Der Prozess Oscar Pistorius und der Tod von Reeva Steenkamp09.08.2014 um 22:50
Du näherest dich schon dem Pudels Kern...
Du näherest dich schon dem Pudels Kern...
KlaraFall schrieb:Wenn diese Show sogar uns schon als Laien auffällt, dann dürfen wir der Richterin und ihren Assesoren ruhig vertrauen.Gut so!
KlaraFall schrieb:paar aufrichtige Leute geben. ;-)Hoffen wirs.
1. What exactly did OP have to do between the gunshots at 3:16AM (according to detailed billing of security phone) and his first call (Stander) at 3:19AM… in that 3 minutes ?Wie wir schon gesagt haben, Nel muss die Cricketschlägerschläge gar nicht erklären...und kommt ohne sich wie Roux zu verspekulieren nur zu den Punkten, die er braucht und auch beweisen kann.
2. Why would Nel have to explain the cricket bat shots ??… the one who tried to do so and failed miserably is Roux : in his timeline, the Nhlengethwa’s never heard the cricket bat shots even though they were awake, alert and 9 meters away from the open bathroom window !!!… plus they heard much softer sounds during that time such as OP braying.
3. Don't see why this would be unusual for someone trying to create the illusion of the mistaken identity story.
4. As for the cover-up fabricated story… you heard all the evidence… the events happened more than a year ago… what better story can you come up with having the benefit of hindsight ?… or even different story can you provide ?
5. The reason Nel stayed away from a chronology/timeline is because he would have had to enter much speculation into his closing arguments which were unnecessary for a murder conviction. Exemple : why would Nel speculate on the broken bedroom door and try and try to fit it into a scenario… not necessary.
OP going out onto the balcony to shout Help Help Help is NOT common cause evidence.
The toilet door had already been cracked with the first shots heard (cricket bat)… OP finished the job after the gunshots with a kick and the prying out of the panel.
Not 2 minutes… 3 minutes
You seem to enjoy lapses of time… In OP's version what on earth did OP do between around 3:05AM (gunshots) and 3:16AM (cricket bat)… that's around 11 minutes of searching for Reeva in the pitch-dark bedroom screaming his head off with a man's and woman's voice ?????
Masipa will NOT reconstruct a timeline of events step by step… she will address OP's version in broad strokes only…
1. She will state which elements of OP's version are critically irreconcilable with other evidence
2. She will state her assessment of the credibility and reliability of said evidence… taking into account corroborating factors
3. She will state her assessment of OP's credibility and reliability… on all matters, i.e. all the 4 charges and things like the zombie stopper.
4. Considering these 3 points, she will conclude whether OP's version is credible or not… if deemed not credible, all of his version of events goes down the toilet.
5. What remains is the State's version
In order to accept Oscar's version, the judge will have to reject the testimony of Burger, Johnson, Stipp, Stipp, Van der Merwe, Saayman, Van Rensburg and Van Staden. Not just a few of them, all of them. Because all of them directly contradicted Oscar's version.
Can't see this happening.
… and when you factor in the quality of the Defence's expert witnesses…
… and when you factor in the absence of promised Defence's expert witnesses...
… and when you factor in the extreme lateness of some of Defence's experts involvement…
… and when you factor in OP's testimony.
Und da WILL sie und BRAUCHT sie keine wertvollen Aussagen wegschmeissen!Das wird sie auch sicher im Fokus haben.
- Johnson stated that he does NOT remember if 3:16 is the beginning of the call or the end of the call
- 3:16 does NOT come from cellular service provider servers (detailed billing)… it comes from the phone itself… so dependent on the time set on the phone itself
- The culminating moment of the night's event for Johnson and burger is the bloodcurdling screams followed by the gunshots… this would be the event which "anal" Johnson would want to pin point the time… since this occurred seconds after Johnson ended his call, it makes sense that he would write in his document the call's end time… the call's start time is not important or relevant because it does not reveal or pin point anything specific.
… considering any of these 3 points separately or as an ensemble, one can see there is no contradiction with the between 3:15 and 3:16 for the gunshots.
4 witnesses say they saw a red car… the color of the car is NOT an inference it is a fact in evidence subject to credibility and reliability assessment.
If the accused says that his red car could not be the one the witnesses saw because he was driving fast making his car appear grey… that does not constitute proof that the 4 witnesses are mistaken about the color of the car they saw… it does NOT transform the color of the car from fact to inference… it does not even raise a doubt, much less a reasonable doubt.
Furthermore, there is no proof that the accused was driving fast.
4 witnesses say they heard a woman scream… the sex of the person screaming is NOT an inference it is a fact in evidence subject to credibility and reliability assessment.
If the accused says that his voice changes to a woman's voice when he is scared...that does not constitute proof that the 4 witnesses are mistaken about the sex of the person screaming… it does NOT transform the sex of the person screaming from fact to inference… it does not even raise a doubt, much less a reasonable doubt.
Furthermore, there is no proof that the accused was scared and that when scared his voice does change into a woman's voice.
The witnesses did NOT say it was a woman screaming because they were told that a woman had been killed.
An inference is when you deduce an unknown fact from a known one… this is NOT the case with the screaming.
Look it up… it might enlightened you on legal terminology.
Mauberzaus schrieb:Interessanter Artikel. Dass OP wie eine Frau zu schreien vermag, bedeutet nicht automatisch, dass er das auch getan hat. Und dann noch jedes Mal, immer wenn die Zeugen eine Frau zu hören glaubten. Ausserdem sollen sich die stimmlichen Veränderungen bei ihm dann einstellen, wenn er ängstlich ist. Wie kamen dann in dieser Nacht von ihm die bloodcurdling screams zustande? Denn nur eine Person kämpfte mit dem Leben und wird demzufolge markerschütternde Schreie ausgestossen haben, und das war Reeva.Und wichtig auch, dass die Hörzeugen von einer weiblichen Stimmen gesprochen haben noch bevor sie wussten, dass es überhaupt eine Tote gab.
You adopt Burger and Johnson to make this point but on other occasions you will say they cannot hear, or they are not credible or reliable, etc… make up your mind.Für ein Gerichtsurteil muss Nel gar nichts mehr beweisen, alles Quatsch!
If they heard both a man and a woman screaming… then OP could not have screamed alternatively with a man's and a woman's voice, now could he ?… even less so with intermingling of the 2 distinct voices… unless OP is the best ventriloquist that the world has ever seen !!!
That means Reeva was screaming… and therefore OP knew he was shooting at Reeva… ergo murder.
... Mr Roux asked Judge Thokozile Masipa to consider the psychological effects of a lifetime of insecurities due to Pistorius's disability, comparing his anxiety the night he shot Ms Steenkamp to that of a woman who snaps and kills her partner after years of abuse. ... "You have the effect of the slow burn of insecurities over many years. You're an athlete. You're trained to react to a sound, and he stands there now with his finger ready to fire, and then," Mr Roux said, before banging the wooden lectern in front of him to make a startling sound. ..."Fascinating. No one has ever heard of OP’s terrible, crippling “insecurities”, “slow burn” or “abuse” till after Feb. 14 2013. In fact, not until August 8 2014.