Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #63 ~ the appeal~

[Colin de France]

Agreed and i did consider that before I pressed submit but thought WTH , be hoist with own petard, meaning still clear.
So you see, since you came over here from DS to WS* you have posted a great deal of one liners typically questions- across three threads . I don't want to play the game any more aftermath, especially after both you and GRT gave "No's " to a couple of significant invitations/questions.

* Not going into detail

.....yes it's too easy to put poster's on the ignore list when you don't have what it takes to awnser their questions......that's not my idea of what a discussion is about.....maybe on a Facebook page but not on here ...

 

[aftermath]

Agreed and i did consider that before I pressed submit but thought WTH , be hoist with own petard, meaning still clear.
So you see, since you came over here from DS to WS* you have posted a great deal of one liners typically questions- across three threads . I don't want to play the game any more aftermath, especially after both you and GRT gave "No's " to a couple of significant invitations/questions.

* Not going into detail

You're probably right not to go into detail, as that would be focusing on the poster rather than the content of the post.

Not 'playing a game' at all, but if you feel you are, again, you're probably right not to respond to my posts.

Not sure which questions/invitations you are referring to.

 

[lithgow1]

On his version, I thought he put his legs on to try to kick open the door, then went back to get the bat when he realised he couldn't kick it/shoulder barge it. Putting them on to go back and use the bat on the door isn't essential to his account - if he said he tried desperately to get in using the bat once he realised that it could be Reeva (still on stumps), it doesn't affect the credibility of his account. It would just appear that he was so desperate to get to Reeva that he didn't stop to put his legs on.

Instead, he insisted legs off for the shots and legs on for the bat. With police arrivals and Reeva's desth it would be clear there would be an investigation -including a ballistics/forensic investigation. So why risk lying about legs on for bat, when the evidence could prove him to be false?

Also - based on the testimonies of those witnesses who have seen pistorius's mobility and balance on stumps, I don't believe he would have had the balance to be able to break the door with three forceful bat strikes.

IIRC correctly the door opens outwards. Not much chance of kicking open a door when you are on the `wrong` side of it.

 

[Colin de France]

I would also add that, in the bat then gun scenario, it is perfectly plausible for OP to be on his prostheses to fire the shots. Mangena's report does not exclude this possibility. OP could not have said prostheses for this in his version because if he had time to put them on, he'd have known Reeva was not in bed amongst other things.

.....yes...plus the fact it woudn't of fitted in too well with the urgence of an intruder ......for me his legs were always on ......he may well of bent down whilst firing to avoid bouncing bullets coming back round on himself...........as he so quite rightly put it ......

 

[aftermath]

IIRC correctly the door opens outwards. Not much chance of kicking open a door when you are on the `wrong` side of it.

Very true - same goes for shoulder barging it, but that doesn't mean he didn't do it...

ETA perhaps he was trying to kick a panel out rather thsn trying to kick the door open

 

[aftermath]

.....yes it's too easy to put poster's on the ignore list when you don't have what it takes to awnser their questions......that's not my idea of what a discussion is about.....maybe on a Facebook page but not on here ...

There's an ignore list function?!

 

[Colin de France]

IIRC correctly the door opens outwards. Not much chance of kicking open a door when you are on the `wrong` side of it.

.....what we have to bear in mind was that it was access to the lock on the inside he was after........

 

[Interested Bystander]

Here's the simple schematic I'm using to visualise the witness testimony based on a bat then gun scenario. As stated earlier (see posts #263 and #270) it requires that the Burger/Johnson gunshots are moved to before the helps they hear. Although it shows no times, I have used times where known to correlate events. It's very much a work in progress which I knocked up earlier to assist with the development of WTA3. As such it may well change.

View attachment 79776

I think Burger/Johnson may have misremembered the order in which they heard things which was fatal to the trial but IMO quite understandable. This was a very traumatic night for them and they would not be jotting down the order of sounds. I am sure they would have been quite distressed and possibly incorrectly marshalled their thoughts. It is strange that OP was allowed so many mistakes and yet honest, upstanding earwitnesses who were trying to help get to the truth (without bias) have their testimony thrown out in toto.

 

[Colin de France]

I think Burger/Johnson may have misremembered the order in which they heard things which was fatal to the trial but IMO quite understandable. This was a very traumatic night for them and they would not be jotting down the order of sounds. I am sure they would have been quite distressed and possibly incorrectly marshalled their thoughts. It is strange that OP was allowed so many mistakes and yet honest, upstanding earwitnesses who were trying to help get to the truth (without bias) have their testimony thrown out in toto.

......very true.......we all know what it's like to wake up at three in the morning.......it's only normal that of all the witnesses there's bound to be some faults....what's important more than anything else is that they heard a womans screams in which they were all consistent ......if anything the faults make it all the more believable ......

 

[cottonweaver]

You're probably right not to go into detail, as that would be focusing on the poster rather than the content of the post.

Not 'playing a game' at all, but if you feel you are, again, you're probably right not to respond to my posts.

Not sure which questions/invitations you are referring to.

BIB. Not necessarily aftermath as I would, by quoting posts, be pasting actual post content - that's not the reason I am not going into detail in this post.

BIB2 Your question - think it was the last one I asked you.

This is Websleuths, one can't just base everything solely on contents of Defence HofA whilst simultaneously holding views about truth ( that has been the focus of the entire thread and has been gone into at great length, in terms of pages, time and detail.)
ie.
One can't say I want to overturn every stone and look for discrepancies in all sides, only interested in truth, justice etc. ......without having some revelations dawn about those/ willingness to admit fictions in those HofA

I had written a long , perfectly courteous reply to GRT last night and then you pop up instead with another "one-liner"..... anyway you know all that.

 

[cottonweaver]

......very true.......we all know what it's like to wake up at three in the morning.......it's only normal that of all the witnesses there's bound to be some faults....what's important more than anything else is that they heard a womans screams in which they were all consistent ......if anything the faults make it all the more believable ......

If we found no discrepancies, if everyone's matched then we might suspect collusion. Unfortunately these two, as a married couple, may have been able to confirm each others errors, if that makes sense.

 

[lithgow1]

Since it is not long now until he is released, what do posters think the future holds for him, assuming the appeal fails? Looking into my crystal ball, I reckon that after some media frenzy, he will sink into obscurity. Very much doubt he will try and resume his career, which seemed to be fading somewhat in any case, as he will be toxic to sponsors and meets. A job with one of the family companies and the occasional news story if he gets into further strife, starts dating someone etc seems on the cards but otherwise I doubt we will hear much of or from him. Beyond the taking of a life, he threw so much away that night, whether his version is true or not. He likely would have had a career in some media capacity such as a commentator had he wanted it but I imagine all those doors are now closed. Ah well, time will tell ....

 

[Colin de France]

Since it is not long now until he is released, what do posters think the future holds for him, assuming the appeal fails? Looking into my crystal ball, I reckon that after some media frenzy, he will sink into obscurity. Very much doubt he will try and resume his career, which seemed to be fading somewhat in any case, as he will be toxic to sponsors and meets. A job with one of the family companies and the occasional news story if he gets into further strife, starts dating someone etc seems on the cards but otherwise I doubt we will hear much of or from him. Beyond the taking of a life, he threw so much away that night, whether his version is true or not. He likely would have had a career in some media capacity such as a commentator had he wanted it but I imagine all those doors are now closed. Ah well, time will tell ....

..........he will write his story on the edge of a swimming pool.......

 

[aftermath]

BIB. Not necessarily aftermath as I would, by quoting posts, be pasting actual post content - that's not the reason I am not going into detail in this post.

BIB2 Your question - think it was the last one I asked you.

This is Websleuths, one can't just base everything solely on contents of Defence HofA whilst simultaneously holding views about truth ( that has been the focus of the entire thread and has been gone into at great length, in terms of pages, time and detail.)
ie.
One can't say I want to overturn every stone and look for discrepancies in all sides, only interested in truth, justice etc. ......without having some revelations dawn about those/ willingness to admit fictions in those HofA

I had written a long , perfectly courteous reply to GRT last night and then you pop up instead with another "one-liner"..... anyway you know all that.

I 'popped up' with a one liner in response to your one liner (post 406, I think). Your one liner was in response to Colin de France's one liner...

I can't find a question that you have asked me that I have not answered... Which post was it in?

ETA- pasting post content to criticise the style of the post, (and by extension, the poster), is not the same as pasting post content to comment on/respond to the post.

 

[Mr Fossil]

On his version, I thought he put his legs on to try to kick open the door, then went back to get the bat when he realised he couldn't kick it/shoulder barge it. Putting them on to go back and use the bat on the door isn't essential to his account - if he said he tried desperately to get in using the bat once he realised that it could be Reeva (still on stumps), it doesn't affect the credibility of his account. It would just appear that he was so desperate to get to Reeva that he didn't stop to put his legs on.

Instead, he insisted legs off for the shots and legs on for the bat. With police arrivals and Reeva's desth it would be clear there would be an investigation -including a ballistics/forensic investigation. So why risk lying about legs on for bat, when the evidence could prove him to be false?

Also - based on the testimonies of those witnesses who have seen pistorius's mobility and balance on stumps, I don't believe he would have had the balance to be able to break the door with three forceful bat strikes.

I will reply to this in full later with my rationale for why I think his version is as it is. It's quite lengthy so I need to make it a little more succinct first.

Picking up your last point though, I agree. That is why he can't easily break the panel out with the bat (even though Dixon apparently did manage to when he tried). His position, mobility, stability and consequent ability to apply his full force accurately are all diminished. In the bat then gun scenario I suspect he is also very angry at this stage - something which can be both a help and a hindrance. His first strike hits the frame because he is standing to one side. The second (which I'll assume is the one pointed out to Vermeulen by Roux) does no more than mark the door (he is too close) and the third does break the wood, wedging the the bat in place, when he stands further back and flings his weight into the strike. IMO the marks on the bat then come from levering the bat to remove it.

I have seen his mobility on stumps in his filmed re-enactment for the Evidence Room and I don't think he is as incapable in certain situations on stumps as you suggest, although he is clearly at a disadvantage in a number of ways.

 

[aftermath]

I will reply to this in full later with my rationale for why I think his version is as it is. It's quite lengthy so I need to make it a little more succinct first.

Picking up your last point though, I agree. That is why he can't easily break the panel out with the bat (even though Dixon apparently did manage to when he tried). His position, mobility, stability and consequent ability to apply his full force accurately are all diminished. In the bat then gun scenario I suspect he is also very angry at this stage - something which can be both a help and a hindrance. His first strike hits the frame because he is standing to one side. The second (which I'll assume is the one pointed out to Vermeulen by Roux) does no more than mark the door (he is too close) and the third does break the wood, wedging the the bat in place, when he stands further back and flings his weight into the strike. IMO the marks on the bat then come from levering the bat to remove it.

I have seen his mobility on stumps in his filmed re-enactment for the Evidence Room and I don't think he is as incapable in certain situations on stumps as you suggest, although he is clearly at a disadvantage in a number of ways.

I don't think Dixon found it easy though. I saw the Evidence Room reenactment and I don't agree that he was capable of wielding the bat with enough force and control. In the reenactment, he was able to keep balance as long as he kept moving or could use a wall/item of furniture to support him. I can't see that he would have been able to plant his legs strongly and steadily enough on stumps to get those hits on the door. Again, I also don't see the reason for taking the risk in saying he was on his legs if he wasn't. I agree that adrenalin would help to counter any pain from using stumps, (adrenalin from anger on your version and from panic/fear on his own) but I don't think it would assist balance

 

[Colin de France]

Again, I also don't see the reason for taking the risk in saying he was on his legs if he wasn't.

...exactly........his legs were never off....he had dinner with his legs....he had a row with his legs....he bashed the door with his legs.....he shot her with his legs.....and he carried her down the stairs with his legs.....the only reason he says he put his legs on is because he said he was in bed......but no, because he was having a tiff (bruises)..........whilst she packed her bag...

 

[aftermath]

...exactly........his legs were never off....he had dinner with his legs....he had a row with his legs....he bashed the door with his legs.....he shot her with his legs.....and he carried her down the stairs with his legs.....the only reason he says he put his legs on is because he said he was in bed......but no, because he was having a tiff (bruises)..........whilst she packed her bag...

The bruises were not described in court as indicative of a physical fight.

 

[Mr Fossil]

I don't think Dixon found it easy though. I saw the Evidence Room reenactment and I don't agree that he was capable of wielding the bat with enough force and control. In the reenactment, he was able to keep balance as long as he kept moving or could use a wall/item of furniture to support him. I can't see that he would have been able to plant his legs strongly and steadily enough on stumps to get those hits on the door. Again, I also don't see the reason for taking the risk in saying he was on his legs if he wasn't. I agree that adrenalin would help to counter any pain from using stumps, (adrenalin from anger on your version and from panic/fear on his own) but I don't think it would assist balance

I don't think he needs to plant his legs strongly and steadily, just steady himself sufficiently before launching each strike. I think he uses the left hand wall to initially steady himself before launching the first strike, and he uses the door itself to steady himself before strikes 2 and 3, moving back further before launching 3. I would imagine him overbalancing after each strike and needing to steady himself again on the wall or door before continuing. I also therefore think this is part of why he stops. He wasn't having much success and, were he to succeed, it would have been futile to break into the toilet on his stumps. But all this comes down to a matter of opinion, so we'll have to accept that ours differ on this point. And like I've said before, even if the bat/gun scenario is reasonably feasible his version is not disproved. That needs something else.

I don't have such a problem with why he says he was on his prostheses in his version but I'll answer that later because it's a good question along with a few others of a similar nature. Essentially, I have taken the bat/gun scenario from the moment after he fires the gun, ignored his version and thought through the process of what he needs to cover to explain the evidence and support a mistaken intruder story (e.g. what must follow what and when), both immediately that night and then in the short time he has before giving a version to Oldwadge and Webber. Of course, there are variations on any story but essentially I came up with his version and it was straightforward to do so. He also had his legal team to ask questions if he omitted (failed to recollect) something. Later.

 

[Colin de France]

The bruises were not described in court as indicative of a physical fight.

....they weren't described at all.....if i'm right..........except that they occured before the shooting..and where they were situated...