Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #62 ~ the appeal~

[mirage1]

What if the flip flops had turned out to be key evidence in this case though? The police probably moved them and didn't note it because they thought it couldn't possibly matter. So who's to say that other things that the police didn't think mattered weren't moved?

You can only say that something proves his story a lie if the evidence is reliable. If the police wished to rely on their photo evidence they should have demonstrated that nothing, not even flip flops, were moved without it being properly noted and then recorded in the photos presented at court. They should also have called the first policemen to the scene surely.

If the flop flops were vital evidence and there was evidence of their inconsistent position then that could be called into question. There is no such questions regarding the fans, curtains, devet, so the evidence is reliable. Only a desperate guilty person would try to throw out all the photo evidence, because a pair of flip flops have been moved.

 

[Colin de France]

For example, I'm told that there is no evidence that OP's cries were heard as female screams despite considerable evidence that they may have been.

......it's not easy to take you seriously when you mix the words "evidence" and "may have been" in the same sentence...........you come across as someone with an agenda rather than objective reasoning.......

 

[Colin de France]

We agree that watches etc aren't synchronized? We agree that phone service data would be synchronized with SA timezone? So using what people said they heard/ saw in relation to when a phone was used, a timeline can be built up. No need for reference to clock or watch times at all (unless you want an approximation of a time).who is suggesting any timeline is going to be accurate to the nearest few seconds at all times? What it does do though is whittle down the possibilities of when things happened/were heard...

....that comes across as a bit of a cop out in relation to what you saying before.............flop

 

[aftermath]

....that comes across as a bit of a cop out in relation to what you saying before.............flop

Does it? How?

 

[Colin de France]

Does it? How?

.......i suggest you read the post's before posting.........."You don't think the times recorded on the phone data can be trusted? Why wouldn't network providers have the same time settings synchronized automatically and electronically with whatever time zone they are in?" .....this has nothing whatsoever to do with what i said ..........!

 

[aftermath]

.......i suggest you read the post's before posting.........."You don't think the times recorded on the phone data can be trusted? Why wouldn't network providers have the same time settings synchronized automatically and electronically with whatever time zone they are in?" .....this has nothing whatsoever to do with what i said ..........!

I suggest you take your own advice.
How is my post a 'cop out' from what I posted before?

ETA - it looks like a case of can't / won't answer the question ( again ), so sling a subtly barbed comment back instead

 

[GR_Turner]

Once again, what does it matter which specific police were at the scene at what specific times, in relation to photo graphs? This is a non sequitur. The photos would have come out exactly the same regardless.

Only if they didn't move things. We don't know what they did if they weren't called to testify.

 

[GR_Turner]

If the flop flops were vital evidence and there was evidence of their inconsistent position then that could be called into question. There is no such questions regarding the fans, curtains, devet, so the evidence is reliable. Only a desperate guilty person would try to throw out all the photo evidence, because a pair of flip flops have been moved.

So without a photo of the fan being moved there's no way of showing that the photos might be wrong?

 

[GR_Turner]

Perhaps the worry is that engaging with and acknowledging parts of the defence case would be tantamount to confirming reasonable doubt?

That's rather the way it looks, yes.

 

[GR_Turner]

Because the odds of 4 people being wrong decrease dramatically. There is no way 4 people can mistake a man for a female.

Let's try an analogy. If one person sees a white man at a crime scene and three others also see a white man then they are probably right that they saw a white man if they are the only witnesses. Now suppose that we have 10 witnesses - 4 saw a white man, 2 saw a black man and 4 saw an Asian man at the same time, now how sure are we that the person at the scene was a white man?

 

[Colin de France]

Let's try an analogy. If one person sees a white man at a crime scene and three others also see a white man then they are probably right that they saw a white man if they are the only witnesses. Now suppose that we have 10 witnesses - 4 saw a white man, 2 saw a black man and 4 saw an Asian man at the same time, now how sure are we that the person at the scene was a white man?

.........40% sure....and that's all .......simply because the two situations are not the same and thus are not relative to one another ..... big flop

 

[Colin de France]

I suggest you take your own advice.
How is my post a 'cop out' from what I posted before?

ETA - it looks like a case of can't / won't answer the question ( again ), so sling a subtly barbed comment back instead

.........if you want to discuss a post that i made, that's fine......just don't try transforming it into something competely different.....yawn.

 

[aftermath]

.........if you want to discuss a post that i made, that's fine......just don't try transforming it into something competely different.....yawn.

So how was my post a cop out again?ETA - see previous ETA

 

[Colin de France]

So how was my post a cop out again?ETA - see previous ETA

.........because you don't stick to what you've said before........

 

[aftermath]

.........because you don't stick to what you've said before........

That's just not true

 

[Colin de France]

That's just not true

.........if you say so....just read the post's.........

 

[aftermath]

.........if you say so....just read the post's.........

I have done. Have you? I repeatedly said that the phone data would enable a timeline of who heard what and when to be put together.

 

[Colin de France]

I have done. Have you? I repeatedly said that the phone data would enable a timeline of who heard what and when to be put together.

.......to put a stop to this ridiculous discussion............if someone were to phone the services at 3.15 saying they just heard a woman scream and they were asked what time was it exactly that they heard it and they replied it was at 3.16 .....woudn't that kinda put a spanner in the works regarding your theory.......or if someone simply replied a few minutes ago.......all that could be deducted from that was that it happened before 3.15.... as for a timeline..........it's all in the abstract.......what we do "know" though is that people heard a womans screams.

 

[aftermath]

It depends what they are lying about. In this case its critical to his story.

Him being distracted by the fan long enough for him to have missed noticing reeva leaving is pretty critical, yes, but not necessarily the exact distance and position of the fan from the door.

 

[Colin de France]

Him being distracted by the fan long enough for him to have missed noticing reeva leaving is pretty critical, yes, but not necessarily the exact distance and position of the fan from the door.

.........fan or fans ....?