Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[aftermath]

......but paying the police to lie....i think you've gone over the top there, the same applies to your partner aftermath...

I haven't said that's what I think happened. I have said it is a possibility. Far more likely IMO that - as I said- the media got creative.

My partner??

 

[aftermath]

How long by this time had Pistorius been in custody? What mental/emotional state was he in?

In his home, after the murder, his state: not as desperate as later and also not particularly sad, I would say.

Where has it been clearly stated that he said those words while still at the crime scene?

 

[GR_Turner]

......but paying the police to lie....i think you've gone over the top there, the same applies to your partner Turner...

Come on, why so shocked? Botha was happy to state that OP was on his stumps to justify the premeditated murder charge which led to the bail hearing based on his unsubstantiated opinion. He stated that OP was taking testosterone only to have to admit he hadn't properly checked what the drug was. He was careless at the least and didn't really care what the truth was as long as it supported the state's version, it seems.

Nel could have called the policeman or men who heard this bit of alleged bravado and I have no doubt he would have done so had it been true.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

No. Not necessarily. The media is very creative. It's a possibility though.Apparently- according to media reports- the police also told the Steenkamps that their daughter's skull had been crushed by the cricket bat.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-22...end-Reeva-Steenkamp-cricket-bat-shot-her.html
This was clearly not true. ..

Today I'm still not convinced.

 

[GR_Turner]

Obviously they could NOT. (Instruction from the very top, speak: Hero-Golden-Boy-Central???) IMO

I've never seen anything to suggest that anyone in authority has interfered in this case in OP's favour. If anything everyone seems to have decided it was murder and wished to dissociate themselves from him and use the case to demonstrate that justice applies to everyone.

 

[Colin de France]

I haven't said that's what I think happened. I have said it is a possibility. Far more likely IMO that - as I said- the media got creative.

My partner??

.....your partner Turner, it's so easy to confuse you two as you're both saying the same thing at the same time with the same style, never mind one get's used to it.....yes the media was creative even to the point of naming names, bit risky that, don't you think........

 

[aftermath]

Today I'm still not convinced.

So the pathologist and bat expert were wrong?

 

[GR_Turner]

.....your partner Turner, it's so easy to confuse you two as you're both saying the same thing at the same time with the same style, never mind one get's used to it.....yes the media was creative even to the point of naming names, bit risky that, don't you think........

Perhaps we can both see the problems with your arguments

 

[aftermath]

.....your partner Turner, it's so easy to confuse you two as you're both saying the same thing at the same time with the same style, never mind one get's used to it.....yes the media was creative even to the point of naming names, bit risky that, don't you think........

Our opinions of the case certainly seem to be in closer agreement than with yours, yes. As for similar style- I guess you mean that our posts are equally well-reasoned and relevant? Thank you!

Risky naming of names??

 

[Colin de France]

Come on, why so shocked? Botha was happy to state that OP was on his stumps to justify the premeditated murder charge which led to the bail hearing based on his unsubstantiated opinion. He stated that OP was taking testosterone only to have to admit he hadn't properly checked what the drug was. He was careless at the least and didn't really care what the truth was as long as it supported the state's version, it seems.

Nel could have called the policeman or men who heard this bit of alleged bravado and I have no doubt he would have done so had it been true.

....ok you've made yourself clear, the police lied ......

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Working with the assumption that those words were spoken by pistorius- where is the recording that Nel could have used against him? Why wasn't it referred to in court? Also-who was present in the interview room? How long by this time had Pistorius been in custody? What mental/emotional state was he in? What was the nature and content of the questions that led to the utterance?

We don't know the answers to these questions so cannot reliably base a judgement of guilt/ callousness etc on what was reportedly said.

... we also can't base a judgement of innocence and normal behavior on what was reportedly said.

 

[aftermath]

... we also can't base a judgement of innocence and normal behavior on what was reportedly said.

I agree- with no way of knowing anything about how when or why it might have been said- or even if it was said at all- far better to be like Nel and ignore it.

 

[Colin de France]

Our opinions of the case certainly seem to be in closer agreement than with yours, yes. As for similar style- I guess you mean that our posts are equally well-reasoned and relevant? Thank you!

Risky naming of names??

...to be honest i only feel pity for Reeva Steenkamp when i see people defending Pistorius, as far as you personally are concerned nothing you've said has made the slightest impact on my position that this was murder......you don't have nothing to say which can change anything........

 

[Deleted member 102539]

So the pathologist and bat expert were wrong?

IF the whole trial story is a fake because the public shall never know, how appalling the truth indeed is, then: yes, obviously the experts weren't 100% right (maybe not allowed to be).

 

[Colin de France]

I agree- with no way of knowing anything about how when or why it might have been said- or even if it was said at all- far better to be like Nel and ignore it.

........disagree.....again......Far too risky to make up a lie like that, has to be true.......sequence of the conversation seems correct and coherent, the police are telling the truth..

 

[GR_Turner]

...to be honest i only feel pity for Reeva Steenkamp when i see people defending Pistorius, as far as you personally are concerned nothing you've said has made the slightest impact on my position that this was murder......you don't have nothing to say which can change anything........

I doubt Reeva would be thanking you for taking the state's position if it was indeed a mistake. There's nothing wrong with looking at evidence and concluding that the state didn't make it's case. That you seem to think there is something wrong with it is strange imo.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I agree- with no way of knowing anything about how when or why it might have been said- or even if it was said at all- far better to be like Nel and ignore it.

Nel + ignore= we know why

The newspapers aren't always wrong, not every sentence has to be questioned. If they are writing, the conversation between Botha and OP happened after the "accident"/murder and before his arrest, then why one shouldn't believe it as it is? It is logically and makes sense. I don't need "a witness" for that.

 

[GR_Turner]

........disagree.....again......Far too risky to make up a lie like that, has to be true.......sequence of the conversation seems correct and coherent, the police are telling the truth..

Good grief. It doesn't matter as it wasn't entered into evidence in the court. That's the bottom line.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I doubt Reeva would be thanking you for taking the state's position if it was indeed a mistake. There's nothing wrong with looking at evidence and concluding that the state didn't make it's case. That you seem to think there is something wrong with it is strange imo.

I think, Reeva would be extremely disappointed if nobody - no prosecutor, no judge, no lawyer - would help to clear the case 100% and to work for the justice and against Domestic Violence and murder.

 

[aftermath]

Nel + ignore= we know why

The newspapers aren't always wrong, not every sentence has to be questioned. If they are writing, the conversation between Botha and OP happened after the "accident"/murder and before his arrest, then why one shouldn't believe it as it is? It is logically and makes sense. I don't need "a witness" for that.

Nel+ignore = no evidence to prove it or not relevant anyway

Where did the report say these words were said while he was still at the crime scene and before he was arrested? Where was Botha specifically mentioned?

And I think it is increasingly more necessary to question what is reported in the media.