Think the point here is that OP's actions after the shooting (whatever time you want to use) are deliberate, incorporating vacillation (to make sure she was dead), creation of time to think frantically as to favourable scenarios and start to put in play the setting of the scene, "acting" and all the rest. Dr Stipps turning up shot holes in many of his plans playing out. He truly hates Stipps. Think he thought he could have staged managed the fawning Standers and Stone Walled Security to get the extra time he needed. None of these actions can be viewed as anything else than MWI.
Scooby doo springs to mind "Grrr...and I would have got away with it, if it wasn't for those pesky Stipps"
This really annoyed me - totally uncalled for,- she really didn't need to say this .............if this isn't bias I don't know what is............tweeted at end of Roux's closing arguments....
Alex Crawford@AlexCrawfordSky · Aug 8
#OscarPistorius uncle Arnold says about OP: 'I just want to get him on the Olympics (referring to OP).' Really? I say. 'I flipping hope so'
i read that as uncle a saying "i flipping hope so"
Maybe Alex Crawford not that biased - few of her tweets - seems to me like she has a few "questions" for OP here:
[B]Finally Nel addresses the elephant in the courtroom: that there was no 'intimacy' on Valentines Eve. Strange ?[/B]
Nel: Those Boo Boo Bah Bah whatsaps are not that important, he says, because of timing compared to searingly sad ones later
She doesn't sound completely convinced to me. That "flipping hope so" is Arnold's quote not hers. Indicating even Arnold is not convinced. Had missed that aspect before.
She put FINALLY before her comment about the elephant in the room, .seems that where there's an obvious matter about the trial that most journos will pick up on , she can't really avoid it, eg. the intimacy !!or her bias would be that more obvious
.........and ....I think she did say flipping hope so, as it was discussed on here when she wrote that tweet, - same format on twitter when OP retweeted a message to the Steenkamps from another twitter follower, OP added to it with thankyou after the tweet. It's not clear --but she doesn't say Unc A then says I flipping hope so, or that he replied, or are we to 'assume' . This tweet was discussed at the time Alex C wrote it and since on here, and concensus was , she was bias to OP, , and some of her reports during the trial were slightly tipped towards OP's emotional state and strain he must be under hmmm - she's out for that all exclusive interview with OP and family following the verdict after all, keeping options open !
Alex Crawford @AlexCrawfordSky · Aug 8
#OscarPistorius uncle Arnold says about OP: 'I just want to get him on the Olympics (referring to OP).' Really? I say. 'I flipping hope so'
She put FINALLY before her comment about the elephant in the room, ...so not this is a good example, seems that where there's an obvious matter about the trial that most journos will pick up on , she can't really avoid it, eg. the intimacy !!or her bias would be that more obvious
.........and ....I think she did say flipping hope so, as it was discussed on here when she wrote that tweet, - same format on twitter when OP retweeted a message to the Steenkamps from another twitter follower, OP added to it with thankyou after the tweet. It's not clear --but she doesn't say Unc A then says I flipping hope so, or that he replied, or are we to 'assume' . This tweet was discussed at the time Alex C wrote it and since on here, and concensus was , she was bias to OP, , and some of her reports during the trial were slightly tipped towards OP's emotional state and strain he must be under hmmm - she's out for that all exclusive interview with OP and family following the verdict after all, keeping options open !
Alex Crawford @AlexCrawfordSky · Aug 8
#OscarPistorius uncle Arnold says about OP: 'I just want to get him on the Olympics (referring to OP).' Really? I say. 'I flipping hope so'
she's written that tweet so that uncle a's quotes are in speech marks, and what she said isn't. so anything with ' ' round it, is from uncle a
i read that as uncle a saying "i flipping hope so"
she doesn't say he said it, is it to be assumed then ? - she's always rather bias, so I always think she comments in OP's favour that he could be telling the truth- such is my suspician with her tweets and when she was at the Court.
she doesn't say he said it, is it to be assumed then ? - she's always rather bias, so I always think she comments in OP's favour that he could be telling the truth- such is my suspician with her tweets and when she was at the Court.
she wouldn't be that biased. and she only has 140 characters to tweet, so she may have had limited space
[1] screams tapes put to witnesses, but never shared, and tampered bat tests / gun firing rate
[2] major disturbance to bedroom not canvassed with two officers
[3] accidental shots requiring late stage evidence, rejected by Weskoppies.
[4] 2 double-taps or 4 rapid shots
[5] not calling Perumal: getting someone to read Saayman's report 2nd hand and comment
[6] not giving Lundgren the information of the 200ml food
[7] Dixon's unscientific methods and dubious photo tests
[8] Wolmerans' reconstruction not including the magazine rack at all.
[9] Schultz did not interview Sam Taylor
[10] Medical History document makes OP's version more improbable - he says he can't carry things easily and it's worse in the dark, heel pads slip off if step on things...
[11] Darmen kept "no notes" and claims to be aware of all the startle noises before OP ever testified them under cross-examination
[12] Blatant but unsuccessful efforts to bolster OP's fear of crime and instead regarding RS as "the one" by Van Zyl.
Surely it's easier for a "top flight" legal team to advance evidence in support of the truth?
i read that as uncle a saying "i flipping hope so"
Yeah that's the only thing that really makes sense, not only the quotation marks, but since she asks the question Really? in the middle of the tweet, Why would she ask and answer her own question in that way:
Uncle A: "I just want to see him at Olympics.."
AC: "Really?"
Uncle A: "I flipping hope so."
Yeah that's the only thing that really makes sense, not only the quotation marks, but since she asks the question Really? in the middle of the tweet, Why would she ask and answer her own question in that way:
Uncle A: "I just want to see him at Olympics.."
AC: "Really?"
Uncle A: "I flipping hope so."
point taken as I said - she has been rather bias to OP throughout the trial - i'm not the first to say , it hasn't gone unnoticed
Hedging her bets - if OP gets off she can STILL get access to the family and write a book?
There was reference to the tendency of media NOT to deduce, to discriminate about particular evidence, NOT to comment negatively - in the putative interests of 'justice', but actually leading to an serious 'dumbing down' and even obvious bias in reporting.
It was interesting, and I thought made an important point.
Buggered if I can find it though.
But we can still think about the idea.
i think that's the fence-sitting journo for you - but some of her reports at Court I thought slanted to poor OP and what he must be going through .............but she's in war zone now, so..............maybe she'll be back for the verdict so she'll be right behind Unc A again !
Provoked PPD: No cause (sound was 'not credible') so cannot be self-defence = dolus something or other.
Not aimed at intruder: Either indiscriminate firing (eventualis) or around toilet intentionally (directus)
Mangena's reconstruction evidence "must have" been delay after A (directus)
Locked door and phone and "clothed" - "no time" to use loo
[counterargument = empty bladder]
R.S. unhappiness at weekly intervals - major rows
Rehearsed or out of context emotions on stand [all goes against trust]
Gastric contents + Mrs. Van der Merwe + bathroom lights + true state of bedroom = up and about and arguing
Consistent with murdering RS on the probabilities [and he did not tell us a credible reason why he fired]
If so then he lies (a lot) - is there evidence for that?
Snowball(s) of lies
[1] Alleged major disturbance in bedroom, but blood trail proves that for the state
[2] Magazine rack relocated to substantiate "door opening perception", favours state
[3] Denies she screamed but denies he could hear her scream then asserts he screamed instead, but neighbours never heard that.
[4] Bed swapping sides (the one that got away lol
Other assorted negative findings - minor charge denials, selective amnesia (rhapsodies, taylor/fresco), selective 'forgetting' of things he knows (zombie-stopper, b*tch don't kill my vibe)
Fallback defences: Discredited psychiatric evidence of Vorster [surely makes other such evidence untrustworthy as well? The panel of 3 is the most reliable], finally, sane automatism (false by his other evidence).
No blame for anything. But this is R.S. we're talking about = "the one". Why no sense of a culpability?
Connecting passage = time to premeditate before shots (a more solid directus)
And best case on the 'contested screams': 3:12 - 3:19 no phone calls
I personally think that's a beyond reasonable doubt case. There is certain possibilities of the panel to disagree I guess but seems remote. The question is then: Is it a beyond reasonable rehabilitation case as well lol?
Updated Poll @19/8- (@20.00)Add your opinion and repost removing quotes
48 Murder with Intent (Dolus Directus)
7 Murder (Dolus Eventualis)
3 Culpable Homicide
2 Acquittal
0 Not Sure
Dolus Directus (direct intent), is where the accused meant to perpetrate the prohibited conduct, or to bring about the criminal consequence and where the consequences of an action were both foreseen and desired by the perpetrator. You want to kill someone, so you shoot him. In this case the perpetrator had a specific victim in mind and then went about killing him or her.
Dolus eventualis exists where the accused does not mean to actually cause the unlawful consequence which follows from his conduct, but foresees or should foresee the possibility of the consequences ensuing, and nonetheless proceeds with his conduct. An example would be of an assault where a perpetrator gets into a fight and uses a knuckle duster to beat up the victim, not actually intending to kill the victim, and the victim dies.
Culpable homicide has been defined simply as the unlawful negligent killing of a human being. The essential difference with this crime from those mentioned above lies in the fact that the fault in this crime stems from negligence (culpa) and not intent. The test in determining whether the accused is guilty of this crime lies in the question – “what a reasonable person would have done given the same circumstances?
Roux trying desperately to get Dr Stipp to change what he's saying to suit Defence, quite painful to watch....Roux twisting what Dr Stipp's saying in the process. No wonder he's a real problem for the Defence - watch Roux trying to show the Court Stipp contradicting himself, but he didn't !
Roux: Tell me about the last screaming you heard from a man Dr Stipp : It sounded like it was intermingled with the female voice screaming Roux : (interjects)..I'm talking about the help help help screaming (this is OP's voice AFTER he'd fired the shots) Dr Stipp : That occurred when I finished talking to the guards
Stipp said he heard : Woman's voice screaming most of the time, and man's voice in between. He also said he didn't hear any more screams after gunshots
(Roux does twist things, very clever. His face is a picture throughout this cross exam though, very animated , trying to suggest everything Stipp says is questionable, but knowing he's got to work hard to contradict Stipp and try make Stipp doubt himself :D
The incident with the gunfire happened when he was staying at someone else's house. Divaris I think.
Juror 13 might well have a map of all the houses in relation to OPs.
AFAIK the gun was under the bed at the side where holster was found.
I think the washing machine incident did happen at Silverwoods home.
I was wondering if there was ever any explanation of why he'd assumed the washing machine was an 'intruder'.. or the other incident where (if true) he ran out with a gun and had to be told "Oz it's me".
They all seemed very strange, unreasonable ways to react... anyway thank you -and Nowhere Dan!
I was wondering if there was ever any explanation of why he'd assumed the washing machine was an 'intruder'.. or the other incident where (if true) he ran out with a gun and had to be told "Oz it's me".
They all seemed very strange, unreasonable ways to react... anyway thank you -and Nowhere Dan!
I can't answer your questions - I'm replying to you simply because I just love your user-name!
“During the first day, curious at having outsiders among them, a long stream of inmates came over and talked with me. Remarkably, according to what they told me, nearly every inmate in the prison didn't do it. Several thousand people had been locked up unjustly and, by an incredible coincidence, all in the same prison."
“During the first day, curious at having outsiders among them, a long stream of inmates came over and talked with me. Remarkably, according to what they told me, nearly every inmate in the prison didn't do it. Several thousand people had been locked up unjustly and, by an incredible coincidence, all in the same prison."
― Alan Alda
:D:D
Reminds me of The Shawshank Redemption where Red is "the only guilty man in Shawshank".
oh ok. have a brilliant time then Sandy - who isn't here but is:D
Don't take my word for it Claire; I am often - indeed usually - wrong about everything: my user-name should, with hindsight, have been 'Wrongabout...'.
I just thought I'd read somewhere that the indefatigable Sandy was upping and offing to the fine Fringe Festival that is Edinburgh in August...
If she is, I hope she has a fine old time and sees so many funny shows that her sides hurt from giggling. If she isn't, then I'm an old duffer.
Reminds me of The Shawshank Redemption where Red is "the only guilty man in Shawshank".
Ha - true. Excellent movie btw!
I believe the convention is you never admit it on the off chance a journalist gets wind of your case, feels there has been a miscarriage, and takes up your cause, fighting for a review into the original trial.
Confessing it tends to throw a spanner in the works lol
Strangely, the band of activists usually never surfaces. ;-)
[Obviously there will be for OP but that's a different thing entirely!!]
If you read Daily Mail or CNN articles about S.African prisons, you would come away with an impression of nothing but Numbers Gangs and institutionalized violence.
However, after a little research, it turns out that there are some human beings doing various fairly normal things inside South African prisons.
Comments
Scooby doo springs to mind "Grrr...and I would have got away with it, if it wasn't for those pesky Stipps"
i read that as uncle a saying "i flipping hope so"
.........and ....I think she did say flipping hope so, as it was discussed on here when she wrote that tweet, - same format on twitter when OP retweeted a message to the Steenkamps from another twitter follower, OP added to it with thankyou after the tweet. It's not clear --but she doesn't say Unc A then says I flipping hope so, or that he replied, or are we to 'assume' . This tweet was discussed at the time Alex C wrote it and since on here, and concensus was , she was bias to OP, , and some of her reports during the trial were slightly tipped towards OP's emotional state and strain he must be under hmmm - she's out for that all exclusive interview with OP and family following the verdict after all, keeping options open !
Alex Crawford @AlexCrawfordSky · Aug 8
#OscarPistorius uncle Arnold says about OP: 'I just want to get him on the Olympics (referring to OP).' Really? I say. 'I flipping hope so'
she's written that tweet so that uncle a's quotes are in speech marks, and what she said isn't. so anything with ' ' round it, is from uncle a
she wouldn't be that biased. and she only has 140 characters to tweet, so she may have had limited space
[2] major disturbance to bedroom not canvassed with two officers
[3] accidental shots requiring late stage evidence, rejected by Weskoppies.
[4] 2 double-taps or 4 rapid shots
[5] not calling Perumal: getting someone to read Saayman's report 2nd hand and comment
[6] not giving Lundgren the information of the 200ml food
[7] Dixon's unscientific methods and dubious photo tests
[8] Wolmerans' reconstruction not including the magazine rack at all.
[9] Schultz did not interview Sam Taylor
[10] Medical History document makes OP's version more improbable - he says he can't carry things easily and it's worse in the dark, heel pads slip off if step on things...
[11] Darmen kept "no notes" and claims to be aware of all the startle noises before OP ever testified them under cross-examination
[12] Blatant but unsuccessful efforts to bolster OP's fear of crime and instead regarding RS as "the one" by Van Zyl.
Surely it's easier for a "top flight" legal team to advance evidence in support of the truth?
Yeah that's the only thing that really makes sense, not only the quotation marks, but since she asks the question Really? in the middle of the tweet, Why would she ask and answer her own question in that way:
Uncle A: "I just want to see him at Olympics.."
AC: "Really?"
Uncle A: "I flipping hope so."
2 double taps or 4 rapid fire: cannot be automatism.
'No accident he fired into toilet cubicle'
http://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/301.png
Provoked PPD: No cause (sound was 'not credible') so cannot be self-defence = dolus something or other.
Not aimed at intruder: Either indiscriminate firing (eventualis) or around toilet intentionally (directus)
Mangena's reconstruction evidence "must have" been delay after A (directus)
Locked door and phone and "clothed" - "no time" to use loo
[counterargument = empty bladder]
R.S. unhappiness at weekly intervals - major rows
Rehearsed or out of context emotions on stand [all goes against trust]
Gastric contents + Mrs. Van der Merwe + bathroom lights + true state of bedroom = up and about and arguing
Consistent with murdering RS on the probabilities [and he did not tell us a credible reason why he fired]
If so then he lies (a lot) - is there evidence for that?
Snowball(s) of lies
[1] Alleged major disturbance in bedroom, but blood trail proves that for the state
[2] Magazine rack relocated to substantiate "door opening perception", favours state
[3] Denies she screamed but denies he could hear her scream then asserts he screamed instead, but neighbours never heard that.
[4] Bed swapping sides (the one that got away lol
Other assorted negative findings - minor charge denials, selective amnesia (rhapsodies, taylor/fresco), selective 'forgetting' of things he knows (zombie-stopper, b*tch don't kill my vibe)
Fallback defences: Discredited psychiatric evidence of Vorster [surely makes other such evidence untrustworthy as well? The panel of 3 is the most reliable], finally, sane automatism (false by his other evidence).
No blame for anything. But this is R.S. we're talking about = "the one". Why no sense of a culpability?
Connecting passage = time to premeditate before shots (a more solid directus)
And best case on the 'contested screams': 3:12 - 3:19 no phone calls
I personally think that's a beyond reasonable doubt case. There is certain possibilities of the panel to disagree I guess but seems remote. The question is then: Is it a beyond reasonable rehabilitation case as well lol?
48 Murder with Intent (Dolus Directus)
7 Murder (Dolus Eventualis)
3 Culpable Homicide
2 Acquittal
0 Not Sure
Dolus Directus (direct intent), is where the accused meant to perpetrate the prohibited conduct, or to bring about the criminal consequence and where the consequences of an action were both foreseen and desired by the perpetrator. You want to kill someone, so you shoot him. In this case the perpetrator had a specific victim in mind and then went about killing him or her.
Dolus eventualis exists where the accused does not mean to actually cause the unlawful consequence which follows from his conduct, but foresees or should foresee the possibility of the consequences ensuing, and nonetheless proceeds with his conduct. An example would be of an assault where a perpetrator gets into a fight and uses a knuckle duster to beat up the victim, not actually intending to kill the victim, and the victim dies.
Culpable homicide has been defined simply as the unlawful negligent killing of a human being. The essential difference with this crime from those mentioned above lies in the fact that the fault in this crime stems from negligence (culpa) and not intent. The test in determining whether the accused is guilty of this crime lies in the question – “what a reasonable person would have done given the same circumstances?
(for full definitions of above see #5553 or http://whosyourdadic.com/2014/04/09/the-oscar-pistorius-trial-what-did-he-do/
Judgement 11 September (courtesy of bookcover)
http://www.webcountdown.net/?c=1410424200
(courtesy of Jeremy99)
80% Murder with Intent (Dolus Directus)
12% Murder (Dolus Eventualis)
5% Culpable Homicide
3% Acquittal
From 11.14- 22.30
Dr Stipp tells Roux he saw light on in OP's bathroom , he heard screaming, from man and woman's voice, then when he's on the phone he doesn't hear any more screaming or gunshot sounds.
Roux trying desperately to get Dr Stipp to change what he's saying to suit Defence, quite painful to watch....Roux twisting what Dr Stipp's saying in the process. No wonder he's a real problem for the Defence - watch Roux trying to show the Court Stipp contradicting himself, but he didn't !
Roux: Tell me about the last screaming you heard from a man
Dr Stipp : It sounded like it was intermingled with the female voice screaming
Roux : (interjects)..I'm talking about the help help help screaming (this is OP's voice AFTER he'd fired the shots)
Dr Stipp : That occurred when I finished talking to the guards
Stipp said he heard : Woman's voice screaming most of the time, and man's voice in between. He also said he didn't hear any more screams after gunshots
(Roux does twist things, very clever. His face is a picture throughout this cross exam though, very animated , trying to suggest everything Stipp says is questionable, but knowing he's got to work hard to contradict Stipp and try make Stipp doubt himself
I was wondering if there was ever any explanation of why he'd assumed the washing machine was an 'intruder'.. or the other incident where (if true) he ran out with a gun and had to be told "Oz it's me".
They all seemed very strange, unreasonable ways to react... anyway thank you -and Nowhere Dan!
I can't answer your questions - I'm replying to you simply because I just love your user-name!
Sandy, were you doing a timm?
naughty girl, you had me missing you already:D
― Alan Alda
Isn't sandy off to the Edinburgh Festival for a few days? (I'm jealous - went a couple of years ago and had the best, best time).
Have a good time, sandy!
oh ok. have a brilliant time then Sandy - who isn't here but is:D
Reminds me of The Shawshank Redemption where Red is "the only guilty man in Shawshank".
Don't take my word for it Claire; I am often - indeed usually - wrong about everything: my user-name should, with hindsight, have been 'Wrongabout...'.
I just thought I'd read somewhere that the indefatigable Sandy was upping and offing to the fine Fringe Festival that is Edinburgh in August...
If she is, I hope she has a fine old time and sees so many funny shows that her sides hurt from giggling. If she isn't, then I'm an old duffer.
Ha - true. Excellent movie btw!
I believe the convention is you never admit it on the off chance a journalist gets wind of your case, feels there has been a miscarriage, and takes up your cause, fighting for a review into the original trial.
Confessing it tends to throw a spanner in the works lol
Strangely, the band of activists usually never surfaces. ;-)
[Obviously there will be for OP but that's a different thing entirely!!]
However, after a little research, it turns out that there are some human beings doing various fairly normal things inside South African prisons.
Art projects:
http://blogs.worldlearning.org/now/2011/11/01/sit-alumna-wins-fellowship-for-prisoner-art-project/
Responsible living courses:
http://smilingone-prisons.blogspot.co.uk/2009_08_01_archive.html
Prison gym program being expanded:
http://witsjusticeproject.com/tag/south-african-prisons/
http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/gyms-mooted-for-more-prisons-1.1461869#.U_O_UmMg8kk
Religious education:
http://www.echristiannews.com/prison-warden-commends-crossroad-bible-institute-south-africa-students/
Bird rearing at Potsmoor (where Mandela stayed):
http://www.newsflick.net/post/4159242577/cage-prisoners-a-prisoner-participating-in-the
Prison choir:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QDeQeV3ixc
Downtime (card games + illicit drinking):
http://www.citypress.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/prisoners.jpg
http://www.citypress.co.za/news/some-convicts-enjoying-cognac-dstv-and-cellphones/
I suppose it wouldn't have the desired effect of shocking the reader to mention any of this stuff though lol ;-)
we can't let that happen
Ummm ... some woman on Twitter saw Nel in a restaurant. Apparently he was very nice and humble. That's it really.