Trial Discussion Thread #29

[shane13]

I can imagine OP fleeing the country at some point to avoid jail.

Deb

You do not understand the power and influence of Oscar World over the regular world.

1. Wouldn't surprise me if Oscar is ruled innocent (Read all on the dropping of all charges against Carl P.)
2. If Oscar is sentenced to jail, Oscar will not flee. Rather all of South Africa will be forced to flee.

 

[Really?]

I can imagine OP fleeing the country at some point to avoid jail.

He will do anything to avoid jail. :jail:

 

[Really?]

IMO it is obvious that he has been coddled and does not know how to act when he is out of his safe sphere of support. If his emotional wiring is that unstable, then he should not have guns.

Oscar learned to shoot guns just like big boys. He must take responsibility like a big boy, too.

Yep........:jail:

 

[Really?]

So why then did he keep making reference to his getting emotional? You can't have your cake and eat it.




So there's your reasonble doubt. He MAY be not faking it.



Read my statements carefully. That's exactly what I said. With all due respect, you react too fast and jump too quickly to conclusions.




Well we all see different things. What I see is to me as clear as crystal. He is a man-child, but that doesn't means he's totally maladjusted. In one way he is, in another way he isn't. He is a contradition, rather than the monoslot people are trying to put him in.




Yes, this is the way I feel and I'm sticking to it. If he's tbe cunning liar so many are trying to make him out to be, then there are much more effective ways of duping the public than to put on a show of emotions knowing that so many people are accusing him of using emotions to cover up his guilt.



Sorry, that's way too simplistic and dismissive of context for me. So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Sorry if this has been said before......
OP is joint to ....:jail:

 

[James50]

Smear tactics?! In a court of law? Really?!?! Haha

Surprised?

 

[Really?]

Just watching the dateline doc now......Sam Taylor is extremely lucky to be alive

Moo

 

[TipDog]

So why then did he keep making reference to his getting emotional? You can't have your cake and eat it.




So there's your reasonble doubt. He MAY be not faking it.



Read my statements carefully. That's exactly what I said. With all due respect, you react too fast and jump too quickly to conclusions.




Well we all see different things. What I see is to me as clear as crystal. He is a man-child, but that doesn't means he's totally maladjusted. In one way he is, in another way he isn't. He is a contradition, rather than the monoslot people are trying to put him in.




Yes, this is the way I feel and I'm sticking to it. If he's tbe cunning liar so many are trying to make him out to be, then there are much more effective ways of duping the public than to put on a show of emotions knowing that so many people are accusing him of using emotions to cover up his guilt.



Sorry, that's way too simplistic and dismissive of context for me. So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

BIB 1

Not for the reasons you seem to be implying (i.e. Nel is not picking on a disabled person). Did you not notice when Nel went easy on him a few times and suggested they adjourn since OP seem distressed?

And the correct expression would be "you can't have your cake and eat it too." You have to add the "too" or it just sounds like you're denying someone cake.

BIB 2

I've said many times on here that I think he may or may not be faking the vomiting, over the top crying and covering of his ears. It may all be very real. But you missed my point entirely.

BIB 3

With all due respect, after going back and carefully reading your original post all over again, I don't see where you said "Not all disabled children are stunted emotionally or grow up with emotional issues." So, no, that is not exactly what you said. You didn't even imply it.

And since I've now read your original post twice out of courtesy to you, perhaps you can refrain from telling me that I react too fast and jump too quickly to conclusions. TIA.

 

[TorisMom003]

After much searching and listening to Oldwage drone on and on, I have found the second part of the cross with Mrs. Stipp in which they discuss the toilet room window. Now if someone wants to go and listen to the first part of this discussion that occurred before the tea break on March 24th, please feel free to do so. However, I treasure my sanity so I will not be doing it. Here is my transcript from the 2nd part that is relevant of March 24th between Mrs. Stipp and Oldwage. The video will follow and is set to start at the portion that pertains to the following.

@45:50
Oldwage (from here on known as O): Mrs. Stipp you'll recall immediately prior to the tea adjournment we spoke about the light that you can recall was switched on in the small window. What would you say if I put it to you that that light was not operative at the time? Would you accept that you'd indeed made a mistake?

Mrs. Stipp (from here on known as M.S): No. Unfortunately I can not accept that because for me I saw light through that window.

O: And you see your husband also testified that that light was not on at the time.

M.S: Umhmm

O: You understand why I'm asking you is that perhaps a mistake made by your husband when it comes to that evidence?

M.S: Um, I am just testifying with regards to my recollection and on my recollection there was a light on that evening, or that morning, in that small window.

O: And it's also per my instructions from my client that the light was not working at that time. You can not dispute that can you?

M.S: I can not dispute that or agree with that because I do not know.

O: Madame I find it somewhat difficult. We often ask the witness whether that witness appeared to make a reasonable concession. If I put it to you that those are my instructions and to a large extent that which I put to you is corroborated by your own husband in evidence, you still won't make a reasonable concession.

M.S: Um, I have to accept that that's what you're saying but on my recollection light was on in that window on that night.

O: Thank you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fT6vYsLYLJw#t=2750

 

[TipDog]

I know his testimony was contradictory regarding putative self defense and involuntary action, but it was always the same, he maintained both defenses throughout. So I suspect that Roux did instruct him to answer in that way. I don't understand why just yet, but that is what I believe.

And if you go back to his first day on the stand when he said he was "fighting for his life" and he was concerned about answering questions with great care, it bolsters my opinion. I don't believe OP is so arrogant that he would go against his attorneys' advice and instruction when he has so much on the line.

Just my two cents.

Maybe I perceived him as not taking their advice since his testimony seemed to veer "off script." Roux did not seem happy. But I could be mistaken - he may have just been tired.

 

[TorisMom003]

Session 1 of March 24th. Mrs. Stipps testimony (beginning of her testimony including the beginning of her cross with Oldwage) is on here.

Oscar Pistorius Trial: Tuesday, 25 March 2014, Session 1 - YouTube

 

[James50]

I understand how his mind works because he is lying on the stand and hence he is covering up and because of that no one knows what really happened. You can blame him for that.

And you believe that because over and over again Nel called him a liar. That's smear.

 

[TorisMom003]

Nel did not call OP a liar over and over. That's smear.

Nel said that OP was lying. There is a slight difference.

And OP was lying, sometimes in the very next sentence. OP said at one point that he whispered to Reeva to get down and phone police. OP then said that he whispered/spoke softly to Reeva to phone police. OP then said that he spoke softly to Reeva to phone police, that he never said he whispered to her. Nel asked him if anyone said that he (OP) whispered to Reeva, would that person be lying....to which OP answered yes.

The above is just one example of OP lying on the stand.

Don't forget the Tasha incident where OP claims that his finger was not even on the trigger, the gun just went off on its own. That gun has to have the trigger pulled in order to fire a shot. OP was lying about not pulling the trigger himself. OP also stated that while in the restaurant that he took the blame for the incident and offered to pay for damages. This is in complete contrast with the owner of the restaurant, his two friends who were there and the text message sent to Reeva. OP was lying about that part too but instead said that everyone else was lying.

MOO

 

[Fuskier]

Nel said she must have slammed and locked it at the same time if OP only heard it slamming. Which means she was running like hell away from him and locked the door as soon as she got to the toilet, and I say that from my 'guilty as sin' point of view. The only one terrified and in fear of their life was Reeva. What a horrible way to die, and now OP's doing everything he can to worm his way out of a murder charge. I wonder if he's ever told a member of his family the truth about what happened that night. He's very close to his sister, so he could have confessed to her, safe in the knowledge she would never expose him - because no one has ever held him to account before.

Hypothetically, if I was a 'celebrity' white, male, in South Africa, and I shot my girlfriend to death through a closed toilet door in the early hours of the morning without any independent witnesses - what would be a defense in that context which would be almost impossible to disprove? a defense which would be seen as reasonable by others? including family members?

Answer: "I thought there was an armed intruder".

 

[TorisMom003]

Hypothetically, if I was a 'celebrity' white, male, in South Africa, and I shot my girlfriend to death through a closed toilet door in the early hours of the morning without any independent witnesses - what would be a defense in that context which would be almost impossible to disprove? a defense which would be seen as reasonable by others? including family members?

Answer: "I thought there was an armed intruder".

Yes, but only if you had not correctly answered questions about what is allowed and not allowed involving guns when trying to buy more guns.

MOO

 

[crasshopper]

Just watching the dateline doc now......Sam Taylor is extremely lucky to be alive

Moo

If looks from the DT & OP could kill...

Seriously though, her mother stated as much.

 

[Fuskier]

Not just the States. Giving this "suspect" bail was open defiance of the norms of civilization and if he hadn't been South Africa's most successful export it wouldn't have happened.

Agree. Giving OP bail in the circumstances does present as 'defiance of the norms of civilization' and democracy. It reflects the entrenched SA white, male culture with regard to women IMO. Hopefully, through this Court case, he will be held to account within the civilized world and democratic principles of The Law.

 

[TorisMom003]

Happy Easter everyone and good night!

 

[James50]

BIB 1

Not for the reasons you seem to be implying (i.e. Nel is not picking on a disabled person). Did you not notice when Nel went easy on him a few times and suggested they adjourn since OP seem distressed?

Nope, I wasn't implying that Nel was picking on him because he's disabled. However, I do believe that his is using OP's emotional episodes for his own ends: misguidedly against OP.

Did you not notice when Nel went easy on him a few times and suggested they adjourn since OP seem distressed?

Yes, because he tried the bully tactics before and they backfired on him, with the media accusing him of going too far and some talk of his being reported to the SAHRC. He knew he had to be careful or he will prejudice his own case.

And the correct expression would be "you can't have your cake and eat it too." You have to add the "too" or it just sounds like you're denying someone cake.

That is just possible American English. I am English English and we put it the way I did there interchangeably with your way, using the shorter version for brevity, and everyone knows what it means.

I've said many times on here that I think he may or may not be faking the vomiting, over the top crying and covering of his ears. It may all be very real. But you missed my point entirely.

Well then, that represents reasonable doubt. Because if all of that is not faked, then it is not part of a ruse to mislead the court and he could well then be telling the truth.

With all due respect, after going back and carefully reading your original post all over again, I don't see where you said "Not all disabled children are stunted emotionally or grow up with emotional issues." So, no, that is not exactly what you said. You didn't even imply it.

I didn't say that verbatim, true. But I DID say they OFTEN have emotional issues. and added that (by implication) that is not ALWAYS the case. So that implies that not all disabled people have delayed (I don't like the word stunted) emotional development.

What I think you're doing is getting too hung up on syntax and the way people express themselves. So here is a respectful tip. Why not just let people express themselves the way they want to and try to understand them from their point of view, not yours. I believe if it's for this same reason (that you missinterpret what people are saying) that you're not getting OP. Sorry if that sounds harsh.

Now that is not a criticism because I do appreciate everything you say. I just feel that hbecause you tend to only look at the surface of things rather than try to see what's underneath and take into account ALL of the context etc. you miss things and come to rushed conclusions

 

[wb180]

And you believe that because over and over again Nel called him a liar. That's smear.

Wow that fact you even think this has any sway is pretty surprising. I am a websleuther and I don't need Nel to say he is a liar. I got it from OP responses.

You should be a websleuther too than just believing OP versions.

 

[minor4th]

I think if was only Annette Stipp who claimed to see light in the toilet room iirc, and noted that it seemed dimmer than the bathroom light. Outwage did the questioning of her, if that helps you find it. I don't think Dr. Stipp thought the toilet light was ON, though he said the bathroom light was "clearly ON."

Just listened to Dr Stipp and he said the toilet light was not on, but the bathroom light was on. Going to listen to Mrs Stipp again.