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)

lionking 8th December 2015 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11019675)
I see no doubt he is innocent of murder in the widely held sense of the word. The lynch mob is wrongfully sated.

You are wrong. Pistorius is a murderer. Your opinion changes nothing.

Desert Fox 8th December 2015 12:36 PM

Just curious, how big was the bathroom if anybody knows?
Has there been any recreations done?

Edit:
He was given bail
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35034292

Samson 8th December 2015 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 11019768)
You are wrong. Pistorius is a murderer. Your opinion changes nothing.

No one I meet agrees with me, to be fair to your point of view, and I would probably agree with you if he lobbed in a hand grenade he was a murderer. The issue here is I think he considered them as plausibly warning shots, and killing was not front and center in his mind. He was a gun nut.

Samson 8th December 2015 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desert Fox (Post 11019946)
Just curious, how big was the bathroom if anybody knows?
Has there been any recreations done?

Edit:
He was given bail
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35034292

There are quite a few pictures in this link, the conclusion may well be drawn that he imagined an intruder standing in a position where the 4 bullets would not strike. They were uni directional.

https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=os...sm=93&ie=UTF-8

GlennB 8th December 2015 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11020221)
There are quite a few pictures in this link, the conclusion may well be drawn that he imagined an intruder standing in a position where the 4 bullets would not strike. They were uni directional.

My arse they were. And the toilet was small enough that *any* shot could be expected to hit anybody within. Plus the bullets were not generic bullets.

newyorkguy 8th December 2015 03:58 PM

To make it clearer, below is a cutaway diagram of the Pistorius apartment. The step-by-step is based on Oscar Pistorius' account.



Metullus 8th December 2015 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11020221)
There are quite a few pictures in this link, the conclusion may well be drawn that he imagined an intruder standing in a position where the 4 bullets would not strike. They were uni directional.

https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=os...sm=93&ie=UTF-8

Where do you think an intruder could have been hiding? Look at the pictures and tell us where an intruder could have been hiding and not be in the line of fire.

Metullus 8th December 2015 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyorkguy (Post 11020366)
To make it clearer, below is a cutaway diagram of the Pistorius apartment. The step-by-step is based on Oscar Pistorius' account.



The WC in the drawing looks somewhat larger than what is shown in the photos I linked to above. Looking at the photos I really have a hard time seeing how he could have missed hitting someone who was in the WC.

Bob001 8th December 2015 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11020202)
No one I meet agrees with me, to be fair to your point of view, and I would probably agree with you if he lobbed in a hand grenade he was a murderer. The issue here is I think he considered them as plausibly warning shots, and killing was not front and center in his mind. He was a gun nut.

Okay, if he was firing "warning" shots, wouldn't he have preceded them with a verbal warning, along the lines of "Who's there? I have a gun!" Might he also have done something like take cover, and order the intruder to come out slowly? Might he also have aimed his "warning" shots toward the ceiling? But he himself never made such claims. His own story is "Intruder, noise, shoot." Does that make much sense?

I also must confess my worldly inexperience in that I have never slept in a bed so large that I wouldn't notice whether or not someone was in it with me, especially if I was worried about her safety. That doesn't make much sense either. My first thought would be to get her out of danger, starting with waking her up ("Honey, there's somebody in the bathroom. Call for help while I keep him trapped."). By now Pistorius probably believes his own story. But it's not supported by logic or reason.

Bob001 8th December 2015 04:41 PM

A question here: Did P.'s alarm system (I assume he must have had one) have a panic button? If so, is there any evidence that he hit it before the shooting, if ever?

LondonJohn 8th December 2015 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metullus (Post 11020413)
The WC in the drawing looks somewhat larger than what is shown in the photos I linked to above. Looking at the photos I really have a hard time seeing how he could have missed hitting someone who was in the WC.


Yep - that cutaway diagram provided by newyorkguy is inaccurate and misrepresentative in almost every way - quite impressively so, really!

Here is the actual layout of the bathroom and bedroom area:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7833ff2718.gif

That's from the floor plan presented in the court.

You can see that in fact, the toilet room is a good deal smaller than in nyg's cutaway. In addition, the toilet itself is at right angles to the door (rather than facing the door as per nyg's cutaway), and the door is on the right of the room as seen from outside the door (nyg's cutaway has the door on the left hand side).

On top of all that, the nyg cutaway also gets completely wrong the relationship between the bedroom and the various sub-rooms of the bathroom, the position and orientation of the bed, and the position and orientation of the balcony and balcony doors. In fact, just about the ONLY thing the nyg cutaway has managed to place accurately is the corner bath*! :rolleyes:

*ETA: nope, that's in the wrong position too (though in the right position relative to the toilet room and shower cubicle)

LondonJohn 8th December 2015 06:41 PM

And, by the way, the proper floor plans, together with photos of the toilet room, show that if someone was standing in that room behind the closed door, then there really is only a matter of a few square feet in which that person could be standing (i.e. the small area of floor in front of the toilet). And that small area is directly behind the door to that toilet room, from the perspective of someone standing outside the toilet room.

Therefore, anyone who knew the layout of that room (i.e. Pistorius) would also know that unless the person behind the door was actually sitting on the toilet (or standing on the toilet?), the person would have to be situated right behind the door.

It's my belief that Steenkamp ran away from Pistorius with her phone in hand, and locked herself in the toilet room. I think Pistorius pursued her (he would have been slower, since he was on his stumps, so by the time he arrived outside the door, she would already have locked herself in). I think there was probably a short continuation of the argument (which had started and escalated in the bedroom), at which point Steenkamp informed Pistorius that she was going to phone for help - either from family/friend or from the police. I think that this is what enraged Pistorius to fire his gun. And I think that Pistorius was 100% aware that Steenkamp must have been standing directly behind the door (from his perspective). I think he aimed and shot deliberately to hit Steenkamp.

Samson 8th December 2015 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonJohn (Post 11020585)
And, by the way, the proper floor plans, together with photos of the toilet room, show that if someone was standing in that room behind the closed door, then there really is only a matter of a few square feet in which that person could be standing (i.e. the small area of floor in front of the toilet). And that small area is directly behind the door to that toilet room, from the perspective of someone standing outside the toilet room.

Therefore, anyone who knew the layout of that room (i.e. Pistorius) would also know that unless the person behind the door was actually sitting on the toilet (or standing on the toilet?), the person would have to be situated right behind the door.

It's my belief that Steenkamp ran away from Pistorius with her phone in hand, and locked herself in the toilet room. I think Pistorius pursued her (he would have been slower, since he was on his stumps, so by the time he arrived outside the door, she would already have locked herself in). I think there was probably a short continuation of the argument (which had started and escalated in the bedroom), at which point Steenkamp informed Pistorius that she was going to phone for help - either from family/friend or from the police. I think that this is what enraged Pistorius to fire his gun. And I think that Pistorius was 100% aware that Steenkamp must have been standing directly behind the door (from his perspective). I think he aimed and shot deliberately to hit Steenkamp.

This theory excludes an account that realistically explains the empty bladder, if we believe the autopsy.

newyorkguy 8th December 2015 07:35 PM

In a court of law the fact of Steenkamp's "empty bladder" would only prove she had apparently urinated very soon before she was shot. How soon and the circumstances are not known. Although I guess I agree that during a heated confrontation she'd probably be unlikely to urinate there are many other explanations that seem just as plausible. Example: Following an angry encounter Steenkamp retreats to the bathroom and locks herself in. Pistorius follows her to the door and demands she exit the bathroom. She refuses. He warns her, "I can't take this anymore! Are you coming out or not?" She refuses. He completely loses it and goes to get his handgun. After she hears him walk away she mistakenly concludes the fight is over and she...

But moments later she hears him re-approaching. :(

Also, South Africa's high crime rate has been cited to support the idea Pistorius had good reason to be concerned about a home invasion. But South Africa's high rate of domestic abuse supports the idea Steenkamp had good reason to fear Oscar Pistorius.

Quote:

Reeva Steenkamp, the model and law graduate shot and killed by Oscar Pistorius, was statistically just one of three women killed on Valentine's Day by an intimate partner, according to a study on violence against women that damns South Africa as having "the highest rate ever reported in research anywhere in the world." Link to Huffington Post article

lionking 8th December 2015 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonJohn (Post 11020585)
And, by the way, the proper floor plans, together with photos of the toilet room, show that if someone was standing in that room behind the closed door, then there really is only a matter of a few square feet in which that person could be standing (i.e. the small area of floor in front of the toilet). And that small area is directly behind the door to that toilet room, from the perspective of someone standing outside the toilet room.

Therefore, anyone who knew the layout of that room (i.e. Pistorius) would also know that unless the person behind the door was actually sitting on the toilet (or standing on the toilet?), the person would have to be situated right behind the door.

It's my belief that Steenkamp ran away from Pistorius with her phone in hand, and locked herself in the toilet room. I think Pistorius pursued her (he would have been slower, since he was on his stumps, so by the time he arrived outside the door, she would already have locked herself in). I think there was probably a short continuation of the argument (which had started and escalated in the bedroom), at which point Steenkamp informed Pistorius that she was going to phone for help - either from family/friend or from the police. I think that this is what enraged Pistorius to fire his gun. And I think that Pistorius was 100% aware that Steenkamp must have been standing directly behind the door (from his perspective). I think he aimed and shot deliberately to hit Steenkamp.

I completely agree with this scenario.

katy_did 9th December 2015 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11020604)
This theory excludes an account that realistically explains the empty bladder, if we believe the autopsy.

There's also no evidence to positively support it, aside from incredulity that he couldn't not have noticed Reeva in bed, which is why it's such a dead end when it comes to discussion!

I could say that Pistorius always had a plan to kill Reeva that night, so he got up after she fell asleep, hid in the shower cubicle with his gun, and when she got up to go to the toilet, he shot her through the door. At least that explains her empty bladder, and why security didn't notice any activity in the house when they went past at 2 a.m. - Reeva was asleep, Pistorius was of course hiding in the shower cubicle in the dark.

lionking 9th December 2015 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by katy_did (Post 11020934)
There's also no evidence to positively support it, aside from incredulity that he couldn't not have noticed Reeva in bed, which is why it's such a dead end when it comes to discussion!

I could say that Pistorius always had a plan to kill Reeva that night, so he got up after she fell asleep, hid in the shower cubicle with his gun, and when she got up to go to the toilet, he shot her through the door. At least that explains her empty bladder, and why security didn't notice any activity in the house when they went past at 2 a.m. - Reeva was asleep, Pistorius was of course hiding in the shower cubicle in the dark.

Possible, but more likely is the scenario that they had an argument, Reeva went to the toilet and was killed in a violent rage. The problem with your scenario is that Reeva somehow didn't notice Oscar's absence from the bed when she went to the toilet.

Samson 9th December 2015 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 11021013)
Possible, but more likely is the scenario that they had an argument, Reeva went to the toilet and was killed in a violent rage. The problem with your scenario is that Reeva somehow didn't notice Oscar's absence from the bed when she went to the toilet.

Of course this is the heart of the matter, yet all wrongful crime narratives are confounded by outlying data points. In this case the empty bladder gets me 90% to accepting that Oscar is telling the whole truth. The blackout curtains get me to 99%. Everything else is explained by a gun nut embracing his big moment. I reckon the adrenaline surge as the first shot went accounts for the next three. Remember it was bang......bang bang bang. In one of the great confusions in crime history this was repeated with the cricket bat. Look forward to a post modern interpretation.

katy_did 9th December 2015 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 11021013)
Possible, but more likely is the scenario that they had an argument, Reeva went to the toilet and was killed in a violent rage. The problem with your scenario is that Reeva somehow didn't notice Oscar's absence from the bed when she went to the toilet.

Why does it matter whether Reeva noticed Oscar's absence from the bed or not?

Another possibility is that Reeva threw Oscar's legs out the bathroom window and this is what sparked his murderous rage, and neatly explains why he was on his stumps when he shot her. He must have gone outside to retrieve them post-shooting but prior to calling for help.

newyorkguy 9th December 2015 05:06 AM

The only facts that are truly known are that Pistorius fired four shots into the bathroom or water closet and killed Reeva Steenkamp. To say that Steenkamp urinating shortly before being shot to death rules out the possibility that Pistorius is guilty of willful murder seems to be a stretch. Cited are the many wrongful convictions we all know about or at least suspect. But the reverse is true as well; sometimes the person turns out to be rightfully convicted. People do lie under oath.

I always think of the Dan White case in the U.S. White killed two political rivals in San Francisco's City Hall in an incident many years ago. White maintained it wasn't premeditated that he had just snapped. Many people believed him and argued passionately in his defense. Others insisted White was lying, that he had planned the whole thing. A jury accepted his story and he was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to seven years in prison. After he served his sentence -- and was protected from being tried again -- White admitted the killings had been completely premeditated.

:(

Samson 9th December 2015 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyorkguy (Post 11021068)
The only facts that are truly known are that Pistorius fired four shots into the bathroom or water closet and killed Reeva Steenkamp. To say that Steenkamp urinating shortly before being shot to death rules out the possibility that Pistorius is guilty of willful murder seems to be a stretch. Cited are the many wrongful convictions we all know about or at least suspect. But the reverse is true as well; sometimes the person turns out to be rightfully convicted. People do lie under oath.

I always think of the Dan White case in the U.S. White killed two political rivals in San Francisco's City Hall in an incident many years ago. White maintained it wasn't premeditated that he had just snapped. Many people believed him and argued passionately in his defense. Others insisted White was lying, that he had planned the whole thing. A jury accepted his story and he was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to seven years in prison. After he served his sentence -- and was protected from being tried again -- White admitted the killings had been completely premeditated.

:(

In the Pistorius case we are also challenged to explain motive with capital M. We must seek cases where complete certainty of discovery of guilt, alongside extreme wealth are present. This is the case in a premeditating Oscar.

GlennB 9th December 2015 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11021035)
Of course this is the heart of the matter, yet all wrongful crime narratives are confounded by outlying data points. In this case the empty bladder gets me 90% to accepting that Oscar is telling the whole truth. The blackout curtains get me to 99%.

He claimed to have been fetching fans from the balcony when he first heard noises in the bathroom. The story is the curtains were open at that point, allowing in at least some light from the street. Pistorius merely argued about how far open the curtains were, not that they were closed.

Samson 9th December 2015 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 11021076)
He claimed to have been fetching fans from the balcony when he first heard noises in the bathroom. The story is the curtains were open at that point, allowing in at least some light from the street. Pistorius merely argued about how far open the curtains were, not that they were closed.

I can't be certain that you are wrong, but I am convinced by his narrative. We might also study this thread for evidence anyone has changed their opinion. I can see no such evidence, so a deeper study is called for, maybe in a new thread. Why are there two sets of facts?

katy_did 9th December 2015 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 11021076)
He claimed to have been fetching fans from the balcony when he first heard noises in the bathroom. The story is the curtains were open at that point, allowing in at least some light from the street. Pistorius merely argued about how far open the curtains were, not that they were closed.

I'm pretty sure he said he'd already brought the fans in and closed the curtains at the point where he heard the noise.

GlennB 9th December 2015 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by katy_did (Post 11021084)
I'm pretty sure he said he'd already brought the fans in and closed the curtains at the point where he heard the noise.

Well, I refreshed my memory earlier and found things like:

14.26 In his closing statements Nel summed up Pistorius's version of events: the police must have moved the fans, placed the duvet on the floor and opened the curtains further than they were.

My bolding. But Pistorius had just been outside and exposed to the (still on) balcony light, so totally closing the blackout curtains when his eyes were somewhat adapted to light strikes me as a good way of effectively blinding yourself for a while.

Hard Cheese 9th December 2015 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metullus (Post 11020413)
The WC in the drawing looks somewhat larger than what is shown in the photos I linked to above. Looking at the photos I really have a hard time seeing how he could have missed hitting someone who was in the WC.

There are more detailed floor plans of the bathroom in some of the other images, you can work out that the cubicle is 1.495 x 1.420 m.

It looks like the only possibility of *not* hitting the occupant (if OP was shooting at the centre of the door) was if they were sitting on the toilet..but even then I'd imagine that would be a matter of luck in a cubicle that size.

Hard Cheese 9th December 2015 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 11020441)
Okay, if he was firing "warning" shots, wouldn't he have preceded them with a verbal warning, along the lines of "Who's there? I have a gun!

He is supposed to have screamed at the intruder to get out of his house as he went towards the bathroom. But then I don't see how he explains why not only did the "intruder" say nothing in response, but Reeva, in his mind back in the bed, remains quiet through all this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 11020441)
I also must confess my worldly inexperience in that I have never slept in a bed so large that I wouldn't notice whether or not someone was in it with me,

Even if he had a King sized bed, where it might be plausible to not sense/feel the person next to you, his story is barely credible. Not only did he leave the bed to get the fan, he had to come back to it to rummage underneath it to get the gun, and then walk past the end of it to get to the bathroom. All without noticing the occupant (even a shape in the dark), and supposedly through all this said occupant doesn't wake up, move, make a sound, or say a word.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 11020441)
That doesn't make much sense either. My first thought would be to get her out of danger, starting with waking her up

Exactly. If your intention is to protect a loved one, to the point where you are willing to take on an intruder in total darkness whilst in fear of your life, the first thing you do is make sure they are actually safe.

Metullus 9th December 2015 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11021075)
In the Pistorius case we are also challenged to explain motive with capital M. We must seek cases where complete certainty of discovery of guilt, alongside extreme wealth are present. This is the case in a premeditating Oscar.

Motive is that he was angry, that they had a fight. Not really a challenge at all.

It is certain that Pistorius fired four rounds through a door behind which he knew there was someone. We know this from his own testimony. It is certain that there was no immediate threat to Pistorius - this, too, we know from his own testimony. The suggestion that he did so not expecting to hit the person is ludicrous given the dimensions of the WC. While it is possible that he did not know that it was Keeva in the WC I do not think that it is plausible. The condition of her bladder is irrelevant.

There is no doubt - he fired his gun through the WC door with the intent of killing or injuring whoever it was that was in there.

lionking 9th December 2015 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metullus (Post 11021615)
Motive is that he was angry, that they had a fight. Not really a challenge at all.

It is certain that Pistorius fired four rounds through a door behind which he knew there was someone. We know this from his own testimony. It is certain that there was no immediate threat to Pistorius - this, too, we know from his own testimony. The suggestion that he did so not expecting to hit the person is ludicrous given the dimensions of the WC. While it is possible that he did not know that it was Keeva in the WC I do not think that it is plausible. The condition of her bladder is irrelevant.

There is no doubt - he fired his gun through the WC door with the intent of killing or injuring whoever it was that was in there.

Plus he has a history of impulsive violence.

Desert Fox 9th December 2015 12:08 PM

While I believe that Pistorius most likely shot his girlfriend in anger, I don't think that is provable "beyond a reasonable doubt."

This is why the court tried to divorce themselves from that but instead look at the situation, assuming that he thought it might have been somebody else in the bathroom. It sounds like the upper court decided that even in that case, it is considered murder.

Metullus 9th December 2015 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desert Fox (Post 11021744)
While I believe that Pistorius most likely shot his girlfriend in anger, I don't think that is provable "beyond a reasonable doubt."

What is true beyond a reasonable doubt is that he unlawfully killed her.

Desert Fox 9th December 2015 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metullus (Post 11021871)
What is true beyond a reasonable doubt is that he unlawfully killed her.

I agree with that.

LondonJohn 9th December 2015 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese (Post 11021572)
He is supposed to have screamed at the intruder to get out of his house as he went towards the bathroom. But then I don't see how he explains why not only did the "intruder" say nothing in response, but Reeva, in his mind back in the bed, remains quiet through all this.

Even if he had a King sized bed, where it might be plausible to not sense/feel the person next to you, his story is barely credible. Not only did he leave the bed to get the fan, he had to come back to it to rummage underneath it to get the gun, and then walk past the end of it to get to the bathroom. All without noticing the occupant (even a shape in the dark), and supposedly through all this said occupant doesn't wake up, move, make a sound, or say a word.

Exactly. If your intention is to protect a loved one, to the point where you are willing to take on an intruder in total darkness whilst in fear of your life, the first thing you do is make sure they are actually safe.


Quite. And Pistorius did in fact try to claim in his story that he was very concerned about protecting Steenkamp from this mythical "intruder".

So, with that in mind, let's check on Pistorius' version again. He claims that he heard noises from the bathroom area and indentified human activity there, which he took to be an intruder (since he assumed Steenkamp was lying in bed). So:

1) Wouldn't many rational people at this point - if they were assuming there was a (potentially very dangerous and even armed) intruder entering their house, with their partner (as far as they assumed) lying within touching distance of them in bed - rouse the sleeping partner and whisper something like "I think there's somebody in the house. Call the police and stay in here, I'm going to investigate"?

2) Even if (1) above didn't happen, let's imagine that things developed to a point (as per Pistorius' story) where he was advancing on the bathroom area shouting loudly at the intruder to "get the F out of my house". Given that such shouting and commotion would have almost certainly woken and startled the partner whom he assumed was lying in his bed, wouldn't most rational people have also shouted something like "Reeva! Stay in there (or go downstairs) and call the police!"? At which point he would have received the reply from within the toilet along the lines of "Oscar! I'm in here! In the toilet! It's not an intruder in here!".

Frankly, Pistorius' story totally disintegrates the moment he pretends that one of the things uppermost in his mind was to protect Steenkamp. After all, had he genuinely been thinking about protecting her, I'd argue that it's highly likely that one or both of the above scenarios would have played out - and either of those scenarios would have informed Pistorius that Steenkamp wasn't actually in the bed but that it was her in the toilet room rather than any intruder. It's perhaps ironic that had Pistorius claimed in his defence that he hadn't stopped to consider Steenkamp's own safety, his (entirely mythical in fact) version of events might have been somewhat more plausible.

Samson 9th December 2015 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metullus (Post 11021615)
Motive is that he was angry, that they had a fight. Not really a challenge at all.

It is certain that Pistorius fired four rounds through a door behind which he knew there was someone. We know this from his own testimony. It is certain that there was no immediate threat to Pistorius - this, too, we know from his own testimony. The suggestion that he did so not expecting to hit the person is ludicrous given the dimensions of the WC. While it is possible that he did not know that it was Keeva in the WC I do not think that it is plausible. The condition of her bladder is irrelevant.

There is no doubt - he fired his gun through the WC door with the intent of killing or injuring whoever it was that was in there.

This is a case where the penalty and opprobrium should be determined mainly by intent. Intent to kill or scare Reeva or Intruder. Once we determine that, we can all equally make suggestions about the penalty.
I regard the empty bladder as a very strong indicator his story holds water, and I believe there is a way to resolve the question without considering any aspect of law. This is a solvable problem.

The Atheist 9th December 2015 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11022094)
This is a case where the penalty and opprobrium should be determined mainly by intent. Intent to kill or scare Reeva or Intruder.

Why do you insist intent be a reason?

You would require all western countries at least to amend the law, because the majority of them demand no more than the perpetrator being aware that actions are likely to result in death or serious injury.

Your idea is absurd and would result in lots of murderers walking free.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11022094)
I regard the empty bladder as a very strong indicator his story holds water,...

yes, very clever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11022094)
... and I believe there is a way to resolve the question without considering any aspect of law. This is a solvable problem.

Nobody cares and it isn't relevant.

As in NZ, under SA law, he's guilty, no matter who was in the bathroom, or even who he thought was in there.

Go ahead and work it out, but the rest of the world is satisfied that justice has been done. The appeal is just delaying the inevitable now.

trustbutverify 9th December 2015 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11022094)
This is a case where the penalty and opprobrium should be determined mainly by intent. Intent to kill or scare Reeva or Intruder. Once we determine that, we can all equally make suggestions about the penalty.
I regard the empty bladder as a very strong indicator his story holds water, and I believe there is a way to resolve the question without considering any aspect of law. This is a solvable problem.

Well, since I think the evidence is consistent with hot-blooded murder of an innocent human being, I'd say the maximum, or near maximum penalty is appropriate. But then again, I'm not invested in celebrity.

Scordatura 9th December 2015 11:35 PM

Oscar is out on bail and it looks like Roux is going to appeal to the Constitutional Court.

Quote:

Pistorius granted bail: summary

Oscar Pistorius will stay out of jail at least until he returns to court on 18 April 2016 after Judge Aubrey Ledwaba agreed that he should remain on bail, despite his fresh conviction for the murder of Reeva Steenkamp.

Bail was set at just 10,000 rand (less than £500), payable by Friday, after the defence said Pistorius had no money left.

Ledwaba said it would not be in the interests of justice to restrict Pistorius to house arrest at his uncle’s Pretoria home for 24 hours a day, as the state had requested, so allowed him to keep his current freedom to leave the house between 7am and midday every day.

He will be electronically tagged, and must keep within a 20km radius of the house and surrender his passport.

We also learned that the defence will submit an appeal to the constitutional court against the murder conviction.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/liv...d-to-jail-live

ETA: here's the bail affidavit:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/292616612/...fidavit#scribd

Samson 9th December 2015 11:58 PM

It is my hope that this thread can better analyse the immediate phone calls statements and actions after the tragedy to establish what happened. My view is that the SA system seems to continually show flexibility and intelligence. Things can be learned.

icerat 10th December 2015 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LondonJohn (Post 11021970)
Quite. And Pistorius did in fact try to claim in his story that he was very concerned about protecting Steenkamp from this mythical "intruder".

So, with that in mind, let's check on Pistorius' version again. He claims that he heard noises from the bathroom area and indentified human activity there, which he took to be an intruder (since he assumed Steenkamp was lying in bed). So:

1) Wouldn't many rational people at this point - if they were assuming there was a (potentially very dangerous and even armed) intruder entering their house, with their partner (as far as they assumed) lying within touching distance of them in bed - rouse the sleeping partner and whisper something like "I think there's somebody in the house. Call the police and stay in here, I'm going to investigate"?

1) he wasn't in the bed when he heard the "intruder"
2) he reportedly did whisper something like that to her

Quote:

2) Even if (1) above didn't happen, let's imagine that things developed to a point (as per Pistorius' story) where he was advancing on the bathroom area shouting loudly at the intruder to "get the F out of my house". Given that such shouting and commotion would have almost certainly woken and startled the partner whom he assumed was lying in his bed, wouldn't most rational people have also shouted something like "Reeva! Stay in there (or go downstairs) and call the police!"? At which point he would have received the reply from within the toilet along the lines of "Oscar! I'm in here! In the toilet! It's not an intruder in here!".
3) Assuming she heard, how would Reeva, in reality in the toilet, know that Oscar was referring to someone in the toilet? Wouldn't the intelligent thing be to stay quite and not attract the attention of the intruder? That's what I'd do. Maybe even try to carefully open the door so I can hear better what's going on ....

MikeG 10th December 2015 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samson (Post 11022094)
This is a case where the penalty and opprobrium should be determined mainly by intent. Intent to kill........

Exactly. When he pointed the gun, he intended to kill whoever was behind the door. It doesn't matter who it was, or what the state of their bladder was. When he decided to kill someone, anyone, behind a shut door, he was committing murder.

lionking 10th December 2015 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by icerat (Post 11022694)
1) he wasn't in the bed when he heard the "intruder"
2) he reportedly did whisper something like that to her



3) Assuming she heard, how would Reeva, in reality in the toilet, know that Oscar was referring to someone in the toilet? Wouldn't the intelligent thing be to stay quite and not attract the attention of the intruder? That's what I'd do. Maybe even try to carefully open the door so I can hear better what's going on ....

There is absolutely no evidence of this apart from Pistorius' self serving testimony.

Why didn't he, as a first order priority, establish the location of Reeva?

No, the guy is a proven violent hothead. And a murderer without doubt.

Hard Cheese 10th December 2015 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by icerat (Post 11022694)
3) Assuming she heard, how would Reeva, in reality in the toilet, know that Oscar was referring to someone in the toilet? Wouldn't the intelligent thing be to stay quite and not attract the attention of the intruder? That's what I'd do. Maybe even try to carefully open the door so I can hear better what's going on ....

I'd think it would be quite easy for her to determine where OP's voice was coming from, auditory clues would be a giveaway. He'd be coming down a narrow corridor, the sound waves of his voice would have entered the bathroom and bounced around off the hard reflective surfaces, giving it a very distinctive echo-ey sound. If he'd been addressing an intruder from the main bedroom, his voice would be muffled by the wall in-between, and there would be far more sound absorption from soft furnishings (the blackout curtains, the carpet, the bed, etc)

TofuFighter 10th December 2015 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeG (Post 11022714)
Exactly. When he pointed the gun, he intended to kill whoever was behind the door. It doesn't matter who it was, or what the state of their bladder was. When he decided to kill someone, anyone, behind a shut door, he was committing murder.

I don't think that's necessarily true. His testimony was:
"Then I heard a noise from inside the toilet, what I perceived to be somebody coming out of the toilet. Before I knew it, I fired four shots at the door."

Pointing a gun is not intent to kill. His testimony suggests that he did not make a decision to kill anyone.

MikeG 10th December 2015 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TofuFighter (Post 11022806)
I don't think that's necessarily true. His testimony was:
"Then I heard a noise from inside the toilet, what I perceived to be somebody coming out of the toilet. Before I knew it, I fired four shots at the door."

Pointing a gun is not intent to kill. His testimony suggests that he did not make a decision to kill anyone.

Is there a reason you can think of which might have led him to skew his testimony thus?

Never mind his testimony, look at his actions. Shooting through a door into a small cubicle can only be done with the intent to kill whoever is behind the door.

TofuFighter 10th December 2015 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeG (Post 11022818)
Is there a reason you can think of which might have led him to skew his testimony thus?

Never mind his testimony, look at his actions. Shooting through a door into a small cubicle can only be done with the intent to kill whoever is behind the door.

Yes, there is no telling how much of what he said was the truth.

I would say that if you are in a frantic state of mind, and suddenly startled and then pull the trigger, perhaps even involuntarily, there is no intent.

This is a person who was on his stumps, so it is conceivable that he felt vulnerable. That would need to be balanced, i guess, with the fact that he was at least somewhat familiar with guns.

newyorkguy 10th December 2015 05:13 AM

Quote:

"Then I heard a noise from inside the toilet, what I perceived to be somebody coming out of the toilet. Before I knew it, I fired four shots at the door."
This is actually damning testimony. Because he didn't just happen to have a handgun in his hand. When he thought he heard a noise -- he didn't see an intruder or hear their voice, this is all based on Pistorius thinking he'd heard "a noise" -- his response was to get a loaded handgun. Then he went to confront the person. That demonstrates his intent. He had other options. He had the means to avoid this situation. Instead he chose to arm himself and go confront whoever it was in his bathroom.

I'm sure from a legal standpoint this is all on him. He was the one who thought he heard "a noise." He was the one who then chose to go and arm himself with a loaded handgun. He was the one who failed to make contact with the other occupant of the apartment. He failed to take steps to ensure he didn't wind up shooting Steenkamp.

TofuFighter 10th December 2015 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyorkguy (Post 11022884)
This is actually damning testimony. Because he didn't just happen to have a handgun in his hand. When he thought he heard a noise -- he didn't see an intruder or hear their voice, this is all based on Pistorius thinking he'd heard "a noise" -- his response was to get a loaded handgun. Then he went to confront the person. That demonstrates his intent. He had other options. He had the means to avoid this situation. Instead he chose to arm himself and go confront whoever it was in his bathroom.

I'm sure from a legal standpoint this is all on him. He was the one who thought he heard "a noise." He was the one who then chose to go and arm himself with a loaded handgun. He was the one who failed to make contact with the other occupant of the apartment. He failed to take steps to ensure he didn't wind up shooting Steenkamp.

I don't see it exactly that way.

He heard a noise coming from the bathroom and armed himself. That does not demonstrate intent to kill.
He went towards the bathroom and noticed the window was open, thus supposedly confirming his suspicion of an intruder.

Yes, he had other options. I find it difficult to believe that hearing a noise at night when one is not expected, that someone would not go to investigate. That is what i do. Is it not what you would do? If i thought it was an intruder, i would try to take some kind of weapon with me to defend myself.

I don't disagree with much of the appeal judge's findings, but as i have previously mentioned, the ruling that Pistorius knew he was not in danger was puzzling for me.

lionking 10th December 2015 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TofuFighter (Post 11022906)
I don't see it exactly that way.

He heard a noise coming from the bathroom and armed himself. That does not demonstrate intent to kill.
He went towards the bathroom and noticed the window was open, thus supposedly confirming his suspicion of an intruder.

Yes, he had other options. I find it difficult to believe that hearing a noise at night when one is not expected, that someone would not go to investigate. That is what i do. Is it not what you would do? If i thought it was an intruder, i would try to take some kind of weapon with me to defend myself.

I don't disagree with much of the appeal judge's findings, but as i have previously mentioned, the ruling that Pistorius knew he was not in danger was puzzling for me.

Why do you make the highlighted comments? We only have Pistorius' word for it. The word of a hothead with a history of impulsive violence.

Scordatura 10th December 2015 12:37 PM

If we're going to start nitpicking Oscar's movements the night he murdered Reeva again then let me add something that I couldn't resolve. Oscar said when he brought the fan in from the balcony he closed the curtains around it. How exactly did that work in such a way that no light entered the room?

I tried it with my own similar fan and couldn't get the curtains to close completely around it; no matter how I finessed them there was always a substantial gap. If I closed the curtains behind it then the curtains got sucked into the back of the fan, closing off the airflow. If I closed them around the fan it left an inverted “V” which allowed light into the room. The only way to keep the room pitch black would be to use clips or pins to close the curtains above and below the fan, and Oscar didn't do that.

It's the sum of many little details that keep people scratching their heads over the events that night. Oscar “froze” when he heard the first noise but his personality was to “move towards the danger” yet when he faced the danger the gun just went off – four times – before he knew it. He didn't even bother to wait for any indication from Reeva that she was awake and heard him when he whispered to her to call the police. He screamed “Get the f out of my house!” but didn't give the intruder any time to actually do it. He didn't fire a warning shot because he was afraid it would ricochet and hit him but he shot because he didn't think at all. Even number one fan Masipa had trouble believing his bizarre claims and contradictory statements.

The Atheist 10th December 2015 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TofuFighter (Post 11022834)
I would say that if you are in a frantic state of mind, and suddenly startled and then pull the trigger, perhaps even involuntarily, there is no intent.

Pulling a trigger involuntarily four times would be abnormal.

Oscar is a gun nut. Gun nuts usually learn to use a gun properly, and one of the things you don't do is blaze shots off.

If it had been involuntary, I'd expect to see one or two shots and no more. The four is a deliberate action.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TofuFighter (Post 11022906)
I don't disagree with much of the appeal judge's findings, but as i have previously mentioned, the ruling that Pistorius knew he was not in danger was puzzling for me.

Wasn't the door locked?

He can't be in danger is the door is locked. He would hear it being unlocked before seeing the door even begin to open. I agree with the court that if someone has locked themselves in a bathroom, someone outside the bathroom cannot be in immediate danger.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:33 AM.

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