Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[Colin de France]

You are sounding paranoid!
Worry not -last time I checked I was definitely just plain old aftermath. Not some kind of unsavoury Frankenstein's monster hodge-podge of bits of posters who happen to disagree with you.

And no- not necessarily contradictions.

....if you say so..... i really don't mind if you disagree.......

 

[aftermath]

....if you say so.....i really don't mind if you disagree.......

That's good- because it doesn't look like we will agree on much! ... but that ultimately makes for a more interesting discussion, I think.

 

[Colin de France]

That's good- because it doesn't look like we will agree on much! ... but that ultimately makes for a more interesting discussion, I think.

....... it's not necessarily/possibly true.....!

 

[aftermath]

....... it's not necessarily/possibly true.....!

You may be right...

 

[Colin de France]

The problem is that both versions are packed with improbabilities:

If he told the truth it's most unlucky that his cries were heard as female screams and his breaking down the door as second shots. However, if the state are right then OP got incredibly lucky when he made up his story for the bail hearing and the evidence collected later actually does agree with him even to the extent that Johnson's phone time and Stipp's 3:17 10111 call make his version possible as well as Mrs VdM mistaking crying and the Stipp's housekeeper hearing crying too. I would never have imagined that bats could sound like shots, and yet they do.

On the state's version, it's not enough to say that the state can't know what the first bangs were imo as it's evidence from their witnesses and I haven't heard any good explanation from anyone about what they were. I appreciate they weren't there but it's odd that they have found nothing to explain this given all the evidence at the scene and it looks especially bad because the defense have explained it. None of the possibilities really work for the state - bats, shots, some other random thing about which we have no evidence.

Then there's that he was on his stumps. This strongly suggests either that he actually told the truth and had just got out of bed or that he was deliberately attacking Reeva in cold blood and knowing full well that there would be a trial. This doesn't make sense either. He could have just not attacked her if he was thinking about what he was doing as he had no reason to kill her at all and he was so conscious of his media profile that there's no way he'd have risked everything to commit a pointless murder if he was actually thinking straight. Yet he must have been thinking straight if he chose to bend down or fire low down from near the corridor in order to later claim that he was on his stumps. So it was either very cold blooded indeed and a massive and totally pointless risk or he has told the truth as far I can see.

Mr Turner your version is making less and less sense....it's either that or you're not explaining yourself very well.....there was nothing cold blooded about this, he blew a fuse, i have always suspected that Reeva was in the toilet looking at Pistorius telephone, that plus a connection with St Valentines......nothing cold blooded about this affair, in fact, it's the complete reverse......

 

[Colin de France]

You may be right...

....possibly ....

 

[aftermath]

....possibly ....

...but not necessarily. ..

 

[cottonweaver]

....... it's not necessarily/possibly true.....!

Does this help Colin?

March 2014 Telegraph:

"Katie is among those who consider themselves to be the runner’s most dedicated supporters and believe wholeheartedly in his insistence that he shot Steenkamp believing she was a burglar.
She insists that the Pistorians are not “weird loners or obsessives” but rational, evidence-driven observers who refuse to be blinded to Pistorius’ nobler qualities by the glare of the past year’s tumultuous events.
“We’re just a group of real people with real lives who coalesced naturally when we took to social media looking for information about what happened and support. We want to show the world we still believe in him and the concept of innocent until proven guilty,” she told The Telegraph. “We’re not looking for contact with him or expect anything from him, we’re just doing what we believe is right.”

Laura, another British Pistorian - although she says the name has been hijacked by “trolls” - said she could not reconcile the image of a murderer with the golden boy athlete she knew.
“I just can’t see that the man I’ve read about and seen interviews with is capable of deliberately killing someone; a man who is humble, who talks of his blessings, who has faith, who calls female interviewers ’ma’am’, who seems to do endless work promoting disability rights and perceptions, a man who helped a young mother when she contacted him because she knew her unborn son was going to need the same operation, who spends time with kids when there are no cameras around to record it - this man isn’t a murderer,” she said in an emailed response.
Both she and Laura, who did not give her real name for fear of “implications” at work, converse regularly with a core group of Pistorius supporters both in the UK and abroad. Miss Baldwin has met some of those geographically close to her several times in the past year.
“It’s helpful to be with people who understand how you feel - I don’t have anyone else to talk to about it in real life,” she said. “If I talk to my friends about it, it only leads to arguments.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Pistorians-hoping-for-an-Oscar-acquittal.html

or more amusing
http://www.vice.com/read/oscar-pistorius-****ed-up-female-fans

or
http://www.rawstory.com/2013/03/why-does-oscar-pistorius-have-so-many-female-defenders/
".......it’s important to remember the world is large and weird enough in it to have people who think that there’s nothing wrong with unloading your gun into your girlfriend as she hides in a bathroom and/or unassumingly uses the bathroom without realizing that her boyfriend shoots first, knocks later. There is no opinion too stupid that some people don’t hold it, so it’s okay to brush that sh** off. The irrational cannot be persuaded from their ***** opinions."

or....take your pick.... so many articles on this interesting phenomenon.

 

[Trotterly]

Having logged back in and realised what's occurred since this morning...... predictable M.O.... seen that before here, as we all have. Doesn't make it any less irritating though.

And I'm sure another new name will pop up here in the not too distant!

Shame though, as it had become interesting again.

Oh well... the website itself is so slow and so irritating these days with ads and losing posts, continual log ins etc.

To repeat my question, what did you mean by this?

 

[cottonweaver]

To repeat my question, what did you mean by this?

.....remember that list that i said I'd draw up of the questions you still had not answered, put to you by me and others across over a hundred posts?....

 

[aftermath]

[Snipped]

or
http://www.rawstory.com/2013/03/why-does-oscar-pistorius-have-so-many-female-defenders/
".......it’s important to remember the world is large and weird enough in it to have people who think that there’s nothing wrong with unloading your gun into your girlfriend as she hides in a bathroom and/or unassumingly uses the bathroom without realizing that her boyfriend shoots first, knocks later. There is no opinion too stupid that some people don’t hold it, so it’s okay to brush that sh** off. The irrational cannot be persuaded from their ***** opinions."

or....take your pick.... so many articles on this interesting phenomenon.

I have yet to see a post from someone who:

'...think(s) that there’s nothing wrong with unloading your gun into your girlfriend as she hides in a bathroom...'

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I have yet to see a post from someone who:

'...think(s) that there’s nothing wrong with unloading your gun into your girlfriend as she hides in a bathroom...'

Complete the sentence with ..... " ..... while you are thinking: maybe an intruder ... if not, I'm sorry but not too much because girlfriend makes my life messed up and more easy would it be without her. I will convince the police I had to protect myself/maybe: us and I had no other chance when an intruder had been there. In the future I will have less fear about what girlfriend may tell the media after this evening (DV), what she may tell the media after separating, less jealousy when girlfriend has someone new on the start after separating, less jealousy when she will become more and more famous ..... all fine, fits my wishes and concerns."

BUT: There never was an intruder, not in OP's mind (except as an evil excuse) and not in reality. Period.

 

[cottonweaver]

I have yet to see a post from someone who:

'...think(s) that there’s nothing wrong with unloading your gun into your girlfriend as she hides in a bathroom...'

Quite - not on WS for sure, but if you look at some of the sites i just read there are views like that. I have not posted all the links that exist as some clearly identify twitter handles and identities etc.

... but , in any case the quote in full read:

http://www.rawstory.com/2013/03/why-...ale-defenders/
".......it’s important to remember the world is large and weird enough in it to have people who think that there’s nothing wrong with unloading your gun into your girlfriend as she hides in a bathroom and/or unassumingly uses the bathroom without realizing that her boyfriend shoots first, knocks later. There is no opinion too stupid that some people don’t hold it, so it’s okay to brush that sh** off. The irrational cannot be persuaded from their ***** opinions."

shoot first ask questions later - there are views akin to that - the author of that link is simply making a punchier line about the essence of recklessness. It could be RS, it could be an intruder.

 

[Colin de France]

....actually there is worse than that......i think on here practically all if not all the posters i've seen are honest and sincere and are here for a genuine discussion.........except three....i don't personally mind pro-Pistorian supporters as long as they aren't internet travellers moving from one forum to another on block with the sole intention of disruption, i don't think that is in the spirit of things, hopefully i'm wrong......and as they say...... "that's all".....

 

[cottonweaver]

I have yet to see a post from someone who:

'...think(s) that there’s nothing wrong with unloading your gun into your girlfriend as she hides in a bathroom...'

BIB Did I mis-read your comment?

BIB Are you saying that you have not read such a post since around time you joined, June 2015?

Or are you saying you have read all the WS posts on the 61 threads since early 2013? ( Cause that's a lot of posts to catch up with /"lurk" without commenting upon. Let's say a thousand posts per thread as an average....) Obv the mods don't miss much on WS.

I must have misunderstood and you're talking about another forum where you are familiar with all the posts.
(Naturally a lot of "offensive" views appear on Twitter, Facebook etc where moderation policies are very different. )

 

[Deleted member 102539]

....actually there is worse than that......i think on here practically all if not all the posters i've seen are honest and sincere and are here for a genuine discussion.........except three....i don't personally mind pro-Pistorian supporters as long as they aren't internet travellers moving from one forum to another on block with the sole intention of disruption, i don't think that is in the spirit of things, hopefully i'm wrong......and as they say...... "that's all".....

bbm
The supporters may be also "honest and sincere and are here for a genuine discussion" - but sorry: I can't believe that they believe the story with an intruder. That's all - too. :gaah:

 

[Colin de France]

bbm
The supporters may be also "honest and sincere and are here for a genuine discussion" - but sorry: I can't believe that they believe the story with an intruder. That's all - too. :gaah:

....getting angry is what they want.......that's how it works....

 

[aftermath]

BIB Did I mis-read your comment?

BIB Are you saying that you have not read such a post since around time you joined, June 2015?

Or are you saying you have read all the WS posts on the 61 threads since early 2013? ( Cause that's a lot of posts to catch up with /"lurk" without commenting upon. Let's say a thousand posts per thread as an average....) Obv the mods don't miss much on WS.

I must have misunderstood and you're talking about another forum where you are familiar with all the posts.
(Naturally a lot of "offensive" views appear on Twitter, Facebook etc where moderation policies are very different. )

No you didn't misread it- you read it perfectly. I have followed much of this forum and its many threads since around the time of the bail hearing, when posters like Carol70 (think that was her username - she lived in SA) were posting. Obviously haven't read all posts on here, but those I have haven't expressed a view that it is okay for anyone to shoot their hiding girlfriend.

Neither have I seen such a view expressed on other forum sites.

 

[Colin de France]

No you didn't misread it- you read it perfectly. I have followed much of this forum and its many threads since around the time of the bail hearing, when posters like Carol70 (think that was her username - she lived in SA) were posting. Obviously haven't read all posts on here, but those I have haven't expressed a view that it is okay for anyone to shoot their hiding girlfriend.

Neither have I seen such a view expressed on other forum sites.

....this came from your friend Mr Turner ....."Well we know that in SA one shot is regarded as acceptable in these circumstances as it's regarded as someone acting in panic it seems from other cases. And if one shot indicates panic then 4 shots might just indicate more panic". End of quote...... Bearing in mind the manner of Reeva's death i find that illogical, without substance and bordering on stupidity......

 

[aftermath]

....getting angry is what they want.......that's how it works....

You are wrong. I have no interest in making anyone angry. I don't agree with you, but that's no reason to get angry. You don't agree with me, but I am not going to get angry about it. Neither would I assume that your intention in expressing your opinions is to provoke anger.