I am s-o-o resolved and assured that I have reached the right conclusion about Oscar Pistorius. He is no more guilty of desiring to kill his girlfriend that night than I am.
It is bewildering to me to see the dim-wittery of so many densaphobes who have a almost a visceral passion to see him convicted. The concoctions range from the Standers being paid off--to he was viewing child porn which started the row of the century--to having his fingers in her mouth, not to try to help her, but to finish her off. And then using the black gaffer tape and plastic bags to dispose of her body. It's like wallowing through a virtual Rod Serling marathon. I feel I almost have to wear hip boots because the caca is getting so deep.
The favorite by-line to compensate for the abysymal lack of factual evidence is that it is a "circumstantial" case, therefore we can "infer" things. LOL. Well if you can infer that Mrs. Van Der Merwe heard an argument that night, then I can infer she was on LSD. Because both are equally baseless and not supported by anything. It is totally ignored that her husband contradicted her in what she thought she heard. But that doesn't deserve an inference. Apparently neither does the fact that that two security sweeps were done by security patrols during the same time in the same exact location and they heard nothing.
The logic to them doesn't support that he was on his stumps shuffling around. Well, tell that to the prosecution because they're stuck with it as an agreed fact. It would be like Tatoo from Fantasy Island versus Reeva. Only Tatoo doesn't have to balance on two points with something equivalent to the top side of a bowling pin. Why don't you look at the common cause evidence instead of "inferring" that he must have been on his prosthesis? Maybe you will come to a sensible conclusion that it would be ridiculous to think Reeva couldn't have done something other than run to the toilet in mortal fear of him.
This is a case resting on the second story of a vacant lot. This would be rejected as a Columbo script because at the end of the two hours, there would be nobody guilty. This starts with no motive and ends with no fight.
Questions:
When did the fight start?
Prosecution: We don't know.
Who started it?
Prosecution: We don't know
What was the fight about?
Prosecution: We don't know.
and
It requires you to believe that a person who deliberately killed his girlfriend just bought a house to be closer to the person he wanted to kill. Infer that! It requires you to believe that Reeva has decided to sleep at the house of her killer just five hours before she was shot. Infer that! It requires you to believe that a person who hid in a locked room previously from the very same threat of a home invader which was very possibly the only thing that saved her life and her mother's life, wouldn't respond the same way again if she thought it was happening at Oscar's house. Infer that!
It is downright scary to think that these mental indigents might someday be on somebody's jury. Do the defendant a favor and get a doctor's note to be excused if you think Pistorius intended to murder Reeva Steenkamp because of a fight that night, or anything else; because you really will not be appreciated by those jurors who can competently evaluate and scrutinize evidence.
For those that are watching the same trial I am, I have refined even more details affirming my conclusions by tracking back though trial information.
The ladders are an essential factor in something that would have flashed through his mind and part and parcel to the believability of his story that an intruder could have used it at his house that night. It must be noted that he was aware of a home invasion where an intruder did that very thing to enter the house on the upper floor. This was given as testimony by the complex manager.
I wonder how many of us realize how close those ladders actually were to his window. It was much closer than I had thought. Look at the video here and freeze the frame of the back of his house. Note where the bathroom window is and where the ladders were stacked as testified to by Van Rensburg when he looked down from the balcony. It would have taken less than a minute to easily move the ladder around the corner to the window. As you will see they were very close, which is something he would have known.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... S2qI#t=739Photos, their validity, and lack of reliability were a huge issue as to what the crime scene actually should have showed.
At this video link you will see the start of discrepancies with photos and continues to show that "Col Motha" was there taking photos before the official photographer Van Staden even
started taking photos. Realize what this actually means is that the police tried to hide the photos of the full original crime scene. And they purported so hard to appear innocent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... _uY#t=2692Here is were Roux is really starting to hammer Van Staden showing that he was right there with Motha in the bathroom at the same exact time when he claimed nobody was with him. Van Staden can't believe he's been caught like a deer in the headlights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... _uY#t=4221And the crowning glory...this taken in isolation would give cause for huge contemplation as a derivative clue already to me. But when taken into consideration with the appalling lack of factual evidence and zero motive to show that he intended to kill Reeva that night, it is mega-huge. This didn't immediately jump out at me when I was watching the testimony as it was being given live for the first time by Michael Nlengethwa, his next door neighbor who heard the high pitched crying.
He said he could make out the words Oscar was crying as
NO-O-O PLEASE, PLEASE NO-O-O-O. These are not the words you would hear if somebody just committed the murder they intended two minutes after the shots were fired. If you can tell me that with a straight face, I will tell you, you must have been born tomorrow. Oscar had no idea anybody would hear him or who it might be, or that he would be playing to an audience. He knew he had just very possibly killed the girl he had introduced to his neighbor as his "fiance." If you think he had also planned
that a month earlier as part of his intended murder Valentine's night, I will tell you you were born a year from tomorrow.
He reacted with these words because he couldn't bear the thought of what he might have done and his brain was transmitting exactly what you would say.
Trying to give a word picture, here is a possible example:
You are standing at a sink with your disposal running. You are wearing a $20,000 diamond ring and the dish soap has made the oversized ring slip off your finger and you hear a huge grinding noise. You pull your hand out of the water and you know the reality of what just happened. How loud do you think that "NO-o-o-o would be?
Now, imagine a guy who had just realized he had very likely killed the lady he loved and was planning to spend his future with.
Listen for yourself and just imagine the true volume of how it would have really been that night as Mr. Nlengethwa heard it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 2qI#t=1075To me this puts the check and check mate to the State's case. It is the bow on the package. There is no sound-minded commonsensical explanation for those words other than his realization of what he feared he would discover when he broke through that door. Anybody without a bias who, when taking into account all the other boundless loose ends and hypotheses that lead to nowhere in showing a postulation of guilt, has to know, these are the words of someone who has done something they never intended.
Anybody who thinks they could convince me otherwise if we were on this case in a jury room and we were jurors deciding it, is crazy.
THE END ........
Login
FAQ
Do not go gentle into that good night.
