Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[cottonweaver]

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.

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

BIB Can you provide a link - any will do - to the statements from her legal peers that say she was highly regarded please? Or paraphrase the legal opinions you heard prior to trial please?

 

[cottonweaver]

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.

Totally. Would have shown how implausible it was.

If it weren't that a woman was brutally slain here, a fast forward replay of his movements would need something like a "Benny Hill" tune sound track, it's so ridiculous. ( apologies but it required going downhill from Carry On to another mad comic) . Maybe Laurel & Hardy if you're unfamiliar with the former.

 

[lithgow1]

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?

Re BIB - to show that he was aware that a shot could well ricochet. How do you know he was not as aware of that at the time, as his answer would seem to suggest, as he was 12 months later in court? OP denying something might carry a lot of weight with some, but it means little to nothing to me. He is a proven liar under oath and as such his denials carry little weight IMO, whether they relate to pulling the trigger in the restaurant or pulling the trigger knowing who was in the cubicle. I know that you will see this as bias on my part but I see it as he has given me no reason to believe him so unless his claims can be backed up, I will take them with the grain of salt I think they deserve. For example, I choose to believe his ex friend and girlfriend that he fired the shot through the sunroof whereas I imagine you believe his denial. Your right and mine too.

You are making a big assumption to say `if you had already decided on his guilt`. I admit I thought his story sounded like BS from the start but I made no final decision until the trial was well underway. Did you go into it with a completely open mind or a leaning one way or another? If either of the latter then the same claim could be made re your current stance.

Who says Masipa was highly regarded beforehand and not now? I had no opinion of her before the trial, and post verdict I think she is a poor judge. Not corrupt, certainly not `stupid`, just not good at her job from my viewing of this particular trial. There have been many judges in the past that have made bad or wrong decisions so do you think she is incapable of doing the same? She was recently passed over for a promotion on the grounds that she had already been promoted too rapidly IIRC, which doesn`t speak too highly of her performance to date. She was also questioned intensely during that promotion interview re her performance in the Pistorius trial, which also suggests her handling of it did not meet with unanimous approval. I will make the assumption that you will enquire as to whether my opinion would be different had the verdict been different and I will admit that yes it would. But that is fair enough IMO as I would believe she had weighed up the evidence and come to the correct conclusion whereas as things stand I think she got it very very wrong, as do many legal experts. In fact other than Kelly Phelps, who is the most biased commentator I have encountered, I can`t think of any SA legal person who agreed with Masipa`s finding re eventualis.

 

[cottonweaver]

Re BIB - to show that he was aware that a shot could well ricochet. How do you know he was not as aware of that at the time, as his answer would seem to suggest, as he was 12 months later in court? OP denying something might carry a lot of weight with some, but it means little to nothing to me. He is a proven liar under oath and as such his denials carry little weight IMO, whether they relate to pulling the trigger in the restaurant or pulling the trigger knowing who was in the cubicle. I know that you will see this as bias on my part but I see it as he has given me no reason to believe him so unless his claims can be backed up, I will take them with the grain of salt I think they deserve. For example, I choose to believe his ex friend and girlfriend that he fired the shot through the sunroof whereas I imagine you believe his denial. Your right and mine too.

You are making a big assumption to say `if you had already decided on his guilt`. I admit I thought his story sounded like BS from the start but I made no final decision until the trial was well underway. Did you go into it with a completely open mind or a leaning one way or another? If either of the latter then the same claim could be made re your current stance.

Who says Masipa was highly regarded beforehand and not now? I had no opinion of her before the trial, and post verdict I think she is a poor judge. Not corrupt, certainly not `stupid`, just not good at her job from my viewing of this particular trial. There have been many judges in the past that have made bad or wrong decisions so do you think she is incapable of doing the same? She was recently passed over for a promotion on the grounds that she had already been promoted too rapidly IIRC, which doesn`t speak too highly of her performance to date. She was also questioned intensely during that promotion interview re her performance in the Pistorius trial, which also suggests her handling of it did not meet with unanimous approval. I will make the assumption that you will enquire as to whether my opinion would be different had the verdict been different and I will admit that yes it would. But that is fair enough IMO as I would believe she had weighed up the evidence and come to the correct conclusion whereas as things stand I think she got it very very wrong, as do many legal experts. In fact other than Kelly Phelps, who is the most biased commentator I have encountered, I can`t think of any SA legal person who agreed with Masipa`s finding re eventualis.

BIB firstly, from his testimony being so detailed, he showed he was totally aware that night of so many things, except when they were disadvantageous to him. Suddenly then, he did not remember. Any fool could see those inconsistencies - one doesn't need to be partial or impartial to OP to see them as they were so obvious.

Second, even Masipa spoke of his lying, yet some want to see her as some kind of OP supporter. No! She has no white balloons!

Third - with you on the initial stance. Prior to posting and joining WS I was not sure he was guilty of murdering Reeva. Remember thinking around bail time, whilst I lurked on WS, it's possible he is telling the truth, these WSers are so decided. ( born sceptical ) However once the trial was underway it became abundantly clear to me and millions of others. lithos, at risk of this sounding like flattery, I would say you have always come across as totally fair minded as have the great majority on WS. It's undoubtedly because you are thus that you are so peed off with this miscarriage of justice.

As for Masipa's reputation in legal circles I'll reserve my points as still awaiting Trotterly to put his/ hers across.

 

[soozieqtips]

Totally. Would have shown how implausible it was.

If it weren't that a woman was brutally slain here, a fast forward replay of his movements would need something like a "Benny Hill" tune sound track, it's so ridiculous. ( apologies but it required going downhill from Carry On to another mad comic) . Maybe Laurel & Hardy if you're unfamiliar with the former.

Perfect. A Benny Hill tune soundtrack. I watched his show in the 70s, and just about all of the Carry On films! Maybe someone could write a "Carry on Lying" for OP to star in when he comes out, if he has time time in between coaching children and reading to the blind, that is.

 

[Trotterly]

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.

Not excuses but an approach which allows for a defendant who can be innocent of a murder charge but still be wary and self serving on the stand. We need not know why he did not behave like the good little witness that so many demanded yet still enable him to have the effective defence to which he is entitled. Note I say effective not necessarily successful.

You assert that "This can ONLY mean that OP was aware AT THE TIME of the danger to him of shooting into the shower"
This is not correct. It is one possibility. OP denied it and we now need proof (by inference or otherwise) that it was in his head at the time. But none of what he says or says he did at the time supports this and neither does the timeline.

 

[lithgow1]

BIB firstly, from his testimony being so detailed, he showed he was totally aware that night of so many things, except when they were disadvantageous to him. Suddenly then, he did not remember. Any fool could see those inconsistencies - one doesn't need to be partial or impartial to OP to see them as they were so obvious.

Second, even Masipa spoke of his lying, yet some want to see her as some kind of OP supporter. No! She has no white balloons!

Third - with you on the initial stance. Prior to posting and joining WS I was not sure he was guilty of murdering Reeva. Remember thinking around bail time, whilst I lurked on WS, it's possible he is telling the truth, these WSers are so decided. ( born sceptical ) However once the trial was underway it became abundantly clear to me and millions of others. lithos, at risk of this sounding like flattery, I would say you have always come across as totally fair minded as have the great majority on WS. It's undoubtedly because you are thus that you are so peed off with this miscarriage of justice.

As for Masipa's reputation in legal circles I'll reserve my points as still awaiting Trotterly to put his/ hers across.

As an extension of the discussion of people coming to the trial with minds already made up, I`ll repeat my experience here. I discovered WS long after the trial got underway and like you, lurked for a long time. I started reading the comments right from the start of the trial even though it was up to the defence and there were a number of people who claimed to be impartial and waiting for the evidence to be revealed, which is of course the way it should be despite our gut feelings. However, what was very interesting was that as more and more damning evidence emerged those same people kept shifting and wriggling to accommodate OP`s version/s of events, making their self-proclaimed impartiality very suspect. By the time I got to their attempted defence of Roger Dixon`s `expert` testimony it had become very clear that despite all their lofty talk they were never about waiting for what the evidence would reveal. In fact, they were the polar opposite.

Despite what I personally feel about him knowing it was her in the toilet I can understand why many commentators felt that it hadn`t been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. What I cannot understand is how people can try and argue that he didn`t intend to kill the person in the toilet given that he deliberately fired four aimed shots at them. To be honest it makes me a bit sad that people who come across as intelligent and who aren`t his high priced attorneys can try and justify, at the very least, his incredibly irresponsible actions on that night. Thankfully, the people who think what he did is reasonable are very much in the minority, as they should be.

 

[cottonweaver]

Perfect. A Benny Hill tune soundtrack. I watched his show in the 70s, and just about all of the Carry On films! Maybe someone could write a "Carry on Lying" for OP to star in when he comes out, if he has time time in between coaching children and reading to the blind, that is.

Ha. Poor Samantha Taylor and a couple more typecast blondes running round after him to that tune. Seriously though carry on is way too good for him. I can visualise K.Williams sneering that he will not share the set with OP and some choice put downs.

However if I visualise myself in the role of an ardent OP supporter my concern would be for the future ie. rehabilitation in eyes of peers, countrymen, strategies for the future. As bona fide charities will turn him down I can't think of many options.

Trotterly what do you think - what's the plan, " going forward" if OP gets lucky with Appeal? The support for Oscar fans must have some clue.
( sorry, I don't think they are welcome at the house arrest homecoming - it isn't going to be party you know..... Non alc beverages and some scripture.....)

I'm thinking weather's nice in Malawi, if you have friends there who can guarantee anonymity.....
Or much more likely, last ditch celeb TV, car crash style, as in OJ post acquittal!

 

[cottonweaver]

very[/I] interesting was that as more and more damning evidence emerged those same people kept shifting and wriggling to accommodate OP`s version/s of events, making their self-proclaimed impartiality very suspect. By the time I got to their attempted defence of Roger Dixon`s `expert` testimony it had become very clear that despite all their lofty talk they were never about waiting for what the evidence would reveal. In fact, they were the polar opposite.

RSM
You nailed it. That is how I remember it.

Personally I don't have a problem with admitting when I am wrong - nothing more desperate than clinging to the mast of the Incredible. Always a sign of weakness.

plus in a previous career I worked in education,so naturally you loved when students corrected you or took an informed, alternative viewpoint

 

[Trotterly]

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/

No additions? No exaggerations? and no agenda?

1. Reeva happily goes to bed, having packed all her clothes neatly away in her bag, including her underwear and the top she was wearing, while leaving her jeans inside-out at the bottom of the bed.

Nel claimed this was evidence of a fight and I guess this is what you think we should conclude. I'm not convinced that a woman involved in an argument or worse would want or need to remove her jeans whether to flee or otherwise. There was no sign of skin scratches or abrasions consistent with the jeans being forcibly removed. So we are to be conclude that someone who packs their bag tidily but leaves jeans on the floor has been murdered.

2. OP wakes in the night and immediately puts his hands over his face. He takes them off long enough to glance over and notice Reeva’s legs under the duvet. He then puts his hands back over his face to get out of bed – pushing aside a duvet that is not actually on him.

No evidence for this or that this was a continuous sequence

3. He walks around to Reeva’s side of the bed, without either looking at her or telling her what he’s doing. She doesn’t ask, either.

You have no way of knowing how they would normally communicate in any situation let lone this one.

4. Once his back is completely turned, Reeva silently scrambles across to his side of the bed and walks totally noiselessly and in the pitch black to the toilet.

Yes his back must have been turned at least until he drew the blinds(?)/curtains making it essentially completely dark. Reeva need not have been silent or walk totally noiselessly if there was fan noise. She only had to move a few feet to get into the corridor where she would not be heard anyway - the floor was marble and part carpeted.

5. Never once facing the bed, OP brings both fans in and positions them at the end of the bed. How he did that with his back to the bed the entire time, I am unable to fathom. He either stood with his back to the bed, and put the fans in front of him and then walked around them, or positioned them with his arms behind him.

6. In spite of the pitch-black room, he notices jeans on the floor. He is bothered by a small LED light enough to want to cover them with said jeans – but not bothered by the lit-up LED display, the light on the TV or the lights on the light switches.

The room was only pitch black after he drew the curtains.

7. He hears a terrifying sound from the bathroom and is frozen with fear. At no point does it cross his mind that it may have been the person sharing the bedroom and bathroom with him making the noise – nope, he’s so convinced it can’t be her, he doesn’t even bother to turn his head and glance in her direction.

This is at the heart of the CH finding.

8. He doesn’t seek to clarify what he’s heard with his awake girlfriend who is feet away from him. He doesn’t wonder if she heard it too and is scared.

9. He feels particularly vulnerable because he’s on his stumps, but doesn’t take a few seconds to put on the legs that are, actually, right next to him.

IIRC this takes of the order of 20 seconds. During this time an intruder could already be making their way to the bedroom. Again part of the CH.

10. He stops being frozen with fear and heads for his gun, making his way around the fans that he has just positioned in front of the bed. He holds into the bed for balance, and says not-a-word to the person who is in it regarding the fact that he believes that there are intruders in the next room and he needs to arm himself.

He did not have to make his way around the fans on his version.

11. He reaches under the bed for the gun, careful not to glance across at the person he believes is in it.

How do you conclude he was careful to avoid glancing across?

12. He stands up, faces the passage and whispers/speaks quietly to Reeva, telling her to get down and call the police without actually telling her why. He is not surprised that she doesn’t ask or that she doesn’t bother to get out of bed and get down as instructed.

We do not know for sure that Reeva could not have reasonably thought that the sound of the bathroom window opening was a strong sign of an intruder

13. He makes his way in terror to the bathroom – ignoring the door that he and Reeva could have escaped through and the panic alarm that would have brought immediate help.

Further steps he could have taken to avoid injury to Reeva

14. He’s so desperate to put himself between the intruders and Reeva that he doesn’t actually check where Reeva is.

15. He is too scared to put the light on but not too scared to start screaming as soon as he starts walking down the passage.

I don't understand why one precludes the other.

16. He is walking slowly and quietly down the passage, screaming.

Nonsense which was never in evidence.

17. Reeva hears the screaming but is too scared of the intruder to respond and give away her position, so she slams the door.images-2

There is no evidence that she deliberately slammed the door rather than trying to close it quietly and accidently slamming it in haste for example.

18. OP screams at Reeva to call the police. She fails to do this even though she has her phone with her.

You imply that Reeva is not scared and thinking straight and her attention is not taken with what might be going on beyond the closed door.

19. OP gets to the bathroom doorway, and stops screaming so that the intruders won’t know where he is.

Having got to the end of the corridor and not knowing that the intruder(s) had left why would you shout as you looked around the corner making yourself more of an obvious target?

20.When he sees that there’s no one in the bathroom, he starts screaming again.

IIRC he said he was screaming throughout

21. Reeva stands facing the door, making no effort to speak to her screaming boyfriend – who is now standing right outside the toilet door. She doesn’t wonder if he wants to come into the toilet and hide with her; she selfishly hides, silently locking the door and says nothing.

22. Somehow she steps backwards to knock the magazine rack on the other side of the toilet before immediately stepping forward again to the position she was in when she was shot.

Are you suggesting that she could not have moved inside the toilet?

23. OP has many thoughts running though his head – a story about a neighbour being tied up in his house, the crime rate in SA, the builder leaving a ladder outside his house, the folly of shooting a warning shot into the shower in case it ricochets and hits him, but a noise from the toilet has all thoughts disappearing from his mind like a fart in the wind and he shoots once, moves position and shoots three more times without actually meaning to….all the while screaming.

There was expert testimony on both sides about the trajectories. Matching the trajectories to the wounds depends entirely on how quickly Reeva fell after the hip shot and no one knew what exactly occurred behind the closed door not even OP.

24. He stands screaming for a bit, then walks backwards out of the bathroom screaming.

25. He gets to the bedroom, screaming, and is a trifle surprised to see that Reeva is not sitting in bed after hearing four gunshots from the en suite bathroom.

No exaggeration for the purpose of mockery here then?

26. He heads across the bed backwards, keeping his eyes on the passage….she’s not there. He walks along the gap between the bed and the curtains; she’s not there. She’s not behind the curtains either.

27. Gasp. Was that Reeva in the toilet? He doesn’t even bother checking to see whether she’s run out of the bedroom – that would be a ridiculous thing to do given that the shooting was in the bathroom, so he sees no sense in even checking (yes, he actually said that).

Surely if you thought you may have shot the wrong person in the toilet you would want to check if they were OK not waste time looking elsewhere which you could do later as they would now not be in immediate danger

28. He runs with his gun back to the bathroom and tries to pull open the door – he’s still scared it may be an intruder, and hopeful it’s not Reeva, but he doesn’t bother checking to see if there’s a ladder outside the window.

As above

29. He runs back to the bedroom, parts the curtains and shouts for help from the balcony….holding a cocked gun in his hand because he’s still scared.

30. He puts down his gun, sits on the bed, looks for his socks, puts on his legs then picks up his gun again to run to the bathroom – all in the pitch black because he tells us he never opened the curtains or put on the light.

I don't recall the evidence for this

31. Kicking the door doesn’t work, so he runs back for his bat. He then runs back to the bathroom with a cocked gun in one hand and a cricket bat in the other.

* Oh, I almost forgot – throughout all of this he is screaming like a woman, except when he goes onto the balcony to shout for help in a man’s voice.

All of the above takes him 15 minutes

There's no prosecution timeline

32. Back in the bathroom, he puts down the gun and hits the door three times with enough ferocity that six people think they are gunshots. Four of those people had slept through the real gunshots 15 minutes earlier – seemingly not bothered by a sound 1000 times louder than the sound that they are hearing now.

The noise may be of that order of difference but loudness is the human perception of noise and is some 2 orders less.
Even inside the house Frank heard nothing useful. I don't see how you can be sure a gunshot would wake distant witnesses or witnesses with airconditioning on and windows closed.

33. Once he breaks down the door and sees Reeva bloody and not breathing, he is as silent as a monk. No more screaming – he is too “sad” to scream anymore.

Is it unreasonable that fear of an intruder and panic would disappear when it became obvious to OP what had in fact occurred?

34. In spite of screaming at Reeva to call the police three times, it doesn’t occur to him to do the same himself now.images-6

Why would it, there was no intruder?!

35. He sits sobbing over her, then pulls her against him, feeling her blood run on to him – although it only manages to stain his shorts and forearms.

36. He is so distraught by Reeva’s condition, that getting medical help for her is not his first thought….calling a friend is.

37. He psychically knows that Netcare will tell him to get Reeva to hospital himself so he calls Stander to help him lift her so he can do this.

Did he not call for an ambulance?

38. He then calls Netcare to be given the worst medical advice of all time – to take a woman who has been shot three times, once in the head, to hospital himself.

No ambulances available then. A casualty with their brains blown out will not last long without hospital treatment. Without the latest expert medical advice would you wait and watch her die?

39. He calls Security for help, then sobs down the phone to them. When they call him back, he forgets to ask for help and tells them he is fine.

40. He runs downstairs, careful to switch off the alarm first and opens the door, crying.

"Careful?"

41. Coming back upstairs he smashes his way through the bedroom double-doors before simply unlatching them.

42. He carries Reeva through the bedroom, leaving a dissected line of blood that is half on carpet and half on the duvet on the bed – which the police can handily line up later making it look like the duvet was on the floor all along and that OP is one enormous great big fat liar.

There was never any evidence that I saw that the blood trail was not on the carpet under the duvet

 

[Trotterly]

Ha. Poor Samantha Taylor and a couple more typecast blondes running round after him to that tune. Seriously though carry on is way too good for him. I can visualise K.Williams sneering that he will not share the set with OP and some choice put downs.

However if I visualise myself in the role of an ardent OP supporter my concern would be for the future ie. rehabilitation in eyes of peers, countrymen, strategies for the future. As bona fide charities will turn him down I can't think of many options.

Trotterly what do you think - what's the plan, " going forward" if OP gets lucky with Appeal? The support for Oscar fans must have some clue.
( sorry, I don't think they are welcome at the house arrest homecoming - it isn't going to be party you know..... Non alc beverages and some scripture.....)

I'm thinking weather's nice in Malawi, if you have friends there who can guarantee anonymity.....
Or much more likely, last ditch celeb TV, car crash style, as in OJ post acquittal!

I do not think OP will need to "get lucky" with the appeal as I don't see murder proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

As for what happens post appeal, if there are no further legal moves I won't give a toss what happens to OP.

 

[Trotterly]

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?

Yes sure, as long as he's not waving guns around :laughing:

 

[soozieqtips]

Trotterly, some of the things you don't recall from the evidence make me think you didn't actually watch the whole trial, but instead read highlights in the paper. Did you watch it or read about it?

 

[Jake18]

Trotterly - from that infamous "leaked" footage legs plus two pairs of socks/stocking inners plus a fumble took about 25 seconds. The inners weren't necessary for placement of the prosthetics.

Now, I'm all for stump health but in an emergency you'd think he'd let that go, wouldn't you? Stumps without inners (x2) and the fumble would take only a few seconds.

 

[lithgow1]

I note with great interest Trotterly that you bolded the first part of the quote below and ignored the bit I have italicised.

39. He calls Security for help, then sobs down the phone to them. When they call him back, he forgets to ask for help and tells them he is fine.

 

[cottonweaver]

I do not think OP will need to "get lucky" with the appeal as I don't see murder proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

As for what happens post appeal, if there are no further legal moves I won't give a toss what happens to OP.

Dolus directus - agreed, not provable based on evidence presented. I never expected dd verdict.
Eventualis - sufficient evidence but not with Masipa hence general legal consensus to pursue an Appeal.

You don't care what happens to OP? Find that hard to believe.

Yet You're cool with OP mentoring your own kids?

 

[Colin de France]

7. He hears a terrifying sound from the bathroom and is frozen with fear. At no point does it cross his mind that it may have been the person sharing the bedroom and bathroom with him making the noise – nope, he’s so convinced it can’t be her, he doesn’t even bother to turn his head and glance in her direction.

16. He is walking slowly and quietly down the passage, screaming

......someone mentioned Benny Hill .....

 

[Deleted member 102539]

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/

I am excited about the content and style !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you!!

 

[Interested Bystander]

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-pistor...s-brilliant-summary-athlete-wants-us-believe/

I don't follow Digital Spy and missed it on here (not sure how) it but it is excellent. It made me LOL.

 

[Trotterly]

Trotterly, some of the things you don't recall from the evidence make me think you didn't actually watch the whole trial, but instead read highlights in the paper. Did you watch it or read about it?

Watched every minute.