ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags murder cases , Oscar Pistorius , South Africa cases

Reply
Old 4th November 2014, 08:19 AM   #1
Skwinty
Philosopher
 
Skwinty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,593
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/
__________________


What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch.
--Lily Tomlin

Last edited by zooterkin; 9th November 2014 at 08:03 AM.
Skwinty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2014, 12:17 PM   #2
Scordatura
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA, near the Isle of Lucy
Posts: 383
Thanks for the link.

I see they're also appealing the verdict on the ammunition found in Oscar's safe.
Scordatura is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2014, 03:08 PM   #3
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,894
Originally Posted by Scordatura View Post
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.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2014, 07:53 AM   #4
Dissolution
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,306
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.
Dissolution is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2014, 07:58 AM   #5
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,337
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
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.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2014, 08:19 AM   #6
Dissolution
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,306
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
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.
Dissolution is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2014, 02:34 PM   #7
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,337
Originally Posted by Dissolution View Post
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.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2014, 10:45 PM   #8
MontagK505
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,035
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".
__________________
Self deception is the root of all evil.

Political correctness is linguistic Fascism. - P.D. James

Last edited by MontagK505; 9th November 2014 at 10:49 PM.
MontagK505 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2014, 11:01 PM   #9
This is The End
 
This is The End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,430
Putting a link to the wiki for the new thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Oscar_Pistorius
__________________
________________________
This is The End is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2014, 11:25 PM   #10
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,337
Originally Posted by MontagK505 View Post
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.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2014, 03:07 AM   #11
Dissolution
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,306
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
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.

Last edited by Dissolution; 10th November 2014 at 03:09 AM.
Dissolution is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2014, 04:02 AM   #12
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,337
Originally Posted by Dissolution View Post
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.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2014, 04:10 AM   #13
Dissolution
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,306
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
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.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
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.
Dissolution is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2014, 12:49 AM   #14
MontagK505
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,035
Originally Posted by Dissolution View Post
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.
__________________
Self deception is the root of all evil.

Political correctness is linguistic Fascism. - P.D. James

Last edited by MontagK505; 11th November 2014 at 12:51 AM.
MontagK505 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2014, 01:16 AM   #15
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,744
Originally Posted by MontagK505 View Post
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.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2014, 01:40 AM   #16
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,337
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
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.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2014, 03:53 AM   #17
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,107
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
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?
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2014, 04:06 AM   #18
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,744
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
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.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2014, 04:21 AM   #19
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,337
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
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.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2014, 04:23 AM   #20
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,107
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
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.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2014, 09:40 AM   #21
Dissolution
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,306
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
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.
Dissolution is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2014, 11:53 AM   #22
Ampulla of Vater
Master Poster
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 2,891
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
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?
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2014, 02:14 PM   #23
MontagK505
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,035
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
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".
__________________
Self deception is the root of all evil.

Political correctness is linguistic Fascism. - P.D. James
MontagK505 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th May 2015, 03:12 PM   #24
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,337
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
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

Last edited by Samson; 9th May 2015 at 03:42 PM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2015, 07:54 AM   #25
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 19,833
Oscar has (almost) done his time, it seems. He'll be released in August.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2015, 07:59 AM   #26
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,066
BBC World news just reported he'd be under house arrest, or "correctional supervision".

But the prosecution appeal against his (lenient) conviction still stands.
GlennB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2015, 10:30 AM   #27
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 19,833
It seems that not only is he still in gaol, but likely he'll remain there for some time. BBC
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2015, 01:10 PM   #28
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,337
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
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.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2015, 12:25 AM   #29
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,744
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
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.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2015, 05:20 AM   #30
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 5,888
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
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.
Matthew Best is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2015, 04:46 PM   #31
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 38,064
He's out. It pays to buy the best justice that is available.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2015, 07:05 PM   #32
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,337
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
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.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2015, 09:54 PM   #33
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 38,064
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
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.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2015, 01:48 PM   #34
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,337
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
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.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2015, 02:16 PM   #35
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,066
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
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.
GlennB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2015, 02:59 PM   #36
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,337
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
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.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2015, 05:02 PM   #37
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,150
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?
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2015, 05:40 PM   #38
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,337
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
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.

Last edited by Samson; 20th October 2015 at 05:42 PM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2015, 04:02 AM   #39
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,150
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.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2015, 04:54 AM   #40
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,337
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
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.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:11 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.