Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[LemonMousse]

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".

I managed to miss off my first point which was...

1) You said I asked for an example and you gave one. No, I asked for an example supported by evidence, otherwise it's nothing more than your own speculation. Your "evidence" was your speculation. Believe it or not, what you happen to think isn't evidence in a trial at which you took no part. Try again.

1) Everyone is wary and nervous on the stand. Not everyone lies so noticeably that the judge comments on it. There is no sensible explanation for him promising to tell the truth and then lying. And what, precisely, do you think he needed to deceive and cover up about if he is just poor innocent OP who did nothing wrong except shoot his girlfriend in the head because a magazine rack moved?

2) You are quite happy to be wrong, then. I have noticed this before.

3) You can agree with the CH verdict all you like. If you understood the significance of it, this would be persuasive. As it is....

Just so you know, he was found to have fired intentionally. The CH verdict, amongst other things, relied on this. Could you try and grasp this much at least?

 

[LemonMousse]

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.

So, let's be clear...he intended to use the gun all the way up until the moment when he used the gun, at which point he didn't actually intend to use the gun.

Righto.

Oh, and if you believe that at the moment he fired there was no intention then you do NOT agree with the CH verdict. CH = negligence. A negligent act is a voluntary, intentional act that you OUGHT to know, and should have known, would kill or hurt.

This would not be true if Pistorius had not intended to fire when he did. It would either be automatism or accident.

Really, you genuinely do not understand what CH means. Try to find out. This "debate" would be easier for everyone if you were better informed.

 

[Trotterly]

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.

Yes on his version he did put himself in more danger. He claims this was to keep the danger away from Reeva. Who knows what the outcome would have been if there were a real intruder. Though I'm sure some will be convinced they know!

 

[Trotterly]

So, let's be clear...he intended to use the gun all the way up until the moment when he used the gun, at which point he didn't actually intend to use the gun.

Righto.

Oh, and if you believe that at the moment he fired there was no intention then you do NOT agree with the CH verdict. CH = negligence. A negligent act is a voluntary, intentional act that you OUGHT to know, and should have known, would kill or hurt.

This would not be true if Pistorius had not intended to fire when he did. It would either be automatism or accident.

Really, you genuinely do not understand what CH means. Try to find out. This "debate" would be easier for everyone if you were better informed.

That's not what I said please stop misquoting or I will just stop replying to to your posts.

He must have intended to use the gun as he headed off with the gun cocked.

He did not intend to fire when he did as it was in response to the noise.

 

[Colin de France]

Who knows what the outcome would have been if there were a real intruder.

...we already know that......they would have been shot dead without a warning....

 

[lithgow1]

...we already know that......they would have been shot dead without a warning....

To be fair he did scream `Get the f ..k out of my house` didn`t he? Just gave them no actual opportunity to do so. I am 100% convinced that is what he screamed at her. It was the most electrifying moment of the trial IMO because he was finally telling the truth, up to a point.

 

[Trotterly]

...we already know that......they would have been shot dead without a warning....

So you think he should have grabbed the gun first right?

 

[cottonweaver]

That's not what I said please stop misquoting or I will just stop replying to to your posts.

He must have intended to use the gun as he headed off with the gun cocked.

He did not intend to fire when he did as it was in response to the noise.

I am genuinely flabbergasted by that response.

just for the record, I will genuinely not be offended should you choose not to reply to any of my posts from herein.

 

[Trotterly]

To be fair he did scream `Get the f ..k out of my house` didn`t he? Just gave them no actual opportunity to do so. I am 100% convinced that is what he screamed at her. It was the most electrifying moment of the trial IMO because he was finally telling the truth, up to a point.

No opportunity to leave means racing to the bathroom and firing straight away not screaming for them to leave as you slowly make your way from the bedroom to the bathroom!

Why are you so convinced that is what he screamed?

 

[cottonweaver]

To be fair he did scream `Get the f ..k out of my house` didn`t he? Just gave them no actual opportunity to do so. I am 100% convinced that is what he screamed at her. It was the most electrifying moment of the trial IMO because he was finally telling the truth, up to a point.

Recollect that " pregnant" pause beforehand? Dramatic effect? Psychologically affecting to use the actual phrase from Valentines Day Or, simply pausing to get the higher pitch right?

 

[lithgow1]

No opportunity to leave means racing to the bathroom and firing straight away not screaming for them to leave as you slowly make your way from the bedroom to the bathroom!

Why are you so convinced that is what he screamed?

Because he said he did and for once what he said rang true. You obviously did not watch every minute despite your prior claim. It was one of the most electrifying moments as I said. Nel asked him if he was saying anything at the point where he was making his way down the hall and what that was and there was a long long pause before Pistorius half screamed, half sobbed `Get the f ..k out of my house, get the f ..k out of my house`. Social media immediately lit up with comments that that is what he screamed at HER, and many journos wondered the same thing. Guess you were out of the room making a cuppa or something. Wonder what else you may have missed if you don't recall that particular exchange, which was one of the most memorable of the entire trial.

 

[Trotterly]

Because he said he did. You obviously did not watch every minute despite your prior claim. It was one of the most electrifying moments as I said. Nel asked him if he was saying anything at the point where he was making his way down the hall and what that was and there was a long long pause before Pistorius half screamed, half sobbed `Get the f ..k out of my house, get the f ..k out of my house`. Social media immediately lit up with comments that that is what he screamed at HER, and many journos wondered the same thing. Guess you were out of the room making a cuppa or something. Wonder what else you may have missed if you don't recall that particular exchange, which was one of the most memorable of the entire trial.

I know that he said it but I asked why you are so convinced that is what he screamed given that you don't seem to believe much else he said. If it was because it was what he could have shouted at Reeva then its a poor reason as when he testified he had already heard everything that the prosecution witnesses had heard and would have already known what the defence witnesses heard.

 

[Interested Bystander]

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

Mr Jitty, it has occurred to me that if people did indeed hear OP shouting from the balcony, he would have needed to open the curtains himself to do so OR (more likely) that they were already open and he needed to shout from the balcony in order to create his alibi that he in fact opened the curtains. What we really needed is for a neighbour to have seen that the curtains were open before 3am (ie the neighbours to the right of his house viewed from the road). Their bedrooms backed onto the side of OP's house with a direct view of the balcony. It does seem, however, that everyone on the estate goes to bed at around 9-10pm. I now don't think Nel or the Judge could have taken the point any further.

 

[lithgow1]

I know that he said it but I asked why you are so convinced that is what he screamed given that you don't seem to believe much else he said. If it was because it was what he could have shouted at Reeva then its a poor reason as when he testified he had already heard everything that the prosecution witnesses had heard and would have already known what the defence witnesses heard.

You obviously didn`t read the post where I first mentioned this and said that it sounded like he was telling the truth did you? Too busy trying for a gotcha moment I suspect. It is also why I just edited my response to you as I sensed it coming.

Anyway, I am giving up on you Trotterly. Despite repeated requests you refuse to address the blood splatter on the duvet/carpet or why Pistorius phoned a friend instead of emergency services, preferring instead to play semantic games.

First post of mine mentioning the `Get the ...` quote:

To be fair he did scream `Get the f ..k out of my house` didn`t he? Just gave them no actual opportunity to do so. I am 100% convinced that is what he screamed at her. It was the most electrifying moment of the trial IMO because he was finally telling the truth, up to a point.

 

[LemonMousse]

That's not what I said please stop misquoting or I will just stop replying to to your posts.

He must have intended to use the gun as he headed off with the gun cocked.

He did not intend to fire when he did as it was in response to the noise.

Intending to use a gun means intending to fire a gun.

He did indeed fire the gun, but at that point he didn't intend to fire it?

That is precisely what you've said and I have just clarified it to show you how ludicrous what you're saying is.

He picked up the gun, released the safety and cocked it, walked to the bathroom, pointed the gun at the only place in the house where another human being was and fired, paused, fired, fired, fired.

All without intention?

Honestly, who do you think you're kidding?

 

[LemonMousse]

I am genuinely flabbergasted by that response.

just for the record, I will genuinely not be offended should you choose not to reply to any of my posts from herein.

Me too.

But I have noticed that this poster already picks and chooses which posts (and points) to respond to. The more difficult and embarrassing get ignored.

 

[cottonweaver]

Me too.

But I have noticed that this poster already picks and chooses which posts (and points) to respond to. The more difficult and embarrassing get ignored.

TBH I only persisted/ re- engaged in case it was due to some arcane strategy originating from one of those " strange circles " , if you catch my drift, with sole purpose of driving others off the thread.
( was at a loss to come up with any other genuine motivation .... )

Anyway, may well be mistaken assumption on my part but it had the opposite effect.

 

[soozieqtips]

Like what?

Just take a look at the posts you've made saying things like "I don't recall that being said" or "I don't remember that" etc. Other posters have been patient enough to provide you with things you seem to have missed during the trial that you watched every minute of. Me, though, I can't be bothered, although I will say I'm surprised you don't recall when OP said he put his legs and socks on, before grabbing a bat (all done in the dark... so he couldn't "see" Reeva NOT lying in bed) and then running back to the bathroom to smash down the door. He was too "scared" to put the lights on, and can't remember (surprise surprise) when he turned them on.

It's details like this which make his story more ludicrous each time I think about it. He still didn't bother to say a word to Reeva when he was putting on his socks, not even to ask if she'd called the police like he requested. Reeva was entirely mute throughout the whole chaos. He didn't hear her crying or breathing rapidly, or panicking or anything - and he didn't think anything of it????? I wonder why. Hmm. Perhaps because he knew she was in the flipping toilet!

 

[Deleted member 102539]

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?

Wasn't it a friend wo wasn't a witness on the stand?

“His house used to be in pitch darkness at night, except for one light that was always on,” Christo (34) says. But that night all the lights were on and there were blue and red lights flashing outside the house.
http://drum.co.za/celebs/hes-heartbroken/

 

[Trotterly]

You obviously didn`t read the post where I first mentioned this and said that it sounded like he was telling the truth did you? Too busy trying for a gotcha moment I suspect. It is also why I just edited my response to you as I sensed it coming.

Anyway, I am giving up on you Trotterly. Despite repeated requests you refuse to address the blood splatter on the duvet/carpet or why Pistorius phoned a friend instead of emergency services, preferring instead to play semantic games.

First post of mine mentioning the `Get the ...` quote:

To be fair he did scream `Get the f ..k out of my house` didn`t he? Just gave them no actual opportunity to do so. I am 100% convinced that is what he screamed at her. It was the most electrifying moment of the trial IMO because he was finally telling the truth, up to a point.

I thought I already had addressed the blood spatter. The police seemed to think it had to have happened with the duvet on the floor at that point. Therefore OP could not have crossed over it. I did not see a clear photo of the trail or the clean carpet underneath.

I'm not surprised that he reacted in this way. People often react in ineffective ways when faced with traumatic situations. Even Nel realised that he was going to have to tread carefully when interpreting OP's actions.