You really cannot see the bigger picture. Oscar never denied killing Reeva. However the Police did not help when preserving the Crime scene, remember Picking gun up without gloves on, stating only one person in bathroom when Photographic evidence shows another. How can anyone believe anything these people say or tell us about that night, and these were incidence they were caught out on on because of Photographic proof
Seriously??
The bigger picture is that a woman was shot dead.
All the picking at police work will not prove OP's version to be true, ever.
If half a dozen police went into that house and stole items, it will never prove OP was set up or that OP didn't know Reeva was in the toilet.
And why would anyone want to set up OP? He is a SA gold medalist and has done wonders for the Paralympics. Why would the SA police want to destroy OP?
It makes no sense. I would imagine the opposite IMO and some SA police would worry how on earth they could find a way to muddy the waters to try and cover up for him.
How can anyone believe anything these people say or tell us about that night, and these were incidence they were caught out on on because of Photographic proof
Something that might equally be said of OP who was caught out in a lie within 30 seconds of beginning his testimony - with video and audio proof! :cool:
These are all facts of the Trial, the picking up of the gunn without gloves was not owned up to it was seen on a photo, as were the other cock ups, picked up by Roux in cross and then admitted to. A Debate on here, don't make me laugh. I am not emotional enough for that Nonesense.
I am looking at your accusations with a professional head on.
You appear unable to provide some of the basic information I have requested.
I therefore shut the book on you unfounded ramblings.
All the picking at police work will not prove OP's version to be true, ever.
If half a dozen police went into that house and stole items, it will never prove OP was set up or that OP didn't know Reeva was in the toilet.
And why would anyone want to set up OP? He is a SA gold medalist and has done wonders for the Paralympics. Why would the SA police want to destroy OP?
It makes no sense. I would imagine the opposite IMO and some SA police would worry how on earth they could find a way to muddy the waters to try and cover up for him.
Oh gosh, maybe they did. ;-)
I don't think anyone is accusing the police of deliberately trying to set OP up.
All the picking at police work will not prove OP's version to be true, ever.
If half a dozen police went into that house and stole items, it will never prove OP was set up or that OP didn't know Reeva was in the toilet.
And why would anyone want to set up OP? He is a SA gold medalist and has done wonders for the Paralympics. Why would the SA police want to destroy OP?
It makes no sense. I would imagine the opposite IMO and some SA police would worry how on earth they could find a way to muddy the waters to try and cover up for him.
Oh gosh, maybe they did. ;-)
My argument is regarding lying, how can this be proven in view of the mess made by the Police. The most widely used phrase on here is that A Woman Died in circumstances as if any Poster who actually believes It was an Accident is somehow not fully aware of this.
Something that might equally be said of OP who was caught out in a lie within 30 seconds of beginning his testimony - with video and audio proof! :cool:
These are all facts of the Trial, the picking up of the gunn without gloves was not owned up to it was seen on a photo, as were the other cock ups, picked up by Roux in cross and then admitted to. A Debate on here, don't make me laugh. I am not emotional enough for that Nonesense.
What is the point in that comment?
If you think the debates in here are emotional nonsense, then why join in?
Or did you just come in to insult people?
What is the point in that?
We are all debating a case where a woman was shot dead. Everyone has different styles etc. The case has now taken a different turn whereby there may be an appeal and it interests many.
I could never be so belittleing as to think I'm better than someone else. We are all equal here and everywhere else.
It is good for the soul to regard others with the same rights as oneself and in so doing, not to take things too serious nor to put onself above others as some kind of super person.
We can differ about many things, use terms that may offend those who may be sensitive but quickly apologise. But overall, we do our best IMO.
Something that might equally be said of OP who was caught out in a lie within 30 seconds of beginning his testimony - with video and audio proof! :cool:
He said he'd forgotten. Where's the lie?
If Mrs Stipp forgets she held open a curtain then thats just forgetting. But for OP it has to be a lie. Hmmm
My argument is regarding lying, how can this be proven in view of the mess made by the Police. The most widely used phrase on here is that A Woman Died in circumstances as if any Poster who actually believes It was an Accident is somehow not fully aware of this.
You tell me what would be the police motive for lying?
Many judges in this country are older. And, you wait till you're 66yrs and you won't like being called old. :D
(I'm not 66yrs yet myself. I have a few yrs to go yet) ;-)
66 is young compared to some...I was referring to the senile bit...I guess a lot of us have some catching up to do on that front.
I am almost there myself, I was perfectly normal when the trial started, but there are huge doubts and questions in my mind now, I am questioning if its me that's bonkers or someone else. :D
66 is young compared to some...I was referring to the senile bit...I guess a lot of us have some catching up to do on that front.
I am almost there myself, I was perfectly normal when the trial started, but there are huge doubts and questions in my mind now, I am questioning if its me that's bonkers or someone else. :D
66 is young compared to some...I was referring to the senile bit...I guess a lot of us have some catching up to do on that front.
I am almost there myself, I was perfectly normal when the trial started, but there are huge doubts and questions in my mind now, I am questioning if its me that's bonkers or someone else. :D
So what would you call police tampering and lying about and of the crime scene?
If the police moved things without adequately recording where it all was originally, or failed to secure the crime scene adequately, or failed to follow correct procedure, it is nothing to do with deliberately setting someone up. Perhaps it was sloppy police work, or perhaps it's what happens with an overstretched, overworked police force. What it means though, is that inferences that rely on those photographs being a true reflection of the crime scene cannot be reliably made.
If the police moved things without adequately recording where it all was originally, or failed to secure the crime scene adequately, or failed to follow correct procedure, it is nothing to do with deliberately setting someone up. Perhaps it was sloppy police work, or perhaps it's what happens with an overstretched, overworked police force. What it means though, is that inferences that rely on those photographs being a true reflection of the crime scene cannot be reliably made.
Which photographs compromised the crime scene ? And as a result compromised OP and the verdict?
Good points in there about the appeal by juror 13.
I wonder how it would be if over here in the UK a jury told the judge that they will not consider certain pieces of evidence, what the judge would say?
Unless of course the judge told them when not to regard certain evidence which is common.
But, if a judge were to throw out the prosecution case basically, then would that not mean the whole case be thrown out and the accused let go free?
If the police moved things without adequately recording where it all was originally, or failed to secure the crime scene adequately, or failed to follow correct procedure, it is nothing to do with deliberately setting someone up. Perhaps it was sloppy police work, or perhaps it's what happens with an overstretched, overworked police force. What it means though, is that inferences that rely on those photographs being a true reflection of the crime scene cannot be reliably made.
James Grant @CriminalLawZA · 5h 5 hours ago
Defence to oppose application for leave to appeal - no surprises - but I can't see Masipa refusing leave - too much at stake.
0 replies 16 retweets 10 favorites
Reply Retweet16 Favorite10
More
They were locking up the crime scene for the day. Only police were there. Van Rensburg told us he searched the forensic team and their cars. No mention of any mysterious others. Carice, Aimee, Stander or Uncle Tom Cobley. Better evidence that that for OP as a murderer but apparently we're still not sure
and it changes the facts of the killing how?????
I've never mentioned any of the other people at all, I'm concentrating on how the disappearance of a watch seems to have huge significance for you.
You've told me I'm missing the point of it's importance, please explain what that is in relation to the killing of a young lady.
You really cannot see the bigger picture. Oscar never denied killing Reeva. However the Police did not help when preserving the Crime scene, remember Picking gun up without gloves on, stating only one person in bathroom when Photographic evidence shows another. How can anyone believe anything these people say or tell us about that night, and these were incidence they were caught out on on because of Photographic proof
I suggest I'm seeing the bigger picture rather better than you are.
Oscar killed Reeva - the watch had no bearing on that at all.
Police touching the gun does nothing to change the fact that it was the gun which was used for the shooting.
The number of people in the bathroom after the crime does not change the crime at all.
How can we believe a word OP says or tells us about that night when the judge herself described him as untruthful with his evidence ? He was there at the time of the killing, the police were not!
I know you don't think OP lied, the Judge saw it differently to you which it makes it even more amazing that you agree with her judgement and sentence.
"Zombie stopper" is not a word you ever forget. Especially if you are the one using it - with obvious relish too. Remember he didn't know what it was, and had never used it. Until the video was shown, when he suddenly remembered. As good a definition of a lie as you will find in the court transcript.
It had no effect on the verdict or sentence of course but it was an early indication of the ease with which OP could lie and subsequently change his story. Something which would be seen repeatedly in the testimony that followed.
I have always been of the opinion that initially the police believed OPs story about an intruder. That's why they allowed his family and friends and lawyer to tramp all over the crime scene. This was a guy who was revered in S Africa. He certainly was not treated the way any murder suspect should have been initially. He had access to family , he washed , didn't Botha fetch his phone for him when he was in the garage? His brother and lawyer removed stuff from the safe. This is all mistakes by the police. I'm sure that like many of us they wanted to believe him.
Comments
Seriously??
The bigger picture is that a woman was shot dead.
All the picking at police work will not prove OP's version to be true, ever.
If half a dozen police went into that house and stole items, it will never prove OP was set up or that OP didn't know Reeva was in the toilet.
And why would anyone want to set up OP? He is a SA gold medalist and has done wonders for the Paralympics. Why would the SA police want to destroy OP?
It makes no sense. I would imagine the opposite IMO and some SA police would worry how on earth they could find a way to muddy the waters to try and cover up for him.
Oh gosh, maybe they did. ;-)
Something that might equally be said of OP who was caught out in a lie within 30 seconds of beginning his testimony - with video and audio proof! :cool:
I am looking at your accusations with a professional head on.
You appear unable to provide some of the basic information I have requested.
I therefore shut the book on you unfounded ramblings.
Next.
I don't think anyone is accusing the police of deliberately trying to set OP up.
Well that rather puts all the childish bickering on here into some kind of perspective doesn't it.
My argument is regarding lying, how can this be proven in view of the mess made by the Police. The most widely used phrase on here is that A Woman Died in circumstances as if any Poster who actually believes It was an Accident is somehow not fully aware of this.
Thank you. You beat me to it.:)
Seriously.!!!!!!!!
What is the point in that comment?
If you think the debates in here are emotional nonsense, then why join in?
Or did you just come in to insult people?
What is the point in that?
We are all debating a case where a woman was shot dead. Everyone has different styles etc. The case has now taken a different turn whereby there may be an appeal and it interests many.
I could never be so belittleing as to think I'm better than someone else. We are all equal here and everywhere else.
It is good for the soul to regard others with the same rights as oneself and in so doing, not to take things too serious nor to put onself above others as some kind of super person.
We can differ about many things, use terms that may offend those who may be sensitive but quickly apologise. But overall, we do our best IMO.
So what would you call police tampering and lying about and of the crime scene?
He said he'd forgotten. Where's the lie?
If Mrs Stipp forgets she held open a curtain then thats just forgetting. But for OP it has to be a lie. Hmmm
You tell me what would be the police motive for lying?
66 is young compared to some...I was referring to the senile bit...I guess a lot of us have some catching up to do on that front.
I am almost there myself, I was perfectly normal when the trial started, but there are huge doubts and questions in my mind now, I am questioning if its me that's bonkers or someone else.
^^^^^^^ ditto.
You are so so funny. ;-)
If the police moved things without adequately recording where it all was originally, or failed to secure the crime scene adequately, or failed to follow correct procedure, it is nothing to do with deliberately setting someone up. Perhaps it was sloppy police work, or perhaps it's what happens with an overstretched, overworked police force. What it means though, is that inferences that rely on those photographs being a true reflection of the crime scene cannot be reliably made.
Which photographs compromised the crime scene ? And as a result compromised OP and the verdict?
Thanks Imogen.
Good points in there about the appeal by juror 13.
I wonder how it would be if over here in the UK a jury told the judge that they will not consider certain pieces of evidence, what the judge would say?
Unless of course the judge told them when not to regard certain evidence which is common.
But, if a judge were to throw out the prosecution case basically, then would that not mean the whole case be thrown out and the accused let go free?
Well, there you have it in your own post.
This also applies to the missing watch. ;-)
Check it out. Oh no, that would make sense. Bothered Not.
Defence to oppose application for leave to appeal - no surprises - but I can't see Masipa refusing leave - too much at stake.
0 replies 16 retweets 10 favorites
Reply Retweet16 Favorite10
More
and it changes the facts of the killing how?????
I've never mentioned any of the other people at all, I'm concentrating on how the disappearance of a watch seems to have huge significance for you.
You've told me I'm missing the point of it's importance, please explain what that is in relation to the killing of a young lady.
I suggest I'm seeing the bigger picture rather better than you are.
Oscar killed Reeva - the watch had no bearing on that at all.
Police touching the gun does nothing to change the fact that it was the gun which was used for the shooting.
The number of people in the bathroom after the crime does not change the crime at all.
How can we believe a word OP says or tells us about that night when the judge herself described him as untruthful with his evidence ? He was there at the time of the killing, the police were not!
I know you don't think OP lied, the Judge saw it differently to you which it makes it even more amazing that you agree with her judgement and sentence.
Oh I think we both know that's not true.
"Zombie stopper" is not a word you ever forget. Especially if you are the one using it - with obvious relish too. Remember he didn't know what it was, and had never used it. Until the video was shown, when he suddenly remembered. As good a definition of a lie as you will find in the court transcript.
It had no effect on the verdict or sentence of course but it was an early indication of the ease with which OP could lie and subsequently change his story. Something which would be seen repeatedly in the testimony that followed.