V-4 and I are engaged to be married. I'm just putting that on the record. Now that I've told you, it's true. I'd put it in red for you but that might be impolite.
well when you get married I'll object on the basis of you needing to be careful of anyone who thinks firing black tallon bullets at an unarmed person through a toilet door isn't Murder, be careful , get an outside loo, or use next doors ! :cool:^_^;-)
Enough with the movie analogies already! It just makes anything you have to say sound ridiculous .. and all said as if you're standing on a box, wearing a loud shirt and shouting at the top of your voice.
Refreshing honesty!?! This is what you've found in OP's testimony is it? All the 'deeply in love' stuff and the besottedness. Tell us then ... why did Aimee take the handbag? .. why did the phone go awol? .. and why isn't Frank saying anything? What were the jeans doing on the pavement? .. why did OP say everything was fine to security and why did Reeva not use her phone whilst trapped in that toilet? Be refreshingly honest about it .. if you can (but .. like you .. I could write your answers.)
So .. because a next door neighbour says so .. we're supposed to believe that Reeva and OP were engaged. No ring, no Valentines card, no present and .. more worryingly still .. no time yet to tell her he loved her .. but she's his fiance!? Really?
No Valentine's present ... apart from that visit that they were conveniently going to take the next day to the jewellers. Well (and you may or may not know this ... but the advice is free ) women like to be surprised. They're not particularly going to be thrilled if they're taken to a shop where they can point at stuff .. especially when the man is wealthy .. not a lot of effort goes into that does it? Any small thing that he himself has chosen or done for her will count for a whole lot more. I'm sure he read her tweet about Valentine's Day .. all excited about the prospect .. but then again perhaps he was just thinking about himself .. it's a hard habit for him to break. All we've seen is what she did for him but it's interesting that you've built a scenario around the neighbour's comment but nothing at all around Reeva's Whatsapp message.
Her being his fiance is hogwash but If you can find me a link that says that fiances have NEVER killed their partners .. or husbands have NEVER killed their wives or even people have NEVER killed those they love then please provide us with it. Only a few days ago there was an item on a news programme here (linked to the trial) which said that .. in SA .. a woman is killed by her partner once every eight hours .. I suspect guns play a large part in that statistic (and really .. that being the case and given how much OP quotes the crime rates .. Reeva had more reason to shoot him in self defence.)
It's not about his guilt He IS guilty whether you want to face it or not. If he thought there was an intruder he should have secured Reeva's safety and then identified the threat (there aren't any clauses in the gun laws .. there's not an 'if you're too much of a wuss then we'll overlook it') .. she would be alive today if he'd done either. He broke those laws and killed a defenceless girl in the process and for that he should pay.
You have a go at us .. we're in the wrong and deluded etc but our views are hardly controversial. Provide us with some links from legal experts out there that are thinking along the same lines as you? Plenty of links get put up here every day which support the prosecution's version. Over 90% of people polled here (in UK) think he's guilty .. some of them obviously have thought that from day one and probably made their minds up straight away but .. though you try .. you can't accuse us of not knowing or listening to every detail of the trial and our deductions are every bit as valid as yours. We're not alone either in thinking that Roux has made a pig's ear out of presenting the case for the defence .. it's been a shambles and embarrassing. Some of that (if not all of it) is down to OP being refreshingly honest on the stand and changing his version so that it fits nobody elses.
I don’t think Tom Wolmarans’ appearance in court today is going to enhance his ‘reputation’ as a Forensic Ballistic Expert.
Apart from having an appearance and mannerisms of ‘Uncle Bulgaria’ from the Woobles the journalistic tweets from today are also not that kind……
"Roux nudges Wolmarans through his evidence like a respectful son with a slightly doddery father"
‘Wolmarans is trying to remember the spread of bullets holes in door, forgetting that the actual door is beside him in court until Roux reminds him’
"When I was younger I could pull the trigger much faster than I can now."
“Wolmarans asks the judge to repeat herself because he is hard of hearing. Let's hope he didn't do the sound tests!”
“Wolmarans throwing the state a bone as he describes the black tip bullet as a "collectors piece" saying "you can't put your hands on it. Expect Nel to capitalise on this nugget”
“Wolmarans says bullets are a collectors's item. He had to "turn somebody's arm" to get them.”
“Now Wolmarans falls victim to the technology gremlin. His phone goes off -he apologises to stern-faced judge,says he forgot to switch it off”
“Wolmarans also appears to dabble in “true murder” mystery writing”
“Wolmarans has been in court throughout the case, sitting with a slightly Eyorish manner”
Aww .. Uncle Bulgaria and Eeyore
Roger Dixon has competition
Sad but true .. I don't blame Frank but all the same it's so frustrating.
I posted last night that he lived at the back of the house so possibly a separate building, also there was a noisy water feature so perhaps he genuinely didn't hear anything. It was reported on in the documentary made last year so not really a secret as such. but it still is a bit of a mystery.
I've no idea of your gender. It's the internet, fantasy-land, so don't worry your pretty little head about it. Just get on with chopping those vegetables. I'm fussy about what I eat: make sure to stick to the list.
I'm busy defending a double amputee charged with a trumped up pre-med murder.
I think Nel said somewhere that his disability is not any mitigation, and neither it should be.
Nel says, but I bet Roux will use it, he has already in Court, when OP stands up in his bench, Roux has asked the Judge if his client can 'sit down' in a pathetic needy way !
And remember during OP's description of just having found Reeva with 3 bullet holes in her, bleeding profusely and carrying her down the stairs while she was 'apparently' dying ....he still managed to throw in the fact he'd had his doorways widened for 'wheel chair' access !!
Enough with the movie analogies already! It just makes anything you have to say sound ridiculous .. and all said as if you're standing on a box, wearing a loud shirt and shouting at the top of your voice.
Refreshing honesty!?! This is what you've found in OP's testimony is it? All the 'deeply in love' stuff and the besottedness. Tell us then ... why did Aimee take the handbag? .. why did the phone go awol? .. and why isn't Frank saying anything? What were the jeans doing on the pavement? .. why did OP say everything was fine to security and why did Reeva not use her phone whilst trapped in that toilet? Be refreshingly honest about it .. if you can (but .. like you .. I could write your answers.)
So .. because a next door neighbour says so .. we're supposed to believe that Reeva and OP were engaged. No ring, no Valentines card, no present and .. more worryingly still .. no time yet to tell her he loved her .. but she's his fiance!? Really?
No Valentine's present ... apart from that visit that they were conveniently going to take the next day to the jewellers. Well (and you may or may not know this ... but the advice is free ) women like to be surprised. They're not particularly going to be thrilled if they're taken to a shop where they can point at stuff .. especially when the man is wealthy .. not a lot of effort goes into that does it? Any small thing that he himself has chosen or done for her will count for a whole lot more. I'm sure he read her tweet about Valentine's Day .. all excited about the prospect .. but then again perhaps he was just thinking about himself .. it's a hard habit for him to break. All we've seen is what she did for him but it's interesting that you've built a scenario around the neighbour's comment but nothing at all around Reeva's Whatsapp message.
Her being his fiance is hogwash but If you can find me a link that says that fiances have NEVER killed their partners .. or husbands have NEVER killed their wives or even people have NEVER killed those they love then please provide us with it. Only a few days ago there was an item on a news programme here (linked to the trial) which said that .. in SA .. a woman is killed by her partner once every eight hours .. I suspect guns play a large part in that statistic (and really .. that being the case and given how much OP quotes the crime rates .. Reeva had more reason to shoot him in self defence.)
It's not about his guilt He IS guilty whether you want to face it or not. If he thought there was an intruder he should have secured Reeva's safety and then identified the threat (there aren't any clauses in the gun laws .. there's not an 'if you're too much of a wuss then we'll overlook it') .. she would be alive today if he'd done either. He broke those laws and killed a defenceless girl in the process and for that he should pay.
You have a go at us .. we're in the wrong and deluded etc but our views are hardly controversial. Provide us with some links from legal experts out there that are thinking along the same lines as you? Plenty of links get put up here every day which support the prosecution's version. Over 90% of people polled here (in UK) think he's guilty .. some of them obviously have thought that from day one and probably made their minds up straight away but .. though you try .. you can't accuse us of not knowing or listening to every detail of the trial and our deductions are every bit as valid as yours. We're not alone either in thinking that Roux has made a pig's ear out of presenting the case for the defence .. it's been a shambles and embarrassing. Some of that (if not all of it) is down to OP being refreshingly honest on the stand and changing his version so that it fits nobody elses.
Every one of your why's is answered is answered in my very extensive posts that I can't make you read. But it's there.
I don't understand why he has not been called to give evidence. He was in the building at the time.
Something is not right about that.
Can't remember the exact quote, but a "source close to the prosecution" said, "He works for Pistorius. What you don't hear can be as damaging as what you do".
;-) <
knowing wink, but I don't actually know what it means.
His disability is not an excuse for murder. There are plenty of blind people who are at far more of a disadvantage (in an intruder situation) than he is and plenty of amputees with nothing like his physical strength. He certainly liked throwing his weight around for someone who has turned out to be a bit of a coward.
It may contribute to his paranoia but then if he was so paranoid then why wasn't that house more secure? .. why weren't there bars on the bathroom window? .. why wasn't his car garaged? .. why wasn't he sure if his alarm was working properly? .. why didn't he live in a peaceful part of the world with low crime rates? .. he had the money .. he had the choice.
Why above all .. when it takes seconds .. did he not put his prosthetics on when going to face an intruder? He could have done that whilst keeping his gun trained on the corridor .. he could have enlisted Reeva's help. It doesn't make sense.
Why isn't the State going to be able to prove that he had any intention to kill her?
Yes, that is my belief. So hammering me over the head with the law I was already fully aware of does nothing to change that.
edit: But even if you disagree, there is no call or justification to label it the stupidest thing said in the thread so far. It is not a crazy prospect at all.
I actually find that quite scary!!.....just to clarify....do you believe OP shooting blindly into a small room justifiable if he believed a burglar was behind the door.....or are you referring to the South African public at large.....If the comments and blogs I'v read from SA citizens are anything to go by , the population at large does not share your view.....and the legal community in SA certainly does't.
Can't remember the exact quote, but a "source close to the prosecution" said, "He works for Pistorius. What you don't hear can be as damaging as what you do".
;-) <
knowing wink, but I don't actually know what it means.
On the payroll and no doubt has signed a confidentiality agreement.
Comments
well when you get married I'll object on the basis of you needing to be careful of anyone who thinks firing black tallon bullets at an unarmed person through a toilet door isn't Murder, be careful , get an outside loo, or use next doors ! :cool:^_^;-)
Excellent post.
Roger Dixon has competition
I posted last night that he lived at the back of the house so possibly a separate building, also there was a noisy water feature so perhaps he genuinely didn't hear anything. It was reported on in the documentary made last year so not really a secret as such.
I'm busy defending a double amputee charged with a trumped up pre-med murder.
The marriage will have to get an annulment.
And remember during OP's description of just having found Reeva with 3 bullet holes in her, bleeding profusely and carrying her down the stairs while she was 'apparently' dying ....he still managed to throw in the fact he'd had his doorways widened for 'wheel chair' access !!
Perhaps it's just as he said...he didn't hear anything.
Every one of your why's is answered is answered in my very extensive posts that I can't make you read. But it's there.
I don't understand why he has not been called to give evidence. He was in the building at the time.
Something is not right about that.
Still doesn't explain why there was help so near to hand he wasn't called to do just that.
No it doesn't but the point I was making was if he didn't hear anything why would either side call him to testify.
Can't remember the exact quote, but a "source close to the prosecution" said, "He works for Pistorius. What you don't hear can be as damaging as what you do".
;-) <
knowing wink, but I don't actually know what it means.
Maybe Carl is scared of the chunky footballer:D
I'm surprised no one asked OP why he didn't call him for help rather than wait for someone to drive over.
The're probably busy having their name changed by deed poll ! A couple of extra Smiths on the live register in SA by week's end !
Why isn't the State going to be able to prove that he had any intention to kill her?
That's a much better question.
I was accused of not reading every post
I took my dog for a walk and 5 pages when I came back
I actually find that quite scary!!.....just to clarify....do you believe OP shooting blindly into a small room justifiable if he believed a burglar was behind the door.....or are you referring to the South African public at large.....If the comments and blogs I'v read from SA citizens are anything to go by , the population at large does not share your view.....and the legal community in SA certainly does't.
On the payroll and no doubt has signed a confidentiality agreement.
I keep picturing Frank Bruno in a pinny
Sorry, as you were...
Oh brother, if you all can't find something to twist, you'll make it up.
'Trumped up' that made me laugh