Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[Deleted member 102539]

BBM

No, we don't know this. This is the Nglengethwas' interpretation of what they heard and you have chosen to accept it.

I don't see how you can simply gloss over the fact that, apart from one loud bang, followed by a man wailing, the Nglengethwas didn't hear most of the loud noises that, on OP's own version, must have occurred that night; noises, which, moreover, were detected by the State's witnesses, lending credence to the accuracy of their version.

As a matter of logic, if such close neighbours as the Nglengethwas somehow managed to miss the gunfire and the cricket bat strikes, there is no reason why they may not also have missed Reeva's screams. And yet, we are repeatedly informed that, had Reeva screamed, they would have heard her, due to their advantageous proximity.

On your version, how can it be that the Nglengethwas, wide awake, close by, and listening intently, heard Oscar wailing after the last shot but failed to hear the bat strikes?

You seem to set great store by the fact that a non-witness heard OP crying after the event and proceeded to correct his wife's assumption that it was a lady crying; yet, you blithely ignore the fact that a Defence witness stated on oath that she was wondering 'what happened to the lady'.

It goes without saying that it is enormously disappointing that Nel didn't pick up on this slip. But, my question is, why have you also chosen to gloss over it?

It isn't clear to me whether you are trying to establish the truth of what happened that night or whether you are merely discussing whether or not the State proved its case.

bbm: Thank you! That seems always the problem. I for my part would prefer the truth.

 

[Trotterly]

bbm

Only IF nobody at the crime scene except OP, police and medical staff (instead: countless "helpers"), IF testimony thruthful (changed minute for minute, untruthful), IF actions not faked (at least partially faked), IF content cellphones with original content (partially deleted from brother), IF judge on law side and objective and without regret "to possibly punch the poor boy twice".

I'm not really into conspiracy theories.

 

[soozieqtips]

I'm not really into conspiracy theories.

OP's phone content was wiped by his helpful brother (the phone which mysteriously disappeared from the crime scene), so that's not a conspiracy theory - it's a fact. Have you any thoughts on why a killer's phone would disappear from a crime scene only to reappear at a later date with all the content wiped? Most of us would call it "interfering with evidence". What would you call it?

 

[Colin de France]

OP's phone content was wiped by his helpful brother (the phone which mysteriously disappeared from the crime scene), so that's not a conspiracy theory - it's a fact. Have you any thoughts on why a killer's phone would disappear from a crime scene only to reappear at a later date with all the content wiped? Most of us would call it "interfering with evidence". What would you call it?

...can i guess the awnser ........dépends what was on it !!! ....also on conspiracy theories don't forget the guy who worked for Pistorious who disapeared who would have normally been the closest person ...

 

[Colin de France]

bbm

Only IF nobody at the crime scene except OP, police and medical staff (instead: countless "helpers"), IF testimony thruthful (changed minute for minute, untruthful), IF actions not faked (at least partially faked), IF content cellphones with original content (partially deleted from brother), IF judge on law side and objective and without regret "to possibly punch the poor boy twice".

...and once you had the judge in the pocket you've more or less won the case ........

 

[soozieqtips]

...can i guess the awnser ........dépends what was on it !!! ....also on conspiracy theories don't forget the guy who worked for Pistorious who disapeared who would have normally been the closest person ...

Oh yeah. Good old in-the-house Frank who saw nothing, heard nothing, and yet was up, dressed and outside on the street minutes after the shooting. If he managed to sleep through all the shouting and shooting (which most of the neighbours didn't) - then what woke him up??

 

[Trotterly]

OP's phone content was wiped by his helpful brother (the phone which mysteriously disappeared from the crime scene), so that's not a conspiracy theory - it's a fact. Have you any thoughts on why a killer's phone would disappear from a crime scene only to reappear at a later date with all the content wiped? Most of us would call it "interfering with evidence". What would you call it?

An allegation from a book. It's nothing.

 

[GR_Turner]

BBM

No, we don't know this. This is the Nglengethwas' interpretation of what they heard and you have chosen to accept it.

I don't see how you can simply gloss over the fact that, apart from one loud bang, followed by a man wailing, the Nglengethwas didn't hear most of the loud noises that, on OP's own version, must have occurred that night; noises, which, moreover, were detected by the State's witnesses, lending credence to the accuracy of their version.

As a matter of logic, if such close neighbours as the Nglengethwas somehow managed to miss the gunfire and the cricket bat strikes, there is no reason why they may not also have missed Reeva's screams. And yet, we are repeatedly informed that, had Reeva screamed, they would have heard her, due to their advantageous proximity.

On your version, how can it be that the Nglengethwas, wide awake, close by, and listening intently, heard Oscar wailing after the last shot but failed to hear the bat strikes?

You seem to set great store by the fact that a non-witness heard OP crying after the event and proceeded to correct his wife's assumption that it was a lady crying; yet, you blithely ignore the fact that a Defence witness stated on oath that she was wondering 'what happened to the lady'.

It goes without saying that it is enormously disappointing that Nel didn't pick up on this slip. But, my question is, why have you also chosen to gloss over it?

It isn't clear to me whether you are trying to establish the truth of what happened that night or whether you are merely discussing whether or not the State proved its case.

There are a lot of discrepancies between the witnesses if you look in detail. Mrs Stipp didn't hear anyone shouting help and she certainly should have done if Burger/Johnson did so you can't just fixate on something not heard to prove something as you are trying to do. And I don't really know what you mean about the close neighbours not hearing things they should have heard. It's only surprising that they missed the bats, nothing else. The close neighbours were probably woken by the shots but didn't hear them consciously apart from one witness who heard a bang. They did hear 'Reeva screaming' because it was Oscar all along as shown by the phone records - which I see you have ignored, as does almost everyone on your side of the argument.

Which defense witness said she wondered what happened to the lady?

What's the difference between discussing the case to establish the 'truth' and discussing it to decide whether or not the state made it's case, given that none of us was there? On what basis can you decide guilt if it isn't because the state produced the evidence? I think you move into muddy waters when you think that you can somehow establish truth in other ways.

 

[GR_Turner]

OP's phone content was wiped by his helpful brother (the phone which mysteriously disappeared from the crime scene), so that's not a conspiracy theory - it's a fact. Have you any thoughts on why a killer's phone would disappear from a crime scene only to reappear at a later date with all the content wiped? Most of us would call it "interfering with evidence". What would you call it?

I'd call it reason to arrest him and accuse him of some crime if they had such evidence. Yet oddly, no such charge has been made. So it's one of those allegations made by someone trying to sell a book basically. I read the relevant bit in that book and the police didn't know what to make of it and weren't sure it was deliberate, if it remember rightly.

 

[Colin de France]

Oh yeah. Good old in-the-house Frank who saw nothing, heard nothing, and yet was up, dressed and outside on the street minutes after the shooting. If he managed to sleep through all the shouting and shooting (which most of the neighbours didn't) - then what woke him up??

...yes it does make you wonder over and beyond the plausible....

 

[Colin de France]

An allegation from a book. It's nothing.

....then why did it disapear for several days to the point where it was sent to the phone makers to try and retrieve information on it which had been permanently and purposely wiped off.....that's more than "nothing" to me .....

 

[Interested Bystander]

I'd call it reason to arrest him and accuse him of some crime if they had such evidence. Yet oddly, no such charge has been made. So it's one of those allegations made by someone trying to sell a book basically. I read the relevant bit in that book and the police didn't know what to make of it and weren't sure it was deliberate, if it remember rightly.

Removing his phone from the murder scene surely could only be deliberate. If there was nothing to hide why do it? Who would take somebody else's phone from a murder scene without a reason? I am sure you have noted that the Magistrate in the Panayiotou case was convinced he had his phone wiped to destroy evidence. Masipa, IMO, was very naive.

 

[Trotterly]

....then why did it disapear for several days to the point where it was sent to the phone makers to try and retrieve information on it which had been permanently and purposely wiped off.....that's more than "nothing" to me .....

No idea.

There is no evidence that anything was purposely wiped.

 

[Trotterly]

Removing his phone from the murder scene surely could only be deliberate. If there was nothing to hide why do it? Who would take somebody else's phone from a murder scene without a reason? I am sure you have noted that the Magistrate in the Panayiotou case was convinced he had his phone wiped to destroy evidence. Masipa, IMO, was very naive.

The prosecution case was shot through with this kind of unsubstantiated twaddle. I prefer to stick to hard evidence.

 

[Colin de France]

The prosecution case was shot through with this kind of unsubstantiated twaddle. I prefer to stick to hard evidence.

...it's no more unsubstantiated than Pistorious own version that's why a good jury would of sent him down for a lot longer......anyway there's still hope ...

 

[Interested Bystander]

The prosecution case was shot through with this kind of unsubstantiated twaddle. I prefer to stick to hard evidence.

It was substantiated that the phone was taken from the scene of the crime. The missing phone was handed over by the Defence to the Prosecution at the Bail Hearing. The phone was tracked to Carl Pistorius's movements. Carl Pistorius was in fact going to be prosecuted but the state decided not to for reasons not stated AFAIK but probably because it would be difficult to prove exactly what the content was as it had been wiped.

I am getting the impression you did not watch the entire court proceedings or you are suffering from selective amnesia.

Put yourself in the situation that it was your sister/daughter who had been murdered, the murderer's phone mysteriously disappears from the murder scene and turns up two weeks later having had its memory wiped. What would be your thoughts?

 

[Trotterly]

It was substantiated that the phone was taken from the scene of the crime. The missing phone was handed over by the Defence to the Prosecution at the Bail Hearing. The phone was tracked to Carl Pistorius's movements. Carl Pistorius was in fact going to be prosecuted but the state decided not to for reasons not stated AFAIK but probably because it would be difficult to prove exactly what the content was as it had been wiped.

I am getting the impression you did not watch the entire court proceedings or you are suffering from selective amnesia.

Put yourself in the situation that it was your sister/daughter who had been murdered, the murderer's phone mysteriously disappears from the murder scene and turns up two weeks later having had its memory wiped. What would be your thoughts?

I watched all of the trial and there was no evidence presented that proved any of your suspicions. The only place that any of this matters was in the trial. That's why we have trials rather than just letting the townspeople decide what they think based on their own views, the weather, the runes or peering at tea leaves.

It was left out of the trial for a very good reason - it means nothing.

 

[Interested Bystander]

i watched all of the trial and there was no evidence presented that proved any of your suspicions. The only place that any of this matters was in the trial. That's why we have trials rather than just letting the townspeople decide what they think based on their own views, the weather, the runes or peering at tea leaves.

It was left out of the trial for a very good reason - it means nothing.

tosh!

 

[Interested Bystander]

Just in case anyone reading this thread cannot remember what happened, here is an article covering why Carl was not prosecuted and many of you will remember a sheaf of papers being removed from the trial papers.

http://www.news24.com/Archives/City-Press/How-Carl-Pistorius-dodged-a-charge-20150429

 

[GR_Turner]

Removing his phone from the murder scene surely could only be deliberate. If there was nothing to hide why do it? Who would take somebody else's phone from a murder scene without a reason? I am sure you have noted that the Magistrate in the Panayiotou case was convinced he had his phone wiped to destroy evidence. Masipa, IMO, was very naive.

I was referring to the deliberate intention to wipe data. The state didn't make any allegation as to why the phone was removed or say anything at all about it being wiped to the court so I'm not sure how you can conclude that Masipa was naive. She was working with what the state gave her. If anything, it indicates only that the police didn't properly secure the scene in the first instance or perhaps that the state's case was a bit of a mess.

Your question about whether I'm interested in finding the truth or discussing whether the state made their case or not is very interesting as it shows that you think there is a distinction. The problem with saying that the phone wiping was deliberate and proves something is that we don't know the facts and even if we did we haven't heard the other side of the story. How can you hope to discover 'the truth' if you disregard the most basic rules of evidence? - one side openly and clearly produces their evidence in court and the other side questions it or produces their own evidence to rebut in court.