• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend - Part 2

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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/2014/03/10/court-hears-details-of-reeva-steenkamp-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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Samson said:
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/2014/03/10/court-hears-details-of-reeva-steenkamp-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.
Click to expand...

No it's not. Gee this game is easy to play.....
 
lionking said:
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.
Click to expand...
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/forums/showpost.php?p=9014364&postcount=538

ETA Charlie's link has expired, but I recall reading it in amazement.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
lionking said:
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.
Click to expand...

lionking said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
lionking said:
By "his" I assume you mean Oscar's. Because it's self-serving.

<snip>
Click to expand...


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.
 
Samson said:
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.
Click to expand...


I found a picture of Oscar Pistorius' story:

0rqNgvb.jpg
 
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.
 
MikeG said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom