Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[lithgow1]

I wanted to know where was the evidence that OP decided to enter the media spotlight rather (as I mentioned before) than it being visited upon him.

I pointed out his choice to do a front cover spread in a glossy celebrity magazine but that either doesn`t meet your criteria of `entering the media spotlight` or you are choosing to ignore it as it seriously undermines your argument.

 

[cottonweaver]

I wanted to know where was the evidence that OP decided to enter the media spotlight rather (as I mentioned before) than it being visited upon him.

I don't understand why you want to see this "decided to enter" as a one-off event. ( Well I do see why you want to deal with that instead but I'll be polite. )

This long career, long relationship with the media beginning post-teenage years, building of a profile, getting new management and then developing the financial benefits through developing and marketing a "brand", attracting new sponsors was not a one off event. All the stuff I listed previously shows a continuum.
Even van Zyl testified to that in his trial testimony, which I quoted a tiny portion of. It took years to build, lots of "Yes, pleases" from OP. Post Olympics it hit a new level- it was his new retirement plan. As a disabled man with a a winning media approach he would have branch out further. ( You're from the UK , you're familiar with how Beckham has played it and he's a late starter he's only just got on Instagram!)

So "decided to enter" . Every day, for years, it's called "courting the press" in common parlance. To repeat, there is nothing wrong with it per se - it's business.

As a dedicated Pist trial watcher you will have understood that it was partly the conflict between the real OP and the public face of OP that was his undoing.

 

[Trotterly]

I don't understand why you want to see this "decided to enter" as a one-off event. ( Well I do see why you want to deal with that instead but I'll be polite. )

This long career, long relationship with the media beginning post-teenage years, building of a profile, getting new management and then developing the financial benefits through developing and marketing a "brand", attracting new sponsors was not a one off event. All the stuff I listed previously shows a continuum.
Even van Zyl testified to that in his trial testimony, which I quoted a tiny portion of. It took years to build, lots of "Yes, pleases" from OP. Post Olympics it hit a new level- it was his new retirement plan. As a disabled man with a a winning media approach he would have branch out further. ( You're from the UK , you're familiar with how Beckham has played it and he's a late starter he's only just got on Instagram!)

So "decided to enter" . Every day, for years, it's called "courting the press" in common parlance. To repeat, there is nothing wrong with it per se - it's business.

As a dedicated Pist trial watcher you will have understood that it was partly the conflict between the real OP and the public face of OP that was his undoing.

Of course it is a one off event. Once you are famous anonymity is no longer an option.

I can imagine that a exceptionally fast runner with "no legs" might be newsworthy. I'm also not naive enough to believe that the attentions of the media have to be courted.

The insinuation that OP initially craved the spotlight (for financial gain?) had no basis, and it still doesn't.

 

[Pisto_lius]

@ Trotterly

I remember OP's race against a horse.

Who do you think had an interest in media reports about this spectacle ?

Without giving too much away: it wasn't in the interest of the horse
.
.

 

[cottonweaver]

Of course it is a one off event. Once you are famous anonymity is no longer an option.

I can imagine that a exceptionally fast runner with "no legs" might be newsworthy. I'm also not naive enough to believe that the attentions of the media have to be courted.

The insinuation that OP initially craved the spotlight (for financial gain?) had no basis, and it still doesn't.

I ahd to go out hence the delay in replying. However, having just seen the content in your reply I give up. " media do not have to be courted" etc, Wow.

Tip - i recently had the "pleasure" of looking at other WS threads/groups on another trial - I'd advise that you jump onto one of those - you'd get more satisfaction.
Alternatively I know I spoke about "living under rocks" but here's a further tangential recommendation for you, a movie - "Goodbye Lenin" , I'm sure Pisto-lius will have seen it. Haven't seen it in a decade, but it's great.

 

[AJ_DS]

Another fine example of specious reasoning...

The Paralympics are chuck full of Paralympic athletes with various disabilities who are exceptionally talented... after all, in all events someone is always better than the rest and gets the gold medal.

Ergo they would all be newsworthy and subject to becoming famous and rich.

... however, the reality is that almost none of them become even remotely famous or rich.

Stating that courting the press does not go on or plays no role is very naive.

(modsnip)

 

[cottonweaver]

@ Trotterly

I remember OP's race against a horse.

Who do you think had an interest in media reports about this spectacle ?

Without giving too much away: it wasn't in the interest of the horse
.
.

English may not be your first language but the humour translated very well. :laughing:

 

[WilliamMunter]

Many months ago we started a list of people than Pistorius blamed for his current predicament. It was a very long list indeed and included Reeva (for not calling out), Dr Stipp (for not saving Reeva's life), his defence team (for not advising him properly), Fresco (for passing a loaded gun in Tasha's) etc etc ad nauseam.

We can now add some poor horse in Doha.

 

[LemonMousse]

Trotterly...you are missing quite a few points, I think.

Firstly, maybe you're right and OP launched his sports career for the love of it rather than the glory. Most sports people do. And no one has ever sought to diminish his achievements in his career - they were (and remain) truly outstanding.

But didn't (later) seek the limelight? You seriously have to be joking! He did adverts for Nike!!! He gave endless magazine and television interviews, he went on the SA version of Strictly Come Dancing, he showed up for the opening of every glitzy envelope possible and was photographed with a succession of blonds - the last being Reeva.

And you know what...I don't blame him. We all have to make a living, and his sports career had a shelf life. So fine. Just a bit repellent when he tried to have himself painted in court as St Oscar, devoted to children, spending his own money kitting them out with Nike trainers when actually, he was paid for those appearances and got the trainers free.

And while I don't believe the evidence against him was remotely shakey, the appeal is not about challenging the ruling on facts. It's challenging on the basis that, Reeva or not, Pistorius knew he was shooting at a human being in the toilet and the human being would very possibly die. This is Dolus Eventualis

Nearly a year on, it still astounds me that Masipa made such a foolish and incredible mistake.

By his own admission, Pistorius knew there was a human being in the toilet and he shot them four times. Masipa tried to excuse him from this by saying that he couldn't have known he'd hurt anyone because Reeva was in bed.

Think for a minute about that: he couldn't have intended to hurt the intruder that he claimed to believe was in the toilet because he thought his girlfriend was in bed.

That is a fallacy of equivocation on quite an astonishing scale. I will be astounded in five judges all agree with her. Five 8 year olds wouldn't.

She then made it worse by saying that he couldn't have intended to hurt the intruder because he gave his girlfriend mouth to mouth when he saw he'd shot her. And he proved that he didn't intend to hurt the intruder by crying over his dead girlfriend.

I think there's a very serious chance he'll go back to prison for DE and be there for considerably longer than 10 lousy months.

Oh - and to add...you keep saying that it was proven that Mrs VDM heard a male crying at the same time as the others heard a female screaming. No.

Mrs VDM heard the arguing, then heard a bang. Some minutes later she and her husband heard the male crying. Her husband then called the security line (same one as Mr Mike and Dr Thingy) and shortly afterwards they saw ambulances.

We know that the first caller to the security line was the doctor, closely followed by Mr Mike. So, whatever time Mr VDM called the security number (minutes after hearing male crying) we know it was after Reeva was dead because it was after the first two had made their calls....at which time both were reporting hearing a male sobbing too. Neither heard anyone screaming at the point, least of all a woman.

Mrs VDM never heard the screaming....she heard an argument. She then heard the male sobbing after the last set of bangs. So you are incorrect.

Note that everyone who heard a female screaming heard it before the second set of bangs.
Note that everyone who heard a male sobbing heard it after the second bangs.
Note that the doctor heard both the female screaming and then the male sobbing and did not confuse the two.
Note that all four of the witnesses were under the distinct impression that a couple were involved. The doctor's specific reason for even heading to the house was because he thought that there had been a family murder and children might be involved.

There is not the faintest doubt in my mind that Reeva screamed. It is ludicrous beyond all reason to imagine that that was Pistorius who not only managed to sound like two people, but also stopped screaming like a woman pretty much at the moment that the only woman in the house died, and then confined himself to sounding like a man.

Reeva screamed and that makes Pistorius guilty. No question.

 

[AJ_DS]

Trotterly...you are missing quite a few points, I think.

Firstly, maybe you're right and OP launched his sports career for the love of it rather than the glory. Most sports people do. And no one has ever sought to diminish his achievements in his career - they were (and remain) truly outstanding.

But didn't (later) seek the limelight? You seriously have to be joking! He did adverts for Nike!!! He gave endless magazine and television interviews, he went on the SA version of Strictly Come Dancing, he showed up for the opening of every glitzy envelope possible and was photographed with a succession of blonds - the last being Reeva.

And you know what...I don't blame him. We all have to make a living, and his sports career had a shelf life. So fine. Just a bit repellent when he tried to have himself painted in court as St Oscar, devoted to children, spending his own money kitting them out with Nike trainers when actually, he was paid for those appearances and got the trainers free.

And while I don't believe the evidence against him was remotely shakey, the appeal is not about challenging the ruling on facts. It's challenging on the basis that, Reeva or not, Pistorius knew he was shooting at a human being in the toilet and the human being would very possibly die. This is Dolus Eventualis

Nearly a year on, it still astounds me that Masipa made such a foolish and incredible mistake.

By his own admission, Pistorius knew there was a human being in the toilet and he shot them four times. Masipa tried to excuse him from this by saying that he couldn't have known he'd hurt anyone because Reeva was in bed.

Think for a minute about that: he couldn't have intended to hurt the intruder that he claimed to believe was in the toilet because he thought his girlfriend was in bed.

That is a fallacy of equivocation on quite an astonishing scale. I will be astounded in five judges all agree with her. Five 8 year olds wouldn't.

She then made it worse by saying that he couldn't have intended to hurt the intruder because he gave his girlfriend mouth to mouth when he saw he'd shot her. And he proved that he didn't intend to hurt the intruder by crying over his dead girlfriend.

I think there's a very serious chance he'll go back to prison for DE and be there for considerably longer than 10 lousy months.

Oh - and to add...you keep saying that it was proven that Mrs VDM heard a male crying at the same time as the others heard a female screaming. No.

Mrs VDM heard the arguing, then heard a bang. Some minutes later she and her husband heard the male crying. Her husband then called the security line (same one as Mr Mike and Dr Thingy) and shortly afterwards they saw ambulances.

We know that the first caller to the security line was the doctor, closely followed by Mr Mike. So, whatever time Mr VDM called the security number (minutes after hearing male crying) we know it was after Reeva was dead because it was after the first two had made their calls....at which time both were reporting hearing a male sobbing too. Neither heard anyone screaming at the point, least of all a woman.

Mrs VDM never heard the screaming....she heard an argument. She then heard the male sobbing after the last set of bangs. So you are incorrect.

Note that everyone who heard a female screaming heard it before the second set of bangs.
Note that everyone who heard a male sobbing heard it after the second bangs.
Note that the doctor heard both the female screaming and then the male sobbing and did not confuse the two.
Note that all four of the witnesses were under the distinct impression that a couple were involved. The doctor's specific reason for even heading to the house was because he thought that there had been a family murder and children might be involved.

There is not the faintest doubt in my mind that Reeva screamed. It is ludicrous beyond all reason to imagine that that was Pistorius who not only managed to sound like two people, but also stopped screaming like a woman pretty much at the moment that the only woman in the house died, and then confined himself to sounding like a man.

Reeva screamed and that makes Pistorius guilty. No question.

Although your post may have soured the current streak of levity, I applaud it for its balanced arguments and comprehensive conclusions... I totally agree with them.

 

[GR_Turner]

Trotterly...you are missing quite a few points, I think.

Firstly, maybe you're right and OP launched his sports career for the love of it rather than the glory. Most sports people do. And no one has ever sought to diminish his achievements in his career - they were (and remain) truly outstanding.

But didn't (later) seek the limelight? You seriously have to be joking! He did adverts for Nike!!! He gave endless magazine and television interviews, he went on the SA version of Strictly Come Dancing, he showed up for the opening of every glitzy envelope possible and was photographed with a succession of blonds - the last being Reeva.

And you know what...I don't blame him. We all have to make a living, and his sports career had a shelf life. So fine. Just a bit repellent when he tried to have himself painted in court as St Oscar, devoted to children, spending his own money kitting them out with Nike trainers when actually, he was paid for those appearances and got the trainers free.

And while I don't believe the evidence against him was remotely shakey, the appeal is not about challenging the ruling on facts. It's challenging on the basis that, Reeva or not, Pistorius knew he was shooting at a human being in the toilet and the human being would very possibly die. This is Dolus Eventualis

Nearly a year on, it still astounds me that Masipa made such a foolish and incredible mistake.

By his own admission, Pistorius knew there was a human being in the toilet and he shot them four times. Masipa tried to excuse him from this by saying that he couldn't have known he'd hurt anyone because Reeva was in bed.

Think for a minute about that: he couldn't have intended to hurt the intruder that he claimed to believe was in the toilet because he thought his girlfriend was in bed.

That is a fallacy of equivocation on quite an astonishing scale. I will be astounded in five judges all agree with her. Five 8 year olds wouldn't.

She then made it worse by saying that he couldn't have intended to hurt the intruder because he gave his girlfriend mouth to mouth when he saw he'd shot her. And he proved that he didn't intend to hurt the intruder by crying over his dead girlfriend.

I think there's a very serious chance he'll go back to prison for DE and be there for considerably longer than 10 lousy months.

Oh - and to add...you keep saying that it was proven that Mrs VDM heard a male crying at the same time as the others heard a female screaming. No.

Mrs VDM heard the arguing, then heard a bang. Some minutes later she and her husband heard the male crying. Her husband then called the security line (same one as Mr Mike and Dr Thingy) and shortly afterwards they saw ambulances.

We know that the first caller to the security line was the doctor, closely followed by Mr Mike. So, whatever time Mr VDM called the security number (minutes after hearing male crying) we know it was after Reeva was dead because it was after the first two had made their calls....at which time both were reporting hearing a male sobbing too. Neither heard anyone screaming at the point, least of all a woman.

Mrs VDM never heard the screaming....she heard an argument. She then heard the male sobbing after the last set of bangs. So you are incorrect.

Note that everyone who heard a female screaming heard it before the second set of bangs.
Note that everyone who heard a male sobbing heard it after the second bangs.
Note that the doctor heard both the female screaming and then the male sobbing and did not confuse the two.
Note that all four of the witnesses were under the distinct impression that a couple were involved. The doctor's specific reason for even heading to the house was because he thought that there had been a family murder and children might be involved.

There is not the faintest doubt in my mind that Reeva screamed. It is ludicrous beyond all reason to imagine that that was Pistorius who not only managed to sound like two people, but also stopped screaming like a woman pretty much at the moment that the only woman in the house died, and then confined himself to sounding like a man.

Reeva screamed and that makes Pistorius guilty. No question.

Your facts are all wrong. Try looking again at the trial in YT

Firstly, the defense to DE is PPD.

All the witnesses who heard female screaming heard it between 2 sets of shots (as they heard the same screaming clearly). The male crying (high pitched and out loud as though in pain or in danger - not sobbing) was in the minutes before 3.16 and the female screaming in the same few minutes before 3.17. This must be the same sounds.

Mrs VdM didn't hear an argument - she heard a woman's voice from far away sounding angry and in a language she couldn't be sure of - and no other voice. That she mistook Oscar's crying for that of a woman strongly suggests that his crying could be mistaken for that of a woman, and bear in mind the descriptions of the male crying given by the close neighbours. We are not talking about a bit of sobbing here.

The evidence shows that Reeva did not scream and that's why Masipa found that he hadn't known that she was in the loo. I don't suggest you look at YT to be flippant. Just you may have accepted the going opinion of people who want to think he's guilty when in fact the evidence really doesn't support that.

 

[LemonMousse]

Your facts are all wrong. Try looking again at the trial in YT

Firstly, the defense to DE is PPD.

All the witnesses who heard female screaming heard it between 2 sets of shots (as they heard the same screaming clearly). The male crying (high pitched and out loud as though in pain or in danger - not sobbing) was in the minutes before 3.16 and the female screaming in the same few minutes before 3.17. This must be the same sounds.

Mrs VdM didn't hear an argument - she heard a woman's voice from far away sounding angry and in a language she couldn't be sure of - and no other voice. That she mistook Oscar's crying for that of a woman strongly suggests that his crying could be mistaken for that of a woman, and bear in mind the descriptions of the male crying given by the close neighbours. We are not talking about a bit of sobbing here.

The evidence shows that Reeva did not scream and that's why Masipa found that he hadn't known that she was in the loo. I don't suggest you look at YT to be flippant. Just you may have accepted the going opinion of people who want to think he's guilty when in fact the evidence really doesn't support that.

Oh dear.

PPD may well be a defence to DE. But Masipa did not accept that he acted in self-defence. Self-defence is a complete defence to murder. He'd have been acquitted if she'd found that. He was convicted of CP.

In order to support any self defence claim you have to acknowledge intent. "Yes, I did intend to hurt that person...it was either that or they'd have killed me". You cannot kill someone in self-defence as a mistake. That's not what PPD means. The mistake is not that you killed them, but you genuinely thought you had reason to.

Pistorius sabotaged any hope he had of claiming self defence by insisting that he never intended to shoot anyone.....four times, with a pause while he changed trajectory.

Mrs VDM was under the impression that she was hearing an argument. Reeva or not, she probably did...unless you think there was likely to be a woman talking loudly to herself nearby. A woman who has never come forward, by the way. The language is totally irrelevant.

Mrs VDM thought the sobbing sounded like a woman.
Mr VDM said it was male.
Mr Mike said it was male.
Mrs Mike said it was male.
The other lady neighbour said it was male.
The doctor said it was male.
Mr Baba who only heard sobbing down the phone knew it was Oscar and did not mistake it for a female.

One person...who has been up all night listening to a loud woman's voice.....out of 7 thinking it was female equals "highly likely that Oscar sounds like a woman". Er....no. It makes it highly likely that in fact he doesn't.

The evidence does not show that Reeva did not scream. The evidence indicates strongly that she did. Someone was screaming and sounding to absolutely everyone who heard it exactly like a woman.

If Pistorius can achieve this remarkable feat, why not scream so the court can hear? Roux admitted they'd recorded him screaming, but this was never played to the court. Why on earth not. Clearly because he sounded nothing at all like a woman, and they knew it. Oh, but wait....he couldn't replicate it because he wasn't anxious enough that time? Seriously? This snivelling, sobbing, puking wreck of a man facing life imprisonment couldn't manage one single scream that sounded female?

Let's not be silly, eh?

Oh and I have watched it on YT thanks.

 

[JudgeJudi]

This interesting article provides a lot more detail on correctional supervision. David Dadic weighs in with some of his opinions on the subject. One of the aims will be to integrate him back into the community. It appears that most of his friends have deserted him, and in fact testified on behalf of the State. Not one friend came forward to speak on his behalf prior to sentencing. Somehow I don't think the community at large will be welcoming him back with open arms, apart from the Pistorians, but that's another story.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Will-Oscars-house-arrest-be-a-walk-in-the-park-20150609

 

[JudgeJudi]

Hi there Lithgow. Nice to see you back again. Are you still O/S?

 

[lithgow1]

Hi there Lithgow. Nice to see you back again. Are you still O/S?

Thanks Judge Judi. Yep, I am still over in Europe. Hadn`t been here for a while but then with the news of his upcoming release (boo, hiss) I thought I would check out what was happening and it is nice to see a few familiar `faces`. Despite thinking it a travesty of justice that he could have acted so rashly (at the very least) and yet be basically free after ten months I am still hoping that the appeal will be successful. The fact that nearly all South African legal minds found Judge Masipa`s `logic` in coming to her conclusions very flawed makes me hopeful that he will pay at least something of a higher price for what I still consider to be a hot blooded murder.

 

[lithgow1]

But you still don't know the answer to my question or if you do you aren't telling.

I'll watch your movie if you watch mine. It's called "12 Angry Men".

It might help you deal with the result of the appeal a little better.

What I find the oddest thing about people who were/are so pleased with the verdict and now this house arrest issue is the obvious delight they take in such a light sentence. Forget the debates about the evidence or the judge`s flaws or lack thereof or the antics of the Pistorius clan. It is not only odd but disturbing that there are people who make the claim that wishing for a harsh sentence for Pistorius says more about the wishers than it does about him while at the same time seemingly never pausing to consider what their apparent attitude that blasting a terrified woman to death is no big deal, just an accident, we all make mistakes, he was a jumpy chap ad nauseum says about them.

 

[JudgeJudi]

“Pistorius’ entire experience with the South African criminal justice system is taken as emblematic of what it means to be rich and white, as opposed to black and poor. At any given time, a third of prisoners in South African jails are awaiting trial. The longest-duration remand prisoner in the country, Victor Nkomo, was released earlier this year after waiting eight years for the completion of his trial.

By contrast, Pistorius managed to be arrested, bailed, stand trial and complete time behind bars within two-and-a-half years. Pistorius took a life; Nkomo was accused of armed robbery”.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ch-and-white-in-south-africa?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

[cottonweaver]

But you still don't know the answer to my question or if you do you aren't telling.

I'll watch your movie if you watch mine. It's called "12 Angry Men".

It might help you deal with the result of the appeal a little better.

Yeah - 12 Angry Men -one of my favourites - ( incidentally taught a short block on that in a previous career, so know it very well.) What's your particular analogy? You can't be likening yourself to R.Rose ( Henry Fonda) the master of rational argument and dogged persistence whose winning ways & logic change minds and vanquish prejudice? For that you'll need to get into the nitty-gritty I'm afraid.

"Not telling"? I already "told"
I gave you the respect by taking the time to answer your question in full yesterday.

Your dispute was another poster saying, a few pages back, that OP " chose to earn a living " via the limelight . Because the mass of "answers" didn't suit you - from any quarter and a number of posters you did not re-butt any of them but decided to split hairs and narrow the point down until it became totally pointless.
Your line became ( although of course you won't outline it in any detail) : OP at age 16 did not choose fame/the limelight.
That was never the posters original point and I imagine you know that.

As I explained the business of maintaining a profile which becomes your main source of revenue via PR, sponsorship, marketing & merchandising is one you must develop and maintain over years, it is not a one-off, single, choice which after you make it, you then do not engage with - it does not work like that. Maybe it's semantics. Famous - renowned - celebrated.....notorius.....forgotten.

I know you said something along the lines of " once your famous you cannot be forgotten/unfamous" but that is also patently untrue. All the top PR firms might as well shut shop today mightn't they. Have you ever heard of a "has-been"? Can you think of any famous people who use PR firms to represent their interests and appreciate how huge and lucrative that industry has become ?

"It might help you deal with the result of the appeal a little better." The word I used was "disappointment" about his upcoming house- arrest, which appears to be almost universally shared. I haven't booked myself into psychodynamic therapy just yet.
Ultimately, the bigger issue is SA crime, criminal justice & their penal system. What's happened in this case just serves to shine a light on that and how "young" a nation SA is really is.

 

[lithgow1]

Yeah - 12 Angry Men -one of my favourites - ( incidentally taught a short block on that in a previous career, so know it very well.) What's your particular analogy? You can't be likening yourself to R.Rose ( Henry Fonda) the master of rational argument and dogged persistence whose winning ways & logic change minds and vanquish prejudice? For that you'll need to get into the nitty-gritty I'm afraid.

"Not telling"? I already "told"
I gave you the respect by taking the time to answer your question in full yesterday.

Your dispute was another poster saying, a few pages back, that OP " chose the limelight" . Because the mass of "answers" didn't suit you - from any quarter and a number of posters you did not re-butt any of them but decided to split hairs and narrow the point down until it became totally pointless.
Your line became ( although of course you won't outline it in any detail) : OP at age 16 did not choose fame/the limelight.
That was never the posters original point and I imagine you know that.

As I explained the business of maintaining a profile which becomes your main source of revenue via PR, sponsorship, marketing & merchandising is one you must develop and maintain over years, it is not a one-off, single, choice which after you make it, you then do not engage with - it does not work like that. Maybe it's semantics. Famous - renowned - celebrated.....notorius.....forgotten.

I know you said something along the lines of " once your famous you cannot be forgotten/unfamous" but that is also patently untrue. All the top PR firms might as well shut shop today mightn't they. Have you ever heard of a "has-been"? Can you think of any famous people who use PR firms to represent their interests and appreciate how huge and lucrative that industry has become ?

"It might help you deal with the result of the appeal a little better." The word I used was "disappointment" about his upcoming house- arrest, which appears to be almost universally shared. I haven't booked myself into psychodynamic therapy just yet.
Ultimately, the bigger issue is SA crime, criminal justice & their penal system. What's happened in this case just serves to shine a light on that and how "young" a nation SA is really is.

Excellent post so thank you for that. And you are right that the question of OP and the limelight was distilled down and down in an effort to squirm away until it became pointless. Neither my post on his upcoming glossy mag feature nor the excellent one about OP racing the horse in Doha were addressed. Personally, I hope the horse won.

I don`t think poorly of OP for his courting of the media, as for better or worse it is part of the businesses of sports and entertainment, but to claim that he didn`t do it is just ludicrous. In fact for someone with a limited shelf life when it came to his career it would have been foolish for him not to try and maintain a high profile for future career moves. He came across as somewhat dim in the court case, but not that dim IMO.

 

[cottonweaver]

Excellent post so thank you for that. And you are right that the question of OP and the limelight was distilled down and down in an effort to squirm away until it became pointless. Neither my post on his upcoming glossy mag feature nor the excellent one about OP racing the horse in Doha were addressed. Personally, I hope the horse won.

I don`t think poorly of OP for his courting of the media, as for better or worse it is part of the businesses of sports and entertainment, but to claim that he didn`t do it is just ludicrous. In fact for someone with a limited shelf life when it came to his career it would have been foolish for him not to try and maintain a high profile for future career moves. He came across as somewhat dim in the court case, but not that dim IMO.

Thanks lithgow. yes Pisto-lius played a blinder remembering that horsey example.

I didn't previously know about the glossy appointment where he would possibly have talked about the love of his life - imagine that at the mag office - ' Er the interviews off..the interviewee has killed his "fiancee". Let's run with that piece about Kim Kardashian's *advertiser censored*."

Maybe Trotterly has been following OP's career since 2004 so he is as the Americans would say " personally invested. " I can't claim that having neither a prior personal interest/knowledge about sport or domestic violence.