Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[mrjitty]

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.

Yes.

And in any event we know the curtains were open per the crime scene photos.

One of the most bizarre aspects of the judgement is that the Judge should have found the fact of the curtains position proven. In which case OP's story cannot be true.

OR, if the judge is finding the curtains were in fact closed (per OP) then she needs to find that as a fact - because it is critical in order for his story to be true.

Instead it is just a floating fact upon which there is not determination.

This shows the lack of rigour of the judgement.

The position of the curtains and the fan demanded findings or at the very least discussion!

 

[lithgow1]

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.

I would have put on my prostheses first since I have been accustomed to doing so since childhood and am fast at it and the difference it makes in my mobility and hence vulnerability is huge. Satisfied? Now how about we get back to that inexplicable (by OP's version) trail of blood droplets. Or why he called a friend before an ambulance. Or why he told security that all was well. All those have much more bearing on what really happened that night.

 

[mrjitty]

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.

One of the stupidities of evidential procedure is that the accused is allowed to hear the witness testimony before giving his own.

They should be revealed at the same time.

This would have prevented him building screams into all the key time points.

 

[LemonMousse]

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.

1) I asked for an example supported by evidence. I was quite specific about the evidence bit, since without it it's mere speculation on your part.

Your "evidence" is what you think and what makes sense to you. Strange as it may seem, this is not evidence. Try again without reference to your personal supposition because - in the nicest possible way - I don't care about that.

2) Stop using phrases like "reasonably, possibly true" and "competent verdict" when you don't know what they mean. I am sure MrJitty could explain for you.

I don't think CH was "proven" because I don't think he didn't know he'd hurt a human being by firing four times into the toilet cubicle. He quite clearly did know, so no, on that basis, CH was not "proven". It should have been murder.

I repeat, since he was not charged with CH, no one was trying to "prove" it. The defence were trying to get him acquitted and indicated that the charge should never have been more than CH anyway...which was a hint that Masipa should (if she was trying to find him guilty of anything, it should be that). Masipa agreed. But this does not mean CH was "proven".

3) Someone not intending to fire does not do it four times, pausing to change trajectory after the first shot. Not in the universe I live in.

Masipa found he intended to fire. If not, she'd have acquitted him.

He intended to fire. Did fire. Ought to have known it would kill someone/amount to an unlawful act, but (because of his subsequent behaviour) somehow didn't know that.

You are trying to divorce him from intent when even Masipa didn't do that.

 

[Colin de France]

Indeed- re-enacted on the video too.

....even the idea to do an re-anacted on video seems strange, it's not everyone who does that....just another manipulation ?

 

[LemonMousse]

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.

2) Stop using phrases like "reasonably, possibly true" and "competent verdict" when you don't know what they mean. I am sure MrJitty could explain for you.

I don't think CH was "proven" because I don't think he didn't know he'd hurt a human being by firing four times into the toilet cubicle. He quite clearly did know, so no, on that basis, CH was not "proven". It should have been murder.

I repeat, since he was not charged with CH, no one was trying to "prove" it. The defence were trying to get him acquitted and indicated that the charge should never have been more than CH anyway...which was a hint that Masipa should (if she was trying to find him guilty of anything, it should be that). Masipa agreed. But this does not mean CH was "proven".

3) Someone not intending to fire does not do it four times, pausing to change trajectory after the first shot. Not in the universe I live in.

Masipa found he intended to fire. If not, she'd have acquitted him.

He intended to fire. Did fire. Ought to have known it would kill someone/amount to an unlawful act, but (because of his subsequent behaviour) somehow didn't know that.

You are trying to divorce him from intent when even Masipa didn't do that.

 

[LemonMousse]

Duplicate post. Sorry.

 

[mrjitty]

....even the idea to do an re-anacted on video seems strange, it's not everyone who does that....just another manipulation ?

My guess is the idea was to make his version seem more real

However the problem was that in a spoken version, critical facts can be left in grey rather than coloured in

Whereas in a video you can't "maybe" do something

Especially the video demonstrates how OP needed to change his version based on the witness evidence.

If the "new improved truth" doesn't give the game away I don't know what does

 

[Interested Bystander]

Yes.

And in any event we know the curtains were open per the crime scene photos.

One of the most bizarre aspects of the judgement is that the Judge should have found the fact of the curtains position proven. In which case OP's story cannot be true.

OR, if the judge is finding the curtains were in fact closed (per OP) then she needs to find that as a fact - because it is critical in order for his story to be true.

Instead it is just a floating fact upon which there is not determination.

This shows the lack of rigour of the judgement.

The position of the curtains and the fan demanded findings or at the very least discussion!

BIB

Yes, very strange AND the security light on the balcony was on too. I am fairly sure it is on 24 hours a day and not switched on and off randomly. Did not one of the witnesses state that the light was on all the time or was it Nel; I cannot now remember who. If it was Nel why did he not argue this point with vigour during the trial, or include this damning evidence in his HoA?

 

[lithgow1]

Trotterly, you have been asking myself and other posters to consider this, consider that etc all based on the assumption that OP is telling the truth about that night and AFAIK we have done so.

May I now ask you to consider the possibility that his whole story is a lie built upon a (somewhat understandable) desperation to avoid the consequences of killing his girlfriend in a fit of rage following a heated argument. I know that it is not evidence but does such a scenario sound more likely to you than his story of what happened that night? Sound like the kind of thing that tragically happens all too often? And if you don't want to consider that scenario as the much more likely, can you point to any evidence that disproves it? I can`t.

 

[mrjitty]

Regarding his other explanations...how have you managed to miss these? They are the reason he ended up with multiple defences.

1) He fired because he was vulnerable and thought he had to protect himself and Reeva (PPD)
2) Before he knew it he had pulled the trigger four times without thinking (automatism)
3) He accidentally fired four times (accident)

They can't all be true. But they can all be untrue.

I think this is where OP simply screwed up in the stand - probably giving Roux kittens - and it is why they had to scramble their silly automatism evidence.

The written pleadings fudge the point by saying he killed Reeva by accident when he fired in self defence.

OP turned this into pulling the trigger by accident, probably because he was too gutless to go all in on it.

 

[mrjitty]

BIB

Yes, very strange AND the security light on the balcony was on too. I am fairly sure it is on 24 hours a day and not switched on and off randomly. Did not one of the witnesses state that the light was on all the time or was it Nel; I cannot now remember who. If it was Nel why did he not argue this point with vigour during the trial, or include this damning evidence in his HoA?

It's all very strange and shows how Courts can go wrong with circumstantial evidence.

It's tempting for a Court to say (as Masipa did) that there are a bunch of hard things - on which she won't decide but it doesn't matter because reasonable doubt.

But that is illogical.

The Curtains cannot be in both states. They were either open or closed.

The Judge's other findings imply that the curtains were closed. But then she must logically deal with how that can be.

Or otherwise she is creating a possibility that OP came to shoot Reeva otherwise that in the circumstances he testified to - which is actually the only possibility open to logic.

But such aspects do need to be dealt with in a rigorous judgement

 

[Interested Bystander]

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.

BIB

Jake18, who is a qualified medic on the forum, has recently pointed out that it takes seconds to put on the prostheses. What takes a little more time is putting on the socks. Why on earth would OP don socks if he was in a hurry? More excuses.

 

[Trotterly]

2) Stop using phrases like "reasonably, possibly true" and "competent verdict" when you don't know what they mean. I am sure MrJitty could explain for you.

I don't think CH was "proven" because I don't think he didn't know he'd hurt a human being by firing four times into the toilet cubicle. He quite clearly did know, so no, on that basis, CH was not "proven". It should have been murder.

I repeat, since he was not charged with CH, no one was trying to "prove" it. The defence were trying to get him acquitted and indicated that the charge should never have been more than CH anyway...which was a hint that Masipa should (if she was trying to find him guilty of anything, it should be that). Masipa agreed. But this does not mean CH was "proven".

3) Someone not intending to fire does not do it four times, pausing to change trajectory after the first shot. Not in the universe I live in.

Masipa found he intended to fire. If not, she'd have acquitted him.

He intended to fire. Did fire. Ought to have known it would kill someone/amount to an unlawful act, but (because of his subsequent behaviour) somehow didn't know that.

You are trying to divorce him from intent when even Masipa didn't do that.

1) This is by way of an explanation for his approach to answering questions remember, of course it's going to be a matter of interpretation. If you don't think it's likely that he was being wary because of his distrust of the police/state then fine.

2) I'm quite happy I know what the various terms mean. No need to get into a tangle about CH - I merely asked if you thought CH was proven which you seem to not think was the case.

3) I've already covered intention to fire. I agree with the CH verdict.

I'm not convinced with the ballistics that assumes how fast Reeva would fall after the first shot which makes both the defence and prosecution's version of how the shots were fired possible. She could have crumbled more slowly or dropped as a "dead weight".

 

[cottonweaver]

....even the idea to do an re-anacted on video seems strange, it's not everyone who does that....just another manipulation ?

iIRC the timing of the leaking was manipulative for sure. No I don't believe 'The Evidence Room" leaked that without permission.

 

[cottonweaver]

I think this is where OP simply screwed up in the stand - probably giving Roux kittens - and it is why they had to scramble their silly automatism evidence.

The written pleadings fudge the point by saying he killed Reeva by accident when he fired in self defence.

OP turned this into pulling the trigger by accident, probably because he was too gutless to go all in on it.

Re automatism.....And of course then having to commission mr. startle Response at the eleventh hour to demonstrate a disabled person unique physiological responses.
All those experts re- doing tests frantically due to that ever changing defence.

 

[Trotterly]

BIB

Jake18, who is a qualified medic on the forum, has recently pointed out that it takes seconds to put on the prostheses. What takes a little more time is putting on the socks. Why on earth would OP don socks if he was in a hurry? More excuses.

You're missing the point here. It doesn't matter if it takes a few seconds or an hour, it's still quicker to grab the gun to defend yourself. Not much good if the armed attacker appears round the corner and all you're equipped for is to run away and get shot in the back.

I'm simply stunned that some will flatly refuse to see this as a reasonable course of action.

Before anyone points it out (yet again) what he did with the gun subsequently has absolutely nothing to do with my point. That was part of the CH for which he was convicted.

 

[lithgow1]

You're missing the point here. It doesn't matter if it takes a few seconds or an hour, it's still quicker to grab the gun to defend yourself. Not much good if the armed attacker appears round the corner and all you're equipped for is to run away and get shot in the back.

I'm simply stunned that some will flatly refuse to see this as a reasonable course of action.

Before anyone points it out (yet again) what he did with the gun subsequently has absolutely nothing to do with my point. That was part of the CH for which he was convicted.

It may be reasonable to grab the gun, but why is it unreasonable to expect him to also put on his legs when they make such a difference to his mobility? And what corner was anyone about to appear around? He, she or they were down the other end of the hall, not around the corner. Your choice of words continues to be interesting shall we say. You continue to maintain that he never intended to use the gun so what on earth do you think he was thinking when he went down the hall, sans prostheses, with a gun and no mobility? But if you are tired of this topic, how about we get back to some of those unanswered questions, as per below.

1. Waiting on an explanation for the blood splatter which proves OP was lying.

2. Waiting for a logical suggestion as to why his first phone call was to a mate.

3. There was another one but I have forgotten what it was.

 

[Trotterly]

It may be reasonable to grab the gun, but why is it unreasonable to expect him to also put on his legs when they make such a difference to his mobility? And what corner was anyone about to appear around? He, she or they were down the other end of the hall, not around the corner. Your choice of words continues to be interesting shall we say. You continue to maintain that he never intended to use the gun so what on earth do you think he was thinking when he went down the hall, sans prostheses, with a gun and no mobility? But if you are tired of this topic, how about we get back to some of those unanswered questions, as per below.

1. Waiting on an explanation for the blood splatter which proves OP was lying.

2. Waiting for a logical suggestion as to why his first phone call was to a mate.

3. There was another one but I have forgotten what it was.

It was reasonable to grab the gun yes.

It was reasonable to expect him to put on his prostheses but he forged ahead with the gun instead.

I think you minimise the danger he could well have felt. You could walk from that window to the bedroom in less than 5 seconds!

And I said he didn't intend to fire when he did not that he didn't intend to use the gun. I agree with the CH verdict. I keep having to repeat this.

 

[lithgow1]

It was reasonable to grab the gun yes.

It was reasonable to expect him to put on his prostheses but he forged ahead with the gun instead.

I think you minimise the danger he could well have felt. You could walk from that window to the bedroom in less than 5 seconds!

And I said he didn't intend to fire when he did not that he didn't intend to use the gun. I agree with the CH verdict. I keep having to repeat this.

Do you know the length of it? It just took me five seconds to walk from my chair to the kitchen sink and his hallway can`t be that short.

Perhaps I do minimise the danger because I don't believe his version of events at all. I think he is a murderer. But that notwithstanding, wouldn`t you agree that many of his actions increased the danger to himself. Dark hall, no prostheses, no confirmed idea where his girlfriend was, no attempt to raise any alarm as opposed to dealing with the situation alone. If I am minimising the danger, seems to me he maximised it for himself and RS.