1477 users online (281 members and 1196 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 4 of 78 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 54 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 1160
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Hamburg/Bremen
    Posts
    5,468
    PC,



  2. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Up Nel's Arse
    Posts
    1,460
    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 do agree that the Plea Explanation was carefully drafted to incorporate Op's "special vulnerabilities" or perhaps anticipating his lack of reliability on the stand (all this would have been extensively workshopped).

    However i disagree that it was not a blunder.

    At this point OP clearly parted company with Roux's trial strategy as pleaded.

    It should have been immediately fatal - even Masipa noted PPD could not be made out with no intention to shoot - but then ironically she patched this up by finding against OPs own testimony and making some legal leaps of logic.

    But as we have now seen - this moment on the stand was fatal to OPs case.

    There is no way Roux would have wanted him to say that

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Up Nel's Arse
    Posts
    1,460
    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.
    Yes - exactly.

    Roux never would have said that unless the original version was double taps.

    There are other clear pointers in the construction of his plea

    The bottom line is - assuming a competent judge - OP could ever only escape a murder charge via PPD. Roux understood this from day 1

    Therefore this is the course Roux steered.

    GAD etc was a panic to avert outright disaster - never part of the plan - and the defence clearly did not succeed on this point either.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Up Nel's Arse
    Posts
    1,460
    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.
    This is a great example of how Masipa is a woeful trial judge.

    Nel just drove a stake into the heart of the defence case and Masipa doesn't want questioning on the point!

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Up Nel's Arse
    Posts
    1,460
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Connelly View Post
    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.
    Tasha's is so critical because it shows how we expect an experienced High Court Judge to approach evidence.

    There is simply no other explanation for the Tasha's incident than OP pulled the trigger of the weapon.

    This must have been intentional. There is no other way for the gun to fire.

    As you say - this of itself is a critical piece of circumstantial evidence - OP refuses to accept responsibility for it, even though he is guilty.

    Furthermore, it shows he is the kind of guy who will fire a weapon in a crowded restaurant.

    Yep Masipa essentially ignored the relevance of this.

    Fantastic X goes to waste.

    Similarly the shooting incident on the highway where OP cannot remember who came to pick him up

    A witness who obviously lies about everything.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Up Nel's Arse
    Posts
    1,460
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Connelly View Post

    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,
    IMO we need law reform in this area.

    It is totally bizarre that the defence can be carrying on structured media relations to get a narrative out whilst refusing to cooperate with police.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Hiding in the Vatican Catacombs covertly
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjitty View Post
    IMO we need law reform in this area.

    It is totally bizarre that the defence can be carrying on structured media relations to get a narrative out whilst refusing to cooperate with police.
    I agree wholeheartedly! If it has to be allowed it should follow that there was no true remorse and the sentencing should reflect that.

    It's beyond belief that they had the former editor of the biggest selling UK tabloid working around the clock using his influence to steer the media narrative and when it came to disclosure of evidence to the PT they could only manage to hand it over on the day their witness was due to give oral evidence in court. This despite the fact barristers must in all their professional activities be courteous and act promptly, conscientiously, diligently and with reasonable competence and take all reasonable and practicable steps to avoid unnecessary expense or waste of the Court's time...

    Meanwhile, the content of the said evidence was being leaked left, right and centre to the MSM days and weeks before.

    For me this is the difference between a "gun for hire", a mercenary advocate and one who will give his all for his client but remember his overriding duty to the Court to act with independence in the interests of justice. I admit to not knowing what the bar council standards of conduct are for South African attorneys but for me Roux crossed the line of what UK barristers would be allowed to do and brought his profession and the justice system into disrepute.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,712
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Connelly View Post
    I agree wholeheartedly! If it has to be allowed it should follow that there was no true remorse and the sentencing should reflect that.

    It's beyond belief that they had the former editor of the biggest selling UK tabloid working around the clock using his influence to steer the media narrative and when it came to disclosure of evidence to the PT they could only manage to hand it over on the day their witness was due to give oral evidence in court. This despite the fact barristers must in all their professional activities be courteous and act promptly, conscientiously, diligently and with reasonable competence and take all reasonable and practicable steps to avoid unnecessary expense or waste of the Court's time...

    Meanwhile, the content of the said evidence was being leaked left, right and centre to the MSM days and weeks before.

    For me this is the difference between a "gun for hire", a mercenary advocate and one who will give his all for his client but remember his overriding duty to the Court to act with independence in the interests of justice. I admit to not knowing what the bar council standards of conduct are for South African attorneys but for me Roux crossed the line of what UK barristers would be allowed to do and brought his profession and the justice system into disrepute.
    I totally agree with you Paul. Roux is no fool. He must have known OP was guilty, and if so, his duty was to ensure he got a fair trial, not to try and get him off. I've said it before but I'll say it again, I have no respect for him at all. He is a "gun for hire". Nel has beaten him twice thus far in huge trials, the other one being Selebi. As my grandfather used to say, "Put that in your pipe and smoke it".

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Hiding in the Vatican Catacombs covertly
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeJudi View Post
    I totally agree with you Paul. Roux is no fool. He must have known OP was guilty, and if so, his duty was to ensure he got a fair trial, not to try and get him off. I've said it before but I'll say it again, I have no respect for him at all. He is a "gun for hire". Nel has beaten him twice thus far in huge trials, the other one being Selebi. As my grandfather used to say, "Put that in your pipe and smoke it".
    Or as my dear departed nan used to say: "all fur coat and no knickers"...

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,712
    I want to respond to your long response to my post Paul, but it will take time and I'll have to break it up into segments. Quoting excerpts from the transcript is much better than random quotes here and there because you get the whole context of what is being said. Unfortunately this ends up in very long posts which may not be appreciated by the majority. With Christmas nearly upon us, I have a huge amount to do and I'm burning the candle at both ends, and have been for a long time. I might leave it until after then.


  11. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,712
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Connelly View Post
    Or as my dear departed nan used to say: "all fur coat and no knickers"...
    I immediately thought of Marianne Faithfull who dated Mick Jagger. She wore a fur coat and no nickers, or anything else for that matter.

    "She refers to the pivotal moment as "that dreadful drugs bust". It was 1967, at Keith Richards' country house in Sussex, and Faithfull, according to one police officer, let her fur coat slip off to reveal she was naked. From there, there would be no turning back".

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...Faithfull.html

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjitty View Post
    Tasha's is so critical because it shows how we expect an experienced High Court Judge to approach evidence.

    There is simply no other explanation for the Tasha's incident than OP pulled the trigger of the weapon.

    This must have been intentional. There is no other way for the gun to fire.

    As you say - this of itself is a critical piece of circumstantial evidence - OP refuses to accept responsibility for it, even though he is guilty.

    Furthermore, it shows he is the kind of guy who will fire a weapon in a crowded restaurant.

    Yep Masipa essentially ignored the relevance of this.

    Fantastic X goes to waste.

    Similarly the shooting incident on the highway where OP cannot remember who came to pick him up

    A witness who obviously lies about everything.
    To compliment this one should not forget the ammunition charge.

    The most reasonable explanation for the .38 ammunition in his safe was that he had a firearm of that calibre on order and he bought some ammunition for it before he was licensed to do so. Illegal, yes, but not a big deal, probably happens a lot in places like SA and who’s to know if it is in a safe.

    So, Pistorius should have just admitted he chanced his luck and unfortunately got caught. However, that would have meant accepting responsibility which of course is an anathema to him. So instead he spins a story so ridiculous that he might just as well have said it was aliens who transported it into his safe.

    Pistorius said he was ‘looking after’ the ammunition which belonged to his father, Henke, who he didn’t speak to and who would not admit to owning it. A father who lived at the time in Port Elizabeth some 800 miles away who just happened to be driving past Pistorius’ house when he was away and just decided, for no apparent reason, to pop into the house, and put some ammunition in the safe. There was no obvious admission at the trial that his father had a key to the house or a combination to the safe.

    On the 'plus side' Henke who, not unlike his son, has been described as a former party animal with a taste for young women did give his son a most insincere hug in court.

    It does beg the question just how many friends Pistorius approached in trying to get them to admit it was their ammunition before he had no option but to come up with his ridiculous ‘explanation’

    Would have been so much easier to have told the truth and accepted responsibility. However, as we know Pistorius is hard wired to do neither
    Last edited by Belgarion; 12-21-2015 at 11:10 AM.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeJudi View Post
    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.
    I've always wondered why counsel and judges had to wear disguises?

  14. #59
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    1,592
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeJudi View Post
    Here's a lovely happy pic of Lisa, Nick van der Leek, June and Barry
    Thanks JJ I'll never forget our day with them, our experience in court... and the whole ride. We just released our book The Appeal which talks about all of the most recent stuff. If you get a chance to read it, i'd love to know what you think. I'm already missing South Africa! Can't wait to get back there
    Visit my blog at: www.juror13lw.wordpress.com

  15. #60
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    1,592
    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.
    Really fantastic post, Paul!
    Visit my blog at: www.juror13lw.wordpress.com

Page 4 of 78 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 54 ... 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