Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

[Colin de France]

.....another thing which is bugging me apart from his fear of intruders and having the ladder outside is how convienient it was that it was there that night.....

 

[aftermath]

.......let's take one step at a time please......go back over what i and others have wrote from the start and you will see that it's a long run of incoherencies from Pistorius which go against someone that was telling the truth....and there's more....for example the tears and puking up except for the moment he was sent to prison which makes his stance before look even more like acting....

All your opinion, of course. What run of incoherencies?

The vomiting tended to occur when details of Steenkamp's injuries were referred to - but I am sure you know that really. The tears were pretty consistent throughout the trial. So he wasn't sobbing enough when he was sent down for you to believe him?!

 

[Colin de France]

All your opinion, of course. What run of incoherencies?

The vomiting tended to occur when details of Steenkamp's injuries were referred to - but I am sure you know that really. The tears were pretty consistent throughout the trial. So he wasn't sobbing enough when he was sent down for you to believe him?!

....not just my opinion i'm afraid.......did he sob at all when he was sent to prison ?...............

 

[lithgow1]

.......let's take one step at a time please......go back over what i and others have wrote from the start and you will see that it's a long run of incoherencies from Pistorius which go against someone that was telling the truth....and there's more....for example the tears and puking up except for the moment he was sent to prison which makes his stance before look even more like acting....

I also think that. You can take one illogical thing in isolation and make up some justification for it but when you start adding them all up: the nervous homeowner who goes to bed with his balcony doors open, the guy who grabs a gun and storms off in the dark to confronts intruder/s that have already terrified him, the man who calls a friend first after he realises he has shot his girlfriend, the fella who screams like a woman because a woman`s screams need to be explained somehow, the bloke who gets emotional when a mundane part of his story is under the microscope but relates that he felt `saddened' when he saw the love of his life's blood and brains on the floor because of his actions and stopped screaming then because `what would be the point?`Hell he even tried to lie his way out of the Tasha's incident to the point where he looked like a total fool. Yes sure his story is possible but it is highly improbably and IMO the only people who could believe it are those who want to for whatever reason/s they may have.

 

[aftermath]

....not just my opinion i'm afraid.......did he sob at all when he was sent to prison ?...............

Does not sobbing prove he was a murderer? !

 

[Colin de France]

Does not sobbing prove he was a murderer? !

........too simplistic......just another incoherencie.....

 

[Colin de France]

I also think that. You can take one illogical thing in isolation and make up some justification for it but when you start adding them all up: the nervous homeowner who goes to bed with his balcony doors open, the guy who grabs a gun and storms off in the dark to confronts intruder/s that have already terrified him, the man who calls a friend first after he realises he has shot his girlfriend, the fella who screams like a woman because a woman`s screams need to be explained somehow, the bloke who gets emotional when a mundane part of his story is under the microscope but relates that he felt `saddened' when he saw the love of his life's blood and brains on the floor because of his actions and stopped screaming then because `what would be the point?`Hell he even tried to lie his way out of the Tasha's incident to the point where he looked like a total fool. Yes sure his story is possible but it is highly improbably and IMO the only people who could believe it are those who want to for whatever reason/s they may have.

....of course....even moving Reeva from the WC downstairs to the ambulance, for me it was a way of influencing any future accusation, a way of manipulating.......it's in his style....

 

[lithgow1]

Speaking for myself, (and I don't class myself as an OP supporter any more than I would label you as an OP nonsupporter) , of course there are doubts and concerns, but the bottom line is that on balance I believe that the state did not prove DD or DE beyond reasonable doubt and that the key aspects of Pistorius's version (perceived intruder-fear-panic-shots) is still clearly possible.

So what are some of your doubts and concerns? All the ones I have seen raised, you seem to have had an answer for, so I`d be interested in knowing what parts of his testimony or anything else related to the case gave you cause for concern/s.

BTW, you can label me as a nonsupporter as I am, just don`t call me a hater as I am not and IMO that term is the last refuge of ....

I just think there has been a miscarriage of justice in this case which may or may not be righted in the near future. Had he been found guilty of say DE and sentenced to 15 years in prison then I would wish for him to serve his time, be released and then hopefully go on and do something good with the remainder of his life but as things stand I think he got off shockingly lightly for taking someone`s life in such a reckless fashion. I also think he seems like a total jerk of a person but that is neither here nor there when it comes to what I think would be a suitable punishment for what he did.

 

[GR_Turner]

Speaking for myself, the issue I have with the OP supporters here is that while on the one hand they question every piece of evidence and assertion that goes against Pistorius on the other they accept all the inconsistencies in his story along with its essentially far fetched nature without displaying any doubts or concerns. That and the fact that they think that 10 months in prison followed by house arrest in a mansion is a suitable punishment for what he did, whoever was behind that door.

You clearly haven't been reading our posts properly then as no one has said they support op, whatever that means to you. I think we all pretty much think the state didn't prove their case and it's your lack of any doubt,about anything the state.said that's illogical. The state must prove their case while the defense don't need to. So it seems that you just accept every bit of states evidence and utterly refuse to acknowledge the significance of the conflicting evidence

So we are not in the same position.the defense need uncertainty and they succeeded. The state needed certainty and they failed. I don't see the basis for your certainty. It seems to be based on just ignoring problems with the states case. Can't see you see the difference?

 

[aftermath]

........too simplistic......just another incoherencie.....

That doesn't even make sense!
He didn't sob or vomit when he was sentenced? What is that inconsistent with?

 

[Colin de France]

You clearly haven't been reading our posts properly then as no one has said they support op, whatever that means to you. I think we all pretty much think the state didn't prove their case and it's your lack of any doubt,about anything the state.said that's illogical. The state must prove their case while the defense don't need to. So it seems that you just accept every bit of states evidence and utterly refuse to acknowledge the significance of the conflicting evidence

So we are not in the same position.the defense need uncertainty and they succeeded. The state needed certainty and they failed. I don't see the basis for your certainty. It seems to be based on just ignoring problems with the states case. Can't see you see the difference?

....i know you don't feel any need to discuss with me but i'm not going to let you get away with changing the bias, there's nothing illogical in having an objectively made opinion which i think most of us have here.......there's lots more information which point towards murder than there is towards self defense....there's so many incoherent elements one after the other that make anything else than murder too hard to believe.......but coming to you, there's nothing you have said which could even remotely create any doubt that it wasn't murder, you will just have to do better than you have.......sorry.

 

[Colin de France]

That doesn't even make sense!
He didn't sob or vomit when he was sentenced? What is that inconsistent with?

.....i think you like me ......inconsistent with his manner previously in court bearing in mind that he had just been sentenced to prison.....

 

[lithgow1]

You clearly haven't been reading our posts properly then as no one has said they support op, whatever that means to you. I think we all pretty much think the state didn't prove their case and it's your lack of any doubt,about anything the state.said that's illogical. The state must prove their case while the defense don't need to. So it seems that you just accept every bit of states evidence and utterly refuse to acknowledge the significance of the conflicting evidence

So we are not in the same position.the defense need uncertainty and they succeeded. The state needed certainty and they failed. I don't see the basis for your certainty. It seems to be based on just ignoring problems with the states case. Can't see you see the difference?

I base calling you a supporter on the fact that every single time someone comes up with something `odd' shall we say about his story, even if it is a throwaway comment and not even directed towards you, you (or Trotterly or Aftermath) jump in with a response. It is like you cannot let anything `anti` OP slide by without providing a `pro` Oscar statement.

For example my query of yesterday as to why he didn`t tell Reeva to get out of the house if her safety was his first concern ended up with you suggesting a gang of marauders about to blitz attack the bedroom as a justification for why he acted as he did, way beyond anything OP alluded to himself. So even a fairly innocuous criticism of OP's behaviour on that night saw you straightaway posting a response to justify his actions. My initial post had nothing to do with evidence or whatever, it was just an observation. That sounds like a supporter to me rather than someone who truly wants to discuss the many aspects of the case.

 

[Colin de France]

I think the fact that every single time someone comes up with something `odd' shall we say about his story, even if it is a throwaway comment and not even directed towards you, you (or Trotterly or Aftermath) jump in with a response. It is like you cannot let anything `anti` OP slide by without providing a `pro` Oscar statement.

For example my query of yesterday as to why he didn`t tell Reeva to get out of the house if her safety was his first concern ended up with you suggesting a gang of marauders about to blitz attack the bedroom as a justification for why he acted as he did, way beyond anything OP alluded to himself. So even a fairly innocuous criticism of OP's behaviour on that night saw you straightaway posting a response to justify his actions. Had nothing to do with evidence or whatever, it was just an observation. That sounds like a supporter to me rather than someone who truly wants to discuss the many aspects of the case.

...Yes.....regardless of all Pistorius must be defended at all cost's .......too obvious

 

[cottonweaver]

You clearly haven't been reading our posts properly then as no one has said they support op, whatever that means to you. I think we all pretty much think the state didn't prove their case and it's your lack of any doubt,about anything the state.said that's illogical. The state must prove their case while the defense don't need to. So it seems that you just accept every bit of states evidence and utterly refuse to acknowledge the significance of the conflicting evidence

So we are not in the same position.the defense need uncertainty and they succeeded. The state needed certainty and they failed. I don't see the basis for your certainty. It seems to be based on just ignoring problems with the states case. Can't see you see the difference?

BIB I know it strikes most of the posters here as utterly transparent, and has for some time, that you speak as one and then once the rest of the non OP supporters cease posting eg . for the evening, you have nothing whatsoever to say to each other, zero views to share with each other which considering your minority opinions one might have expected something a little different.
I point this out as only one characteristic feature. I won't waste my time by listing the rest.

You ought to have a boxed a little more cleverly.

 

[aftermath]

I base calling you a supporter on the fact that every single time someone comes up with something `odd' shall we say about his story, even if it is a throwaway comment and not even directed towards you, you (or Trotterly or Aftermath) jump in with a response. It is like you cannot let anything `anti` OP slide by without providing a `pro` Oscar statement.

For example my query of yesterday as to why he didn`t tell Reeva to get out of the house if her safety was his first concern ended up with you suggesting a gang of marauders about to blitz attack the bedroom as a justification for why he acted as he did, way beyond anything OP alluded to himself. So even a fairly innocuous criticism of OP's behaviour on that night saw you straightaway posting a response to justify his actions. My initial post had nothing to do with evidence or whatever, it was just an observation. That sounds like a supporter to me rather than someone who truly wants to discuss the many aspects of the case.

But you asked why he might have acted in a certain way and you were given a couple of possible reasons. It can only be speculation from posters because only Pistorius can give a definitive answer and even he might not know for sure. Noone was saying emphatically that any one of those options was the reason- they were just suggestions in response to your question.

 

[aftermath]

BIB I know it strikes most of the posters here as utterly transparent, and has for some time, that you speak as one and then once the rest of the non OP supporters cease posting eg . for the evening, you have nothing whatsoever to say to each other, zero views to share with each other which considering your minority opinions one might have expected something a little different.
I point this out as only one characteristic feature. I won't waste my time by listing the rest.

You ought to have a boxed a little more cleverly.

What are you trying to imply? Why the BIB?

 

[Colin de France]

But you asked why he might have acted in a certain way and you were given a couple of possible reasons. It can only be speculation from posters because only Pistorius can give a definitive answer and even he might not know for sure. Noone was saying emphatically that any one of those options was the reason- they were just suggestions in response to your question.

...i don't think you and your friends realise just how farcical you all are........it's as if you've all been parachuted in to defend a theory that none of you have given any thought about......

 

[lithgow1]

But you asked why he might have acted in a certain way and you were given a couple of possible reasons. It can only be speculation from posters because only Pistorius can give a definitive answer and even he might not know for sure. Noone was saying emphatically that any one of those options was the reason- they were just suggestions in response to your question.

Thanks Aftermath for answering my GR Turner example for him. My point is that the 'suggestions' you refer to almost always take the form of excuses or justifications. It is very rare indeed that one of you are ever willing to say `That may have been the smarter option` or `yes, OP did act like an idiot for doing x,y or z'. Instead, with the example I used, we ended up with the suggestion of an armed gang that could have been spread throughout the house and about to launch themselves into an immediate attack on the bedroom, making escape for Reeva impossible (again, that is way, way beyond anything OP conjured up in his fevered imagination). I get the feeling that had he not turned around and changed his plea on the Tasha`s charge one or all of you would be saying that he says he didn`t pull the trigger because in his perception he didn`t or words to that effect.

 

[aftermath]

...i don't think you and your friends realise just how farcical you all are........it's as if you've all been parachuted in to defend a theory that none of you have given any thought about......

That's it? Really?
It's unfortunate if my posts give you the impression they haven't been thought through. Maybe don't waste your time responding to them if they are so farcical?