The show also says that Reeva was becoming a big celebrity which I personally question the legitimacy of that statement. It was stated that Reeva and Oscar made their relationship public at the “Red Carpet Affair” but it seems that the red carpet affair was in actuality, their very first date.

At this point Reeva was still in awe of Oscar and his star power asking her friend “Do you understand what a big deal this guy is?”

I believe the “animation” showed Oscar kicking the door on his stumps, which is simply an impossibility.

There was the incredible statement made that Oscar’s version couldn’t be true if Reeva ate near to 1 AM, no balance presented that perhaps Reeva got up for a midnight snack that Oscar was unaware of.

The “four ear witnesses” are cited, but no mention of real and credible deficits which their testimonies carry. Two were late to the case and came forward after rumors about Oscar were already ripe, one changed her testimony, distance was barely addressed, no mention was made that security heard no fighting when they did their check right past Oscar’s house at the time the row was supposedly going on, no mention was made that Reeva contacted no one electronically to say that she and Oscar were fighting.
IMO two married couples are not four independent witnesses, one mentioned a woman screaming between the two sets of noises, which we all know that it would have been impossible for Reeva to have been screaming at that time.

There was the repeating of a “woman screaming” and then a man screaming for help, for the life of me I cannot fathom how anyone can hear Oscar’s feminine high pitched distressed voice and not see how easily it could be mistaken for a women’s voice.


And if it was missed there was this little nugget tucked in there “The version of events as set out in paragraph 16.13 - 16.17 in the statement of Oscar Leonard Carl Pistorius are consistent with the blood stain patterns. It is the opinion that these events are the most plausible and probable explanation for the observed blood shed. South African Police Service Division of Forensic Science IG Van Der Nest”


So that to me does indicate that something very much along the lines of Oscar’s version of that AM was believed to be true, as if it was a rage killing and he tried to manipulate the scene I believe the blood trail would likely tell another story. No indication of him chasing her through the house, no blood anywhere other than it would be expected to be given that horrific AM. No damage to the interior of the home that the State is claiming took place during a knock down drag out fight.


I’m going to mix a bit of the States presentation of who Oscar is being portrayed to be, in with a bit of the TV show. Oscar is presented as a violent, volatile and unkind man by the State. The show presents a story about Oscar driving very fast and scaring Reeva. What does Reeva do? She calls her mum.

And there is a part 3

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

Reeva’s mum apparently speaks toOscar and tells him something such as if he hurts her daughter she will do away with him. What does the violent, volatile, unkind Oscar do? He listens to Reeva’s mum and slows down the car. Peculiar reaction to a demand, command, threat or suggestion whatever it may have been, especially in what must have been an adrenaline filled moment.



Then we have attorney Ian Levitt who seems to claim that Oscar was simultaneously in a blind rage and rational as he “rationally pumps four bullets into a door”. Eh?


At the end we get the results of an online or on-air poll with 49% of voters thinking Oscar is innocent and 51 % of voters thinking Oscar is guilty.


Hmm.. I wonder what would have happened if more information was given or if they had an audience of critical thinkers or even knowledgable viewers.


How anyone can view Oscar on his stumps and not see his vulnerability and imbalance is beyond the pale of normal intelligence.


IMO Oscar’s story still seems the most plausible, a series of horrifically bad reactions and assumptions on Oscar’s part lead to the death of Reeva but not an act of malice or blind rage. Why Oscar made those decisions should be the heart of the case.

Ahh! I almost forgot to mention that the watching of porn was mentioned, what was failed to be acknowledged is that the viewing time was .30 seconds.


SMH.

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

How is that for a wordy return? And hello Rumpole

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

Well said, Carm

Some of the evidence in this case is open to interpretation... some is to be given less "weight" because of the clear police bungling etc.

Even IF we concede that we are "biased" posting here (just a touch and for good reason). The evidence does have to be viewed and assessed by Judge(s) with... A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.
Any speculation can only be speculation towards OP's "version"

The Guardian article I quote back a-ways had me quite annoyed at the MISINFORMATION being spread by MSM... latched onto by The Lynch Mob on Twitter and at True Gossip Forums
See post:
viewtopic.php?f=105&t=1243&p=78525#p78527

But we HAVE to assume that a Judge will view and weight evidence correctly... otherwise why bother with the time, effort, and expense of a Trial? Just Go by CH7 poll. OP walks via the "Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt" Clause.


ETA
Just looking back I see the YT of the Doco has been "removed by user"

Those who frequently look in at RT would have seen it though.

Those who DONT frequently look in a t RT......

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

It would be interesting to know too who the fair-weather witnesses were that felt that their voice on television was too great an invasion of privacy to provide possibly mitigating information they could have provided. Instead just let the chips fall where they may. No big deal if an innocent guy goes to prison for 25 years to life right just because you don't want your voice on TV.

What admirable gallantry. I would waterboard myself if I had those values.

Yep I agree Rumpole. The evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the defendant, a task that I think a judge will find more easy to do than a jury would.

Hello to Steve when he is around and great posts Aavi I often feel like there is little left to say after you post so kudos to you.

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

It is off of YT I noticed that as I saved it after watching it and then it was the little broken smile guy

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

CH7 are pissing me off.... and I have tweeted to tell them so.

They have a "follow up" coming next.... but promo for that is "Not available" again

If they feel legally bound to block it outside Australia.. I wish they would STOP promoting it as "World Wide" event.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Yes and compounding that "selfish coward" effect you have the Burger(s) who apparently saw at the Bail Hearing that OP might well get off, and so they felt COMPELLED to insert their own biased and incorrect notions into the case.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

It will show up soon enough, th world is an open book these days.

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

But... it has meant a lot of frustration.. and in the end it's not worth it.

The next show is "Was Reeva about to leave"... and so Ch7 is descending further into the "Tabloid" sewer I fear.

Based on "A presumption of any old crap"

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I know nothing about CH7 other than they aired the Oscar bit. IMO it was a piss poor bat at journalism.

Lettuce see was Reeva about to leave? Will it be more than the 3 seconds it takes to read her "I think it is a good time to say Iove you" <<(not verbatim) and view the pictures of her and Oscar that she had framed? Anything longer will be conjecture.

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji

I am NOT going to promote next weeks show for them. Sooner they descend back into the Tabloid sewer of Oz only the better.
But so far they seem to be saying there will be an entire show devoted to "Was Reeva about to leave"

How would we know what the show is about.. again the promo vid is not available

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Um hmph she was going to leave--right after she had a nice after dinner snack, had just texted her friend that it was too far to drive that night because she was tired, put on Oscar's shorts when she could have grabbed her own jeans or ran out naked (what could possibly be better to draw attention?) Let alone the fact he would have had to chase her down the stairs and "shoot" her in an open area. How does he describe that as thinking it was a burglar?

I'm telling you it never ends. Why doesn't she run out on the balcony and scream? It's safer in the toilet box which has nothing but an open field behind his house and she's trapped like a gerbil? She opens a window to let in fresh air as she hustles into the toilet? She sure as hell didn't need it to scream through, there was a nice big private window right there at her fingertips in the toilet. Was it open? NO!! ....................

She doesn't even knock a book off the shelf in her UFC battle with Oscar on his tiny little feet? Leaves her sandals perfectly in place neatly where she stepped out of them? She calls a time-out and stops to urinate? She has a phone in her hand that she only has to touch a few digits to summon help and

I just work myself into a tizzy just even having to type this obvious circular lunacy.

If people think assumptions you would have to make sound logical, I don't know how they find their way home from the mailbox.

You either, Australian TV rag. You're a D grade version of Reno 911.

All I can think to add is that this trial should have taken 2 weeks... TOPS. INCLUDING say a 2 hour closing from each side.

If not for "Lettuce Deal with Nil's baseless speculation about an argument" the trial would have been simple. Accept OP's version (detail does not matter).. no agonising for days over the details. No real need for ballistics. No need for multiple ear witnesses at all. Burgers.... not required unsafe likely contaminated testimony. ME just describe wounds etc... stomach contents.. who cares? Most of the "experts" on both sides could have stayed home. There would have been need for some Psych testimony... perhaps do a full psych evaluation (before trial)... let a few shrinks testify. That's about it.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Pistorius trial: Officer moved extension cord
THURSDAY, 10 JULY06:50 CAT
Barry Bateman

PRETORIA – A police photographer who was part of the investigating team at Oscar Pistorius’s house in February last year has taken responsibility for a missing extension cord.

Last week, defence lawyers asked the court to compel police to provide an explanation for its whereabouts, saying it was no longer at the house.
[.....]
Police photographer Hendrik le Roux said in an affidavit handed to court on Tuesday he used the extension cord to charge his camera.

He moved it from the bedroom to the bathroom, and claimed he returned it to the room but did not put it back where he found it.

Le Roux said he cannot say for sure whether he placed the cord on top of something or on the floor.

In crime scene photos, one of the fans Pistorius claimed to have moved was plugged into this cord and became relevant when questions arose surrounding the exact location of the object.

Prosecutor Gerrie Nel told the court last week the cord was not seized by police and was not in their exhibit register.

Counsel for the parties will address this issue in the closing argument.

....more at link
http://ewn.co.za/2014/07/09/Oscar-Pisto ... nsion-cord

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Yet more Keystone Kops... and it does NOT answer the question?

One dope moving the cord... I get that... THEN who moved, stole, hid it after that? Where is it now? In Herrie Nil's office perhaps? Used by Nil to plug in his Sun Lamp?

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

If Nil has NEVER SEEN the cord then how can he have the gall to argue about details, length etc

Any reference Nil made to it should be stricken from the record, but more than that, he used that as a bludgeon in his cross examination in general, especially in reference to Fans position etc.... calling OP a liar etc I think Nil's entire cross examination of OP should be stricken AND Nil should be sanctioned.
With this further admission of shonky police work... how about the Duvet? Who moved/spread out the duvet. That evidence is in question too.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Oscar keeps all options open
Graeme Hosken | 09 July, 2014 00:01

The move by Oscar Pistorius's defence team to close its case because certain witnesses refused to testify might be a critical part of an appeal or review strategy in the case of a conviction.
[....]
Yesterday, Roux told Masipa that a "number" of witnesses had not wanted the media scrutiny that came with testifying in the trial.

"They have refused to testify because, while they know their faces won't be shown, they do not want their voices [to be heard] all over the world.

"With this in mind, we close our case."

Criminal law experts believe the move is critical to keeping Pistorius out of prison if he is convicted. It tries to show that he has been prejudiced from the beginning of proceedings and prevented from getting a fair trial.

Professor Anthony Minnaar, of the Unisa school of criminology, said the strategy was clear and "transparent".

"It is to keep all options open for appeal . [An] appeal could very well be successful as Pistorius's defence team will be able to show that not all evidence has been heard as certain witnesses were too 'afraid' to testify.

"If they are successful in applying for an appeal, a whole new case will have to be made as the entire case will have to be taken up on review," he said.

Wits criminal law specialist Stephen Tuson also said it was possible the defence was laying the basis for an appeal, or to take the matter on review.

..more at link
http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/201 ... tions-open

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Roux earning his keep perhaps? Or maybe even living up to his pay scale, let the trial run it's course, see how the State is going to go about putting forth it's case and then pull the rabbit right out of the hat, if there is a guilty verdict, the defense appeals, the defense is on record for not wanting the trial to be televised and the defense is on record for saying they had witnesses intimidated because the trial was televised and therefore the defense was compromised due to a court decision.

New trial, no media, no clamoring idiotic low intelligence mob which fantasizes that it was a fly on the wall that AM.

Of course that is the exact dialogue that the frenzied would like to have happen rather than the "A" word which must be spoken in a hushed whisper acquittal.

I still believe that it was a horrific accident. I still have faith that Masipa will be diligent in her weighing of the evidence and I still think both associates bring a defense friendly nature to the table.

Interesting turn of events.

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji