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
I take your point, but there is no dispute that he did indeed kill her, and as I said I would find it easier to believe in his sincerity without all these evasive terms and euphemisms.
I suppose some of that could be explained by English not being his native language
I think I read somewhere that he was brought up speaking English.
If Afrikaans is in fact his mother tongue, I wonder that he didn't use an interpreter when giving evidence. That would have bought him time and helped with obfuscation! Thank goodness we didn't have to sit through that.
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.
I guess Janet Henzen Du Toit is an Afrikaans speaker, so that will have been a great help clearing up any ambiguities with those testimonies that came via an interpreter.
Trial's Best Moments
Update, adding your URL and a time, removing quotes. A transcript welcome, but not required.
Sandy50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZi6DQaT8gk
Woollie's testimony from 2.44.05
Woolie: M'Lady may I be seated ?
Judge :..Yes.yes...and your Jacket, you've forgotten your Jacket Mr Wolmorans, forgotten your Jacket,....
Woolie: It's better for me to stand, but er, sometimes it's better to sit M'Lady
Judge: Your Jacket !
Trial's Best Moments
Update, adding your URL and a time, removing quotes. A transcript welcome, but not required.
Sandy50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZi6DQaT8gk
Woollie's testimony from 2.44.05
Woolie: M'Lady may I be seated ?
Judge :..Yes.yes...and your Jacket, you've forgotten your Jacket Mr Wolmorans, forgotten your Jacket,....
Woolie: It's better for me to stand, but er, sometimes it's better to sit M'Lady
Judge: Your Jacket !
I just love it. I love m'lady's 'What am I doing in this circus?!' expression and then OP with his head in his hands.
LOL forever
Yep m'lady looks completely baffled lol
OP still struggling to accept that against all the odds his bat sounds sounded like gunshots and his hysterics sounded like a woman, leading to the necessity of sharing with the world that you do, in fact, scream like your neighbour's wife.
Only in the voice of a man.
lol
It's classic case of "boy who cried wolf - and many other improbable things" IMO
saralund From 48:06https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi3KTaDfb3o
Derman: "With all respect, you don't need to be a genius to actually determine this."
Nel: "One don't have to be a genius, but you DO need to be a psychologist.......I never said you're a genius..."
Few thoughts from Robert Shapiro about why Oscar's testimony matters so much:
"Although the burden is never [usually] on the defence to prove innocence, in a self-defence case, the burden does switch, and in this case, the burden does switch. We've talked before about reasonable doubt, well, in a self-defence case, when somebody testifies on their own behalf, then reasonable doubt goes out the window, because then it becomes a credibility issue ... who do you believe, rather than, has the prosecution proven this beyond a reasonable doubt."
"It's a self-defence claim. You have to testify. ... No judge is going to rule in your favour unless they hear you reiterate your self-defence claim. The judge will think, now I have certain facts, I have an affidavit, and i'm going to judge it so ... it will be imperative he take the witness stand"
Q: Do you think Oscar would be better served if there were a jury in this case?
A: If I had this choice between it being heard by a judge or jury, that would be one of the easiest decisions I would ever make. I would take a jury every day of the week. With a judge, there's no hung jury. You're either going to get found guilty, or acquitted, or a lesser included charge. And it's a very very tough thing to do. The other thing is this. Judges are professionals. Who has a greater motive to lie than someone accused of murder. A judge is going to look Oscar Pistorius in the eye, is going to hear all the forensic evidence, and if she comes up with one thing that they conclude was a lie, this case is going to have a very bad result for Oscar Pistorius.
.....
How is about: "Before I knew it four shots had just gone off." (???)
Anyone notice how little tears there was in the dock ... compared to what it sounds like on the stand?
But the same events are being discussed the whole time, where is the trigger for the "private grief" apart form retching "on-cue" at photos - or with Schultz, the cue changed to chat - then with Animation room - talking was altogether not a problem, not even acting events out. Why is he not more often quietly sobbing in the dock due to being in mourning - does this switch off when not giving evidence or something?
Anyway yep - on an average day (alert, passing notes, focused on evidence about the incident, not getting upset about most of it) - but talking to m'lady - so very sad and shaky almost the whole time...
Hopefully the lady assessor has made detailed note about these selective & varying grief states on display in different contexts!! ;-)
South African justice will be slightly embarrassed I think to give this man a pass considering the mountain of indications before them that all is not what it seems lol
saralund From 48:06https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi3KTaDfb3o
Derman: "With all respect, you don't need to be a genius to actually determine this."
Nel: "One don't have to be a genius, but you DO need to be a psychologist.......I never said you're a genius..."
Few thoughts from Robert Shapiro about why Oscar's testimony matters so much:
"Although the burden is never [usually] on the defence to prove innocence, in a self-defence case, the burden does switch, and in this case, the burden does switch. We've talked before about reasonable doubt, well, in a self-defence case, when somebody testifies on their own behalf, then reasonable doubt goes out the window, because then it becomes a credibility issue ... who do you believe, rather than, has the prosecution proven this beyond a reasonable doubt."
"It's a self-defence claim. You have to testify. ... No judge is going to rule in your favour unless they hear you reiterate your self-defence claim. The judge will think, now I have certain facts, I have an affidavit, and i'm going to judge it so ... it will be imperative he take the witness stand"
Q: Do you think Oscar would be better served if there were a jury in this case?
A: If I had this choice between it being heard by a judge or jury, that would be one of the easiest decisions I would ever make. I would take a jury every day of the week. With a judge, there's no hung jury. You're either going to get found guilty, or acquitted, or a lesser included charge. And it's a very very tough thing to do. The other thing is this. Judges are professionals. Who has a greater motive to lie than someone accused of murder. A judge is going to look Oscar Pistorius in the eye, is going to hear all the forensic evidence, and if she comes up with one thing that they conclude was a lie, this case is going to have a very bad result for Oscar Pistorius.
.....
How is about: "Before I knew it four shots had just gone off." (???)
I’m sure high on Pistorius’ wish list would be a white, preferably Afrikaan speaking, jury.
Experience has shown that as non-legal laypersons juries can be very responsive to emotion and Pistorius can supply that in green bucket loads.
Unfortunate for him since jury trials were abolished in 1969 in SA his fate is in the hands of a judge and two assessors, who in all probability will focus more on legal aspects and who are much less likely to be influenced by emotion than jurors. So no chance of white balloons riding to the rescue there!
Oh dear….not looking good for the now highly tarnish golden boy is it?
you can bring history into the equation if you like, but we are talking about a word which is, in my contention, misogynist right now.
Take this forum itself.
Not even politely misspelled. Then I suggest c%nt...
With respect Moniker, IMO you're on thin ice if you're trying to argue that in social usage (like right here) we don't differentiate between these two insults, and the key differentiation between them is gendered.
Btw, I think "****" is diluted by its sonic similarity to "twit": a very inconsequential insult.
I grew up in Lancashire where 'cock' was a term of endearment
Looking at Photo 86 and Photo 87 of the tiled passage leading to bathroom, a door panel can be seen lying in front of the bath but how did the rather large pieces of the door end up in the passage?
According to his evidence after smashing the door and pulling Reeva out of the toilet into the bathroom Pistorius went and got his phones. He went back to the body picked Reeva up and carried her downstairs.
I accept he could have thrown the door panel across the room but would large splinters have ended up in the passage?
Updated Poll @15/8- Add your opinion and repost removing quotes
45 Murder with Intent (Dolus Directus)
9 Murder (Dolus Eventualis)
3 Culpable Homicide
2 Acquittal
0 Not Sure
Dolus Directus (direct intent), is where the accused meant to perpetrate the prohibited conduct, or to bring about the criminal consequence and where the consequences of an action were both foreseen and desired by the perpetrator. You want to kill someone, so you shoot him. In this case the perpetrator had a specific victim in mind and then went about killing him or her.
Dolus eventualis exists where the accused does not mean to actually cause the unlawful consequence which follows from his conduct, but foresees or should foresee the possibility of the consequences ensuing, and nonetheless proceeds with his conduct. An example would be of an assault where a perpetrator gets into a fight and uses a knuckle duster to beat up the victim, not actually intending to kill the victim, and the victim dies.
Culpable homicide has been defined simply as the unlawful negligent killing of a human being. The essential difference with this crime from those mentioned above lies in the fact that the fault in this crime stems from negligence (culpa) and not intent. The test in determining whether the accused is guilty of this crime lies in the question – “what a reasonable person would have done given the same circumstances?
saralund From 48:06https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi3KTaDfb3o
Derman: "With all respect, you don't need to be a genius to actually determine this."
Nel: "One don't have to be a genius, but you DO need to be a psychologist.......I never said you're a genius..."
saralund From 48:06https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi3KTaDfb3o
Derman: "With all respect, you don't need to be a genius to actually determine this."
Nel: "One don't have to be a genius, but you DO need to be a psychologist.......I never said you're a genius..."
Comments
I take your point, but there is no dispute that he did indeed kill her, and as I said I would find it easier to believe in his sincerity without all these evasive terms and euphemisms.
I think I read somewhere that he was brought up speaking English.
If Afrikaans is in fact his mother tongue, I wonder that he didn't use an interpreter when giving evidence. That would have bought him time and helped with obfuscation! Thank goodness we didn't have to sit through that.
I guess Janet Henzen Du Toit is an Afrikaans speaker, so that will have been a great help clearing up any ambiguities with those testimonies that came via an interpreter.
Lol. I really hope someone find's Wollie's gun moment too
Update, adding your URL and a time, removing quotes. A transcript welcome, but not required.
Sandy50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZi6DQaT8gk
Woollie's testimony
from 2.44.05
Woolie: M'Lady may I be seated ?
Judge :..Yes.yes...and your Jacket, you've forgotten your Jacket Mr Wolmorans, forgotten your Jacket,....
Woolie: It's better for me to stand, but er, sometimes it's better to sit M'Lady
Judge: Your Jacket !
Originally Posted by Kapellmeister
This (again)
http://youtu.be/KYp7lZchhhI?t=1m5s
>
From 48:27: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi3KTaDfb3o
Derman: "With all respect, you don't need to be a genius to actually determine this."
Nel: "One don't have to be a genius, but you DO need to be a psychologist.......I never said you're a genius..."
What would be your #2 Moniker? I'm sure it'll be just as good
Brilliant Sara!
Yep m'lady looks completely baffled lol
OP still struggling to accept that against all the odds his bat sounds sounded like gunshots and his hysterics sounded like a woman, leading to the necessity of sharing with the world that you do, in fact, scream like your neighbour's wife.
Only in the voice of a man.
lol
It's classic case of "boy who cried wolf - and many other improbable things" IMO
Aww I think they're all the old favourite ones tbh lol mainly involving Roger Dixon
Yep, we def need "the instruments I used were my eyes." And the cricket-bat-wielding 'expertise' moment!
...but so many hours of speaking in a slow monotonous voice and rambling on and on in order to get to the comedy gems lol
There was that problem with Dixon's evidence
Extremely soporific!!
M'Lady looked practically comatose at times
Sandy50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZi6DQaT8gk
Woollie's testimony
from 2.44.05
Judge: Your Jacket.... your Jacket ...... you've forgotten your Jacket !
Kapellmeister
Witness: "Wahaaaha! ... But in the voice of a man..."
http://youtu.be/KYp7lZchhhI?t=1m5s
saralund
From 48:06 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi3KTaDfb3o
Derman: "With all respect, you don't need to be a genius to actually determine this."
Nel: "One don't have to be a genius, but you DO need to be a psychologist.......I never said you're a genius..."
Sandy50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_hle5shsDY
Nel cross-exam with Nel
32.26-33.58
"You never checked the bathroom window for a ladder"
darn, have to research all over again.
"Although the burden is never [usually] on the defence to prove innocence, in a self-defence case, the burden does switch, and in this case, the burden does switch. We've talked before about reasonable doubt, well, in a self-defence case, when somebody testifies on their own behalf, then reasonable doubt goes out the window, because then it becomes a credibility issue ... who do you believe, rather than, has the prosecution proven this beyond a reasonable doubt."
"It's a self-defence claim. You have to testify. ... No judge is going to rule in your favour unless they hear you reiterate your self-defence claim. The judge will think, now I have certain facts, I have an affidavit, and i'm going to judge it so ... it will be imperative he take the witness stand"
Q: Do you think Oscar would be better served if there were a jury in this case?
A: If I had this choice between it being heard by a judge or jury, that would be one of the easiest decisions I would ever make. I would take a jury every day of the week. With a judge, there's no hung jury. You're either going to get found guilty, or acquitted, or a lesser included charge. And it's a very very tough thing to do. The other thing is this. Judges are professionals. Who has a greater motive to lie than someone accused of murder. A judge is going to look Oscar Pistorius in the eye, is going to hear all the forensic evidence, and if she comes up with one thing that they conclude was a lie, this case is going to have a very bad result for Oscar Pistorius.
.....
How is about: "Before I knew it four shots had just gone off." (???)
But the same events are being discussed the whole time, where is the trigger for the "private grief" apart form retching "on-cue" at photos - or with Schultz, the cue changed to chat - then with Animation room - talking was altogether not a problem, not even acting events out. Why is he not more often quietly sobbing in the dock due to being in mourning - does this switch off when not giving evidence or something?
Anyway yep - on an average day (alert, passing notes, focused on evidence about the incident, not getting upset about most of it) - but talking to m'lady - so very sad and shaky almost the whole time...
Hopefully the lady assessor has made detailed note about these selective & varying grief states on display in different contexts!! ;-)
South African justice will be slightly embarrassed I think to give this man a pass considering the mountain of indications before them that all is not what it seems lol
Super-nice layout, Sandy
Hope they speak the truth!
:cool::cool::cool:
I’m sure high on Pistorius’ wish list would be a white, preferably Afrikaan speaking, jury.
Experience has shown that as non-legal laypersons juries can be very responsive to emotion and Pistorius can supply that in green bucket loads.
Unfortunate for him since jury trials were abolished in 1969 in SA his fate is in the hands of a judge and two assessors, who in all probability will focus more on legal aspects and who are much less likely to be influenced by emotion than jurors. So no chance of white balloons riding to the rescue there!
Oh dear….not looking good for the now highly tarnish golden boy is it?
Haha
According to his evidence after smashing the door and pulling Reeva out of the toilet into the bathroom Pistorius went and got his phones. He went back to the body picked Reeva up and carried her downstairs.
I accept he could have thrown the door panel across the room but would large splinters have ended up in the passage?
*actually - realised I uploaded it on wrong Youtube channel, will reupload*