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 21st October 2015, 06:02 PM   #41
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,191
I don't know to an absolute certainty that Pistorius deliberately shot and killed his girlfriend. His version just does not ring true to me. With his girlfriend in the house, overhearing someone in the bathroom, his immediate determination to kill them, without ever wondering even for a moment, "Could it be Reeva?" I'm sorry I have trouble believing that. In fact I can't even begin to believe that. Yet I realize there is always that small chance that was what happened. I know statistically it is a lot more likely that they quarreled and then he reacted in a very stupid but somewhat common way: he lost his temper and, in a fit of rage, he tried to hurt her. If that was what happened, what explanation could he offer to try avoid being charged with premeditated murder? In that situation 'I thought it was an intruder,' is about the only explanation he could offer.

This is in his own words:
Quote:
“I believed someone had entered my house,” he said in the affidavit. “I grabbed my 9-millimeter pistol from underneath my bed. On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police. It was pitch dark in the bedroom, and I thought Reeva was in bed.”

Walking on his stumps, he heard the sound of movement inside the toilet, a small room within the bathroom. “It filled me with horror and fear of an intruder,” he said. “I did not have my prosthetic legs on and felt extremely vulnerable. I knew I had to protect Reeva and myself.”

He fired four shots, then hobbled over to the bedroom, screaming for Reeva to call the police. But when he got back to the bed, she was not there. “That is when it dawned on me that it could have been Reeva who was in the toilet,” he said. News link

He's now a convicted murderer. Convicted of what we in the U.S. call involuntary manslaughter, what South Africa calls culpable homicide. Whatever he did he has to live with it.
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, 09:52 PM   #42
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,381
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
I don't know to an absolute certainty that Pistorius deliberately shot and killed his girlfriend. His version just does not ring true to me. With his girlfriend in the house, overhearing someone in the bathroom, his immediate determination to kill them, without ever wondering even for a moment, "Could it be Reeva?" I'm sorry I have trouble believing that. In fact I can't even begin to believe that. Yet I realize there is always that small chance that was what happened. I know statistically it is a lot more likely that they quarreled and then he reacted in a very stupid but somewhat common way: he lost his temper and, in a fit of rage, he tried to hurt her. If that was what happened, what explanation could he offer to try avoid being charged with premeditated murder? In that situation 'I thought it was an intruder,' is about the only explanation he could offer.

This is in his own words:



He's now a convicted murderer. Convicted of what we in the U.S. call involuntary manslaughter, what South Africa calls culpable homicide. Whatever he did he has to live with it.
Thank you for his words, that in fact help me believe his story. That is the nature of things, few change their minds easily. But I doubted the police theory immediately, taking the simplistic view that rich people don't ruin their own lives on a whim, which was the stone cold certainty as soon as he fired a bullet if he knew she was in there. No, I believe his story. Every way I look at it I get the same conclusion, and that the state is now engaged in a malicious face saving prosecution.
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, 11:51 PM   #43
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,886
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.
This is one of the silliest posts I've read in a long time, perhaps ever.

I await Icerat's decision to jump off a tall building to see if you follow suit.....
__________________
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 22nd October 2015, 12:18 AM   #44
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: 38,149
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Thank you for his words, that in fact help me believe his story. That is the nature of things, few change their minds easily. But I doubted the police theory immediately, taking the simplistic view that rich people don't ruin their own lives on a whim, which was the stone cold certainty as soon as he fired a bullet if he knew she was in there. No, I believe his story. Every way I look at it I get the same conclusion, and that the state is now engaged in a malicious face saving prosecution.
That does not explain how someone convicted of what he was convicted of gets special treatment like being released after a year. I doubt many people would get that consideration.
__________________
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 22nd October 2015, 03:02 AM   #45
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,381
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
That does not explain how someone convicted of what he was convicted of gets special treatment like being released after a year. I doubt many people would get that consideration.
Except he successfully defended his girl friend from endangerment from an evil intruder.
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 22nd October 2015, 03:59 AM   #46
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,886
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Except he successfully defended his girl friend from endangerment from an evil intruder.
Have you even been following this case? Oscar got out of his bed, armed himself, walked around the bed when it was illuminated without noticing the love of his life wasn't actually in bed?

I know I should ignore trolling posts, but "defended his girl friend"? No, murdering her. And he will be convicted on appeal.
__________________
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 22nd October 2015, 04:02 AM   #47
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,191
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Thank you for his words, that in fact help me believe his story...
I'm very surprised you hadn't read his statement. To be clear, he didn't defend his girlfriend, he killed her. That's a big difference. There was no intruder. The only danger to Reeva Steenkamp was from Oscar Pistorius. She herself had said she was afraid of him at times. Afraid of his temper, of the way he reacted. Please remember, the victim in this case is Reeva Steenkamp, not Oscar Pistorius.

Rich people don't ruin their lives on a whim? They do. When people become very angry, regardless of how well off they are, they often behave irrationally.
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 22nd October 2015, 07:17 AM   #48
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,381
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
I'm very surprised you hadn't read his statement. To be clear, he didn't defend his girlfriend, he killed her. That's a big difference. There was no intruder. The only danger to Reeva Steenkamp was from Oscar Pistorius. She herself had said she was afraid of him at times. Afraid of his temper, of the way he reacted. Please remember, the victim in this case is Reeva Steenkamp, not Oscar Pistorius.

Rich people don't ruin their lives on a whim? They do. When people become very angry, regardless of how well off they are, they often behave irrationally.
I do not agree.
Their actions do not involve mega and certain destruction of their lives. OJ might bolster your proposition but that was a triage.
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 22nd October 2015, 01:28 PM   #49
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,381
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Have you even been following this case? Oscar got out of his bed, armed himself, walked around the bed when it was illuminated without noticing the love of his life wasn't actually in bed?

I know I should ignore trolling posts, but "defended his girl friend"? No, murdering her. And he will be convicted on appeal.
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
I'm very surprised you hadn't read his statement. To be clear, he didn't defend his girlfriend, he killed her. That's a big difference. There was no intruder. The only danger to Reeva Steenkamp was from Oscar Pistorius. She herself had said she was afraid of him at times. Afraid of his temper, of the way he reacted. Please remember, the victim in this case is Reeva Steenkamp, not Oscar Pistorius.

Rich people don't ruin their lives on a whim? They do. When people become very angry, regardless of how well off they are, they often behave irrationally.
To make the point I had to resort to the facts as Oscar imagined them. You and LK can assert that he knew Reeva was behind the door, but I totally reject that proposition. It is ridiculous, just a ticket to hell for him.
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 22nd October 2015, 03:04 PM   #50
Ampulla of Vater
Master Poster
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
...
Rich people don't ruin their lives on a whim? They do. When people become very angry, regardless of how well off they are, they often behave irrationally.
Case in point: the crazy looking guy with funny hair - Phil Spector? I think that's his name. There's a rich dude who ruined his life on a whim, although it would not surprise me to learn Samson thinks he's innocent too.

Rich people are the very ones who think they can buy their way out of trouble. Famous people think they're above reproach. Rich AND famous - say no more.
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 22nd October 2015, 03:05 PM   #51
Ampulla of Vater
Master Poster
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
To make the point I had to resort to the facts as Oscar imagined them. You and LK can assert that he knew Reeva was behind the door, but I totally reject that proposition. It is ridiculous, just a ticket to hell for him.
Because Icerat and the math lady arrived at the same conclusion. Solid evidence you've got going there.
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 23rd October 2015, 02:21 AM   #52
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,381
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
Because Icerat and the math lady arrived at the same conclusion. Solid evidence you've got going there.
Math lady is one weird chick, but robust. She proved to her minions they were wasting time on Raffaele calling polis while postals were already there. She was totally rigorous, as she was sustaining Pistorius' account of his tragic night. Icerat was the same. Why fight logic and careful analysis?
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 23rd October 2015, 01:08 PM   #53
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,191
The depth of despair Oscar Pistorius feels at losing the love of his life. How badly this has effected him, losing the woman he loved and cherished, by his own hand. Maybe that's overdoing it a tad? Because according to June Steenkamp, Reeva's mother, they had been dating for three months.

Mrs. Steenkamp also says:
Quote:
“I did not know he had guns or was shooting them out of cars, or his lifestyle in the fast lane. I knew nothing of that," she said. "Reeva was afraid, I think, to tell me, some of the problems. She did say they were fighting all of the time, but you don’t tell your mother everything.” Links to news story
I think it's both admirable and understandable that friends of the couple would say everything seemed fine in their relationship. People in an abusive relationship often try to keep up appearances. Friends may be among the last to know. There's also the fact, that when your friends are a high profile couple, if you do say something newsworthy it's going to be reported in the media and your name will be attached.

How is June Steenkamp dealing with the violent death of her daughter?
Quote:
Steenkamp says she plans to start a charity to help victims of domestic abuse - but she repeatedly refused to say whether such abuse was part of her daughter’s relationship with her killer, superstar athlete Oscar Pistorius.
In case there's any confusion, "refusing to say" whether there was abuse is not the same as saying there wasn't.
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 23rd October 2015, 04:53 PM   #54
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,381
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
The depth of despair Oscar Pistorius feels at losing the love of his life. How badly this has effected him, losing the woman he loved and cherished, by his own hand. Maybe that's overdoing it a tad? Because according to June Steenkamp, Reeva's mother, they had been dating for three months.

Mrs. Steenkamp also says:


I think it's both admirable and understandable that friends of the couple would say everything seemed fine in their relationship. People in an abusive relationship often try to keep up appearances. Friends may be among the last to know. There's also the fact, that when your friends are a high profile couple, if you do say something newsworthy it's going to be reported in the media and your name will be attached.

How is June Steenkamp dealing with the violent death of her daughter?


In case there's any confusion, "refusing to say" whether there was abuse is not the same as saying there wasn't.
You are leaving out the fact the prosecution presented a scenario that was proved wrong. That is far more important than divining the extent and nature of possible abuse.
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 23rd October 2015, 05:03 PM   #55
Ampulla of Vater
Master Poster
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 2,919
The prosecution was not "proved wrong" at all. Pistorius was in possession of illegal ammunition and he murdered his girlfriend with said ammo.
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 23rd October 2015, 05:12 PM   #56
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,381
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
The prosecution was not "proved wrong" at all. Pistorius was in possession of illegal ammunition and he murdered his girlfriend with said ammo.
He murdered her if he knew she was in the bathroom. Otherwise culpable homicide is a perfect charge to lay, and for that I could imagine a vast range of penalties globally, and it seems lenient in RSA I agree. So I take it you are stating categorically he knew he was shooting at Reeva?
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 23rd October 2015, 07:57 PM   #57
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,191
The prosecution wasn't "proven wrong" about the murder being deliberate, either. The burden on police and prosecutors is to find evidence for that. Someone's state of mind can be devilishly hard to prove and, in this case, the state couldn't do it.

I don't know if Pistorius had a choice between a jury trial or by judge. But he (or his lawyer) was smart to choose a judge. I think a judge would be much more likely to be able hold the conflicting view that a) while his story may seem unbelievable, b) the burden of proof is on the prosecution and c) no real evidence was presented that proved Pistorius deliberately shot Reeva Steenkamp.

That's the way I feel. I do not find credible Pistorius' account as to how the shooting took place. However, I accept the fact that the state was unable to produce clear evidence the shooting was a deliberate attack on Reeva Steenkamp.
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 23rd October 2015, 08:13 PM   #58
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,381
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
The prosecution wasn't "proven wrong" about the murder being deliberate, either. The burden on police and prosecutors is to find evidence for that. Someone's state of mind can be devilishly hard to prove and, in this case, the state couldn't do it.

I don't know if Pistorius had a choice between a jury trial or by judge. But he (or his lawyer) was smart to choose a judge. I think a judge would be much more likely to be able hold the conflicting view that a) while his story may seem unbelievable, b) the burden of proof is on the prosecution and c) no real evidence was presented that proved Pistorius deliberately shot Reeva Steenkamp.

That's the way I feel. I do not find credible Pistorius' account as to how the shooting took place. However, I accept the fact that the state was unable to produce clear evidence the shooting was a deliberate attack on Reeva Steenkamp.
One reason I am strongly of the view he believed he was stalking an intruder is his no legs on status. This suggests profound urgency. On the other hand if anticipating a blazing row, he would prefer not to have her towering over him. It is worth remembering she was unlucky to take the head shot.
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 23rd October 2015, 08:43 PM   #59
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,191
This can be another problem area because the only evidence we have that Pistorius did not have his prosthetic devices on is his word. As a judge told us (the jury) in a U.S. case, if we feel sworn testimony lacks credibility AND (this is a big 'and') the person testifying has a compelling reason to lie, we can set aside their testimony.

That's why I say, I don't believe anything Pistorius said to the police or in court but I agree there was not adequate evidence presented to convict him of a deliberate murder.
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 23rd October 2015, 09:07 PM   #60
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,381
I always expected legs on legs off to be resolved in a heart beat by ballistics and was surprised it was not declared almost immediately. I was not aware it is debated.
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 24th October 2015, 06:01 AM   #61
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,191
Again you're arguing vehemently for Pistorius' innocence but you don't seem very familiar with the case nor the circumstances. A police ballistic witness said at trial that Pistorius "probably" wasn't wearing his prosthetics when he fired the shots through the door. However a forensic witness for the prosecution, Johannes Vermeulen, testified that the marks on the bathroom door -- from Pistorius breaking it in with a cricket bat -- suggest he was also not wearing his prosthetics when he swung the bat. Pistorius' maintains that he was.

My point is we don't really know. In recent times there has been evidence forthcoming that some police forensic analysis is basically educated guesswork and frequently wrong.
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 24th October 2015, 08:43 AM   #62
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,381
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
Again you're arguing vehemently for Pistorius' innocence but you don't seem very familiar with the case nor the circumstances. A police ballistic witness said at trial that Pistorius "probably" wasn't wearing his prosthetics when he fired the shots through the door. However a forensic witness for the prosecution, Johannes Vermeulen, testified that the marks on the bathroom door -- from Pistorius breaking it in with a cricket bat -- suggest he was also not wearing his prosthetics when he swung the bat. Pistorius' maintains that he was.

My point is we don't really know. In recent times there has been evidence forthcoming that some police forensic analysis is basically educated guesswork and frequently wrong.
At which point I would ask why you would disbelieve his account. Shooting a gun has a precise height of attack. Swinging a bat is very different. I find myself seeing the same old pattern of confirmation bias on the part of the prosecution. They lie, they know no other way. It happens all the time.
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 24th October 2015, 09:26 AM   #63
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,191
Polling has shown the majority of South Africans don't believe Pistorius' account either.

As for the forensics, the angle of the shots or the battering of the door with the bat could depend on factors other than whether Pistorius had his prosthetics on. It could also be because Pistorius was firing from a crouch or how he was holding the gun. The angle of the blows with the bat could depend on whether Pistorius was swinging it the way a cricket player would, or cocking it behind his shoulder and using it like an axe or using it as a battering ram. With no other real evidence to go on other than Pistorius' account I don't think it's possible to know.

Do prosecutors ever lie? Yes they do. Do boyfriends ever kill their girlfriends? Yes they do. Do homeowners ever fire shots into an occupied bathroom without determining who might be in there? I would imagine it has happened but it must be exceedingly rare.
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 24th October 2015, 03:49 PM   #64
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,381
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
Polling has shown the majority of South Africans don't believe Pistorius' account either.

As for the forensics, the angle of the shots or the battering of the door with the bat could depend on factors other than whether Pistorius had his prosthetics on. It could also be because Pistorius was firing from a crouch or how he was holding the gun. The angle of the blows with the bat could depend on whether Pistorius was swinging it the way a cricket player would, or cocking it behind his shoulder and using it like an axe or using it as a battering ram. With no other real evidence to go on other than Pistorius' account I don't think it's possible to know.

Do prosecutors ever lie? Yes they do. Do boyfriends ever kill their girlfriends? Yes they do. Do homeowners ever fire shots into an occupied bathroom without determining who might be in there? I would imagine it has happened but it must be exceedingly rare.
Polling means nothing in these cases. We have the same poll numbers in New Zealand with the proven innocent by multiple pathways Mark Lundy. And 50% believe the same of David Bain. I have personal experience of explaining these cases to people who are left in no doubt, yet started believing them guilty. This is simply because the facts can be easily demonstrated, and this is always so with a wrongful conviction. It is certainly not me being clever, just that they have never drilled into the cases as I have.

Here is a vital piece of evidence in Pistorius' favour.

A post mortem report revealed that not much liquid was found in Reeva Steenkamp's bladder after she was shot dead, the High Court in Pretoria heard on Monday.

It was about a teaspoon-full, said Professor Gert Saayman, who had conducted the autopsy on Steenkamp a day after she was shot and killed by her boyfriend, Oscar Pistorius.


http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/201...mp-s-last-meal

That is about a minute's urine, therefore she had just emptied her bladder when she was shot. I see no possible explanation for this after a row, but a clear scenario exactly as Pistorius described it.
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 24th October 2015, 04:12 PM   #65
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,886
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
At which point I would ask why you would disbelieve his account. Shooting a gun has a precise height of attack. Swinging a bat is very different. I find myself seeing the same old pattern of confirmation bias on the part of the prosecution. They lie, they know no other way. It happens all the time.
By "his" I assume you mean Oscar's. Because it's self-serving. I don't believe he didn't notice his girlfriend was not in the bed he walked around and searched under for his gun; I don't understand how an innocent person would not ascertain the location of "the love of his life"; I can't accept an innocent person blazing away at a door without knowing or trying to know who was behind it.

An appeal before a competent judge will result in a harsher 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 24th October 2015, 04:14 PM   #66
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,886
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Polling means nothing in these cases. We have the same poll numbers in New Zealand with the proven innocent by multiple pathways Mark Lundy. And 50% believe the same of David Bain. I have personal experience of explaining these cases to people who are left in no doubt, yet started believing them guilty. This is simply because the facts can be easily demonstrated, and this is always so with a wrongful conviction. It is certainly not me being clever, just that they have never drilled into the cases as I have.

Here is a vital piece of evidence in Pistorius' favour.

A post mortem report revealed that not much liquid was found in Reeva Steenkamp's bladder after she was shot dead, the High Court in Pretoria heard on Monday.

It was about a teaspoon-full, said Professor Gert Saayman, who had conducted the autopsy on Steenkamp a day after she was shot and killed by her boyfriend, Oscar Pistorius.


http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/201...mp-s-last-meal

That is about a minute's urine, therefore she had just emptied her bladder when she was shot. I see no possible explanation for this after a row, but a clear scenario exactly as Pistorius described it.
No it's not. Gee this game is easy to play.....
__________________
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 24th October 2015, 04:32 PM   #67
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,381
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
By "his" I assume you mean Oscar's. Because it's self-serving. I don't believe he didn't notice his girlfriend was not in the bed he walked around and searched under for his gun; I don't understand how an innocent person would not ascertain the location of "the love of his life"; I can't accept an innocent person blazing away at a door without knowing or trying to know who was behind it.

An appeal before a competent judge will result in a harsher sentance.
I have been doing a bit more digging, and found this post by Charlie Wilkes, who could be described as something of a crime analyst. No doubt you will dismiss it, but I don't.

I agree. Pistorius has presented a defense that boggles the mind, but I have learned never to underestimate the rank stupidity of a gun nut.

Here's an incident that happened a few weeks ago in my neck of the woods:

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013...-shooting.html

The cops were incredulous. But, they talked to everyone who knew either of these people, and they all (including the victim's family) agreed that it absolutely had to be an accident. There's just no way this particular guy would shoot his GF intentionally. In addition, he called for help immediately, and everything about the scene confirmed his account of what happened.

But how the hell did he manage to do this with a revolver??? The answer, I am told, is that he cocked the hammer.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=538

ETA Charlie's link has expired, but I recall reading it in amazement.

Last edited by Samson; 24th October 2015 at 04:35 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 24th October 2015, 04:38 PM   #68
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,886
So both Icerat and Charlie Wilkes have come to the same conclusion and that's enough for you? Have a look at the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Speaking of appeals, there will be one and I'm confident the sentance will change.
__________________
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 24th October 2015, 05:06 PM   #69
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,381
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
By "his" I assume you mean Oscar's. Because it's self-serving. I don't believe he didn't notice his girlfriend was not in the bed he walked around and searched under for his gun; I don't understand how an innocent person would not ascertain the location of "the love of his life"; I can't accept an innocent person blazing away at a door without knowing or trying to know who was behind it.

An appeal before a competent judge will result in a harsher sentance.
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
So both Icerat and Charlie Wilkes have come to the same conclusion and that's enough for you? Have a look at the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Speaking of appeals, there will be one and I'm confident the sentance will change.
I unashamedly admit to taking Charlie seriously for my own very good reasons. He is less convinced than me about Pistorius after rereading his few posts. The more I dig the more I like Pistorius' story. I don't care about his sentence, but I am very interested in understanding how the majority can get sucked in by crooked prosecutors, as we have here.
ETA look at what happened to Lindy Chamberlain, more of the same, prosecution doesn't believe her so they manufacture blood in a car boot. I am not sure why you Australians are spared these monumental cock ups, we have 7 in forty years in Little New Zealand.

Last edited by Samson; 24th October 2015 at 05:09 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 24th October 2015, 05:12 PM   #70
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,658
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
By "his" I assume you mean Oscar's. Because it's self-serving.

<snip>

I don't have any strong feelings about his guilt or innocence one way or another, but just as a general observation it seems to me that anyone's testimony about their innocence can seem to be "self-serving" when the appropriate prior assumptions are made.

Even when they aren't, for that matter. It's sort of a truism.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta 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 30th October 2015, 01:56 AM   #71
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I unashamedly admit to taking Charlie seriously for my own very good reasons. He is less convinced than me about Pistorius after rereading his few posts. The more I dig the more I like Pistorius' story.

I found a picture of Oscar Pistorius' story:

Hard Cheese 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 3rd December 2015, 12:23 AM   #72
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,381
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
I found a picture of Oscar Pistorius' story:

http://i.imgur.com/0rqNgvb.jpg
Sage judge Masipa is about to be affirmed.
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 3rd December 2015, 01:42 AM   #73
TofuFighter
Graduate Poster
 
TofuFighter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,598
Woops. Not exactly: BREAKING: Pistorius guilty of murder.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/liv...steenkamp-live
__________________
"come on. Judas is meeting us at midnight with the getaway donkeys"

Last edited by TofuFighter; 3rd December 2015 at 01:48 AM.
TofuFighter 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 3rd December 2015, 01:51 AM   #74
Scordatura
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA, near the Isle of Lucy
Posts: 387
Quote:
June Steenkamp, the mother of Reeva Steenkamp, was in the court room today to hear the judges rule – in a unanimous verdict – that Oscar Pistorius was indeed guilty of murdering her daughter.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/liv...steenkamp-live
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 3rd December 2015, 01:56 AM   #75
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Scordatura View Post
Uh oh.
marplots 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 3rd December 2015, 01:57 AM   #76
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,711
As I understand it, this will mean the original judge re-sentencing Pistorius. Is this correct? Does anyone know the minimum (and mandatory?) sentence/s for murder in SA? Presumably he won't be out again in another year or so.
__________________
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 3rd December 2015, 02:01 AM   #77
Skwinty
Philosopher
 
Skwinty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,593
Minimum of 15 years.

Sent from my SM-N910C using Tapatalk
__________________


What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch.
--Lily Tomlin
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 3rd December 2015, 02:02 AM   #78
Scordatura
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA, near the Isle of Lucy
Posts: 387
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
As I understand it, this will mean the original judge re-sentencing Pistorius. Is this correct? Does anyone know the minimum (and mandatory?) sentence/s for murder in SA? Presumably he won't be out again in another year or so.
Yes, you're correct - Masipa will handle the sentencing if she's available. The minimum is 15 years for DE. Oscar will get credit for time served and Roux can argue for mitigating circumstances so it'll be interesting to see what the final number comes to.
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 3rd December 2015, 02:03 AM   #79
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,886
Justice for Reeva at last. He's a murderer and Masipa is an incompetent judge. She will be directed to make sure the sentence is appropriate this time, that's for sure.
__________________
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 3rd December 2015, 02:06 AM   #80
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,886
15 years will be good to see. Hell, even 10. Far better than the ridiculous slap over the wrist he got last time. This is a good day for the SA justice system.
__________________
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
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 08:54 PM.
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.