Wie nett. :) Könnte glatt von Trapattoni sein.Ahnungslose schrieb:und plötzlich war sein Eimer des Geduldes voll!
War das der gleiche grüne Eimer , der im Gericht stand? Der war dich nie ganz voll. Oder habe ich jetzt was verwechselt?
Respectfully, you are mistaken.
You seem to say that when a side states something that isn't challenged by the opposing side that statement becomes "fact" and the Judge must consider it as such… that is incorrect
Only common cause evidence is considered that way.
As for the call to Netcare : the only things that are common cause is OP placed that call on his 0020 phone at 03:20:05 and the call lasted 1m 6s… that's it.
OP never provided a clear and concise description of the content of that phone call…
However, much contradictions and refutal evidence was led into the record :
1. Although OP 'testified' he called Stander to ask him to call an ambulance, Stander did NOT call an ambulance
2. Although OP 'testified' he called Stander to ask him to call an ambulance, Stander did NOT corroborate OP on the content of that phone conversation
3. Although OP 'testified' he called Stander to ask him to call an ambulance, OP was very insistent and determined to have Stander drive Reeva to the Hospital
4. Although OP 'testified' he called Stander to ask him to call an ambulance, he called Netcare himself 38 seconds after hanging up with Stander
5. Although OP called Netcare himself, he did NOT request an ambulance
6. Although OP called Netcare himself, he was very insistent and determined to have Stander drive Reeva to the Hospital
7. Although OP testified that he desperately wanted to save Reeva's life, he did absolutely NOTHING that can be deemed as taking basic and reasonable steps to do so.
… these elements are in the Court record and "negative" inferences will be made from them.
Objective bottom-line : we have OP calling Netcare BUT not wanting an ambulance sent to his house… can the "positive" inference be made from this that OP genuinely wanted to save Reeva's life and therefore the shooting must have been an accident ?… I think not.
… it would be like OP calling security after shooting Reeva and telling them "everything is fine"… Oh wait… that actually happened… can the "positive" inference be made from this that OP genuinely requested assistance and therefore the shooting must have been an accident ?… I think not.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?241098-Theory-Thread-What-happened-at-Pistorius-house-on-the-night-of-Feb-13-2013&p=10853065#post10853065
Oscar's defence continues to implode
Broken promises, pointless witnesses and delaying tactics: CyberShrink further analyses what he regards as a poor performance by Oscar's defence team.
http://www.health24.com/Columnists/Oscars-defence-continues-to-implode-20140702
Du vergisst, dass während er im Plea noch ONTO the balcony war, hätte er beim Reinbringen der fans bemerken müssen, dass Reeva nicht mehr im Bett ist, denn die Balkonbeleuchtung hätte das Zimmer erhellt - also hat Nel es schon richtig formuliert
- denn darauf bezieht er sich dabei. Somit musste die Version angepasst werden und er befand sich bereits im Zimmer, als er ERST DANN das Geräusch vernahm.
