I keep dipping in and out of Roux's closing argument. can't bear to listen to his whining for too long in one stretch, but I figured I had better get around to listening to what he spouted at least once before the 11th.
I am enjoying listening to him tearing in to Dr Stipp. You can see by Masipa's face that she is not buying it. He seems to have forgotten that Masipa was there when he gave evidence.
I actually think Roux did the State a favour by going through Stipp's evidence with a fine-tooth comb. Because it all hinges on his assertion that Stipp got through to security at 3:27. which Dr Stipp never said anyway. But, once you know that Stipp actually got through to security at 3:16 ish - you see that him seeing the figure in the window after that but before security arrived, fits with Pistorius having his legs on after the 2nd bangs. Not before, where Roux wants to insert it.
It fits nicely with my theory that one of his legs was in the toilet cubicle and he retrieved it after shooting Reeva and opening the unlocked toilet door.
I wonder what the poll would be like if he had avoided unnecessary lies, admitted all the lesser charges and admitted shooting at the door "in fear" ( DE) ?. I know he still has some considerable obstacles to overcome like the preposterous silent dance with Reeva in the bedroom whilst she was wearing her invisibility cloak, the annoying neighbours, and his less than stellar actions afterwards. But I wonder what the tone of the thread would be like ? Without the neighbour testimony I think I would be wavering.
No not me.
The bottom line would still be the fact that she was long dead before medical services where sought by OP.
No one can say if or when he would have ensured that they where called to her aid.
He wanted her dead.
His actions afterwards seems to be confined to whatever he could do to get away with it entirely.
For once he could not get away with it.
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.
what , what ? i've offed and it's chilly- keep the thread up what !;-)
No not me.
The bottom line would still be the fact that she was long dead before medical services where sought by OP.
No one can say if or when he would have ensured that they where called to her aid.
He wanted her dead.
His actions afterwards seems to be confined to whatever he could do to get away with it entirely.
For once he could not get away with it.
one of the most damning facts is that while he was so traumatised that he could not speak to security for crying, and with Reeva laying dying and taking her last breaths, he actually thought it more important to go and put his phone on charge.
:okeep the poll up Claire - I'm not walking to bonnie Scotland .:D....they do have internet (just about!)- so will pop on and off , will miss you guys......
what , what ? i've offed and it's chilly- keep the thread up what !;-)
Thanks wacky - Where' moniker for the night shift ????????
you're on night duty -- jeeepers !
righto. when are you back? how long do I have to look after the poll? hope it doesn't die while you're away. neighbours don't even ask me to feed their cats for them but a murder poll? I suppose that's different. I will try.
Updated Poll @20/8- (@00.21)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?
one of the most damning facts is that while he was so traumatised that he could not speak to security for crying, and with Reeva laying dying and taking her last breaths, he actually thought it more important to go and put his phone on charge.
As far as I know he did not cry to the the security guy. He simply said that everything was ok.
But like Nel said. He did not want to play chess with the case. My only issue in here is that some people try to make sense of everything when there is no chance of finding the answers.
In that sense I do understand this threads detractors.
Saying your going for a time then continuing posting just gives the detractors fuel for their fire.
But this thread has been a part of my life that I will not forget.
As far as I know he did not cry to the the security guy. He simply said that everything was ok.
But like Nel said. He did not want to play chess with the case. My only issue in here is that some people try to make sense of everything when there is no chance of finding the answers.
In that sense I do understand this threads detractors.
Saying your going for a time then continuing posting just gives the detractors fuel for their fire.
But this thread has been a part of my life that I will not forget.
he had two calls with security. the first one he didn't speak, just cried. the second one he said everything is fine.
righto. when are you back? how long do I have to look after the poll? hope it doesn't die while you're away. neighbours don't even ask me to feed their cats for them but a murder poll? I suppose that's different. I will try.
it's chilly here too, so you're not alone.
Easier said than done !! I've just been asked to do that and appear to have lost one of them >:( Reckon I'll be giving it another couple of days and then popping over to the advice forum
Easier said than done !! I've just been asked to do that and appear to have lost one of them >:( Reckon I'll be giving it another couple of days and then popping over to the advice forum
cats don't usually disappear unless they've got themselves locked in a shed or stuck up a tree or something. they know where they get fed, so it's probably just on a protest mission. fingers crossed.
As far as I know he did not cry to the the security guy. He simply said that everything was ok.
But like Nel said. He did not want to play chess with the case. My only issue in here is that some people try to make sense of everything when there is no chance of finding the answers.
In that sense I do understand this threads detractors.
Saying your going for a time then continuing posting just gives the detractors fuel for their fire.
But this thread has been a part of my life that I will not forget.
I don't think anyone should care what "detractors" think about a thread that they are not involved in and is none of their blinking business.
And if you're talking about Sandy, she is quite beloved of this thread and her absence is felt quite strongly. No reason why she shouldn't continue posting if she can and wants to.
righto. when are you back? how long do I have to look after the poll? hope it doesn't die while you're away. neighbours don't even ask me to feed their cats for them but a murder poll? I suppose that's different. I will try.
it's chilly here too, so you're not alone.
3 wks
not really - but anyone can bump the thread - lots of daytime discussion, so it'll be fine
Oh.
So it could have been took as a simple wrong number?
The second would have aroused some suspicion.
But it does raise the prospect of OP wanting to know if they has been informed about events regarding his house.
Maybe he thought from those convo's with them that no one heard a thing so he could make plans and cover up?
Everything seems to be about dealing with issues of events for OP
I keep dipping in and out of Roux's closing argument. can't bear to listen to his whining for too long in one stretch, but I figured I had better get around to listening to what he spouted at least once before the 11th.
I am enjoying listening to him tearing in to Dr Stipp. You can see by Masipa's face that she is not buying it. He seems to have forgotten that Masipa was there when he gave evidence.
I actually think Roux did the State a favour by going through Stipp's evidence with a fine-tooth comb. Because it all hinges on his assertion that Stipp got through to security at 3:27. which Dr Stipp never said anyway. But, once you know that Stipp actually got through to security at 3:16 ish - you see that him seeing the figure in the window after that but before security arrived, fits with Pistorius having his legs on after the 2nd bangs. Not before, where Roux wants to insert it.
It fits nicely with my theory that one of his legs was in the toilet cubicle and he retrieved it after shooting Reeva and opening the unlocked toilet door.
Yes, the whole thing about Stipp making the call at 3.27 was incredibly odd. I couldn't think why Roux kept insisting on it, when Stipp clearly said he phoned at 3.16ish, and anyway wasn't he either with security or going to the scene at that point?
It seemed sort of mad that Roux was insisting on something that either wasn't true, or was another call that he was trying to pass off as the original one.
Does Roux seriously think that the court won't remember? Or if he says it hard enough and often enough it will change the facts?
It came across as a desperate effort to grossly mislead the court, or a desperate sort of lie.
If I've got this wrong, perhaps someone can explain it for me.
I don't think anyone should care what "detractors" think about a thread that they are not involved in and is none of their blinking business.
And if you're talking about Sandy, she is quite beloved of this thread and her absence is felt quite strongly. No reason why she shouldn't continue posting if she can and wants to.
I too have utter respect for Sandy. My post history would suggest that to anyone who wanted to compare our thoughts.
But I am not here to be pally or arse lick.
More than one have said goodbye for a time only to continue posting.
It can ruin integrity when it is from the most prolific and respected posters in a thread.
Oh.
So it could have been took as a simple wrong number?
The second would have aroused some suspicion.
But it does raise the prospect of OP wanting to know if they has been informed about events regarding his house.
Maybe he thought from those convo's with them that no one heard a thing so he could make plans and cover up?
Everything seems to be about dealing with issues of events for OP
It could have been a call that would have been 'expected' so he made it, or a misdial.
When Baba phoned back - OPs 'Everything is fine' is seriously suss. He's got a dead woman with him, how fine is that?
He didn't want security, he wanted Standar to help get Reeva off the property, and to say nothing.
OP SAID he told Standar to phone an ambulance, another lie, Standar didn't report that at the trial, and he phoned no ambulance.
I too have utter respect for Sandy. My post history would suggest that to anyone who wanted to compare our thoughts.
But I am not here to be pally or arse lick.
More than one have said goodbye for a time only to continue posting.
It can ruin integrity when it is from the most prolific and respected posters in a thread.
It doesn't 'ruin integrity' - we'll just believe it when we see it, and I WANT Sandy and Moniker to keep posting, so I don't care at all if they stay, whatever they say.
I'm always on a diet and I've given up smoking every day for years an all. I've got great integrity though in other things.:D
I too have utter respect for Sandy. My post history would suggest that to anyone who wanted to compare our thoughts.
But I am not here to be pally or arse lick.
More than one have said goodbye for a time only to continue posting.
It can ruin integrity when it is from the most prolific and respected posters in a thread.
If Sandy's anything like me, she wound up fully intending upon not posting only to arrive with a couple of spare hours and an internet connection someplace new ... and ended up doing just that.
Prolific posters are prolific due to being a tad addicted to posting IMO lol :D
I wouldn't say it was a matter of integrity, rather will power being in short supply, but at least, this is not a crime.
The road to hell, after all, is paved with good intentions... ;-)
oh just a reminder , remember the first police media conference after OP's arrest outside Silverwoods,-.here it is again. -.takes it all back to the staaraaartvanardt:o:p VT -POLICE MEDIA CONFERENCE OUTSIDE SILVERWOODS 14/2
LE confirms that a shooting took place at OP's house and that a 30 year old woman died on scene of gunshot wounds. A 26 year old has been arrested. (They didn't say it was OP but just kept saying that the incident took place at his house.)
The 26 yo has been taken for a medical exam (I read in other reports that he was extremely distraught) and will appear before the magistrate at 2:00.
When asked if the arrested individual has ever been involved in earlier incidents involving LE, particularly any related to assault or domestic abuse, LE responded that they wouldn't say anything specific to the person arrested but they would say that they had indeed been involved in previous incidents at the home of OP.
Regarding comments coming up in the media about a situation where he shot the woman mistakenly believing she was an intruder did not come from LE. Their forensic investigation is ongoing.
Paralympian Oscar Pistorius will only appear in the Pretoria Magistrate's Court on Friday."He will be kept in police custody," said National Prosecuting Authority official Medupe Simasiku. Bail will be opposed when Pistorius appears, police spokesperson Brigadier Denise Beukes told reporters earlier. She declined to elaborate.
Pistorius' model girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp was shot dead in his Pretoria home in the early hours of Thursday. Pistorius was held at the Boschkop police station in the morning, then seen by a Sapa reporter at the Mamelodi Day Clinic after a high speed convoy drove him there.
His sister Aimee was seen arriving with a jacket and white trousers, presumed to be for his court appearance.His lawyer Kenny Oldwage was expected to apply for bail.
Speaking generally, and without commenting specifically on Pistorius, Beukes said it was a routine process for a suspect to be taken for a medical examination in such cases."The person is taken for a medical examination. It is a standard procedure," she said."They [hospital staff] test under the nails, they look for scratches, bruises, and blood is taken for alcohol and drug screening." Pistorius was co-operating with police.
Beukes said there had been incidents of domestic violence at his house."I confirm there had been previous incidents of a domestic nature at his place, but this will form part of the investigation," she said.There was no sign of forced entry into Pretorius' house and reports that the woman was shot after she was mistaken for an intruder did not emanate from police.
"As the SA Police Service, we do not have a report based on those allegations. We only heard over the radio that the woman was shot after she was mistaken for an intruder." Beukes added later: "The surprise was that the information was given to the media. The police did not provide the information." Beukes said forensic detectives were collecting evidence from the crime scene and journalists would not be allowed inside until police handed over the scene to the estate's security company.
It doesn't 'ruin integrity' - we'll just believe it when we see it, and I WANT Sandy and Moniker to keep posting, so I don't care at all if they stay, whatever they say.
B]I'm always on a diet and I've given up smoking every day for years an all.[/B] I've got great integrity though in other things.:D
Comments
I am enjoying listening to him tearing in to Dr Stipp. You can see by Masipa's face that she is not buying it. He seems to have forgotten that Masipa was there when he gave evidence.
I actually think Roux did the State a favour by going through Stipp's evidence with a fine-tooth comb. Because it all hinges on his assertion that Stipp got through to security at 3:27. which Dr Stipp never said anyway. But, once you know that Stipp actually got through to security at 3:16 ish - you see that him seeing the figure in the window after that but before security arrived, fits with Pistorius having his legs on after the 2nd bangs. Not before, where Roux wants to insert it.
It fits nicely with my theory that one of his legs was in the toilet cubicle and he retrieved it after shooting Reeva and opening the unlocked toilet door.
No not me.
The bottom line would still be the fact that she was long dead before medical services where sought by OP.
No one can say if or when he would have ensured that they where called to her aid.
He wanted her dead.
His actions afterwards seems to be confined to whatever he could do to get away with it entirely.
For once he could not get away with it.
one of the most damning facts is that while he was so traumatised that he could not speak to security for crying, and with Reeva laying dying and taking her last breaths, he actually thought it more important to go and put his phone on charge.
righto. when are you back? how long do I have to look after the poll? hope it doesn't die while you're away. neighbours don't even ask me to feed their cats for them but a murder poll? I suppose that's different. I will try.
it's chilly here too, so you're not alone.
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
Sandy's put me in charge.
you're doing the night shifts wacky:D
But like Nel said. He did not want to play chess with the case. My only issue in here is that some people try to make sense of everything when there is no chance of finding the answers.
In that sense I do understand this threads detractors.
Saying your going for a time then continuing posting just gives the detractors fuel for their fire.
But this thread has been a part of my life that I will not forget.
he had two calls with security. the first one he didn't speak, just cried. the second one he said everything is fine.
Easier said than done !! I've just been asked to do that and appear to have lost one of them >:( Reckon I'll be giving it another couple of days and then popping over to the advice forum
yes the first one where he didn't speak
cats don't usually disappear unless they've got themselves locked in a shed or stuck up a tree or something. they know where they get fed, so it's probably just on a protest mission. fingers crossed.
I don't think anyone should care what "detractors" think about a thread that they are not involved in and is none of their blinking business.
And if you're talking about Sandy, she is quite beloved of this thread and her absence is felt quite strongly. No reason why she shouldn't continue posting if she can and wants to.
Oh.
So it could have been took as a simple wrong number?
The second would have aroused some suspicion.
But it does raise the prospect of OP wanting to know if they has been informed about events regarding his house.
Maybe he thought from those convo's with them that no one heard a thing so he could make plans and cover up?
Everything seems to be about dealing with issues of events for OP
Shhaaaa aaaarrrrppppp ....... shhhhaaaa aaarrrppppp !!
I had a nagging doubt that I should have kept my fingers shut
Yes, the whole thing about Stipp making the call at 3.27 was incredibly odd. I couldn't think why Roux kept insisting on it, when Stipp clearly said he phoned at 3.16ish, and anyway wasn't he either with security or going to the scene at that point?
It seemed sort of mad that Roux was insisting on something that either wasn't true, or was another call that he was trying to pass off as the original one.
Does Roux seriously think that the court won't remember? Or if he says it hard enough and often enough it will change the facts?
It came across as a desperate effort to grossly mislead the court, or a desperate sort of lie.
If I've got this wrong, perhaps someone can explain it for me.
But I am not here to be pally or arse lick.
More than one have said goodbye for a time only to continue posting.
It can ruin integrity when it is from the most prolific and respected posters in a thread.
It could have been a call that would have been 'expected' so he made it, or a misdial.
When Baba phoned back - OPs 'Everything is fine' is seriously suss. He's got a dead woman with him, how fine is that?
He didn't want security, he wanted Standar to help get Reeva off the property, and to say nothing.
OP SAID he told Standar to phone an ambulance, another lie, Standar didn't report that at the trial, and he phoned no ambulance.
Another bit of 'cover' for OP.
It doesn't 'ruin integrity' - we'll just believe it when we see it, and I WANT Sandy and Moniker to keep posting, so I don't care at all if they stay, whatever they say.
I'm always on a diet and I've given up smoking every day for years an all. I've got great integrity though in other things.
If Sandy's anything like me, she wound up fully intending upon not posting only to arrive with a couple of spare hours and an internet connection someplace new ... and ended up doing just that.
Prolific posters are prolific due to being a tad addicted to posting IMO lol
I wouldn't say it was a matter of integrity, rather will power being in short supply, but at least, this is not a crime.
The road to hell, after all, is paved with good intentions... ;-)
VT -POLICE MEDIA CONFERENCE OUTSIDE SILVERWOODS 14/2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1auR6p8dphA
LE confirms that a shooting took place at OP's house and that a 30 year old woman died on scene of gunshot wounds. A 26 year old has been arrested. (They didn't say it was OP but just kept saying that the incident took place at his house.)
The 26 yo has been taken for a medical exam (I read in other reports that he was extremely distraught) and will appear before the magistrate at 2:00.
When asked if the arrested individual has ever been involved in earlier incidents involving LE, particularly any related to assault or domestic abuse, LE responded that they wouldn't say anything specific to the person arrested but they would say that they had indeed been involved in previous incidents at the home of OP.
Regarding comments coming up in the media about a situation where he shot the woman mistakenly believing she was an intruder did not come from LE. Their forensic investigation is ongoing.
Paralympian Oscar Pistorius will only appear in the Pretoria Magistrate's Court on Friday."He will be kept in police custody," said National Prosecuting Authority official Medupe Simasiku. Bail will be opposed when Pistorius appears, police spokesperson Brigadier Denise Beukes told reporters earlier. She declined to elaborate.
Pistorius' model girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp was shot dead in his Pretoria home in the early hours of Thursday. Pistorius was held at the Boschkop police station in the morning, then seen by a Sapa reporter at the Mamelodi Day Clinic after a high speed convoy drove him there.
His sister Aimee was seen arriving with a jacket and white trousers, presumed to be for his court appearance.His lawyer Kenny Oldwage was expected to apply for bail.
Speaking generally, and without commenting specifically on Pistorius, Beukes said it was a routine process for a suspect to be taken for a medical examination in such cases."The person is taken for a medical examination. It is a standard procedure," she said."They [hospital staff] test under the nails, they look for scratches, bruises, and blood is taken for alcohol and drug screening." Pistorius was co-operating with police.
Beukes said there had been incidents of domestic violence at his house."I confirm there had been previous incidents of a domestic nature at his place, but this will form part of the investigation," she said.There was no sign of forced entry into Pretorius' house and reports that the woman was shot after she was mistaken for an intruder did not emanate from police.
"As the SA Police Service, we do not have a report based on those allegations. We only heard over the radio that the woman was shot after she was mistaken for an intruder." Beukes added later: "The surprise was that the information was given to the media. The police did not provide the information." Beukes said forensic detectives were collecting evidence from the crime scene and journalists would not be allowed inside until police handed over the scene to the estate's security company.
BiB: HaHa.