Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #64 ~ the appeal~

[Cherwell]

...........that statement has to be backed up with a link..........it's only normal.....that is a serious accusation.......

What is a serious accusation?

 

[cottonweaver]

I think he'll take the truth of what happened that night to the grave. Look at the debacle over the Tasha's incident. Deny deny deny. That seems to be his mantra... even when the proof he's lying is right there in front of him.

Before Fossil kindly provided that OP testimony link , I was hunting around for transcripts, found SKy News but that differed from other papers too .....nevertheless i was just looking at day 1 of his testimony with Roux, and even at the very beginning - it's minimise, minimise etc. ( The link to your post. ) And these are his concerns, smelling? blood on his clothes, media etc.

eg.
OP: I was in the garage for several hours.at 9:00 AM

OP: I asked the photographer if he could please take all the photos, so that I could take my clothes off because they were all just so full of blood.at 9:00 AM

Roux: From the garage where did you go to?at 9:01 AM

OP: I was taken to the foyer of the reception area of my home. An officer, Mr. Labuschagne came up to me and that he was a friend of my family and that he would look after me. at 9:01 AM

OP: At that stage Col. Van Rensburg said because I was the only person in the house at the time, they were going to arrest me. I walked with Mr. Labuschagne to the vehicle.at 9:02 AM

OP: As we were leaving the estate, I was told that there was a lot of media outside the estate and that I must put my head down and he would tell me when I could raise my head.at 9:03 AM

Plus AFAIK Rensberg said he already had his top off when he arrived on the scene.
OP tends to give unecessary detail to cover things up eg. "I never went through her handbag, ", " i shoulder charged the doors" etc

 

[Colin de France]

What is a serious accusation?

....it's about the post by Interested Bystander saying that the house keeper previously employed by Pistorius who was there the night of the murder and who has disapeared since is being "looked after" by Pistorius's rich uncle..............it was posted without a link ....

 

[Interested Bystander]

....it's about the post by Interested Bystander saying that the house keeper previously employed by Pistorius who was there the night of the murder and who has disapeared since is being "looked after" by Pistorius's rich uncle..............it was posted without a link ....

Please note that others also remember this. I am not the sort of person that makes things up. This was two years ago and information can be removed from Google these days as you must know. Perhaps someone chose to do so. The only thing I can find at the moment is something on Twitter suggesting he was being "looked after" but as I don't follow twitter I know I did not read it there.

I am really unsure why you find it necessary to make it such a big issue. We all try to post a link, though I don't actually see you doing it often.

The only info I can find that has limited relevance is a post on here where a live broadcast was saying that Frank was going to answer questions but then suddenly clammed up.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-242997-p-2.html

Suthrnqt

05-05-2014, 01:44 PM​

Journalist,Barry Bateman, just said on the local Oscar Trial Channel that Frank did havesomething to offer at first, but for some reason he clammed up and said henever heard of saw anything.

I will continue to search but with so much information now on the internet about this trial it is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

 

[soozieqtips]

Before Fossil kindly provided that OP testimony link , I was hunting around for transcripts, found SKy News but that differed from other papers too .....nevertheless i was just looking at day 1 of his testimony with Roux, and even at the very beginning - it's minimise, minimise etc. ( The link to your post. ) And these are his concerns, smelling? blood on his clothes, media etc.



Plus AFAIK Rensberg said he already had his top off when he arrived on the scene.
OP tends to give unecessary detail to cover things up eg. "I never went through her handbag, ", " i shoulder charged the doors" etc

I remember that well and thinking his automatic denial of something he hadn't even been accused of was very telling. Of course he went through the bag! Neither he nor his siblings showed a nano of respect for Reeva. All that claptrap about how the family had suffered a devastating loss (just like Reeva's family had suffered) and how close they were to her etc, when the facts are that after Reeva was shot dead in their brother's house - the siblings took the decision to tamper with evidence from a crime scene. If OP's intruder story was false (as so many of us believe it is) then of course he had to go through the bag just to check if there was anything incriminating in there.

 

[soozieqtips]

Please note that others also remember this. I am not the sort of person that makes things up. This was two years ago and information can be removed from Google these days as you must know. Perhaps someone chose to do so. The only thing I can find at the moment is something on Twitter suggesting he was being "looked after" but as I don't follow twitter I know I did not read it there.

I am really unsure why you find it necessary to make it such a big issue. We all try to post a link, though I don't actually see you doing it often.

The only info I can find that has limited relevance is a post on here where a live broadcast was saying that Frank was going to answer questions but then suddenly clammed up.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-242997-p-2.html

Suthrnqt

05-05-2014, 01:44 PM​

Journalist,Barry Bateman, just said on the local Oscar Trial Channel that Frank did havesomething to offer at first, but for some reason he clammed up and said henever heard of saw anything.

I will continue to search but with so much information now on the internet about this trial it is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

BIB - there's not much point. I remember it too many many threads ago. You'd spend all your life Googling if you had to try and find every single link that's demanded! Most of us provide a link when there's one available, but as you say, a lot is removed by Google these days.

 

[Interested Bystander]

....it's about the post by Interested Bystander saying that the house keeper previously employed by Pistorius who was there the night of the murder and who has disapeared since is being "looked after" by Pistorius's rich uncle..............it was posted without a link ....

I have removed my post but rest assured, as soon as I can find the article, I shall repost.

 

[Colin de France]

Please note that others also remember this. I am not the sort of person that makes things up. This was two years ago and information can be removed from Google these days as you must know. Perhaps someone chose to do so. The only thing I can find at the moment is something on Twitter suggesting he was being "looked after" but as I don't follow twitter I know I did not read it there.

I am really unsure why you find it necessary to make it such a big issue. We all try to post a link, though I don't actually see you doing it often.

The only info I can find that has limited relevance is a post on here where a live broadcast was saying that Frank was going to answer questions but then suddenly clammed up.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-242997-p-2.html

Suthrnqt

05-05-2014, 01:44 PM​

Journalist,Barry Bateman, just said on the local Oscar Trial Channel that Frank did havesomething to offer at first, but for some reason he clammed up and said henever heard of saw anything.

I will continue to search but with so much information now on the internet about this trial it is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

....no i don't post links often because i try to do my own thinking.......your post is implying that Pistorius's uncle is "looking after him" right now, that's what is so disturbing as i imagine you realise the implications not only on this debate but the appeal coming up......it needs a link.....

 

[cottonweaver]

The only info I can find that has limited relevance is a post on here where a live broadcast was saying that Frank was going to answer questions but then suddenly clammed up.

RSBM
The stupidity of my earlier comment has just occurred to me. Ie. I presume that Frank could not now be induced to tell the truth of what he heard that night as it would make him an "accessory after the fact"/ assisting a cover up etc and presume he would be charged etc.

Arnold has certainly never responded to any of these "serious accusations" on the scurrilous internet! Why would he, it's not like he is about to produce Frank is it, fly him back to do an interview with K.Phelps - wouldn't be in Arnie's interest, better just to ignore and pretend it's not out there.

 

[cottonweaver]

....no i don't post links often because i try to do my own thinking.......your post is implying that Pistorius's uncle is "looking after him" right now, that's what is so disturbing as i imagine you realise the implications not only on this debate but the appeal coming up......it needs a link.....

Can you elaborate on that as it's not clear- because I reiterated the same points as Bystander.

 

[Colin de France]

Can you elaborate on that as it's not clear- because I reiterated the same points as Bystander.

.....to put it simple......if he is being "looked after" it's not for his good service to charity ..........

 

[Interested Bystander]

.....to put it simple......if he is being "looked after" it's not for his good service to charity .......

Why do you find it odd that Uncle would have offered Frank a job? Without OP being at his home Frank would have been jobless. I think it is your interpretation that is at fault. I may have joked about it but it you who seem to have gone overboard.

 

[cottonweaver]

.....to put it simple......if he is being "looked after" it's not for his good service to charity .......

okay I got that meaning ......... hard to speculate if " witness bribery " carries a bigger penalty than "aggravated" perjury - as that's what you're saying OP has committed. ( See my earlier posts)

 

[Colin de France]

Why do you find it odd that Uncle would have offered Frank a job? Without OP being at his home Frank would have been jobless. I think it is your interpretation that is at fault. I may have joked about it but it you who seem to have gone overboard.

.....not at all.....if you are referring to the present situation which is how i perceived it.....i find that disturbing....you need to clarify or produce a link.....

 

[Colin de France]

okay I got that meaning ......... hard to speculate if " witness bribery " carries a bigger penalty than "aggravated" perjury - as that's what you're saying OP has committed. ( See my earlier posts)

.......first off, we need to know whether it's true or not ....!

 

[Cherwell]

Why do you find it odd that Uncle would have offered Frank a job? Without OP being at his home Frank would have been jobless. I think it is your interpretation that is at fault. I may have joked about it but it you who seem to have gone overboard.

Exactly. No one has made any "accusations".

 

[cottonweaver]

.......can't find quick info re SA perjury penalties but in US they are linked in with bribing witnesses. Did you find anything better ?

American site- American law:
"The most common penalty for perjury is a fine and/or jail, but the amount of the fine or jail time can depend on judicial discretion in sentencing. It’s possible for there to be a minimum sentence length as a penalty, perhaps one year, and a maximum length of sentencing at five to 10 years per charge. If the person has committed more than one act of perjury, as by making numerous false statements under oath, he or she could be charged with multiple offenses and that could increase total fines charged or jail time. If the penalty is a mandatory one-year sentence, and the person perjured himself five times, he might face five years in prison."

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-penalty-for-perjury.htm#didyouknowout

 

[Interested Bystander]

....no i don't post links often because i try to do my own thinking.......your post is implying that Pistorius's uncle is "looking after him" right now, that's what is so disturbing as i imagine you realise the implications not only on this debate but the appeal coming up......it needs a link.....

That is your interpretation. It tells me something about you. It will have no implication whatsoever. Uncle P is perfectly entitled to help him out. He would suddenly have been without employment. The fact that someone wished to be cynical about it is not surprising. Still looking for the article or comment in the press.

 

[cottonweaver]

.......first off, we need to know whether it's true or not ....!

Sorry but what is the "it's" referring to? Unclear
Frank or your accusation that OP knew it was Reeva behind the door (ergo he has perjured himself repeatedly which is a serious accusation surely)

 

[Interested Bystander]

.....not at all.....if you are referring to the present situation which is how i perceived it.....i find that disturbing....you need to clarify or produce a link.....

What present situation? You have lost me yet again!