Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #63 ~ the appeal~

[soozieqtips]

What do you think would constitute a good reason for Nel not to pursue the detail of the bruises?

What do you think would constitute a good reason for Roux not producing the evidence that OP could scream like a woman... even though he promised to produce evidence that OP could scream like a woman?

 

[GR_Turner]

What do you think would constitute a good reason for Roux not producing the evidence that OP could scream like a woman... even though he promised to produce evidence that OP could scream like a woman?

All the other evidence that suggests he screams like a woman perhaps? The state's decision to say the second bangs were at 3.17? They didn't need any recording of OP screaming.

 

[aftermath]

.....now you're awnsering a question with a question......the bruises were there, they were there before the shooting, there's no proof how they got there......but one thing is for sure..she had bruises on her the night she was shot by her boyfriend after having had a dispute........i think that's relevant....

Don't ask questions.. Don't answer questions with questions.... Any more rules? (oh no-another question!)
Yes the bruises were there. Based on pathologist testimony and state questioning, that's about all that is sure about the bruises. However, since the prosecution did not even raise as s possibility that the bruises were caused as a result of a physical attack, we are left with a couple of possibilities: that the bruises were not especially typical of or consistent with the kind of bruises a pathologist might have expected to see from a physical attack, or that the state was so incompetent as to fail to even raise the question.

 

[Colin de France]

Don't ask questions.. Don't answer questions with questions.... Any more rules? (oh no-another question!)
Yes the bruises were there. Based on pathologist testimony and state questioning, that's about all that is sure about the bruises. However, since the prosecution did not even raise as s possibility that the bruises were caused as a result of a physical attack, we are left with a couple of possibilities: that the bruises were not especially typical of or consistent with the kind of bruises a pathologist might have expected to see from a physical attack, or that the state was so incompetent as to fail to even raise the question.

......."the state was so incompetent"..........................agree...

 

[aftermath]

I think a post has just disappeared...

 

[Colin de France]

I think a post has just disappeared...

....i think you're right ............

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Quote Originally Posted by aftermath View Post
What do you think would constitute a good reason for Nel not to pursue the detail of the bruises?

Nobody knows for sure.

What do you think would constitute a good reason for Roux not producing the evidence that OP could scream like a woman... even though he promised to produce evidence that OP could scream like a woman?

Everyone knows for sure.

 

[aftermath]

....i think you're right ............

How strange..... Nevermind- I don't think it related to the case at all anyway.....

 

[Colin de France]

How strange..... Nevermind- I don't think it related to the case at all anyway.....

.....how do you know that ? .....

 

[soozieqtips]

All the other evidence that suggests he screams like a woman perhaps? The state's decision to say the second bangs were at 3.17? They didn't need any recording of OP screaming.

I asked aftermath, but thank you for answering for her again.

 

[aftermath]

.....how do you know that ? .....

I don't - which is why I said 'i think'... However, the discussion up to that point hadn't been about computers, so a logical guess...

 

[aftermath]

I asked aftermath, but thank you for answering for her again.

Isn't that part of being on a forum, though? You might ask a question in response to someone's post, and other posters are free to join in with their own responses?

 

[Colin de France]

I don't - which is why I said 'i think'... However, the discussion up to that point hadn't been about computers, so a logical guess...

........was it something to do with sharing the same IPN ?................you've lost me there i'm afraid....

 

[Colin de France]

Isn't that part of being on a forum, though? You might ask a question in response to someone's post, and other posters are free to join in with their own responses?

.....well if you're willing to awnser for GR Turner i suppose it's better than nothing ...............

 

[aftermath]

........was it something to do with sharing the same IPN ?................you've lost me there ....

What do you mean, sharing the same IPN?

ETA - these exchanges are going nowhere at the moment. In the interest of keeping the thread on topic, I think we should probably both try a bit harder to stick to discussing post content rather than whst is currently happening. Please feel free to report me if you genuinely believe me to be a duplicate poster. If it's just a snippy attempt at undermining posts and posters, though, there is really no need for it.

 

[Colin de France]

What do you mean, sharing the same IPN?

....wasn't that the post that disapeared.......?

 

[Mr Fossil]

The height at which the shots were fired suggests he was on his stumps, he fired from the hip or he crouched down before firing. I don't know how likely it is for someone to fire from the hip whilst in a state of rage. I'd guess it's not the obvious way to shoot. And once we have him crouching down then the whole thing becomes someone planning a defense before he commits the crime, which I just don't see in this case. Which of these options do think it is in the bat-gun scenario?

Mangena's report states that the height of his elbow on prostheses is 4cm lower than the trajectory determined (18.7.3) whilst his shoulder height on stumps is 7cm lower (18.7.1). Both paragraphs suggest the discrepancy can be compensated.

OP says he was holding the gun one-handed (at shoulder height, on stumps). Many commentators say this is unlikely because it would be difficult to correct and steady after each shot but I've seen some amazingly good single-handed examples on YouTube where a target is hit repeatedly with rapid fire at a considerably greater distance. However, and I say this knowing nothing about guns, I also don't think it is necessary to hold a gun at eye level when you're just 3m away from the target if you want to hit it. So elbow bent at 90 degrees on prostheses is also possible. Mangena doesn't rule it out, just says that on stumps is 'most likely'.

I don't know which it is in the bat/gun scenario (though I agree it isn't crouching). On the one hand, fetching the gun and returning on stumps immediately to stop Reeva doing whatever she's going to do (or whatever his reason), with minimal time for his anger to dissipate, makes sense but does that make the gun a more deliberate act (i.e. if his purpose is to fetch it)? On the other, if he's realised that to stop Reeva he needs to be on his prostheses and he then picks up the gun as an afterthought (perhaps to threaten her), this option seems plausible too. In this case kicking the door next would be virtually immediately after he's come to his senses. I've yet to figure if one or the other option isn't viable.

 

[aftermath]

....wasn't that the post that disapeared.......?

Please see my Eta in my previous post

 

[Colin de France]

Please see my Eta in my previous post

.......i don't think anyone is accusing you yourself of being a double poster.........can we please stick to the subject....

 

[soozieqtips]

Isn't that part of being on a forum, though? You might ask a question in response to someone's post, and other posters are free to join in with their own responses?

I just happen to notice it much more frequently between the pair of you, that's all.