Blade Runner becomes Blade Gunner **Mod Warning Read OP""

whatstherush

robinph wrote: »

The initial judge dismissed this version of murder due to some technical reading of the SA law and some Latin terminology which nobody really understood, but now the appeal judges have re-read that and found it correct to find him guilty of that charge.

You have changed your tune from yesterday, I thought it was a prosecution screw up!!! Any way ya can spin it ha!

robinph wrote: »

You can sooth your soul by thinking that he has now been found guilty of what people were screaming for, the pre-meditated murder charge. The fact is that he has not.

I know the guilty verdict is for persons unknown behind the door, but that doesn't change the fact, that person was RS and therefore there is nothing incorrect in saying he's guilty of her murder.

weldoninhio

robinph wrote: »

His version of events have not been proved wrong. Both the original judge and the appeal judges fully accept his version of events.

You can not be serious?!?!

From this weeks hearing "At the outset he stated that he had fired the four shots 'before I knew it' and at a time when he was not sure if there was somebody in the toilet. This soon changed to a version that he had fired as he believed that whoever was in the toilet was going to come out to attack him. He later changed this to say that he had never intended to shoot at all; that he had not fired at the door on purpose and that he had not wanted to shoot at any intruder coming out of the toilet. In the light of these contradictions, one really does not know what his explanation is for having fired the fatal shots."

If you believe that the above is full acceptance of OPs version of events then you are truly deluded.

Tarzana2

weldoninhio wrote: »

If you believe that the above is full acceptance of OPs version of events then you are truly deluded.

It's saving face, I guess. A very human trait!

robinph

Tarzana2 wrote: »

OK. Then why did you say he hadn't been in the following post?



You didn't just say he hadn't been found guilty of pre-meditated murder. You said that he hadn't been found guilty of murder or pre-meditated murder.

Apologies for the confusion there. In that quote I was just expressing the same charge in two different ways, not that it was two different charges. My mistake in the way I wrote that line. He has been found guilty of murder.

He has not been found guilty of murder of RS and he has not been found guilty of pre-meditated murder. Those two are the same thing.

But people have been talking on this thread as if the prosecutions initial charge that they were pursuing from the outset he has now been found guilty of. That is not the case at all.

Tarzana2

robinph wrote: »

Apologies for the confusion there. In that quote I was just expressing the same charge in two different ways, not that it was two different charges. My mistake in the way I wrote that line. He has been found guilty of murder.

He has not been found guilty of murder of RS and he has not been found guilty of pre-meditated murder. Those two are the same thing.

But people have been talking on this thread as if the prosecutions initial charge that they were pursuing from the outset he has now been found guilty of. That is not the case at all.

Fine. But you do realise how pedantic you are being? He is guilty of murder of the person behind the door.

weldoninhio

robinph wrote: »

Apologies for the confusion there. In that quote I was just expressing the same charge in two different ways, not that it was two different charges. My mistake in the way I wrote that line. He has been found guilty of murder.

He has not been found guilty of murder of RS and he has not been found guilty of pre-meditated murder. Those two are the same thing.

But people have been talking on this thread as if the prosecutions initial charge that they were pursuing from the outset he has now been found guilty of. That is not the case at all.

"He has not been found guilty of murder of RS" - So who's murder is he being sentenced for in January?!?

robinph

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Fine. But you do realise how pedantic you are being? He is guilty of murder of the person behind the door.

Yes.

But that is the point of having judges to decide on these matters.

At no point has this been accepted as being a domestic by the court. This case has been spun to try and make it into something about abuse of women in SA, that is not what has been found by the courts however. The prosecution were fixated on following that route from the start for some reason, when they should have just gone for the charge that he's now been found guilty of. That is where I believe the prosecution screwed up.

It is absolutely right that he is locked up for a good amount of time and never let near any firearms ever again. It has not been shown that he is guilty of domestic abuse though, only that he is a fupping idiot around guns.

Tarzana2

Yes, the prosecution made a mistake going down that road. It's understandable that they did though. And truly, in people's heads, outside of a court of law many people are going to wonder what really happened that night outside of what can be proven.

robinph

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Yes, the prosecution made a mistake going down that road. It's understandable that they did though. And truly, in people's heads, outside of a court of law many people are going to wonder what really happened that night outside of what can be proven.

Totally in agreement there.

Deise Vu

I have a question for Robin & Audrey (but, for my sanity's sake, I don't expect a straight answer). Graham Dwyer was charged and convicted of the pre-meditated murder of Elaine O'Hara based on entirely on a mass of circumstantial evidence. We literally do not even know how Elaine died let alone that she was even murdered. (the defence suggested suicide). Would you both have acquitted him?

robinph

Deise Vu wrote: »

I have a question for Robin & Audrey (but, for my sanity's sake, I don't expect a straight answer). Graham Dwyer was charged and convicted of the pre-meditated murder of Elaine O'Hara based on entirely on a mass of circumstantial evidence. We literally do not even know how Elaine died let alone that she was even murdered. (the defence suggested suicide). Would you both have acquitted him?

Not familiar with that case so just going on what it says here:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/20/irish-sadomasochist-graham-dwyer-life-sentence-sex-slave-elaine-ohara

Sound like there is a lot of evidence of previous violence and threats towards various women in this case.

In the OP case he admits to killing her, he doesn't admit to intentionally murdering her.
In this case it sounds as if there was plenty of proof of violence and threats towards the victim, just no evidence of how she actually died.

Pistouris definitely, 100% was responsible for the killing of RS. We cannot be certain of his motives. I'm certain that OP was aware that the person behind the door would be killed or seriously injured, and he is rightly now charged with murder.
This case seems to be a bit clearer in that we know he had several screws loose and violent past towards this woman and others, and suggested that he'd already got away with another murder in his threats. But there isn't the proof of how this death happened or placing him at the scene.

There is gaps in both cases, but they are for different reasons.

Deise Vu

robinph wrote: »

Not familiar with that case so just going on what it says here:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/20/irish-sadomasochist-graham-dwyer-life-sentence-sex-slave-elaine-ohara

Sound like there is a lot of evidence of previous violence and threats towards various women in this case.

In the OP case he admits to killing her, he doesn't admit to intentionally murdering her.
In this case it sounds as if there was plenty of proof of violence and threats towards the victim, just no evidence of how she actually died.

Pistouris definitely, 100% was responsible for the killing of RS. We cannot be certain of his motives. I'm certain that OP was aware that the person behind the door would be killed or seriously injured, and he is rightly now charged with murder.
This case seems to be a bit clearer in that we know he had several screws loose and violent past towards this woman and others, and suggested that he'd already got away with another murder in his threats. But there isn't the proof of how this death happened or placing him at the scene.

There is gaps in both cases, but they are for different reasons.

Elaine O'Hara willing participated in violent S&M activities with Graham Dwyer, a man she met on-line, which immediately raises the possibility that there were other violent men in her life. She was also possibly depressed, even suicidal.

We don't know how she died and cannot definitively place Graham Dwyer at the scene. We know he was a sick man with sick fantasies but the only thing we know about him for absolutely certain is he was able to act out those fantasies previously without fatal consequences.

So, a simple yes or no, would you have acquitted him?

Boom_Bap

MOD
This is not a thread on Graham Dwyer. Please get back to the Blade Gunner.

Deise Vu

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No I would not because in contrast to the Pistorius case the circumstantial evidence against Dwyer was a hell of a lot stronger.

You had video's showing him stabbing Elaine O'Hara during intimacy, you had the pinging from the Master phone corresponding in every case to where Dwyer was the messages sent, you had CCTV images of Dwyer at Elaine's home corresponding to usage of the Master phone, you had details from Elaine's computer and her conversations with friends about a man with whom she had an abusive relationship, a man she name as Graham, whom she described as Architect married with children from the area where Dwyer lived. You the Master discussing events in his life that correspond exactly with events in Dwyer's ie. the birth of his daughter, coming fifth in a flying competition. You had absolute proof of Dwyer's horrific fantasies and taste. I could go on and on but we'd be here all day.

Circumstantial yes but taken together all very very strong evidence that he killed her.

There is, to my mind, nothing even close to that definitive in the Pistorius case, except for the fact that he killed Reeva. Why he did it is not at all clear.

So having sick fantasies, and apparently lots of partners to act them out with is enough to condemn someone for a death we do not even know was murder but pumping 4 dum dums into your girlfriend in a locked apartment, in a secure compound with police and security on tap is 'circumstantial'?

Thanks, that's all I need to know.

AudreyHepburn

Deise Vu wrote: »

So having sick fantasies, and apparently lots of partners to act them out with is enough to condemn someone for a death we do not even know was murder but pumping 4 dum dums into your girlfriend in a locked apartment, in a secure compound with police and security on tap is 'circumstantial'?

Thanks, that's all I need to know.

This only speaks to the fact that he killed her. It says nothing about what was going on his head at the time.

robinph

Nobody has claimed that Pistouris didn't kill RS.

Nobody is really claiming that he didn't intend to seriously injure of kill whoever was behind the door. Well except OP in his "the gun fired itself" lines when being questioned in court, but I think his defence team just had a face palm moment then and moved on hoping that nobody noticed.

Deise Vu wrote: »

... pumping 4 dum dums into your girlfriend in a locked apartment, in a secure compound with police and security on tap is 'circumstantial'?

The prosecutions opening line in the OP case was that all they had was circumstantial, so yes you are correct.
What they should have done is ignored the pre-meditated charge with only circumstantial and hear-say evidence and followed up on the charge that he has now been found guilty of, and didn't require the additional standard of "beyond reasonable doubt".

Deise Vu

robinph wrote: »

Nobody has claimed that Pistouris didn't kill RS.

Nobody is really claiming that he didn't intend to seriously injure of kill whoever was behind the door. Well except OP in his "the gun fired itself" lines when being questioned in court, but I think his defence team just had a face palm moment then and moved on hoping that nobody noticed.



The prosecutions opening line in the OP case was that all they had was circumstantial, so yes you are correct.
What they should have done is ignored the pre-meditated charge with only circumstantial and hear-say evidence and followed up on the charge that he has now been found guilty of, and didn't require the additional standard of "beyond reasonable doubt".

I think I have it now. If the defendant is an odious little man we can impute pre-meditation in his involvement in a death that may or may not have been murder, suicide or dangerous consensual sexual practices that went too far. If the defendant is a clean-cut 'role model' any cock-and bull story he concocts to fit the facts must be believed. Gotcha.

Folks, my advice if you are ever called to jury duty is to turn up either in a suit clutching a bible or wearing a confederate T-shirt with "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" written on it. Avoid selection at all costs even it means saying you are a personal friend of the paedo on trial. You do not want to be locked in a room with people who think the process is a debate and the more ludicrous the proposition the better they like it.

seamus

Deise Vu wrote: »

I think I have it now. If the defendant is an odious little man we can impute pre-meditation in his involvement in a death that may or may not have been murder, suicide or dangerous consensual sexual practices that went too far. If the defendant is a clean-cut 'role model' any cock-and bull story he concocts to fit the facts must be believed. Gotcha.

That's not what anyone is saying, but ironically you seem to be proposing that the exact opposite should be true - that a defendant's story should be automatically treated as "cock-and-bull" regardless of whether it fits the facts.

In the absence of other witnesses, you compare the defendant's story against the evidence presented at trial and decide whether it all fits.

robinph

Deise Vu wrote: »

I think I have it now. If the defendant is an odious little man we can impute pre-meditation in his involvement in a death that may or may not have been murder, suicide or dangerous consensual sexual practices that went too far. If the defendant is a clean-cut 'role model' any cock-and bull story he concocts to fit the facts must be believed. Gotcha.

Folks, my advice if you are ever called to jury duty is to turn up either in a suit clutching a bible or wearing a confederate T-shirt with "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" written on it. Avoid selection at all costs even it means saying you are a personal friend of the paedo on trial. You do not want to be locked in a room with people who think the process is a debate and the more ludicrous the proposition the better they like it.

Not even sure what you are ranting about now.

Pistouris is guilty of murder, based on the evidence presented in court. What more do you want?

Deise Vu

seamus wrote: »

That's not what anyone is saying, but ironically you seem to be proposing that the exact opposite should be true - that a defendant's story should be automatically treated as "cock-and-bull" regardless of whether it fits the facts.

How you have reached this conclusion is absolutely beyond me.

seamus wrote: »

In the absence of other witnesses, you compare the defendant's story against the evidence presented at trial and decide whether it all fits.

This is exactly what I, and the vast majority of posters, have been saying from day 1. Oscar's version of events is ludicrous and should have been laughed at by his defence counsel when it was first suggested. They should have gone with "the Martians done it."

seamus

Deise Vu wrote: »

This is exactly what I, and the vast majority of posters, have been saying from day 1. Oscar's version of events is ludicrous and should have been laughed at by his defence counsel when it was first suggested. They should have gone with "the Martians done it."

...except that for the most part it fits the facts.

What alternative narrative is there that fits the facts? Certainly not the prosecution's clusterfnck.

Deise Vu

seamus wrote: »

...except that for the most part it fits the facts.

What alternative narrative is there that fits the facts? Certainly not the prosecution's clusterfnck.

People murder their partners in a fit of rage all around the world every day of the week.It is very easy to picture RS running to the bathroom to lock herself away if he was threatening her with a gun.

On the other hand, his story is that he woke up, went out on the balcony to move the air conditioner. He was, therefore, fully alert when he heard sounds from the bathroom. Sounds which presumably would have been sinister such as peeing, running water, tower rail clinking, who knows, maybe even the deadly sound of RS spraying herself with a bit of deodorant.

Oscar doesn't notice that RS is no longer in the bed because it is dark, he doesn't turn on the lights, he doesn't ring the police, he doesn't ring security, he doesn't grab RS from the bed and flee the apartment, he doesn't shout to the 'burglars' that he has a gun, he doesn't fire a warning shot to show he means business and alert security.He doesn't simply set up a defensive position while doing any of the obvious things mentioned above. He doesn't tell RV to get out or call the police, he doesn't give her one of his other guns to protect herself. He doesn't even put on his prosthetic legs in case he needs to flee or for the mobility he surely needs in this life or death situation.

No, he has a much better idea, he goes out of the bedroom and off down the dark corridor on his stumps to God knows what.... 1, 2, 10 burglars who could be armed with machine guns or shotguns and waiting outside the bathroom and, finding nothing only the bathroom door, he finally shouts to RS to stay quiet . She, bizarrely, doesn't answer even though he is clearly just outside the bathroom door. Instead she tries to come out of the bathroom without, even more bizarrely, unlocking the door first. During all this time it still hasn't occurred to Oscar that he hasn't seen RS and that maybe someone having a pee in the middle of the night might be a plausible explanation for the noise he is hearing. Instead he fires four lethal, illegal rounds through the door.

Yeah, that's probably what happened alright.

Muff Richardson

seamus wrote: »

...except that for the most part it fits the facts.

What alternative narrative is there that fits the facts? Certainly not the prosecution's clusterfnck.

this is the same drum that keeps getting beaten here from certain people and it is rather tiresome. The appeal Judge referred to Pistorius's version of the immediate events before the shooting and the shooting itself as "implausible" and certain key aspects as "inconceivable". That's the proof, it is ridiculously far-fetched. It clearly doesn't require what some people here seem to think is necessary in order to convict someone. The prosecution's alternative narrative is a hell of lot more believable than the nonsense the defence/Pistorious dreamt up...hence, he's getting sent down thankfully.

although fairly smart allecky, bias yet accurate...this is a fairly comprehensive summary of their version of events.

http://www.biznews.com/oscar-pistorius-trial/2015/12/04/oscar-pistorius-version-events-brilliant-summary-athlete-wants-us-believe/

Deise Vu

Muff Richardson wrote: »

this is the same drum that keeps getting beaten here from certain people and it is rather tiresome. The appeal Judge referred to Pistorius's version of the immediate events before the shooting and the shooting itself as "implausible" and certain key aspects as "inconceivable". That's the proof, it is ridiculously far-fetched. It clearly doesn't require what some people here seem to think is necessary in order to convict someone. The prosecution's alternative narrative is a hell of lot more believable than the nonsense the defence/Pistorious dreamt up...hence, he's getting sent down thankfully.

although fairly smart allecky, bias yet accurate...this is a fairly comprehensive summary of their version of events.

http://www.biznews.com/oscar-pistorius-trial/2015/12/04/oscar-pistorius-version-events-brilliant-summary-athlete-wants-us-believe/

I just wasted 10 minutes on my previous post. Thanks!

josip

He's out on bail with an electronic monitor

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-africa-35008637

Wossack

threads been going in circles the last while..!

from my perspective, there seems to be a mix up of premeditated murder, and common murder (the later being a broader ruling of 'intentional unlawful killing of another human being.')

the prosecution went for premeditated murder, and could not prove it unequivocally. The original judge also subjectively felt that the common murder charge didnt fit, so went for the lesser charge again; culpable homicide

Its that final bit thats been overruled in the appeals court; Judge Masipa ruling culpable homicide instead of common murder. He's still not been found guilty of premeditated murder, but common murder - firing through the bathroom door could not have resulted in any other outcome then the death of the person inside (intruder, or Reeva, it doesnt matter)

why on earth the prosecution didnt go for this charge initially, god only knows..

Tarzana2

seamus wrote: »

...except that for the most part it fits the facts.

What alternative narrative is there that fits the facts? Certainly not the prosecution's clusterfnck.

Wut? Pistorius's story was highly implausible, but it simply couldn't be disproven, and the more likely version of events couldn't be proven. That's it.

You really can't think of anything else that might have also have fit the facts and that would have been far more likely? Sadly, Oscar Pistorius's ridiculous version of events could not be disproven but it's laughable that anyone would consider it the most likely explanation.

The reason the prosecution should not have pressed ahead with their version of events is because it could not be proven. But it's quite silly to suggest that what they were suggesting is implausible and it's definitely daft to suggest that it is more implausible that what OP claimed happened.

robinph

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Wut? Pistorius's story was highly implausible, but it simply couldn't be disproven, and the more likely version of events couldn't be proven. That's it.

You really can't think of anything else that might have also have fit the facts and that would have been far more likely? Sadly, Oscar Pistorius's ridiculous version of events could not be disproven but it's laughable that anyone would consider it the most likely explanation.

The reason the prosecution should not have pressed ahead with their version of events is because it could not be proven. But it's quite silly to suggest that what they were suggesting is implausible and it's definitely daft to suggest that it is more implausible that what OP claimed happened.

There are holes in both stories.

I see the idea that an argument kicked off at 3am and resulted in going straight to the nuclear option without any other indication of violence towards RS or disturbances that evening prior to that as being more implausible than someone didn't notice someone else getting out of bed in a dark room. Neighbours in the next estate over hearing noises and shouting but where two people in the same room recount different testimony is not proof of an argument happening.

Also the story from OP has not changed from the start, and yes I am ignoring the details such as one or two fans changing as being irrelevant to that. There has been no change in the basics of what he has claimed and that he was giving the same story to the doctor/ neighbour that appeared on the scene first is still essentially the same.

If it was an argument that went wrong I would have expected the story to change/ fall apart as time went on. If it was pre-meditated in advance of that evening then then he may have come up with the story in advance, but it is an extremely odd way to try and top someone, and I don't think he's clever enough or evil enough for that to be the case.

Nerdlingr

Deise Vu wrote: »

No, he has a much better idea, he goes out of the bedroom and off down the dark corridor on his stumps to God knows what.... 1, 2, 10 burglars who could be armed with machine guns or shotguns and waiting outside the bathroom and, finding nothing only the bathroom door, he finally shouts to RS to stay quiet ....

He didn't even have to leave the bedroom, the toilet/bathroom was an en suite.

Deise Vu

Nerdlingr wrote: »

He didn't even have to leave the bedroom, the toilet/bathroom was an en suite.

That is simply not true. Google the layout of Oscar's pad and you will get an even better idea of how ludicrous his story is. He had to make two 'blind' right turns into a darkened area where he thought murderers and rapists were waiting. And he did it in the dark, on his stumps.

It is beyond a joke.