Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #62 ~ the appeal~

[aftermath]

.......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 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.

If someone phoned at 3:15 to report hearing screams and then, bizarrely, was asked for an exact time of the screams heard, any time given wouldn't be reliable- only approximate. (As I have said in many posts to you).
If the reply was 'a few minutes ago' then yes- what could be deduced would be that the screams were before the time of the call. But then repeat this process with the different callers and a better timeline of who heard what and when would emerge.

 

[Colin de France]

If someone phoned at 3:15 to report hearing screams and then, bizarrely, was asked for an exact time of the screams heard, any time given wouldn't be reliable- only approximate. (As I have said in many posts to you).
If the reply was 'a few minutes ago' then yes- what could be deduced would be that the screams were before the time of the call. But then repeat this process with the different callers and a better timeline of who heard what and when would emerge.

.......wow......bizarrely !

 

[aftermath]

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

In the context of the discussion about whether he could lie on his version and still be innocent, IMO, he could in theory have lied both about the second fan and the extent to which he moved the large fan, but still be innocent of murder. So 'fan'. That's not to say he did lie about the fans, of course - just that up to a point he could have done and still have been innocent of murder.

 

[aftermath]

.......wow......bizarrely !

Well yes - after all, who would expect clocks and watches to be nationally synchronised? And people's perceptions and reactions differ, so any clock time would be an approximation. ( As I said in my earlier earlier posts )

 

[Colin de France]

In the context of the discussion about whether he could lie on his version and still be innocent, IMO, he could in theory have lied both about the second fan and the extent to which he moved the large fan, but still be innocent of murder. So 'fan'. That's not to say he did lie about the fans, of course - just that up to a point he could have done and still have been innocent of murder.

......telling porky pies is not good for one's image......and lot's of them at that...........let's just hope the appeal will sort this out and see him go down for a nice long stretch....

 

[aftermath]

......telling porky pies is not good for one's image......and lot's of them at that...........let's just hope the appeal will sort this out and see him go down for a nice long stretch....

Totally agree: lying would be an incredibly stupid and risky thing to do. It still wouldn't automatically make him guilty of murder though.

 

[Colin de France]

Well yes - after all, who would expect clocks and watches to be nationally synchronised? And people's perceptions and reactions differ, so any clock time would be an approximation. ( As I said in my earlier earlier posts )

....can't see what's "bizarre" at being asked at what time the incident happened, i would of thought it was one of the first questions anyone would ask.......but i know you're going to disagree ..

 

[aftermath]

....can't see what's "bizarre" at being asked what time it was, i would of thought it was one of the first questions anyone would ask.......but i know you're going to disagree ..

Does quibbling over what I might find a bizarre question, (incidentally I did say 'if asked for an exact time'), make the possibility of building up a timeline of who heard what from using phone data and witness accounts any less possible?

 

[Colin de France]

Does quibbling over what I might find a bizarre question, (incidentally I did say 'if asked for an exact time'), make the possibility of building up a timeline of who heard what from using phone data and witness accounts any less possible?

......it's not a question of "quibbling", it's about pulling you up when you speak rubbish.......it's really nothing more than that.......it's part of the discussion.

 

[aftermath]

......it's not a question of "quibbling", it's about pulling you up when you speak rubbish.......it's really nothing more than that.......it's part of the discussion.

Can't/won't answer the question (again)? Why not sling a subtly barbed comment back instead (again)? Timeline based on phone data and witness accounts still possible (as I have said). No proof of 'cop outs' provided as yet.

If you really think I 'speak rubbish' it is an opinion I don't share, but thankfully it is just that: an opinion.

 

[Colin de France]

Can't/won't answer the question (again ), so why not sling a subtly barbed comment back instead (again). Timeline based on phone data and witness accounts still possible (as I have said). No proof of 'cop outs' provided as yet.

If you really think I 'speak rubbish' it is an opinion I don't share, but thankfully just that: an opinion.

......can we just stick to the subject of the thread please...

 

[aftermath]

......can we just stick to the subject of the thread please...

You mean instead of saying a poster 'speaks rubbish' and doesn't stick to what they originally posted? (When clearly that poster doesn't speak rubbish and does post consistent content?) Good plan. ...
(...flop?)

 

[Colin de France]

You mean instead of saying a poster 'speaks rubbish' and doesn't stick to what they originally posted? (When clearly that poster doesn't speak rubbish and does post consistent content?) Good plan. ...
(...flop?)

....but it's to do with your opinion of the thread subject and not my opinion of you...... you may be a pleasant person.

 

[aftermath]

....but it's to do with your opinion of the thread subject and not my opinion of you...... you may be a pleasant person.

Maybe

 

[aftermath]

....but it's to do with your opinion of the thread subject and not my opinion of you...... you may be a pleasant person.

So do you think a timeline of who heard what could be put together from witness accounts and phone data?

 

[Colin de France]

So do you think a timeline of who heard what could be put together from witness accounts and phone data?

....to be honest i don't think it's possible to pinpoint exact timing but the overall evidence leaves no doubt in my mind that Reeva screamed.....

 

[aftermath]

....to be honest i don't think it's possible to pinpoint exact timing but the overall evidence leaves no doubt in my mind that Reeva screamed.....

But phone data could be used to put some kind of timeline together? Eg of who heard/saw something before/during/after a call...

I agree that exact timing (except for when something happened while someone was making a call) isn't really possible to pinpoint to the nearest few seconds. (And I wasn't saying that it was.)

 

[Fuskier]

Three misrepresentations of the article referred to by J Greenland.

As a retired Zimb judge who is NOT a serving political appointee under Zuma, who is critical of that state he does not need to use legalese in the article, it's colloquial in tone and language. The WHOLE point was to write it for a layperson audience.

Find me all the quotes which demonstrate " he's all emotion" in it.

Doesn't get down to the nitty gritty - do you mean doesn't talk about flip flops or leaning against meranti doors? He gives a step by step run down of OP's testimony.

Maybe re-read and see if his central point still whooshes right over. ( Back to Shapiro again I am afraid and the centrality of the Def's testimony in this case.)

Your disdain amuses me - "those that way disposed" This is a forum not a court of law ( albeit with a couple of provocateurs ) especially with the countless avowals of objectivity.

http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/The-Problem-with-the-Oscar-Pistorius-Judgment-For-Dummies-20140928

Agreed Cottonweaver: Judge Greenland's language is stated as colloquial and the article is written for the layperson audience.
IMO his interpretation of SA law is woven into the case as he witnessed it unfold. He interprets it for the layperson along with his own opinion. Many are appreciative of his contribution in this case.
His high level of credibility and integrity, along with his ability to 'interpret' SA law for the layperson, have seen him sought for television commentary panels, Youtube videos and written media.
His approach is well considered IMO.
This is a layperson forum available to many different people with a variety of opinions who are free to comment on this case.

 

[Marfa Lights]

So do you think a timeline of who heard what could be put together from witness accounts and phone data?

Aftermath, have you not seen Mr. Fossil's timelines? Here's a link to one of them with references to his sources for the times shown. He has tabs at the bottom to "additional resources" that show his other spreadsheets and phone record analysis.

https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx...=file,xlsx&app=Excel&authkey=!AFrdwOvLfE1tctI

 

[aftermath]

Aftermath, have you not seen Mr. Fossil's timelines? Here's a link to one of them with references to his sources for the times shown. He has tabs at the bottom to "additional resources" that show his other spreadsheets and phone record analysis.

https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx...=file,xlsx&app=Excel&authkey=!AFrdwOvLfE1tctI

Thanks for the link- I think remember seeing a slightly different one by Mr Fossil. This is what I was trying to say about how the phone data can be used to anchor parts of witness accounts into a timeline sequence