Did you listen to her testimony? She said she did not see that.
Oh oops. I read the posts on here, guess I didn't read that part. Or am confusing her with her husband now? Thanks.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Did you listen to her testimony? She said she did not see that.
Yep. Easily done with corrected statements, re-examinations that rehabilitate a cross and pages of the same arguments going round and round. I believe many of us are a little crazy from this case. I, for example, am going to have Vermeulen's redirect testimony tattooed on myself. How's that for dedication to a case?Oh oops. I read the posts on here, guess I didn't read that part. Or am confusing her with her husband now? Thanks.
http://www.sabreakingnews.co.za/2014/04/17/pistorius-could-have-been-seen-through-bathroom-window/Johan Stipp, testified that when he looked towards Pistoriuss bathroom after he heard the sounds of loud bangs, the lights were on and he saw someone walk from the right to the left. He said the lights were also on in the toilet window next to the bathroom.
It's always an error to grant a murderer bail, they need to be kept away from other people.
And I would be one to confuse the two - I think the following quote sums up why it may be confused by many, though appreciate the correction...I'm a very long way - both in time and geography from high school civics.
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/11/01/is-america-a-democracy-or-a-republic/
And apologies, mods, for being off topic. :blushing:
I'm a bit doubtful about those acting allegations. I can't find any other backup and I would have thought, if OP was to have done that, the acting coach would have been tied up with all sorts of non-disclosure agreements and it would have been kept top secret.
Unless he just asked an actor friend to help him out for free, and that actor has a loose tongue? That wouldn't be unheard of, in the acting world.
Very early on, something Uncle Arnold said early on made me uneasy. When OP's father made some statement, Uncle Arnold said it 'hadn't been approved by our media team'? I just found it very strange that a forthcoming murder trial was being treated like a large PR Campaign, and even stranger that the family were being so open about it.
As though good publicity could actually have some influence on the outcome of the trial?
Oh oops. I read the posts on here, guess I didn't read that part. Or am confusing her with her husband now? Thanks.
BIB1: Please provide a link that confirms that Dr. Saymaan said that Reeva had significant blood loss. Just that: significant blood loss.
I recall that this "significant blood loss" issue originated with you. You picked on a notation that Saymaan made about the color of Reeva's heart being pale and then you made a determination, based solely on that one notation, that Reeva died of exsanguination (she bled to death). But you have not considered what the pathologist that performed the autopsy determined; he did not make a determination of exsanguination. I challenge you to proved links to support your opinion.
BIB2: So wait, now you are whispering softly that you are a doctor of medicine too? Respectfully, I don't believe that.
FYI: Reeva's cause of death is "gunshot wound."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeva_Steenkamp
I guess we don't need to bother with trials then. Just lock up every whiny dude who's a sore loser.
I can't believe John McEnroe's still walking the streets to this day.
Well, first he has to be judged a murderer in a court of law. If the bail judge didn't perceive the weakness of the state's case, he wouldn't have allowed him out on bail.
He hasn't killed anyone else while he's been out of jail has he? He hasn't committed any crimes has he?
The system worked.
And not so frail. When OP did his high pitched 'get the fvck outta my house," she skidaddled from her seat rather quickly, saying court was adjourned.
I believe I detected some fear at that moment.
Maybe a victim herself of crime or DV?
OP said so himself. If Stander denies it, OP is still lying. Unless of course he can't remember why he was required to be at Oscars in the middle of the night.
I was thinking about Mrs Stipp's statement (and her correction of it the next day) for ages! I wonder if it was due, not to any police pressure, but to her implicit trust and faith in her husband? So if he saw it, it must have happened, and she was safe to say she saw it too?
Something like those couples you sometimes come across who finish each other's sentences, because they are certain they know what the other one's going to say.
The most interesting thing to me was she corrected what she had said the next day, I think? Nobody could have argued she didn't see Oscar in the window that night, except her husband. So I think they may have had a conversation about their statements, and without any outside pressure, decided her false bit could not be allowed to stand and she had to be completely accurate. About what SHE saw, not what she believed her husband saw.
I don't think there was any sinister motive in her original statement but it didn't look good. It's to her credit she admitted it was false and corrected it without outside prompting though, I think.
Well, first he has to be judged a murderer in a court of law. If the bail judge didn't perceive the weakness of the state's case, he wouldn't have allowed him out on bail.
He hasn't killed anyone else while he's been out of jail has he? He hasn't committed any crimes has he?
The system worked.
Here's a newspaper that agrees with me:
But, while the prosecution throughout the trial have had Pistorius on the ropes, ducking and weaving, at no stage have they managed to land the knockout blow they need.
They have highlighted his love of assault rifles, his short temper, his fights with Reeva, but the one thing they simply haven’t been able to establish is motive.
Why would a man with seemingly everything in life, including a beautiful, intelligent girlfriend, all of a sudden want to kill that very same woman?
The prosecution have built a narrative for murder, but they haven’t produced — for want of a better term — a smoking gun.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ap-in-this-opera/story-fni0cwl5-1226891434954
No knock out blow--just a lot of smoke and mirrors.
Well, first he has to be judged a murderer in a court of law. If the bail judge didn't perceive the weakness of the state's case, he wouldn't have allowed him out on bail.
He hasn't killed anyone else while he's been out of jail has he? He hasn't committed any crimes has he?
The system worked.
Smoke and mirrors?, actually smoke and mirror is claiming a man was screaming like a woman and that several people heard a bat hitting a door and not gunfire, smoke and mirror's from the defence is what some people have somehow fallen for.