Whatever Pinkbandana - your 'belief' in OP's innocence is flawed by your struggle to explain why. It's a struggle because it's sort of nonsense.
~And arguing about Directus doesn't matter any more legally - although the truth remains the same.
It's your desperate, failed effort to explain the judge's ruling that demonstrates your odd mindset about the whole thing.
Like Masipa, you seem to believe that OP is a little poor innocent flower, and thus there MUST be a reason to let him off all of it.
But niether she, nor you, can make any of it make sense.
Because NONE OF IT DOES.
I salute your passionate partisanship and effort. And feel rather frightened by the irrationality of it all.
Everyone has failed to explain the judgement. What's wrong with trying to understand what her logic might have been and what it perhaps should have been? That is what everyone on here has been doing. I can't see your problem with that.
If you want to disagree with me, that's fine, but your manner of disagreement seems bordering on the insulting.
She did approach his testimony with caution. Sam Taylor's evidence was only partially corroborated by Darren Fresco whose own testimony was a bit suspect, so she had no other basis on which to corroborate Sam's evidence. In the main charge, OP's version was backed up by the defense timeline and to a degree by his behaviour after and because he gave a detailed account before even hearing the prosecution case against him or knowing what evidence there was. That was why she accepted some aspects of OP's testimony but couldn't accept Sam Taylor's.
Why did the judge have to corroborate Sam Taylor's evidence?
Taylor was a witness in her own right. She and Fresco were not conjoined twins so what he did or said is separate from her testimony.
Of course OP would want to give a detailed account that put him in a good light.
That was only one incident with Sam.
What about driving 200 km hr because he was enraged, skidded and could have killed them both?
Funny too I checked in on Websleuths today and a bunch of people there are talking about guess what? You got it, PPD. Would someone please tell me why people are trying to rewrite Masipa's judgement?
My view is that the confusion arises from the poorly constructed, badly reasoned verdict that was delivered to the court. No-one is quite sure of Masipa's reasoning on certain very important issues, and her logic at times defies analysis. I think it might well have been written in large part by one of the assessors - it has a naive quality to it that suggests an inexperienced writer.
Why do you keep repeating (incredulously) that the whole neighbourhood woke up the bats? The defense timeline has shots first then bats. And as far as I remember it has no one waking up to the bats.
Yeah - the most obvious scenario really is the only option in these cases isn't it. I mean, it's just obvious Let's forget any evidence that doesn't agree with that, eh.
When you go back to the actual evidence and summarise who heard what, then there truly is no doubt at all that the final "bangs" were the fatal gun-shots.
Each of them woke at a different moment in the night. All but Clarice heard at least one of the fatal shots. After the shots, some heard OP cry, and some heard him shout for help. Only the Stipps heard the (much quieter) bat work.
The timing of the final bangs is almost identical for all those who heard it. It was when the screaming stopped. It preceded OP crying out.
It's just a pity that Nel did not include a detailed version of this in his (very weak) summation. Or that the assessors did not take the time to reconstruct it from the direct evidence instead of using Roux's flawed timeline.
We could be here in 2030, grey, white haired or get our care workers to type for us. ;-):D
I'm already in the "grey, white haired" category, booty and only a matter of time before the carer comes in! All this is just hastening the inevitable!
Don't know what the confusion or stated complexity is, it isn't complex, which is why judge greenland is so shocked that Masipa could get it wrong.
Dolus Directus: Court determines you foresaw and intended to kill the deceased
Dolus Eventualis: Court determines you foresaw the possibility of action would lead to death of deceased, regardless if you did not intend to kill deceased.
Culpable homicide: Court determines you did not foresee nor intend to kill deceased BUT you should have persuant to reasonable man test.
Now the problem for Masipa is that her stated reasons only mean she let off Oscar on dolus eventualis because he thought Reeva was in the bed, but this does not answer the question whether Pistorius foresaw his action would have killed whoever was behind the bathroom door.
Now the question, could Pistorius foresee this, the answer must be yes:
- the use of a firearm with said ammunition
- he has training and passed a test in said firearm usage
-his conduct in steadily going down the corridor back to wall to offset recoil
- taking safety off
- steadying his aim 4 times with time-gap between
- intended group of shooting 4 times.
This all is hard evidence of clear cognitive thinking and KNOWING beforehand the consequences of his actions, and this is merely if we still believe Oscar himself.
The great problem is if you accept he did not foresee, then you would set the bar so high in proving eventualis that it is fundamentally impossible, indeed, if you accept that the merest miniscule possibility that he could not foresee, must mean that the court should decide he did not foresee, is tantamount to throwing away common-sense, in this regard, if we had video evidence of Pistorius stating loudly prior to shooting, i will kill you.
What if you claim aliens doctored this video? is this absurd? certainly by common-sense, is it possible, yes, even if it is laughable in its possibility, but once you throw out common-sense, then nothing can be taken to show someone intended anything.
I have not even gone into the social problems in relation to gun laws and test, to say Pistorius passed a test so knows the consequences of his actions, yet do not hold him liable for it, is to immediately destroy the entire use of these tests and training, now you have the wild west.
Everyone has failed to explain the judgement. What's wrong with trying to understand what her logic might have been and what it perhaps should have been? That is what everyone on here has been doing. I can't see your problem with that.
If you want to disagree with me, that's fine, but your manner of disagreement seems bordering on the insulting.
Funny i notice that you point blank refuse to discuss the error in your statement before where you erronously say somehow that the timeline is a huge factor in determining which version of Oscar's to believe.
How is it that Masipa infer's a particular version of Oscar? Pistorius himself has offered different explanations to his shooting, one of which was involuntary action, now the court has not accepted this, if so, the court DISBELIEVES Oscar, yet then how can the court accept another version? once you do not accept the credibility of a witness, then you do not accept their statements as truthful.
Timeline is irrelevant, as Judge Greenland said, it is a red herring, Even if we accept the State timeline, involuntary action is still on the table, if we accept the defense timeline, involuntary action is still on the table, if we accept either, Pistorius could still have intentionally wanted to kill.
Whether or not bats happened before or after shots, does not mean anything to what Pistorius state of mind was when shooting.
Now, explain your statement before, how does the timeline affect which version of oscar to believe?
Whatever Pinkbandana - your 'belief' in OP's innocence is flawed by your struggle to explain why. It's a struggle because it's sort of nonsense.
~And arguing about Directus doesn't matter any more legally - although the truth remains the same.
It's your desperate, failed effort to explain the judge's ruling that demonstrates your odd mindset about the whole thing.
Like Masipa, you seem to believe that OP is a little poor innocent flower, and thus there MUST be a reason to let him off all of it.
But niether she, nor you, can make any of it make sense.
Because NONE OF IT DOES.
I salute your passionate partisanship and effort. And feel rather frightened by the irrationality of it all.
I've been able to follow all of pinkbandana's posts and her discussion of the judgment.
I've not been able to follow your arguments though, if indeed you are putting forward cogent arguments. It might be because of the CONSTANT assertions that Pistorius SHOT bullets through a door into a tiny CUBICLE without justification and anyone who BELIEVES otherwise is WRONG wrong WRONG, and possibly corrupt or stupid and partisan.
I've been able to follow all of pinkbandana's posts and her discussion of the judgment.
I've not been able to follow your arguments though, if indeed you are putting forward cogent arguments. It might be because of the CONSTANT assertions that Pistorius SHOT bullets through a door into a tiny CUBICLE without justification and anyone who BELIEVES otherwise is WRONG wrong WRONG, and possibly corrupt or stupid and partisan.
There is quite clearly 2 sides to this discussion. There is a lot of debate in here and out there regarding Masipas verdict which has caused uncertainty and confusion.
I think your posts is rather aggressive and personal as is said often argue the post not the poster.
There is quite clearly 2 sides to this discussion. There is a lot of debate in here and out there regarding Masipas verdict which has caused uncertainty and confusion.
I think your posts is rather aggressive and personal as is said often argue the post not the poster.
Did you think the post I was addressing was "rather aggressive"?
I think your posts is rather aggressive and personal as is said often argue the post not the poster.
It's certainly no more aggressive or personal than the post hopeless case quoted in their post. Or a number of others that have been made by the author of that quoted post.
I've seen a number of posts on this thread commenting on how most people taking part in it are in the overwhelming majority in thinking Pistorius should be guilty of murder. I can't say i'm overly surprised by that, as given the vitriol which is aimed by some at those who try and present anything approaching a different view, i'd say it's become a bit of a self-selecting sample.
When you go back to the actual evidence and summarise who heard what, then there truly is no doubt at all that the final "bangs" were the fatal gun-shots.
Each of them woke at a different moment in the night. All but Clarice heard at least one of the fatal shots. After the shots, some heard OP cry, and some heard him shout for help. Only the Stipps heard the (much quieter) bat work.
The timing of the final bangs is almost identical for all those who heard it. It was when the screaming stopped. It preceded OP crying out.
It's just a pity that Nel did not include a detailed version of this in his (very weak) summation. Or that the assessors did not take the time to reconstruct it from the direct evidence instead of using Roux's flawed timeline.
You don't take the times of phone calls into account though. If you did, you'd see that the above makes no sense. The only way to make the screams RS's is to say that Johnson's and Dr Stipp's 10111 calls were 3 or so minutes earlier than their records said. There was no evidence of this, and indeed it wasn't even put to the court. That should say it all.
My view is that the confusion arises from the poorly constructed, badly reasoned verdict that was delivered to the court. No-one is quite sure of Masipa's reasoning on certain very important issues, and her logic at times defies analysis. I think it might well have been written in large part by one of the assessors - it has a naive quality to it that suggests an inexperienced writer.
I think you have it wrong there, Masipa threw out the female screaming eyewitness, even going so far as saying they are wrong.
Masipa's version is that the screaming during the gunshots was Oscar, but this again, does not answer the question, why is it Masipa can disbelieve Oscar's own version of involuntary action, and infer another of his? timeline has no bearing on this, unless you can explain why.
I don't understand your point. There's no debate that witnesses thought they heard female screaming and in her judgement Masipa concluded that she couldn't rely on that for several reasons, mostly to with contractions with other evidence. The timeline just encapsulates those contradictions.
She didn't believe that it was involuntary because he was clearly thinking at the time and remembered what happened, as i\i understand it. She used to timeline to accept his version that he had probably thought the person in the toilet was an intruder.
When you go back to the actual evidence and summarise who heard what, then there truly is no doubt at all that the final "bangs" were the fatal gun-shots.
Each of them woke at a different moment in the night. All but Clarice heard at least one of the fatal shots. After the shots, some heard OP cry, and some heard him shout for help. Only the Stipps heard the (much quieter) bat work.
The timing of the final bangs is almost identical for all those who heard it. It was when the screaming stopped. It preceded OP crying out.
It's just a pity that Nel did not include a detailed version of this in his (very weak) summation. Or that the assessors did not take the time to reconstruct it from the direct evidence instead of using Roux's flawed timeline.
Absolutely agree with the timeline and it was a flaw in the prosecution case that their timeline was not clearer. The aural witnesses woke up at staggered intervals, and their testimony broadly fits together. I also agree that Nel's summary was very poor.
In fact I was shocked at the quality of the prosecution case (defence too) but it turned out that the case didn't fall on the flaws of the prosecution case, but on the flaws of the judge. It transpires she wasn't really listening to the evidence - hence the query about gun and bat being common cause. And, from her judgement, it appears that OP's demeanour after the shooting striking her as not being like that of a murderer (wtf) influenced her heavily. She fell hook line & sinker for his testimony that he did not intend to kill Reeva, when 95% of the rest of the world did not. She seems to have worked back from a belief in his innocence rather than forward from the evidence.
You don't take the times of phone calls into account though. If you did, you'd see that the above makes no sense. The only way to make the screams RS's is to say that Johnson's and Dr Stipp's 10111 calls were 3 or so minutes earlier than their records said. There was no evidence of this, and indeed it wasn't even put to the court. That should say it all.
I don't understand your point. There's no debate that witnesses thought they heard female screaming and in her judgement Masipa concluded that she couldn't rely on that for several reasons, mostly to with contractions with other evidence. The timeline just encapsulates those contradictions.
And yet the court does not accept one of pistorius' versions (involuntary action) but accepts another arbitrarily.
Yet another problem with their reasoning.
Indeed even with multiple versions of pistorius, his common theme is he believed an intruder was in the house, now, if we don't accept the eyewitness corroborating a FEMALE scream (regardless of small contradictions) that is, a contradiction on small matters means the entire is thrown out.
You must completely throw out pistorius' version(s) in the entire
She didn't believe that it was involuntary because he was clearly thinking at the time and remembered what happened, as i\i understand it. She used to timeline to accept his version that he had probably thought the person in the toilet was an intruder.
This logic contradicts the one she used with witnesses.
What you stated, she accepts one of his versions (that evidence does not back up or support) DESPITE the fact he has proferred a contradicting one that she disbelieves.
Let us remember one thing, it is pistorius' version that he believed an intruder was in the house, no evidence can ever support this (apart from being mind-readers) so if the court disbelieves him on something else, and uses this logic for the witnesses to disregard their ENTIRE TESTIMONY AND VERSION, then if you apply this to oscar, the court CANNOT BELIEVE HE THOUGHT THERE WAS AN INTRUDER EITHER.
Why did the judge have to corroborate Sam Taylor's evidence?
Taylor was a witness in her own right. She and Fresco were not conjoined twins so what he did or said is separate from her testimony.
Of course OP would want to give a detailed account that put him in a good light.
That was only one incident with Sam.
What about driving 200 km hr because he was enraged, skidded and could have killed them both?
The judge was cautious about Sam because it was obvious that she and OP ended on a bad note. The state must prove something beyond reasonable doubt so I'd always expect a judge to look for other evidence to help confirm a witness' statement. In this case she had DF and he contradicted Sam on many points. So taken together they weren't convincing.
It was DF who was shown to have been driving too fast, not OP.
Comments
~And arguing about Directus doesn't matter any more legally - although the truth remains the same.
It's your desperate, failed effort to explain the judge's ruling that demonstrates your odd mindset about the whole thing.
Like Masipa, you seem to believe that OP is a little poor innocent flower, and thus there MUST be a reason to let him off all of it.
But niether she, nor you, can make any of it make sense.
Because NONE OF IT DOES.
I salute your passionate partisanship and effort. And feel rather frightened by the irrationality of it all.
You do cheer me up:D:D:D
i felt the mood needed lightening
you cheer me up too rhumba. and i always enjoy reading your posts
Everyone has failed to explain the judgement. What's wrong with trying to understand what her logic might have been and what it perhaps should have been? That is what everyone on here has been doing. I can't see your problem with that.
If you want to disagree with me, that's fine, but your manner of disagreement seems bordering on the insulting.
Why did the judge have to corroborate Sam Taylor's evidence?
Taylor was a witness in her own right. She and Fresco were not conjoined twins so what he did or said is separate from her testimony.
Of course OP would want to give a detailed account that put him in a good light.
That was only one incident with Sam.
What about driving 200 km hr because he was enraged, skidded and could have killed them both?
My view is that the confusion arises from the poorly constructed, badly reasoned verdict that was delivered to the court. No-one is quite sure of Masipa's reasoning on certain very important issues, and her logic at times defies analysis. I think it might well have been written in large part by one of the assessors - it has a naive quality to it that suggests an inexperienced writer.
When you go back to the actual evidence and summarise who heard what, then there truly is no doubt at all that the final "bangs" were the fatal gun-shots.
Mr Stipp:........................................... bangs, screams, bangs
Mrs Stipp:......................................... bangs, screams, bangs
Berger:..............................................................screams, bangs
Johnson:...........................................................screams, bangs
Van der Merwe: argument............................................bangs
Mrs Mike...............................................................................bang (single)
Dogs:......................................................................................bangs
Clarice...................................................................................................,barking dogs
Each of them woke at a different moment in the night. All but Clarice heard at least one of the fatal shots. After the shots, some heard OP cry, and some heard him shout for help. Only the Stipps heard the (much quieter) bat work.
The timing of the final bangs is almost identical for all those who heard it. It was when the screaming stopped. It preceded OP crying out.
It's just a pity that Nel did not include a detailed version of this in his (very weak) summation. Or that the assessors did not take the time to reconstruct it from the direct evidence instead of using Roux's flawed timeline.
(copy / quote / add your vote)
Sentence
10-15 years : 0
5-9 years : 1
1-4 years : 1
Suspended : 4
Appeal
Appeal by State : 3
Appeal by Defence : 1
No Appeal : 2
(latest 2 voters added)
How is it that Masipa infer's a particular version of Oscar? Pistorius himself has offered different explanations to his shooting, one of which was involuntary action, now the court has not accepted this, if so, the court DISBELIEVES Oscar, yet then how can the court accept another version? once you do not accept the credibility of a witness, then you do not accept their statements as truthful.
Timeline is irrelevant, as Judge Greenland said, it is a red herring, Even if we accept the State timeline, involuntary action is still on the table, if we accept the defense timeline, involuntary action is still on the table, if we accept either, Pistorius could still have intentionally wanted to kill.
Whether or not bats happened before or after shots, does not mean anything to what Pistorius state of mind was when shooting.
Now, explain your statement before, how does the timeline affect which version of oscar to believe?
http://thejuice.co.za/top-stories/henke-pistorius-oscar-has-more-fighting-spirit-than-anyone-i-know/
I've been able to follow all of pinkbandana's posts and her discussion of the judgment.
I've not been able to follow your arguments though, if indeed you are putting forward cogent arguments. It might be because of the CONSTANT assertions that Pistorius SHOT bullets through a door into a tiny CUBICLE without justification and anyone who BELIEVES otherwise is WRONG wrong WRONG, and possibly corrupt or stupid and partisan.
There is quite clearly 2 sides to this discussion. There is a lot of debate in here and out there regarding Masipas verdict which has caused uncertainty and confusion.
I think your posts is rather aggressive and personal as is said often argue the post not the poster.
Did you think the post I was addressing was "rather aggressive"?
It's certainly no more aggressive or personal than the post hopeless case quoted in their post. Or a number of others that have been made by the author of that quoted post.
I've seen a number of posts on this thread commenting on how most people taking part in it are in the overwhelming majority in thinking Pistorius should be guilty of murder. I can't say i'm overly surprised by that, as given the vitriol which is aimed by some at those who try and present anything approaching a different view, i'd say it's become a bit of a self-selecting sample.
You don't take the times of phone calls into account though. If you did, you'd see that the above makes no sense. The only way to make the screams RS's is to say that Johnson's and Dr Stipp's 10111 calls were 3 or so minutes earlier than their records said. There was no evidence of this, and indeed it wasn't even put to the court. That should say it all.
Either that or she's worryingly poorly educated.
I don't understand your point. There's no debate that witnesses thought they heard female screaming and in her judgement Masipa concluded that she couldn't rely on that for several reasons, mostly to with contractions with other evidence. The timeline just encapsulates those contradictions.
She didn't believe that it was involuntary because he was clearly thinking at the time and remembered what happened, as i\i understand it. She used to timeline to accept his version that he had probably thought the person in the toilet was an intruder.
Absolutely agree with the timeline and it was a flaw in the prosecution case that their timeline was not clearer. The aural witnesses woke up at staggered intervals, and their testimony broadly fits together. I also agree that Nel's summary was very poor.
In fact I was shocked at the quality of the prosecution case (defence too) but it turned out that the case didn't fall on the flaws of the prosecution case, but on the flaws of the judge. It transpires she wasn't really listening to the evidence - hence the query about gun and bat being common cause. And, from her judgement, it appears that OP's demeanour after the shooting striking her as not being like that of a murderer (wtf) influenced her heavily. She fell hook line & sinker for his testimony that he did not intend to kill Reeva, when 95% of the rest of the world did not. She seems to have worked back from a belief in his innocence rather than forward from the evidence.
What? That's not true at all.
Yet another problem with their reasoning.
Indeed even with multiple versions of pistorius, his common theme is he believed an intruder was in the house, now, if we don't accept the eyewitness corroborating a FEMALE scream (regardless of small contradictions) that is, a contradiction on small matters means the entire is thrown out.
You must completely throw out pistorius' version(s) in the entire
[ This logic contradicts the one she used with witnesses.
What you stated, she accepts one of his versions (that evidence does not back up or support) DESPITE the fact he has proferred a contradicting one that she disbelieves.
Let us remember one thing, it is pistorius' version that he believed an intruder was in the house, no evidence can ever support this (apart from being mind-readers) so if the court disbelieves him on something else, and uses this logic for the witnesses to disregard their ENTIRE TESTIMONY AND VERSION, then if you apply this to oscar, the court CANNOT BELIEVE HE THOUGHT THERE WAS AN INTRUDER EITHER.
The judge was cautious about Sam because it was obvious that she and OP ended on a bad note. The state must prove something beyond reasonable doubt so I'd always expect a judge to look for other evidence to help confirm a witness' statement. In this case she had DF and he contradicted Sam on many points. So taken together they weren't convincing.
It was DF who was shown to have been driving too fast, not OP.