Oscar Pistorius

aiyoyo wrote:Priceless!  Dixon comes across as a bumbling liability.  . ..

Not unlike the witnesses in another trial in a far off country !
Hired hands ?

PeterMac wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:Priceless!  Dixon comes across as a bumbling liability.  . ..

Not unlike the witnesses in another trial in a far off country !
Hired hands ?

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.  Mock tests would be useless on their hired hands unless they knew or were told the Truth.

Mr & Mrs Brooks and her ex-PA seemed to have done mock tests before trial. They appeared consistent synchronized and scripted.

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

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

Not to mention why they are both adamant in their belief that no harm has come to their daughter whilst at the same time propagating the theory that she was 'abducted' by an organised gang of paedophiles.

Why, their evidence would be less credible than that guy who testified that he just happened to be passing the front garden where a girl lay murdered and decided to take advantage of the situation by having sex with her.  You're absolutely correct, Peter, the McCanns would never agree to answer questions at a church garden fete, much less a criminal hearing, unless they were predetermined by their lawyers without the possibility of cross examination.

@diatribe:

... "where a girl lay murdered and decided to take advantage of the situation by having sex with her." 

I would say assaulting/violating/raping her.

That was the defence used by this ghastly creature, LIR.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:That was the defence used by this ghastly creature, LIR.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I wonder who suggested it to him ?

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:That was the defence used by this ghastly creature, LIR.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Yes, appalling. 
BTW, I didn't mean to suggest that they were diatribe's words.

diatribe wrote:

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

Not to mention why they are both adamant in their belief that no harm has come to their daughter whilst at the same time propagating the theory that she was 'abducted' by an organised gang of paedophiles.

Why, their evidence would be less credible than that guy who testified that he just happened to be passing the front garden where a girl lay murdered and decided to take advantage of the situation by having sex with her.  You're absolutely correct, Peter, the McCanns would never agree to answer questions at a church garden fete, much less a criminal hearing, unless they were predetermined by their lawyers without the possibility of cross examination.

I believe this whole "there is no proof she has come to any harm" has everything to do with "we are not guilty of any neglect". Per definition any child that misses all of the sudden her parents' care is suffering harm. Unless of course they want to admit they were lousy parents.

Back on topic though: it's an embarrassing performance from the defense.

OP had acting lessons from a famous SA actor before trial.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

imo. Oscar Pretorius is guilty of the murder of Reeva Steenkamp.

Unfortunately I cannot allow some statements by the Green Mamba Jani Allen to go unchallenged:

Jani Allen, the ex pat S African, who left S Africa rather hastily and with much humiliation, after her much publicized AFFAIR with Eugene Terreblanche, her career in tatters and having become laughing stock of the "journalistic" world here, she has obviously been resurrecting herself over in Britain.

Imo she left before the elections were held, in a great hurry on her British passport, fearing what was to come. This, "after having enjoyed her life of privilege. In a smart gated WHITE community" She left hastily to avoid the realities of black majority rule to come in South Africa, she worked so hard to bring about, as did many of her calibre. (The Afrikaans and many English speaking people do not have the luxury of having other countries to run to such as Jani Allen had, should they want to do so).


Now I am not mean by nature but I cannot allow her hateful sneaky snide statements to go unchallenged:
Neither was I a fan of Eugene Terreblanche, too bombastic for my taste, but he fought for what he believed in, and was concerned about the fate of his fellow South Africans, who have a totally different culture, and needs, to be able to function normally in a proven to be violent majority culture.

Jani Allen, the Green Mamba, hopes to raise herself up again in Murdochs eyes, blackening the name of good people who work Extremely hard for a living to be able to afford the very necessary security their families need to stay alive in South Africa. Btb. Whites are not entitled to social benefits, only blacks. Did you know that companies must choose in this order when employing staff in South Africa, government naturally also: first off - black female. 2nd - black male. 3 - white female. 4 - white male. better qualifications don't count.

Jani Allen now casts all "privileged" white South Africans into the Oscar Pistorius mould. Making out that we are trigger happy, shooting up our houses and each other in order to murder innocent criminals. I wonder what she got for that poisonous piece of "journalism"? We whites in our forced jails most definitely do not, and would not behave as Oscar Pretorius behaved. If this were so there would not be to date 2% of white South Africans were murdered by blacks since black majority rule till 2012...no doubt one can add some more since that date. As you no doubt know Terreblanche was murdered a few years ago, his body so chopped up with machetes that he was unrecognisable, literally turned into mincemeat.

Oscar Pretorius is certainly not a good example of white Afrikaans speaking people in this country. Just as Shrien Dewani is not a good example of Brits.

Snifferdog wrote:imo. Oscar Pretorius is guilty of the murder of Reeva Steenkamp.

Unfortunately I cannot allow some statements by the Green Mamba Jani Allen to go unchallenged:

Jani Allen, the ex pat S African, who left S Africa rather hastily and with much humiliation, after her much publicized AFFAIR with Eugene Terreblanche, her career in tatters and having become laughing stock of the "journalistic" world here, she has obviously been resurrecting herself over in Britain.

Imo she left before the elections were held, in a great hurry on her British passport, fearing what was to come.  This, "after having enjoyed her life of privilege. In a smart gated WHITE community" She left hastily to avoid the realities of black majority rule to come in South Africa, she worked so hard to bring about, as did many of her calibre.  (The Afrikaans and many English speaking people do not have the luxury of having other countries to run to such as Jani Allen had, should they want to do so).


Now I am not mean by nature but I cannot allow her hateful sneaky snide statements to go unchallenged:
Neither was I a fan of Eugene Terreblanche, too bombastic for my taste, but he fought for what he believed in, and was concerned about the fate of his fellow South Africans, who have a totally different culture, and needs, to be able to function normally in a proven to be violent majority culture.  

Jani Allen, the Green Mamba, hopes to raise herself up again in Murdochs eyes, blackening the name of good people who work Extremely hard for a living to be able to afford the very necessary security their families need to stay alive in South Africa.  Btb. Whites are not entitled to social benefits, only blacks.  Did you know that companies must choose in this order when employing staff in South Africa, government naturally also:  first off - black female. 2nd - black male.  3 - white female.  4 - white male.  better qualifications don't count.

Jani Allen now casts all "privileged" white South Africans into the Oscar Pistorius mould.  Making out that we are trigger happy, shooting up our houses and each other in order to murder innocent criminals.  I wonder what she got for that poisonous piece of "journalism"?  We whites in our forced jails most definitely do not, and would not behave as Oscar Pretorius behaved.  If this were so there would not be to date 2% of white South Africans were murdered by blacks since black majority rule till 2012...no doubt one can add some more since that date.  As you no doubt know Terreblanche was murdered a few years ago, his body so chopped up with machetes that he was unrecognisable, literally turned into mincemeat.  

Oscar Pretorius is certainly not a good example of white Afrikaans speaking people in this country.   Just as Shrien Dewani is not a good example of Brits.

I'll second that Snifferdog. What a good post.

Jani Allen would be far better imo to concentrate on what it's really like for white South Africans living in South Africa today - they're most definitely not gun-toting loons.

Thank you Aquila. I just get so fed up when people such as Jani Allen use every opportunity to pull the race card to selfishly further their own ambitions to the detriment of others.

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. Gerrie Nel called it 'tailoring' his responses to the effect he wished to produce in his hearers rather, than answering questions strahghtforwardly and truthfully. 

In the case most of us who tune in here are primarily interested I always feel the main protagonists do the same... either they avoid answering questions altogether (OP says he can't remember - they try not put themselves into any situations where they are even asked any direct questions) Otherwise they shift their answers according to the result they want to achieve. That's why what they say keeps on changing.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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.

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.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Did Oscar Pistorius lie on the stand ?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Oscar Pistorius Jokes - some good ones and some sadistic ones

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

All but a few to my liking ;-)

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.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


1:20:27 on recording

 

DELETED bad language NOT permitted




 

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 !  

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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.

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

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 !