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)

Skwinty 4th November 2014 08:19 AM

Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - Part 2
 
Mod InfoThread continued from part 1.
Posted By:zooterkin




The prosecutions appeal papers here....

http://www.pod702.co.za/Eyewitnessne.../141104NPA.pdf



James Grant
‏@CriminalLawZA
For me, a desperately necessary appeal - the long road to Bloemfontein ahead.

ETA: http://criminallawza.net/2014/04/08/...blem-of-proof/

Scordatura 4th November 2014 12:17 PM

Thanks for the link.

I see they're also appealing the verdict on the ammunition found in Oscar's safe.

LondonJohn 4th November 2014 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scordatura (Post 10309017)
Thanks for the link.

I see they're also appealing the verdict on the ammunition found in Oscar's safe.


Yes, as indeed they should. This was, on the face of it, an even more dreadful (and inexplicable) error in law by Masipa, and one which should in itself raise huge questions as to her competency to serve as a criminal judge.

Essentially, Masipa ruled that there was no (required) animus on the part of Pistorius, when in fact the required animus was entirely proven by the fact that Pistorius - by his own admission! - knew exactly what it was that he was storing in his safe ("for his father" - well, yeah, right, but that's not strictly important here......). The only scenario here in which absence of animus could be shown would be if (for example) Pistorius could successfully claim that his father had given him a sealed package that he (his father) told him contained (say) jewellery (but which actually contained the ammunition in question), and asked him to store it in his safe for a while.

It's astonishing and extremely worrying that Masipa ruled an absence of animus on this charge, which in turn led directly to the acquittal. I think this should be a slam-dunk reversal and conviction on the charge. It's also my firm view that the prosecution is totally correct in its grounds for appeal on the murder charge, and that Masipa erred very badly in law here also. But I'd concede that the murder verdict appeal is a slightly less black-and-white issue - though I would expect a retrial on the murder charge.

Dissolution 5th November 2014 07:53 AM

Pistorius didn't even seem to have a defence against the ammo charge.
His father didn't testify and he didn't offer any other evidence to support his claims, but even if he had, he should still have been convicted.
Really bizarre decision.

Samson 5th November 2014 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonJohn (Post 10309329)
Yes, as indeed they should. This was, on the face of it, an even more dreadful (and inexplicable) error in law by Masipa, and one which should in itself raise huge questions as to her competency to serve as a criminal judge.

Essentially, Masipa ruled that there was no (required) animus on the part of Pistorius, when in fact the required animus was entirely proven by the fact that Pistorius - by his own admission! - knew exactly what it was that he was storing in his safe ("for his father" - well, yeah, right, but that's not strictly important here......). The only scenario here in which absence of animus could be shown would be if (for example) Pistorius could successfully claim that his father had given him a sealed package that he (his father) told him contained (say) jewellery (but which actually contained the ammunition in question), and asked him to store it in his safe for a while.

It's astonishing and extremely worrying that Masipa ruled an absence of animus on this charge, which in turn led directly to the acquittal. I think this should be a slam-dunk reversal and conviction on the charge. It's also my firm view that the prosecution is totally correct in its grounds for appeal on the murder charge, and that Masipa erred very badly in law here also. But I'd concede that the murder verdict appeal is a slightly less black-and-white issue - though I would expect a retrial on the murder charge.

I see no reason at all to challenge Masipa. It was necessary to be satisfied that Oscar's immediate account was consistent, and when prosecution failed to do so Masipa made the precisely correct call. All other testimony about gun and ammunition misuse becomes irrelevant.

Dissolution 5th November 2014 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 10310517)
I see no reason at all to challenge Masipa. It was necessary to be satisfied that Oscar's immediate account was consistent, and when prosecution failed to do so Masipa made the precisely correct call. All other testimony about gun and ammunition misuse becomes irrelevant.

Why does it become irrelevant?
Pistorius was in possession of ammunition that was illegal for him to have.
That's still a crime, whether he killed anyone or not.

Samson 9th November 2014 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dissolution (Post 10310542)
Why does it become irrelevant?
Pistorius was in possession of ammunition that was illegal for him to have.
That's still a crime, whether he killed anyone or not.

The charge of murder is very serious, whereas the other charges are more of the misdemeanour variety, offences often comitted but unexposed. This happens all the time, where previous misdemeanours are dragged forward to prejudice the jury against the defendant. This happened to Amanda Knox, who also did not murder.
All gun owners will at some time or other be guilty of misconduct, but not be called to account.

MontagK505 9th November 2014 10:45 PM

Oscar intended to kill someone when he fired 4 rounds through a closed door. The ammo he used to kill his girlfriend was illegal. This was no "accident".

This is The End 9th November 2014 11:01 PM

Putting a link to the wiki for the new thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Oscar_Pistorius

Samson 9th November 2014 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MontagK505 (Post 10317743)
Oscar intended to kill someone when he fired 4 rounds through a closed door. The ammo he used to kill his girlfriend was illegal. This was no "accident".

Good point in that context. I should have paid attention to the direct link between the ammunition possession offence and the death.

Dissolution 10th November 2014 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 10317221)
The charge of murder is very serious, whereas the other charges are more of the misdemeanour variety, offences often comitted but unexposed. This happens all the time, where previous misdemeanours are dragged forward to prejudice the jury against the defendant. This happened to Amanda Knox, who also did not murder.
All gun owners will at some time or other be guilty of misconduct, but not be called to account.

He committed an offence by being in possession of ammunition which he wasn't licensed to own.
Regardless of other offences he may have committed, I fail to see why he wouldn't be convicted for that one.

Could you please explain why convicting him for this offence would've been wrong, barring the fact that you don't think that is was very serious?
This is the .38 ammo which he claimed was his father's and not the hollow points used to kill Reeva Steenkamp, by the way.

Samson 10th November 2014 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dissolution (Post 10317841)
He committed an offence by being in possession of ammunition which he wasn't licensed to own.
Regardless of other offences he may have committed, I fail to see why he wouldn't be convicted for that one.

Could you please explain why convicting him for this offence would've been wrong, barring the fact that you don't think that is was very serious?
This is the .38 ammo which he claimed was his father's and not the hollow points used to kill Reeva Steenkamp, by the way.

I thought I just retracted in my previous post. I ate humble pie. Not tasty but good medicine.
My interest in the case is simply because I believed Oscar's account from day one. I regard motive as paramount, and when due process failed to demonstrate his account was wrong, I automatically question whether he is in danger of being a repeat offender, and I don't see a snowball's chance in hell of this, so punishment is purely designed to deter others from engaging in cavalier behaviour, rather than to "reform" Oscar.
Masipa had to incarcerate for the lynch mob, but absolutely no fiscal or moral benefit is achieved.

Dissolution 10th November 2014 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 10317871)
I thought I just retracted in my previous post. I ate humble pie. Not tasty but good medicine.

Your previous post retracted the claim about his use of hollow point ammunition, but he was also charged for possessing a completely different set of ammo, which he didn't and indeed couldn't use.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 10317871)
My interest in the case is simply because I believed Oscar's account from day one. I regard motive as paramount, and when due process failed to demonstrate his account was wrong, I automatically question whether he is in danger of being a repeat offender, and I don't see a snowball's chance in hell of this, so punishment is purely designed to deter others from engaging in cavalier behaviour, rather than to "reform" Oscar.
Masipa had to incarcerate for the lynch mob, but absolutely no fiscal or moral benefit is achieved.

I didn't and still don't believe his account and feel that he still should've been jailed, even if it were entirely true.
His actions were reckless and stupid, which appears to be exactly how he's acted with firearms since he decided to arm himself.

This was a man surrounded by armed guards in a walled off complex, who had a male live-in housekeeper and who was armed.
He had no reason to approach a room that he thought contained intruders and even less reason to fire repeatedly through a door into a small cubicle.
His claims of being in fear simply don't make sense when compared to his actions.

MontagK505 11th November 2014 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dissolution (Post 10317879)
His actions were reckless and stupid, which appears to be exactly how he's acted with firearms since he decided to arm himself.

This was a man surrounded by armed guards in a walled off complex, who had a male live-in housekeeper and who was armed.
He had no reason to approach a room that he thought contained intruders and even less reason to fire repeatedly through a door into a small cubicle.
His claims of being in fear simply don't make sense when compared to his actions.

Even if you accept Oscars story, he had a clear obligation to be sure of his target. While the prosecution failed to prove he knew it was her, I find his story about crawling on his stumps in total darkness toward what he claimed was danger, instead of staying where he could protect his girlfriend, to be absurd.

lionking 11th November 2014 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MontagK505 (Post 10319437)
Even if you accept Oscars story, he had a clear obligation to be sure of his target. While the prosecution failed to prove he knew it was her, I find his story about crawling on his stumps in total darkness toward what he claimed was danger, instead of staying where he could protect his girlfriend, to be absurd.

My position as well.

Samson 11th November 2014 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 10319454)
My position as well.

Not my position.
I have repeatedly said there is no motive.
It is theater of the absurd to suggest a man resolves a domestic dispute by killing his paramour in cold blood.
Lionking, get with the plot.
I have catalogued all the ridiculous cases one by one, but all I get from you is a furtherance of unbelievable crimes and scenarios.
I expect better of an an australasian.
Lindy Chamberlain was a normal mother whose beloved baby was taken by a native australian dog.

3point14 11th November 2014 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 10319469)
It is theater of the absurd to suggest a man resolves a domestic dispute by killing his paramour in cold blood.


Are you saying this doesn't happen?

lionking 11th November 2014 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 10319469)
Not my position.
I have repeatedly said there is no motive.
It is theater of the absurd to suggest a man resolves a domestic dispute by killing his paramour in cold blood.
Lionking, get with the plot.
I have catalogued all the ridiculous cases one by one, but all I get from you is a furtherance of unbelievable crimes and scenarios.
I expect better of an an australasian.
Lindy Chamberlain was a normal mother whose beloved baby was taken by a native australian dog.

I have a different opinion, shared by many. Stop these personal and off topic attacks.

Samson 11th November 2014 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3point14 (Post 10319541)
Are you saying this doesn't happen?

Yes, but become a judge to prove the opposite, I find it incomprehensible that people obey the call of authority to agree with a prosecution case that is a travesty here, just as I find it incomprehensible to agree with prosecuting Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, Susan Mellon, Sabrina Misseri, Cosima Misseri, Teina Pora, Shrien Dewani.

All the above are completely uninvolved in the crimes they have done jail time for.

Admittedly Pistorius is a careless but regretful member of the human race. He is doing time for his huge error.

3point14 11th November 2014 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 10319556)
Yes, but become a judge to prove the opposite, I find it incomprehensible that people obey the call of authority to agree with a prosecution case that is a travesty here, just as I find it incomprehensible to agree with prosecuting Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, Susan Mellon, Sabrina Misseri, Cosima Misseri, Teina Pora, Shrien Dewani.

All the above are completely uninvolved in the crimes they have done jail time for.

Admittedly Pistorius is a careless but regretful member of the human race. He is doing time for his huge error.


I don't understand the answer, but thanks.

Dissolution 11th November 2014 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 10319469)
Not my position.
I have repeatedly said there is no motive.
It is theater of the absurd to suggest a man resolves a domestic dispute by killing his paramour in cold blood.

It happens all the time, especially in hot tempered, jealous guys who have little respect for firearms, all of which appear to be boxes that Pistorius ticks.

I suspect that the motive could easily have been discovered on the locked mobile phone that his brother appears to have wiped by synchronising it with his computer.
It may even have been the discovery of his allegedly ongoing relationship with a girl that was believed to have been his ex, but who he had a phone conversation with on the night of the murder.

None of this could ever be proved now, of course, but his story simply doesn't make any sense and he committed a series of offences, regardless.
The idea that he should be let off now because he claims to be sorry is utterly ludicrous, frankly.
He killed someone, either by intent or by reckless action.
That's not a trivial matter, in my opinion.

Ampulla of Vater 11th November 2014 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 10319556)
Yes, but become a judge to prove the opposite, I find it incomprehensible that people obey the call of authority to agree with a prosecution case that is a travesty here, just as I find it incomprehensible to agree with prosecuting Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, Susan Mellon, Sabrina Misseri, Cosima Misseri, Teina Pora, Shrien Dewani.

All the above are completely uninvolved in the crimes they have done jail time for.

Admittedly Pistorius is a careless but regretful member of the human race. He is doing time for his huge error.

Is there anyone you believe to be guilty?

MontagK505 11th November 2014 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 10319556)
Yes, but become a judge to prove the opposite, I find it incomprehensible that people obey the call of authority to agree with a prosecution case that is a travesty here, just as I find it incomprehensible to agree with prosecuting Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, Susan Mellon, Sabrina Misseri, Cosima Misseri, Teina Pora, Shrien Dewani.

All the above are completely uninvolved in the crimes they have done jail time for.

Admittedly Pistorius is a careless but regretful member of the human race. He is doing time for his huge error.

Not enough time. I have stated the prosecution failed to prove Oscar knew it was Reeva behind the door. That doesn't make his story believable. What has been demonstrated is that Oscar consistently shows bad judgement. He clearly intended to kill somebody when he fired 4 hollow point rounds through a closed door. It amazes me you think his sentence is appropriate for his "error".

Samson 9th May 2015 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater (Post 10320182)
Is there anyone you believe to be guilty?

My position now tends to be that if someone has really committed murder, the case is easy to prove, there will be an inescapable connection to the crime. If there is doubt, and particularly if there is another perpetrator known to be involved, or that there is a plausible alternative explanation for each item of evidence, (and indeed there must be to find innocence), then the judge and jury are simply wrong, and the result is innocent people are tossed in jail to rot.
In the case of Pistorius, I could not understand the motive, but was surprised to find he was declared a premeditated killer universally by anyone I happened to discuss the case with. "Guilty as sin".
It is also worth remembering that Reeva was rather to very unlucky to be struck in the head.

Judge Masipa suffers the traditional punishment for disobeying the wishes of the people, seemingly always led by the families of victims.

She says

"I do not think the criticism was about me at all. It was about the outcome. Because people were expecting a different outcome, they were just expressing frustration. I don't think I'm stigmatised ... perhaps I am too naive about that."

http://www.breathecast.com/articles/...ecision-26856/

Meanwhile Oscar Pistorius is to be released in three months.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...ntaged-5669679

MikeG 8th June 2015 07:54 AM

Oscar has (almost) done his time, it seems. He'll be released in August.

GlennB 8th June 2015 07:59 AM

BBC World news just reported he'd be under house arrest, or "correctional supervision".

But the prosecution appeal against his (lenient) conviction still stands.

MikeG 5th October 2015 10:30 AM

It seems that not only is he still in gaol, but likely he'll remain there for some time. BBC

Samson 5th October 2015 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeG (Post 10911874)
It seems that not only is he still in gaol, but likely he'll remain there for some time. BBC

It would be interesting to conjecture his fate outside SA given the same circumstances. I share the judge's view it was an honest mistake. But one hell of a mistake. In NZ the possession of the gun would be so illegal that he would serve at least 6 years. IMO.

lionking 6th October 2015 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeG (Post 10911874)
It seems that not only is he still in gaol, but likely he'll remain there for some time. BBC

Good. He got off lightly the first time around. I'm certain SA will leave no stone unturned to see him serve a fair sentance.

Matthew Best 15th October 2015 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 10913066)
Good. He got off lightly the first time around. I'm certain SA will leave no stone unturned to see him serve a fair sentance.

Leaving prison on Tuesday, reports the BBC.

a_unique_person 19th October 2015 04:46 PM

He's out. It pays to buy the best justice that is available.

Samson 19th October 2015 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a_unique_person (Post 10937016)
He's out. It pays to buy the best justice that is available.

Judge Masipa has also sentenced a man to 60 odd years for rape. I doubt she is for sale.

a_unique_person 19th October 2015 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 10937188)
Judge Masipa has also sentenced a man to 60 odd years for rape. I doubt she is for sale.

I doubt that man had access to the same lawyers Pistorious did.

Samson 20th October 2015 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a_unique_person (Post 10937373)
I doubt that man had access to the same lawyers Pistorious did.

Masipa concluded correctly the shooting was a tragic accident as did the owner of this forum, which is relevant mainly because he is a sharp analyst.

GlennB 20th October 2015 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 10938557)
Masipa concluded correctly the shooting was a tragic accident as did the owner of this forum, which is relevant mainly because he is a sharp analyst.

Looks like a lot of assertion you got going there, buddy.

Samson 20th October 2015 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 10938593)
Looks like a lot of assertion you got going there, buddy.

Have you tried beating a crooked lying prosecutor? They usually win, and that jerk is still trying. The SA judges are good, especially the girls. Pistorius told one story and it never varied because it is the truth.

newyorkguy 20th October 2015 05:02 PM

I agree with those who argue Pistorius' story did not ring true. Not even ballpark and we have already discussed why and in detail. And let's remember, Pistorius was not found Not Guilty either; he was found guilty of culpable homicide which South African law defines as "the unlawful negligent killing of a human being."

Which was as much as the evidence would support. What kind of evidence would the police have been likely to find to prove deliberate murder? Pistorius admits he's the killer, he fired the shots. But why? What was he thinking? I can see only two ways the police and prosecutor could prove Pistorius meant to kill Reeva Steenkamp. One would be eye witness testimony. Say a guest in their home. But there were only two witnesses to the events that unfolded in the early hours of February 14th 2013. One witness was Pistorius; the other witness was the victim, the person killed by Pistorius. The other way to prove it was deliberate murder was if Pistorius had made incriminating statements. He never did.

So that pretty much leaves a verdict of culpable homicide: Even if Pistorius really did think there was an intruder in his bathroom, he instead wound up killing a totally innocent person. If that's not negligence what would be?

Samson 20th October 2015 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyorkguy (Post 10938846)
I agree with those who argue Pistorius' story did not ring true. Not even ballpark and we have already discussed why and in detail. And let's remember, Pistorius was not found Not Guilty either; he was found guilty of culpable homicide which South African law defines as "the unlawful negligent killing of a human being."

Which was as much as the evidence would support. What kind of evidence would the police have been likely to find to prove deliberate murder? Pistorius admits he's the killer, he fired the shots. But why? What was he thinking? I can see only two ways the police and prosecutor could prove Pistorius meant to kill Reeva Steenkamp. One would be eye witness testimony. Say a guest in their home. But there were only two witnesses to the events that unfolded in the early hours of February 14th 2013. One witness was Pistorius; the other witness was the victim, the person killed by Pistorius. The other way to prove it was deliberate murder was if Pistorius had made incriminating statements. He never did.

So that pretty much leaves a verdict of culpable homicide: Even if Pistorius really did think there was an intruder in his bathroom, he instead wound up killing a totally innocent person. If that's not negligence what would be?

The evidence would be proof he knew she wasn't in the bed. But the answer is obvious. He was concentrating on getting to the intruder in silence, to ambush him. Thus he focused on gun requisition and stalking the hallway, and certainly would not risk alerting the intruder by saying a word to Reeva in a silent house at 3 am. He shoots from a wide angle because that is the earliest he can prove his point, the intruder is busted, and he better not mess with Oscar.
The problem for the prosecutor is to explain any part of this if Oscar knows Reeva is in the toilet. Apart from anything there is no earthly motive suggested.

newyorkguy 21st October 2015 04:02 AM

If there were no other witnesses present what kind of evidence could the police find to "prove" Pistorius didn't know it was Steenkamp in the bathroom? There isn't going to be any evidence. Turn it around. What evidence is there that he didn't know she was in the bathroom? His statement to that effect? That's not much.

If he was hyper alert -- a stranger in the house -- how did he miss Steenkamp getting out of bed and going into the bathroom? Why did she do that? His story makes little sense but...no tangible evidence to prove he's a liar. Only a killer. :(

Samson 21st October 2015 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyorkguy (Post 10939470)
If there were no other witnesses present what kind of evidence could the police find to "prove" Pistorius didn't know it was Steenkamp in the bathroom? There isn't going to be any evidence. Turn it around. What evidence is there that he didn't know she was in the bathroom? His statement to that effect? That's not much.

If he was hyper alert -- a stranger in the house -- how did he miss Steenkamp getting out of bed and going into the bathroom? Why did she do that? His story makes little sense but...no tangible evidence to prove he's a liar. Only a killer. :(

I relied on Icerat in the first instance, and then Leila Schnepps crafted an identical analysis independently. Then did Masipa.
Essentially he was on the balcony when Reeva went to the bathroom. He detected an intruder, and became singularly focussed on protecting himself and Reeva from the intruder. Surely you can see this makes all sense, and killing a girl friend in cold blood when he is the only possible suspect makes no sense. Empty your mind, and start again.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.