Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[Trotterly]

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!

I was pretty sure on most of the occasions when I did not recall what a poster had said was because the poster had got the evidence wrong in some respect. I did not recall their version. You have mentioned putting his legs and socks on - but it was the part about putting down his gun and picking it up I don't remember. This is the one where I think I may have actually forgotten the detail. I will find the testimony and check unless you have a link.

 

[lithgow1]

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.

Exactly. The duvet had to be on the floor to make that pattern. The photo showed it clearly. OP`s defence did not try to refute it. OP lied. Not made an error, but lied. Why might that be Trotterly? Because the truth made an aspect of his version impossible.

I went just then and tried to find a good quality image of the photo with no success but I do remember it from the trial. However in my search I came across this neat summation from a year or so ago. I guess it sums up the difference between us on this: you go along with the `Pistorius says` entries, I`m more a `The prosecution says` kind of guy. It any case, it is a good summary.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...o-different-versions-dont-add-up-9263835.html

 

[lithgow1]

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.

BIB - I think his choice of who to call could be essentially read in two ways. 1. In his shock at having accidentally shot his girlfriend he rang someone he knew first. Possible but still an odd decision under the circumstances when most people`s first, in fact only thought, would be to summon medical help as fast as possible. 2. He had just shot his girlfriend in a rage and knowing he was in deep trouble his first thought was geared towards helping himself, hence he called an older friend. Much more likely explanation IMO.

 

[Trotterly]

I was pretty sure on most of the occasions when I did not recall what a poster had said was because the poster had got the evidence wrong in some respect. I did not recall their version. You have mentioned putting his legs and socks on - but it was the part about putting down his gun and picking it up I don't remember. This is the one where I think I may have actually forgotten the detail. I will find the testimony and check unless you have a link.

Well I've checked back and OP never said that he put down his gun and picked it up again when putting on his socks. So it was not that I had forgotten in this instance it is that whoever posted this "evidence" was wrong.

 

[Trotterly]

BIB - I think his choice of who to call could be essentially read in two ways. 1. In his shock at having accidentally shot his girlfriend he rang someone he knew first. Possible but still an odd decision under the circumstances when most people`s first, in fact only thought, would be to summon medical help as fast as possible. 2. He had just shot his girlfriend in a rage and knowing he was in deep trouble his first thought was geared towards helping himself, hence he called an older friend. Much more likely explanation IMO.

As someone involved in First Aid training for many years I can assure you that when faced with very severe injuries with dead or near death casualties, especially loved ones, people react in all sorts of odd ways. You may think it common sense that a bystander would know what to do but this is not always the case by any means.

 

[Interested Bystander]

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/

Thank you. I knew I had read somewhere that the light was always on, however, it did not appear in the court evidence and I couldn't track it down.

 

[LemonMousse]

Well I've checked back and OP never said that he put down his gun and picked it up again when putting on his socks. So it was not that I had forgotten in this instance it is that whoever posted this "evidence" was wrong.

He said that he sat on the side of the bed, put down the gun, put on his socks, then his legs, picked up the gun again and ran back to the bathroom.

 

[Trotterly]

He said that he sat on the side of the bed, put down the gun, put on his socks, then his legs, picked up the gun again and ran back to the bathroom.

Which day did he say this?

Was it on direct or cross?

Do you have a link?

 

[soozieqtips]

As someone involved in First Aid training for many years I can assure you that when faced with very severe injuries with dead or near death casualties, especially loved ones, people react in all sorts of odd ways. You may think it common sense that a bystander would know what to do but this is not always the case by any means.

Do you remember OP saying that he was very "saddened" to see it was Reeva he'd shot, and that he sat with her for "I think it was about 5 minutes"? He just "accidentally" shot his girlfriend 4 times (once in the head), she's dying, and instead of rushing to get immediate help, he sits there with her for 5 minutes watching her die.

Remember that his main aim was to protect her. That's why he went charging off with a gun in the first place, to protect himself and Reeva. And yet when she needed his help most of all, he just sat there and did nothing. Most people's instinct would kick in, and they'd get help immediately, not just sit with the dying person and do nothing for 5 minutes. Also, it is most suspicious that he has no recollection of what he said to Netcare.

Many of us simply cannot believe that they would have told him to drive a critically wounded victim with a head short to hospital, but then we don't know what he told them. He could have said she'd banged her head, for all we know. What would have been useful to know was if any Netcare rep would admit that's the sort of advice they'd give under those circumstances. I highly doubt anyone would admit to that.

 

[LemonMousse]

As someone involved in First Aid training for many years I can assure you that when faced with very severe injuries with dead or near death casualties, especially loved ones, people react in all sorts of odd ways. You may think it common sense that a bystander would know what to do but this is not always the case by any means.

I am pretty certain no one has ever said "Everything is fine" when they are standing over their girlfriend's dead body. Certainly not after they have just spoken to someone else and said completely the opposite.

So, let's do a stock check:

Pistorius lied on the stand because he didn't trust the nasty State who had the nerve to prosecute him for killing his innocent girlfriend. We'll disregard the far more likely explanation that he was lying because he was hiding the truth. Although that is the reason 99.9% of people lie, for St Oscar, there must be another reason.

He does scream like a woman, and could prove that if he wanted to - and as Roux assured the court he would - but he decided not to bother because one woman thought his cries sounded female, even though no one else did and that was enough to demolish the most solid evidence the state had against him. We'll simply disregard (again) the more likely explanation that Roux didn't present evidence of Pistorius screaming like a woman because it didn't exist.

Pistorius did intend to use the gun, except at the moment that he actually did. When he did entirely unintentionally use the gun, he did it four times.....unintentionally. The enormous bang and hole in the bathroom door didn't clue him in to the fact that he was unintentionally doing something he didn't want to do, so he kept on doing it.....unintentionally pausing to change aim and then unintentionally firing another three times.

The duvet can't have been on the floor because you have not personally seen evidence that there was no blood on the carpet under the duvet. We shall ignore entirely the fact that such evidence, if it exists, has also managed to entirely bypass Roux because he forgot to mention it during the trial. We must, at all costs, resist the very idea that the duvet may have been on the floor all along because this leads to the humiliating acknowledgement that if it was, the fan could not have been where OP said it was, making his entire tale fall apart at the seams. So, let's just deny the evidence that there is on the basis that we haven't seen evidence that we'd like to see that might support our own biased conclusion.

Oh, and of course, since very, very occasionally a human stomach might not actually be entirely empty after 6 hours, even though the entire worldwide medical community relies on it being and risks lives daily on this basis - we'll just go ahead and assume that Reeva was a rare anomaly who managed to hang on to undigested food in her stomach, without the normal action of stomach acids, because well, not impossible innit? And that's the same as "reasonable doubt". Apparently.

Keep up the good work, won't you?

 

[LemonMousse]

Which day did he say this?

Was it on direct or cross?

Do you have a link?

For goodness sake. I have neither the time or the inclination to go chasing down links and times for you.

He said it to Nel while testifying to what happened after he shot Reeva in the head. I know he did because Nel raised with him the absurdity of picking up his cocked gun from the bed and running back to the bathroom with it.

Go listen for yourself.

 

[cottonweaver]

Do you remember OP saying that he was very "saddened" to see it was Reeva he'd shot, and that he sat with her for "I think it was about 5 minutes"? He just "accidentally" shot his girlfriend 4 times (once in the head), she's dying, and instead of rushing to get immediate help, he sits there with her for 5 minutes watching her die.

Remember that his main aim was to protect her. That's why he went charging off with a gun in the first place, to protect himself and Reeva. And yet when she needed his help most of all, he just sat there and did nothing. Most people's instinct would kick in, and they'd get help immediately, not just sit with the dying person and do nothing for 5 minutes. Also, it is most suspicious that he has no recollection of what he said to Netcare.

Many of us simply cannot believe that they would have told him to drive a critically wounded victim with a head short to hospital, but then we don't know what he told them. He could have said she'd banged her head, for all we know. What would have been useful to know was if any Netcare rep would admit that's the sort of advice they'd give under those circumstances. I highly doubt anyone would admit to that.

Absolutely Soozie. In the cross x by Nel, No, he stopped screaming when he saw what he had done. What did you do? I sat and cried over the body.
A convenient story to meet a timeline and to fill in a gap.
Crying grief implies acceptance - not the sheer panic and irrational, unfocussed behaviour one would expect from someone who had "accidentally" or indeed, even in rage, killed his GF/Fiancee/love of his life. ( Lest we forget this is not a First Aid situation, no bystanders, this is a homicide...VERY different.

But again following this line is nonsense....this did not happen this way.

And then of course we have all the ambiguities from his bail and his testimony about when she actually died , the last breaths- in his arms? downstairs? catastrophic brain injury and Stipp's expert statement re corneal clouding had already occurred as soon as he arrived.
But poor Stipp at the scene - whatever he did was not good enough. He was not helping OP who desperately wanted to save the dead woman. For OP Stipp was an unexpected irritant at that scene, in the way of getting the body at least out of the house.

 

[Trotterly]

Do you remember OP saying that he was very "saddened" to see it was Reeva he'd shot, and that he sat with her for "I think it was about 5 minutes"? He just "accidentally" shot his girlfriend 4 times (once in the head), she's dying, and instead of rushing to get immediate help, he sits there with her for 5 minutes watching her die.

Remember that his main aim was to protect her. That's why he went charging off with a gun in the first place, to protect himself and Reeva. And yet when she needed his help most of all, he just sat there and did nothing. Most people's instinct would kick in, and they'd get help immediately, not just sit with the dying person and do nothing for 5 minutes. Also, it is most suspicious that he has no recollection of what he said to Netcare.

Many of us simply cannot believe that they would have told him to drive a critically wounded victim with a head short to hospital, but then we don't know what he told them. He could have said she'd banged her head, for all we know. What would have been useful to know was if any Netcare rep would admit that's the sort of advice they'd give under those circumstances. I highly doubt anyone would admit to that.

With a gunshot injury if the person dies it is usually because blood has been lost from torn blood vessels. The only way to effectively stop this bleeding is surgery so getting the person to hospital as quickly as possible is critical. If it was me and I had the presence of mind to act I would get the person to hospital asap. In the middle of the night unless an ambulance was very close the back of a car would be a great alternative.

 

[Trotterly]

For goodness sake. I have neither the time or the inclination to go chasing down links and times for you.

He said it to Nel while testifying to what happened after he shot Reeva in the head. I know he did because Nel raised with him the absurdity of picking up his cocked gun from the bed and running back to the bathroom with it.

Go listen for yourself.

I have listened to that testimony and he never says anything about putting down the gun, putting on his socks and then picking up the gun again.

Does anyone else recall him saying this and if so can you point me to it please?

 

[cottonweaver]

For goodness sake. I have neither the time or the inclination to go chasing down links and times for you.

He said it to Nel while testifying to what happened after he shot Reeva in the head. I know he did because Nel raised with him the absurdity of picking up his cocked gun from the bed and running back to the bathroom with it.

Go listen for yourself.

BIB, you may remember though that old time associates of OP remember him as the man who danced in nightclubs with his gun, ie. total jerk. Cant remember if it was in a holster/ tucked in waistband. Naturally this didn't come up in evidence presented. recollection via a news source long while ago so no longer have a link. However a bit of trivia that would be silly to invent. So absurdly running about with a cocked gun is very OP as he was a very reckless individual.

At a tangent somewhat, it reminds me of the inside out jeans issue that cropped up earlier. Nel would not probably have known that RS did her laundry at OPs when she stayed over hence the likelihood they were drying jeans (after typically being washed inside out ) as opposed to ripped off her body. No way that a cash strapped and not particularly proficient SPA could cover the level of detail needed for this case.

 

[Trotterly]

BIB, you may remember though that old time associates of OP remember him as the man who danced in nightclubs with his gun, ie. total jerk. Cant remember if it was in a holster/ tucked in waistband. Naturally this didn't come up in evidence presented. recollection via a news source long while ago so no longer have a link. However a bit of trivia that would be silly to invent. So absurdly running about with a cocked gun is very OP as he was a very reckless individual.

At a tangent somewhat, it reminds me of the inside out jeans issue that cropped up earlier. Nel would not probably have known that RS did her laundry at OPs when she stayed over hence the likelihood they were drying jeans (after typically being washed inside out ) as opposed to ripped off her body. No way that a cash strapped and not particularly proficient SPA could cover the level of detail needed for this case.

I agree.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

With a gunshot injury if the person dies it is usually because blood has been lost from torn blood vessels. The only way to effectively stop this bleeding is surgery so getting the person to hospital as quickly as possible is critical. If it was me and I had the presence of mind to act I would get the person to hospital asap. In the middle of the night unless an ambulance was very close the back of a car would be a great alternative.

BUT Reeva was already dead when OP still had the intent to bring her away from his home to ...................* hospital .................* or whatever. And OP had the expectation, "Mr. befriended Neighbour" of course would like to help him, additional not only in OP's car but neighbour's own car. That's a more than great alternative, at least for OP.


* the more dots the more questionable

 

[lithgow1]

With a gunshot injury if the person dies it is usually because blood has been lost from torn blood vessels. The only way to effectively stop this bleeding is surgery so getting the person to hospital as quickly as possible is critical. If it was me and I had the presence of mind to act I would get the person to hospital asap. In the middle of the night unless an ambulance was very close the back of a car would be a great alternative.

Does that include sitting on the floor for five minutes feeling `sad`? Not aghast, horrified, distraught or hysterical, but `sad'. Soozieqtips post highlighted really well the absurdity of his actions and reactions in the immediate post shooting period if his whole intruder story were true but again you choose to just focus on one little aspect of it rather than the whole and all its implications.

 

[mrjitty]

He said that he sat on the side of the bed, put down the gun, put on his socks, then his legs, picked up the gun again and ran back to the bathroom.

This was one of the interesting dynamics in X

OP had a number of floating items in his version which could not be made specific. i.e. when/where did he put the gun down. where was Reeva's phone. when did he turn off the alarm and unlock the bedroom door.

So the gun always has to be in his hand while searching for Reeva, going thru the curtains to open the balcony door.

What I never quite worked out is why this is.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/unfinished-oscar-pistorius-portrait-painted-5897000

Following the games Miss Holland planned to do another portrait of Pistorius, wearing his gold medal, with the South African flag in the background. The Ministry of Sport and Recreation in South Africa expressed an interest in acquiring the painting when it was finished.

In February 2013 she was in her studio working on her third painting of Pistorius when she heard he had been arrested for murder.


Golden Boy and Hero and "great influence from above" - I will always suppose because otherwise it makes no sense.