Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #63 ~ the appeal~

[GR_Turner]

Sorry have I misunderstood BIB in your scenario? She anticipated his curtain drawing- in advance- thus took her phone to assist later once he had drawn the curtains? how does she know what he is going to do next?

per se i don't have an issue with speculating people may take their phone torch but that scenario strikes me as "strange "

I don't think it's much of a stretch to anticipate that someone bringing in fans would close the curtains after if planning to sleep and there were things on the floor on that side of the bed so she'd need to see those.

Or she might have just wanted to check her messages.

 

[Colin de France]

I am surprised that any evidence, such as phone calls, is put into court without appearing to have been properly investigated. Phone records cannot be difficult to obtain.

..........in particular mobile telephone antenna records.........normally very easy for the police to have in hand ........

 

[Colin de France]

I don't think it's much of a stretch to anticipate that someone bringing in fans would close the curtains after if planning to sleep and there were things on the floor on that side of the bed so she'd need to see those.

Or she might have just wanted to check her messages.

..........maybe she had agreed to meet up with the intruder in the WC and share holiday snaps ..............

 

[cottonweaver]

...i missed that one...very good ..;

Its amazing how people can get into each others heads and mind-read, communicate wordlessly in these and OP's scenarios. Intruders, victims, protagonists ...... and the rest.....

 

[Mr Fossil]

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.

 

[Colin de France]

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 page 18) 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 progressed which I knocked up earlier to assist with the development of WTA3. As such it may well change.

View attachment 79776

........which in otherwords means if you replace the bat for the gun then she must have screamed out after having been shot dead ..................or Pistorius screams like a woman and shouts like a man......note how the gun is heard by more people than the bat....perfectly normal until you reverse it ......

 

[lithgow1]

I don't think it's much of a stretch to anticipate that someone bringing in fans would close the curtains after if planning to sleep and there were things on the floor on that side of the bed so she'd need to see those.

Or she might have just wanted to check her messages.

He said they went to sleep at 10 o`clock, with the balcony light on IIRC correctly. So, if true, why all of a sudden after sleeping for five hours does the light from outside and the puny little blue light on an amp suddenly bother him? It does surprise me at times the lengths you go to in order to try and back up his story and it makes something of a mockery of your claim to want to get at the truth. There is nothing that happened that night, no matter how illogical it may seem, that you will not try and explain or justify. No offence intended with those last comments but your complete and unquestioning acceptance of everything he said and did is so obvious.

 

[GR_Turner]

Personally, yes I do, but I understand how difficult it was to produce (Roux's is full of holes and statements of 'fact' which are merely supposition) and have also seen others of a legal bent state that it was not necessary. That said, Masipa seems to have thought it was in her Judgment because she remarks on the absence of it.

For a long time I thought the issue was Johnson's phone time (and it may well still be), indeed Johnson did too. I no longer do, other than to state as a fact that if his phone did show a call at 03:16 then it could have been at any time between 03:16:00 and 03:16:59 because of the truncated seconds. For a bat then gun scenario (see my early two posts on page 18) the issue becomes the Burger/Johnson sequence of events, which I argue is incorrect. If this is accepted, everything falls into place (it requires that the shots they hear are moved to before the helps). I have produced a simple schematic to help me visualise all the witness testimony based on this which I will post soon as a picture and then supply a link to the document at a later time with a full explanation, relevant witness testimony etc.

I am surprised that any evidence, such as phone calls, is put into court without appearing to have been properly investigated. Phone records cannot be difficult to obtain.

Yes, I've read that it wasn't necessary but then again if they were going to put the second bangs at 3.17 it's less that they didn't produce one but that they simply couldn't produce one.

It's worse than that for the state though imo. The defense have a timeline that pretty much works and a version of events that also pretty much works. On the state's side, I haven't heard a single good explanation of how the state can put their evidence together despite considerable effort going into this on a number of different forums. I appreciate the state/posters weren't there so they can't know anything for sure but you'd think that if the state's case was correct that it would fit the evidence and it just doesn't. Do you think the state just got unlucky?

 

[Colin de France]

Yes, I've read that it wasn't necessary but then again if they were going to put the second bangs at 3.17 it's less that they didn't produce one but that they simply couldn't produce one.

It's worse than that for the state though imo. The defense have a timeline that pretty much works and a version of events that also pretty much works. On the state's side, I haven't heard a single good explanation of how the state can put their evidence together despite considerable effort going into this on a number of different forums. I appreciate the state/posters weren't there so they can't know anything for sure but you'd think that if the state's case was correct that it would fit the evidence and it just doesn't. Do you think the state just got unlucky?

..............can you write that again...but in English this time......i can't honestly sincerly see how you could possibly write that......... you are constantly being selective in what you're willing to discuss, how can you possibly make any objective advances..............

 

[GR_Turner]

He said they went to sleep at 10 o`clock, with the balcony light on IIRC correctly. So, if true, why all of a sudden after sleeping for five hours does the light from outside and the puny little blue light on an amp suddenly bother him? It does surprise me at times the lengths you go to in order to try and back up his story and it makes something of a mockery of your claim to want to get at the truth. There is nothing that happened that night, no matter how illogical it may seem, that you will not try and explain or justify. No offence intended with those last comments but your complete and unquestioning acceptance of everything he said and did is so obvious.

We're discussing the defense version. How do we discuss it if we start from the premise that it's not true so we can't discuss it? If you prefer that approach then perhaps just don't comment on his version?

As we are discussing this: I see the goalposts have moved again. We were talking about why Reeva might have taken her phone into the bathroom not the blue light. So now you want to talk about that. My guess is that whatever I say you will just say a) you don't believe it's true so there's no point in discussing it and b) I'll say anything to 'justify' OP's evidence and believe everything he says - how this is not a comment against the poster as opposed to the post I'm not sure. It's hard to see how this sort of discussion can go anywhere.

 

[cottonweaver]

I don't think it's much of a stretch to anticipate that someone bringing in fans would close the curtains after if planning to sleep and there were things on the floor on that side of the bed so she'd need to see those.

Or she might have just wanted to check her messages.

He's awake. She needs to navigate you say. Here's something on the bedside table.

 

[Mr Fossil]

Yes, I've read that it wasn't necessary but then again if they were going to put the second bangs at 3.17 it's less that they didn't produce one but that they simply couldn't produce one.

It's worse than that for the state though imo. The defense have a timeline that pretty much works and a version of events that also pretty much works. On the state's side, I haven't heard a single good explanation of how the state can put their evidence together despite considerable effort going into this on a number of different forums. I appreciate the state/posters weren't there so they can't know anything for sure but you'd think that if the state's case was correct that it would fit the evidence and it just doesn't. Do you think the state just got unlucky?

Perhaps they simply didn't figure it. IMO it would have been easy for Nel to, for instance, argue my timeline and I would ask that you consider it and we can debate its weaknesses. Roux would have happily used my argument to move the Burger/Johnson gunshots if he'd had to do so for his case (in the manner of what he did to Dr Stipp's evidence). I'm not saying I'm right and, even were I to be, it would seem that Roux's timeline and OP's version is plausible enough to trump my alternative scenario. I think it would take the weight of more combined circumstantial evidence, however small, in support of any alternative timeline to sway the Court. This is something I'm hoping to come back to later. For now I'd like to explore the merits or otherwise of the alternative scenario (and as I have said in an earlier post I do have at least one reservation myself). I'm signing off now, back tomorrow.

 

[soozieqtips]

~snipped~

We're discussing the defense version.

It feels less like a 'discussion' and more about seeing who can come up with the wackiest reasons to explain away OP's many many lies.

 

[GR_Turner]

~snipped~

It feels less like a 'discussion' and more about seeing who can come up with the wackiest reasons to explain away OP's many many lies.

If you don't want to discuss it then don't discuss it. If you do, then perhaps do it sensibly without the insults?

 

[Colin de France]

.....i think Mr Fossils timeline speaks for itself not only is it perfectly plausible but it just boils over with logic..................sold.

 

[lithgow1]

We're discussing the defense version. How do we discuss it if we start from the premise that it's not true so we can't discuss it? If you prefer that approach then perhaps just don't comment on his version?

As we are discussing this: I see the goalposts have moved again. We were talking about why Reeva might have taken her phone into the bathroom not the blue light. So now you want to talk about that. My guess is that whatever I say you will just say a) you don't believe it's true so there's no point in discussing it and b) I'll say anything to 'justify' OP's evidence and believe everything he says - how this is not a comment against the poster as opposed to the post I'm not sure. It's hard to see how this sort of discussion can go anywhere.

You made the suggestion that she may have taken the phone with her because she anticipated he would close the curtains in preparation for going to sleep. I was pointing out that they were not about to go to sleep at that point because according to his testimony they would have been asleep for five hours. So that then led me to question why was it important to close the curtains now, when he claims to have been asleep for five hours and why the blue light suddenly became an issue at that point.

Re your second point I stick to what I say and you can report me if you wish. I am not attacking you personally, I am claiming that you are not willing to view anything about Pistorius in a bad light, an assertion that IMO your posts continually support. You claimed a while back that you do not believe everything he says and I asked you for a few examples of where you think he may be lying and you never responded. Your posts put forward scenarios to justify his actions, even when it is something as damning as the not firing a warning shot. To nearly everyone watching that showed that he was thinking clearly at the time, to you, it was a later thought and therefore meant nothing.

 

[GR_Turner]

Perhaps they simply didn't figure it. IMO it would have been easy for Nel to, for instance, argue my timeline and I would ask that you consider it and we can debate its weaknesses. Roux would have happily used my argument to move the Burger/Johnson gunshots if he'd had to do so for his case (in the manner of what he did to Dr Stipp's evidence). I'm not saying I'm right and, even were I to be, it would seem that Roux's timeline and OP's version is plausible enough to trump my alternative scenario. I think it would take the weight of more combined circumstantial evidence, however small, in support of any alternative timeline to sway the Court. This is something I'm hoping to come back to later. For now I'd like to explore the merits or otherwise of the alternative scenario (and as I have said in an earlier post I do have at least one reservation myself). I'm signing off now, back tomorrow.

I'd struggle with the idea that the bats came first I'm afraid. I can't see any reason for OP to have stopped once he'd started and to then go get a gun to shoot through the door. It makes no sense at all to me. It all suggests someone intent on murder but for no reason at all and without any interest in deaths and murder or a history of threatening to kill anyone. I know some posters argue that he was out of control but I'd have thought that breaking a door down and actually physically attacking Reeva would be far better if he wanted to teach her a lesson (I guess). Moreover we know he'd had many rocky relationships before involving cheating on both sides so it's hard to see what could have precipitated such a rage reaction in the absence of drugs or alcohol if it never did or even came close to this before. That's not the answer you wanted I know. Sorry.

 

[Colin de France]

I'd struggle with the idea that the bats came first I'm afraid. I can't see any reason for OP to have stopped once he'd started and to then go get a gun to shoot through the door. It makes no sense at all to me. It all suggests someone intent on murder but for no reason at all and without any interest in deaths and murder or a history of threatening to kill anyone. I know some posters argue that he was out of control but I'd have thought that breaking a door down and actually physically attacking Reeva would be far better if he wanted to teach her a lesson (I guess). Moreover we know he'd had many rocky relationships before involving cheating on both sides so it's hard to see what could have precipitated such a rage reaction in the absence of drugs or alcohol if it never did or even came close to this before. That's not the answer you wanted I know. Sorry.

....the reason he stopped with the bat was because he wasn't getting anywhere fast.......and he got angry...........

 

[GR_Turner]

You made the suggestion that she may have taken the phone with her because she anticipated he would close the curtains in preparation for going to sleep. I was pointing out that they were not about to go to sleep at that point because according to his testimony they would have been asleep for five hours. So that then led me to question why was it important to close the curtains now, when he claims to have been asleep for five hours and why the blue light suddenly became an issue at that point.

Re your second point I stick to what I say and you can report me if you wish. I am not attacking you personally, I am claiming that you are not willing to view anything about Pistorius in a bad light, an assertion that IMO your posts continually support. You claimed a while back that you do not believe everything he says and I asked you for a few examples of where you think he may be lying and you never responded. Your posts put forward scenarios to justify his actions, even when it is something as damning as the not firing a warning shot. To nearly everyone watching that showed that he was thinking clearly at the time, to you, it was a later thought and therefore meant nothing.

They were about to go back to sleep then obviously. Have you really never been tired, gone to sleep and then woken up later to find the lights still on or the curtains open? At that point, you then turn the lights off or close the curtains.

I don't mind what you think, it's what you say. It makes it pointless to have any kind of discussion if you respond to every post in this manner. I could end every post by speculating on why posters believe everything Nel said but it would be tedious.

 

[lithgow1]

We're discussing the defense version. How do we discuss it if we start from the premise that it's not true so we can't discuss it? If you prefer that approach then perhaps just don't comment on his version?

As we are discussing this: I see the goalposts have moved again. We were talking about why Reeva might have taken her phone into the bathroom not the blue light. So now you want to talk about that. My guess is that whatever I say you will just say a) you don't believe it's true so there's no point in discussing it and b) I'll say anything to 'justify' OP's evidence and believe everything he says - how this is not a comment against the poster as opposed to the post I'm not sure. It's hard to see how this sort of discussion can go anywhere.

About 80 percent of the discussion here revolves around aspects of his defence. It seems to follow a pattern: people point out the many flaws in his version and the lies he has told and then some other people try to plug up those holes and justify his lies. I have yet to see any genuine discussion on the possibility of the state`s case being correct from yourself so the second bolded point is somewhat pot and kettle IMO.