who OP? I'm sure English is his mother tongue - no?
yes, I think so too - he was well travelled, always fluent in English in EVERY interview i've ever seen him in. I don't know about his Education, but I do know that everyone I 've ever met from SA is fluent in English,written and spoken and they only spoke Afrikaans to eachother when they didn't want anyone to know what they were talking about ..
I disagree.............if I talk about my phone, which I carry around with me all the time virtually,.like OP does his gun, I wouldn't change from using the term mobile, to cellphone if I was giving a Statement about using it would I , --- consistency is the key if someone is telling the truth.
I agree if you always call your phone a mobile, but my point was firearm, gun, pistol are very interchangeable and are used as such
True. And also I don't hear a chorus of criticism for Nel's propensity to create incomplete sentences, all in the name of maintaining flexibility to follow his stream of consciousness.
Nel normally speaks Afrikaans, that was very evident, OP was much more fluent than Nel in English- The Judge however does NOT speak Afrikaans, unusual I thought for a Judge in SA.
True. And also I don't hear a chorus of criticism for Nel's propensity to create incomplete sentences, all in the name of maintaining flexibility to follow his stream of consciousness.
Yes but Nel can be forgiven. He's fighting for justice and he's lovely too!
I agree if you always call your phone a mobile, but my point was firearm, gun, pistol are very interchangeable and are used as such
why ? you could say the same for phone, mobile,cell, cellphone ........... I doubt OP would say, I'll just go and get my firearm from the side of my bed, I'll just load my pistol, and go to the firing range and fire my gun. He'd be consistent.
I think you will find his mother tongue is Afrikaans the whole family use it
Remember Aunt Lois shouting at Nel "Kry jy nie skaam nie?
His Aunt is a different generation, and not only that she doesn't travel internationally as an Olympic Athlete as OP has for many many years. With the family OP probably does speak Afrikaans.
South Africa’s differing languages is proving difficult to overcome. After two weeks of Oscar Pistorius’ murder trial it has been sensationally revealed that some of the testimony given by Afrikaans speaking witnesses has been misrepresented.
With 11 official languages you could expect South Africa’s courts to be well equipped to handle testimony in whatever the tongue.
This is the grossest incorrect interpreting that I’ve seen or heard in a long time,” said Johan Blaauw, chairman of the South African Translators’ Institute. His organisation is so outraged it has offered to supply an accredited interpreter free of charge, but is still awaiting the court’s response.
Signs of trouble have been there from the first day. One court-appointed interpreter — perhaps cognisant of the whirlwind that engulfed a fake sign language interpreter at Nelson Mandela’s memorial — reportedly fled after learning she was to work on such a high-profile case.
During the first week of the trial, Pistorius’s neighbour, Michelle Burger, began to testify in Afrikaans about hearing screams and gunshots on the night of Reeva Steenkamp’s death, but was forced to stop to correct the struggling interpreter. When Burger said events after the shooting were “deurmekaar” it was translated as “confused” prompting defence lawyers suggest her recollection of events might also be confused.
Burger was forced to explain she meant “chaotic” and later opted to switch to English instead.
On Thursday when former police officer Giliam van Rensburg took the stand there was yet more evidence of bungling. Again speaking in Afrikaans, Van Rensburg described finding the lifeless body of the athlete’s girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp covered in towels, which were rendered “hand clothes” by the interpreter.
His Aunt is a different generation, and not only that she doesn't travel internationally as an Olympic Athlete as OP has for many many years. With the family OP probably does speak Afrikaans.
And Aunt Lois is only family by marriage isn't she. I just read that OP's maternal grandfather was Italian.
He had a number of such problems mainly because he is not using his normal style of speech. He will have been rehearsed over and over again by the DT who will have modified his vocabulary to suit.
I agree. It's like Nel said to OP: stop thinking of the consequences of your answers, and instead concentrate on truthfully answering my questions. Trouble is, the more hesitant OP is on account of this coaching in 'legalese', the less convincing he sounds in his testimony because he is not speaking with the authenticity that comes when someone speaks freely in his/her natural style of speech.
And Aunt Lois is only family by marriage isn't she. I just read that OP's maternal grandfather was Italian.
But the point is that the older Pistorius family members, outlaws or inlaws, would speak Afrikaans, OP on the other hand would be much more used to speaking in English.
Cirkey there's some terrible translations that went on in that Courtroom, I hope that it's all checked and checked again ! Could be disastrous, given Roux's ability to twist every word.
They all made notes throughout the Trial . After each day in Court , I read that they go back to Chambers, or whereever they go to, and talk about that day in Court and the evidence that was presented. Now they are going over everything, based on further notes, ........and they will know what they want to raise again and go over.
That's fantastic info - thanks Sandy! :cool:
Hence why it ends at 2 - 3pm? So they can talk.
I think they might be too far down the road of deliberations for Roux's speech to make much difference in that case. They would not easily shift the impressions of OP spouting some utter rubbish during his days on the stand lol
Most commentators agree it is almost entirely down to just three things - the law, ballistics, and his credibility - whether or not the defence case would succeed or not. No credibility = no intruder = shot R.S.
I think they will approach with especial vigour the solution of the case because if guilty he has COMPLETELY rewritten the circumstances to make himself both blameless and even a little bit noble.
No one likes to be hoodwinked. That applies to assessors and judges as well. The potential "lying" factor isn't usually as extreme if someone simply says "i wasn't involved - I was not at the crime scene." there's no total rewrite going on to try to "manipulate" the listeners. I think it's quite a different matter.
I'm not sure this fact will help OP tbh.
Particularly not in light of his acquittal request lol ;-) It confirms doesn't it one of Nel's opening remarks "he's incapable of taking blame". So the state does have that much
Wonder if the assessors helped Masipa put together with Weskoppies referral? That was very good. Hmm...yeah...thinking about the psychology of panels and how people do not like to be lied to or taken for fools (they will work especially hard to figure out if that is the case if suspicious) ... I am feeling more chipper about the outcome!
Using less ‘emotive’ language is a standard defence technique.
Nel can never get him to say he killed Reeva, he will say he ‘took her life’
Kill is far to expressive, it would make him sound like a hit man!
If this is the case, I think it's poor advice. It comes over to me as stilted and evasive. If he did say "I killed Reeva", I think it might sound more honest.
why ? you could say the same for phone, mobile,cell, cellphone ........... I doubt OP would say, I'll just go and get my firearm from the side of my bed, I'll just load my pistol, and go to the firing range and fire my gun. He'd be consistent.
But because you don't use the various names for a phone, doesn't mean Pistorius doesn't use different names for his weapons. i don't know about him but from my experience the various names seem to be used fairly interchangeably.
Remember one minute the ammunition was Black Talon, next minute it was Ranger maybe gun owners are an inconsistent lot
If this is the case, I think it's poor advice. It comes over to me as stilted and evasive. If he did say "I killed Reeva", I think it might sound more honest.
If this is the case, I think it's poor advice. It comes over to me as stilted and evasive. If he did say "I killed Reeva", I think it might sound more honest.
Unfortunately honesty is not always the first consideration.
The defence view would be….
To say kill would simply make him a ‘killer’ that is not what they want to portray.
Professor Derman: "...which he subsequently believed..."
Nel: "...subsequent to what?"
A linguistically exquisite moment where the professor tries to separate his verb from his adverb, and ends up looking like he doesn't know his arse from his elbow
Yes his visibly wilted after the 'subsequent' debate, served him right.
I can't remember where I heard it-it was definitely on Sky , from one of their pundits, like ThunderbirdMan or it was on Oscar Trial Panel, one of them said what happens each day after Court, and that they discuss each day after the Court ends. They don't just sit there making notes , go home and then start discussion after Closing Arguments that's for sure, or it would take tooo long and they 'd not be able to cover everything. Remember too they had time to catch up with discussion too while OP was sent off to Weskoppies, so hopefully they were bit 'ahead' by the time Court started again.
I suppose some of that could be explained by English not being his native language
No , it's because his Counsel would have advise him to do enough that's necessary,then they'd add bits, tailor his version once they'd heard the Prosecution's case in Court- and Oldwage is English and Roux's fluent, and OP speaks English, he just pretends he's not that bright or doesn't understand, he does and he did, which Nel exposed, OP was very detailed in his explanations and answers to questions he was prepared to answer, he understood those alright.
Cirkey there's some terrible translations that went on in that Courtroom, I hope that it's all checked and checked again ! Could be disastrous, given Roux's ability to twist every word.
It's alarming that the translation was not always correct, it sounds like it was more of an interpretation than a translation which is totally wrong in this kind of situation, it should have been exact to avoid any ambiguity! poor form.
If this is the case, I think it's poor advice. It comes over to me as stilted and evasive. If he did say "I killed Reeva", I think it might sound more honest.
I agree. The word "loss" is just totally wrong.
Do you remember when Nel began to query in a sceptical manner OP's emotions, asking him if it was a refuge from difficult questions, that kind of thing?
And one time Nel said "I do not understand why you are getting emotional now - we were not talking about Reeva at all". And OP perked up and replied, a bit indignantly: "Yes I was, I just mentioned Reeva!"
He was aware that mentioning Reeva was the thing that was supposed to be "triggering" emotions LOL. And was then irritated that Nel had not noticed he was, in fact, mentioning Reeva when he became tearful. But he wasn't emotional when being indignant. It sort of stopped because Nel's question was unfair lol
I think it doesn't matter how you read his evidence - if you comb through - you always find more things that don't "add up" [like using the word 'loss']. For me that's the near guarantee of his guilt. When a "model" keeps on building always towards the same conclusion the more you investigate it, then it's almost definitely true.
I can't remember where I heard it-it was definitely on Sky , from one of their pundits, like ThunderbirdMan or it was on Oscar Trial Panel, one of them said what happens each day after Court, and that they discuss each day after the Court ends. They don't just sit there making notes , go home and then start discussion after Closing Arguments that's for sure, or it would take tooo long and they 'd not be able to cover everything. Remember too they had time to catch up with discussion too while OP was sent off to Weskoppies, so hopefully they were bit 'ahead' by the time Court started again.
So after the arguments they were so up to date, it was a quick vote (unanimously guilty of course) then off down the pub for a swift half after which they all agreed to meet up on 11 Sept
Comments
yes, I think so too - he was well travelled, always fluent in English in EVERY interview i've ever seen him in. I don't know about his Education, but I do know that everyone I 've ever met from SA is fluent in English,written and spoken and they only spoke Afrikaans to eachother when they didn't want anyone to know what they were talking about ..
I agree if you always call your phone a mobile, but my point was firearm, gun, pistol are very interchangeable and are used as such
Yes but Nel can be forgiven. He's fighting for justice and he's lovely too!
Well you live and learn:cool:
But I am surprised then that he didn't know that Botha meant the bedding was on the carpet and not on one side of the bed
Neither am I
South Africa’s differing languages is proving difficult to overcome. After two weeks of Oscar Pistorius’ murder trial it has been sensationally revealed that some of the testimony given by Afrikaans speaking witnesses has been misrepresented.
With 11 official languages you could expect South Africa’s courts to be well equipped to handle testimony in whatever the tongue.
This is the grossest incorrect interpreting that I’ve seen or heard in a long time,” said Johan Blaauw, chairman of the South African Translators’ Institute. His organisation is so outraged it has offered to supply an accredited interpreter free of charge, but is still awaiting the court’s response.
Signs of trouble have been there from the first day. One court-appointed interpreter — perhaps cognisant of the whirlwind that engulfed a fake sign language interpreter at Nelson Mandela’s memorial — reportedly fled after learning she was to work on such a high-profile case.
During the first week of the trial, Pistorius’s neighbour, Michelle Burger, began to testify in Afrikaans about hearing screams and gunshots on the night of Reeva Steenkamp’s death, but was forced to stop to correct the struggling interpreter. When Burger said events after the shooting were “deurmekaar” it was translated as “confused” prompting defence lawyers suggest her recollection of events might also be confused.
Burger was forced to explain she meant “chaotic” and later opted to switch to English instead.
On Thursday when former police officer Giliam van Rensburg took the stand there was yet more evidence of bungling. Again speaking in Afrikaans, Van Rensburg described finding the lifeless body of the athlete’s girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp covered in towels, which were rendered “hand clothes” by the interpreter.
And Aunt Lois is only family by marriage isn't she. I just read that OP's maternal grandfather was Italian.
I agree. It's like Nel said to OP: stop thinking of the consequences of your answers, and instead concentrate on truthfully answering my questions. Trouble is, the more hesitant OP is on account of this coaching in 'legalese', the less convincing he sounds in his testimony because he is not speaking with the authenticity that comes when someone speaks freely in his/her natural style of speech.
But the point is that the older Pistorius family members, outlaws or inlaws, would speak Afrikaans, OP on the other hand would be much more used to speaking in English.
That's fantastic info - thanks Sandy! :cool:
Hence why it ends at 2 - 3pm? So they can talk.
I think they might be too far down the road of deliberations for Roux's speech to make much difference in that case. They would not easily shift the impressions of OP spouting some utter rubbish during his days on the stand lol
Most commentators agree it is almost entirely down to just three things - the law, ballistics, and his credibility - whether or not the defence case would succeed or not. No credibility = no intruder = shot R.S.
I think they will approach with especial vigour the solution of the case because if guilty he has COMPLETELY rewritten the circumstances to make himself both blameless and even a little bit noble.
No one likes to be hoodwinked. That applies to assessors and judges as well. The potential "lying" factor isn't usually as extreme if someone simply says "i wasn't involved - I was not at the crime scene." there's no total rewrite going on to try to "manipulate" the listeners. I think it's quite a different matter.
I'm not sure this fact will help OP tbh.
Particularly not in light of his acquittal request lol ;-) It confirms doesn't it one of Nel's opening remarks "he's incapable of taking blame". So the state does have that much
Wonder if the assessors helped Masipa put together with Weskoppies referral? That was very good. Hmm...yeah...thinking about the psychology of panels and how people do not like to be lied to or taken for fools (they will work especially hard to figure out if that is the case if suspicious) ... I am feeling more chipper about the outcome!
If this is the case, I think it's poor advice. It comes over to me as stilted and evasive. If he did say "I killed Reeva", I think it might sound more honest.
But because you don't use the various names for a phone, doesn't mean Pistorius doesn't use different names for his weapons. i don't know about him but from my experience the various names seem to be used fairly interchangeably.
Remember one minute the ammunition was Black Talon, next minute it was Ranger maybe gun owners are an inconsistent lot
I agree: said much the same
Unfortunately honesty is not always the first consideration.
The defence view would be….
To say kill would simply make him a ‘killer’ that is not what they want to portray.
To say ‘took a life’ sounds much ‘sanitised’
That’s the way it is
Yes his visibly wilted after the 'subsequent' debate, served him right.
I can't remember where I heard it-it was definitely on Sky , from one of their pundits, like ThunderbirdMan or it was on Oscar Trial Panel, one of them said what happens each day after Court, and that they discuss each day after the Court ends. They don't just sit there making notes , go home and then start discussion after Closing Arguments that's for sure, or it would take tooo long and they 'd not be able to cover everything. Remember too they had time to catch up with discussion too while OP was sent off to Weskoppies, so hopefully they were bit 'ahead' by the time Court started again.
He wilted as soon as Nel started asking questions.
He came to lecture and amaze the world with his knowledge of neural pathways in the brain.
Not to answer question!!
It's alarming that the translation was not always correct, it sounds like it was more of an interpretation than a translation which is totally wrong in this kind of situation, it should have been exact to avoid any ambiguity!
I agree. The word "loss" is just totally wrong.
Do you remember when Nel began to query in a sceptical manner OP's emotions, asking him if it was a refuge from difficult questions, that kind of thing?
And one time Nel said "I do not understand why you are getting emotional now - we were not talking about Reeva at all". And OP perked up and replied, a bit indignantly: "Yes I was, I just mentioned Reeva!"
He was aware that mentioning Reeva was the thing that was supposed to be "triggering" emotions LOL. And was then irritated that Nel had not noticed he was, in fact, mentioning Reeva when he became tearful. But he wasn't emotional when being indignant. It sort of stopped because Nel's question was unfair lol
I think it doesn't matter how you read his evidence - if you comb through - you always find more things that don't "add up" [like using the word 'loss']. For me that's the near guarantee of his guilt. When a "model" keeps on building always towards the same conclusion the more you investigate it, then it's almost definitely true.
So after the arguments they were so up to date, it was a quick vote (unanimously guilty of course) then off down the pub for a swift half after which they all agreed to meet up on 11 Sept