathroom.

The Atheist 3rd March 2016 06:34 PM

Me too, but since that can't happen, locking Oscar up for a very long time would be appropriate.

trustbutverify 3rd March 2016 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desert Fox (Post 11157628)
I would far prefer Steenkamp was alive and Pistorius never fired into the bathroom.

Who doesn't?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.