Lying in the Sun

Guestbook - Pistorius

Guestbook - Pistorius

To all who have left messages on Guestbook, thank you, it is very much appreciated.

A couple of messages left were in relation to the Pistorius trial in S. Africa


'Bowled over by Barry' I have been reading your blogs for a while and it seems every time to do the word "exactly" comes to mind. It is the same with this one, exactly. You always seem to get to the real point. Thank you.


Your article: Pistorius and McCann You said the exact same thing as I did on listening to the Court case regarding witnesses. I too wonder if this would be how McCann would behave. But am I wrong to think that even when Pistorius contradicts himself he apologises and says it was a mistake and by apologising makes it ok?He is very slippery I think Gerry would be too.


 "I wish she'd let me know she was there. She DID NOT do that " I think this proves that his version of events that happened is untrue. It doesn't fit. If he was shouting and screaming she would have shouted back. It cannot have happened that way. Nel is right Reeva didn't let him know she was there because she was hiding from him and he wasn't defending himself against intruders.

In reply Angelique:

I agree your comments re Pistorius and McCann.

I think I have left any reader who may happen along, in no doubt how I feel about Pistorius or McCann. So much in common in their characters.  You point out how Pistorius apologises when he contradicts himself.

That is perhaps where McCann and Pistorius part company.   

Pistorius, he makes apology after having contradicted himself, not with any sincerity, his apologies are hollow. He does so when he is cornered, no way out.  

McCann on the other hand, makes no apology at any time, he never concedes. His arrogance and narcissitic tendencies won't allow him.

McCann though, unlike Pistorius has not been before a Court of Law with the world watching.  Would be interesting to see if he would 'come together' with Pistorius if he was in same situation, by that I mean,would he then offer insincere hollow apologies to get himself out of a hole when trapped by Prosecution?

I think he would.  They are two peas in a pod!

It is interesting though, in my opinion, that Pistorius is so very much more articulate than McCann this cardiologist, someone we would expect to speak well, yet he, and his wife Kate McCann, his holiday companions in the medical profession - do not.  They err, hmm, and uuhm their way through interviews.  Is this the way they really are, or is this guilt, evasiveness, trying to think on their feet when asked difficult questions?.

I say difficult - they have not been questioned by a 'Gerrie Nel' - as yet!  

McCanns and their holiday companions (on reading the police files and rogatory interviews) have been handled with kid gloves as far as I can see (and one must wonder why when a little 3 year old girl vanished in the most unusual circumstances.)  And anything they didn't want to answer, they didn't!.   

As you have said Angelique. Pistorius will most definitely at least hope that any apology he makes for contradicting a previous statement he has made, will be accepted by the Court as a simple mistake and that will make it okay.  Just as he desperately wants the Court to be believe he killed Miss Reeva Steenkamp by mistake.

How easily he bandies around 'mistake'

A slippery character you say of Pistorius.  He is that and more.  McCann I believe would try to be too.

McCann thinks he is smarter than the average Joe, he believes, as we saw by his comment to Sandra Felgueiras - 'ask the dogs Sandra' and the smirk which accompanied that comment, that he thought he had been terribly clever had somehow outsmarted her, when in fact when we consider this interview was about his missing daughter, the victim, the little girl at the heart of this - or as Kate McCann said - 'at the bottom of this' (sums up the McCanns) - it was pretty deplorable.

No question that McCann would try to be slippery
, but I doubt he would ‘hold up’ if in the same position as Pistorius.  McCann has had an easy ride thus far so many pandering to him, pussy footing around him – he hasn’t had to face a Gerrie Nel!    (Not sure he ever will, unless those who have the power to bring this about find the will to do so, see to it that the McCanns are asked the right questions for starters)

And of course Gerrie Nel is right.   Pistorius is lying through his teeth.  Pistorius is as he himself said - fighting for his life.   Reeva’s life is no more, and he doesn’t give a toss, he is thinking only of himself. He has shown no remorse whatsoever for taking her life.    Yes of course we had his little drama making a public apology in Court to the Steenkamp family.   They had rejected before this, a request to meet with him. They were not ready, pain too raw.   Why then would he think they would want to hear him speak publicly in this regard?   He did this FOR HIM for the watching world!

One of his ‘slips’ was when he started to say, in reply to being accused by Gerrie Nel of not taking responsibility for his actions, that he has taken responsibility, that he has waited, a year…he then said something to the effect ‘to get his life back’ stopped short, and changed tack, and said, waited a year to tell the Court his story.   It was an interesting slip up. Not only because the mask slipped, we saw he was thinking of himself his future, his life, it demonstrated his sharpness. And Pistorius is sharp, quick thinking, what fails him is his utter arrogance, his temper, he lacks self-control, and it causes him deliver at times anger filled responses, causing him to say much more than I am sure his Defence team will have been happy about.  That amongst other items will be his downfall.

There is no way possible Angelique for Pistorius to have been shouting and screaming at the entrance to the bathroom area and Miss Steenkamp not to have heard him from where she was inside the toilet cubicle - whether he was screaming like a girl or not - Roux as part of the defence has said Pistorius screams like a girl. This to counter witnesses having testified they heard the screams of a female, blood curling screams.

And that is important - blood curling - when Pistorius was shouting and screaming, it was he said to the alleged intruders to get out of his home, it was to Miss Steenkamp to phone the police - this would not be blood curling!

After Pistorius shot Miss Steenkamp, he would not have howled blood curling screams he was too busy considering his options!

And call me cynical - his howls in the Court his crying like a girl, his high pitched tones - why else other than to bolster the claims by Roux in defence of Pistorius - that he can scream like a girl.

An intruder would not have climbed a ladder, to break in through a first floor bathroom window, when he could just as easily have broken in through a ground level window.   And no intruder would head for the toilet and lock the door.  An intruder, in SA would I would think have been armed - why would he hide in the toilet, he would have advanced through the property ready to shoot or harm anyone he came across who got in the way of his plans to rob.   Why would he trap himself in a toilet where he could not see anyone advancing on him.   It's an outrageous tale told by Pistorius.

Any intruder would have heard these shouts by Pistorius and responded in some way, if armed to confront Pistorius or if perhaps if unarmed, to make this known to Pistorius
'waved a white flag' so to speak so that he would not himself be shot or physically injured in some way.

Pistorius said that at all times when in the tiled bathroom area his eyes darted from the open window to the door of the toilet cubicle.   He thought maybe the intruder might be on the ladder outside and might appear point his gun in the window and shoot.

He said the whole time he had his gun pointed at the toilet door - Why would that be if the perceived threat could be either or, from the window area or the toilet area?

When he heard the noise, he fired 4 shots at the toilet door.   How did he know the noise had not come from a creeking ladder?  Why did he not fire in both directions to make sure he hit/scared off any person who was this threat he claims?  He fired off 4 shots directly at the door in quick succession.

He knew exactly what he was doing, who he was shooting and why he was shooting Miss Steenkamp.

This guy said he did not make an escape with Miss Steenkamp out through the bedroom door as he was on his stumps and he doesn't walk well on tiled floors. Presumably then outside his bedroom door the hallways were tiled - odd that, one would think he would have floor coverings that he could walk over comfortably, but more odd - why then would he, wobbly on his stumps, vulnerable as he said, then walk down the tiled floor of the passageway which led to the bathroom and into the bathroom where the floor was tiled, making himself much more vulnerable and no escape should he encounter an intruder. By going to the bathroom he was trapping himself had there been an intruder.

This guy who claims to have felt so vulnerable, petrified, in a state of fear, despite this, claims he wanted to put himself between the alleged intruder and Miss Steenkamp - what a crock of a story.   Trying to make out his actions were heroic when the whole world knows his actions were those of a violent bully and his actions now In Court cowardly.

And  could he not have set an alarm off to scare off any would be intruder?

Thank you for your comments.
12th April 2014

Website Builder