HOW 'INTERESTING'!

by jeanmonroe 09.04.14 11:23

OSCAR P 'trial'

the prosecution have just asked OP if he would ever LIE

ABSOLUTELY NOT says OP.

In the Oscar P 'trial' the prosecution asked OP if he had EVER said the words 'Zombie stopper'

'ABSOLUTELY NOT' says OP.

The prosecution then asks to show a video with OP purporting to show him saying 'zombie stopper'

OP 'defence' objects citing 'ambush evidence'

Anyway, the video eventually gets SHOWN!

"Oh, THAT 'video' says OP "yes, that is me saying 'Zombie stopper'

(the 'implication' being that OP HAS just 'lied' in the witness box.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The interesting thing for me is, that should the McCanns ever be charged with 'anything' is that the prosecution could enter into 'evidence' all the McCanns 'interviews, statements, books, etc' and what they have ACTUALLY 'said' on record, as opposed to what THEY say NOW.

KM 'on Boulton' last May, 2013' '"we don't know what happened to Madeleine'

KM, until then, 'She's been abducted. I know i was there'
----------------------------------------------------

UR4: But that is part of life, isn't it? There is always someone who has a different opinion.

GM: Well, you know, we're here; we're here standing in front of you; we're visible. The abductor is not.

UR4: [Laughs] Abductor?

GM: We... we need to find that person and...

KM: Yes, the abductor is not.

GM: ...and those that are responsible. That is it...

UR4: What evidence do you have that there was an abduction? Can I ask this question because you say that Amaral doesn't have...

KM: Because I know. I was there, I found my daughter gone. I know more than you do. I know what I saw.

UR4: I'm not saying that... I don't know anything, I'm just standing from a point of view where I don't know who to believe; I just want evidence, like you say.

GM: Where... where, you know... where is... where... where is... where is... where is the child? We're looking for that evidence. Where is the child? What other explanation can explain how she's not here.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Fore sight of GA?

"A book that is written by someone who was a suspect may become of use as a document, maybe even a piece of documental evidence. Let us wait," he added.

10th May 2011.

Well, 'interesting' to me, anyway.

by **PeterMac** 09.04.14 11:36

It is how all good interviewing and cross examination works.
You let the suspect say something, then ask again so that they reinforce their first statement (about not being there, or whatever)
even do it three times.
Then produce the fingerprint evidence, or the eye witness account, or the forensic details, and watch them squirm.

"Did you tell the police you entered through the front door using your key ?
Yes, I did say that.
Was that correct ?
erm, umm no
So it was a lie.
Yes
Why was almost the first thing you said to the police that night untrue ?
errrrmmm. . . .

You say the Last photo was taken at lunch time on 3rd May
Yes
Was it ?
Yes
Are you absolutely sure ?
Yes.
Please look at similar photos taken at lunch time on 3rd and observe the heavy overcast thick cloud cover. Do you have any comment to make ?
errmmmm . . . .

by jeanmonroe 09.04.14 11:54

I agree.

To be a 'good' liar you have to have a terrific 'memory' (like me winkwink

)

Something the McCanns and the T7 do NOT seem to 'possess'

As to the 'interviewing' what the hell were the Leicester Police 'playing at' with their 'pathetic' interviews of the T7?

One 'witness', DP, actually tells the police 'interviewer' he KNOWS 'a few things that are pertinent and RELEVENT to esatablish the MATERIAL truth' (about a 3 years old childs 'disappearance') but refuses to tell the police 'interviewer' what THEY are!

The police 'interviewer' just says........................."OK"!

Says/asks no more!

by lj 09.04.14 19:36

I know I'm hopeless outdated, but what is the importance/meaning of zombie stopper?

by Guest 09.04.14 19:46

lj wrote:I know I'm hopeless outdated, but what is the importance/meaning of zombie stopper?

Getting satisfaction of shooting a watermelon and destroying it and referring it to a 'zombie stopper'.

E.g - blowing the brains out of a Zombie and enjoying it.......

by **PeterMac** 09.04.14 22:43

Andrew77R wrote:
lj wrote:I know I'm hopeless outdated, but what is the importance/meaning of zombie stopper?
Getting satisfaction of shooting a watermelon and destroying it and referring it to a 'zombie stopper'.

E.g - blowing the brains out of a Zombie and enjoying it.......

And it is a reference to the particular type of hollow and expanding point ammunition that was being used.
What we used to call "dum-dum', which is the antithesis of the original full jacketed "parabellum".

It is designed to fragment on impact, so that it inflicts maximum killing capacity on the recipient, whereas a Geneva convention bullet has to be fully jacketed in copper so that it does not.
Strange as it may seem, the idea in war is NOT to kill the enemy, but to injure him, so that many resources are then involved in retrieval, transport, nursing, surgery, hospitalisation, rehabilitation, pension, re-training and the rest. If you kill your enemy outright, the rest just keep coming.

by sallypelt 09.04.14 22:51

PeterMac wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
lj wrote:I know I'm hopeless outdated, but what is the importance/meaning of zombie stopper?
Getting satisfaction of shooting a watermelon and destroying it and referring it to a 'zombie stopper'.

E.g - blowing the brains out of a Zombie and enjoying it.......
And it is a reference to the particular type of hollow and expanding point ammunition that was being used.
What we used to call "dum-dum', which is the antithesis of the original full jacketed "parabellum".

It is designed to fragment on impact, so that it inflicts maximum killing capacity on the recipient, whereas a Geneva convention bullet has to be fully jacketed in copper so that it does not.
Strange as it may seem, the idea in war is NOT to kill the enemy, but to injure him, so that many resources are then involved in retrieval, transport, nursing, surgery, hospitalisation, rehabilitation, pension, re-training and the rest. If you kill your enemy outright, the rest just keep coming.

WARNING – GRAPHIC CONTENT: Image of Reeva’s wounded head shown in court

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

by ultimaThule 09.04.14 23:01

The poor young woman would have screamed when the first bullet went into her hip and since Pistorius's defence claims he 'screams like a woman', I would have expected him to recognise a woman's scream and put his gun away until he either found out for himself who was behind the door, or called the police/security to find out for him.

I formed an opinion before this trial started and, to date, I've seen no reason to alter it.

Cheers for that, sally - just what I needed to see before bedtime smilie

I know I shouldn't have looked but curiousity is what brought me here and I'm in the Oscar Wilde camp when it comes to temptation. yes

by aiyoyo 09.04.14 23:50

Oh Lordie Lord that is indeed gruesome.
And I thought President Kennedy skull/brian flying off was bad.

What was OP thinking when he fired 4 shots from a dum dum gun?
He jolly knew the damage the gun shot will cause.
I've never seen gunshot wound as gruesome as that.....arrgh frightful....I shudder.....
Poor Reeva,

I hope he's locked up for a long time.

by Guest 10.04.14 1:01

Jesus - shouldn't of looked at that before bedtime either.

Like the Mccann's he is as guilty as sin and hope they all get there just deserves. (long long time behind bars)

Petermac - appreciate you giving a more detailed reference to the term 'zombie stopper'. I was struggling on that one!!

by Guest 10.04.14 1:27

Absolutely gruesome image.
I would not be a good jury member if was on this case.

I found something he said in court very odd given forensic linguistics remarks from hobs.

Pistorius said something like he didn't intend to kill reeva or anybody else for that matter.

I understand that he could be acknowledging an.intruder but given the amount of shots fired he certainly intended a lot of damage.

by Guest 10.04.14 1:48

Bellisa wrote:Absolutely gruesome image.
I would not be a good jury member if was on this case.

I found something he said in court very odd given forensic linguistics remarks from hobs.

Pistorius said something like he didn't intend to kill reeva or anybody else for that matter.

I understand that he could be acknowledging an.intruder but given the amount of shots fired he certainly intended a lot of damage.

I watched a bit of the trial today and was interesting when the prosecutor was saying 'did you fire the gun accidentally or intentionally at the 'supposed' intruder....'

OP tied himself in knots trying to answer that question.

by ultimaThule 10.04.14 2:10

The reason why OP tied himself in knots is most probably because the answer to the question may mean the difference between a long stretch for intentional murder and a lesser sentence for accidental murder which is the equivalent of manslaughter and which, without knowing anything about SA law, may possibly result in a non-custodial sentence if the judge is satisfied that there was no malice aforethought and the accused fired his gun at the door 4 times because he was in genuine fear for his life because of the 'supposed' intruder, Andrew.

by Guest 10.04.14 2:29

ultimaThule wrote:The reason why OP tied himself in knots is most probably because the answer to the question may mean the difference between a long stretch for intentional murder and a lesser sentence for accidental murder which is the equivalent of manslaughter and which, without knowing anything about SA law, may possibly result in a non-custodial sentence if the judge is satisfied that there was no malice aforethought and the accused fired his gun at the door 4 times because he was in genuine fear for his life because of the 'supposed' intruder, Andrew.

Totally agree UT.

For the record though i think he 'intentionally' shot and meant to kill his girlfriend and try to pass off some tripe that there was an intruder in the bathroom making some noise taking a dump.

Sorry if you disagree. Each to their own.

To me - i want to see him tie himself up in knots, as the more guilty he looks then the more chance of a deserved conviction.

by ultimaThule 10.04.14 2:47

I'm not disagreeing with you, Andrew. As I've said either here or elsewhere (the hour is late and the brain grows weary), I formed an opinion before this trial started and I've seen no reason to change or modify it in any way.

OP clearly has serious anger management issues, which are compounded by his obvious sense of self-entitlement, and they need to be addressed in a place where other young women won't fall victim to whatever charms he may possess, albeit I personally find him charmless but, there you go, there's no accounting for taste, is there? big grin

by **tigger** 10.04.14 7:14

PeterMac wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
lj wrote:I know I'm hopeless outdated, but what is the importance/meaning of zombie stopper?
Getting satisfaction of shooting a watermelon and destroying it and referring it to a 'zombie stopper'.

E.g - blowing the brains out of a Zombie and enjoying it.......
And it is a reference to the particular type of hollow and expanding point ammunition that was being used.
What we used to call "dum-dum', which is the antithesis of the original full jacketed "parabellum".

It is designed to fragment on impact, so that it inflicts maximum killing capacity on the recipient, whereas a Geneva convention bullet has to be fully jacketed in copper so that it does not.
Strange as it may seem, the idea in war is NOT to kill the enemy, but to injure him, so that many resources are then involved in retrieval, transport, nursing, surgery, hospitalisation, rehabilitation, pension, re-training and the rest. If you kill your enemy outright, the rest just keep coming.

Goodness me, from an economic point of view it makes a lot of sense. I've never read that before. the US promise to always retrieve the bodies works on the same principles I suppose. In that case it is costly for the US but could be used as propaganda back home.?

by sar 10.04.14 10:47

ultimaThule wrote:The poor young woman would have screamed when the first bullet went into her hip and since Pistorius's defence claims he 'screams like a woman', I would have expected him to recognise a woman's scream and put his gun away until he either found out for himself who was behind the door, or called the police/security to find out for him.

I formed an opinion before this trial started and, to date, I've seen no reason to alter it.

Cheers for that, sally - just what I needed to see before bedtime I know I shouldn't have looked but curiousity is what brought me here and I'm in the Oscar Wilde camp when it comes to temptation.

Thanks UT, was tempted to look but thought better of it for the same reason! Long time lurker / fan of your thoughts on this case.

by ultimaThule 10.04.14 11:20

I have a strong stomach, sar, and you can always call on me to give you the heads up as whether it's safe for you to look. If you are still tempted, I can tell you that her face is intact; she looks as if she's peacefully asleep and the image is nowhere near as bad as it would have been for those who were called to attend on that night.

blushing1

Thank you for the compliment roses

I promise I won't hold it against you if you change your mind big grin

by aiyoyo 10.04.14 11:54

Bellisa wrote:Absolutely gruesome image.
I would not be a good jury member if was on this case.

I found something he said in court very odd given forensic linguistics remarks from hobs.

Pistorius said something like he didn't intend to kill reeva or anybody else for that matter.

I understand that he could be acknowledging an.intruder but given the amount of shots fired he certainly intended a lot of damage.

How he can justify 4 shots into a confined space as self defence not intending to kill when the person cannot run or hide boggles the mind.

He went towards the danger not the other way around.

Hearing a noise is not valid enough reason to go towards it and firing shots upon it in succession.
If he was overcome with fear you would think he'd call security first thing, or send his girlfriend downstairs to avoid the danger or send her downstair to call the police.

There were plenty holes in his testimony but I've not seen the prosecutors attacking those yet.

by sar 10.04.14 12:00

ultimaThule wrote:I have a strong stomach, sar, and you can always call on me to give you the heads up as whether it's safe for you to look. If you are still tempted, I can tell you that her face is intact; she looks as if she's peacefully asleep and the image is nowhere near as bad as it would have been for those who were called to attend on that night.

Thank you for the compliment I promise I won't hold it against you if you change your mind

Thanks UT, as a young person I was too scared to look at my Gran when she passed away, I was curious but scared of what I'd see. When my Papa (Grandfather) passed away I was a bit older. My Mum asked if I wanted to see him. I thought about it and said yes, when she drew back the bed cover to reveal his face he looked at rest, he was peaceful. It looked like he was sleeping. He was a very handsome man who cared about his appearance, I though he looked very august, like a Roman Emperor on the side of a coin. It was a great comfort to me to know that some one who had such a wonderful life seemed to be at rest in his own bed. Okay, under very different circumstances, and my experience of death is very limited, but sometimes seeing someone dead can be a comfort. Thanks for the flowers, I love a rose!

by whatliesbehindthesofa 10.04.14 12:02

That he claims he didn't intend to kill is a big red flag for me, indicating that he isn't telling the truth. He should have claimed that he did intend to kill (the imaginary burglar), as it is quite obvious that he did.

First thing I would have done if I had heard a disturbance would have been to check that my girlfriend was OK and to send her away from trouble.

I don't believe a word he says, and I hope that justice is properly served upon him.

by Guest 10.04.14 13:50

Agree aiyoyo and wlbts, even that he said that he presumed she was in bed beside him,well surely if he knew the sound was coming from the bathroom and wanted to protect Reeva his instinct would be to tell her to get out and call someone and to use his gun only in the event of said intruder coming towards.him.

I just don't buy his version and hope the judge comes to the right decision.

by Guest 10.04.14 13:52

To add,watched the Lincoln Lawyer recently,if anyone has seen it do they also see some similarities with Pistorius' defence?

by jeanmonroe 11.04.14 2:54

Brilliant 'one liner' fron Mr Nel.

(after getting numerous 'i don't know and i can't remember' from OP)

Mr Nel to OP.

"So,,,, Mister i can't remember.............."

by jozi 16.04.14 23:25

Bellisa wrote:To add,watched the Lincoln Lawyer recently,if anyone has seen it do they also see some similarities with Pistorius' defence?

His defense is crumbling very quickly it never made sense anyway ?

The trouble with Oscar Pistorius is he's got away with so many things and other people have taken the blame for him, I'm sure he feels he can get away with anything he likes.Whatever Reeva did that early morning really pissed him off big time and I believe it was in anger ( I think he has a problem here ) that he shot her and then realized what he had done . Trouble is the bullets he used which are Black Tallons are meant to cause as much damage as possible , they explode on entering the flesh, so poor Reeva had no chance !

Now he cries for himself not for Reeva, he needs to be locked away for a long time .........What a waste of talent,how can it go so wrong !!!