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

Even now it seems that a lot of posters have not got the memo: "The State has rested it's case" It is a bit silly to continue to speculate that the State might have this or that piece of evidence to clinch "prooof beyond reasonable doubt". The fact that people continue to imagine that is proof itself that doubt remains in their own minds..... that is the point really... the State (Nel) has failed to meet the burden of "Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt" about anything that the State contends.

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

Tricky sort of cove, old "Johnny Imprinting"

It is clear that at True Gossip Forums the prevailing mind-set is always is a "Presumption of Guilt". It is Imprinted on most posters from the outset of every case, and persists (as imprinting does) no matter what evidence turns up that contradicts "Guilty". They simply down-play or even deny evidence and proven facts. They will twist themselves in logical knots rather than accept the most logical explanation (re Occam's Razor). They attribute HUGE significance to trivial information,unrelated to the case, and simply make up what they imagine should be introduced as evidence. That is the way it is with MOST posters at True Gossip Forums.


A similar kind of thing was seen with State witnesses who stubbornly would not concede the smallest of points. They would not answer simple question where a straight answer seemed, on the face of things, to benefit the Defence case. Instead they "went back to the script" to repeat a long passage of their (rehearsed) narrative.

The Presumption of Guilt is what I have observed at True Gossip Forum over the past 6 years...across several forums, and with every case. It often works out OK. Lets face it, defendants are NOT chosen to stand trial at random. Most ARE guilty and so a presumption of guilt (lynch mob mentality) works out ok in the end. Not too many poster handbag fights when the defendant is monster like Anthony or Arias or Castro. However guilt is not ALWAYS so clear... if it was why bother with trials? When Forum wars erupt, my suggestion to the Mob members would be to just TRY and view things with a mind to "Innocent until proven guilty" You don't have to believe or accept what the defendant claims... but at least be UNDECIDED unless, and until, the State PROVES something. Most posters are Imprinted and are a hopeless lost cause, but a few just might get it.

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

One dumb question but I have not been able to follow. Did they check her phone? Did someone call her on Valentines Day/night? I so who? Was it a guy? Boyfriend? Was there in fact a fight over that? I like him and HOPE he is found innocent... but wondering about some facts.
This comes on midnight here I think. I could watch it from my bed, but can't sit here at my computer. Too tired, and back hurts by then. Thanks if anyone knows!!

Joni.

Why jump to thinking that? Why IMAGINE a boyfriend phone call? This is the sort of speculation that people do based on nothing other than a notion they dream up. You are doing what many do, STRAINING to find something sinister. Why not just accept the facts that we KNOW rather then imagine what you might maybe find?

YES they checked phone calls of course and NOTHING of significance was found.

They checked 3 months worth of messages too, SHOCK HORROR.. they found 4 "arguments" in Messages. What they did not tell you was that there were 1,700 messages where they were not arguing. It you do the math then what they found was 99.8% of messages were not arguing... mostly "lovey dovey" stuff. What is clear is that they had very FEW arguments... obviously had not known each other very long... else that would have worn off

As far as watching live... yes its starts 12:30AM for you. And if you can manage you could read and post here at RT as well

IF you miss it live it is all available on YT straight away... I post links here.

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

I wouldn't do that. I read that or heard that somewhere on TV. I wouldn't just make that up to *TRY* to find him guilty. I want him innocent in my gut. Good then nothing was found that day. I did read about the loving calls. This whole thing is so awful. A real beauty AND brains too? Law degree... so awful.

Hmmm... "you heard it on TV".....

Now be honest Joni... you have been watching HLN again!!!

You KNOW that HLN get most things WRONG... and are ridiculously biased. Pro-prosecution always. They offer a lead to the Lynch Mob and the presumption of Guilt crowd.

There is a 12 step recovery programme for people who watch HLN.

Step 1: Admit that Nancy Grace is rabid.

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

Ha ha. Yes Nancy is rabid. I guess that's where I heard it - HLN. I do have it on sometimes... while puttering around.
Can people sue them? I know they can sue magazines for lying.

I know you watch HLN Joni. It's an addiction like any other I suppose... I am here to support you in a recovery. I would be happy to be your sponsor and take you to "HLN Anonymous" meetings..... one step at a time Joni.


Why NOT assume that OP is telling the truth... or not even that... just note what he says, you dont have to believe it, and wait for the STATE to convince you beyond reasonable doubt that something different is true. Cases do look quite different if you DO NOT presume Guilt and then go snooping for the slightest thing to support that.

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

I know I don't want to say much more until Roux opens his case. To date, we have only heard Nel's side of the case, and I'm not sure that in South African Law they need (as we do) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, I think they only need to put a doubt in your mind heavily weighted to guilty. Over here and in most places I know of, reasonable doubt is very important.

In Scotland we have a verdict which is peculiar to Scots Law - we have three verdicts, Guilty, Not Guilty and the Not Proven verdict. I am a great believer in the Not Proven Verdict and hope that we always retain it, there was talk of removing it last year and in some years past, it tends to be brought up for discussion.

If a Not Proven verdict is returned in Scotland, it simply means "we know you did it, we just haven't proved it!" It therefore hangs over the accused's head for the rest of his or her life, and the media and public will know about it. But, if new evidence comes up afterwards - and there is no time limit, that person will be recalled to stand trial again.

The burden to prove guilt rests with the prosecution.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

Oscar Pistorius Door: Cricket Bat v Gunshot Sounds - Analysis




The author of the now famous Youtube demonstration of cricket bat hitting door sounds as written answering critics at True Gossip Forums etc

Alexander Jason - Sound Test (pdf)
http://www.alexanderjason.com/SoundTest.pdf

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

I wonder what went wrong...oops...wrong thread. but really I wonder if the bat strikes could have been intertwined with the bullet strikes?

Hi Berta.

No, the States own experts were clear about the bat strikes being after the shots. The analysis of the door as well as ballistics evidence, and ME evidence of wood splinters in wounds etc. There were 4 shots only.. in a single volley... fairly rapid. It really is not an issue at all.. other than with posters at True Gossip Forums.

There are two KNOWN events that night that caused loud bangs ... FACT
Everybody agrees that the evidence proves that the bat strikes came after the shots.
State's own STAR witness (and his wife) heard two sets of bangs.
Already sufficient FACTS to place the gunshots first at 3:00 - 3:10 (hard to pin that time precisely)
The second set of bangs were bat at 3:17 (pinned precisely to just after 3:17 by independent phone records)

The State contend that second bangs were the shots. That is silly, given that the State also argue the shots were BEFORE the bat. It is quite frankly DAFT, and proved to be daft by the State's own evidence and is easily refuted by the fact that OP was definitely on the phone at 3:19. There was simply not enough time to fire the shots and then in space of just over a minute do all the things he had to do. Things not in dispute.. like back and forth to bedroom, going to balcony, putting on prosthetics, getting the bat, bashing the door, prising door open, dragging ot Reeva's body from toilet to bathroom. Even somebody with the Presumption of guilt mentality conceded that would take 6 minutes (or more)... and so it is simply IMPOSSIBLE if shots fired at 3:17. It is what is known in the trade as "Totally discredited" as a hypothesis. The shots MUST have been around 3:10 or perhaps even earlier. It is frankly Daft to continue to disregard the first set of bangs. That was UNDENIABLY the sound of the gunshots. The Cricket bat on door was UNDENIABLY at 3:17.

Nel needs to abandon arguing against the undeniable facts and get on with making some sort of case that OP's actions were criminal. He can NOT prove beyond reasonable doubt that OP knew Reeva was behind the door when he fired. The State need to "suck it up" and concede that OP was acting in the belief that there was an intruder. The State could still argue a good case for some sort of "manslaughter" (or the SA equivalent) but Nell needs to put down his cup of tea, get up off his arse, and start arguing something he has some chance proving.

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

I don't believe the bat theory in any case, in fact i think this is OTT. At the time when I heard the sounds I thought they could easily take on another life in the wee small hours, but having given a lot of thought to this, I'm pretty sure even I couldn't mistake a gun shot for a bat - although I may be proved wrong by the time this trial ends.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

You can say you are pretty sure. Stipps with some gun shot experience is SURE he heard two sets of gunshots... but he is WRONG about one of them. Of that there is no doubt.

As I have opined..... he heard gunshots... then he was in a VERY heightened state of awareness.. hearing what he thought were a woman's screams. He was SURE there was a shooting in progress... murder and mayhem in progress... It is not too much of a stretch to imagine that more loud bangs (bat on door) would in his mind be perceived as more shots.

As the video demo pointed out. It's not a matter of direct comparison.... bat does not sound exactly like a gunshot... but bat is a loud crack enough like a gunshot to be misconstrued given the circumstances. Again as I have pointed out... late at night NOBODY is going to pick cricket bat on door as a source of loud bangs. Gunshot is probably everybody's first guess even if they have never heard a gunshot. Perhaps "fireworks" would be a guess...

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

I have been trying to put myself (with difficulty) as living in the estate, and being awakened around 3am from a sleep due to the noises I just heard, and I think I would have assumed since sound carries, I had just heard a gun. If I was already awake and perhaps a wee bit drowsy, I still think I would have just heard a gun.

It is so difficult for us on the outside, to absorb this information, since of course we were not there. I have been as I mentioned swayed more towards OP panicking that night, and shooting Reeva by accident more so than I'm thinking he made the whole thing up - nothing so far has led me down that path. It could be that the argument heard was indeed the two having a bit of a row, but I wouldn't have thought it a deliberate killing offence to shoot your girlfriend because you were angry with her, or indeed, that you were jealous. I keep coming back to the fact that Reeva and Oscar were in a new relationship - they had not been going out all that long. To deliberately want to kill her that night, seems to me not all that plausible, they could have just gone their separate ways like a lot of couples do.

Maybe I'm wrong in all of this, the rumour merchants out there seem to think right from the beginning that this is Murder end of story. I just don't see it.

Mind you, this entire case has bamboozled me.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

Och aye woman.

I would say this case has been great (albeit toooooooo sloooooooooow)

I knew little when the trial started and now I am pretty sure I can picture exactly what happened.. the sequence and how long things took.
As far as I am concerned the State has not presented a case at all about what crime (if any) OP is guilty of... and so I am of the belief he should be acquitted. However, by all accounts in SA the State can continue to make a case via cross examination. So I will wait and see what (if anything) they present.

I do see exactly where True Gossip Forum posters go wrong!!

They approach every case with a PRESUMPTION OF GUILT. That works out OK for most cases... the bastard is guilty and all can join the Mob. However if there are even just one or two people who question the guilty decree what results is handbags

The presumption of guilt means you can not really have "a discussion". You can make a point based on evidence.. but they will deny, downplay and simply invent alternative explanations, no matter how implausible. Poor old Occam and his razor can not get a look-in

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

I must have a browse of that forum - it's a new one on me Rumpy, so I'll have a nosy.

_________________
Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well~Peter Ustinov

I found a video and somehow lost the picture in the middle of it and couldn't go BACK. (HATE THIS OUTLOOK they have put me in!) It was a Dr. neighbor I think. He tried to help. Oscar was saying he would devote his life to God and she would too, IF he would let her live! Anyone know where that one is?

Isn't it funny, all males talking and the answers are always "Yes M'Lady." ROFL I know ... the Judge.

Joni

You are talking about Dr Stipp. He gave evidence as an ear witness. He was actually GREAT for the defence even though he was a State witness. He heard two sets of bangs. The second one was fixed in time by his phone call.
Since the State experts agree the shots came first and bangs with cricket bat came second. Stipp's evidence proves that other witnesses only heard the bat on door.... and all who report "woman's screams" must have actually heard OP' wails... since the screams came after the shots (when Reeva was dead)

I have a separate thread with YT replays of all the trial.

PISTORIUS TRIAL - VIDEO REPLAYS (NO DISCUSSION)
viewtopic.php?f=105&t=1212


Dr Stipp's testimony was on day 4. Thursday 6th March

Here is where it starts (19 minutes into this vid)
Oscar Pistorius Trial: Thursday 6 March 2014, Session 2

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