Trial Discussion Thread #30

[BritsKate]

It's all valuable in one way or another. Generally I agree that arbitrary sifting and selective focus is bad for reasoning, though we probably disagree which side of this debate is more frequently guilty of that.

As far as OP's inconsistencies go, the devil is only in the details when the broad arcs collapse. The prosecutor still has a crippling timeline problem if you accept the basic premise that one set of sounds were bat strikes and the other set of sounds were gun shots, and that the latter came last. The broad arcs support the fundamentals of Oscar's version.

The defence and State concede the earlier bangs were shortly after 3am. Screaming starts now too. Bangs heard by Dr. & Mrs. Stipp. Oscar called them liars. The defence has stated the earlier set of bangs are the gunshots. The State has intimated the toilet door may have been kicked or hit.

Oscar himself estimates he fired his gun at 3:12am.

The second set of bangs was at 3:17am and heard by all ear witnesses, iirc.

The blood spatter analysis indicates that Reeva was moved very shortly after she'd been shot. Netcare was called at 3:20, after a quick call to Stander. So...witnesses heard screaming shortly after 3am trailing off after the bangs at 3:17. If Oscar was screaming like a woman what was he screaming at before he states he fired his weapon? Or...why did it take him nearly 20 minutes to seek medical help? Or are all the witnesses wrong - including the one who was already awake due to coughing? Why did Oscar call Stander to help move Reeva when he hadn't even called netcare? What do 5 people who don't even know Oscar gain by being dishonest? Why did his own expert contradict his testimony? Why were we told by the defence that there were double taps - then there weren't; Oscar was screaming like a woman but also cried like a man and the nearest neighbours heard no screaming at all; or that Reeva was first shot in her head - meaning she couldn't have screamed - when all the testimony - even the defence's - refutes such a claim. And if those 5 witnesses only heard Oscar screaming like a woman why go after them, to seemingly discredit them, with such a fury?

Those are just the gaping holes I'm left with only if I don't begin to delve into Oscar's testimony (in which case, I could be typing all night)! So I'd have to argue, at this point, Oscar's own defence doesn't even support the fundamentals of his 'version'.

 

[TorisMom003]

Between post 1001 and here, IMO, there have been statements made that seem to me to be winding up confirmation bias; Oscar wanted to tamper with witnesses, Oscar was given special treatment because of his celebrity, Oscar has a girlfriend because if he didn’t she would say that she wasn’t his girlfriend, Oscar called friends because he couldn’t lift Reeva, Oscar blatantly tried to show that he was still friends with Reeva’s friends, Oscar’s dated beautiful young women, there is hope that Oscar will not be able to appeal his case if he is convicted, Oscar went out shortly (2 weeks) after killing Reeva points toward his guilt, Oscar took acting classes to be a better witness.

Good Gravy.

BBM

This is what he said on the stand. Any issue taken with that one needs to be taken up with OP himself.

Confirmation bias? I suppose by the list that means those that think OP knew Reeva was the one he shot at that night before he broke through the toilet room door? Should we also go back over posts that are confirmation bias pointing to OP "accidentally" killed Reeva?

That sword cuts both ways. If one doesn't mind being called out on their own actions/words then I suppose they don't have a problem with calling out others.

MOO

 

[Emz73]

Between post 1001 and here, IMO, there have been statements made that seem to me to be winding up confirmation bias; Oscar wanted to tamper with witnesses, Oscar was given special treatment because of his celebrity, Oscar has a girlfriend because if he didn’t she would say that she wasn’t his girlfriend, Oscar called friends because he couldn’t lift Reeva, Oscar blatantly tried to show that he was still friends with Reeva’s friends, Oscar’s dated beautiful young women, there is hope that Oscar will not be able to appeal his case if he is convicted, Oscar went out shortly (2 weeks) after killing Reeva points toward his guilt, Oscar took acting classes to be a better witness.

Good Gravy.

And your point? Its websleuth forum. We are on an Oscar Pistorius thread.
You want us to talk about the weather?

 

[TrueDetective]

I can understand that people think Oscar is a lying murdering puke of a man and I respect the valid points that are put forth that may indicate that is true, but stuff like this? Good Gravy, Reeva was older than Oscar. If you want to argue points do so from logical ground.


There is a lot of this type of comment that is simply fruitless to the conversation IMO.

It was a joke C, based on his history of dating young blondes. Most people are aware of it. Maybe you aren't.

His previous gf was 17 when they started dating.

 

[Carmelita]

BBM

Should we also go back over posts that are confirmation bias pointing to OP "accidentally" killed Reeva?

That sword cuts both ways. If one doesn't mind being called out on their own actions/words then I suppose they don't have a problem with calling out others.

MOO

Shortened by me for brevity.


I didn't go back I was reading forward and it was striking me as odd all the peripheral "evidence" of Oscar's guilt.

Be that as it may, I am more than happy to be critiqued, especially my logic and reasoning behind my posts, if I have been operating under my own confirmation bias I would be a fool not to want it pointed out to me.

But if you have been reading my posts you then know that I have never stated that Oscar accidentally shot Reeva, I have only stated that IMO at this point the state has not proved premeditated murder.


The truth is the truth.

 

[Bazinga]

I can't get past his LED light bs. Just how big was this LED bulb/light? Once your eyes are closed can you still see it? Mine's not even noticeable. Didn't OP state he'd already been sleeping 5 hrs. then woke up? It then had to be covered because it bothered him? I sleep with my tv on a few feet from me, never bothers me.:twocents:

This part of his version astounds me too. He says the room was so dark, pitch black that he could not tell if Reeva was in the bed or not. Pitch black! he had a problem as he was in complete darkness (apparently of his own making by closing the blinds) BUT he also had a problem with an annoying LED blue light that was bothering him. Problem with complete darkness, problem with a light that's too bright and annoying? :banghead:

 

[shane13]

This part of his version astounds me too. He says the room was so dark, pitch black that he could not tell if Reeva was in the bed or not. Pitch black! he had a problem as he was in complete darkness (apparently of his own making by closing the blinds) BUT he also had a problem with an annoying LED blue light that was bothering him. Problem with complete darkness, problem with a light that's too bright and annoying? :banghead:

Did you not read my "biblical" allegory last week "Let there be light"?
it explained when he needs light and dark.

 

[TorisMom003]

Shortened by me for brevity.


I didn't go back I was reading forward and it was striking me as odd all the peripheral "evidence" of Oscar's guilt.

Be that as it may, I am more than happy to be critiqued, especially my logic and reasoning behind my posts, if I have been operating under my own confirmation bias I would be a fool not to want it pointed out to me.

But if you have been reading my posts you then know that I have never stated that Oscar accidentally shot Reeva, I have only stated that IMO at this point the state has not proved premeditated murder.


The truth is the truth.

And the truth is none of those posts that were used to pull those things from said anything about it was "evidence" of his guilt. Perhaps it was an assumption made because of other posts by those posters where they have said they felt OP was guilty. Maybe it wasn't.

When one finds something in the media that contradicts what has been said here, should that person just sit on the information so as not to be called "confirmation biased"? Or should that person feel that they too can contribute to the thread in a respectful manner like everyone else even if not everyone agrees with their thoughts?

There are posts that not everyone is going to agree with. And not everyone has to agree with everything. However unless it is decided that all posts that are not agreed on by everyone should be singled out and said to be "confirmation bias" then really, does it matter? Is it going to affect the trial in any way? Are we going to decide OP's fate? Of course not, the Judge in SA is going to. And I know for a fact that what we decide here on WS will have absolutely NO bearing on her decision at all.

MOO

 

[Carmelita]

It was a joke C, based on his history of dating young blondes. Most people are aware of it. Maybe you aren't.

His previous gf was 17 when they started dating.

Sorry about that TD.

I am aware that he dated beautiful young blondes, I am not a celebrity watcher by any stretch of the imagination but it seems fairly common on the tabloids in the front of the grocery store to see young beautiful blonde women. In this I don't think Oscar is atypical, superficial perhaps but nothing nefarious.


Before Oscar killed Reeva I was interested in him as a runner and what he did for the disabled community.


I am relatively new to the case.

My journey to a crime forum is probably different than many (maybe not) but it is not an interest in crime that brought me here.

I do find this case interesting and the people and knowledge here quite intriguing and vast.

 

[Carmelita]

And your point? Its websleuth forum. We are on an Oscar Pistorius thread.
You want us to talk about the weather?

No or I guess I would be on a weather site

I am just fascinated by human nature and thought it was interesting how when a person or persons believe that someone is guilty that they tend to see many points of guilt.

Just observing.

 

[TipDog]

It's all valuable in one way or another. Generally I agree that arbitrary sifting and selective focus is bad for reasoning, though we probably disagree which side of this debate is more frequently guilty of that.

As far as OP's inconsistencies go, the devil is only in the details when the broad arcs collapse. The prosecutor still has a crippling timeline problem if you accept the basic premise that one set of sounds were bat strikes and the other set of sounds were gun shots, and that the latter came last. The broad arcs support the fundamentals of Oscar's version.

Respectfully, no, they do not. Nor does much of the evidence, unless you, like OP, think everyone is lying/mistaken or moving items around in the crime scene in an effort to thwart him. And most importantly, logic is nowhere near him, let alone on his side.

Lastly, has anyone heard him scream like a woman yet? Because, I sure haven't.

 

[Carmelita]

And the truth is none of those posts that were used to pull those things from said anything about it was "evidence" of his guilt. Perhaps it was an assumption made because of other posts by those posters where they have said they felt OP was guilty. Maybe it wasn't.

When one finds something in the media that contradicts what has been said here, should that person just sit on the information so as not to be called "confirmation biased"? Or should that person feel that they too can contribute to the thread in a respectful manner like everyone else even if not everyone agrees with their thoughts?

There are posts that not everyone is going to agree with. And not everyone has to agree with everything. However unless it is decided that all posts that are not agreed on by everyone should be singled out and said to be "confirmation bias" then really, does it matter? Is it going to affect the trial in any way? Are we going to decide OP's fate? Of course not, the Judge in SA is going to. And I know for a fact that what we decide here on WS will have absolutely NO bearing on her decision at all.

MOO

I will agree with you on this for the most part so don't mind my observation sorry to be annoying.

And I agree that our conversation here is inconsequential to the judge.

 

[James50]

Hi James, with all due respect - none of us need to, or should be trying to sell our intelligence and perception levels in order to defend our posts. They 'speak' for themselves...
It is pretty evident that this forum is full of people with keen intellects, very sharp minds with depth of feeling and insight.

If you are going to try to put yourself on a pedestal in order to validate your opinion you must be prepared to be knocked off on occasion. I am certainly not going to do that but what I will say is that I don't feel that you have always applied sound logic and critical thinking in your theories and your overview is in my view, quite a long way from the truth in this case. Tip is on much firmer ground here IMO and I don't think she deserved that particular response from you.

However, it's a great mixing pot, we should be good natured and good humoured and I know I welcome the challenges to my own theories. I think we all do.

It keeps me sharp, on the edge, where I gotta be... (Heat, 1995)
:twocents:

Oh dear, I see that you have COMPLETELY misconstrued my intention in making that statement about perception. Even when I stated clearly that I didn't say that to boast, you've read into it a message completely opposite that which I intended. My fault for not anticipating that. No, I was NOT trying to put myself on a pedestal, and that's an example of what I mean by seeing the surface of things and taking into account the whole context, and not trying to probe deepers

Given that you are so wrong yin your judgement about me, do you think you can misinterpret what I'm about, you can't misinterpret OP?

And given that you have given the handle "True Detective", I'm not sure that you're in the right place to be talking about other people standing on pedestals, no offense intended.

 

[TorisMom003]

I will agree with you on this for the most part so don't mind my observation sorry to be annoying.

And I agree that our conversation here is inconsequential to the judge.

Not annoying, IMO. Debating and keeping it interesting. Would be no point if we all agreed completely 100%. Then it would be page after page of "Yep, you're right!" followed by "Now what do we talk about?"

 

[James50]

Hi James, with all due respect - none of us need to, or should be trying to sell our intelligence and perception levels in order to defend our posts. They 'speak' for themselves...
It is pretty evident that this forum is full of people with keen intellects, very sharp minds with depth of feeling and insight.

If you are going to try to put yourself on a pedestal in order to validate your opinion you must be prepared to be knocked off on occasion. I am certainly not going to do that but what I will say is that I don't feel that you have always applied sound logic and critical thinking in your theories and your overview is in my view, quite a long way from the truth in this case. Tip is on much firmer ground here IMO and I don't think she deserved that particular response from you.

However, it's a great mixing pot, we should be good natured and good humoured and I know I welcome the challenges to my own theories. I think we all do.

It keeps me sharp, on the edge, where I gotta be... (Heat, 1995)
:twocents:

Oh dear, I see that you have COMPLETELY misconstrued my intention in making that statement about perception. Even when I stated clearly that I didn't say that to boast, you've read into it a message completely opposite to that which I intended. My fault for not anticipating that. No, I was NOT trying to put myself on a pedestal, and that's an example of what I mean by seeing the surface of things and not taking into account the whole context, and not trying to probe deeper.

Given that you are so wrong in your judgement of me, and that you so completely misinterpreted what I was trying to say there, do you think that you couldn't possibly have misinterpreted OP?

And as I note that you have given yourself the handle "True Detective", I'm not sure that you're in the right place to be talking about other people putting themselves on pedestals, no offense intended.

As for applying sound logic etc., given that I see so many illogical theories and scenarios given credence to here without any hard evidence, I'm not sure that my reluctance to accept them is so far removed from reality.

 

[Really?]

Unrelated but a few weeks ago, while out at Tapas with my family, my 83 yo, tall, still relatively trim mother had a "vasovagal" response to eating to much. Interestingly, this is a rare but well cited cause. A Vasovagal response is one where all the vessels are triggered to dilate and your blood pressure and flow every, including to the brain, markedly diminishes.

She collapsed and lost consciousness at the table. Her teeth were clenched and three of her physician daughters were unable to detect a peripheral pulse and only a very faint carotid pulse. She was making no respiratory excursions (moving of the chest) but a faint fog was detected holding a mirror to her nose. We had, of course called 911, immediately. My youngest sister was crying, calling an out of town sister screaming "Mommy's Dead."

Anyway, 3-5 minutes later, she resumed consciousness...pulse strong, breathing normally and just weak and diaphoretic from the episode.

After a long work up, there is nothing wrong with her, she has the heart and vessels of a 50 yo. but she really seemed acutely dead...but in reality her heart was still beating away.

OP, with his layperson's knowledge, reports Reeva still had signs of life when he got to her and even though he may have been unaware, unless she was injured bleed before she went to the bathroom, her heart had to have still been beating on the stairs.

As for post mortem ocular changes, they are far less conclusive when assessing time of death and are subject to some variables.Apologies for the long post...

omg.....I have had vasovagal episodes since I was about 13.....most recently
just last week I dialed 911. I hate it.

 

[TipDog]

Between post 1001 and here, IMO, there have been statements made that seem to me to be winding up confirmation bias; Oscar wanted to tamper with witnesses, Oscar was given special treatment because of his celebrity, Oscar has a girlfriend because if he didn’t she would say that she wasn’t his girlfriend, Oscar called friends because he couldn’t lift Reeva, Oscar blatantly tried to show that he was still friends with Reeva’s friends, Oscar’s dated beautiful young women, there is hope that Oscar will not be able to appeal his case if he is convicted, Oscar went out shortly (2 weeks) after killing Reeva points toward his guilt, Oscar took acting classes to be a better witness.

Good Gravy.

So, you think none of that is true?

1. Oscar could tamper with witnesses
2. Oscar may have been given special treatment because of his celebrity (as if that's not happened before or won't happen again)
3. It's been reported that in more than just tabloids that he does have a love interest and she's been named and photographed, so she could be his new girlfriend.
4. I thought OP testified that he called Sander to help him lift RS (or did I miss something?)
5. You got me on this one, as it is pure conjecture, but I don't think it's confirming bias.
6. Oscar has dated beautiful young women.
7. Appeals do waste a lot of time and tax payers' money and there are some of us who think the process should be shortened greatly.
8. Oscar did go out close to two months after he shot his girlfriend to death and it does point to his guilt considering now he's trying to use his suffering and grief as part of his defense. It's yet another insight into his character that cannot be overlooked, although I doubt it's going to affect the judge's decision one way or another.
9. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But if he did, he needs to demand a refund.

 

[shane13]

omg.....I have had vasovagal episodes since I was about 13.....most recently
just last week I dialed 911. I hate it.

Look into hiatal hernia...

 

[TorisMom003]

What is considered "hard evidence" in this case? I certainly hope that OP's word is not thought of as "hard evidence". He is the one on trial for murder so he does have a reason to lie if he in fact killed Reeva on purpose. So what are some examples of "hard evidence"?

 

[Carmelita]

Not annoying, IMO. Debating and keeping it interesting. Would be no point if we all agreed completely 100%. Then it would be page after page of "Yep, you're right!" followed by "Now what do we talk about?"

Yep, you're right.






:lol: