The internet "home hub" will be on the whole time unless you switch it off and barring network outage or power failures. So internet is "there" in Wi-Fi or Ethernet forms constantly. Clearly in the case of a mobile it is connecting to a variety of available networks: The Wi-Fi is "on the whole time", similarly, any data masts provided by the phone company in the area is "on the whole time" (barring similar issues).
For a connection to register for a specific time needs specific activity and the most obvious possibility is loading up the internet on the device! Or the Apps store! Or anything else which causes the phone to synchronize data live with a tower or Wi-Fi router.
I'm not sure but I think it could be triggered by automatic updates of apps on the phone, for example, on a schedule. The phone data guy must have asked Apple about it. My guess is there are possibilities other than a person doing it at that time. However, that doesn't mean those possibilities is the truth lol
Personally I think he picked the phone up so it went off sleep mode at the very least.
Phones don't like updating things when they are supposed to be sleeping IMO lol
BIB
but .........Why......? We know the man's a liar ...........why couldn't it be that OP accessed the internet at those times? he did commit a murder, don't write it off ! but think Reeva's showed up after she'd died too. BUT we do know that internet 'history' was wiped from the ipad up to evening of 13th February ,- why ? I rarely clear my history, - OP was hiding the pages he'd been searching ............Cars or Porn.??? which one would you wipe off? lol !
actually i've just check iphones here-and there's 2 and they're both offline.,but I can see they are connected to the wifi, they're just not using it. :cool:
Nel: Mr Pistorius, I know that you've read Statements, you've listened to evidence and that based on that you've given evidence and given the Court a version, and you have taken into account evidence that you've read and been informed about , am I right ?
OP: That's correct m'lday
Nel: I'm going to the scene now , but I want you to tell the Court what you can remember, ....NOT what's reconstructed. Do you understand what I am saying ?
OP: I do understand m'lady, um, it's hard for me to.... memories are reconstruction.... isolated memories are reconstructions .....so what I can remember ..um....up to the point from when I went to sleep to when I shot..... fired... the pistol , i remember, the thing I didn't remember was the 4 shots, I didn't? remember the number of shots .... um....it would be very hard for me now after reading statements upon statements over the last year and a half... and listening to the evidence in Court,,,, to think back at to what memory was my own and what memory was.... er.....obviously memory like the 4 shots is something I don't remember,.... but it's the fact that 4 shots were fired......um...... I can go through my whole version and I can tell you what I remember, we can do that again.... but that was my memory of what happened that night
Nel : I'll ask you questions, if you just reply and tell the Court what you can remember...... ..Try and think of the reconstruction and what really happened - let us just get to what you can remember.
(I think after OP's exhaustive nonsense rambling Nel looked visibly fed up, and Van Standen grins away)
If he was telling the truth and had nothing to hide, he'd have his own accurate memory and tell the Court,..............he'd NOT be confused with other's 'statements' -- he's such a bad liar infact isn't he
He'd have been going over and over that night , til he exhausted himself, NO WAY could he not remember what happened. Pants on fire ! lol !
lol funny quote. :D:D
Memory is a funny thing though. Some details picked out as clear as if was still going on, and other things just out of view and hazier. I'm sure OP will have genuinely forgotten some of the exact details of the real sequence as well.
What's perhaps telling is how many small details he tries to provide to explain missing her leave the room. Very minute detail about all that. Even though at the time he wasn't aware of the fact he was missing her leave the room. And expressed no interest in discussing it with friends to try to work out what had happened. Now clearly he can't have 'reconstructed' it so clearly from others' statements or evidence. One has to wonder how he DID 'reconstruct' it.
It's definitely suspect that he has all the details to hand that are consistent with having his face turned away from the bed almost the entire time. e.g. head in hands; very reluctant to say he could see Reeva's "legs" under duvet (???); saying exactly where he put the two fans - different to the version he had on day 5; how the curtain had been draped over a fan; picking up the jeans for a specific LED light - how this um "single" light bothered him normally; the exact pacing 'freeze' - run - grab gun (where it was exactly, but unusually) - run - then - very slow etc.
It's all very precise despite the fact he wasn't talking to anyone about it in the hours after the incident. Which certainly is suspect. To reveal in lucid detail this entire sequence of actions but not say a single thing about any 'fans' to your friends who have arrived to such a terrible scene? To not try to explain to anyone what had happened - I had my back turned, and then, and then .. - how this awful accident happened? To not want to share that, so they can understand - it was not what you intended to do - and how. Make them believe. You would surely do so if you could??
And then afterwards, come up with this wonderful story which explains precisely how you missed her as you moved around the bed, always careful to have your back turned, as such.
That's got a big red cross through it IMO as a 'reconstruction' (of some kind - i wonder what kind?? :-):-) rather than a bona fide memory sequence lol
BIB but .........Why......? We know the man's a liar ...........why couldn't it be that OP accessed the internet at those times? he did commit a murder, don't write it off ! but think Reeva's showed up after she'd died too. BUT we do know that internet 'history' was wiped from the ipad up to evening of 13th February ,- why ? I rarely clear my history, - OP was hiding the pages he'd been searching ............Cars or Porn.??? which one would you wipe off? lol !
actually i've just check iphones here-and there's 2 and they're both offline.,but I can see they are connected to the wifi, they're just not using it. :cool:
BiB: I didn't lol - second to last sentence - Personally I think he at least picked up the phone so it went off sleep mode.
If the phone stopped sleeping, so did he!
So it could be getting up, picking the phone up (as usual), it goes off sleep mode, links to GPS to update its Apps etc, while he's now moving around ... or it could be actually using it for 5 minutes in bed or someplace else to browse net.
Find it hard to believe it would be lying undisturbed on the carpet in sleep mode and then randomly link to network for 5 minutes.
However the lack of questions suggests it is something which can happen innocently but it's probably another one of those "less likely" explanations - of which there are many required.
P.S. Maybe Nel just taking this evidence as read and the defence experts on the matter have no objection and just say it "obviously" means the phone was activated so no one is ever going to bother contesting it (except us???) :cool:
It will surely be explained in Moller's report how to interpret the meaning of "internet GPS" connection - as to the various options. And if that's all accurate, nothing for the defence to query, and Masipa just needs to find the time to read all about it lol
Memory is a funny thing though. Some details picked out as clear as if was still going on, and other things just out of view and hazier. I'm sure OP will have genuinely forgotten some of the exact details of the real sequence as well.
What's perhaps telling is how many small details he tries to provide to explain missing her leave the room. Very minute detail about all that. Even though at the time he wasn't aware of the fact he was missing her leave the room. And expressed no interest in discussing it with friends to try to work out what had happened. Now clearly he can't have 'reconstructed' it so clearly from others' statements or evidence. One has to wonder how he DID 'reconstruct' it.
It's definitely suspect that he has all the details to hand that are consistent with having his face turned away from the bed almost the entire time. e.g. head in hands; very reluctant to say he could see Reeva's "legs" under duvet (???); saying exactly where he put the two fans - different to the version he had on day 5; how the curtain had been draped over a fan; picking up the jeans for a specific LED light - how this um "single" light bothered him normally; the exact pacing 'freeze' - run - grab gun (where it was exactly, but unusually) - run - then - very slow etc.
It's all very precise despite the fact he wasn't talking to anyone about it in the hours after the incident. Which certainly is suspect. To reveal in lucid detail this entire sequence of actions but not say a single thing about any 'fans' to your friends who have arrived to such a terrible scene. To have no desire to explain to anyone what had happened and how this awful accident happened? To not want to share that, so they can understand - truly - it was not what you intended to do. Make them believe. Not assume they would do so automatically so keep your silence.
And then afterwards, come up with this wonderful story which explains precisely how you missed her as you moved around the bed, always careful to have your back turned, as such.
That's got a big red cross through it IMO as a 'reconstruction' (of some kind - i wonder what kind?? :-):-) rather than a bona fide memory sequence lol
I think OP told his brother and I think his sister knows some of it, not sure how much, he also had a Lawyer show up telling him to shut up-he could also have told a priest , we don't know, but OP has told at least the brother.
I reckon OP and brother constructed the 'version' - having had a year and a half, to study everything -- adapting it as they've gone along...that's why it's such a mess.
I reckon they had huge whiteboards, venn diagrams, coloured boardmarker pens, which witnesses said what , when and where they lived to his house- and he had another board to construct his version,,--so he had a visual map to memorise his reconstructed version !
he's studied all the evidence, and said a lot of I WOULD HAVEs rather than I DID to Nel.......ensuring he had his back turned away from Reeva,as you say.;.. fitting in some nifty little things he did to take up his time....in the meantime, while she's meanwhile nipped off the bed......... lots of detail of each millisecond of curtain stroking/fan fumbling and then finishing with incredible hearing of that noise in the distance
But it's when OP says to Nel : .obviously memory like the 4 shots is something I don't remember,.... but it's the fact that 4 shots were fired......um...... I can go through my whole version and I can tell you what I remember, we can do that again....
BIB: He couldn't even SAY the words "I fired 4 shots", he says "it's the fact that 4 shots were fired" , - he's totally detaching himself from being the person who fired the shots, as if he's not even involved,--- that's what liars do ! He's disassociated himself from having done any of it, he's had a year to distance himself. Think it's called denial ! :kitty::cool:
oh yes , he's changed very important points since his bail hearing, having studied all the evidence, and says a lot of I WOULD HAVEs rather than I DID........ back turned away from Reeva, fitting in some nifty little things he did to take up his time....in the meantime, while she's meanwhile nipped off the bed......... lots of detail of each millisecond of curtain stroking/fan fumbling and then finishing with incredible hearing of that noise in the distance
Yeah definitely agree "would have" sounds strange if you can't remember something, and probably "must have" is the best, or even "To the best of my recollection.." since memory is a finite / imperfect commodity.
But you admit you cannot actually remember the individual details.
If OP had done a bit less "I dids" it would sound more plausible to me. A bit like a horse to water, Nel invited him to entertain the possibility that you should be able to remember everything and OP accepted the challenge and duly remembered everything [except key details - lol]. Which was a mistake. ;-)
Obviously if you actually don't remember then although you might feel awkward saying it you will feel more relaxed about saying "I really can't remember that part clearly" and at some point the judge will intervene and say "stop badgering this witness!" Which she did.
OP made use of the "can't remember" option at the wrong moments really which were really implausible
- opening fire, firing
- his FRIEND that picked him up after he was shot at
- the SOMEONE that informed him Taylor & Fresco were out together.
At other times of course "I can't remember" is the "right" answer - such as being asked to describe what outfit you had on 4 years ago - in all probability - unless you since seen photos - you won't be able to remember!
So there's certain kinds of things people normally can or can't remember, and a person lying will often get them the wrong ways round! I'm sure his expensive legal team gave him plenty of preparation which would have been sufficient for an innocent person to answer "i don't remembers" the right way round!
BIB: He couldn't even SAY the words "I fired 4 shots", he says "it's the fact that 4 shots were fired" , - he's totally detaching himself from being the person who fired the shots, as if he's not even involved,--- that's what liars do ! He's disassociated himself from having done any of it, he's had a year to distance himself. Think it's called denial ! :kitty::cool:
from anything to do with even an awareness of firing
but at the same time:
Endless justifications for why he fired legitimately as possible at an intruder
and at the same time:
So much DETAIL when it comes to how he missed Reeva leave the room, despite
- not telling anyone any of the DETAILS in the hours afterwards
- then miscommunicating them to his legal team at the bail
- hearing what Nair + state case had to say
- and then remembering even MORE details lol :D:D
His story was always going to need to be detailed because he had a lot of things to 'explain'???
- going onto balcony just before (to search for her!?) (causing the fans story)
- grabbing gun without seeing her not there (causing bed side swap)
- if she would have called police in time (causing shouting)
- if someone would have heard "Get the F outta my house"
It all gets pretty convoluted as a result. I really don't think he can be doing so much explaining of details at the same time as acting like he hasn't a clue why he really fired. what is the judge to believe? He knows exactly what happened. Or he doesn't.
He seems to know exactly what he needs to know in order to miss Reeva and be justified as much as possible to shoot an intruder. But as Nel says, on this ONE point, firing the gun, you don't know.
Do you think M'Lady has come across the "butter wouldn't melt" approach before?
As a grandma
Hahaha you bet. I know my kids can do no wrong in the eyes of their grandparents, so they've got the "butter wouldn't melt" approach honed to a fine art. You're right though - she would have met all sorts of tall-talkers and big-noters.
didn't the Phone analyst say that the connections continue to register , even if your'e not using the phone at the time though ? because Reeva's phone was still registering as being connected to internet until about 4am or something wasn't it, even though she'd died by then.........
I've got a bit confused over the phone data analysis and timings now...........
Reeva's browser was left open hence it looked like one long mammoth session on the internet from 20:04 for over 11 hours.
In the case of Pistorious's phone there two connections before midnight of less than 15mins each. Then there's no activity till 01:48:48 when there is a GPRS connection of 309 seconds (5mins 9secs), the next GPRS activity is at 03:18:45 for 75 seconds followed at 03:19:03 by the phone call to Stander following the shooting.
It's the gap between the midnight activity and 01:48 and then the gap till 03:18 makes it look like someone was active on the phone rather than the phone updating.
Putting aside all other matters quite simply for the Judge to believe Pistorius’ story to be true, she also has to believe three things happened………
That a burglar uncharacteristically bypassed a broken window on the lower floor and somehow climbed to a closed second floor window in the hope it was unlocked.
The burglar opened the sliding window so noisily that it was heard by a person the other side of the house over the noise of an operating fan they were coincidently moving at the same time.
As soon as gaining access to the house the burglar goes into the toilet noisily slamming and locking the door.
Do we really believe an experienced judge is going to buy that load of horsefeathers?
The five normal stages of grief as first proposed by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross in her 1969 book “On Death and Dying.”
1. Denial: "I - DID - NOT - FIRE - AT - REEVA."
2. Anger: "How do you sleep at night?"
3. Bargaining: pre-trial plea offer
4. Depression: depressive disorder and "escalating sense of loneliness and alienation... underlying some of his self-harming behaviour.”
Which just leaves
5. Acceptance.
No sign of this yet, but several years to reflect on things, locked away from the distractions of celebrity, might encourage him to come to an awareness that he is not the victim of a series of accidents, but rather the bringer of misery into others' lives.
Putting aside all other matters quite simply for the Judge to believe Pistorius’ story to be true, she also has to believe three things happened…….
I don't believe OP either. But, do you not mean that the Judge has to believe that OP believed this unlikely scenario to have happened when he armed himself?
I don't believe OP either. But, do you not mean that the Judge has to believe that OP believed this unlikely scenario to have happened when he armed himself?
No, not really.
If she doesn’t believe that scenario then the only conclusion must be - Pistorius is lying.
Once she concludes one part of his version is a lie then the whole version collapses like a pack of cards
someone once said that it depends what mode the phone is in and OP used airplane mode. I'm not up on these things but I think it means the phone doesn't make connections or receive incoming stuff until you activate it yourself.
Which it is why the long gaps and someone actively switched the phone on at 01:48:48 for 5mins 9 secs? (Ended at 01:53:57)
Then again after the shooting:
03:18:45 Start GPRS connection (1) for 75 seconds
03:19:03 Start call to '2251' Stander for 24 seconds
03:19:27 End call to Stander
03:20:00 End GPRS connection (1)
03:20:02 Start GPRS (2) 79 seconds
03:20:05 Start call to '082999' Ambulance for 66 seconds
03:21:11 End call to '082999'
03:21:21 End GPRS (2)
03:21:22 Start GPRS (3) 61 seconds
03:21:47 Start call to '121' voicemail 7 seconds
03:21:53 Start call to '6797' security for 9 seconds
03:21:54 End call to '121' voicemail
03:22:02 End call to '6797' security
03:22:05 Start call from '6797' security for 12 seconds
03:22:17 End call from '6797' security
03:22:23 End GPRS (3)
If she doesn’t believe that scenario then the only conclusion must be - Pistorius is lying.
If Pistorius is lying, then he did not believe there was an intruder. If (improbably) he is not lying, then he did believe there was an intruder. IMO it still comes down to what Masipa believes OP believed. OP might have had very skewed ideas of what burglars were capable of, or inclined to do. Especially as he was someone so far removed from the rest of society, in his gated-community life.
Masipa doesn't have to believe that those three events occurred. In fact, she can't believe they occurred, because there was no intruder who was shot. But maybe I am reading your post the wrong way, or too literally...
Reeva's browser was left open hence it looked like one long mammoth session on the internet from 20:04 for over 11 hours.
In the case of Pistorious's phone there two connections before midnight of less than 15mins each. Then there's no activity till 01:48:48 when there is a GPRS connection of 309 seconds (5mins 9secs), the next GPRS activity is at 03:18:45 for 75 seconds followed at 03:19:03 by the phone call to Stander following the shooting.
It's the gap between the midnight activity and 01:48 and then the gap till 03:18 makes it look like someone was active on the phone rather than the phone updating.
where did you find out about the two connections before midnight? I've not been able to find anything except the 01:48 and later connections.
where did you find out about the two connections before midnight? I've not been able to find anything except the 01:48 and later connections.
They are on the chart shown by the police expert, they were skipped over but although blurred you can make out they were less than 1000 seconds.
Here's the chart, highlighted is the last voice call by Pistorious at 20:25:07 the final four lines are GPRS connections 2 of short duration and the last two that look longer.
The timeline at the top would indicate the first two connections were around 21:00 and the last two after 22:30? Whatever the time the gap is significant before and after the 01:48:48 GPRS connection?
Ahhh OP HAD to say he was on his stumps BECAUSE if he said he was on his legs,he'd have no excuse on his version, .... not to have seen Reeva in bed !!
SO>........ taking that we know that OP says the opposite of what really happened...
.......he therefore had to have been on his legs when he shot Reeva and when he used the bat,-- and they never went to bed !
That's it, in my opinion.
(criticism welcome !)
If theopposite of what he says is true, then he shot with legs on and used the bat with legs off ;-)
you see the problem with believing Pistorius' version is that you have to believe that the only indication that there was an intruder was the window sliding open, the toilet door slamming about a minute or two later (or long enough for Reeva to have used the toilet and pulled her shorts back up), and a wood on wood sound from inside the cubicle.
none of these are the sounds of a person, ALL are wood moving.
1. an intruder
he is very careful not to say the person made a sound - no noise climbing through the window, no noise jumping from the window to land on the tiles, no footsteps in the bathroom or inside the toilet, nothing.
2. Reeva
no peeing with the door open (before the door slammed shut), no flushing, no shuffling of feet or clothes, nothing.
why?
because -
1. would only happen if there was an intruder, which there wasn't, and
2. would mean he would have to have known it was Reeva and his version can't allow for that.
which person only makes wood noises? knowing as we do that it was only Reeva, she would not have crept around silently as if she were an intruder, but yet bang the window, slam the door, and knock the magazine rack against some wood.
the man's an idiot with an idiotic version, and one that has been disproved by evidence that
his fans were not on and in the places he said he put them,
that his curtains were open all along,
that the bathroom light was on,
that Reeva argued loudly,
that Reeva screamed and was heard screaming and shouting for help,
that Reeva had been up, and so too had he by his phone connections,
that Reeva could not have bled arterially on the upstairs walls if he had shot her first and batted second, with all that time wasted in between on the balcony and getting legs and sitting over her crying and placing her head down gently on the carpet>:( and then making calls and opening the front door,
and we are expected to believe that Burger and Johnson would have heard the cricket bat but not the gunshots
I can't believe there are people willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
just for clarity I think she saw him take his gun, ran back to the toilet, screamed the loudest and hardest she ever had, and then he knew he had her behind the door. you've worded it as if she ended up in there because she knew that was what he was going to do.
Yes, I can see my wording is unclear. I was arguing against the suggestion (not yours) that he pushed her into the toilet with the plan of then shooting her through the door. As I understand it, your view is that he felt able to shoot her and get away with it because she had put a door between them and he had his alibi in mind before shooting? My view is that he shot in anger, inflamed further by the fact that she had shut him out, and came up with the intruder story afterwards.
Comments
but .........Why......? We know the man's a liar ...........why couldn't it be that OP accessed the internet at those times? he did commit a murder, don't write it off ! but think Reeva's showed up after she'd died too. BUT we do know that internet 'history' was wiped from the ipad up to evening of 13th February ,- why ? I rarely clear my history, - OP was hiding the pages he'd been searching ............Cars or Porn.??? which one would you wipe off? lol !
actually i've just check iphones here-and there's 2 and they're both offline.,but I can see they are connected to the wifi, they're just not using it. :cool:
Nel sums up what a policeman would had to have done for OP's version to be true
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwzV3uB9UrI
check for Nel's grinning: "indeed,.......indeed"
Nel: You see, because Mr Pistorious .....your version's a lie
lol funny quote.
Memory is a funny thing though. Some details picked out as clear as if was still going on, and other things just out of view and hazier. I'm sure OP will have genuinely forgotten some of the exact details of the real sequence as well.
What's perhaps telling is how many small details he tries to provide to explain missing her leave the room. Very minute detail about all that. Even though at the time he wasn't aware of the fact he was missing her leave the room. And expressed no interest in discussing it with friends to try to work out what had happened. Now clearly he can't have 'reconstructed' it so clearly from others' statements or evidence. One has to wonder how he DID 'reconstruct' it.
It's definitely suspect that he has all the details to hand that are consistent with having his face turned away from the bed almost the entire time. e.g. head in hands; very reluctant to say he could see Reeva's "legs" under duvet (???); saying exactly where he put the two fans - different to the version he had on day 5; how the curtain had been draped over a fan; picking up the jeans for a specific LED light - how this um "single" light bothered him normally; the exact pacing 'freeze' - run - grab gun (where it was exactly, but unusually) - run - then - very slow etc.
It's all very precise despite the fact he wasn't talking to anyone about it in the hours after the incident. Which certainly is suspect. To reveal in lucid detail this entire sequence of actions but not say a single thing about any 'fans' to your friends who have arrived to such a terrible scene? To not try to explain to anyone what had happened - I had my back turned, and then, and then .. - how this awful accident happened? To not want to share that, so they can understand - it was not what you intended to do - and how. Make them believe. You would surely do so if you could??
And then afterwards, come up with this wonderful story which explains precisely how you missed her as you moved around the bed, always careful to have your back turned, as such.
That's got a big red cross through it IMO as a 'reconstruction' (of some kind - i wonder what kind?? :-):-) rather than a bona fide memory sequence lol
BiB: I didn't lol - second to last sentence - Personally I think he at least picked up the phone so it went off sleep mode.
If the phone stopped sleeping, so did he!
So it could be getting up, picking the phone up (as usual), it goes off sleep mode, links to GPS to update its Apps etc, while he's now moving around ... or it could be actually using it for 5 minutes in bed or someplace else to browse net.
Find it hard to believe it would be lying undisturbed on the carpet in sleep mode and then randomly link to network for 5 minutes.
However the lack of questions suggests it is something which can happen innocently but it's probably another one of those "less likely" explanations - of which there are many required.
P.S. Maybe Nel just taking this evidence as read and the defence experts on the matter have no objection and just say it "obviously" means the phone was activated so no one is ever going to bother contesting it (except us???) :cool:
It will surely be explained in Moller's report how to interpret the meaning of "internet GPS" connection - as to the various options. And if that's all accurate, nothing for the defence to query, and Masipa just needs to find the time to read all about it lol
I reckon OP and brother constructed the 'version' - having had a year and a half, to study everything -- adapting it as they've gone along...that's why it's such a mess.
I reckon they had huge whiteboards, venn diagrams, coloured boardmarker pens, which witnesses said what , when and where they lived to his house- and he had another board to construct his version,,--so he had a visual map to memorise his reconstructed version !
he's studied all the evidence, and said a lot of I WOULD HAVEs rather than I DID to Nel.......ensuring he had his back turned away from Reeva,as you say.;.. fitting in some nifty little things he did to take up his time....in the meantime, while she's meanwhile nipped off the bed......... lots of detail of each millisecond of curtain stroking/fan fumbling and then finishing with incredible hearing of that noise in the distance
But it's when OP says to Nel :
.obviously memory like the 4 shots is something I don't remember,.... but it's the fact that 4 shots were fired......um...... I can go through my whole version and I can tell you what I remember, we can do that again....
BIB: He couldn't even SAY the words "I fired 4 shots", he says "it's the fact that 4 shots were fired" , - he's totally detaching himself from being the person who fired the shots, as if he's not even involved,--- that's what liars do ! He's disassociated himself from having done any of it, he's had a year to distance himself. Think it's called denial ! :kitty::cool:
Yeah definitely agree "would have" sounds strange if you can't remember something, and probably "must have" is the best, or even "To the best of my recollection.." since memory is a finite / imperfect commodity.
But you admit you cannot actually remember the individual details.
If OP had done a bit less "I dids" it would sound more plausible to me. A bit like a horse to water, Nel invited him to entertain the possibility that you should be able to remember everything and OP accepted the challenge and duly remembered everything [except key details - lol]. Which was a mistake. ;-)
Obviously if you actually don't remember then although you might feel awkward saying it you will feel more relaxed about saying "I really can't remember that part clearly" and at some point the judge will intervene and say "stop badgering this witness!" Which she did.
OP made use of the "can't remember" option at the wrong moments really which were really implausible
- opening fire, firing
- his FRIEND that picked him up after he was shot at
- the SOMEONE that informed him Taylor & Fresco were out together.
At other times of course "I can't remember" is the "right" answer - such as being asked to describe what outfit you had on 4 years ago - in all probability - unless you since seen photos - you won't be able to remember!
So there's certain kinds of things people normally can or can't remember, and a person lying will often get them the wrong ways round! I'm sure his expensive legal team gave him plenty of preparation which would have been sufficient for an innocent person to answer "i don't remembers" the right way round!
Yep definitely:
Denial
Dissociation
Detachment
Distancing
from anything to do with even an awareness of firing
but at the same time:
Endless justifications for why he fired legitimately as possible at an intruder
and at the same time:
So much DETAIL when it comes to how he missed Reeva leave the room, despite
- not telling anyone any of the DETAILS in the hours afterwards
- then miscommunicating them to his legal team at the bail
- hearing what Nair + state case had to say
- and then remembering even MORE details lol
His story was always going to need to be detailed because he had a lot of things to 'explain'???
- going onto balcony just before (to search for her!?) (causing the fans story)
- grabbing gun without seeing her not there (causing bed side swap)
- if she would have called police in time (causing shouting)
- if someone would have heard "Get the F outta my house"
It all gets pretty convoluted as a result. I really don't think he can be doing so much explaining of details at the same time as acting like he hasn't a clue why he really fired. what is the judge to believe? He knows exactly what happened. Or he doesn't.
He seems to know exactly what he needs to know in order to miss Reeva and be justified as much as possible to shoot an intruder. But as Nel says, on this ONE point, firing the gun, you don't know.
Had to go back to this. Very good
Motivational quote gone wrong lol
As a social worker
And a journalist
And a judge
And a grandma
Is this probable???
Hahaha you bet. I know my kids can do no wrong in the eyes of their grandparents, so they've got the "butter wouldn't melt" approach honed to a fine art. You're right though - she would have met all sorts of tall-talkers and big-noters.
hahaha brilliant!
Reeva's browser was left open hence it looked like one long mammoth session on the internet from 20:04 for over 11 hours.
In the case of Pistorious's phone there two connections before midnight of less than 15mins each. Then there's no activity till 01:48:48 when there is a GPRS connection of 309 seconds (5mins 9secs), the next GPRS activity is at 03:18:45 for 75 seconds followed at 03:19:03 by the phone call to Stander following the shooting.
It's the gap between the midnight activity and 01:48 and then the gap till 03:18 makes it look like someone was active on the phone rather than the phone updating.
That a burglar uncharacteristically bypassed a broken window on the lower floor and somehow climbed to a closed second floor window in the hope it was unlocked.
The burglar opened the sliding window so noisily that it was heard by a person the other side of the house over the noise of an operating fan they were coincidently moving at the same time.
As soon as gaining access to the house the burglar goes into the toilet noisily slamming and locking the door.
Do we really believe an experienced judge is going to buy that load of horsefeathers?
No – nor do I
Guilty
1. Denial: "I - DID - NOT - FIRE - AT - REEVA."
2. Anger: "How do you sleep at night?"
3. Bargaining: pre-trial plea offer
4. Depression: depressive disorder and "escalating sense of loneliness and alienation... underlying some of his self-harming behaviour.”
Which just leaves
5. Acceptance.
No sign of this yet, but several years to reflect on things, locked away from the distractions of celebrity, might encourage him to come to an awareness that he is not the victim of a series of accidents, but rather the bringer of misery into others' lives.
I don't believe OP either. But, do you not mean that the Judge has to believe that OP believed this unlikely scenario to have happened when he armed himself?
No, not really.
If she doesn’t believe that scenario then the only conclusion must be - Pistorius is lying.
Once she concludes one part of his version is a lie then the whole version collapses like a pack of cards
Which it is why the long gaps and someone actively switched the phone on at 01:48:48 for 5mins 9 secs? (Ended at 01:53:57)
Then again after the shooting:
If Pistorius is lying, then he did not believe there was an intruder. If (improbably) he is not lying, then he did believe there was an intruder. IMO it still comes down to what Masipa believes OP believed. OP might have had very skewed ideas of what burglars were capable of, or inclined to do. Especially as he was someone so far removed from the rest of society, in his gated-community life.
Masipa doesn't have to believe that those three events occurred. In fact, she can't believe they occurred, because there was no intruder who was shot. But maybe I am reading your post the wrong way, or too literally...
where did you find out about the two connections before midnight? I've not been able to find anything except the 01:48 and later connections.
They are on the chart shown by the police expert, they were skipped over but although blurred you can make out they were less than 1000 seconds.
Here's the chart, highlighted is the last voice call by Pistorious at 20:25:07 the final four lines are GPRS connections 2 of short duration and the last two that look longer.
The timeline at the top would indicate the first two connections were around 21:00 and the last two after 22:30? Whatever the time the gap is significant before and after the 01:48:48 GPRS connection?
If theopposite of what he says is true, then he shot with legs on and used the bat with legs off ;-)
none of these are the sounds of a person, ALL are wood moving.
1. an intruder
he is very careful not to say the person made a sound - no noise climbing through the window, no noise jumping from the window to land on the tiles, no footsteps in the bathroom or inside the toilet, nothing.
2. Reeva
no peeing with the door open (before the door slammed shut), no flushing, no shuffling of feet or clothes, nothing.
why?
because -
1. would only happen if there was an intruder, which there wasn't, and
2. would mean he would have to have known it was Reeva and his version can't allow for that.
which person only makes wood noises? knowing as we do that it was only Reeva, she would not have crept around silently as if she were an intruder, but yet bang the window, slam the door, and knock the magazine rack against some wood.
the man's an idiot with an idiotic version, and one that has been disproved by evidence that
his fans were not on and in the places he said he put them,
that his curtains were open all along,
that the bathroom light was on,
that Reeva argued loudly,
that Reeva screamed and was heard screaming and shouting for help,
that Reeva had been up, and so too had he by his phone connections,
that Reeva could not have bled arterially on the upstairs walls if he had shot her first and batted second, with all that time wasted in between on the balcony and getting legs and sitting over her crying and placing her head down gently on the carpet>:( and then making calls and opening the front door,
and we are expected to believe that Burger and Johnson would have heard the cricket bat but not the gunshots
I can't believe there are people willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yes, I can see my wording is unclear. I was arguing against the suggestion (not yours) that he pushed her into the toilet with the plan of then shooting her through the door. As I understand it, your view is that he felt able to shoot her and get away with it because she had put a door between them and he had his alibi in mind before shooting? My view is that he shot in anger, inflamed further by the fact that she had shut him out, and came up with the intruder story afterwards.
Pinocchio? lol
The Woodentops?