He received acting lessons - so says Jani Allan

http://janiallan.com/2014/04/14/letter-oscar/

Who?

She was very well known over there back in the 80s. Apparently the most admired person in SA in 1987.

The problem with cross -examination is that it's possible for anyone good to confuse someone's story. A witness or defendant can cause the lawyer to stumble themselves - the problem is that the more a witness or a defendant does this (with no good reason) the more they appear evasive - why?

A lot of it is picking over detail - and detail even in truthful stories it is easy for anyone to contradict themselves depending on the question. There was at least one example in the last few days where the prosecution latched on to a minor detail and twisted it to their advantage - in cross-examination it is as much about causing issues with credibility than it is about establishing facts. It may not prove anything but it does have an effect.

On balance I think the weight is with the lawyer - they are good at it - so you have to be innocent to maintain your composure.. the difference is if you are guilty you are more likely to stumble...

Experts say murder is unlikely. Just the negligence degree of the accident. Which can mean the difference of 5-15 years.

.

Guilty but will be proven otherwise....

Makes no sense on so many levels.

To me, regardless of what the court finds, and in addition to the many gaps in his story and pointers to his guilt, the following two key reasons persuade me of his guilt:

1. When he became aware of noises in the bathroom, his unbelievable failure to make sure that he established a hushed two way dialogue with Reeva before proceeding to the bathroom with the pistol. To me, and given she was supposed to be awake, in bed near him, it seems unthinkable that anyone would fail to do that.
2. In his story, Reeva knew he was awake because he was bringing the fans in when she supposedly slipped off to the bathroom. The toilet light wasn't working so why did she not turn the bathroom light on and leave the toilet door at least partly open to let in a bit of light? And why did she lock the door?

You're easily persuaded.

1. Why was she supposed to be awake. When was this said? It would be unlikely I would wake my wife if I were to do anything at night. You don't want to be around Mrs Beoz when woken at night.
2. Was this said? 'Hi Honey I'm off to the bathroom while you bring the fans in'? I don't need the toilet light on in the night. I know where the toilet is and I enjoy testing my wee aim abilities in the dark. When Mrs Beoz goes to the toilet she also does the dark and shuts the door so the sound of urine hitting the water doesn't wake me up.

I don't believe he would be so stupid as to book acting lessons before the trial, this has to be made up.

I don't believe he'd be so stupid to shoot her through a bathroom door. It would be far easier to top her off as she lay in bed.

Well he did shot her through a bathroom door? I expect his well documented violent temper got the better of him.

Is it? I just thought it was one of the allegations.

Well clearly somebody shot her through a bathroom door. Since he was the only one in the apartment besides her, and he was the one with the weapon, it makes sense that he shot her. Or are you asserting that it was someone else who shot her?