Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[Cherwell]

I am so tired of this. It's quite clear to me that he has got away with murder, and it's quite clear to me why.

 

[lithgow1]

I am so tired of this. It's quite clear to me that he has got away with murder, and it's quite clear to me why.

I so understand. I am tired of asking the same two questions of someone who refuses to answer them, despite debating every other point that anyone makes. His story sounded like BS right from the start and got no more believable during the trial and yet there are people who will turn all his words into knots in order to make excuses for the inexcusable.

 

[Trotterly]

I think you are twisting things, again. IIRC he didn`t say he never thought of firing a warning shot. On the contrary he gave a specific reason as to why he didn`t do so.

BTW, if you are still in the responding to my posts mood, I asked you quite a while back if you agree with Masipa`s ruling that he was not guilty of the illegal possession of ammunition charge and also if you believed OP`s story about being shot at on the freeway, which he remembered clearly except for who came to pick him up and who brought him back the next day to pick up his car.

Again from the court:

Nel: You thought of not firing into the shower because there would be a ricochet?
OP: No. I never said that.

I don't really have much interest in the lesser charges and have not given them much thought. However I do remember there being debate over the "intention" to possess. I understand why Masipa ruled the way she did but it seems like OP got off "on a technicality"

As for the highway shooting I don't have enough information to know if it's true or not so as far as the trial is concerned I would give it no weight.

 

[lithgow1]

Again from the court:

Nel: You thought of not firing into the shower because there would be a ricochet?
OP: No. I never said that.

I don't really have much interest in the lesser charges and have not given them much thought. However I do remember there being debate over the "intention" to possess. I understand why Masipa ruled the way she did but it seems like OP got off "on a technicality"

As for the highway shooting I don't have enough information to know if it's true or not so as far as the trial is concerned I would give it no weight.

Nel: Did you ever think of firing into the shower, a warning shot?
OP: If I had fired a shot into the shower it would have ricocheted and possibly hit me.

Seems pretty clear to me that at the very least he knew what the gun he had in his hand had the power of doing and yet fired four times anyway.

Thank you for answering the two questions. They may hold no weight to you, but to me they show that he will not take responsibility for anything and will lie through his teeth in order to achieve that end. And if he can lie about those little things so glibly then ...

I also don`t know if the highway incident is true but wouldn`t you think if someone had shot at you on the highway you would remember who it was who came to pick you up and who took you back the next day?

I believe the technicality aspect of the ammunition trial is not nearly so important as its inference that Masipa tailored her judgments in order to always give OP the least culpability possible. You may recall that most SA legal minds were gobsmacked at that particular verdict. It was in his safe, in his house, and his own father would not back his cover story and yet he was found not guilty of possession. What was her analogy again? IIRC it was someone finding a gun on the street and being caught with it on their way to hand it in to the police? If my memory serves me correctly shirley you can see how ridiculous that is and in turn, how worrying that makes her overall judgements.

 

[soozieqtips]

Again from the court:

Nel: You thought of not firing into the shower because there would be a ricochet?
OP: No. I never said that.

I don't really have much interest in the lesser charges and have not given them much thought. However I do remember there being debate over the "intention" to possess. I understand why Masipa ruled the way she did but it seems like OP got off "on a technicality"

As for the highway shooting I don't have enough information to know if it's true or not so as far as the trial is concerned I would give it no weight.

BIB - The highway incident is relevant in that it showed how far OP was prepared to go in order to give the false illusion that he was under almost permanent threat from intruders and violence. This illusion was crafted (IMO) to make out his paranoia and fear was justified on the night of the killing. When Nel asked OP to explain some of the "threats" he'd been subjected to - OP invented the wildest story of being shot at on the highway one night. After the attempt on his life... he pulled into a restaurant car park (doesn't remember the name of the restaurant) - and then decided to call a friend (doesn't remember the name of the friend) to come and pick him up.

The same friend not only picked him up, but also drove him back the next day to pick up his car. So they sat next to each other for two journeys, OP no doubt recounting how lucky he was to be alive, blah blah blah, and the invisible friend probably comforting him, blah blah blah. This was someone who OP called in a moment of absolute panic (having just been shot at...) and yet the friend's name escapes him. Not only that. But the invisible friend has stayed invisible. Not a peep to confirm the Horror on the Highway fairytale. Odd, isn't it? Or like Nel said - "It never happened".

I'm one of the many who believe it didn't happen and that it was just another lie. The fact OP needed to invent things that didn't happen to try and distort the truth (which was that he was never under almost constant threat from violence and intruders) just shows how he was making things up to justify killing Reeva. You may have a reason why OP couldn't remember the name of the friend he called after narrowly escaping death... but will you have one to explain why the friend never materialised to confirm the story?

 

[LemonMousse]

BIB
You say that it is either the reason or it isn't but if firing a warning shot never even crossed his mind in the first place (maybe because he has said that he did not want to reveal that he was armed) then your question is invalid.

Nel said several times that OP could not have more than one defence and at one point IIRC, OP agreed with this. Of course in reality this is not true. A person defending themselves for example may end up with a number of defences maybe because they are unable to frame their defence in an efficient way. Although in this case the overlap is due to the unusual factors that came into play on the night. But they still have the right to their defence and the judge will still have the responsibility to consider those defences as Masipa has done in this case.

You realise that all you are doing is trying to come up with excuses for Pistorius, not actually addressing the real issues? Why, exactly?

No. There is no scope for multiple defences. What happened, happened and you tell the truth. You then have a year with one of the leading defence lawyers in the country putting together a defence. Absolutely no way would Roux have allowed OP to get on the stand with multiple stories and therefore multiple defences. No way.

This happened because OP was responding to Nel with the best sounding answers he could manage, rather than simply telling the truth. Only liars do this.

Thank you for providing the transcript below. You'll see (if you read it objectively) that it does not support your argument.

Nel is asking what OP was thinking AT THE TIME, since this is extremely important regarding intent. (What he thinks retrospectively 18 months later is totally irrelevant).

So, AT THE TIME, did OP think about firing a warning shot into the shower?

No, says OP, because it would have hit me. This can ONLY mean that OP was aware AT THE TIME of the danger to him of shooting into the shower.

The only possible alternative to this is that he didn't actually think of that at the time, but is now coming up with that as a reason. And this is not what truthful people do. The ONLY truthful answer if he didn't consider the folly of shooting into the shower is "It didn't cross my mind".

This proves that either a) he was thinking and considering when he shot OR b) he's putting together a reasonable sounding explanation now...and only a liar would do that.

But I was right, I think. This rather important distinction has eluded you.

 

[LemonMousse]

Yes I do.

Do you think it would be impossible to think that shouting that you were armed might escalate the situation?

Wonderful. You have just proved my point, Trotterly.

No, I don't think it's "impossible". Do you think the alternative to "reasonably possible" is "impossible"?

The important word here is "reasonable". Possible or not is irrelevant since a zillion things are theoretically possible.

Reasonable = within the bounds of common sense or normal expectations.

Is it common sense that OP approached the bathroom screaming like a woman but sensibly decided to refrain from indicating he was armed to stop escalation?

No. It really, really isn't.

It's ever so slightly possible, but not likely. And you know it.

 

[lithgow1]

Wonderful. You have just proved my point, Trotterly.

No, I don't think it's "impossible". Do you think the alternative to "reasonably possible" is "impossible"?

The important word here is "reasonable". Possible or not is irrelevant since a zillion things are theoretically possible.

Reasonable = within the bounds of common sense or normal expectations.

Is it common sense that OP approached the bathroom screaming like a woman but sensibly decided to refrain from indicating he was armed to stop escalation?

No. It really, really isn't.

It's ever so slightly possible, but not likely. And you know it.

You would think that if you were making your way down a dark hallway towards what you believe to be an intruder in a dark bathroom you would want them to know you had a gun. Given the crime rates in South Africa there would be a good chance the intruder was armed so why wouldn`t you want them to know that so were you? Level the playing field, perhaps make them flee etc etc. But of course that relies on the scenario that someone who was so frightened for their personal safety overall, and terrified at that particular moment in time, would approach the perceived danger, screaming like a girl in fear, instead of getting the hell out of there, which was always an option. The whole story is so ludicrous that it boggles my mind, and that of most everyone else who followed this case, that anyone could consider it to be a reasonable outline of events, from the judge all the way down to people on the internet.

 

[soozieqtips]

~snipped~

Absolutely no way would Roux have allowed OP to get on the stand with multiple stories and therefore multiple defences. No way.

This happened because OP was responding to Nel with the best sounding answers he could manage, rather than simply telling the truth. Only liars do this.

BIB - yes, and that's why OP kept tripping himself up over and over again, because he could never remember the lie he told just moments before, then he would deny saying something he'd just said, and Nel would point out it was in the record.

 

[Colin de France]

You would think that if you were making your way down a dark hallway towards what you believe to be an intruder in a dark bathroom you would want them to know you had a gun. Given the crime rates in South Africa there would be a good chance the intruder was armed so why wouldn`t you want them to know that so were you? Level the playing field, perhaps make them flee etc etc. But of course that relies on the scenario that someone who was so frightened for their personal safety overall, and terrified at that particular moment in time, would approach the perceived danger, screaming like a girl in fear, instead of getting the hell out of there, which was always an option. The whole story is so ludicrous that it boggles my mind, and that of most everyone else who followed this case, that anyone could consider it to be a reasonable outline of events, from the judge all the way down to people on the internet.

....about the dark hallway....how much do we actually know about the lights, wasn't one of the lights not working ? If i remember correctly the intruder went to hide in the toilet, locked the toilet door behind them, all this in the dark .....

 

[LemonMousse]

Trotterly...just for you....I wrote a thing last year regarding Pistorius' tale and it went a bit viral*. Got mentioned on here but I don't think anyone knew I wrote it.

But anyway, the point of it was that it was 100% entirely what Pistorius actually said on the stand...no additions or exaggerations from me. And it highlights, I think, how very, very far from "reasonable" his story in it's entirety actually was.

Vaguely possible as in, not altogether impossible? Yes. Reasonably possible...as in, "common sense, within normal expectations"? Absolutely not.

(*Only a bit, not very).

http://www.biznews.com/oscar-pistorius-trial/2014/05/28/oscar-pistorius-version-events-brilliant-summary-athlete-wants-us-believe/

 

[cottonweaver]

I so understand. I am tired of asking the same two questions of someone who refuses to answer them, despite debating every other point that anyone makes. His story sounded like BS right from the start and got no more believable during the trial and yet there are people who will turn all his words into knots in order to make excuses for the inexcusable.

Nonetheless I must say I admire all the posters patient persistence.

Imagine that OP thinks he has a future working with children, inspiring them through sport.

There's an old joke ( probably a carry on film line) - meaningless except to Brits but it goes " infamy, infamy... The world's got it in for me" imagine coping when you know you're "innocent "but you are so unfairly judged by the world. Imagine the only people who believe in your integrity are a few hundred women on FB "support for Oscar" etc, out of millions & millions worldwide. Regardless of the outcome of the Appeal would anyone want him working with their children?
Would you have him work with yours Trotterly?

 

[lithgow1]

....about the dark hallway....how much do we actually know about the lights, wasn't one of the lights not working ? If i remember correctly the intruder went to hide in the toilet, locked the toilet door behind them, all this in the dark .....

IIRC he claimed that all the lights were off, including in the bathroom and hallway though the hallway claim was contradicted by Dr Stipp. According to his version the only light was the ambient light coming in through the bathroom window. Brave guy wasn`t he. Terrified out of his mind but he chose to approach the danger in the dark. I may have the lights thing wrong as it has been a long time but I am sure someone will correct me if so.

 

[cottonweaver]

I remember reading that. It was very entertaining as it emphasised the risible nature of his testimony.

 

[Colin de France]

IIRC he claimed that all the lights were off, including in the bathroom and hallway though the hallway claim was contradicted by Dr Stipp. According to his version the only light was the ambient light coming in through the bathroom window. Brave guy wasn`t he. Terrified out of his mind but he chose to approach the danger in the dark. I may have the lights thing wrong as it has been a long time but I am sure someone will correct me if so.

...i think if there's anyone brave here it's the intruder, climbing up a ladder (very handy), entering by a window (an open window, again very handy), all this at night, not knowing what he/she might face....hearing voices and hides behind the nearest door locking it behind them as they go....

 

[lithgow1]

I remember reading that. It was very entertaining as it emphasised the risible nature of his testimony.

I remember it too. Very good, if good is the right word under the circumstances. One thing that struck me too in his account of the run-up to the shooting is that in order to make his version of events in any way believable he almost had to willfully avoid looking in Reeva`s direction, whether she was in bed or walking down the hall. The person who he supposedly did all these bizarre things to protect and he never once tried for a glimpse of or response from her. Such BS.

I know the infamy quote. Carry on Cleo! A good one, but outshone IMO by my favourite, Carry On Up the Khyber!

 

[Colin de France]

I remember it too. Very good, if good is the right word under the circumstances. One thing that struck me too in his account of the run-up to the shooting is that in order to make his version of events in any way believable he almost had to willfully avoid looking in Reeva`s direction, whether she was in bed or walking down the hall. The person who he supposedly did all these bizarre things to protect and he never once tried for a glimpse of or response from her. Such BS.

I know the infamy quote. Carry on Cleo! A good one, but outshone IMO by my favourite, Carry On Up the Khyber!

....yes, i wonder when it was exactly that this scenario was made up, was it from the call he made before the police arrived ? .....somebody somewhere was thinking clearly that night ..i bet Frank could put a spanner in the works though ...

 

[soozieqtips]

I remember it too. Very good, if good is the right word under the circumstances. One thing that struck me too in his account of the run-up to the shooting is that in order to make his version of events in any way believable he almost had to willfully avoid looking in Reeva`s direction, whether she was in bed or walking down the hall. The person who he supposedly did all these bizarre things to protect and he never once tried for a glimpse of or response from her. Such BS.

I know the infamy quote. Carry on Cleo! A good one, but outshone IMO by my favourite, Carry On Up the Khyber!

BIB - There should have been a reconstruction of those moments with the fans, so Masipa could have seen just how OP would have had to move in order to avoid facing Reeva at any point. I'd have also liked to see how he was able to be dashing around so much (in the dark) and yet not trip over anything or stub anything, particularly in the bedroom, where there was no ambient bathroom light shining through.

 

[Trotterly]

Nel: Did you ever think of firing into the shower, a warning shot?
OP: If I had fired a shot into the shower it would have ricocheted and possibly hit me.

Seems pretty clear to me that at the very least he knew what the gun he had in his hand had the power of doing and yet fired four times anyway.

Thank you for answering the two questions. They may hold no weight to you, but to me they show that he will not take responsibility for anything and will lie through his teeth in order to achieve that end. And if he can lie about those little things so glibly then ...

I also don`t know if the highway incident is true but wouldn`t you think if someone had shot at you on the highway you would remember who it was who came to pick you up and who took you back the next day?

I believe the technicality aspect of the ammunition trial is not nearly so important as its inference that Masipa tailored her judgments in order to always give OP the least culpability possible. You may recall that most SA legal minds were gobsmacked at that particular verdict. It was in his safe, in his house, and his own father would not back his cover story and yet he was found not guilty of possession. What was her analogy again? IIRC it was someone finding a gun on the street and being caught with it on their way to hand it in to the police? If my memory serves me correctly shirley you can see how ridiculous that is and in turn, how worrying that makes her overall judgements.

I don't know why you have repeated the lines about the warning shot. Once again, you might guess that OP was mindful of the danger at the time because he was later in court but he denied it and nowhere was it proved or even could be made a safe inference. Close but no cigar.

If you have already decided on his guilt then any memory lapse is going to seem contrived.

I think the case cited was to do with a gun being found in the truck of someone who intended it for the person who put it there rather than himself but I'm not sure. I don't see it as an open door to illegal possession of guns as the circumstances of each case are clearly different.

As for her overall judgements, Masipa was highly regarded before this case and now suddenly all her judgements are a worry? Really?

 

[cottonweaver]

I remember it too. Very good.

Apols - on an iPad temporarily....

Yes- young and in love in a brand new relationship - first thing you do on waking is look at your BF/GF! " can't you sleep Baba ?" and he says he never even looked at her, and that's before the bumps in the night.
Slippery customer that OP. spent so long trying to be clever under crossx that he ended up with a ludicrous story.



OT but For the sake of light relief,

The Khasi of Kalabar: May the benevolence of the god Shivoo bring blessings on your house.
Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond: And on yours.
The Khasi of Kalabar: And may his wisdom bring success in all your undertakings.
Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond: And in yours.
The Khasi of Kalabar: And may his radiance light up your life.
Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond: And up yours."


I know the infamy quote. Carry on Cleo! A good one, but outshone IMO by my favourite, Carry On Up the Khyber!

Excuse the mess up with text! Sorry