1052 users online (143 members and 909 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 3 of 78 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 53 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 1160
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Hiding in the Vatican Catacombs covertly
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjitty View Post
    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.
    Yes, I remember you making the same comment at the time and agreeing with you.

    Nell did what he needed to do and did it well imo. Like you say he couldn't have known how Masipa was going to react or the fatal errors she would make. In the event he was vindicated by the SCA so no harm done.

    It's good that you could comment from your experience and reassure people. It's easy and understandable for lay people to see a trial like that and only see the personalities and imagine the seemingly expensive, articulate, charismatic Roux was running rings around Nel.

    I think strategically, his singular focus fared better than the "blunderbuss" tactics of Roux which as you said was ultimately his undoing at the SCA.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Hiding in the Vatican Catacombs covertly
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by mhiforme View Post
    BIB, this case isn't over yet, we still have the CC hearing next year.
    It's far wiser to get rid of a delusion than to grasp a truth. As Judge Judy is apt to say: "When your dog pisses up my leg don't try to tell me it's raining".

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    599
    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.
    BRILLIANTLY WORDED, CHAPEAU!
    Thank you!

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Hiding in the Vatican Catacombs covertly
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by Susza View Post
    BRILLIANTLY WORDED, CHAPEAU!
    Thank you!
    Aww, thank you Susza and hats off to you too for your kindness.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    528
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjitty View Post
    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
    I've never been convinced that Pistorius went off brief and blundered on the stand. Imo, Roux knew that it would be tricky to establish PPD because of the closed door and four shots, which is why he avoided the issue of intent on the Plea Explanation, opting to leave things open by stating 'the discharging of my firearm was precipitated' as opposed to stating 'I discharged my firearm...'

    It's also possible, of course, that Roux's hands were tied from the start because Pistorius refused to accept that he'd fired intentionally.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    528
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjitty View Post
    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.
    I think all the tea breaks didn't help the Prosecution either:

    http://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/...-lenient-break

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Hiding in the Vatican Catacombs covertly
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by Sherbert View Post
    I've never been convinced that Pistorius went off brief and blundered on the stand. Imo, Roux knew that it would be tricky to establish PPD because of the closed door and four shots, which is why he avoided the issue of intent on the Plea Explanation, opting to leave things open by stating 'the discharging of my firearm was precipitated' as opposed to stating 'I discharged my firearm...'

    It's also possible, of course, that Roux's hands were tied from the start because Pistorius refused to accept that he'd fired intentionally.


    it does make you wonder doesn't it? I do recall reading that Roux had offered to plead Culpable Homicide as a plea bargain and Nel rejected it. I just cannot fathom the approach they eventually adopted if as you say Pistorius stayed on message throughout. I do still think they should have gone all in for PPD despite the inherent difficulties and at worst come away with culpable homicide. The blunderbuss approach was doomed to failure as evidenced by the SCA.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,189
    Quote Originally Posted by Sherbert View Post
    I've never been convinced that Pistorius went off brief and blundered on the stand. Imo, Roux knew that it would be tricky to establish PPD because of the closed door and four shots, which is why he avoided the issue of intent on the Plea Explanation, opting to leave things open by stating 'the discharging of my firearm was precipitated' as opposed to stating 'I discharged my firearm...'

    It's also possible, of course, that Roux's hands were tied from the start because Pistorius refused to accept that he'd fired intentionally.
    I am very tempted to agree with you on this Sherbert,but how does Roux's mistake with "double-taps" fit in to this?

    I agree Roux must have been fully aware his actions did not meet PPD, and decided in advance it might only fly with disability fear factor thrown in - but how could Roux hope to claim double tap technique is an accidental shooting - it implies complete control.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Hiding in the Vatican Catacombs covertly
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by cottonweaver View Post
    I am very tempted to agree with you on this Sherbert,but how does Roux's mistake with "double-taps" fit in to this?

    I agree Roux must have been fully aware his actions did not meet PPD, and decided in advance it might only fly with disability fear factor thrown in - but how could Roux hope to claim double tap technique is an accidental shooting - it implies complete control.
    Indeed, it doesn't make sense. Maybe the plan was simply to see what the PT had and tailor the defence as they heard the evidence? I can't see any other rational explanation.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,189
    Quote Originally Posted by Sherbert View Post
    I think all the tea breaks didn't help the Prosecution either:

    http://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/...-lenient-break
    In relation to delays and delaying tactics do you recall that analysis the old poster AJDS did to piece together Roux's strategic delays to create time so that Dr.Vorster could meet with OP and his family and produce the GAD diagnosis.

    He started a short WS thread on it during or just after the trial- it's there somewhere on the old threads page - very illuminating.

    ETA Yes Paul -late commissioning of Vorster shows for me ( alongside their other experts who repeated their tests) that Roux was prepared to adapt as the trial unfolded and in relation to OP's poor testimony. ( Most commentators were unanimous on this. But incidentally, I don't recall any legal eagle other than Greenland saying that not making the defence explicit at the outset was against SA legal protocols.)


  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Hiding in the Vatican Catacombs covertly
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by cottonweaver View Post
    In relation to delays and delaying tactics do you recall that analysis the old poster AJDS did to piece together Roux's strategic delays to create time so that Dr.Vorster could meet with OP and his family and produce the GAD diagnosis.

    He started a short WS thread on it during or just after the trial- it's there somewhere on the old threads page - very illuminating.

    ETA Yes Paul -late commissioning of Vorster shows for me ( alongside their other experts who repeated their tests) that Roux was prepared to adapt as the trial unfolded and in relation to OP's poor testimony. ( Most commentators were unanimous on this. But incidentally, I don't recall any legal eagle other than Greenland saying that not making the defence explicit at the outset was against SA legal protocols.)
    I found this from AJDS and it's pretty damning!

    AJ_DS
    06-23-2014, 05:32 PM
    Session 1 (S1) : 9:30AM to 11:00AM (1 h. 30 m.) – Session 2 (S2) : 11:30AM to 1:00PM (1 h. 30 m.) – Session 3 (S3) : 2:00PM to 3:00PM (1 h.)

    FRIDAY 2 MAY 2014

    Very last weekday of the 2-week adjournment

    Dr. Merryll Vorster interviews Oscar Pistorius for the very first time

    Dr. Merryll Vorster interviews Diana Binge (Oscar's aunt)

    MONDAY 5 MAY 2014

    Dr. Merryll Vorster interviews Aimee Pistorius, Carl Pistorius, Justin Divaris, Oscar's manager, Oscar's coach.

    S1 : Johan Stander (1 h. 30 m.)

    S2 : Carice Stander (1 h.)

    Roux : " M'Lady…huh…we…huh…experienced great difficulty to get more than 2 witnesses available for today…we were hoping that…huh…the 2 witnesses would…would take up most of the day…huh…we desperately tried to get a 3rd and a 4th one…huh…we just could not…I…I can only ascribe it to the…many public holidays before…huh…everyone had something on on a Monday…it won't repeat on the days following, we have already the other witnesses lined up to ensure that…that…that…that it won't be a repeat of this…that we can use up all the available Court time. "

    Roux : " M'Lady, we believe…I heard on the radio that the Wednesday is a public holiday…it's…it's voting day…but…but M'Lady I can…can tell you from our side that…on the times given to you that we believe that we still well within that…that time…huh…estimation "

    Unused Court time : 1 h. 30 m.

    TUESDAY 6 MAY 2014

    The social worker Ingrid van Schalkwyk contacts the Defence team to convey her desire to testify on Oscar's behalf : she was upset because she read that Oscar Pistorius had "taken acting training", that he "put on a show", that he "started crying when it wasn't needed"… she wanted to tell her version of what she had observed of the accused.

    S1 : Mr. Nhlengethwa (1 h.) and Mrs Nhlengethwa (30 m.)

    S2 : Mrs Motchuani (15 min.)

    Roux : " Understanding now better the cross-examination of the previous 2 witnesses that I can anticipate it won't take that long, so again a said problem will arise but…I…I will put on record, that we, well within the timeframe and, if I work it out, the timeframe and…and…and trying anticipate cross-examinations the times that I even believe that, we may end the Defence case by Tuesday next week. "

    Roux : " So I'm…I'm…I'm…I'm really sorry about the delay again that I can anticipate it's going to be caused because I…the 3 witnesses lined that we tried to work out…huh…they all have children and we just could not bring witnesses left, right and center…and I incorrectly believed that the 3 witnesses would, take the day… "

    Roux : " M'Lady, I indicated the difficulty…huh…but also the timeframes to you, so my apologies again…I would asked Mr. Nel to maybe ask more questions on Thursday to save me this embarrassment but…huh…and he assured me that he would do so…but the witnesses are ready for Thursday again I'm…I can only estimate…"

    Unused Court time : 2 h. 15 m.

    WEDNESDAY 7 MAY 2014

    This day is a holiday because of elections in South Africa

    Dr. Merryll Vorster interviews Oscar Pistorius for the second time

    THURSDAY 8 MAY 2014

    S1 : Christina Lundgren the anesthetist (1 h 10)

    S2 : Ingrid van Schalkwyk the social worker (45 m.)

    S2 – S3 : Thomas Wolmarans (1 h. 15 m.)

    Unused Court time : 0 (but about 50 minutes of delays caused by withholding reports until the very last second)

    FRIDAY 9 MAY 2014

    S1 – S2 – S3 : Thomas Wolmarans (4 h.)

    Unused Court time : 0

    MONDAY 12 MAY 2014

    S1 : Thomas Wolmarans (1 h. 30 m.)

    S2 : Dr Merryll Vorster the forensic psychiatrist

    Total time of Wolmarans's testimony : 6 h. 45 m.


    1. Dr. Merryll Vorster's involvement was an unplanned very last minute Hail-Mary effort in Oscar's Defence… the unplanned and unforeseen 2-week adjournment was an application that was brought forth by the State on 15 April 2014 because some members of the Prosecution team had other preferential cases to address where the accused were being detained. Had this application not been made by the State, the Defence would NOT have had the opportunity or the time to retain the services of Dr. Merryll Vorster to evaluate Oscar Pistorius because the Defence's case would have been concluded during the first week of the aforementioned 2-week adjournment.

    2. Dr. Merryll Vorster conducted her first interview with Oscar Pistorius on 2 May 2014… this posed a problem for the Defence : Dr. Merryll Vorster had to : interview Oscar, interview family and friends, interview Oscar a second time and write a report before appearing in Court as an expert witness.

    3. Dr. Merryll Vorster's second interview with Oscar Pistorius was conducted on 7 May 2014… This was a Holliday in SA because of elections… Roux blatantly lied to the Court when he stated on 5 May 2014 that he had just learned that 7 May 2014 was a Holliday… Oscar Pistorius was scheduled to meet Dr. Merryll Vorster that VERY day… Oscar has to be present in the courtroom when the Court is in session… without this Holliday, Oscar could not have met with Dr. Vorster. Interestingly enough, Nel had already mentioned on 15 April 2014 when he made the application for the 2-week adjournment that the week of 2 May 2014 was an election week.

    4. Roux intentionally delayed Court proceeding to buy some time for Dr. Merryll Vorster to complete her analysis and prepare her report… without the 2 days where witnesses were 'fortuitously' unavailable and Roux 'fortuitously' misevaluated the times (5 May and 6 May), Dr. Vorster would have had to been called upon Friday 9 May 2014 instead of Monday 12 May 2014. (see alternate timeline with full use of Court time below).

    5. Interestingly, Roux stated on 6 May that he did not have more than 3 witnesses available because the witnesses had children… BUT all of the following witnesses that were brought forth on 8 May and afterwards are ALL professionals that work during the day and therefore are very much available to be in Court : Roux could have called Christina Lundgren to the stand on 6 May 2014.

    6. Ingrid van Schalkwyk inexplicably approached the Defence on 6 May 2014 and was put in the witness box on 8 May 2014 by Roux… She decided to come forth 3 weeks AFTER Oscar Pistorius had already finished his testimony on 15 April 2014… Had the 2-week adjournment application not been made by the State, the Defence would NOT have had the opportunity to put Ingrid van Schalkwyk on the stand. By 'coincidence', she came forth precisely when the Defence needed to buy some time for Dr. Merryll Vorster.

    7. Although Roux was very contrite and apologetic for delaying Court proceedings by not having witnesses available, Roux purposefully withheld from the Prosecution Christina Lundgren's, Ingrid van Schalkwyk's and Thomas Wolmarans's reports until the very last possible moment i.e. when the witnesses took the stand… This would inevitably lead the State to ask for adjournments to read those reports and confer with their own experts on the content of said reports… hence by some additional time for Dr. Merryll Vorster.

    8. The timeframe of when the Defence expected to conclude their case was established prior to the 2-week adjournment : Roux estimated that the Defence would rest on 13 May 2014… This was BEFORE Dr Merryll Vorster and Ingrid van Schalkwyk were even involved… Roux blatantly lied in open Court on 5 May and 6 May when he stated that he would keep to the 13 May timeframe.

    Alternate timeline with full use of available Court time :

    MONDAY 5 MAY 2014

    S1 : Johan Stander (1 h. 30 m.)
    S2 : Carice Stander (1 h.)
    S2 – S3 : Mr. Nhlengethwa (1 h.) and Mrs Nhlengethwa (30 m.)

    Unused Court time : 0

    TUESDAY 6 MAY 2014

    S1 : Mrs Motchuani (15 m.) and Christina Lundgren (1 h 10)
    S2 : Ingrid van Schalkwyk (45 m.)
    S2 – S3 : Thomas Wolmarans (1 h. 45 m.)

    Unused Court time : 0

    THURSDAY 8 MAY 2014

    S1 – S2 – S3 : Thomas Wolmarans (4 h.)

    Unused Court time : 0

    FRIDAY 9 MAY 2014

    S1 : Thomas Wolmarans (1 h.) and Dr Merryll Vorster (30 m.)

    S2 – S3 : Dr Merryll Vorster (2 h. 30 m.)

    Total time of Wolmarans's testimony : 6 h. 45 m. (same)

    One can clearly see that WITHOUT Roux's dubious delaying tactics, Dr Merryll Vorster would have had ONLY 1 day (8 May) to prepare her report… with Roux's engineered delays, she got 4 days.

    Dr. Vorster involvement was a last ditch effort and Roux purposefully delayed Court proceedings to allow such effort to come to fruition… very unbecoming behavior for an attorney !!

    Furthermore, WITHOUT Ingrid van Schalkwyk's involvement, Thomas Wolmarans would have probably finished his testimony on 8 May and Dr Merryll Vorster would have been on the stand first thing on Friday 9 May at 9:30AM

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,712
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Connelly View Post
    Indeed, it doesn't make sense. Maybe the plan was simply to see what the PT had and tailor the defence as they heard the evidence? I can't see any other rational explanation.
    GN: And it was definitely not two double taps?
    OP: That is correct, M'Lady.
    GN: Why would Mr Roux think and put to Mangena, Captain Mangena that you fired two double taps?
    OP: I am not sure, M'Lady. But that is what he put to Mr Mangena and in the first break I corrected him and said to him that it was not a double tap.
    GN: But before we go to you correcting him, why would he say that?
    OP: I am not sure, M'Lady.
    GN: No.. it is impossible. Mr Roux will not say something, forget the correction. Mr Roux will not put something to a witness that is not your version. Why would he say two double taps?
    OP: M'Lady, the only explanation I could think off (sic), is that when we spoke about training in firearm training, you fire… you learn to fire two shots, which is in a double tap. It is called a double tap. And I think that maybe Mr Roux put that to Mr Mangena. I cannot say why he did it, but I corrected him [indistinct 12:44:42]
    GN: You see, he went further. He said to Mr Mangena that it is your version that you fired two double taps. It was not that, ‘Is it possible?’ He put it as a version.
    OP: I understand that, M'Lady.
    COURT: Mr Nel, he has answered. He cannot say. All he knows is that he corrected Mr Roux.
    GN: May I ask a follow-up question then. The only reason why he would do that, is if you told him. He would not do it any other way.OP: That is incorrect, M'Lady. I did not say that. I did not tell Mister… I have not tell (sic) Mr Roux that I had fired a double tap at any point.


    Counsel DO NOT make incorrect statements like this. They only ever put what their client has instructed them. As wily and as cunning as the Silver Fox is, his client, IMO, was always going to say, and did say, exactly what he wanted to despite Roux's best endeavours.
    Last edited by JudgeJudi; 12-21-2015 at 12:46 AM.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    599
    Quote Originally Posted by Sherbert View Post
    I think all the tea breaks didn't help the Prosecution either:

    http://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/...-lenient-break
    Thank you, Sherbert, for the interesting link.
    BTW the pic is funny! I've never seen those strange caps - are they meant to protect their wigs?

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,712
    Quote Originally Posted by Susza View Post
    Thank you, Sherbert, for the interesting link.
    BTW the pic is funny! I've never seen those strange caps - are they meant to protect their wigs?
    There are no "caps". There are two kinds of wig worn by barristers/advocates. Image 1 is the short wig worn by counsel. Image 2 - QC's/Senior Counsel (as well as Judges) have an additional wig which is worn on ceremonial occasions. This is called a full-bottomed wig and is the one in Sherbert's post.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Hiding in the Vatican Catacombs covertly
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeJudi View Post
    GN: And it was definitely not two double taps?
    OP: That is correct, M'Lady.
    GN: Why would Mr Roux think and put to Mangena, Captain Mangena that you fired two double taps?
    OP: I am not sure, M'Lady. But that is what he put to Mr Mangena and in the first break I corrected him and said to him that it was not a double tap.
    GN: But before we go to you correcting him, why would he say that?
    OP: I am not sure, M'Lady.
    GN: No.. it is impossible. Mr Roux will not say something, forget the correction. Mr Roux will not put something to a witness that is not your version. Why would he say two double taps?
    OP: M'Lady, the only explanation I could think off (sic), is that when we spoke about training in firearm training, you fire… you learn to fire two shots, which is in a double tap. It is called a double tap. And I think that maybe Mr Roux put that to Mr Mangena. I cannot say why he did it, but I corrected him [indistinct 12:44:42]
    GN: You see, he went further. He said to Mr Mangena that it is your version that you fired two double taps. It was not that, ‘Is it possible?’ He put it as a version.
    OP: I understand that, M'Lady.
    COURT: Mr Nel, he has answered. He cannot say. All he knows is that he corrected Mr Roux.
    GN: May I ask a follow-up question then. The only reason why he would do that, is if you told him. He would not do it any other way.OP: That is incorrect, M'Lady. I did not say that. I did not tell Mister… I have not tell (sic) Mr Roux that I had fired a double tap at any point.


    Counsel DO NOT make incorrect statements like this. They only ever put what their client has instructed them. As wily and as cunning as the Silver Fox is, his client, IMO, was always going to say, and did say, exactly what he wanted to despite Roux's best endeavours.
    Marvellous JJ! So the only other explanation is his pathological inability to take responsibility which I highlighted previously. (As Quoted in Susza's Post 33)

    Your post just brings home how terrible a witness he really was. So fake, evasive and utterly incapable of conceding any admission of culpability.
    Remember how we had the "miracle of the immaculate explosion": a gun that went off apparently on its own during a meal with friends in Tashas restaurant. Not his fault, Pistorius said, even though his finger was on the trigger.

    Roux probably thought he was brilliantly strategic in getting Pistorius to start his evidence in chief with an apparently heartfelt, tearful apology to Reeva's mother, June. We had to endure the tears, vomit and ramblings from Pistorius that flowed about his God, his God of refuge, who helped him win, and get through the last year.

    I remember hearing at the time forensic psychologist Leonard Carr pointing out how that it was all about what God could do for Pistorius, not any sense of apology and responsibility towards God which you would expect from a genuine remorseful person.

    Pistorius continues to this day to lament how exhausted and traumatised he is, how he struggles to sleep despite taking anti-depressants and sleeping tablets, how he wakes terrified with the smell of blood in his nostrils, cannot think of having a relationship with anyone now he has lost Reeva through a terrible accident.

    It's all so obsessively about him.

    What doesn't seem to occupy Pistorius's mind much, and this was hightlighted by another forensic psychologist called Ivan de Klerk, is that Reeva will never sleep again, or be happy, or sad, or tired, thanks to him, whether or not he meant to kill her.

    For De Klerk the huge problem and red flag was the genuine lack of remorse. For De Klerk the OTT remorse he tried to fool us with in the courtroom was an abject failure and if Pistorius thought otherwise, then he failed miserably. De Klerk said Pistorius had missed the remorseful boat completely. According to him the time for remorse was right after February 14 2013, immediately after the shooting.

    Instead, Pistorius has called the shooting and killing of his girlfriend a "mistake".

    His first legal action was to fight a bail application, demand his passport, the right to travel, train, race again if he felt like it. In other words, be free, and not have to take responsibility for what he had done. De Klerk said: "People cry and say they're sorry not necessarily because they're remorseful, but because they got caught."


    De Klerk went further at the time and said the legal definition of remorse is the key on which these types of cases hinge at the sentencing stage, and it can mean the difference between a long sentence or a shorter sentence for murder which Pistorius currently faces, now he is a convicted murderer. Major Bronwynn Stollarz, SAPS will no doubt give evidence about this at the forthcoming sentencing hearing as it is a huge aggravating factor according to De Klerk.


    Leonard Carr was equally damning of Pistorius's performance as a witness. He described Pistorius as a "vain man", driven by image and a life "centred around performance", someone with anger and impulse control issues.

    Carr found it "very strange" that Pistorius employed a public relations team from England (since dispatched and replaced by Annelise Burgess) to manage his image immediately after the shooting, returned to training soon thereafter, had been flirting, and was in a new relationship, yet presented himself in court as "this vulnerable bloke suffering from chronic post-traumatic stress despite being on a cocktail of medication". Carr said: "I may be cynical but it reminds me of actor George Burns, who said: 'The secret of great acting is sincerity. If you can fake it, you've got it made'."

    Since then he went through his period of what his family charitably called “self harming behavior” because of how distraught he was. We recognize it as the same aggressive, drunken, behavior that he had successfully covered up previously.

    Essentially what these guys are saying is there is this huge dichotomy between what Pistorius would have us believe and what he actually is. Your post just reminded me of that dichotomy so vividly. I'm so glad Nel dealt with him as robustly as he did; we got to see in to the mind of the real Oscar during that cross and it was like staring in the abyss.

Page 3 of 78 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 53 ... 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