Trial Discussion Thread #12 - 14.03.24, Day 14

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry, but that is incorrect. She lied under oath when she knowingly signed a false affidavit. I cannot believe that any of you are willing to just dismiss that as a simple mistake.

Yes, it was a mistake after a long a@@ day.

Mistakes happen ALL the time in police, legal and medical records. There are ways to address this and this witness did so in the appropriate fashion.

I cannot believe you want us to believe that OP's ridiculous story or extend him any benefit of the doubt based on your approach.
 
Mrs Stipp admitted her error about seeing someone moving in the window and retracted that part soon after. How exactly does that make her a liar? If she hadn't retracted it, I could see your point, but she did. Will you judge OP the same way if he says something under oath that contradicts his affidavit? Actually, I believe he already has changed a few significant details, one of which is that he was talking to Reeva shortly before he shot and killed her. I'm sure the judge will be most interested in why he left this pertinent detail out of his affidavit, aside from why so many people heard her screaming, when according to OP - she didn't ever make a sound.

Absolutely I will say the same thing about OP if it is shown that he knowingly made false statements in his affidavit. Of course I will! Anyone should be outraged at ANY witnesses making a false statement under oath.

Why in the world would it matter which witness it is or which side benefits from the dishonesty? It should not matter at all.
 
Yes, it was a mistake after a long a@@ day.

Mistakes happen ALL the time in police, legal and medical records. There are ways to address this and this witness did so in the appropriate fashion.

I cannot believe you want us to believe that OP's ridiculous story or extend him any benefit of the doubt based on your approach.

It wasn't a mistake, it was a lie - under oath! We don't excuse false affidavits just because someone is tired. She's also adamant that she has a perfect memory and cannot possibly be wrong or mistaken.

The witness addressed it by saying that yes she signed an affidavit under oath that she knew was false.

ETA: I'm not asking or expecting anyone to cut Oscar any slack if it is shown that he lied in a sworn statement. No idea where you come up with that. I have not accepted it as totally true, I just haven't yet seen evidence that proves that it's false either.
 
Absolutely I will say the same thing about OP if it is shown that he knowingly made false statements in his affidavit. Of course I will! Anyone should be outraged at ANY witnesses making a false statement under oath.

Why in the world would it matter which witness it is or which side benefits from the dishonesty? It should not matter at all.

Indeed! This is why we have the Rule of Law.
 
Absolutely I will say the same thing about OP if it is shown that he knowingly made false statements in his affidavit. Of course I will! Anyone should be outraged at ANY witnesses making a false statement under oath.

Why in the world would it matter which witness it is or which side benefits from the dishonesty? It should not matter at all.
Okay. So every detail in his affidavit must be 100% true and he shouldn't deviate from any of that on the stand. Is that correct? Any deviation at all and he's a liar whose account is no longer credible?
 
From a website supporting women....

How can I recognise abuse?
You might be unsure if what your friend or relative is experiencing is ‘abuse’. Maybe you just have some sense that something is ‘wrong’ in her relationship. Sometimes there may be signs that indicate that there is abuse. But often there will be nothing obvious. Signs that someone is being abused
She seems afraid of her partner or is always very anxious to please him or her.
She has stopped seeing her friends or family, or cuts phone conversations short when her partner is in the room.
Her partner often criticises her or humiliates her in front of other people.
She says her partner pressures or forces her to do sexual things.
Her partner often orders her about or makes all the decisions (for example, her partner controls all the money, tells her who she can see and what she can do).
She often talks about her partner’s ‘jealousy’, ‘bad temper’ or ‘possessiveness’.
She has become anxious or depressed, has lost her confidence, or is unusually quiet.
She has physical injuries (bruises, broken bones, sprains, cuts etc). She may give unlikely explanations for physical injuries.
Her children seem afraid of her partner, have behaviour problems, or are very withdrawn or anxious.
She is reluctant to leave her children with her partner.
After she has left the relationship, her partner is constantly calling her, harassing her, following her, coming to her house or waiting outside.


A fantastic read MEN WHO HATE WOMEN AND THE WOMEN WHO LOVE THEM by Susan Forward refers to your excellent post.
 
The week long adjournment is very surprising and weird! At the moment I really have no idea what it is all about. But since it follows the prosecution resting, it does look like the DT needed some time and Mr. Nel gave it to them. If that is the case then something in the evidence (testimony) must have come as a big surprise to the DT.
 
The week long adjournment is very surprising and weird! At the moment I really have no idea what it is all about. But since it follows the prosecution resting, it does look like the DT needed some time and Mr. Nel gave it to them. If that is the case then something in the evidence (testimony) must have come as a big surprise to the DT.

I feel like I missed something... when are they calling a week-long adjournment?
 
Aside from what the primary argument is, gun bat bat gun, have you taken into account all of the damage OP did to his bathroom panels and wall tile outside of the WC? Have you considered that in your "sounds" timeline?

The time line of sounds is pretty much poerfect. :)

That is why I raise the question of this ONE rougue time by Mrs Stipp.

Is is the sort of "data point" outside the range, that is often simply omitted ... even by legit "Scientists" writing learned papers in Journals... a blip in the equipment etc... chit happens :)

I would not like to just ignore evidence, but explain it, if it is at variance with all the other evidence. We are talking "witness testimony" and so of course the witness being in error (lying or simply mistaken) is a big possibility.
 
Do all the witnesses including Oscar in his statement get help from LE to fill out statements? Oscar had a few days to create his statement with help from family and estate manager discussing what should and shouldn't be in the statement and I wonder if when it was read by his attorney if they ever said to him "Oh you should not have entered that in your statement."
 
Before people go off the deep claiming OP has abused and controlled Reeva, we have yet to see something substantial. From a guy's point of view I think some of the women on here would find it deeply offensive if a woman had sent a couple of text messages of a similar ilk, and I started labeling them before anything had been proven.

As I mentioned earlier, I've had more severe messages from my girlfriend on the occasion we've fell out - and she's certainly not controlling or abusive.

oh wow, the mere fact that she is the dead person here and that evidence in the form of his ex girlfriend has been given and the text messages show how scared reeva was of him, this isn't enough to to show that she was in an abusive relationship? she just didn't have enough time to get out or tell someone about it.
 
It wasn't a mistake, it was a lie - under oath! We don't excuse false affidavits just because someone is tired. She's also adamant that she has a perfect memory and cannot possibly be wrong or mistaken.

The witness addressed it by saying that yes she signed an affidavit under oath that she knew was false.

She did not testify that she signed in knowing it was false at the time, she believed the contents to be accurate.

This was corrected and addressed appropriately upon review.

Odd that you wouldn't have encountered affidavit's with errors in them if you have experience in these matters. That would be a lovely study for some academic to review and derive data on.

Perhaps her affidavit was prepared without the benefit of legal counsel or review...so many reasonable possibilities. Anyway, I would bet $1000 the judge or assessors didn't find her testimony unreliable or find her to be a "liar". That. is. all. Nite!
 
I've been thinking about the dogs.

They MUST have been put up somewhere that night, because if they were loose in the house there was so much blood in various places, I do not see how they could have avoided tramping into it. And we've neither seen nor heard anything about doggie foot prints.

Perhaps when Reeva was there he enclosed the dogs somewhere in the house at bedtime?

I've known of women who have a boyfriend whose dog is used to sleeping in bed with the guy. Often the dog doesn't like it when someone else is in the bed. They will bother the "new" person or still get onto the bed. Some guests do not like this, thus the dog owner puts the dog somewhere enclosed for the night.

No one but the attorney today has mentioned a dog barking. Which is unusual, come to think of it, with two dogs in the household.

I feel like I missed something... when are they calling a week-long adjournment?

It was quietly announced yesterday (Sunday) in a statement released by the court, both sides agreed to it and the judge granted it:

"The court in Guateng province confirmed the trial, which is entering its fourth week tomorrow, will be in recess for the week beginning 7 April, and then resume from 14 April until 16 May."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-trial-extended-to-midmay-9210890.html
 
Okay. So every detail in his affidavit must be 100% true and he shouldn't deviate from any of that on the stand. Is that correct? Any deviation at all and he's a liar whose account is no longer credible?

If it is shown that he made knowingly false statements under oath, that is a big problem for him and certainly casts his credibility in doubt. Absolutely.

I'm not talking about clarifying something or not remembering or being mistaken. I'm talking about signing a sworn statement knowing that it is false.
 
A fantastic read MEN WHO HATE WOMEN AND THE WOMEN WHO LOVE THEM by Susan Forward refers to your excellent post.

Yes...very indicative of Oscars profile of his love for his dead mother, his major support, his carer, his confidante,....no other women was ever going to be able to compete for that title, that pedestal. So every subsequent girlfriend was to relegated to a place below the love of his lost mother, below the love of himself....just below, and she would never be able to reach that summit of equal love. Sad.
 
Excellent post!

Let's see how one excuses these significant discrepancies without calling him "untruthful", "unreliable" or accusing him of "lying under oath".

He also lied under oath when he pled not guilty to the restaurant gun charge.
 
She did not testify that she signed in knowing it was false at the time, she believed the contents to be accurate.

This was corrected and addressed appropriately upon review.

Odd that you wouldn't have encountered affidavit's with errors in them if you have experience in these matters. That would be a lovely study for some academic to review and derive data on.

Perhaps her affidavit was prepared without the benefit of legal counsel or review...so many reasonable possibilities. Anyway, I would bet $1000 the judge or assessors didn't find her testimony unreliable or find her to be a "liar". That. is. all. Nite!

No, she said she didn't see a man in the window and she knew she didn't see a man in the window when she signed a sworn statement saying that she did.

I have encountered plenty of affidavits with error, and I have also encountered affidavits that are clearly knowingly false - and without fail in those instances where they are knowingly false, the judge is pissed and does not believe the witness.

If her affidavit was prepared without legal counsel, why would that matter? Does it have to be explained that when you swear to the truth of a statement that you cannot lie? No, I don't think that requires legal counsel.
 
He also lied under oath when he pled not guilty to the restaurant gun charge.

Pleading "not guilty" is never a lie - it is a statement that the defendant is requiring the state to prove the charge.
 
If it is shown that he made knowingly false statements under oath, that is a big problem for him and certainly casts his credibility in doubt. Absolutely.

I'm not talking about clarifying something or not remembering or being mistaken. I'm talking about signing a sworn statement knowing that it is false.

But at the time she signed it she did not 'know' it was false. In other words, upon reading through it, she didnt realise that it was something she was told, not something she saw. That happens all of the time. I worked in my Dad's law office and we revised statements quite routinely. People, upon reflection, would come in and make revisions. It does not mean they LIED.
 
Talk about confusing. Which is it, rabid or rabbit?

Pistorius: "It's like I see rabid things in your house and when you go places you take pics of them everywhere."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ius-murder-trial-March-24-as-it-happened.html

then...

RS to OP: It's like I see rabbit things in your house and when we go places you take pics of them everywhere.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/24/world/oscar-pistorius-trial-whatsapp-messages/

The papers have a different sender for the same text? And does 'rabid' make more sense than 'rabbit'?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
186
Guests online
847
Total visitors
1,033

Forum statistics

Threads
625,962
Messages
18,517,105
Members
240,915
Latest member
CalvinJ
Back
Top