The LED light was important, as were the other lights e.g. on the TV. They would not discuss it at length unless it was vital.
Nel wanted it to be vital Annie but he fell flat on his nose. He wanted to try to show that other lights should have bothered him too, when in fact there was almost zero light coming from those illuminations.
OP gave NO HISTORY of emotional stress to the Doctor, that's what she told Nel.
AND
Nel : OP thought there was an intruder ?
DR: That's what he told me yes
Nel: He, armed himself and approached the danger- he foresaw the possibility he might have to shoot..?.. , or why would he arm himself ?.... , he went further and he did shoot
DR : YES (she AGREED)
Nel: Dolcus Eventualis before he got to the door, and when he fired he completed Dolcus Eventualis ...........as we know he fired at the door
DR : YES
That was probably the most important exchange in what was a highly dramatic day of testimony. For a defence witness to agree with Nel that OP's actions (in his version and GAD taken into account) were Dolus Eventualis was massive.
I don't think Oscar is guilty at all..his story makes total sense to me. For some morbid reason people find pleasure in wishing a man to go behind bars. You're forgetting one thing a crime needs - a MOTIVE! He was a successful sports star and role model and he was in love with his beautiful girlfriend whom he planned to marry. This was all clearly a tragic accident and when I see the prosecution going for hours questioning about the LED light on a TV then I can see plainly that they are clutching at straws.
Good luck to him is all I can say, I hope he finds peace once this ordeal for him is over.
But he IS guilty. He has admitted killing her. By saying he is not guilty you are calling him a liar. I hope Reeva's family find peace, and I also hope he gets the justice he deserves whatever that might be.
She wouldn't have to be a character witness and you know it. She would have probative evidence of being "assaulted" and you know Nel would have peed his pants if she would have gone on the stand and took the oath.
One reason she didn't--she would have been ripped apart by Roux.
I don't know what you are talking about ...?
Oscar shut her leg in the door. There were probably witnesses who could have backed her up as well.
Obviously the main reason why she did not appear (apart from the prosecution avoiding all character witnesses) is that she's been gagged in their out of court settlement.
On the stand. She was one of the first state witnesses.
At the very least this is imho proof of instances of intruder anxiety prior to the shooting now we know what the psychiatrist has said. Ms Taylor also explained that on one occasion the noises Oscar heard he believed to be coming from his bathroom. They discovered it was just the wind outside against the window.
Nel wanted it to be vital Annie but he fell flat on his nose. He wanted to try to show that other lights should have bothered him too, when in fact there was almost zero light coming from those illuminations.
More attempted misdirection. And more fail.
Err, didnt they prove that the stereo would have to be switched on to give the blue light that OP testified to?
Of course if its switched on, it gives a LOT more light.
But lets not let those facts get in the way of your opinion.
Nel wanted it to be vital Annie but he fell flat on his nose. He wanted to try to show that other lights should have bothered him too, when in fact there was almost zero light coming from those illuminations.
More attempted misdirection. And more fail.
Well that is how it came across to you. To me Nel clearly demonstrated that there were a number of LED style lights on in the room, yet Oscar was apparently only bothered by one of them - enough to take the time to cover it in the middle of the night.
Anyway, my point was that lights in the room were important rather than 'clutching at straws'. It was vital to determine how much could be seen in the room AND how many LED lights were on (yet for some reason did not bother Oscar).
That was probably the most important exchange in what was a highly dramatic day of testimony. For a defence witness to agree with Nel that OP's actions (in his version and GAD taken into account) were Dolus Eventualis was massive.
It certainly showed intent to kill the intruder and negates putative self defence. Nel was on point here. Truly massive moment.
The prosecution was about these cases, they could only bring in a brief reference over incidents with Samantha Taylor.
Did he lose his rag through anxiety with the police officer who dared to make his gun safe or being an arrogant git?
I think what we need clarified is
Does his form of 'heightened emotional state' (anxiety) stem from a desire to enact an action man role? (pleasure)
or
Does his form of 'heightened emotional state' (anxiety) stem from a desire to survive (necessity).
Oscar shut her leg in the door. There were probably witnesses who could have backed her up as well.
Obviously the main reason why she did not appear (apart from the prosecution avoiding all character witnesses) is that she's been gagged in their out of court settlement.
I would bet you dollars to Pringle chips that there would be witnesses who saw her being histrionic and unreasonable and Oscar just tried to shut the door.
When you are rich and you have people wanting a piece of what you have, you have spurious claims made against you that cost you more to defend than to settle.
Have you heard about the woman suing McDonalds for the coffee being too hot? Give me a break.
Oscar shut her leg in the door. There were probably witnesses who could have backed her up as well.
Obviously the main reason why she did not appear (apart from the prosecution avoiding all character witnesses) is that she's been gagged in their out of court settlement.
I know right? I'm pretty sure the settlement would have come with terms & conditions.
On the stand. She was one of the first state witnesses.
At the very least this is imho proof of instances of intruder anxiety prior to the shooting now we know what the psychiatrist has said. Ms Taylor also explained that on one occasion the noises Oscar heard he believed to be coming from his bathroom. They discovered it was just the wind outside against the window.
How is it proof of intruder anxiety? He was very lax a bout his home security. IMO it was proof that he is a gun-happy maniac, as we saw when he fired the gun in the restaurant and through the car sunroof, and stating he wanted to shoot a robot and his laughing about zombie-stoppers.
Err, didnt they prove that the stereo would have to be switched on to give the blue light that OP testified to?
Of course if its switched on, it gives a LOT more light.
But lets not let those facts get in the way of your opinion.
It was illuminated as are many that can be bothersome for people to sleep and it was illuminated when he went to drape the jeans over it. It was enough for him to see the outlines of the jeans.
Oscar shut her leg in the door. There were probably witnesses who could have backed her up as well.
Obviously the main reason why she did not appear (apart from the prosecution avoiding all character witnesses) is that she's been gagged in their out of court settlement.
Yes, exactly. The Pistorius family have money. Money = Power, particularly in places where there are clear economic or racial divisions not that the victim of the assault would have been poor, but that the Pistorius held the power here.
On the stand. She was one of the first state witnesses.
At the very least this is imho proof of instances of intruder anxiety prior to the shooting now we know what the psychiatrist has said. Ms Taylor also explained that on one occasion the noises Oscar heard he believed to be coming from his bathroom. They discovered it was just the wind outside against the window.
Yes. It's hard to argue with the notion that Pistorius DID display clear signs of intruder anxiety prior to the shooting. IMO this is a crucial and compelling part of the defence.
Did you just mention hamsters because I have joined?
can I be top hamster?, can I, can I?
Just to be clear, as a newcomer here, that I don't believe OP is innocent.
At first glance I thought the post was referencing you and I had to reread that sentence. You just might be our only hamster so you might as well be the top one.
Comments
Then you won't mind when Roux re-examines her right?
Me too. Stirrer is Kepel's middle name.
Nel wanted it to be vital Annie but he fell flat on his nose. He wanted to try to show that other lights should have bothered him too, when in fact there was almost zero light coming from those illuminations.
More attempted misdirection. And more fail.
That was probably the most important exchange in what was a highly dramatic day of testimony. For a defence witness to agree with Nel that OP's actions (in his version and GAD taken into account) were Dolus Eventualis was massive.
But he IS guilty. He has admitted killing her. By saying he is not guilty you are calling him a liar. I hope Reeva's family find peace, and I also hope he gets the justice he deserves whatever that might be.
I don't know what you are talking about ...?
Oscar shut her leg in the door. There were probably witnesses who could have backed her up as well.
Obviously the main reason why she did not appear (apart from the prosecution avoiding all character witnesses) is that she's been gagged in their out of court settlement.
OP's "twitchiness" re intruders 47.00 MARKER
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj8TF4MrO8Q
47.20 approx MARKER - An incident when a friend stayed - OP didn't have his legs on.
Err, didnt they prove that the stereo would have to be switched on to give the blue light that OP testified to?
Of course if its switched on, it gives a LOT more light.
But lets not let those facts get in the way of your opinion.
Well that is how it came across to you. To me Nel clearly demonstrated that there were a number of LED style lights on in the room, yet Oscar was apparently only bothered by one of them - enough to take the time to cover it in the middle of the night.
Anyway, my point was that lights in the room were important rather than 'clutching at straws'. It was vital to determine how much could be seen in the room AND how many LED lights were on (yet for some reason did not bother Oscar).
It certainly showed intent to kill the intruder and negates putative self defence. Nel was on point here. Truly massive moment.
Sorry I should've added about the anxiety disorder and the psychiatric evaluation?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMi1epmqkko
Monday 12 May 2014, Session 2
From 48.15 mins in..............
NEL : He wanted to shoot an intruder , is that what he said ?
DR: That's what he told me yes
I think what we need clarified is
Does his form of 'heightened emotional state' (anxiety) stem from a desire to enact an action man role? (pleasure)
or
Does his form of 'heightened emotional state' (anxiety) stem from a desire to survive (necessity).
I would bet you dollars to Pringle chips that there would be witnesses who saw her being histrionic and unreasonable and Oscar just tried to shut the door.
When you are rich and you have people wanting a piece of what you have, you have spurious claims made against you that cost you more to defend than to settle.
Have you heard about the woman suing McDonalds for the coffee being too hot? Give me a break.
Hear, hear.
I know right? I'm pretty sure the settlement would have come with terms & conditions.
How is it proof of intruder anxiety? He was very lax a bout his home security. IMO it was proof that he is a gun-happy maniac, as we saw when he fired the gun in the restaurant and through the car sunroof, and stating he wanted to shoot a robot and his laughing about zombie-stoppers.
It was illuminated as are many that can be bothersome for people to sleep and it was illuminated when he went to drape the jeans over it. It was enough for him to see the outlines of the jeans.
Argghhhhh That is who he reminds me of. Thank you
The French Open? It'll probably impact on Wimbledon!
Yes, exactly. The Pistorius family have money. Money = Power, particularly in places where there are clear economic or racial divisions not that the victim of the assault would have been poor, but that the Pistorius held the power here.
Yes. It's hard to argue with the notion that Pistorius DID display clear signs of intruder anxiety prior to the shooting. IMO this is a crucial and compelling part of the defence.
At first glance I thought the post was referencing you and I had to reread that sentence.
Wimbledon 2015...