OSCAR PISTORIUS MURDER TRIAL: the blade runner oscar pistorius shoots girlfriend

[HairOfTheDog]

Thanks, Duchess.

I hadn't seen that video; I think it's telling.

Yep, Pistorius is pretty agile without the prosthetics. (For some reason, I thought he'd be shorter.)

For years, Pistorius made a point of wanting to be considered equal with all other athletes (which was good, IMO). But, now that he's in big trouble and his explanations for his actions are hard to believe for a reasonable person, he's using his disability to try to avoid responsibility.

His latest claim that what he did was reasonable for HIM, because he was mentally vulnerable due to his physical limitations, strikes me as a desperate defense tactic. I hope it doesn't work.

[HairOfTheDog]

I'M ISOLATED WITH PTSD AND AFRAID TO GO OUT IN PUBLIC, BUT...

I went out to a nightclub and got into a fight anyway.



Okay, he hasn't been convicted of anything and the initial bail requirement of avoiding alcohol was rescinded shortly after it was mandated. So, he's perfectly within his rights to go out partying.

BUT, still, with his high profile and at this juncture, why go to a nightclub? Maybe he fears he'll be locked up and won't have many more opportunities to party.

In any event, I think it's almost inevitable that a fight broke out. Pistorius claims the other dude was interrogating and provoking him. The other dude claims Pistorius was taunting him (seems he is associated with some witnesses and evidence that was used against Pistorius).

Whatever happened, it goes against the picture that Pistorius and team have been painting of him during the trial.

So, right after the incident, Pistorius reportedly took to Twitter (for damage control, IMO).

Snip:
The first tweet to appear on the account was an image of a section from Psalms 34:18 reading: "The Lord is close to the brokenhearted".

The second was a collage of photographs of the athlete with disabled children, with an accompanying message that read: "You have the ability to make a difference in someone's life."

The third was an excerpt from the memoir of a survivor of the Auschwitz concentration camp who finds solace in his "utter desolation" by contemplating a picture of his "beloved".

On Monday morning, Pistorius posted another tweet to his 353,000 followers which showed the message "Lord I ask today that you bathe those who live in pain in the river of your healing" on the background of a misty river at dawn.

Full story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...tclub.html

I think he's a fraudulent dipshit, among other less positive things. If I were Roux, I'd be fuming.

[Duchess]

Whatever happened, it goes against the picture that Pistorius and team have been painting of him during the trial.

Hehehe.

Whatta boob. He's on trial fighting for his freedom and he goes clubbing. Ray Charles could have seen that coming. Seriously.

[Duchess]

Oops. Just to clarify. I meant Ray Charles could have seen an altercation happening if Oscar went to a club.

[HairOfTheDog]

More "Poor Oscar", again...

After the nightclub altercation, Pistorius’s uncle, Leo Pistorius, released a statement, on behalf of the family, in which he said that the athlete’s move to venture into a public space while the trial was under way had been unwise.

He said the family had witnessed Pistorius’s “escalating sense of loneliness and alienation. This, we believe, is underlying some of his self-harming behaviour.”

Gimme a break. It's a fact that Pistorius went to clubs, drank too much and shot off a gun in a restaurant, owned guns illegally, crashed a boat driving wrecklessly and badly hurt himself and friend, got into fights over women, etc...before he shot Reeva to death and was driven into this alleged loneliness and isolation. I think the whole Pistorius family is made up of enabling full-of-shit elitists.

Anyway, now another dude claims Pistorius attended his private party, got drunk, and was hitting on a chick -- just a couple of months after he killed Reeva. "Unnamed sources", so take it with a grain of salt, but it wouldn't surprise me if it turns out to be true. Ref: http://citizen.co.za/216647/oscar-pistor...vas-death/

Closing arguments begin on August 7^th -- I'm really anxious to hear them. Nel and Roux are both fiery interesting lawyers, IMO.

[HairOfTheDog]

CLOSING ARGUMENTS -- Thursday, 07 August & Friday, 08 August



Pistorius' defense throughout the trial included everything but the kitchen sink: putative self-defense (no life threat, but reasonable belief that there was), involuntary shooting ("I didn't realize I was pulling the trigger -- over and over"), killing as a result of vulnerable anxiety disorder (not so, say the mental health professionals)...

I'm anxious to hear which one Roux is gonna use in closing or if he's gonna toss 'em all at the judge again.

[Maggot]

He's going to be hopping mad if he doesn't get off, I bet he springs out of whatever chair he's in and starts crying in a really high pitched voice when they toss him in the clink. He will be hob-nobbing with his own class of people then.

[HairOfTheDog]

He's going to be hopping mad if he doesn't get off, I bet he springs out of whatever chair he's in and starts crying in a really high pitched voice when they toss him in the clink. He will be hob-nobbing with his own class of people then.

Nut.

I'm more confident that Pistorius will not walk or hop since the testimony ended and having looked back at the trial evidence and testimony. I hope he's convicted of premeditated murder because I think he shot Reeva in anger and deserves 25 to life.

But, if he gets culpable homicide and the judge gives him a long sentence behind bars, that'll work.

STATE/PROSECUTION CLOSING ARGUMENT
The state, in its written argument, lists eight things that Mr Nel - state prosecutor - says the court will need to accept in order to even consider Pistorius's defence:

1. The deceased decided to relieve herself and did so without saying a word to the accused.
2. For no apparent reason she opened the bathroom window.
3. She took her cellphone with her to the bathroom.
4. She decided not to switch on any of the lights.
5. She did not utter a word whilst the accused was screaming, not even when he was in the bathroom.
6. The deceased got up from the toilet to close and lock the door.
7. The deceased dressed herself before she was shot.
8. The deceased did not hide as a result of all the screaming but stood upright facing the danger.

"It just gets ridiculous, with the utmost respect," Mr Nel told the court.

[HairOfTheDog]

Gerrie Nel Delivers State's Closing Arugements -- 07 August 2014


Read the State's Closing Arguments -- Live Blog
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...-live.html



Watch the State's Closing Arguments -- Trial Video
Part 1


Part 2

[JsMom]

I haven't watched this trial as close as others but I feel he's guilty as sin. Bye bye muthafucka!

[Duchess]

I sure hope Reeva & all who cared about her get some justice, some satisfaction. I've thought about her fear so much. She died terrified. Jesus Christ.

[HairOfTheDog]

I haven't watched this trial as close as others but I feel he's guilty as sin. Bye bye muthafucka!

I hope bye-byes are in order for Pistorius too, Js.

Judge Masipa is getting good legal marks for how she's handled all the tension and drama in the courtroom. She's really well-regarded for being even-keeled and handing down strict sentences for violent offenders. I hope she sees through all of the defense bullshit and Pistorius goes away for at least 25 years.

The judge seems to be a strong and interesting woman. The NY Times ran this short piece about her the other day; admirable. Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/07/world/....html?_r=0

P.s. glad to see you posting, mamacita.

[HairOfTheDog]

Barry Roux Delivers the Defense Closing Arguments -- 08 August 2014

-Roux challenged all of the state's witnesses' credibility and the physical evidence handling; he essentially accuses the state of a conspiracy against Oscar Pistorius.

-He said that Pistorius responded to the perceived threat of an intruder in the same way that an "abused woman killing her husband" would.

-He told the judge that if she believes Pistorius acted reasonably based on his perceived threat, it was self defense and she must acquit him (he's asking for an exception to the standard reasonable bar for all citizens; he wants the judge to consider Pistorius differently because of his disability).

-Nel responded that even if the judge buys the acting under perceived threat story, she could not acquit Pistorius because in that case he would be guilty of at least culpable homicide.

-Roux tried to reconcile his own claims in court that it was putative self-defense with Pisotrius' subsequent testimony claiming that he didn't even know he was shooting -- that it was primal or involuntary shooting. (HOTD: Roux didn't succeed in cleaning up that mess.)


Read the Defense's Closing Arguments -- Live Blog
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...-live.html


Watch the Defense's Closing Arguments -- Trial Video
Part 1


Part 2

[Duchess]

-He said that Pistorius responded to the perceived threat of an intruder in the same way that an "abused woman" would.

Oh man. That's some kinda nerve.

[HairOfTheDog]

VERDICT DELIBERATIONS

At the end of closing arguments today, Judge Masipa announced that she would deliver the verdict on the morning of September 11^th 2014.


HERE ARE THE POSSIBLE VERDICTS AND SENTENCES:

Guilty of premeditated murder: Judge Masipa finds Pistorius intended and planned to unlawfully kill Reeva Steenkamp or an intruder. She finds that Pistorius had a row with Steenkamp and went to get his gun to shoot her, or that he heard what he thought was an intruder and decided in a fury to kill the intruder.

Sentence: This charge carries a mandatory life imprisonment sentence, with a minimum term of 25 years before the convict is eligible for parole. It could be that the judge finds Pistorius guilty only of murder, only referring to premeditation at sentencing.

OR

Guilty of murder: Judge Masipa finds that Pistorius intended to unlawfully kill Steenkamp or an intruder in the heat of the moment but without “malice aforethought”. In all cases of murder, she will have to consider whether it was a case of dolus directus, that it was Pistorius's aim and objective to unlawfully kill Steenkamp, or dolus eventualis, that by shooting at the lavatory door, he foresaw the possibility that he might not be legally entitled to shoot the intruder he believed was inside, or that he foresaw the possibility that Steenkamp could be harmed but accepted the risk and did so anyway.

Sentence: Sentences can range from suspended to life but the judge has considerable discretion depending on what she believes happened, and will take into account ordinary sentencing considerations such as previous convictions, the level of remorse, the potential for rehabilitation and the likely effects of custody.

OR

Guilty of culpable homicide (manslaughter): Judge Masipa finds there is a reasonable possibility that Pistorius did not intend to kill Steenkamp and thought he was tackling an intruder. But she finds his actions were negligent and not in keeping with those of a reasonable person who might, for example, have first checked where his girlfriend was, fired a warning shot at the lavatory door or established who the suspected intruder was and if they were armed. South African case law has it that the test of the reasonable person is not altered to take into account the attributes of the specific defendant, in this case physically disabled and possibly suffering from an anxiety disorder, but there is some debate among legal experts about whether Judge Masipa will decide to do so in this case.

Sentence: This is at the discretion of the judge. The maximum prison term is 15 years but convicts can also receive suspended and non-custodial sentences.

OR

Acquitted: Judge Masipa finds that Pistorius genuinely acted out of a belief he was defending himself, even if he was wrong, and modifies the test of the reasonable person to take into account his specific circumstances, his fear of crime and his background.

AND/OR

Gun charges:
Pistorius also faces two charges of discharging firearms in public, once through the sunroof of a car, and once under the table in a crowded Johannesburg restaurant called Tasha's.
Sentence: Both charges, which he denies, carry a maximum five-year prison sentence.

He also denies a further charge of illegal possession of ammunition. Police found .38 bullets in a safe in his bedroom. He said they were his father's and he had no gun to fire them.
Sentence: This charge carries a maximum 15 year prison term.


So, even if he is acquitted in Reeva's death, Pistorius could be sentenced up to 25 years if the judge finds him guilty of the gun-related charges.

[ramseycat]

That is so long!

[HairOfTheDog]

-He said that Pistorius responded to the perceived threat of an intruder in the same way that an "abused woman" would.

Oh man. That's some kinda nerve.

I really couldn't believe that Roux went there. It was insulting to abused women and legally imprudent. Judge Masipa questioned him about making such a comparison.

Here's a more detailed account of that exchange in court today.

Oscar Pistorius’ lawyers have compared the athlete to an abused woman who has been punched too many times.

During his closing argument today, defence advocate Barry Roux said the effect of Pistorius having no legs and no ability to escape was similar to the “slow burn” of a woman leading up to the shooting of an abusive spouse.

“Ultimately, when that woman picks up that firearm we can use the common words ‘I’ve had enough’.

I’m not shooting you because you’ve just assaulted me. I would never have shot you because of one punch of a fist in my face, but if you’ve done it 60, 70 times that [fills] the cup to the brim,” said Roux.

Pistorius is on trial for shooting dead girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine’s Day last year.

Judge Thokozile Masipa said she understood how a slow burn could apply to an abused woman, but wanted to know how it applied to Pistorius.

Roux replied: “You’re a little boy without legs, you experience daily that disability and the effect of this, you experience daily that you cannot run away.

You know: ‘I cannot run away, I cannot run away I don’t have a flight response’.”

Roux pointed out that he was not saying Pistorius suffered “slow burn” abuse but “the word was for the first time used in relation to abuse”.

http://www.citypress.co.za/news/pistoriu...sed-woman/

It's pretty much as Crash described it upthread; "The Poor Oscar Defense". It's a load of bullshit, IMO.

[Duchess]

That is so long!

Yeah but if we can live through waiting for that twat Jodi to get her just deserts we can do this.

[Duchess]

Roux replied: “You’re a little boy without legs, you experience daily that disability and the effect of this, you experience daily that you cannot run away.

You know: ‘I cannot run away, I cannot run away I don’t have a flight response’.”

I can hardly stand it. He's a world class athlete.

How long before a movie comes out. I'd be willing to bet there are scripts in progress if not already completed except for the ending.

I gotta say, his barfing in the bucket was priceless.

[HairOfTheDog]

VERDICT TO BE ANNOUNCED TOMORROW

I'm anxious to hear Judge Masipa's ruling.

Here's my guess, in which I have little confidence: Guilty of culpable homicide, guilty of the gun charges -- 7 to 15 years sentence.

-I think the defense did a good job of creating reasonable doubt around whether the female screams heard by the ear witnesses came before or after the last round of shots, and in posing the possibility that the female-sounding voice could have been Pistorius screaming like a girl when he'd realized what he'd done. I don't believe the prosecution proved that the couple was in the midst of a row at the time of the shooting (though I personally believe that is indeed what went down and Pistorius knew he was shooting at Reeva behind that door).

-IMO, the defense failed when it comes to getting Pistorius off the hook for the equivalent of manslaughter. "I intentionally shot for fear of my life and didn't know it was Reeva; I didn't intentionally shoot -- I accidentally pulled the trigger; I am not responsible for anything that I did because of trauma stemming from my disability"... Which one was it Oscar?

Too much contradictory unconvincing crap to render most of it believable. I don't think there's reasonable doubt that Pistorius was intending to shoot someone without taking the legally required reasonable actions to assess the situation first. He's responsible for the death of Reeva Steenkamp. I think the prosecution did a good job of proving that Pistorius is a self-serving liar and that "reasonable" shouldn't be redefined for Pistorius due to his disability.

-Pistorius was reckless with guns and his companions' testimonies, along with the testimony of other witnesses, proved that beyond reasonable doubt, IMO.

The testimony about Reeva's stomach content, whether she was crouching or fell on to the magazine rack, and the possible footprints on the door was a wash for me. If I were Masipa, I'd take those pieces outta the equation in deliberating the verdict.

Anyone else got a verdict prediction?