it's not his dad's though, is it? i thought he refused to give a statement about it (his dad, that is). wasn't it suggested that the ammo was for a gun he'd ordered before he killed reeva?
True say.
Just thought that if he was going to make something up , that he could at least try and use it to some advantage.....get the judge to think "well after all he put his hands up , it's his dad's stuff etc.".
The way he went was just not good and won't help him in any way, i just can't see how it would.
True say.
Just thought that if he was going to make something up , that he could at least try and use it to some advantage.....get the judge to think "well after all he put his hands up , it's his dad's stuff etc.".
The way he went was just not good and won't help him in any way, i just can't see how it would.
But if your name is Oscar Arrogance Unlimited Pistorius you may see it differently
1) Many posters have claimed that it is impossible for someone to leave the bedroom in such a manner as to be undetected by their partner. This case, if justice is to be believed, shows that perception to be false. A terrified person may or may not respond to a shout in such a situation. One can easily suggest that a response would be 'more or less probable' purely to fit their prescribed version. In reality it doesn't automatically make it become more probable. You'd have to know the nature of the respondent to confirm that. We do know that Reeva had been in a similar terrifying situation previously where she decided best practice was to keep quiet.
I don't think people said impossible on the whole they said unlikely?
From Reeva's perspective why was this "situation" terrifying. She didn't hear any sounds to indicate a break-in. She herself was the source of the window opening. Otherwise the bedroom area was silent.
She heard her boyfriend call out "Reeva phone the police." and in an instant locked the door and remained totally silent, seemingly reaching the same conclusion that he reached when he heard the window open.
Who do you think she imagined he was referring to when, a propos of nothing, he called "Get the F outta my house"?
Imagine it from her perspective, in the bathroom, there is nothing happening, even before locking the door, she could see that nothing was happening - there was no sound of any kind to indicate urgency or danger. She also knows that he is on his stumps, therefore vulnerable. They are a loving couple, or at any rate close, and she is 30. Her sister rejects the idea she would fall silent at the mention of a few worrying words. This situation came from nowhere and she spent not a single word in finding what was going on - he never mentioned a thing about intruders to her anyway.
She also does not know that he had time to grab the gun so must surely assume he isn't safe. She also does have her phone (by sheer coincidence to his shouts). Yet she does not use it in time before he shoots her dead. It's the fact he never mentioned any break-in which makes it such a stretch. How can you fear something so much if you do not have a clue what it is?
You can dismiss it as falling short of proof if you wish and I agree it isn't in itself a proof but it all adds to the implausibility of his story i'm afraid. There are harder reasons to reject it than that but the behaviour from Reeva is very unlikely to be real. There is such a thing as expected behaviour of people in typical similar situations which can be used to reach conclusions on the likely truth content of a narrative.
What is the chance for them both of like mind, to reach the same conclusions regarding a break-in despite having ZERO visuals on robbers and ALMOST NO sound-based triggers either (a window in his case; a shout in hers). lol ;-)
Don't dismiss strange parts of killers' stories(!!) - they should cause alarm bells to ring! They should at the very least be noted down as anomalies to bear in mind while weighing it all up! It helps Pistorius to cover police phone-call by the girl locked behind the door and to cover his loud angry shout before and also it is necessary for his story for her to be silent. Just like it's necessary for him to fail to hear the lock.
How many anomalies are ok? If there are 5 that's ok. If there are 50, is it just the same? Hmmm
Conclusion: Her strange behaviour adds to the chance that a typical observer or judge would consider his story false. All such 'improbable' or 'doubtful' moments / facts does. And collectively it increases the impression of a calculated lie the more anomalies there are!!
2) I don't see how a sound or movement has such weight in deciding whether a person knew what/who was behind a door. We know OP killed Reeva, and I certainly don't dispute that he knew he would likely kill whoever was behind that door.
Not in deciding who is behind the door. In providing a trigger for firing. In every other case it was a sudden movement. In Pistorius' case, uniquely, the door was locked - he was defending himself through a locked door. No one else claimed that with any kind of success. Naturally he can't claim the door was opening so he claims the next best thing which is he somehow, amazingly, thought it was, based on a "wood on wood" sound - the identity of which has not been discovered. Oh - and he also changed his description and language here numerous times. Even the "wood" sound had to be dragged out of him in cross-exam.
"Defending" himself through a non-moving door lol and could not give the court even a clear reason for thinking the door was opning. HaHa. GL with that one. No diminished responsibility. No substance abuse. Credibility on this aspect is therefore dreadful outside of "fantasy land"! ;-)
3) I've repeated on a number of occasions that I fully believe OP aimed at the door and knew he was likely to kill whoever was behind it. It's important to understand that I'm not in agreement with all OP's claims, however it's seems to be often incorrectly presumed that one either agrees with all of an accused testimony or none of it. The court isn't trying to see if OP tells lies or not. We'd all be locked up when faced with a good prosecutor if that was the idea.
Hmm...it depends if you mean in relation to small details or in relation to major and often repeated claims. Yes, every good prosecutor will catch people out on the odd detail now and again, just like Roux and Nel have done with every single witness pretty much. But we are talking about something pretty major here. A man that fired a weapon four times and in the process killed a girl. If he has given a thoroughly DISHONEST account of his intentions while firing that gun - you sincerely think the court gives him a benefit of a doubt then on all the rest???
Like - dishonesty about the exact circumstances and purpose of fatal bullets is overlooked? It's the central issue in the case not some minor side-issue.
And just to be clear: There is categorically no way that Pistorius was being "caught out" in order to deny firing into the door. Pistorius decided to do this. He decided to deny everything he possibly could about firing whereas he could simply have said "i fired four times into the door because of the perceived threat". Nothing Nel said or did drew out of him all those denials. They are Pistorius' own creations under oath.
So: Either his claims about the accidental firing into the door are accepted .. or his evidence about the circumstances of shooting and purpose of shooting will be rejected. There is really no other options.
Case then turns on what can be deduced from sources independent from Mr. Pistorius.
he could still be found innocent but only if the sum of the rest of the sources fails to convict him...
4) I'm not sure where it hit but the final destination of the bullet has no bearing on the charge of intent to kill when the perpetrator is claiming they didn't see the victim. If they didn't see them, they wouldn't know where the bullets landed. It could be suggested that excessive force was used by OP due to the specific number of bullets, but again, if Mdunge or OP claim that they didn't see the victim, it doesn't give any more credibility as to whether they thought the person was their wife/girlfriend or an intruder. Mdunge's wife wasn't able to speak to anybody, and it would make no difference if Mdunge claimed she spoke to him, as this would be hearsay. A fatality is a fatality and both claim they didn't see the victim. Mdunge had the option not to move towards the danger, just like OP.
Sorry, the point was actually more of a question. Could Mrs. Mdunge talk in the hospital? If it was a wound to a lung or a liver or something? If they had some testimony from her to help explain it, it would put Mr. Mdunge into the clear much more easily. OP's four bullets killed Reeva (in exactly that number) so she herself cannot back up his account. Therefore we only have his word to go on versus evidence which contradicts it.
Stupid boy should have made sure he took possession of the ammunition after he got his licence.
But what the hell…..he’s Pistorius…… he’s above the law
he'll be done for that - he just hoped he got away with it - funny how Reeva's murder revealed much much more about this guy's dishonesty, arrogance and belief he can ignore the law isn't it !
But if your name is Oscar Arrogance Unlimited Pistorius you may see it differently
I sincerely believe he charmed his way in a few times, in his life.
He comes across as pleasant , good looking , charming...to many. Even at Westkoppies.
Possibly a part of him felt he could somehow charm his way out of that court , as perhaps it's happened a few times in his life.
The story will change as detail is added and other factors are brought into the trial. This is to be expected. The key factors are how relevant those discrepancies are with regard to the charges made by the State.
OP can lie as much as he chooses, all that matters is whether the lies affect the States claim of his intent to kill Reeva. It's not a credibility test. Judge Masipa can't suddenly change the whole justice system by deciding that because OP has lied about 1000 other things he must therefore have knowingly killed Reeva. We can think that, as can judges, but judges can't act upon it.
I don't understand this post at all. You would have a point if the 'intruder' could be located someplace in reality outside of what Mr. Pistorius says was in his thoughts before firing.
However there is no other source of evidence for an intruder is there. Such evidence does not exist in the universe - except in his narrative.
So do you still maintain his 'credibility' is not important, given that his words is the only source in the universe to indicate the existence of an intruder in his mind before shooting?
Doesn't that rather make it important for his words on a variety of topics to be truthful ones???
Perhaps you're comparing with cases where independent evidence can be adduced to provide alibis for a person - and then of course they MAY lie since other types of evidence will back them up.
But here .. when the defence he advances is itself a fantasy that he claims he had ????
Can one afford to be regarded in any event as a liar in that case ??????
Poor credibility BUT the "fantasy" the person is saying they had is accepted as possibly true rather than a lie.
My latest Oscar Pistorius invention is the Big Bang Burglar Alarm. Basically, if you hear a noise in the night, you press the button on a key fob and your entire house is napalmed. It's quite an extreme solution but you never can be too careful.
'The Big Bang Burglar Alarm - You'll Be GAD You Bought It'.
My latest Oscar Pistorius invention is the Big Bang Burglar Alarm. Basically, if you hear a noise in the night, you press the button on a key fob and your entire house is napalmed. It's quite an extreme solution but you never can be too careful.
'The Big Bang Burglar Alarm - You'll Be GAD You Bought It'.
My latest Oscar Pistorius invention is the Big Bang Burglar Alarm. Basically, if you hear a noise in the night, you press the button on a key fob and your entire house is napalmed. It's quite an extreme solution but you never can be too careful.
'The Big Bang Burglar Alarm - You'll Be GAD You Bought It'.
Also a self-defence course - instructional videos - where you go around after dark and randomly beat defenceless people up as they might pose a threat?
It's allied to the Bush Doctrine of a Pre-emptive war.
Be sure to cook up your dossier whether it be on WMDs or Startle noises you need a few crap alibis and then you can set to work at "defending" yourself with manifestly excessive lethal force! ;-)
P.S. "We would like to apologise for accidentally invading Baghdad: But please be aware that the action was legally justified nonetheless!"
My latest Oscar Pistorius invention is the Big Bang Burglar Alarm. Basically, if you hear a noise in the night, you press the button on a key fob and your entire house is napalmed. It's quite an extreme solution but you never can be too careful.
'The Big Bang Burglar Alarm - You'll Be GAD You Bought It'.
Claiming he was holding it for someone else is totally irrelevant in the eyes of the law as Nel pointed out.
Pistorius had the ammunition illegally in his possession in contradiction of the requirements of the FCA 2000 Chapter 10 sect 90 (paras a –d)
The Act does not allow for ‘holding ammunition for someone else’ even if Pistorius thought it did by ‘his understanding’
Yeah he's disputing that the Act applies on the basis that, according to himself, if something is in a safe in your house, it is not necessarily in your possession. However...
"SHARED USE OF SAFE OR STRONGROOM
86(11)(b) ” Any person who may lawfully possess a firearm or ammunition shall store these in a prescribed safe or strongroom, to which he or she shall have at all time exclusive access or his or her presence and co-operation shall be a necessary prerequisite for access to the relevant firearm and ammunition unless-
(i) the storage is undertaken by the holder of a dealer’s of gunsmith’s licence in which case the dealer or the dealer’s personnel with valid competency certificates, or the gunsmith may have access to the safe or strongroom; or
So we can forget this one
(ii) the firearm is temporarily stored in a safe or strongroom that conforms to the prescripts of SABS Standard 953-1 and 953-2 or a lock-away safe, device, apparatus or instrument for the safe custody of a firearm that conforms to the prescripts of sub regulation (12), that is under the control of a holder of a licence, authorisation or permit issued in terms of this Act, the person storing the firearm must in writing notify the Designated Firearm Officer in whose area the firearm is temporarily stored.”
So we can understand the comment about the hotel safe - that is temporary & they would have the license to permit it (and presumably only the person storing it can access that safe deposit box anyway?)
By contrast in case of OP's safe and what he claims is Henke's ammo, it is not temporary and lacks the licenses, so he was required to notify in writing the Designated Firearm Officer about the storage
The lack of informing anyone before the storage settles the question of whether the possession is legal or not.
My latest Oscar Pistorius invention is the Big Bang Burglar Alarm. Basically, if you hear a noise in the night, you press the button on a key fob and your entire house is napalmed. It's quite an extreme solution but you never can be too careful.
'The Big Bang Burglar Alarm - You'll Be GAD You Bought It'.
It's based on all the ear-witnesses testimonies except Motshuane (she gave no times). I worked on it while transcribing their testimonies bit by bit the past months so I think I have most times, details, etc., correct but hey, for sure there must be things I missed or got wrong so will welcome corrections or anything of real importance I missed out (if I can fit any more on it that is!) but please anyone PM corrections or additions with a link and/or post number so I don't miss them and can check them myself first.
Clicking its title above opens it in photobucket. Not the best as it doesn't allow different viewing sizes (AFAIK) and it's a wide document so once open you have to scroll along to view it all, but docdroid, much better for viewing it, quirkily interpreted all the dashed time lines as solids making it look more like a typographic Mondrian than a timeline but I haven't found another solution at the moment... or any ideas ?
Anyway hope you do check it out because it gives a visual idea of how the testimonies fit together, much of which you know, and I have done it using the real times where they exist so it's not fishing for a debate... unless of course you want to debate the colour scheme ; -- )
Read some previous interesting tweets on OP's twitter
- look what he does at midnight......he goes out for a walk............clearly not worried about burglars or intruders on his Estate then is he !!!
Oscar Pistorius @OscarPistorius · 24 Oct 2012 Nothing like being back home in South Africa!! It may be midnight but I'm off to play with my dogs and go for a walk.
AND an interesting tweet about relationships from Fresco...... retweeted by OP !! bit of a dig meant for Sam Taylor perhaps ?
Retweeted by Oscar Pistorius
Darren Fresco @TheFrisco_kid · 7 Nov 2012 The best part about being in a bad relationship is learning & knowing what you don't want in the next one @OscarPistorius #friends
Retweeted by Oscar Pistorius
Ambitious Girl ❤ @KimiKouture · 6 Sep 2012 A fake woman wants a man who has it all, a real woman wants to help her man get it all.
Reeva wanted a career and was ambitious herself, ---and OP wanted Reeva to travel with him to see why he trains so hard and why he makes the sacrifices he does .......for his sport
It's based on all the ear-witnesses testimonies except Motshuane (she gave no times). I worked on it while transcribing their testimonies bit by bit the past months so I think I have most times, details, etc., correct but hey, for sure there must be things I missed or got wrong so will welcome corrections or anything of real importance I missed out (if I can fit any more on it that is!) but please anyone PM corrections or additions with a link and/or post number so I don't miss them and can check them myself first.
Clicking its title above opens it in photobucket. Not the best as it doesn't allow different viewing sizes (AFAIK) and it's a wide document so once open you have to scroll along to view it all, but docdroid, much better for viewing it, quirkily interpreted all the dashed time lines as solids making it look more like a typographic Mondrian than a timeline but I haven't found another solution at the moment... or any ideas ?
Anyway hope you do check it out because it gives a visual idea of how the testimonies fit together, much of which you know, and I have done it using the real times where they exist so it's not fishing for a debate... unless of course you want to debate the colour scheme ; -- )
Cheers for that.
I think the conclusion must be that there were 3 sets of gunshots "bangs" that morning lol
There was a set at "around 3am" which came from Oscar's house.
Then there were some quieter cricket bat bangs at around 3:14-5 which Stipps heard and woke up Mike and his wife.
Then Berger/Johnson by chance heard a completely different murder taking place on completely the other side somewhere in SilverLakes estate lol
Comments
Stupid boy should have made sure he took possession of the ammunition after he got his licence.
But what the hell…..he’s Pistorius…… he’s above the law
True say.
Just thought that if he was going to make something up , that he could at least try and use it to some advantage.....get the judge to think "well after all he put his hands up , it's his dad's stuff etc.".
The way he went was just not good and won't help him in any way, i just can't see how it would.
But if your name is Oscar Arrogance Unlimited Pistorius you may see it differently
I don't think people said impossible on the whole they said unlikely?
From Reeva's perspective why was this "situation" terrifying. She didn't hear any sounds to indicate a break-in. She herself was the source of the window opening. Otherwise the bedroom area was silent.
She heard her boyfriend call out "Reeva phone the police." and in an instant locked the door and remained totally silent, seemingly reaching the same conclusion that he reached when he heard the window open.
Who do you think she imagined he was referring to when, a propos of nothing, he called "Get the F outta my house"?
Imagine it from her perspective, in the bathroom, there is nothing happening, even before locking the door, she could see that nothing was happening - there was no sound of any kind to indicate urgency or danger. She also knows that he is on his stumps, therefore vulnerable. They are a loving couple, or at any rate close, and she is 30. Her sister rejects the idea she would fall silent at the mention of a few worrying words. This situation came from nowhere and she spent not a single word in finding what was going on - he never mentioned a thing about intruders to her anyway.
She also does not know that he had time to grab the gun so must surely assume he isn't safe. She also does have her phone (by sheer coincidence to his shouts). Yet she does not use it in time before he shoots her dead. It's the fact he never mentioned any break-in which makes it such a stretch. How can you fear something so much if you do not have a clue what it is?
You can dismiss it as falling short of proof if you wish and I agree it isn't in itself a proof but it all adds to the implausibility of his story i'm afraid. There are harder reasons to reject it than that but the behaviour from Reeva is very unlikely to be real. There is such a thing as expected behaviour of people in typical similar situations which can be used to reach conclusions on the likely truth content of a narrative.
What is the chance for them both of like mind, to reach the same conclusions regarding a break-in despite having ZERO visuals on robbers and ALMOST NO sound-based triggers either (a window in his case; a shout in hers). lol ;-)
Don't dismiss strange parts of killers' stories(!!) - they should cause alarm bells to ring! They should at the very least be noted down as anomalies to bear in mind while weighing it all up! It helps Pistorius to cover police phone-call by the girl locked behind the door and to cover his loud angry shout before and also it is necessary for his story for her to be silent. Just like it's necessary for him to fail to hear the lock.
How many anomalies are ok? If there are 5 that's ok. If there are 50, is it just the same? Hmmm
Conclusion: Her strange behaviour adds to the chance that a typical observer or judge would consider his story false. All such 'improbable' or 'doubtful' moments / facts does. And collectively it increases the impression of a calculated lie the more anomalies there are!!
Not in deciding who is behind the door. In providing a trigger for firing. In every other case it was a sudden movement. In Pistorius' case, uniquely, the door was locked - he was defending himself through a locked door. No one else claimed that with any kind of success. Naturally he can't claim the door was opening so he claims the next best thing which is he somehow, amazingly, thought it was, based on a "wood on wood" sound - the identity of which has not been discovered. Oh - and he also changed his description and language here numerous times. Even the "wood" sound had to be dragged out of him in cross-exam.
"Defending" himself through a non-moving door lol and could not give the court even a clear reason for thinking the door was opning. HaHa. GL with that one. No diminished responsibility. No substance abuse. Credibility on this aspect is therefore dreadful outside of "fantasy land"! ;-)
Hmm...it depends if you mean in relation to small details or in relation to major and often repeated claims. Yes, every good prosecutor will catch people out on the odd detail now and again, just like Roux and Nel have done with every single witness pretty much. But we are talking about something pretty major here. A man that fired a weapon four times and in the process killed a girl. If he has given a thoroughly DISHONEST account of his intentions while firing that gun - you sincerely think the court gives him a benefit of a doubt then on all the rest???
Like - dishonesty about the exact circumstances and purpose of fatal bullets is overlooked? It's the central issue in the case not some minor side-issue.
And just to be clear: There is categorically no way that Pistorius was being "caught out" in order to deny firing into the door. Pistorius decided to do this. He decided to deny everything he possibly could about firing whereas he could simply have said "i fired four times into the door because of the perceived threat". Nothing Nel said or did drew out of him all those denials. They are Pistorius' own creations under oath.
So: Either his claims about the accidental firing into the door are accepted .. or his evidence about the circumstances of shooting and purpose of shooting will be rejected. There is really no other options.
Case then turns on what can be deduced from sources independent from Mr. Pistorius.
he could still be found innocent but only if the sum of the rest of the sources fails to convict him...
Sorry, the point was actually more of a question. Could Mrs. Mdunge talk in the hospital? If it was a wound to a lung or a liver or something? If they had some testimony from her to help explain it, it would put Mr. Mdunge into the clear much more easily. OP's four bullets killed Reeva (in exactly that number) so she herself cannot back up his account. Therefore we only have his word to go on versus evidence which contradicts it.
he'll be done for that - he just hoped he got away with it - funny how Reeva's murder revealed much much more about this guy's dishonesty, arrogance and belief he can ignore the law isn't it !
I sincerely believe he charmed his way in a few times, in his life.
He comes across as pleasant , good looking , charming...to many. Even at Westkoppies.
Possibly a part of him felt he could somehow charm his way out of that court , as perhaps it's happened a few times in his life.
I don't understand this post at all. You would have a point if the 'intruder' could be located someplace in reality outside of what Mr. Pistorius says was in his thoughts before firing.
However there is no other source of evidence for an intruder is there. Such evidence does not exist in the universe - except in his narrative.
So do you still maintain his 'credibility' is not important, given that his words is the only source in the universe to indicate the existence of an intruder in his mind before shooting?
Doesn't that rather make it important for his words on a variety of topics to be truthful ones???
Perhaps you're comparing with cases where independent evidence can be adduced to provide alibis for a person - and then of course they MAY lie since other types of evidence will back them up.
But here .. when the defence he advances is itself a fantasy that he claims he had ????
Can one afford to be regarded in any event as a liar in that case ??????
Poor credibility BUT the "fantasy" the person is saying they had is accepted as possibly true rather than a lie.
That is just not correct - it's misleading.
'The Big Bang Burglar Alarm - You'll Be GAD You Bought It'.
Fantastic:D:D:D
Also a self-defence course - instructional videos - where you go around after dark and randomly beat defenceless people up as they might pose a threat?
It's allied to the Bush Doctrine of a Pre-emptive war.
Be sure to cook up your dossier whether it be on WMDs or Startle noises you need a few crap alibis and then you can set to work at "defending" yourself with manifestly excessive lethal force! ;-)
P.S. "We would like to apologise for accidentally invading Baghdad: But please be aware that the action was legally justified nonetheless!"
brilliant
One movement somewhere you can't actually see triggers five thousand flaming spears directly at the threat.
The house then collapses releasing a large ball. This is non functional, but included for reasons of nostalgia.
BiB; HaHa
Yeah he's disputing that the Act applies on the basis that, according to himself, if something is in a safe in your house, it is not necessarily in your possession. However...
"SHARED USE OF SAFE OR STRONGROOM
86(11)(b) ” Any person who may lawfully possess a firearm or ammunition shall store these in a prescribed safe or strongroom, to which he or she shall have at all time exclusive access or his or her presence and co-operation shall be a necessary prerequisite for access to the relevant firearm and ammunition unless-
(i) the storage is undertaken by the holder of a dealer’s of gunsmith’s licence in which case the dealer or the dealer’s personnel with valid competency certificates, or the gunsmith may have access to the safe or strongroom; or
So we can forget this one
(ii) the firearm is temporarily stored in a safe or strongroom that conforms to the prescripts of SABS Standard 953-1 and 953-2 or a lock-away safe, device, apparatus or instrument for the safe custody of a firearm that conforms to the prescripts of sub regulation (12), that is under the control of a holder of a licence, authorisation or permit issued in terms of this Act, the person storing the firearm must in writing notify the Designated Firearm Officer in whose area the firearm is temporarily stored.”
So we can understand the comment about the hotel safe - that is temporary & they would have the license to permit it (and presumably only the person storing it can access that safe deposit box anyway?)
By contrast in case of OP's safe and what he claims is Henke's ammo, it is not temporary and lacks the licenses, so he was required to notify in writing the Designated Firearm Officer about the storage
The lack of informing anyone before the storage settles the question of whether the possession is legal or not.
24 Murder with Intent
4 Murder - no intent
2 Culpable Homicide
0 Acquittal
1 Not sure
he lived in SA, stayed at OP's house too at times if I recall, and he trained with OP .
Forgive me butting in here OT but I finally finished the visual timeline: ( "Oscar Pistorius - Timeline 14 February 2013 - 1.56 am to 3.30 am" ) and thought it could be helpful to you and others. And just in time for closings!
It's based on all the ear-witnesses testimonies except Motshuane (she gave no times). I worked on it while transcribing their testimonies bit by bit the past months so I think I have most times, details, etc., correct but hey, for sure there must be things I missed or got wrong so will welcome corrections or anything of real importance I missed out (if I can fit any more on it that is!) but please anyone PM corrections or additions with a link and/or post number so I don't miss them and can check them myself first.
Clicking its title above opens it in photobucket. Not the best as it doesn't allow different viewing sizes (AFAIK) and it's a wide document so once open you have to scroll along to view it all, but docdroid, much better for viewing it, quirkily interpreted all the dashed time lines as solids making it look more like a typographic Mondrian than a timeline but I haven't found another solution at the moment... or any ideas ?
Anyway hope you do check it out because it gives a visual idea of how the testimonies fit together, much of which you know, and I have done it using the real times where they exist so it's not fishing for a debate... unless of course you want to debate the colour scheme ; -- )
- look what he does at midnight......he goes out for a walk............clearly not worried about burglars or intruders on his Estate then is he !!!
Oscar Pistorius @OscarPistorius · 24 Oct 2012
Nothing like being back home in South Africa!! It may be midnight but I'm off to play with my dogs and go for a walk.
AND an interesting tweet about relationships from Fresco...... retweeted by OP !! bit of a dig meant for Sam Taylor perhaps ?
Retweeted by Oscar Pistorius
Darren Fresco @TheFrisco_kid · 7 Nov 2012
The best part about being in a bad relationship is learning & knowing what you don't want in the next one @OscarPistorius #friends
Retweeted by Oscar Pistorius
Ambitious Girl ❤ @KimiKouture · 6 Sep 2012
A fake woman wants a man who has it all, a real woman wants to help her man get it all.
Reeva wanted a career and was ambitious herself, ---and OP wanted Reeva to travel with him to see why he trains so hard and why he makes the sacrifices he does .......for his sport
Cheers for that.
I think the conclusion must be that there were 3 sets of gunshots "bangs" that morning lol
There was a set at "around 3am" which came from Oscar's house.
Then there were some quieter cricket bat bangs at around 3:14-5 which Stipps heard and woke up Mike and his wife.
Then Berger/Johnson by chance heard a completely different murder taking place on completely the other side somewhere in SilverLakes estate lol
Its the only solution.
Unless someone got something wrong lol