Looking at my calendar and using my fingers I am minded that we are now just about halfway between Masipa setting the date for the verdict and the verdict itself.
As we know a lot of this is speculation and something Nel steered clear off. One of the remarkable results of this Trial is how many people have taken up the cause (their cause) to explain what happened. Here's A Guy taking a different swing at this bat and door proving possibly? that OP was on his Legs. Commentators under seem not to understand that it is not just the Prosecution going along (fro simplicity sake) with the on Stumps scenario but this is the Defences argument. A lot of Commentators dip in and out and have not followed the Trial and there's where Rouxs Mendacity can alter the wider perception to favour OP.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at vis a vis my post here plankwalker, but you are absolutely right, there are a lot of passionate 'positions', and it's all speculation I agree.
And Roux 'shoving all sorts of things' out there does make people put a lot of effort into 'proving' stuff, often when the premise is itself dodgy.
But there you go. In that way Roux has done a good job for the defense. I'm glad this isn't a jury trial.
I'm very pleased that Nel wasn't drawn into speculation, and avoided the tons of alternative crap that would have come up if he had.
He doesn't know what happened, any more than anyone does bar OP and he ain't telling.
Nel concentrated on what he could prove and what bore sensible thinking about.
So having both legs amputated at the knee is a bit like being shortsighted or having a stutter.
The shocked face smiley is probably a decent enough substitute for the mindboggled smiley at this point.
The danger here is we see people with disability as automatically different. Its important that they are treated equally and considerately to their disability if it may be limiting.
I would hate to have a World where people are listed and graded according to their inabilities, singled out, type casted and made to feel tolerated as opposed to a welcomed member, for all their positives, of the greater community.
As we know a lot of this is speculation and something Nel steered clear off. One of the remarkable results of this Trial is how many people have taken up the cause (their cause) to explain what happened. Here's A Guy taking a different swing at this bat and door proving possibly? that OP was on his Legs. Commentators under seem not to understand that it is not just the Prosecution going along (fro simplicity sake) with the on Stumps scenario but this is the Defences argument. A lot of Commentators dip in and out and have not followed the Trial and there's where Rouxs Mendacity can alter the wider perception to favour OP.
I'd have liked the state to leave it open about his legs. Simply to say, we don't know, both are consistent (as Mangena said). And then to say; IF they were up and about, and downstairs at any time, prosthetics is almost inevitable. IF he was moved around a lot, going outside onto balcony, shifting position between A+B and C+D it seems more probable he was on prosthetics. Perhaps note: He has no choice to say anything but he was on stumps, to fit his "waking up" story. If we reject the story, we can at least say there is no particular reason to believe he was on stumps.
OP's own testimony: I put my legs on to move around house.
So if the court would accept he moved around house during the hour...then he was on prosthetics.
Honestly don't see why they had to PICK an option instead of make that kind of "circumstantial" arguments. The case was always going to be "prove he is lying" so why take that part on "faith".
Even if they can't prove prosthetics, definitely, well they can't prove the argument definitely either(!) - but at least the two would fit together!
Once OP's evidence is rejected in general, there's no special reason to believe him on the stumps either. I think if he shot RS on stumps there would be more scope of psychologists to step in to explain it. So if that's false, it's a significant slip to concede it.
Again, I've got no problem with the Johnson's - I think they are telling the truth, I can't see why they would lie.
And I've no problems with OP saying help help help in the bathroom and then going to the front and shouting it. And the times were close but not the same. And I don't see how you can say 'they are the same', unless you speculate about Mikes evidence.
But we're never going to agree here Moniker
Having sincere but possibly wrong impressions isn't the same as lying!
If Mike and Mr. Johnson are accurate about the TIMES in their evidence, then "help help help" was the same set everyone else heard. Some time soon before 3:16. That's their evidence.
The "helps" in all a man's voice not at front because Van der Merwe didn't hear but Stipp did. Stipp on same side to Burger/Johnson.
We have "help help help" at same time heard in different households. The only difference is the first "help" in the group sounded female to people living 180m away whereas they were "all male" to others living nearer (though in an 'embarrassed' voice).
It also turns out the person making the male helps "sounded like a woman" to another neighbour that very morning, while crying.
I don't think that's particularly strong evidence for two collections of "help help help" rather than one!
Anyway - Burger/Johnson - either wrong about their times, or wrong about the first "help" being in a female voice. Take your pick regarding the error they made, that's fine, it's not lies either way! ;-)
Having sincere but possibly wrong impressions isn't the same as lying! Lying requires intention to mislead Never said they had that.
If they are accurate about the TIMES, then "help help help" was the same set everyone else heard.
If only there was another set of "helps" later, and Burger/Johnson heard both groups, or if only Stipps heard both groups. Burger/Johnson and Stipps both live at the back, on the same side, and Stipp heard "help help help" all male voice. Can't see how going round the front works. Mrs Van der Merwe didn't hear the helps at all.
So they're either wrong about their times, or wrong about the first "help" being in a female voice.
Take your pick regarding the error they made, that's fine, it's not lies. ;-)
The fact remains we have "help help help" recorded by both Mike's household and Burger/Johnson household and based on the times they are just the same thing.
What does a female voice mean for the first help? A higher pitch. Is that impossible. For OP, who "sounded like a woman" when crying. I don't think it's impossible!
I think that two people, independently, hearing two different voices simultaneously, or even intermingled, and THAT being OP screaming like a man and a woman, is a massive, massive stretch, myself.
A female screaming, a male and female screaming shouting and then shots which kill the woman, sounds enormously more likely than -
- OP screaming like a woman, for NO real reason AT ALL, then screaming like a woman and screaming like a man in and out very closely, or simultaneously, and then banging the door down and it's THAT that everyone heard, and not the GUN, is well, pretty much beyond credibility.
And Johnson's times were never even SAID ever to be accurate, he couldn't be.
I think that two people, independently, hearing two different voices simultaneously, or even intermingled, and THAT being OP screaming like a man and a woman, is a massive, massive stretch, myself.
A female screaming, a male and female screaming shouting and then shots which kill the woman, sounds enormously more likely than -
- OP screaming like a woman, for NO real reason AT ALL, then screaming like a woman and screaming like a man in and out very closely, or simultaneously, and then banging the door down and it's THAT that everyone heard, and not the GUN, is well, pretty much beyond credibility.
Yes I agree and as said before the "2 voices" impressions is the strongest evidence to indicate this stuff is real.
This is the difficulty because other lines of evidence pull against that hard fact of people saying it, and I'm likewise extremely reluctant to reach a conclusion in the negative about it.
But if Burger/Johnson heard "help help help" at the same time as Nhlengethwas and Stipp - and their evidence suggests they did - and those nearer households report only the man calling it out, perhaps in an 'embarrassed' voice - then i'm afraid the 2 voices impression is practically impossible to be two people.
Because then indeed the nearest neighbours at 15m were awake simultaneous with the screams heard 180m away. If so then there was NO screaming female after first bangs. Those at greater removes made mistakes based on pitch.
The cries were then intermingled in the sense of alternating, not simultaneous.
And Johnson's times were never even SAID ever to be accurate, he couldn't be.
Yep, as I said, take your pick on the error they made, either "help help help" had a high pitched but male one at the start, or alternatively, Burger/Johnson got their times wrong, and all the events, including perhaps even the phone call will be shifted a few minutes earlier.
I don't have a major problem with that EXCEPT Nel has never made the argument for the latter in court and in fact has generally argued that they got the times correct.
It's really hard to see what a judge can do with that other than assume the obvious which is "help help help" was heard at the same time by two households because it was in fact the same cries!
All this juggling things around ... she might as well do the same for OP's bedroom furniture and find him innocent.
I don't like stuff being juggled without a proper explanation. It's improper. And unlawly! LOL (That's not a real word)
The point is easy to follow surely. It is not about a disability per se but about comparing the degrees of impairment between different disabilities.
Simples, no mindboggling required at all
Do you mean obfuscation? No, I think the point is being clearly made. Having both legs amputated at the knee may be a "slight impairment" akin to having a stutter or being short-sighted.
I am indeed mindboggled that some posters are so keen to avoid any kind of sympathetic feeling for OP that they're making such astonishing comparisons.
(Frankly I don't know why they even bother with the Paralympics. Some of those jokers are out there pretending to be "disabled" when all they're missing is a hand or a foot or an eye. My theory is they're doing it for the free parking. I'm short-sighted, have seasonal allergies, and furthermore I sprained my ankle the other day. Where's my special Olympics, that's what I want to know.)
You've already decided none of them heard a woman's screams, even though the evidence that Reeva did was overwhelming , - and VDM heard an argument means they were both awake and having an argument for an hour before OP shot her- guess that didn't happen either ? -
It does depend where every one of those neighbours was at time of hearing anything in their homes, and what attention they gave to hearing anything on waking up, some did more than others, mostly would have been very confused as to what they were hearing,- and the Stipps 'help' did not give evidence in Court - Dr Stipp however, did and if that Judge believes Stipp saw the bathroom light on and heard screaming from a woman at the same time..........that's it, OP's testimony will be disregarded and OP will be charged with Murder.
Not to mention that from the earwitnesses we do know Reeva screamed, OP was terrorising her,. and she died from multiple gunshot wounds fired by OP through a door into where Reeva had shut herself away from him - so the timing of who heard what in space of minutes, half a minute is not going to have much of a bearing..
Well said Sandy!- OP, Uncle A and Roux et al MUST KNOW he is destiined for the clanger.
Do you mean obfuscation? No, I think the point is being clearly made. Having both legs amputated at the knee may be a "slight impairment" akin to having a stutter or being short-sighted.
I am indeed mindboggled that some posters are so keen to avoid any kind of sympathetic feeling for OP that they're making such astonishing comparisons.
(Frankly I don't know why they even bother with the Paralympics. Some of those jokers are out there pretending to be "disabled" when all they're missing is a hand or a foot or an eye. My theory is they're doing it for the free parking. I'm short-sighted, have seasonal allergies, and furthermore I sprained my ankle the other day. Where's my special Olympics, that's what I want to know.)
Actually there have been a few people in Paralympics pretending to be disabled lol
The Spanish paralympian football team in the mental impairments category was disqualified a few years ago when it was revealed that about half the side, was in fact OK.
So it happens.
Bit harder to fake the loss of a limb though.
But honestly I have to say ... if OP brutally murdered a girl and is now lying profusely with a sense of "no blame" thrown into the bargain ... why the hell is his amputeeism grounds for sympathy on this occasion?
It might be at other times, but why is that relevant now?
My uncle was beaten with a cricket bat case of mistaken identity, he had very severe facial injuries it was a pretty common 'weapon' at the time, probably because rounders bats weren't heavy enough and baseball bats pretty rare in 1950s Manchester!
It's pretty extreme like I say! I just googled about cricket bats, it's true there's a few cases. One guy attacked an intruder. In another case someone mentally unstable killed their 11 year old son. I remember that case now...
If OP had laid a hand in such a way as bruised even a single girl in the past and this evidence came into trial I would sit up and listen a lot more attentively I guess. As it is, can't help but feel there's something wrong with the picture of the "innately violent" in a hands on sense. He is, however, a gun lover, and that only requires to press a trigger.
It's pretty extreme like I say! I just googled about cricket bats, it's true there's a few cases. One guy attacked an intruder. In another case someone mentally unstable killed their 11 year old son. I remember that case now...
It's definitely not out of the question for OP (or anyone) - who goes crazy - but it does depend on the ear witnesses to have not made a collective error due to pitch.
Not found anyone beating a girl with one though. Or terrorizing someone with one.
There's a massive difference IMO between firing a gun and taking a weapon to strike blows onto someone, or even around them.
The former is accessible to anyone, they can inflict fatal degree of violence using nothing more than a finger, and can even do so from 100m away. The latter requires being innately comfortable with physical violence.
The bat was definitely used as a tool to break into cubicle, we know that. So it's additional use as a weapon of terror seems at best coincidental in order to reconcile what the Stipps heard and then afterwards Burger/Johnson to some kind of reality.
Of course, if those witnesses got the wrong idea, then the support for the bat as a weapon of terror would slip away quite dramatically!
I was once utterly terrorised by my husband chasing me around our home with a wooden knobkerrie . It's a very hard wooden stick from Africa . Believe me had it hit me on the head it would possibly have killed me. As it was he smashed the banister rods on the stairs and the bathroom door. I cannot begin to describe how utterly terrified I was.
I was fortunate he did not own a gun.
I honestly think that perhaps you do not know a lot about DV. And how terrorising the victim with bats, sticks, guns knives is very much part of an abusers operandi .
The numbers of people who actually die , tho shocking , is very small compared with the thousands of victims of abuse in all it's forms on a daily basis.
As many as 1in 4 crimes in the UK are some form of DV.
Why you think it extraordinary that he would use the bat to terrorise or frighten her is at odds with the well documented facts about DV. What is more unusual is that it escalated to the point of shooting her.
Domestic violence
Domestic violence occurs when a person uses physical violence, coercion, threats, intimidation, isolation, stalking, or emotional, sexual or economic abuse to gain or maintain power and control over another partner in an intimate relationship. This includes any behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone.
Domestic violence can be a single act or a pattern of behavior in relationships, which Michigan law defines as: currently or formerly married, currently or formerly dating, currently or formerly living together, or having a child in common. Domestic violence may be known by other terms, including intimate partner violence or relationship abuse. Many behaviors associated with domestic violence are crimes.
Survivor
If he wept over his actions after it was "why me, why did this have to happen to me?"
But he could answer his own question easily by reflecting on the fact he had the nerve 5 days later to say "If there should be a trial against me..."
If that's your attitude, it's no longer a mystery why you shoot people and then blubber about it.
The world doesn't have a duty to pick up the pieces for people that don't even accept they did a thing wrong in the process of wiping out another human being. Sorry Professor Schultz. If you cause devastation, that's pretty much always the end of the line so far as the civilized world goes...
Still doesn't get why he shot does he, in terms of the necessity of admission and then change. Even if the psychologist was a klutz, doesn't mean the court has to follow suit. Come on Masipa(!), give him a dose of reality, with the perspective and wisdom of all your years of life! You might just teach him something which no one else seemingly in his world was willing to say.
So many yes men uggh. It's about bloody time someone with a bit of authority said it like it is. I hope she's properly stern and uncompromising! ;-)
Shouting her lungs off at the TV area in order to communicate to OP in his bedroom?
RS voice might just be one of those voices which carries a long way. Some people can be heard across a room or a crowd, others not!
BIB: It is worth watching the TV Show RS participated in, Paradise Island whatever. Her voice is raspy and thin, it would not carry well at all - and I'm not disputing the evidence that witnesses heard her that night (that also depends on where the wind's coming from, etc.)
Shouting her lungs off at the TV area in order to communicate to OP in his bedroom?
RS voice might just be one of those voices which carries a long way. Some people can be heard across a room or a crowd, others not!
BIB: It is worth watching the TV Show RS participated in, Paradise Island whatever. Her voice is raspy and thin, it would not carry well at all - and I'm not disputing the evidence that witnesses heard her that night (that also depends on where the wind's coming from, etc.)
Her voice sounds really feminine to me. Plus you never know how a person will shout unless they should and scream until they are pushed to it.
Has the verdict come in yet?........ Sorry if I seem dim but I cant go through the thread (it is so long)... and all I seem to see is every few months on the news the case is starting again but I never hear of any conclusions!.........
Has the verdict come in yet?........ Sorry if I seem dim but I cant go through the thread (it is so long)... and all I seem to see is every few months on the news the case is starting again but I never hear of any conclusions!.........
I was once utterly terrorised by my husband chasing me around our home with a wooden knobkerrie . It's a very hard wooden stick from Africa . Believe me had it hit me on the head it would possibly have killed me. As it was he smashed the banister rods on the stairs and the bathroom door. I cannot begin to describe how utterly terrified I was.
I was fortunate he did not own a gun.
I honestly think that perhaps you do not know a lot about DV. And how terrorising the victim with bats, sticks, guns knives is very much part of an abusers operandi .
The numbers of people who actually die , tho shocking , is very small compared with the thousands of victims of abuse in all it's forms on a daily basis.
As many as 1in 4 crimes in the UK are some form of DV.
Why you think it extraordinary that he would use the bat to terrorise or frighten her is at odds with the well documented facts about DV. What is more unusual is that it escalated to the point of shooting her.
Domestic violence
Domestic violence occurs when a person uses physical violence, coercion, threats, intimidation, isolation, stalking, or emotional, sexual or economic abuse to gain or maintain power and control over another partner in an intimate relationship. This includes any behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone.
Domestic violence can be a single act or a pattern of behavior in relationships, which Michigan law defines as: currently or formerly married, currently or formerly dating, currently or formerly living together, or having a child in common. Domestic violence may be known by other terms, including intimate partner violence or relationship abuse. Many behaviors associated with domestic violence are crimes.
Survivor
Well true these are certain themes but that's kind of my point, why didn't it happen with other girlfriends like that, if it was his character, it would be ongoing thing. Sam Taylor. All that time. Never got chased with an implement.
What we have here is a man that shot a girl, we know that much as a fact. It might be due to breaking up. RS messages indicate that is a likelihood, to be her decision.
Is it possible that this fact - the man shoots the woman - leads to the expectation of a more typical DV "without cause i.e. aggressive rampage" not only among people that experienced it, but in fact in the media as well: Remember The Sun was all over the blood stains on that cricket bat, he HAD beaten her with it, so far as the papers were concerned.
Professor Saayman disagreed.
The bat: That the same thing was used for two purposes, one 'terror', and then one 'practical'? We know the practical almost as a fact - to break into locked cubicle - we don't know the terror but can only imagine it.
It all depends on the accuracy of ear witnesses, there's no other evidence. No one saw RS at the window, or in bathroom. No one saw OP at that toilet door remonstrating with her.
Face value: There was only one set of helps at around the time the two households of Burger/Johnson and Nhlengethwa hear it shortly before 3:16.
If that is correct, the times line up, and there was only one set of helps, the basis for this domestic violence + terror scenario will surely collapse.
We would just be left with angry man shoots girl and is afterwards wailing in self-pity. He seems the type, frankly. ;-)
ETA: Next time any of your partners does that, hopefully never(!), inform the forum give us the GPS coordinates for his local pub, and we will dispense some vigilante justice out.
Do you mean obfuscation? No, I think the point is being clearly made. Having both legs amputated at the knee may be a "slight impairment" akin to having a stutter or being short-sighted.
I am indeed mindboggled that some posters are so keen to avoid any kind of sympathetic feeling for OP that they're making such astonishing comparisons.
(Frankly I don't know why they even bother with the Paralympics. Some of those jokers are out there pretending to be "disabled" when all they're missing is a hand or a foot or an eye. My theory is they're doing it for the free parking. I'm short-sighted, have seasonal allergies, and furthermore I sprained my ankle the other day. Where's my special Olympics, that's what I want to know.)
No, I mean confuscation as in to confuse
The point under discussion is brought about by Pistorius himself not wanting, that is up until the murder, any sympathetic considerations himself for his disability.
As I said before it is not comparing the physicality of two conditions but the effect to the individual of the condition itself. In which case the limiting factors of Pistorius’ disability can readily be compared with the limiting factors of say a stutter or being short-sighted. Indeed I’m sure before the tragic event Pistorius would have considered referring to his condition as a ‘slight impairment’ to be an overstatement.
However, suddenly when it suits, his disability which he has played down all his life comes to the fore as part of his attempt to escape a murder charge.
Personally, I have little sympathy for two reasons
Firstly, even accepting he may not have had his prostheses on when he supposedly heard the sound, it would have taken him less time to put them on than it took to get his firearm (I believe he claims less than 30 seconds to fit them).
Secondly, we now know thanks to the video, he is a lot more mobile on his stumps than he would have the court believe, or indeed more mobile than some ‘experts’ would try to deceive the court into believing.
Well true these are certain themes but that's kind of my point, why didn't it happen with other girlfriends like that, if it was his character, it would be ongoing thing. Sam Taylor. All that time. Never got chased with an implement.
<snipped for brevity>
Sam Taylor may have been much more pliable and less inclined to challenge OP. From what we know of Reeva I suspect she would have stood up to him - and from my experience, this is the one thing you don't do to a bully such as we suppose OP to be. Someone meeker than Reeva would not have had the confidence to challenge him - so he wouldn't have needed to shut her up
I think OP was trying to silence Reeva, but she wouldn't be browbeaten. So much so that he 'had' to shoot her to keep her quiet.
Comments
So that means it is all downhill from this point
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at vis a vis my post here plankwalker, but you are absolutely right, there are a lot of passionate 'positions', and it's all speculation I agree.
And Roux 'shoving all sorts of things' out there does make people put a lot of effort into 'proving' stuff, often when the premise is itself dodgy.
But there you go. In that way Roux has done a good job for the defense. I'm glad this isn't a jury trial.
I'm very pleased that Nel wasn't drawn into speculation, and avoided the tons of alternative crap that would have come up if he had.
He doesn't know what happened, any more than anyone does bar OP and he ain't telling.
Nel concentrated on what he could prove and what bore sensible thinking about.
I think he did very well.
The danger here is we see people with disability as automatically different. Its important that they are treated equally and considerately to their disability if it may be limiting.
I would hate to have a World where people are listed and graded according to their inabilities, singled out, type casted and made to feel tolerated as opposed to a welcomed member, for all their positives, of the greater community.
Why 'at the knee', when it's quite a bit below the knee?
Better than 'no legs' I suppose, but still the exaggeration.
Do I smell deliberate confuscation?
The point is easy to follow surely. It is not about a disability per se but about comparing the degrees of impairment between different disabilities.
Simples, no mindboggling required at all
I'd have liked the state to leave it open about his legs. Simply to say, we don't know, both are consistent (as Mangena said). And then to say; IF they were up and about, and downstairs at any time, prosthetics is almost inevitable. IF he was moved around a lot, going outside onto balcony, shifting position between A+B and C+D it seems more probable he was on prosthetics. Perhaps note: He has no choice to say anything but he was on stumps, to fit his "waking up" story. If we reject the story, we can at least say there is no particular reason to believe he was on stumps.
OP's own testimony: I put my legs on to move around house.
So if the court would accept he moved around house during the hour...then he was on prosthetics.
Honestly don't see why they had to PICK an option instead of make that kind of "circumstantial" arguments. The case was always going to be "prove he is lying" so why take that part on "faith".
Even if they can't prove prosthetics, definitely, well they can't prove the argument definitely either(!) - but at least the two would fit together!
Once OP's evidence is rejected in general, there's no special reason to believe him on the stumps either. I think if he shot RS on stumps there would be more scope of psychologists to step in to explain it. So if that's false, it's a significant slip to concede it.
Having sincere but possibly wrong impressions isn't the same as lying!
If Mike and Mr. Johnson are accurate about the TIMES in their evidence, then "help help help" was the same set everyone else heard. Some time soon before 3:16. That's their evidence.
The "helps" in all a man's voice not at front because Van der Merwe didn't hear but Stipp did. Stipp on same side to Burger/Johnson.
We have "help help help" at same time heard in different households. The only difference is the first "help" in the group sounded female to people living 180m away whereas they were "all male" to others living nearer (though in an 'embarrassed' voice).
It also turns out the person making the male helps "sounded like a woman" to another neighbour that very morning, while crying.
I don't think that's particularly strong evidence for two collections of "help help help" rather than one!
Anyway - Burger/Johnson - either wrong about their times, or wrong about the first "help" being in a female voice. Take your pick regarding the error they made, that's fine, it's not lies either way! ;-)
I think that two people, independently, hearing two different voices simultaneously, or even intermingled, and THAT being OP screaming like a man and a woman, is a massive, massive stretch, myself.
A female screaming, a male and female screaming shouting and then shots which kill the woman, sounds enormously more likely than -
- OP screaming like a woman, for NO real reason AT ALL, then screaming like a woman and screaming like a man in and out very closely, or simultaneously, and then banging the door down and it's THAT that everyone heard, and not the GUN, is well, pretty much beyond credibility.
And Johnson's times were never even SAID ever to be accurate, he couldn't be.
Yes I agree and as said before the "2 voices" impressions is the strongest evidence to indicate this stuff is real.
This is the difficulty because other lines of evidence pull against that hard fact of people saying it, and I'm likewise extremely reluctant to reach a conclusion in the negative about it.
But if Burger/Johnson heard "help help help" at the same time as Nhlengethwas and Stipp - and their evidence suggests they did - and those nearer households report only the man calling it out, perhaps in an 'embarrassed' voice - then i'm afraid the 2 voices impression is practically impossible to be two people.
Because then indeed the nearest neighbours at 15m were awake simultaneous with the screams heard 180m away. If so then there was NO screaming female after first bangs. Those at greater removes made mistakes based on pitch.
The cries were then intermingled in the sense of alternating, not simultaneous.
Yep, as I said, take your pick on the error they made, either "help help help" had a high pitched but male one at the start, or alternatively, Burger/Johnson got their times wrong, and all the events, including perhaps even the phone call will be shifted a few minutes earlier.
I don't have a major problem with that EXCEPT Nel has never made the argument for the latter in court and in fact has generally argued that they got the times correct.
It's really hard to see what a judge can do with that other than assume the obvious which is "help help help" was heard at the same time by two households because it was in fact the same cries!
All this juggling things around ... she might as well do the same for OP's bedroom furniture and find him innocent.
I don't like stuff being juggled without a proper explanation. It's improper. And unlawly! LOL (That's not a real word)
Do you mean obfuscation? No, I think the point is being clearly made. Having both legs amputated at the knee may be a "slight impairment" akin to having a stutter or being short-sighted.
I am indeed mindboggled that some posters are so keen to avoid any kind of sympathetic feeling for OP that they're making such astonishing comparisons.
(Frankly I don't know why they even bother with the Paralympics. Some of those jokers are out there pretending to be "disabled" when all they're missing is a hand or a foot or an eye. My theory is they're doing it for the free parking. I'm short-sighted, have seasonal allergies, and furthermore I sprained my ankle the other day. Where's my special Olympics, that's what I want to know.)
Well said Sandy!- OP, Uncle A and Roux et al MUST KNOW he is destiined for the clanger.
Actually there have been a few people in Paralympics pretending to be disabled lol
The Spanish paralympian football team in the mental impairments category was disqualified a few years ago when it was revealed that about half the side, was in fact OK.
So it happens.
Bit harder to fake the loss of a limb though.
But honestly I have to say ... if OP brutally murdered a girl and is now lying profusely with a sense of "no blame" thrown into the bargain ... why the hell is his amputeeism grounds for sympathy on this occasion?
It might be at other times, but why is that relevant now?
It's pretty extreme like I say! I just googled about cricket bats, it's true there's a few cases. One guy attacked an intruder. In another case someone mentally unstable killed their 11 year old son. I remember that case now...
If OP had laid a hand in such a way as bruised even a single girl in the past and this evidence came into trial I would sit up and listen a lot more attentively I guess. As it is, can't help but feel there's something wrong with the picture of the "innately violent" in a hands on sense. He is, however, a gun lover, and that only requires to press a trigger.
I was once utterly terrorised by my husband chasing me around our home with a wooden knobkerrie . It's a very hard wooden stick from Africa . Believe me had it hit me on the head it would possibly have killed me. As it was he smashed the banister rods on the stairs and the bathroom door. I cannot begin to describe how utterly terrified I was.
I was fortunate he did not own a gun.
I honestly think that perhaps you do not know a lot about DV. And how terrorising the victim with bats, sticks, guns knives is very much part of an abusers operandi .
The numbers of people who actually die , tho shocking , is very small compared with the thousands of victims of abuse in all it's forms on a daily basis.
As many as 1in 4 crimes in the UK are some form of DV.
Why you think it extraordinary that he would use the bat to terrorise or frighten her is at odds with the well documented facts about DV. What is more unusual is that it escalated to the point of shooting her.
Domestic violence
Domestic violence occurs when a person uses physical violence, coercion, threats, intimidation, isolation, stalking, or emotional, sexual or economic abuse to gain or maintain power and control over another partner in an intimate relationship. This includes any behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone.
Domestic violence can be a single act or a pattern of behavior in relationships, which Michigan law defines as: currently or formerly married, currently or formerly dating, currently or formerly living together, or having a child in common. Domestic violence may be known by other terms, including intimate partner violence or relationship abuse. Many behaviors associated with domestic violence are crimes.
Survivor
But he could answer his own question easily by reflecting on the fact he had the nerve 5 days later to say "If there should be a trial against me..."
If that's your attitude, it's no longer a mystery why you shoot people and then blubber about it.
The world doesn't have a duty to pick up the pieces for people that don't even accept they did a thing wrong in the process of wiping out another human being. Sorry Professor Schultz. If you cause devastation, that's pretty much always the end of the line so far as the civilized world goes...
Still doesn't get why he shot does he, in terms of the necessity of admission and then change. Even if the psychologist was a klutz, doesn't mean the court has to follow suit. Come on Masipa(!), give him a dose of reality, with the perspective and wisdom of all your years of life! You might just teach him something which no one else seemingly in his world was willing to say.
So many yes men uggh. It's about bloody time someone with a bit of authority said it like it is. I hope she's properly stern and uncompromising! ;-)
Excellent. Thank you.
The 11th of September, I think
Well true these are certain themes but that's kind of my point, why didn't it happen with other girlfriends like that, if it was his character, it would be ongoing thing. Sam Taylor. All that time. Never got chased with an implement.
What we have here is a man that shot a girl, we know that much as a fact. It might be due to breaking up. RS messages indicate that is a likelihood, to be her decision.
Is it possible that this fact - the man shoots the woman - leads to the expectation of a more typical DV "without cause i.e. aggressive rampage" not only among people that experienced it, but in fact in the media as well: Remember The Sun was all over the blood stains on that cricket bat, he HAD beaten her with it, so far as the papers were concerned.
Professor Saayman disagreed.
The bat: That the same thing was used for two purposes, one 'terror', and then one 'practical'? We know the practical almost as a fact - to break into locked cubicle - we don't know the terror but can only imagine it.
It all depends on the accuracy of ear witnesses, there's no other evidence. No one saw RS at the window, or in bathroom. No one saw OP at that toilet door remonstrating with her.
Face value: There was only one set of helps at around the time the two households of Burger/Johnson and Nhlengethwa hear it shortly before 3:16.
If that is correct, the times line up, and there was only one set of helps, the basis for this domestic violence + terror scenario will surely collapse.
We would just be left with angry man shoots girl and is afterwards wailing in self-pity. He seems the type, frankly. ;-)
ETA: Next time any of your partners does that, hopefully never(!), inform the forum give us the GPS coordinates for his local pub, and we will dispense some vigilante justice out.
No, I mean confuscation as in to confuse
The point under discussion is brought about by Pistorius himself not wanting, that is up until the murder, any sympathetic considerations himself for his disability.
As I said before it is not comparing the physicality of two conditions but the effect to the individual of the condition itself. In which case the limiting factors of Pistorius’ disability can readily be compared with the limiting factors of say a stutter or being short-sighted. Indeed I’m sure before the tragic event Pistorius would have considered referring to his condition as a ‘slight impairment’ to be an overstatement.
However, suddenly when it suits, his disability which he has played down all his life comes to the fore as part of his attempt to escape a murder charge.
Personally, I have little sympathy for two reasons
Firstly, even accepting he may not have had his prostheses on when he supposedly heard the sound, it would have taken him less time to put them on than it took to get his firearm (I believe he claims less than 30 seconds to fit them).
Secondly, we now know thanks to the video, he is a lot more mobile on his stumps than he would have the court believe, or indeed more mobile than some ‘experts’ would try to deceive the court into believing.