Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[lithgow1]

What differences do you believe to be significant? The balcony detail?

Yes I do believe that to be significant. Also in the bail app he says On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police. yet in court he says he told her in a low tone to call the police. Bit of a difference between screamed and low tone IMO. And he doesn`t separate the two - by his wording in the bail statement he screams at the intruders and to Reeva. Here`s a link to the statement

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/19/oscar-pistorius-defence-statement

 

[GR_Turner]

I am about to head off so will look into your query re the bail app vs court testimony sometime tomorrow but do you not recall the number of occasions when he was pressed about differences and he blamed it on his defence team, telling the court that he told them but for some reason they didn`t include it in the bail statement. It happened at least twice, maybe three times, and Nel was incredulous, pointing out that Roux was too experienced a lawyer to do that. Still Pistorius pressed on, blaming his legal advisors. You may have noticed over the course of the trial how good he is at blaming others.

Nel made that accusation a lot but he didn't try to blame others all that often. That he asked his friend to say he fired the gun by mistake in the restaurant only indicates that he had a keen eye on the way the media would report it and he knew that no one would care if it was his friend. That no one did apparently care suggests he was right. This doesn't mean that he generally wanted to blame other people.

I remember he said that Roux told him to plead not guilty to the ammo possession charge because he hadn't intended to have possession as it was his father's. Nel ridiculed this but it turned out that he probably had been told something like that judging by the defense arguments.

 

[aftermath]

IIRC it was because police tests showed that the window opening could not be heard from out on the balcony so he needed to be inside the room.

I don't think the bail statement says he heard the noise of the window while out on the balcony

 

[GR_Turner]

Yes I do believe that to be significant. Also in the bail app he says On my way to the bathroom I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police. yet in court he says he told her in a low tone to call the police. Bit of a difference between screamed and low tone IMO. And he doesn`t separate the two - by his wording in the bail statement he screams at the intruders and to Reeva. Here`s a link to the statement

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/19/oscar-pistorius-defence-statement

He said he told Reeva to call the police and then screamed for the intruders to get out and also for Reeva to phone the police. This isn't inconsistent with the bail application statement.

 

[lithgow1]

Nel made that accusation a lot but he didn't try to blame others all that often. That he asked his friend to say he fired the gun by mistake in the restaurant only indicates that he had a keen eye on the way the media would report it and he knew that no one would care if it was his friend. That no one did apparently care suggests he was right. This doesn't mean that he generally wanted to blame other people.

I remember he said that Roux told him to plead not guilty to the ammo possession charge because he hadn't intended to have possession as it was his father's. Nel ridiculed this but it turned out that he probably had been told something like that judging by the defense arguments.

I am talking specifically about the bail app vs the testimony. There were a number of times when he blamed his team for not putting information that he claims to have told them into the app.

 

[GR_Turner]

IIRC it was because police tests showed that the window opening could not be heard from out on the balcony so he needed to be inside the room.

And which police tests were these? I don't remember the police doing any tests at the scene.

 

[lithgow1]

He said he told Reeva to call the police and then screamed for the intruders to get out and also for Reeva to phone the police. This isn't inconsistent with the bail application statement.

Yes it is. In the app he says I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police. and in court he said he spoke softly to her. Are you saying those things - screaming and speaking in a low tone - are the same? No, of course you are not so there is a difference between his two statements.

 

[GR_Turner]

I am talking specifically about the bail app vs the testimony. There were a number of times when he blamed his team for not putting information that he claims to have told them into the app.

That was because Nel said he should have included everything. Judging by the surprise expressed by lawyers at the length and detail in the bail statement, I don't think that's true. So Nel was demanding OP explain why his lawyers had included some things and not others so of course he'd say he didn't know.

 

[GR_Turner]

Yes it is. In the app he says I screamed words to the effect for him/them to get out of my house and for Reeva to phone the police. and in court he said he spoke softly to her. Are you saying those things - screaming and speaking in a low tone - are the same? No, of course you are not so there is a difference between his two statements.

He also screamed to Reeva to call the police so there's no contradiction. That he spoke softly to her is an addition and as I've said, I don't think that's a problem.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

It's only distasteful if you find someone disagreeing with you distasteful. I don't think any of that happened. I think she probably did just go to the toilet and he never thought she could have left the room without him seeing and so jumped to the wrong conclusion.

There are not so many coincidences at once, as they should be happening in this story - never. IMO

 

[Colin de France]

He also screamed to Reeva to call the police so there's no contradiction. That he spoke softly to her is an addition and as I've said, I don't think that's a problem.

...i certainly do, there's a whole world of difference between screaming at someone and speaking in a quiet tone, there is for a start the implication of urgence, by speaking in a quiet tone it's far more easier for her not to have reacted and that obviously fits in better with his story, apart from that his shouting to phone the police meant that Reeva would be less worried about making noise herself because she would of been covered by his own screams so she would have done something or maybe said something, the whole situation would of been transformed...... she would of been less afraid to reply to him and to move etc etc. Pistorius has changed his declaration to suit the story, to make it all fit....he's a liar, it's pretty clear...but lastly why speak in a quiet tone to Reeva whilst screaming off down the hall.....just another contradiction.......it just doesn't make sense.....

 

[aftermath]

...i certainly do, there's a whole world of difference between screaming at someone and speaking in a quiet tone, there is for a start the implication of urgence, by speaking in a quiet tone it's far more easier for her not to have reacted and that obviously fits in better with his story, apart from that his shouting to phone the police meant that Reeva would be less worried about making noise herself because she would of been covered by his own screams so she would have done something or maybe said something, the whole situation would of been transformed...... she would of been less afraid to reply to him and to move etc etc. Pistorius has changed his declaration to suit the story, to make it all fit....he's a liar, it's pretty clear...but lastly why speak in a quiet tone to Reeva whilst screaming off down the hall.....just another contradiction.......it just doesn't make sense.....

It's not necessarily a contradiction. If someone believes there is an intruder in the house, it's not too difficult to accept that prior to shouting a warning to the intruder to get out of the house, (to prompt the intruder into hopefully leaving as someone is clearly alert to their presence), a homeowner might quietly instruct a loved one to get down/call the police.

 

[Colin de France]

....another thing is that if Reeva had gone to the toilet whilst he was on the balcony getting the fan in then it could have been her who made the noise in the bathroom, this is a normal situation with a couple, where one wakes the other up....what is so unbelievable is that he automatically thought intruder instead of the other person in the room which is completely illogical.......it just doesn't work......

 

[Colin de France]

It's not necessarily a contradiction. If someone believes there is an intruder in the house, it's not too difficult to accept that prior to shouting a warning to the intruder to get out of the house, (to prompt the intruder into hopefully leaving as someone is clearly alert to their presence), a homeowner might quietly instruct a loved one to get down/call the police.

....then try it yourself... ask someone in a quiet tone to phone the police and then go off screaming down the hall....cloud coo coo land i'm afraid....

 

[GR_Turner]

There are not so many coincidences at once, as they should be happening in this story - never. IMO

The problem is that both versions are packed with improbabilities:

If he told the truth it's most unlucky that his cries were heard as female screams and his breaking down the door as second shots. However, if the state are right then OP got incredibly lucky when he made up his story for the bail hearing and the evidence collected later actually does agree with him even to the extent that Johnson's phone time and Stipp's 3:17 10111 call make his version possible as well as Mrs VdM mistaking crying and the Stipp's housekeeper hearing crying too. I would never have imagined that bats could sound like shots, and yet they do.

On the state's version, it's not enough to say that the state can't know what the first bangs were imo as it's evidence from their witnesses and I haven't heard any good explanation from anyone about what they were. I appreciate they weren't there but it's odd that they have found nothing to explain this given all the evidence at the scene and it looks especially bad because the defense have explained it. None of the possibilities really work for the state - bats, shots, some other random thing about which we have no evidence.

Then there's that he was on his stumps. This strongly suggests either that he actually told the truth and had just got out of bed or that he was deliberately attacking Reeva in cold blood and knowing full well that there would be a trial. This doesn't make sense either. He could have just not attacked her if he was thinking about what he was doing as he had no reason to kill her at all and he was so conscious of his media profile that there's no way he'd have risked everything to commit a pointless murder if he was actually thinking straight. Yet he must have been thinking straight if he chose to bend down or fire low down from near the corridor in order to later claim that he was on his stumps. So it was either very cold blooded indeed and a massive and totally pointless risk or he has told the truth as far I can see.

 

[aftermath]

....then try it yourself...go off screaming down the hall and at the same time ask someone in a quiet tone to phone the police....cloud coo coo land i'm afraid....

No- you try it: quietly tell someone in the bedroom to phone the police, then move out of the bedroom and into the passage, then scream/shout out to the perceived intruder to get out, before shouting back to the bedroom about calling the police, to prompt any intruder to get out quickly.

 

[Colin de France]

No- you try it: quietly tell someone in the bedroom to phone the police, then move out of the bedroom and into the passage, then scream/shout out to the perceived intruder to get out, before shouting back to the bedroom about calling the police, to prompt any intruder to get out quickly.

....but it wasn't like that he said he shouted at the intruder to get out and for Reeva to phone the police.....you really shoudn't believe all that i write ...sorry

 

[aftermath]

....but it wasn't like that he said he shouted at the intruder to get out and for Reeva to phone the police.....you really shoudn't believe all that i write ...

In his bail statement, yes. But in his testimony lots more detail came out- as would be expected.

And I don't!

 

[Colin de France]

In his bail statement, yes. But in his testimony lots more detail came out- as would be expected.

And I don't!

....detail=contradiction....are you Turner and Trotterly on another forum together......i think i know you ..

 

[aftermath]

....detail=contradiction....are you Turner and Trotterly on another forum, i think i know you......

You are sounding paranoid!
Worry not -last time I checked I was definitely just plain old aftermath. Not some kind of unsavoury Frankenstein's monster hodge-podge of bits of posters who happen to disagree with you.

And no- not necessarily contradictions.