Lying in the Sun

Pistorius Tells Porkies?

Pistorius Tells Porkies?

Well the Prosecution seems to have caught out Pistorius telling porkies on his first day of being cross examined.

Pistorius conveniently had memory lapses when it suited him.  He was fighting for his life he said, more than once.  He would not answer directly when asked a direct question, beating about the bush and going into long rants about matters which he had not been asked.

Repeatedly the Prosecutor advised and warned him that, he was doing himself no favours by conducting himself in this manner.  

Pistorius argued continually with the Prosecutor, not answering a particular question saying he had already answered it three times already.  He demonstrated his arrogance, his ignorance and lack of respect for the Court, for the Prosecutor, especially for Mrs Steenkamp who deserves at the very least that this man conduct himself in a proper manner in Court, and tell the truth.

Oh Pistorius said he would - but 
only if he can remember!

In other words when he gets a difficult question, one it does not suit him to answer, he won't remember, but he won't be lying, he just won't be able to remember.

He addressed the Court on this count, saying that his memory isn't good as he is under a lot of stress.

When the inconsistencies/lies in his written statements (for bail application etc) and his verbal statements in Court did not tie and was pointed out to him by Prosecutor Gerrie Nel he blamed his own Counsel.  He said it was them who prepared the content.   But it was Pistorius who signed the statements as being the truth.

He insisted the police tampered, disturbed, and contaminated the scene.  One count of this he said was by moving two cooling fans.

The Prosecution proved that Pistorius had lied in this regard.  He had given different versions as to where these fans were positioned, where they were plugged in, at which socket, and also gave different versions as to whether he went out onto his balcony to retrieve the fans or whether he simply stood inside doorway.

Despite repeated warnings by Prosecutor for not answering that which was being asked of him, Pistorius continued to disrespect the Court, the memory of Reeva Steenkamp and Reeva's mother and family by acting like the selfish, spoiled individual he most obviously is.  His only interest is in saving his skin, and he will say or do anything to that end, that much is clear.

To me he demonstrated his arrogance and ignorance.  It has been shown from the outset that he has lied, and the Prosecution haven't even begun to probe.

Alex Crawford Sky News as ever tells us of how proud the Pistorius family were of his performance in Court today!

She tells us too that the showing of graphic images of Reeva's head injuries did not have the same affect on Mrs Steenkamp as it did on the rest of the Court as she (Mrs Steenkamp) had been pre-warned.  Crawford quickly tried to rectify what she had said by saying well of course she was affected...

Pre-warned or not, those images will have had greater affect on Mrs Steenkamp than any person in Court, than anyone in the world.    Mrs Steenkamp was being brave for her daughter.  She wanted Pistorius to look at what he had done to her beautiful Reeva, had she not agreed, Gerrie Nel would never have introduced the image.

I cannot help but wonder what is going on in the mind of Alex Crawford of course the image affected Reeva's mum more than anyone.  Crawford's reporting of this case has been in my opinion biased, she seems overly concerned about the welfare of Pistorius and shows much concern for his family.

As Llewelyn Curlewis said, these case are difficult for families on both sides, but it a process, these proceedings have to take place and it is something they see in Court in South Africa every day. Pistorius is no different than any other person who appears charged with pre-meditated murder - or maybe that isn't entirely true - I'll bet the rest don't get their own green sick bucket!

Thought I might need one myself today listening to the man!

From the beginning we have all thought that Oscar Pistorius his defence was that he didn't realise Miss Steenkamp was in the toilet cubicle that he thought it was an intruder, an intruder who might harm him.  Today in Court he repeatedly insisted that he did not intend to shoot anyone.

With that in mind the following interview is of great interest.  It is Sky's Jeremy Thomson, with Alex Crawford and Lawyer and Judge, Ike Motloung.  Mr Motloung has commented on this case before. There is one or two words I didn't quite catch and have indicated with '?' where there is.

Thomson, Sky News

Alex, just give us a flavour of the atmosphere in Court:


Oh it was absolutely shocking, within a few seconds of the Prosecutor starting his cross examination he had pretty much laid into Oscar Pistorius accusing him of not taking responsibility and trying him to force him into admitting and saying out loud that he had shot and killed Reeva Steenkamp.  He had said three times it was a mistake it was a mistake.  And then again a few seconds after that he decided he was going to project this very closeup shot of Reeva Steenkamp head wound and you can see how close the television screen is to where Oscar Pistorius was sitting.   He didn’t look at it, but it went on all the television screens and you really couldn’t have escaped it.  I think June Steenkamp was warned about it beforehand, that’s Reeva’s mother because she was not affected in the same way, that everyone else…. I’m sure she was affected it cannot have been easy seeing her daughter in that state but she told reporters afterwards that she felt it was necessary and she understood that necessity.  But very very graphic image showing both bullet entry and exit wounds and brain matter all in her hair and it was utterly shocking, Court had to be adjourned a few minutes later for him to compose himself.


And then this whole question of the contradictions between earlier statements and what he then said verbally in court...

Ike Motloung

All along I was under the impression that his defence was that he shot at Reeva thinking that he was shooting at an intruder.   And that was the total of (what I got?) even from the cross examination of Advocate Roux all along, and it seems to have evolved today to  -

‘NO, not  even the intruder did I intend to shoot at.’ 

You know what it does amount to? – If one tenth of it is true, it means that his defence, in legal terms is what we call automatism, in the sense that, 'I never intended, for all intents and purposes its not even me who shot,  I can’t even explain what happened, I never for once intended to shoot at whoever I shot at.'

I never thought that was their defence all along, and I wonder if that was their defence really?  The way Barry (Roux) has been meticulous about detail, I never heard it from him.


It’s pretty clear how Mr Nel is performing he’s been very surgical and he’s going in point after point, and you imagine this is going to go on for hours now.


I think it will go on for a long long time but at the end of that, Pistorius family members were feeling very proud of Oscar they were saying that they thought he performed pretty well and one of them said 'I’ve got a lot of respect for how Oscar dealt with that'  So I think he was up against probably one of the toughest advocates in South Africa, and he’s got a lot more to face yet.


Indeed - and I for one am glad he is up against a tough advocate as that is what it will take when dealing with someone who clearly has lied and will continue to do so.  Someone who doesn't want take responsibility who will blame everyone and anyone make every excuse imaginable.

He reminds me of others who have behaved just like he has.

But to what Ike Motloung has said.   What is the Defence up to? Will 'automatism' now be Pistorius' defence?   Is this why Pistorius repeatedly stated under cross examination today that he didn't intend to shoot anyone and not - Oh I didn't mean to shoot Reeva, I thought I was shooting an intruder?

We will see!

Automatism is a rarely used criminal defense. It is one of the mental condition defences that relate to the mental state of the defendant. Automatism can be seen variously as lack of voluntariness, lack of culpability (unconsciousness) or excuse (Schopp). Automatism means that the defendant was not aware of his or her actions when making the particular movements that constituted the illegal act. For example, Esther Griggs in 1858 threw her child out of a first floor window believing that the house was on fire, whilst having a night terror.[1] Brian Thomas strangled his wife in their campervan in a more recent case in Aberporth in an episode of rapid eye movement sleep behaviour disorder (a disorder related to sleepwalking), where he dreamed there was an intruder on top of his wife. The defence of automatism is denying that the person was acting in the sense that the criminal law demands. As such it is really a denial-of-proof – the defendant is asserting that the offence is not made out. The prosecution does not have to disprove the defence as is sometimes erroneously reported; the prosecution has to prove all the elements of the offence including the voluntary act requirement. Automatism is a defence even against strict liability crimes like dangerous driving, where no intent is necessary....
9th April 2014

Website Builder