Are you one of those who thinks the phone times must be wrong?
I merely make a point about the near physically impossibility of Reeva not screaming as she died an agonising death and you worry about blo*dy phone times!!!!
Your sympathy for the deceased knows no bounds >:(
I know it was already discussed - I was often one of the posters discussing it
I think you are getting confused between the different versions. What you say above is the defense version and since he was hearing the noises at the same time as the near neighbours and Burger/Johnson, they must be the same noises.
They aren't the same noises. That's what the defense early on wanted to plant in people's minds.
Burger stuck to her account and said she heard a man and a woman. So did Stipp.
They logically aren't all mistaken.
No test was ever produced that OP sounds like a woman, and Sam Taylor says he screamed at them a number of times and didn't sound like a woman.
I merely make a point about the near physically impossibility of Reeva not screaming as she died an agonising death and you worry about blo*dy phone times!!!!
Your sympathy for the deceased knows no bounds >:(
You weren't making that point in isolation. You were basically saying she must have screamed, therefore OP must have heard. You say it's physically impossible that she didn't scream but that's not true, is it. She may well have been shot again so quickly that she was unconscious before she could realise what was happening. That's why the state spent so much time trying to convince the court that there must have been a gap between the first and subsequent shots.
It doesn't show sympathy for the victim to make statements that may not be true as though they are.
It doesn't show a lack of sympathy to question the evidence when there is good reason to.
You weren't making that point in isolation. You were basically saying she must have screamed, therefore OP must have heard. You say it's physically impossible that she didn't scream but that's not true, is it. She may well have been shot again so quickly that she was unconscious before she could realise what was happening. That's why the state spent so much time trying to convince the court that there must have been a gap between the first and subsequent shots.
It doesn't show sympathy for the victim to make statements that may not be true as though they are.
It doesn't show a lack of sympathy to question the evidence when there is good reason to.
And the defence claimed double taps until they realised it didn't help their case.
They aren't the same noises. That's what the defense early on wanted to plant in people's minds.
Burger stuck to her account and said she heard a man and a woman. So did Stipp.
They logically aren't all mistaken.
No test was ever produced that OP sounds like a woman, and Sam Taylor says he screamed at them a number of times and didn't sound like a woman.
There's no point in discussing this with you if you won't actually look at the key evidence that I outlined in my earlier posts. Witness evidence is notoriously unreliable. The court had to go with known information like the phone times.
I was referring to the debate on here during the Trial regarding Prof. Dermains evidence, not the level of intellect on here. Your last point is just nonsensical.
There is nothing nonsensical about it whatsoever.
Perhaps you couldn't answer the point seen as you keep going on and on about people with qualifications have more rights to make decisions than laypeople who the latter in your mind are not capable of much.
Do you see where your insults get you?
It leaves you stuck in a debate and not able to answer but instead follow it with more insults.
The term ‘animus’ was used in the context of possession. In other words she argued he did not have the ‘animus’ or ‘intention’ to possess the ammunition.
My problem is she, or the assessors did not, or appeared not to have, looked at the obvious reason why he WOULD have intention to possess.
That is, he had a firearm on order that would discharge that calibre of ammunition.
For all the other firearms he had on order he had also ordered suitable ammunition at the same time.
So why did he not order .38 ammunition? Because he already had some in his safe perhaps?
In which case he clearly HAD intention to possess.
Makes a lot more sense than the idiotic excuse that it belonged to a father who didn't live locally and to whom he had not spoken to for years.
That obvious scenario did not even get a mention before they all set off on a journey to try and redefine possession itself as contained in an Act which is supposed to ensure the safe handling of firearms. Now Masipa has set a dangerous precedent by her judgement. One really has to question why when there was a much more obvious answer, the problem being of course she would have to have found him guilty in that case.
I can't find a mention of that, can you remember who said it?
I could only find a picture of the first page of the invoice but if you turn the contrast up in a paint package there appears to be 3 things on page 2. Sean Rens reads out the first two from page 2 as another shotgun and then rifle and the third looks to be quantity "1" so he hasn't bought ammunition for the shotguns, rifles or .38 in the same order.
But when did Mrs N hear the man crying for help? Before the 3:16 phone call. So probably around 3:15. When did Burger/Johnson hear a man crying for help? In the minutes before 3:17. This doesn't conflict.
It's illogical to say that male crying before 3:16 was some different sound from the female screaming heard before 3:17 i.e. heard at the same time. That's what is really illogical.
Have you ever thought ' hey, all these phone times, what do they actually say. Does it really prove OP didn't know Reeva was in the toilet?'
You weren't making that point in isolation. You were basically saying she must have screamed, therefore OP must have heard. You say it's physically impossible that she didn't scream but that's not true, is it. She may well have been shot again so quickly that she was unconscious before she could realise what was happening. That's why the state spent so much time trying to convince the court that there must have been a gap between the first and subsequent shots.
I doesn't show sympathy for the victim to made statements that may not be true as though they are.
It doesn't show a lack of sympathy to question the evidence when there is good reason to.
So in essence the defense had to use five different strategies: that the police tampered with the evidence or moved it, that Reeva was unable to scream, that the witnesses who are quite sure they heard a woman scream, didn't, that OP sounds like a woman when he screams (although no evidence of this was even produced and in fact the evidence was that he was crying) and that he had some sort of anxiety problem that would make him unaware of his intent to shoot to kill.
I think Roux even told the judge what verdict he wanted.
As the first bullet shattered her hip and she fell backwards I’m sure she was thinking ‘Oh God the pain, the pain, but I must remain silent because of the ‘intruder’
Of course in the real world she would have screamed her head off but of course still remembering to scream like Pistorius.
Poor girl she really didn’t deserve to die at the hands of that pathetic egotistical gun nut
I'm not sure it can be said with any certainty that she made much if any noise.
You weren't making that point in isolation. You were basically saying she must have screamed, therefore OP must have heard. You say it's physically impossible that she didn't scream but that's not true, is it. She may well have been shot again so quickly that she was unconscious before she could realise what was happening. That's why the state spent so much time trying to convince the court that there must have been a gap between the first and subsequent shots.
It doesn't show sympathy for the victim to make statements that may not be true as though they are.
It doesn't show a lack of sympathy to question the evidence when there is good reason to.
However, Professor Gert Saymaan concluded that Reeva might well have been able to scream during the shots that killed her. He referred specifically to the gunshot wounds in her arm and hip saying in his opinion it would be very unusual if a person didn’t scream after that kind of severe injury.
Depends who you want to believe a known liar ‘fighting for his life’ or an eminent pathologist.
There's no point in discussing this with you if you won't actually look at the key evidence that I outlined in my earlier posts. Witness evidence is notoriously unreliable. The court had to go with known information like the phone times.
Not all witnesses are notoriously unreliable. The witnesses agreed on key points. Burger heard a woman scream around 3 AM.
The timeline then cannot be as precise as you are making it because not everyone was looking at their watches.
That is why a Jury would never have worked in a trial of this magnitude. Lay people would not have the capacity or knowledge
to understand as your post so obviously demonstrates.
This is a very simple case actually, complicated a little to begin with by the term dolus. Once dolus is understood it is very not complex at all.
But what actually occurred, one man killing one woman, or one house owner killing an intruder or one human killing another human, the options are pretty limited would you not think?
Don't ever judge people by the book cover...you will be very surprised what is contained within :D
However, Professor Gert Saymaan concluded that Reeva might well have been able to scream during the shots that killed her. He referred specifically to the gunshot wounds in her arm and hip saying in his opinion it would be very unusual if a person didn’t scream after that kind of severe injury.
Depends who you want to believe a known liar ‘fighting for his life’ or an eminent pathologist.
Have you ever thought ' hey, all these phone times, what do they actually say. Does it really prove OP didn't know Reeva was in the toilet?'
What they show is that OP's version might be reasonably possibly true. This is a version given 2 days after the event when he didn't know what evidence from neighbours or anyone else was available or even exactly what the prosecution were alleging.
The state argument for his guilt was almost entirely based on the female screams and the phone times evidence if it is correct negates this evidence by showing that the screaming happened at the same time that closer neighbours were hearing male crying.
That's the relevance of it. If the timeline is correct then it corroborates OP's version to the extent that there were shots then OP crying then bats. It doesn't prove that he didn't know RS was in the toilet, just that the state's version that she was heard screaming is wrong.
Without that evidence the state don't have enough to dispute OP's version.
I can't find a mention of that, can you remember who said it?
I could only find a picture of the first page of the invoice but if you turn the contrast up in a paint package there appears to be 3 things on page 2. Sean Rens reads out the first two from page 2 as another shotgun and then rifle and the third looks to be quantity "1" so he hasn't bought ammunition for the shotguns, rifles or .38 in the same order.
I see what you are saying, I was under the impression the first page was the full order as the invoice says page 1 of 1, on closer inspection there actually does appear to be more than one page, I can make out the words "heavy Barrel" and the third one down seems to be "2 x .38 rounds".
It's a different cash total as well.
Assuming it is 2x.38 round then he has ordered .38 ammunition at the same time.
We said similar... and the "I left something out" comments, I have never heard of an incomplete sentence being read as a judgement before.
Does anyone have an explanation for these "Multi choice " sections?
Remembering this trial took place in SA it is certainly wise to question if some of the more ‘unusual’ aspects of the verdict can be attributed to political or other forces at work.
Interesting article here from which the following is extracted…..
President Zuma is not solely responsible for all corruption in the public sector, but he certainly has stymied any progress that could have been made in this regard. In addition to his own shady dealings with people like convicted fraudster Shabir Shaik, he has repeatedly appointed people of low ethical standards to key positions in cabinet and the criminal justice system.
So in essence the defense had to use five different strategies: that the police tampered with the evidence or moved it, that Reeva was unable to scream, that the witnesses who are quite sure they heard a woman scream, didn't, that OP sounds like a woman when he screams (although no evidence of this was even produced and in fact the evidence was that he was crying) and that he had some sort of anxiety problem that would make him unaware of his intent to shoot to kill.
I think Roux even told the judge what verdict he wanted.
Amazing if you can do it.
The defense succeeded with all but the last, which was always a stretch.
Both Roux and Nel told the judge what verdict they wanted. Isn't that their job?
What they show is that OP's version might be reasonably possibly true. This is a version given 2 days after the event when he didn't know what evidence from neighbours or anyone else was available or even exactly what the prosecution were alleging.
The state argument for his guilt was almost entirely based on the female screams and the phone times evidence if it is correct negates this evidence by showing that the screaming happened at the same time that closer neighbours were hearing male crying.
That's the relevance of it. If the timeline is correct then it corroborates OP's version to the extent that there were shots then OP crying then bats. It doesn't prove that he didn't know RS was in the toilet, just that the state's version that she was heard screaming is wrong.
Without that evidence the state don't have enough to dispute OP's version.
Are you saying that this version that OP gave two days after the incident is the same version he gave on the stand? All of it?
Comments
I merely make a point about the near physically impossibility of Reeva not screaming as she died an agonising death and you worry about blo*dy phone times!!!!
Your sympathy for the deceased knows no bounds >:(
:cool::cool::cool:
Hilarious.............
They aren't the same noises. That's what the defense early on wanted to plant in people's minds.
Burger stuck to her account and said she heard a man and a woman. So did Stipp.
They logically aren't all mistaken.
No test was ever produced that OP sounds like a woman, and Sam Taylor says he screamed at them a number of times and didn't sound like a woman.
You weren't making that point in isolation. You were basically saying she must have screamed, therefore OP must have heard. You say it's physically impossible that she didn't scream but that's not true, is it. She may well have been shot again so quickly that she was unconscious before she could realise what was happening. That's why the state spent so much time trying to convince the court that there must have been a gap between the first and subsequent shots.
It doesn't show sympathy for the victim to make statements that may not be true as though they are.
It doesn't show a lack of sympathy to question the evidence when there is good reason to.
And the defence claimed double taps until they realised it didn't help their case.
There's no point in discussing this with you if you won't actually look at the key evidence that I outlined in my earlier posts. Witness evidence is notoriously unreliable. The court had to go with known information like the phone times.
There is nothing nonsensical about it whatsoever.
Perhaps you couldn't answer the point seen as you keep going on and on about people with qualifications have more rights to make decisions than laypeople who the latter in your mind are not capable of much.
Do you see where your insults get you?
It leaves you stuck in a debate and not able to answer but instead follow it with more insults.
I never said the defense made no mistakes.
I can't find a mention of that, can you remember who said it?
I could only find a picture of the first page of the invoice but if you turn the contrast up in a paint package there appears to be 3 things on page 2. Sean Rens reads out the first two from page 2 as another shotgun and then rifle and the third looks to be quantity "1" so he hasn't bought ammunition for the shotguns, rifles or .38 in the same order.
http://i.imgur.com/GQC58bo.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAWZWcw62KY&feature=player_detailpage#t=527
Have you ever thought ' hey, all these phone times, what do they actually say. Does it really prove OP didn't know Reeva was in the toilet?'
So in essence the defense had to use five different strategies: that the police tampered with the evidence or moved it, that Reeva was unable to scream, that the witnesses who are quite sure they heard a woman scream, didn't, that OP sounds like a woman when he screams (although no evidence of this was even produced and in fact the evidence was that he was crying) and that he had some sort of anxiety problem that would make him unaware of his intent to shoot to kill.
I think Roux even told the judge what verdict he wanted.
Amazing if you can do it.
We said similar... and the "I left something out" comments, I have never heard of an incomplete sentence being read as a judgement before.
Does anyone have an explanation for these "Multi choice " sections?
I'm not sure it can be said with any certainty that she made much if any noise.
However, Professor Gert Saymaan concluded that Reeva might well have been able to scream during the shots that killed her. He referred specifically to the gunshot wounds in her arm and hip saying in his opinion it would be very unusual if a person didn’t scream after that kind of severe injury.
Depends who you want to believe a known liar ‘fighting for his life’ or an eminent pathologist.
Not all witnesses are notoriously unreliable. The witnesses agreed on key points. Burger heard a woman scream around 3 AM.
The timeline then cannot be as precise as you are making it because not everyone was looking at their watches.
This is a very simple case actually, complicated a little to begin with by the term dolus. Once dolus is understood it is very not complex at all.
But what actually occurred, one man killing one woman, or one house owner killing an intruder or one human killing another human, the options are pretty limited would you not think?
Don't ever judge people by the book cover...you will be very surprised what is contained within
A farting liar every time, obviously. ;-):kitty:
Nothing can be said with certainty, but five witnesses hearing screaming and those hearing both a man and a woman, lend credibility to their accounts.
What they show is that OP's version might be reasonably possibly true. This is a version given 2 days after the event when he didn't know what evidence from neighbours or anyone else was available or even exactly what the prosecution were alleging.
The state argument for his guilt was almost entirely based on the female screams and the phone times evidence if it is correct negates this evidence by showing that the screaming happened at the same time that closer neighbours were hearing male crying.
That's the relevance of it. If the timeline is correct then it corroborates OP's version to the extent that there were shots then OP crying then bats. It doesn't prove that he didn't know RS was in the toilet, just that the state's version that she was heard screaming is wrong.
Without that evidence the state don't have enough to dispute OP's version.
I see what you are saying, I was under the impression the first page was the full order as the invoice says page 1 of 1, on closer inspection there actually does appear to be more than one page, I can make out the words "heavy Barrel" and the third one down seems to be "2 x .38 rounds".
It's a different cash total as well.
Assuming it is 2x.38 round then he has ordered .38 ammunition at the same time.
How does the timeline rely on anyone looking at their watches? It's phone times.
That they agree on key points doesn't change that other witnesses heard something else at the same time.
Remembering this trial took place in SA it is certainly wise to question if some of the more ‘unusual’ aspects of the verdict can be attributed to political or other forces at work.
Interesting article here from which the following is extracted…..
President Zuma is not solely responsible for all corruption in the public sector, but he certainly has stymied any progress that could have been made in this regard. In addition to his own shady dealings with people like convicted fraudster Shabir Shaik, he has repeatedly appointed people of low ethical standards to key positions in cabinet and the criminal justice system.
The defense succeeded with all but the last, which was always a stretch.
Both Roux and Nel told the judge what verdict they wanted. Isn't that their job?
Are you saying that this version that OP gave two days after the incident is the same version he gave on the stand? All of it?