1150 users online (220 members and 930 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 4 of 101 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 54 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 1510
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    a high bluff in Virginia
    Posts
    1,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Lux et Veritas View Post
    Robyn Curnow ?@RobynCurnowCNN Oct 21
    Prison official to CNN: #oscarpistorius is a 'B' group prisoner. Only allowed 2 no-contact visits during a weekend and 45 over the year.
    Not sure I'm reading this right. Are all 45 visits no-contact?

  2. #47
    Originally Posted by Estelle

    "My attacker was jailed. Do I have to be grateful?

    As a female victim of male violence, things could always be worse. But despite what society and the media tell us, there are no “small mercies”, and we don’t have to be grateful."

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...ve-be-grateful

    There is some reference to OP in this article which prompts my question: "Should the Steenkamps now feel grateful that OP is in prison?

    I speak from personal experience as an abuse survivor, so consider myself to be somewhat of an ‘expert’. I know the dynamics inside out.

    That a victim would even feel the need or have to ask such a question above illustrates the insidious power, the destructive stranglehold that VAW has on victims’ psyches.

    Must I?
    Should I?
    Can I?
    Would it be OK if?

    Constant, debilitating fear.
    Insecurity on every possible level.
    Zero self-esteem.

    Forever asking PERMISSION of not only the abuser, but anyone higher, anyone more powerful, anyone more worthy, more knowledgeable - which is essentially everyone else.

    It is psychological bondage - a spirit crushed into absolute subjection, a broken will compelled to obey ... or incur wrath and punishment.

    An abuser does not necessarily use physical violence to control. Angry, explosive rages* alone are entirely sufficient to terrorize, as is a subtle word, a threatening glance, a soft touch ... even ominous, ice-cold silence can easily command instant compliance.

    When one is in survival mode, one learns very quickly.

    Reeva:
    “I'm scared of u sometimes and how u snap at me and of how u will react to me. ... I do everything to make u happy and to not say anything to rock the boat with u. You do everything to throw tantrums in front of people. ... I can't be attacked by outsiders for dating you and be attacked by you -- the one person I deserve protection from.”


    That Masipa - an ex-social worker supposedly squarely in the corner of abused, victimized women - was so willfully, inexplicably blind, so grossly dismissive of Reeva’s clear words as nothing but indicative of a “fickle”, “normal” relationship is beyond comprehension.

    Fear is not normal.
    Walking on egg shells is not normal.
    Jealousy is not normal.
    Double standards are not normal.
    Public humiliation is not normal.
    Tantrums are not normal.

    Less than a week after her last angry, unhappy WhatsApp, she was DEAD.

    2 + 2 is not rocket science.

    Not only was Masipa grossly biased she was grossly incompetent in the extreme.

    The autopsy stated there were no physical signs of abuse. IMHO, considering multiple unexplained marks on her body, that’s highly debatable. Regardless, whether previous physical violence occurred or not, Reeva was clearly a victim of verbal and mental abuse - which led to murder.

    It’s absurd that an abuse victim should feel “grateful” when justice is done, however great or insufficient that justice might be. Justice is a human RIGHT. It’s not an arbitrary gift, some privilege handed out to the special, worthy few (at least in theory ).

    It is OP who should feel grateful he was not convicted of murder and sent down for 25 years to life.

    (Although OP’s gratefulness might be short-lived if Nel appeals and he’s upgraded to murder.)

    It's not always easy to see that you're being emotionally abused. In fact, this is normally how it plays out. The abused senses that something is wrong. S/he speaks out. The abuser does what s/he does best and the abused apologizes. The cycle repeats itself until something gives.
    - Mr Sandman, CNN comments
    * Up to and including property damage and animal abuse.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by 4MrsB View Post
    Thank you Mr. F - very thought provoking! And thank you for ALL your insight, time & analyst with regards to this trial, so helpful. Much appreciated.

    I am still absorbing the new "tweaks" to your original thoughts on the above. But would like to specifically ask at this time a question with regards to the call logs & Mr. Johnson. Suggesting Roux was actually using "the accused" version of times to support the "exact time of the calls". But how would Nel ever allow that?

    Would a seasoned prosecutor like Nel allow something so key as the official time of every call made, received, etc to be based on "the accused"? Wouldn't Nel make sure the times were validated through cell phone providers & Strubenkop call logs, etc?

    I understand that the verbiage Roux uses with Mr.Johnson is very suspect & could be interpreted as that. Perhaps he is just saying.."we received from the police . . . . the time the calls were made by accused". Not that the accused provided them. The whole thing sounds weird, because Mr. Johnson is asking about the acurracy of the calls HE MADE. So you're correct, why would Roux even mention "the accused" call records from police? Mr Johnson didn't call the accused on his phone.

    It's just hard to even imagine that Nel would let something as important as this slide.
    It does seem strange, I agree, but he never said the accused provided the times. I guess some would say it's what makes Roux 'good' at his job. I don't think either side had a problem with the time Johnson gave hence no need to acquire the phone records. I do though. And so did he! My guess is that over the course of the following year Burger had reason to correct the time on her phone and then it dawned on them that the time they had given might have been off. But Roux's explanation (which doesn't make sense) managed to befuddle Johnson enough on the stand for him to back down with a polite "thank you" under the misapprehension that his call time was kosher.
    "O, what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!" Sir Walter Scott

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjitty View Post
    I just feel we can't advance this without the exhibits.

    We need to know whether there were any independent, primary sources for the call times, or whether in fact the security phone log is basically it.

    How can we get this information?
    The judge said these exhibits were not to be made available to the public but only because they reveal individual's phone numbers. If they could be abbreviated like OP's was (e.g. 0020, 4949) then perhaps they could be? I'll try and follow it up. In the meantime, we have to make do with what we have.
    "O, what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!" Sir Walter Scott

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjitty View Post
    The bats have always been a red herring in my view.

    Long ago a superb refutation of the bats was posted by someone here - along the lines of how unlikely it was that multiple witnesses would mistakenly hear a woman screaming and shot to death 4 times - but wouldn't you know it? Only 5 mins previously she really was shot 4 times to death!
    Respectively snipped. BIB I think that was Nastaya, another very interesting poster like Shane13 who has not been seen for some time.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Fossil View Post
    The judge said these exhibits were not to be made available to the public but only because they reveal individual's phone numbers. If they could be abbreviated like OP's was (e.g. 0020, 4949) then perhaps they could be? I'll try and follow it up. In the meantime, we have to make do with what we have.
    Mr F, any feedback from Moller or Barry Bateman re the phone records?

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,095
    No. I'll contact Moller again and ask if some form of redacted phone exhibits can be made available. I only asked BB one question and I'm not sure if he's following it up or not. He asked for more info, whi I provided, and that was it. I'll chase this too and see if I can whet his appetite for some real investigative journalism!
    "O, what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!" Sir Walter Scott

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    a high bluff in Virginia
    Posts
    1,169
    Quote Originally Posted by lithgow1 View Post
    Just voted then - must admit I'm surprised at the way the votes are falling. No offence but I thought you'd made a typo with the balance of 'Yes' vs 'No'. I thought it would be the opposite.
    Lith, I was surprised too in the poll numbers. For me, however, it was a pleasant surprise.

    Before I give the analogy I came up with to help me decide how I would vote, I need for everybody to understand that I by no means put OP on the same level as Jonas Salk.

    Analogy: Suppose Jonas Salk had killed his wife after he came up with the cure/prevention of polio. Should he then be stripped of all honors, etc. which had been bestowed on him?

    Imo, OP's charitable work/donations did a lot of good and continue to do so. I don't think his credit for that should be removed.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    599
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Fossil View Post
    No. I'll contact Moller again and ask if some form of redacted phone exhibits can be made available. I only asked BB one question and I'm not sure if he's following it up or not. He asked for more info, whi I provided, and that was it. I'll chase this too and see if I can whet his appetite for some real investigative journalism!
    Mr F., you are doing such a precious work. Fascinating, passionate. Thank you so much for sharing and sorry for my lack of competence; I would love to contribute.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,954
    Quote Originally Posted by WilliamMunter View Post
    Respectively snipped. BIB I think that was Nastaya, another very interesting poster like Shane13 who has not been seen for some time.
    BIB - it was Nastaya, who wrote some great posts, as did Trooper, Shane, and Viper - all of whom have been sadly missing for some time.


  11. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,954
    Quote Originally Posted by foxbluff View Post
    Lith, I was surprised too in the poll numbers. For me, however, it was a pleasant surprise.

    Before I give the analogy I came up with to help me decide how I would vote, I need for everybody to understand that I by no means put OP on the same level as Jonas Salk.

    Analogy: Suppose Jonas Salk had killed his wife after he came up with the cure/prevention of polio. Should he then be stripped of all honors, etc. which had been bestowed on him?

    Imo, OP's charitable work/donations did a lot of good and continue to do so. I don't think his credit for that should be removed.
    BIB - Jimmy Savile made millions for charity, which just goes to show there can be ulterior motives for being (publicly) seen to be generous. For OP, I believe Nel mentioned it would have raised his public profile, which would have been beneficial to OP, from a financial point of view at least.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjitty View Post
    The bats have always been a red herring in my view.

    I see you agree.

    Long ago a superb refutation of the bats was posted by someone here - along the lines of how unlikely it was that multiple witnesses would mistakenly hear a woman screaming and shot to death 4 times - but wouldn't you know it? Only 5 mins previously she really was shot 4 times to death!
    Snipped

    Burger's bang....bang bang bang is one of the best bits of prosecution evidence IMO.

    Even if you're sceptical about her ability to hear screams that far from OP's house, or her ability to distinguish male and female screams, the fact that her description of the pattern of the sounds matches exactly with Mangena's forensic evidence of the gunshots is compelling.

    I'm working on the basis that, at the point at which she gave evidence, no one other than the NPA, PT and DT knew that level of detail, so there's no way she could have known, short of having been told as much by one of the above. As Nel would say, "Am I right?"

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,257
    Thinking back to Colonel Vermeulen's testimony i still find it difficult to see what the prosecution were trying to achieve, they put him up there to declare that in his opinion Pistorius was on his stumps when he used the bat but then failed to spell out whether it was possible that The bat was used on the door before the gunshot's, which seeing as they agreed he was on his prosthesis when he fired the shot's probably came across confusing.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,954
    Quote Originally Posted by delilah View Post
    Snipped

    Burger's bang....bang bang bang is one of the best bits of prosecution evidence IMO.

    Even if you're sceptical about her ability to hear screams that far from OP's house, or her ability to distinguish male and female screams, the fact that her description of the pattern of the sounds matches exactly with Mangena's forensic evidence of the gunshots is compelling.

    I'm working on the basis that, at the point at which she gave evidence, no one other than the NPA, PT and DT knew that level of detail, so there's no way she could have known, short of having been told as much by one of the above. As Nel would say, "Am I right?"
    I doubt very much she would have got that precise information, bang... bang bang bang - from anywhere. It fitted in completely with Mangena's testimony, which is why I couldn't understand why Masipa stated all the shots were fired in quick succession. Did she even explain why she totally discarded Mangena's testimony?

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,513
    Quote Originally Posted by foxbluff View Post
    Lith, I was surprised too in the poll numbers. For me, however, it was a pleasant surprise.

    Before I give the analogy I came up with to help me decide how I would vote, I need for everybody to understand that I by no means put OP on the same level as Jonas Salk.

    Analogy: Suppose Jonas Salk had killed his wife after he came up with the cure/prevention of polio. Should he then be stripped of all honors, etc. which had been bestowed on him?

    Imo, OP's charitable work/donations did a lot of good and continue to do so. I don't think his credit for that should be removed.
    Well, it's a strange analogy foxbluff since Jonas Salk didn't kill his wife. And I'm sure if he had that would be as associated with him as his good deeds and work. I also noted soozieqtips very apt comment on Jimmy Saville. My opinion is that allowing Pistorius to retain an honorary degree tarnishes it for other recipients, and I too am sceptical about how much of his charity work was altruistic and how much was just good PR. It was certainly recounted in great detail, honorary doctorate included, to try and get him a softer sentence just last week.

    At the time Pistorius was awarded the degree, 'Prof Sir Jim McDonald, principal of the university, said: "His sporting success, combined with his determination to help people affected by disability, has made him an excellent role model, not only for our graduating students here at Strathclyde but for millions of people across the globe"*. Does that still ring true to you? It doesn't to me.

    * http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-...-west-20296201

Page 4 of 101 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 54 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #8
    By Coldpizza in forum Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias
    Replies: 577
    Last Post: Today, 11:44 AM
  2. Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #5
    By KateB in forum Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias
    Replies: 1647
    Last Post: 03-26-2016, 09:56 PM
  3. Post sentencing discussion and the upcoming appeal
    By Harmony 2 in forum Oscar Pistorius
    Replies: 1631
    Last Post: 12-09-2014, 03:38 AM

Tags for this Thread