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.
Maybe I am, I don't know and the point is neither does anyone else who has posted. It was seen as "fair game" to chuck another brickbat at OP without really caring whether it was factually correct or not. The comment was an accusation and not intended in any neutral or fair way.
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.
Roux is an effective, well paid lawyer, who was painting his client in the best possible light. Par for the course wouldn't you say?
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
(The door was shut so strictly he couldn't have known there was a person in the toilet even if he ever said that he knew.)
For DE the state must prove (from other evidence) that he knew that what he was doing would kill whoever was behind the door.
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.
Not entirely. She also said that it applied to anyone else who was behind the door. Whilst being misleading I think the important question is whether she reached the right decision, which I think she did. Although technically she could not have reached the right decision given the chronology of her reasoning. However I think this will be quite rightly revisited by the appeal court who will reach a similar verdict. I say this because OP's state of mind - from his own evidence - points to a lack of intention (direct or otherwise) up to the point that he pulled the trigger.
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.
I find Mr VDM's statement particularly powerful given its spontaneity and context and that it came from the lips of a prosecution witness. Even in isolation it seeds doubt about how the other witnesses interpreted what they heard. The timeline fixed around Dr Stipps 3.17 10111 call then places screams and "loud crying" in the same time frame. But I'm sure I don't have to re-tread that ground.
