Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[lithgow1]

IIRC the evidence was blood which appeared on the carpet next to blood on the top of the duvet. If there ever was a photo of "a dissected line of blood" then I did not see it. Was there blood under that part of the duvet?

I don`t know if there was blood under the duvet but the point of the evidence is that there was a clear line of blood across the corner of the duvet and onto the carpet. Your wording of `blood ... on the carpet next to blood on top of the duvet` is downplaying its significance. Is that deliberate? It was a line of blood droplets which continued, unbroken, across the two separate items, strongly suggesting that they were together when the blood dripped there. This is the duvet that Pistorius insisted was on the bed. So how did that come to be, unless he was lying when he stated, unequivocally, that the duvet was never on the floor?

 

[Trotterly]

I am not a gun owner so I guess it would be the prostheses and the door, making sure my girlfriend was with me, though I wonder why you chose to choose the phrase that an `attack (was) imminent`? He hadn`t even seen anyone and he could have kept an eye on the hallway without exposing himself or her to any danger but he chose not to, so where is this `imminent attack` that you speak of coming from? The other end of the dark hallway? The dark hallway he then made his way down, moving closer and closer towards the source of your imaginary `imminent attack`? All sounds somewhat more dangerous than putting on the prostheses and getting the hell out of there. Or putting on the prostheses and THEN going down the hallway. So to lob the question back, what would you have done - gone down the hallway on your stumps or put your prostheses on first?

Anyway, now I have answered your question how about you return the courtesy and answer one of mine. You can forget the Roger Dixon one if you want but a response to #688 would be appreciated.

You are still skirting around the question. I suspect because you are as well aware of the answer as I am.

If you were scared and if you believed attack imminent and if you were a gun user you would be stupid to delay arming yourself first. What he did after that is a different matter and lead to the CH conviction.

Now you can dispute those ifs but that was his defence and had to be given due consideration.

Dixon was a very experienced police forensics expert so I was surprised that he allowed himself to be talked into what seems to have been rather rushed and haphazard work which was poorly reported. Despite this I have no reason to doubt some of his more important findings, which at the end of the day wasn't exactly rocket science.

 

[LemonMousse]

BIB1
I think the most obvious reason for his wariness and tendency to argue rather than answer questions etc was contained in his opening statement which you may recall was an unusual move at the opening of a SA trial. The fact that in the eyes of the defence that the police relied on an unsubstantiated argument between OP and Reeva. I'm sure OP saw this as part of being "fitted up" for murder along with various other police actions. If he did kill Reeva by accident then this would be an explanation for his behaviour on the stand. But of course you will only realise this seen from the perspective of him not having murdered Reeva.

BIB2
I'm quite happy with the CH conviction and feel that was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

BIB3
A judgement really requires more information than just the one short statement. I think it should be considered in context. In this case OP's tendency not to answer questions simply and directly. He often gave what he probably saw as a self serving reply or one tinged with sarcasm or criticism. I think it reasonable to say that any gun owner would be aware of the dangers of ricochet in such a location so its not really about knowing it's about having regard to it at the time. Since he never intended to fire the need to have regard only came between the noise and pulling the trigger.

!) What you "think" is relevant to nothing. It's an excuse. If, if, if.....? He lied on the stand. The most likely explanation for anyone lying is deception. Deception means not wanting people to know the truth. He swore an oath on the Bible, in the name of a god he claims to believe in, to tell the truth. He didn't. But that's all the State's fault?!

And the defence did not rely on an argument. There was evidence suggesting one so they included it. If they relied on anything it was four independent ear witnesses clearly hearing a woman screaming in terror.

2) I am not altogether impressed (or surprised) that you are "happy" with the verdict of CH and can't imagine why you think I should be. And no one was trying to prove CH beyond reasonable doubt - he was not charged with that and no one was trying to prove it.

3) "Since he never intended to fire" Huh? According to who? Not according to Masipa and not according to the evidence. She found that he intended to fire from the moment he picked up the gun and cocked it.

 

[LemonMousse]

Your list:
"16. He is walking slowly and quietly down the passage, screaming"

My comment:
"Nonsense which was never in evidence"

You are now saying "carefully down the passage screaming"

I understand you want to try to make a nonsense out of his evidence but I'm only interested in what it (ultimately) proves.

Pistorius said, on the stand, that he was carefully and slowly walking down the passage screaming like a woman. He stopped screaming like a woman when he got to the bathroom doorway so that the "intruder" wouldn't know where he was. When he saw no intruder, he started screaming again.

What's the problem? Sound too stupid to be reasonably possibly true so have to pretend he didn't actually say that?

Well sorry, "Trotterly", but he did. Go listen.

 

[cottonweaver]

Under the circumstances I don't think it means very much as he had already called for help from Stander and called security himself. If he intended to deliberately delay investigation then why make phone calls?

Initial call to security - plausible speculation that it was a misdial. The later comment " I'm fine" causes the speculation. Don't now say he was confused, but clear sighted the next minute.

Calling for help from the Standers- why choose them as they are further away if speed was of the essence to assist moving a dead body- of course you'll say she didn't die in the bathroom ?
Standers - good friends of OP. that's like saying a call was put out to his lawyer counts.

Calling for help. Calling for help to get out of a jam!

 

[Trotterly]

To be honest, I'm surprised. You don't recall quite a few of the details (details that make OP's story stranger than fiction).

Like what?

 

[cottonweaver]

Pistorius said, on the stand, that he was carefully and slowly walking down the passage screaming like a woman. He stopped screaming like a woman when he got to the bathroom doorway so that the "intruder" wouldn't know where he was. When he saw no intruder, he started screaming again.

What's the problem? Sound too stupid to be reasonably possibly true so have to pretend he didn't actually say that?

Well sorry, "Trotterly", but he did. Go listen.

Indeed- re-enacted on the video too.

 

[cottonweaver]

You are still skirting around the question. I suspect because you are as well aware of the answer as I am.

If you were scared and if you believed attack imminent and if you were a gun user you would be stupid to delay arming yourself first. What he did after that is a different matter and lead to the CH conviction.

Now you can dispute those ifs but that was his defence and had to be given due consideration.

Dixon was a very experienced police forensics expert so I was surprised that he allowed himself to be talked into what seems to have been rather rushed and haphazard work which was poorly reported. Despite this I have no reason to doubt some of his more important findings, which at the end of the day wasn't exactly rocket science.

Dixon' s work was poorly reported? We all watched it- it came out of his mouth. The poor quality caused derision. Just as OPs testimony invited derision or mockery as you prefer to call it.

 

[Trotterly]

Pistorius said, on the stand, that he was carefully and slowly walking down the passage screaming like a woman. He stopped screaming like a woman when he got to the bathroom doorway so that the "intruder" wouldn't know where he was. When he saw no intruder, he started screaming again.

What's the problem? Sound too stupid to be reasonably possibly true so have to pretend he didn't actually say that?

Well sorry, "Trotterly", but he did. Go listen.

You said in your list "quietly" not "carefully". Implying that he said that he was doing something quietly whilst screaming. To me that sounds like an attempt at mockery.

 

[lithgow1]

You said in an earlier post that he didn`t intend to use the gun so why bother with it? Not much point in picking up a firearm and heading towards a perceived danger if you have no intention of using the weapon is there?

I am not skirting the question - you are trying to get me to say what I would have done that night were I in that situation and I keep telling you I would have gotten out of the house. I am not about to reply that `Well, I would have picked up my gun and headed down a dark hallway on my stumps which gave me limited mobility towards imminent danger, all the while screaming like a woman` no matter how many times you ask. I am not so stupid as to act as he did and were I in that same situation and acted as I would like to believe I would have then my girlfriend would be alive and my life would not be in tatters.

 

[cottonweaver]

But that's still not answering my question. Would you go for the gun or your prostheses if you thought an attack imminent?

He stated over and over his vulnerability sans stumps. So if I was a disabled gun owners and my prostheses was closer to me than my gun I would put those on first en route to getting my gun. That would be a very plausible thing to do.

However none of it happened like this anyway.

Shall I make a list of posters' questions that you haven't answered in the past 20 pages? There's an awful lot.

 

[mrjitty]

You are making excuses. Actually, it's worse than that.....you are rooting around trying to find any minuscule justification that you can and then presenting it with a flourish thinking that it amounts to "reasonable doubt".

This is why I suggest we focus our discussions in the way that Courts are required to treat circumstantial evidence.

Otherwise we all simply waste our time on what is effectively wild speculation.

 

[mrjitty]

~snipped~

Masipa admitted OP was a very poor and unreliable witness (one of the only things I agree with her on). So if the defendant (killer) is a poor witness who provides unreliable and contradictory testimony, it makes no sense why she didn't just choose to throw out his testimony. She didn't have any problem throwing out bits from other witnesses in order to make things "fit" whatever advance conclusion she had already come to. Didn't OP in fact have three defences at one point??

Exactly

This is what I found odd about the judgement - and experienced counsel i have asked about it feel the same.

I would have expected the inquiry to start from the centre of the case - i.e. the minute before the shooting - and move outwards from there.

Unreliable evidence should be discounted as not proven.

So the trouble is - even allowing for Roux's clever magic trick - we don't have any reliable evidence that OP didn't realise Reeva was in the toilet.

 

[Trotterly]

Dixon' s work was poorly reported? We all watched it- it came out of his mouth. The poor quality caused derision. Just as OPs testimony invited derision or mockery as you prefer to call it.

His reports - or lack of them. Poorly documented if you prefer.

 

[mrjitty]

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 loved this bit.

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.

The hunt for Reeva was easily the most stupid part of his testimony

 

[Trotterly]

!) What you "think" is relevant to nothing. It's an excuse. If, if, if.....? He lied on the stand. The most likely explanation for anyone lying is deception. Deception means not wanting people to know the truth. He swore an oath on the Bible, in the name of a god he claims to believe in, to tell the truth. He didn't. But that's all the State's fault?!

And the defence did not rely on an argument. There was evidence suggesting one so they included it. If they relied on anything it was four independent ear witnesses clearly hearing a woman screaming in terror.

2) I am not altogether impressed (or surprised) that you are "happy" with the verdict of CH and can't imagine why you think I should be. And no one was trying to prove CH beyond reasonable doubt - he was not charged with that and no one was trying to prove it.

3) "Since he never intended to fire" Huh? According to who? Not according to Masipa and not according to the evidence. She found that he intended to fire from the moment he picked up the gun and cocked it.

1) IIRC you asked for an example and I gave you one.

Like it or not the law does allow some leeway when an accused gives evidence precisely because we can never know why they may answer the way that they do.

2) He does not have to be charged with CH for it to be a competent verdict. Do you think CH was not proven?

3) At the moment he heard the noise he was clearly testifying that he did not intend to fire. I think he intended to use the gun if he had to but not necessarily to fire at that point. He could have fired at any point if his intention was to shoot at the door - creep up quietly and fire immediately for example.

 

[mrjitty]

I don`t know if there was blood under the duvet but the point of the evidence is that there was a clear line of blood across the corner of the duvet and onto the carpet. Your wording of `blood ... on the carpet next to blood on top of the duvet` is downplaying its significance. Is that deliberate? It was a line of blood droplets which continued, unbroken, across the two separate items, strongly suggesting that they were together when the blood dripped there. This is the duvet that Pistorius insisted was on the bed. So how did that come to be, unless he was lying when he stated, unequivocally, that the duvet was never on the floor?

And even more importantly - OPs testimony was that the police framed him by moving the duvet - but how could they when the blood stain was on there?

Ergo the duvet was proven to be on the floor

I was always interested as to whether this was castoff or spray

IMO the blood evidence was weakly presented.

Where are the blood stains on the alarm system and the bedroom door handle?

How did Reeva generate an arterial spurt on the way downstairs if she already lay upstairs for 5 mins?

None of this timeline is possible.

 

[LemonMousse]

You said in your list "quietly" not "carefully". Implying that he said that he was doing something quietly whilst screaming. To me that sounds like an attempt at mockery.

It was quietly and carefully. Go listen.

I don't have to mock. The stupidness of his story speaks for itself.

 

[Trotterly]

You said in an earlier post that he didn`t intend to use the gun so why bother with it? Not much point in picking up a firearm and heading towards a perceived danger if you have no intention of using the weapon is there?

I am not skirting the question - you are trying to get me to say what I would have done that night were I in that situation and I keep telling you I would have gotten out of the house. I am not about to reply that `Well, I would have picked up my gun and headed down a dark hallway on my stumps which gave me limited mobility towards imminent danger, all the while screaming like a woman` no matter how many times you ask. I am not so stupid as to act as he did and were I in that same situation and acted as I would like to believe I would have then my girlfriend would be alive and my life would not be in tatters.

All I'm asking is that in his situation would you have spent time putting on prostheses or arm yourself. Nothing more. You have inflated the question and thrown up some smoke but have still not answered the question.

 

[Trotterly]

It was quietly and carefully. Go listen.

I don't have to mock. The stupidness of his story speaks for itself.

He testified to screaming and to being quiet to hear what was going on IIRC. Doesn't sound stupid to me.