Re: Oscar Pistorius

by **PeterMac** Mon Apr 21, 2014 3:22 pm

comperedna5 wrote:One of the most fascinating things about watching this case to me is the way Oscar pauses and thinks before answering questions, about the effect the particular answer will have on the questioner, and those listening in.
.

He also makes the important mistake of giving too much information. Adding explanation to flesh out what he has just said to try to make it more credible.
(In exactly the way the McCanns have done over the years, in fact )
The prosecutor just lets him speak, and then lets a small period of silence over take the court.
For a liar silence is very unnerving. They tend to try to fill it, and in so doing give away other things.

by comperedna Mon Apr 21, 2014 3:56 pm

True. True. Also he forgets what he has said before, if a question is asked again fo some reason. If you tell the truth, the answer is always the same, and there is less strain... in remembering what you said before. You just have to tell the truth as as you remember it. I think that is probably why he got tied up with what exactly his defence was... Was it: 'I did it by accident', or was it: 'I had to do it to defend myself'? Gerrie Nel said... 'You can't have TWO different defences! Which is it?'

At one point OP said words similar to these: 'Of course I'm being careful what I say, and thinking it through carefully before I answer - my future life is at stake!' (!!!!!!) To which Gerrie Nel responded that Reeva didn't have a life at all, and that he was not telling the truth as it happened.

by **Hobs** Mon Apr 21, 2014 10:40 pm

PeterMac wrote:
comperedna5 wrote:One of the most fascinating things about watching this case to me is the way Oscar pauses and thinks before answering questions, about the effect the particular answer will have on the questioner, and those listening in.
.
He also makes the important mistake of giving too much information. Adding explanation to flesh out what he has just said to try to make it more credible.
(In exactly the way the McCanns have done over the years, in fact )
The prosecutor just lets him speak, and then lets a small period of silence over take the court.
For a liar silence is very unnerving. They tend to try to fill it, and in so doing give away other things.

Exactly PeterMac, they either lie by ommission or go the other way and add minutiea in the mistaken belief that minute details over trivial or irrelevant things makes them more believeable.

You should come visit and comment on Peter Hyatts blog, we would love to see and hear your input.

by aiyoyo Tue Apr 22, 2014 7:18 am

Hobs wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
comperedna5 wrote:One of the most fascinating things about watching this case to me is the way Oscar pauses and thinks before answering questions, about the effect the particular answer will have on the questioner, and those listening in.
.
He also makes the important mistake of giving too much information. Adding explanation to flesh out what he has just said to try to make it more credible.
(In exactly the way the McCanns have done over the years, in fact )
The prosecutor just lets him speak, and then lets a small period of silence over take the court.
For a liar silence is very unnerving. They tend to try to fill it, and in so doing give away other things.

Exactly PeterMac, they either lie by ommission or go the other way and add minutiea in the mistaken belief that minute details over trivial or irrelevant things makes them more believeable.

You should come visit and comment on Peter Hyatts blog, we would love to see and hear your input.

Indeed the add-on information did the reverse of liar's mistaken belief it will lend credence to his story.
Telling the Court he ran with the gun in hand back and forth the bedroom and toilet after the killing doing all those after the fact actions he said he did, to the extension that even after he'd stopped to put on his prosthetic legs leaving his gun on the bed meanwhile only to pick it up again to take it back to the toilet just does not make sense.

Not only that I wish the Prosecutor had made more of that to ask him how he managed to pick up the cricket bat while he still held the gun in his right hand. Did he pick up the bat with his left hand? Gun in one hand and bat in the other hand just does not square up no matter how one looks at it.

by **PeterMac** Tue Apr 22, 2014 8:53 am

Gerry fell right into this trap on day 1
"entered through front door using his key"
thus making it impossible for him subsequently to say it was a misunderstanding, mistranslation, mistake, error of memory, "when I said front door I meant the one that opened onto the street which we now seem to be calling the patio door . . ."
He gave too much detail, trying to flesh it out and make it believable
And is forever damned with Lucifer.

by aiyoyo Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:37 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-27114859

Family denies claim that OP took acting lessons ahead of trial is reported by SA Press.

This claim if true would impact his credibility and have some ramification for him.
I wonder whether this matter is going to be brought to the attention of Court; or whether/how Court is going to ascertain the veracity of this.

by plebgate Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:01 am

PeterMac wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
If Gerry & Kate ever take the stand, they may have to be given plenty mock tests by their Defence team before coming on the stand in order to survive cross examination.
No defence lawyer would ever let either of them go into the witness box. No amount of coaching is ever going to get them past their well documented, deliberate and calculated lies.
The first question to each would destroy their credibility.
"Mr. You said in your signed statement to the police that you entered through the front door "using your key", and a week later you made another signed statement saying that you had entered by the patio door with was not locked."
"Mrs. You said in your signed statement that the curtains in the bedroom were wide open, and a year later in this TV interview and many times since you have said that the curtains were tightly shut and "whooshed"

"Yeah, but no, but yeah, but no, but yeah but I was there and I know what happened, . . ."

And that is right at the start. Not months later when they might have been able to argue that memories had faded

Exactly, exactly. It makes me so annoyed that they seem not to have been asked why the statements changed and yet all this money has been made available to re-open the investigation on statements, which from the outset, did not sound right at all.

by aiyoyo Fri Apr 25, 2014 10:29 am

http://ewn.co.za/2014/04/23/OPINION-Did-Oscar-Pistorius-lie-on-the-stand

Did Oscar Pistorius lie on the stand ?

by aiyoyo Fri Apr 25, 2014 2:40 pm

http://www.sickipedia.org/celebrities/oscar-pistorius

Oscar Pistorius Jokes - some good ones and some sadistic ones

Warning : may not be to everyone's liking !!

by Guest Fri Apr 25, 2014 4:19 pm

All but a few to my liking ;-)

by Watching Sat Apr 26, 2014 7:53 am

Châtelaine wrote:All but a few to my liking ;-)

Agree Chatelaine. Some cannot I would imagine be permitted here as a suitable lodgement, however, if the Mods allow, I include here my outright 'winner' best appreciated if one listens firstly to the man himself giving evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxZYtDsMhIE

1:20:27 on recording

DELETED bad language NOT permitted

by aiyoyo Sat May 10, 2014 2:11 am

Oscar PIstorius's housekeeper allegedly was living in the property on day of incident but not called as witness as he heard nothing, seen nothing, how strange is that ?

A dumb, deaf, and blind as housekeeper ! big grin

by aiyoyo Sat May 10, 2014 2:56 am

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/09/oscar-pistorius-sells-pretoria-home-murder-trial-costs-reeva-steenkamp

OP's house is sold (apparently). I'm surprised how quickly it went.

Why would anyone want to purchase a property that a violent murder had taken place in it?

Very ODD ! I wouldn't like to live in it even if given to me FOC.

Can anyone imagine doing your business in a crime scene toilet ?
Even after the clean up or re-fitting by renovation you still can't rid your thought of the murder that occurred there.

Unless the buyer is ignorant about the history of the house.

by tiny Sat May 10, 2014 8:01 am

aiyoyo wrote:Oscar PIstorius's housekeeper allegedly was living in the property on day of incident but not called as witness as he heard nothing, seen nothing, how strange is that ?

A dumb, deaf, and blind as housekeeper !

I think this is a case of ,he know which side of his bread is buttered

by stumo Sat May 10, 2014 8:50 am

aiyoyo wrote:Oscar PIstorius's housekeeper allegedly was living in the property on day of incident but not called as witness as he heard nothing, seen nothing, how strange is that ?

A dumb, deaf, and blind as housekeeper !

Must be a pinball wizard !

by aiyoyo Sat May 10, 2014 10:55 am

tiny wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:Oscar PIstorius's housekeeper allegedly was living in the property on day of incident but not called as witness as he heard nothing, seen nothing, how strange is that ?

A dumb, deaf, and blind as housekeeper !

I think this is a case of ,he know which side of his bread is buttered

Compelled to say nothing by his boss, yes, that's expected.
Regardless, he's obliged to answer cross examination if he were put on the stand, but he was not called by either side.

Personally I don't believe he was at the scene or the first responders on the scene would have noticed. I suspect it was just a fabricated story by the Defence to support their case Reeva wasn't screaming.
He can't have slept through the commotion of OP continual screaming and wailing, Police siren etc.

by Angelique Mon May 12, 2014 11:20 am

Looks like Pistorius may be going for diminished responsibility - Nel takes a break from questioning psychiatrist Voster because of diagnosing general anxiety condition which usually means referral for observation.

by **PeterMac** Mon May 12, 2014 4:15 pm

http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/Dr_Vorster_Went_To..html
and then the next few entries - mercifully short and to the point -
is especially good on this at the moment.

by Angelique Mon May 12, 2014 11:43 pm

PeterMac

Thank you for the link to lazzerie-lies-in-the-sun - this psychiatrist it's certainly causing an extraordinary amount of trouble for the Defence.

When I caught the trial this morning I couldn't work out the why and the wherefore. Late evidence, Roux surely should know that you let loose a psychiatrist at your peril in Court. But then I thought - was this going to change the plea and if so as Gerrie said, why now. Looks a bit snidy to me. But as has transpired - it backfired!

by aiyoyo Tue May 13, 2014 7:48 am

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/oscar-pistorius-trial-day-30--prosecution-drops-bombshell-that-could-land-blade-runner-in-psychiatric-ward-163005151.html

Possible consequence for OP if Judge approves Mental Observation application.

by aiyoyo Tue May 13, 2014 8:49 am

Angelique wrote:Looks like Pistorius may be going for diminished responsibility - Nel takes a break from questioning psychiatrist Voster because of diagnosing general anxiety condition which usually means referral for observation.

Nope, it was not Defense intention to go for Diminished Responsibility when they brought in the Psychiatrist.
The Psychiatrist-witness said so - "that OP is not trying to mount a defense of sane autonomism (temporary insanity); that his defense is emotional autonomism".

OP will never admit to anything no matter what - he did not do anything wrong - his Generalised Anxiety Disorder is to be blamed for his action. He could't help it, he did not fire voluntarily, his GAD condition predisposes him and caused him to be irrational, that's his latest line of defense. No matter what he's looking for something to blame.

A psychiatrist brought in at the 11th hour, who saw OP for the first time earlier this month after a lot of water had gone under the Bridge, suggests a last desperate attempt by OP to use this as excuse to influence Court but it backfired spectacularly when NEL turned it on its head saying that's a third defence - that of "Diminished Responsibility".

I did not understand Roux's objection at first as it is usually Defense's onus to prove Diminished Responsibility, then it dawned on me they did not want to go down that route when Roux argued GAD is not to be confused with mental illness or mental defect and therefore does not justify the invoking of mental health observation.

In other words NEL called their bluff, and OP is now stuck nicely between a mental institution and jail; either one or the other, or a bit of both.

Expect Roux to do all he can to get out of that today. Let's see whether NEL (or the Judge) let him off this hook.

I can't fault the psychiatrist, she was very professional, clear concise and honest.

by Angelique Tue May 13, 2014 12:12 pm

aiyoyo

Agreed. It was only what it looked like at first to me. But Nel has referred to three Defence now.

Roux is genuinely hot under the collar trying to back- track from the diagnosis of Vorster. Trouble is Court procedure will kick in I think. He threw the evidence in and also expects Nel not to sit up and react? He would damage his career if he ignored this diagnosis! But it seems one witness is not enough for Roux he holds the Court to ransom by his objection as he intends to bring another witness to Court on the "flight or fight response" and the vulnerability linked to disability? So wants to stay the Courts hand until after this witness - it's too early to bring this application according to Roux?

So why did Pistorius get the licence in the first place to own a gun?

As you say Pistorius will blame anything rather than yours truly!

I don't think Pistorius likes Nel much - when Nel got up to respond to Roux he turned his whole body towards Nel with a smirk on his face - just like someone else we know!

by Angelique Tue May 13, 2014 12:15 pm

aiyoyo

Sorry could not quote your comment but on iPad and it won't let me do quotes.

Judge will give her decision on application for referral tomorrow.

by aiyoyo Tue May 13, 2014 3:29 pm

Angelique wrote:aiyoyo

Agreed. It was only what it looked like at first to me. But Nel has referred to three Defence now.

Roux is genuinely hot under the collar trying to back- track from the diagnosis of Vorster. Trouble is Court procedure will kick in I think. He threw the evidence in and also expects Nel not to sit up and react? He would damage his career if he ignored this diagnosis! But it seems one witness is not enough for Roux he holds the Court to ransom by his objection as he intends to bring another witness to Court on the "flight or fight response" and the vulnerability linked to disability? So wants to stay the Courts hand until after this witness - it's too early to bring this application according to Roux?

So why did Pistorius get the licence in the first place to own a gun?

As you say Pistorius will blame anything rather than yours truly!

I don't think Pistorius likes Nel much - when Nel got up to respond to Roux he turned his whole body towards Nel with a smirk on his face - just like someone else we know!

Nel knows OP is not a mental case. He knows Defense used a change in line of defense and he's trying to pre-empt that being use for appeal.
If OP was not referred now, this could be used for appeal should there be a change in defense counsel as can happen.

OP wants to have his cake and eat it. You can't be GAD, knowing that, and collect guns.
If he's a mental disorder he would not be able to become who he is ie a professional athlete, because he would have been assessed yearly that he is fit for competitions at international level.
If his disorder does not prevent him from social and professional life it should not affect his judgement ability in other areas, can't use GAD to suit his convenient.

Roux is indeed hot under the collar and trying to back peddle but maybe too late. He opens this avenue for Nel to go down this route, so it's beyond his control now.

by Angelique Tue May 13, 2014 5:51 pm

aiyoyo

You wrote

"Roux is indeed hot under the collar and trying to back peddle but maybe too late. He opens this avenue for Nel to go down this route, so it's beyond his control now."

I agree totally but what I don't understand if as you say Roux is back peddling which confirms he has made a big mistake then why is he bringing this other witness along to give evidence regarding flight or fight? It makes no sense.

Log in for more topics