Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend

[Skwinty]

You won't find them conducting any calm, sober rationalisations about the potential consequences of given actions between being triggered and calming down. T

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-cou...onviction-for-cape-man-1.1750511#.VBm04PmSz-s

http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/2002/24.html

 

[Colin from France]

People often say this during a murder trial but what's missing is Reeva's voice. I think the chances are excellent that she was murdered as a result of someone's violent rage. Why did she lock the door? Who speaks for her? She went to the bathroom and wound up getting shot four times. Did she deserve that? I have a suspicion that if she could come back she'd say, "Are you people serious? He murdered me!"

Of course you're right and so are all those who can see just how much Reeva is missing from OP's version. Look at it another way, he's screaming "get the f out of my house' in the corridor, right in front of the toilet door he's shouting "get out" twice, does anyone in their right imagination think that she's not going to respond. I know fully well he killed someone, what i'm trying to show is that he knew perfectly well who was in the toilet, that's why according to him, which i don't believe, he shouted get out twice and then blasted her away, there's no logic in his explanation only if you go down the i want to kill Reeva route does it make sense. Now what about Frank Chiziweni who lived right up close, apparently he didn't hear anything not even the gun going off, if people heard what's going on from two blocks away then surely he would of heard, but he dosn't want to give evidence at all, what's he got to be worried about if he didn't hear an arguement beforehand, or did he hear something but just dosn't want to say ?

 

[MontagK505]

People often say this during a murder trial but what's missing is Reeva's voice. I think the chances are excellent that she was murdered as a result of someone's violent rage. Why did she lock the door? Who speaks for her? She went to the bathroom and wound up getting shot four times. Did she deserve that? I have a suspicion that if she could come back she'd say, "Are you people serious? He murdered me!"

Excellent yes! Proven no. My view, Oscar is, at best, an irresponsible twit who shouldn't be allowed to handle a screwdriver much less a firearm. I base this on testimony about the man's character. Also note that a former girlfriend who has slept in that very bed, stated that Oscars story is not the behavior he has exhibited in the past. Of course she may have a personal vendetta that would slant her testimony.

 

[lane99]

...Look at it another way, he's screaming "get the f out of my house' in the corridor, right in front of the toilet door he's shouting "get out" twice, does anyone in their right imagination think that she's not going to respond...

If you have an argument with your gf, and she storms off or espapes to the bathroom, and you chase after her and scream through the door "get the f out of MY house"....then, yes, not only do I think it's possible she might not respond, I'd say the chances of getting a response are no more than 50/50.

50% chance she'll tell you to f off yourself. 50% chance she'll give you the silent treatment.
.
.

 

[Samson]

No, very far from it. Have you ever had a personal experience of real, uncontrollable rage in the heat of the moment? Maybe not. Have you seen someone else losing it? Hopefully not. Have you ever heard or read someone else's account of the same? You should. You won't find them conducting any calm, sober rationalisations about the potential consequences of given actions between being triggered and calming down. That's what losing your temper is, that's why road rage happens, why things get damaged, people do things they later regret, etc. And that's why your mathematical, detached evaluation of the consequences in different scenarios tells us nothing about what really happened.

But if you have difficulty understanding that obvious point and want to read straw men into other people's comments rather than asking for clarification, I think we're done here.

Judge Masipa wrote this

"Human beings are fallible and they depend on memories which failed over time. Thankfully as it shall be clear from the chronology of the events, this court is in a fortunate position in that it has objective evidence in the form of technology which is more reliable than human perception and human memory and against which all the other evidence can be tested. Phone records which tell us exactly who made the call, from which cell phone to which cell phone and at what time, were made available to this court and we took full advantage of that. There is also a record of the duration of each call."

She proceeded from this to demonstrate that Oscar's account was correct, particularly that he yelled help three times from the balcony soon after determining Reeve was missing and before bashing the door down.
This is consistent with critical thinking and she is fulfilling her role in a professional manner.
Culpable homicide gives her a full range of of penalties and is unappealable, whereas the facts show premeditaded murder is untenable, and would be appealed.
As for a scenario where he knows only he and Reeva are in the house, it is ludicrous to think he would resolve an argument by risking life in jail. I find it bizarre to cling to this when there are bulletproof explanations for mistaken identity.

 

[icerat]

People often say this during a murder trial but what's missing is Reeva's voice. I think the chances are excellent that she was murdered as a result of someone's violent rage. Why did she lock the door?

Same reason I lock the door when I go to the toilet. Privacy and habit. I think it's weird people don't. I think it's even weirder that people think the fact she locked the door is evidence of anything. I tend to lock the toilet door even if I'm home alone. No violent fight with spouse required.

Who speaks for her?

The judge, ultimately.

 

[newyorkguy]

<snip> Look at it another way, he's screaming "get the f out of my house' in the corridor, right in front of the toilet door he's shouting "get out" twice, does anyone in their right imagination think that she's not going to respond. <snip>

I'm in agreement but just to add-

"Get the eff out of my house," doesn't sound like something you'd yell at an unknown intruder. It sounds like something an irate boyfriend would bellow at his girlfriend.

I'm sorry I just can't begin to buy Pistorius' account as being truthful.

 

[newyorkguy]

People often say this during a murder trial but what's missing is Reeva's voice. Who speaks for her?

The judge, ultimately.

I don't agree with this either. I don't see the judge as an advocate for the victim, I think the judge speaks for the law, not the victim. I was alluding to the prosecutor charging, or trying to charge, Pistorius with an act of premeditated murder. I'm sure the prosecutors knew the evidence might not support it but I know sometimes prosecutors try for a more serious charge anyway despite knowing they may not get it, because they feel: they're speaking for the victim. At this point they're the only voice she has.

They're saying she met a horrible fate. They're saying common sense (as well as common decency) demand they reject any idea that this wasn't a deliberate act of murder.

 

[katy_did]

Of course you're right and so are all those who can see just how much Reeva is missing from OP's version. Look at it another way, he's screaming "get the f out of my house' in the corridor, right in front of the toilet door he's shouting "get out" twice, does anyone in their right imagination think that she's not going to respond. I know fully well he killed someone, what i'm trying to show is that he knew perfectly well who was in the toilet, that's why according to him, which i don't believe, he shouted get out twice and then blasted her away, there's no logic in his explanation only if you go down the i want to kill Reeva route does it make sense. Now what about Frank Chiziweni who lived right up close, apparently he didn't hear anything not even the gun going off, if people heard what's going on from two blocks away then surely he would of heard, but he dosn't want to give evidence at all, what's he got to be worried about if he didn't hear an arguement beforehand, or did he hear something but just dosn't want to say ?

Could it not simply be that she thought the safest thing for her to do was to stay quiet and hidden, so that she could call for help once the 'intruder' had gone to a different part of the house? Why would she think Pistorius was shouting at her?

This is another of those points that to me is worthless because there's a plausible alternative explanation.

 

[lionking]

Could it not simply be that she thought the safest thing for her to do was to stay quiet and hidden, so that she could call for help once the 'intruder' had gone to a different part of the house? Why would she think Pistorius was shouting at her?

This is another of those points that to me is worthless because there's a plausible alternative explanation.

You are confusing "plausible" with "possible". I don't find OP's story plausible at all. He is yelling towards the toilet door at an "intruder" and Reeva remains silent. That's plausible? He walked around the bed to get his gun after hearing a noise and didn't notice the love of his life was not there?

I still think there will be an appeal and that ultimately he will not get away with murder.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

<snip for brevity>

Let's replay the action on the hypothesis that he was alone that night. What difference would it make if everything went the same way right up to the moment he was standing outside the toilet door having heard the sound of someone inside?

If he had been alone that night and everything went the same way right up to the moment he was standing outside the toilet door and then he shot at the door, it would be another washing machine incident.

Do you think multiple such incidents are indicative of someone who needs to rethink routinely operating a firearm?

I must say I don't take much to arguments about what the majority think or even what the judge held if it is against reason, due respect to her and all that. That said, there is a 'what really happened' discussion and a 'what was proved beyond reasonable doubt' one and they are different. People should remember which one they are engaging in.

We will never know what really happened and we all know (now) what was proved beyond reasonable doubt. The debating is often over what was proved "in my opinion."

Which leaves the puzzle: if he murdered her in a fit of rage, what trace of that did he leave? I always get booed from the stage whenever I mention Columbo but I am sure the peerless detective would have fastened on some detail missed by the cops that sows up the whole thing. For want of a better idea, I go back to the missing pee. If everything was OK and she just went for a leak, since her bladder was found to be empty, she must have peed. If she did, the pee was in the pan and if it was not there she must have flushed and if she flushed he would have heard it.

She took her phone, as a torch the judge thought, and went into the cubicle, where the light didn't work and locked the door. What evidence was there about her usual habits in that regard? I almost never lock the bathroom door and see no reason to when with my partner, nor she either and if we split and she got in a relationship with someone else and I heard she locked the bathroom door I would think it strange. Reeva did not remove her shorts, so either she had just got there and not had time to use the WC (in which case there should have been pee in her bladder) or she had already finished and had dressed again (in which case she would have flushed).

This may not be the best point, but there must be something (if he's guilty). It sure is interesting from the pro-innocence side that nobody clearly and unambiguously heard what must have been a flaming row between them before the shots were fired. Surely, if you are so far gone as to blaze away at your girlfriend, there should be a lot of preliminary screaming and shouting on both sides.

I think there are some things which fit quite nicely with him being guilty of knowingly shooting Reeva. I believe there is historical behavioral data, records of communications between the two, character evidence about Oscar, the locked bathroom door (heck, why even close the darn door?), Reeva's position behind the closed, locked door, the overall illogicalness of OP's actions that night, including calling the neighbour before 911 and telling the guard everything was fine.

Indeed, these things are not enough to warrant first degree murder, which I do agree with. I think your Columbo reference is valid in that there are missing puzzle pieces. For one thing, doesn't everyone pee when they die? I would guess there would have had to be pee somewhere in that bathroom, even if she had recently peed, there should have been some somewhere.

If we don't already know what happened that night, I doubt we ever will. I just hope the sentence imposed is substantial enough to avoid an uproar.

 

[katy_did]

You are confusing "plausible" with "possible". I don't find OP's story plausible at all. He is yelling towards the toilet door at an "intruder" and Reeva remains silent. That's plausible? He walked around the bed to get his gun after hearing a noise and didn't notice the love of his life was not there?

I still think there will be an appeal and that ultimately he will not get away with murder.

I'm not confusing anything. Why wouldn't it be plausible she didn't want to draw attention to herself if she thought there was an intruder outside? She doesn't know he's yelling "towards" the toilet door, for all she knows an intruder is forcing Pistorius back into the bathroom where she's hiding. It baffles me that you can't see this is both possible and plausible.

 

[MontagK505]

Judge Masipa wrote this

"Human beings are fallible and they depend on memories which failed over time. Thankfully as it shall be clear from the chronology of the events, this court is in a fortunate position in that it has objective evidence in the form of technology which is more reliable than human perception and human memory and against which all the other evidence can be tested. Phone records which tell us exactly who made the call, from which cell phone to which cell phone and at what time, were made available to this court and we took full advantage of that. There is also a record of the duration of each call."

She proceeded from this to demonstrate that Oscar's account was correct, particularly that he yelled help three times from the balcony soon after determining Reeve was missing and before bashing the door down.
This is consistent with critical thinking and she is fulfilling her role in a professional manner.
Culpable homicide gives her a full range of of penalties and is unappealable, whereas the facts show premeditaded murder is untenable, and would be appealed.
As for a scenario where he knows only he and Reeva are in the house, it is ludicrous to think he would resolve an argument by risking life in jail. I find it bizarre to cling to this when there are bulletproof explanations for mistaken identity.

It's also consistent with creating a false impression to cover his ass after fully realizing what he has done and consistent with the "how can I switch the blame mindset" that has been demonstrated as part of his character. The gun incident in the restaurant comes to mind.
I don't find the " resolve an argument by risking life in jail" argument onvincing, if he was in a rage he wouldn't be thinking about the consequences.

 

[MontagK505]

I'm not confusing anything. Why wouldn't it be plausible she didn't want to draw attention to herself if she thought there was an intruder outside? She doesn't know he's yelling "towards" the toilet door, for all she knows an intruder is forcing Pistorius back into the bathroom where she's hiding. It baffles me that you can't see this is both possible and plausible.

The bedroom door is blocked. She has already "cleared" the path between the bed and toilet door so during this brief time a intruder has climbed over the balcony rail?

Here is a possible alternate chain of events:
They have an argument about her meeting with old boyfriends. Oscars control freak attitudes come to light full bore. She tells him to bug off. Now he's screaming with rage and starts fumbling for his hand howitzer. Her first instinct is to get out of his line of fire. Remember the door leading to the stairway is locked and she may not think she can get through that door before he opens up. Locking herself in the toilet is her only chance hoping Oscar will cool down.
Do I think this is proven? No. Is this sequence of events possible? Yes. And it does fit with the kind of person Oscar is proven to be, Hotheaded, reckless with firearms and seldom thinks about anybody but Oscar.

 

[newyorkguy]

<snip> I don't find the " resolve an argument by risking life in jail" argument convincing, if he was in a rage he wouldn't be thinking about the consequences.

I don't find it convincing at all either. Because we know exactly that happens again and again. On MSNBC Lockup I heard a guy serving a life sentence for killing his girlfriend during an argument say that he just completely lost his head. Just totally went off the deep end. He said he regrets it every day of his life, knows her family will never forgive him, can't imagine what he could have been thinking, said he will never forgive himself.

There's so many little pieces here that can all be explained away. Unless you put them all together and then they don't seem to spell 'tragic mistake,' at least not to me. They pretty clearly seem to spell crime of passion.

 

[Samson]

It's also consistent with creating a false impression to cover his ass after fully realizing what he has done and consistent with the "how can I switch the blame mindset" that has been demonstrated as part of his character. The gun incident in the restaurant comes to mind.
I don't find the " resolve an argument by risking life in jail" argument onvincing, if he was in a rage he wouldn't be thinking about the consequences.

If his story was false there would be a number of discrepancies that were fatal to his defence. None such were found so his story must be true. Possibly there is one I am unaware of, as I haven't read much testimony. One
thing that could be clarfied is whether she can eat at midnight without him knowing, as stomach contents prove she did. However even this might have seemed a convenient lie, as it has no bearing on the later facts.

 

[MontagK505]

If his story was false there would be a number of discrepancies that were fatal to his defence. None such were found so his story must be true. Possibly there is one I am unaware of, as I haven't read much testimony. One
thing that could be clarfied is whether she can eat at midnight without him knowing, as stomach contents prove she did. However even this might have seemed a convenient lie, as it has no bearing on the later facts.

If I were a juror at his trial, (if his trial were held in California) I would accept that the prosecution failed to prove that Oscar knew Reeva was in the toilet. It does not mean I think his story is true, it is simply not proven to be false. Acquittal is not proof of innocence, it's failure to prove guilt.

 

[Samson]

If I were a juror at his trial, (if his trial were held in California) I would accept that the prosecution failed to prove that Oscar knew Reeva was in the toilet. It does not mean I think his story is true, it is simply not proven to be false. Acquittal is not proof of innocence, it's failure to prove guilt.

My point is that there is a vanishingly small chance that there would not be something he failed to consider in constructing a narrative. For example,there was a NZ case, Hope, Smart, killed by Watson, who in the clean up wiped the inside of cassete tape covers, presumably to remove finger prints. One had to consider how often this task is undertaken, for example never.
I would expect an Oscar who knew it to be Reeva behind the door to make a cock up very quickly in his story. I can't prove this either, but he would have to be very lucky for the bits of narrative to blend into a plausible whole.

Here is a related idea by Kaosium.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10227041&postcount=2524

 

[newyorkguy]

I think what the judge has ruled is, Pistorius' presumption that the person in the bathroom was an intruder did not entitle him under South African law to use deadly force. That doing so makes him guilty of culpable murder.

This is from another case (Naidoo) in South Africa in which the charge of culpable murder was discussed:

[T]he perpetrator’s culpable failure to foresee the possibility of death...a failure to do what could and should have been done to prevent the occurrence of death, that is the rationale for the conviction of culpable homicide.

This is the difference between a case heard by a judge and a case heard by a jury. Juries sometimes go beyond the evidence to convict a defendant of a charge not specifically supported by that evidence. A judge is not going to do that, allow emotion to come into play. There have even been cases where juries have convicted and judges have then vacated the conviction on the grounds the evidence presented -- under the rule of law -- is not adequate to support a guilty verdict.

In any trial, the judge’s decision and opinion has higher authority than anyone else. The fact of the matter is that a judge is an expert on the law and the jury is not. The judge can overturn a guilty verdict and find the defendant not guilty, but not the other way around. Link

 

[Samson]

I think what the judge has ruled is, Pistorius' presumption that the person in the bathroom was an intruder did not entitle him under South African law to use deadly force. That doing so makes him guilty of culpable murder.

This is from another case (Naidoo) in South Africa in which the charge of culpable murder was discussed:



This is the difference between a case heard by a judge and a case heard by a jury. Juries sometimes go beyond the evidence to convict a defendant of a charge not specifically supported by that evidence. A judge is not going to do that, allow emotion to come into play. There have even been cases where juries have convicted and judges have then vacated the conviction on the grounds the evidence presented -- under the rule of law -- is not adequate to support a guilty verdict.

How do you see this case comparing to the ex springbok who shot his daughter dead as she was driving away in his car, thinking her a burglar? He was not charged because he had suffered enough.
But the perceived burglar was no threat at all in that case.