991 users online (161 members and 830 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 2 of 78 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 52 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 1160
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,712
    Quote Originally Posted by mhiforme View Post
    BIB, As the defendant, he has the right to listen to all the witnesses
    Tell me something I don't know. The point I was making, as I'm sure everyone else here would understand, is that his tailoring and lying was as a direct consequence of listening to the witnesses' testimony. Perhaps you disagree with that.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,712
    Here's a lovely happy pic of Lisa, Nick van der Leek, June and Barry
    Attached Images Attached Images

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Up Nel's Arse
    Posts
    1,460
    Quote Originally Posted by Greater Than View Post
    Source?

    OP's testimony got himself convicted when he went off the script and changed his defense on the stand, but I have never heard of a notice of grounds of defense for criminal cases, only civil.
    I think JJ means the Plea Explanation

    As she correctly states, the defence is required to set out the particulars of the defence - especially in so far as the defence seeks to rely on special legal defences like self defence or mistake

    http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2...lea-statement/

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Up Nel's Arse
    Posts
    1,460
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeJudi View Post
    I agree 100%. He thought he was covering all bases with his multiple defences. Masipa should never have allowed that to happen. I've never heard of that before as the Defence is required to file a Notice of Grounds of Defence. I have no idea what happened with that. No-one, and I think that might also include Roux, knew what he was going to say next. Imagine having a client like that. Then there was all that double tap nonsense.

    What really infuriated me was the dreadful bullying by Roux of the ear witnesses, especially Michelle Burger and the Stipps, of them colluding with their partners. However, in Roux's eyes there was nothing wrong with OP listening to everything all the witnesses said and OP then tailoring his stories to accommodate that which didn't fit with his version/s. If I was the prosecutor I'd have loved to put this to him in no uncertain terms. The more I hear and read about him, the more I need a huge green bucket.
    I was talking about this with Paul C the other day

    If you look back - the Plea Explanation is drafted very carefully to cover all bases

    "... the occurrence was indeed an accident... "

    I think this was deliberate - so the shooting was a mistake (accident) but also leaving it open that he fired unintentionally (accident)

    IMO this was a tactical mistake from Roux as well as a blunder on the stand.

    They should have gone all in on PPD

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Hiding in the Vatican Catacombs covertly
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeJudi View Post
    Tell me something I don't know. The point I was making, as I'm sure everyone else here would understand, is that his tailoring and lying was as a direct consequence of listening to the witnesses' testimony. Perhaps you disagree with that.
    You're right JJ. Ironically, it was this tailoring of evidence and his pathological inability to admit to any wrong doing whatsoever that led him to fall into the prosecutions trap.

    The police psychologist, Major Bronwynn Stollarz played a blinder here in advising Nel to keep switching the themes of the cross-examination. Liars are often unable to work backwards. Witnesses are often coached to tell their story from start to finish, and this can make it difficult if during cross-examination when they are asked to repeat it out of order or in reverse and especially if the prosecutor keeps jumping from one theme to another. Stollarz had also researched all the background collateral information on Pistorius and knew he had a history of refusing to take responsibility and passing the blame on to others.

    So right from the very beginning Gerrie Nel asks him to take responsibility for the death of Reeva knowing full well he won't because he can't. "You killed Reeva Steenkamp, didn't you?" he asked at the start of questioning. "You made a mistake? You killed a person. You killed Reeva Steenkamp. Say it. Say I shot and killed Reeva Steenkamp." He couldn't, instead he replied "I did, my lady."

    Nel accused him of "not listening" to his questions and telling the court well "rehearsed answers" over and over. Pistorius told the court he was telling the truth and was under pressure because his life is "on the line".

    "Please answer the questions, don't argue the case, you will get into trouble." From then on Pistorius was in defence and denial mode and never conceded a single admission of guilt. He blamed the police, his then non-existant GAD, his friends, his own father, even his own defence team. He was never to blame.

    Then finally when Nel asks him if he intended to shoot at the person behind the door he denied that too and unstitched the whole defence so carefully worked out. No PPD, just some unintentional, unexplained accident. Both at the beginning and end of the cross he could not bring himself to admit culpability of any kind. His hatred of Nel and his ego saw to that.

    I know some people thought Nel was inferior to Roux during the trial but I think the PT had Pistorius sussed from the outset and let him hoist himself by his own petard. His hatred and contempt for Nel by the time Nel had finally and tortuously brought him to the crucial question was such that he was blind to the careful coaching of Roux and he was so determined not to concede a single thing to the loathsome Nel he ensured he would be forever remembered as a lying, cowardly, unrepentant murderer who would say anything and everything to save his own skin.

    Paradoxically, his pathological inability to lose, his fear and loathing of weakness, his must-win mentality that had served him so well in his athletics trials was ultimately his undoing in the most important trial of all. His greatest strength was also his greatest weakness.
    Last edited by Paul Connelly; 12-20-2015 at 12:24 PM.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Up Nel's Arse
    Posts
    1,460
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeJudi View Post

    What really infuriated me was the dreadful bullying by Roux of the ear witnesses, especially Michelle Burger and the Stipps, of them colluding with their partners. However, in Roux's eyes there was nothing wrong with OP listening to everything all the witnesses said and OP then tailoring his stories to accommodate that which didn't fit with his version/s. If I was the prosecutor I'd have loved to put this to him in no uncertain terms. The more I hear and read about him, the more I need a huge green bucket.
    I in favour of even more law reform in this area - beyond what we already saw in the UK

    A defendant with elite lawyers should be required to give a detailed police statement. If he does not - then it should count against him when he manufactures new aspects after hearing the state case.

    e.g. the fans, screams, denim, blue light etc etc

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Up Nel's Arse
    Posts
    1,460
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Connelly View Post
    You're right JJ. Ironically, it was this tailoring of evidence and his pathological inability to admit to any wrong doing whatsoever that led him to fall into the prosecutions trap.

    The police psychologist, Major Bronwynn Stollarz played a blinder here in advising Nel to keep switching the themes of the cross-examination. Liars are often unable to work backwards. Witnesses are often coached to tell their story from start to finish, and this can make it difficult if during cross-examination when they are asked to repeat it out of order or in reverse and especially if the prosecutor keeps jumping from one theme to another. Stollarz had also researched all the background collateral information on Pistorius and knew he had a history of refusing to take responsibility and passing the blame on to others.

    So right from the very beginning Gerrie Nel asks him to take responsibility for the death of Reeva knowing full well he won't because he can't. "You killed Reeva Steenkamp, didn't you?" he asked at the start of questioning. "You made a mistake? You killed a person. You killed Reeva Steenkamp. Say it. Say I shot and killed Reeva Steenkamp." He couldn't, instead he replied "I did, my lady."

    Nel accused him of "not listening" to his questions and telling the court well "rehearsed answers" over and over. Pistorius told the court he was telling the truth and was under pressure because his life is "on the line".

    "Please answer the questions, don't argue the case, you will get into trouble." From then on Pistorius was in defence and denial mode and never conceded a single admission of guilt. He blamed the police, his then non-existant GAD, his friends, his own father, even his own defence team. He was never to blame.

    Then finally when Nel asks him if he intended to shoot at the person behind the door he denied that too and unstitched the whole defence so carefully worked out. Both at the beginning and end of the cross he could not bring himself to admit culpability of any kind. His hatred of Nel and his ego saw to that.

    I know some people thought Nel was inferior to Roux during the trial but I think the PT had Pistorius sussed from the outset and let him hoist himself by his own petard. His hatred and contempt for Nel by the time Nel had finally and tortuously brought him to the crucial question was such that he was blind to the careful coaching of Roux and he was so determined not to concede a single thing to the loathsome Nel he ensured he would be forever remembered as a lying, cowardly, unrepentant murderer who would say anything and everything to save his own skin.

    Paradoxically, his pathological inability to lose, his fear and loathing of weakness, his must-win mentality that had served him so well in his athletics trials was ultimately his undoing in the most important trial of all. His greatest strength was also his greatest weakness.
    I tend to think that view was merely scoreboard journalism.

    Nel destroyed OP on the stand - which was his key job

    Between the lines, the 5 SC judges were deeply aware of that ("No one knew what his version was..")

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Hiding in the Vatican Catacombs covertly
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjitty View Post
    I tend to think that view was merely scoreboard journalism.

    Nel destroyed OP on the stand - which was his key job

    Between the lines, the 5 SC judges were deeply aware of that ("No one knew what his version was..")
    BIB: That's exactly right. When he couldn't even give a version himself, because he wanted all of them and more, what else is left to infer? I agree, they should have gone all in for PPD and thrown him on the mercy of the court during sentencing. His pathological inability to take any responsibility was his undoing. The subject matter notwithstanding, a sweet irony if ever there was one.

    Thank heavens for the 5 SCA judges though, because he very nearly got away with murder.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Hamburg/Bremen
    Posts
    5,466
    I have 2 e-books of the authors Lisa and Nick, nice to see them on tis pic together with the dissolved-looking parents of Reeva. Thank you!

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Hamburg/Bremen
    Posts
    5,466
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Connelly View Post
    You're right JJ. Ironically, it was this tailoring of evidence and his pathological inability to admit to any wrong doing whatsoever that led him to fall into the prosecutions trap.

    The police psychologist, Major Bronwynn Stollarz played a blinder here in advising Nel to keep switching the themes of the cross-examination. Liars are often unable to work backwards. Witnesses are often coached to tell their story from start to finish, and this can make it difficult if during cross-examination when they are asked to repeat it out of order or in reverse and especially if the prosecutor keeps jumping from one theme to another. Stollarz had also researched all the background collateral information on Pistorius and knew he had a history of refusing to take responsibility and passing the blame on to others.

    So right from the very beginning Gerrie Nel asks him to take responsibility for the death of Reeva knowing full well he won't because he can't. "You killed Reeva Steenkamp, didn't you?" he asked at the start of questioning. "You made a mistake? You killed a person. You killed Reeva Steenkamp. Say it. Say I shot and killed Reeva Steenkamp." He couldn't, instead he replied "I did, my lady."

    Nel accused him of "not listening" to his questions and telling the court well "rehearsed answers" over and over. Pistorius told the court he was telling the truth and was under pressure because his life is "on the line".

    "Please answer the questions, don't argue the case, you will get into trouble." From then on Pistorius was in defence and denial mode and never conceded a single admission of guilt. He blamed the police, his then non-existant GAD, his friends, his own father, even his own defence team. He was never to blame.

    Then finally when Nel asks him if he intended to shoot at the person behind the door he denied that too and unstitched the whole defence so carefully worked out. No PPD, just some unintentional, unexplained accident. Both at the beginning and end of the cross he could not bring himself to admit culpability of any kind. His hatred of Nel and his ego saw to that.

    I know some people thought Nel was inferior to Roux during the trial but I think the PT had Pistorius sussed from the outset and let him hoist himself by his own petard. His hatred and contempt for Nel by the time Nel had finally and tortuously brought him to the crucial question was such that he was blind to the careful coaching of Roux and he was so determined not to concede a single thing to the loathsome Nel he ensured he would be forever remembered as a lying, cowardly, unrepentant murderer who would say anything and everything to save his own skin.

    Paradoxically, his pathological inability to lose, his fear and loathing of weakness, his must-win mentality that had served him so well in his athletics trials was ultimately his undoing in the most important trial of all. His greatest strength was also his greatest weakness.
    Great "essay" - thank you!

    I remember: At one certain point Nel was so close, to have put OP himself into making a confession. I held my breath and then - nothing!! Nel suddenly broke off at this point and changed the subject. That's what I just did not understand (to this day). I desperately assumed that even he wanted to protect the accused.


  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Hiding in the Vatican Catacombs covertly
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjitty View Post
    I tend to think that view was merely scoreboard journalism.

    Nel destroyed OP on the stand - which was his key job

    Between the lines, the 5 SC judges were deeply aware of that ("No one knew what his version was..")
    There's no doubt there was a lot of that going on before, during and even after the trial! TBH though I had in mind the contributors to this forum after the recent bail hearing where a number of posters were saying how disappointed they were with Nel throughout the case compared to Roux.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Up Nel's Arse
    Posts
    1,460
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Connelly View Post
    There's no doubt there was a lot of that going on before, during and even after the trial! TBH though I had in mind the contributors to this forum after the recent bail hearing where a number of posters were saying how disappointed they were with Nel throughout the case compared to Roux.
    There is always a temptation to believe that "if only the case had been argued differently..." you would have got a different result

    I tend not to believe in that.

    Sometimes the Judge is just determined to reach a particular destination or makes mistakes

    The Prosecutor cannot legislate for that.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Hiding in the Vatican Catacombs covertly
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by FromGermany View Post
    Great "essay" - thank you!

    I remember: At one certain point Nel was so close, to have put OP himself into making a confession. I held my breath and then - nothing!! Nel suddenly broke off at this point and changed the subject. That's what I just did not understand (to this day). I desperately assumed that even he wanted to protect the accused.
    Thanks FG I remember that moment well it was very dramatic at the time and even though seconds it seemed to last for an age. I think Nel just realised he'd either frozen or was playing the drama queen and wanted to crack on with the cross-examination. Unlike those of us witnessing a live murder trial for the first time and influenced by TV dramas, Nel was surely too experienced to expect Oscar to simply crumble and confess. He afforded the accused the appropriate time and got back to work.

    I can't imagine anyone less likely than Nel to protect the accused. I can only pretend to know how nerve wracking it must have been for you back then to doubt the intrepid Gerrie!

    He meant to destroy Pistorius on the stand and destroy him he did. He was as tenacious in prosecuting Pistorius as he was with Selebi despite the great personal cost to himself. His integrity was never in question. Just shows the pressure we were under watching it unfold. So much emotional energy invested - we were desperate for justice to be served.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjitty View Post
    I in favour of even more law reform in this area - beyond what we already saw in the UK

    A defendant with elite lawyers should be required to give a detailed police statement. If he does not - then it should count against him when he manufactures new aspects after hearing the state case.

    e.g. the fans, screams, denim, blue light etc etc
    BIB, This would be so unconstitutional and would infringe on a client's right to fair representation. By introducing such a law, you'd essentially be creating a two tiered justice system where some defendants are treated differently than others. Justice is supposed to be blind.

    How would you even go about determining which client has elite lawyers? Would you base it on hourly rate, years of experience, etc. There would be an argument against every situtation.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Connelly View Post
    BIB: That's exactly right. When he couldn't even give a version himself, because he wanted all of them and more, what else is left to infer? I agree, they should have gone all in for PPD and thrown him on the mercy of the court during sentencing. His pathological inability to take any responsibility was his undoing. The subject matter notwithstanding, a sweet irony if ever there was one.

    Thank heavens for the 5 SCA judges though, because he very nearly got away with murder.
    BIB, this case isn't over yet, we still have the CC hearing next year.

Page 2 of 78 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 52 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #70 *Appeal Verdict*
    By Coldpizza in forum Oscar Pistorius
    Replies: 259
    Last Post: 06-11-2016, 04:32 PM
  2. Replies: 1022
    Last Post: 12-19-2015, 08:49 AM
  3. Replies: 1157
    Last Post: 12-08-2015, 08:29 AM
  4. Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #63 ~ the appeal~
    By KateB in forum Oscar Pistorius
    Replies: 1079
    Last Post: 08-19-2015, 08:07 PM
  5. Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #62 ~ the appeal~
    By KateB in forum Oscar Pistorius
    Replies: 1087
    Last Post: 08-05-2015, 09:28 PM

Tags for this Thread