Trial Discussion Thread #27 - 14.04.16, Day 24

[Really?]

Thanks
Why do you think Nel has it on the record about OP stating that he crouched down . I am at a loss to explain this if it wasn't related to the facts pertaining to OP's legs and overall height

My good Nel just want to show that OP is a liar

Moo

 

[emmavoberry]

Histrionic is exactly the word that has been going through my head about Oscar. Just didn't want to say it out loud because I get scared to post what I really think a lot of times - I'm scared of the reaction I'll get from many other posters.

I come in the form of your worst fear. Sorry. I mightily enjoy your posts. Everyone here should read your post on the "theory of what happened that night" thread.

A few things:

1) There is no evidence to suggest that disabled people are more "sensitive"(Not in a global sense and certainly not we use the word to imply sympathetic or aware). The word "histrionic" suggests displaying emotions in a theatrical way. All or even the majority of disabled people (when controlling for medication, type of disability as TBI would be different, stage when became disabled, pre-disability profle) can not categorically be said to be more prone to being "histrionic." OP has been disabled since birth. He has adapted quite succesfully to his disability. However, I would suggest that, given his image consciousness, and his preference for glamor girls, he might have underlying insecurity about his own physicality.
2) If you really do mean "histrionic," then a) This trait does not explain away OP's conflicting, embellished, self-serving testimony. b) As a personality or character disorder, histrionic is often a dual diagnosis along with narcissism and border-line personalities (not all of whom are murderers, but narcissism is noted in sociopaths, not all of whom are murderers! "Not that there's anything wrong with it" Jerry Seinfeld)
3) Those with intermittent explosive disorder could tend to be histrionic or emotionally labile.

O.K. I am rather twisting your use of this word to find OP culpable. But it seems to me you tend to make excuses for him and to go to some lengths to do so, which only suggests you are a more trusting, optimistic, less jaded person than I am.

P.S. Don't hesitate to post for fear of the knee-jerk pile on. It would not be any fun if we did not have an adversarial board, one composed of those feeling strongly on both sides. Adversarial justice systems offer the best process. Both sides do have to go to some lengths to support their arguments and theories. They tend to support passionately, an appropriate means of persuasion.

You persuasively represent the "let's not rush to judgement; OP is not necessarily guilty of unlawful homicide" side. No-brainer in that you are a lawyer.

Keep posting and chipping away at the other side's arguments to give the Pistorious trial board SOME balance or it devolves to "group-think," preaching away at its own choir.

The truth, though elusive, is often found in weighing two opposing sides.

In other words, where would we be without you Minor?!:loveyou:

 

[Val1]

Molly is indeed correct.

Lt Col Vermeulen not only agreed that the bat hits were after the gunshots, but also demonstrated this is court.

10:31 to 11:40 (transcript link)

Link

Instead of taking someone else's word for it, here's the official videos from sabc. Start at about 48:00 Session 1 for id of the two bat marks, one of which created the initial opening above the handle.
Session 1:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiKK3vA9XpQ"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiKK3vA9XpQ
Session 2:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGKRZIuBxLc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGKRZIuBxLc

Session 3 at 2:25-2:40 the witness clearly states that it was only the portion of the door with the crack that the witness identified the bullet hole as coming after the gunshots. Iow's, the two previously identifed marks in Session 1 could have come before the bullets.

"That specific crack yes, it was after the firing of the bullets took place."

Session 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXoq6o_tH_8#aid=P-14bhKWdfY

 

[Really?]

I've only started properly following this trial since the beginning of Pistorius' testimony so this might have been covered, but one thing that (rightly or wrongly) is concerning me greatly is Reeva Steenkamp's phone.

Pistorius submitted that as he approached the corridor he screamed at Steenkamp to phone the police (as well as at the imagined intruder/s). He then appeared to testify that he spent a good deal of time approaching the bathroom yelling the same thing, then became quiet while surveying said bathroom - consolidating the relative safety of his position - before again screaming at the intruders.

Looking at this from Steenkamp's perspective: Steenkamp had her phone in the toilet (she did, right?) has suddenly realised there are intruders in the house and is being requested by an apparently retreating Pistorius to phone the police. Given these circumstances and the apparent length of time elapsing in Pistorius' version between him yelling at Reeva to phone the police and shooting through the door I would have imagined Reeva to have complied with his request.

My question then is; are there any records which show that such a call was attempted, and if not what reason should she have not to comply with Oscar's desperate requests?

Answer.....because OP is a liar.....he screamed at Rreeva during their fight......go ahead.....phone the police.

 

[jay-jay]

BIB. This: KISS. Keep it simple stupid! It seems to be Mr. Nels position. All he cared about was the argument (witnesses), the murder (OP), and what OPs version of events was. Those were the three things that he had and he stayed focused on them.

Photos of a lot of stuff that we did not hear about are in the photo books that was put in to evidence. So he may have considered needing them at the start of the trial and later decided he did not. JMO. I do believe that after the verdict is read many fascinating revelations will come out from Mr. Nel and the NPA.

:goodpost: .. espesh the BIBs

 

[Val1]

I'm driving to Florida for a weeks vacation , then on to New Orleans Louisiana for the jazz festival the following week.

So nice that the trial was put on hold :giggle:

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

My family will be thrilled with the break, it means their taxes will get filed before the deadline of April 30th.

 

[minor4th]

I come in the form of your worst fear. Sorry. For I mightily enjoy your posts and tend (theory thread) to support your second theory of what happened that night.

A few thing:

1) There is no specific syndrome we have evidence for to suggest that disable people are more "sensitive"(in a global sense or when the word implies sympathetic or aware) or more prone to be emotional, in a theatrical way, than able-bodied people. OP has been disabled since birth. It appears he has made an amazingly successful adaption to his disability. However, I would suggest that, given his image consciousness, and his preference for glamor girls, he might have underlying insecurity about his own physicality.
2) If you really do mean "histrionic," then a) Does not explain away OP's conflicting, embellished, self-serving testimony. b) As a personality or character disorder is often a dual diagnosis with narcissism and border-line personalities (not all of whom are murderers, but narcissism is noted in sociopaths, not all of whom are murderers! "Not that there's anything wrong with it" Jerry Seinfeld)
3) Those with intermittent explosive disorder could tend to be histrionic or emotional labile.

O.K. I am rather twisting your use of this word to find OP culpable. But it seems to me you tend to make excuses for him and to go to some lengths to do so, which only suggests you are a more trusting, optimistic, less jaded person than I am.

PS Don't hesitate to post for fear of the ardent debaters among us. It would not be any fun if we did not have an adversarial board, one composed of those feeling strongly on both sides. Just as with the real justice system, this ensures more fairness. Both sides do have to go to some lengths, bend over backwards to support their arguments and theories.

You persuasively represent the "let's not rush to judgement; OP is not necessarily guilty of unlawful homicide" side. No-brainer in that you are a lawyer.

Keep posting and chipping away at the other side's arguments to give us SOME balance here or we become "group-think," preaching away at our own choir.

The truth, though elusive, is often found in weighing two opposing sides.

In other words, where would we be without you Minor?!:loveyou:

Once again - I am not the one who said he was histrionic because of his disabilities!

 

[james83]

Does anyone else feel like this case has aged them?, jesus this much thinking ain't good for the soul.

 

[patCee]

An article by SA author, Margie Orford, a renowned crime writer. She discusses the SA white male psyche in the context of SA's history of apartheid.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/04/oscar-pistorius-trial-black-stranger-defence

 

[BritsKate]

Psst...

If anyone wants to borrow my husband and find out just how not histrionic someone disabled can be...just let me know. He does do wicked sarcasm but since I'm American, I'm not supposed to understand it. Yet another incorrect generalization.

 

[katydid23]

Did OP ever testify as to why he told security Baba everything was okay? Thanks.

When Nel brought it up to him, OP said he does not remember saying that, then added that he did not think he would have said that. So he is kind of calling the testimony a false accusation.

 

[Hatfield]

Im listening to a replay of him trying to talk about the bat and the door.

OMG. What confusion and also what FAKE crying. OP goes into these purposely fake crying testimonies. The prosecuter does not help himself during the constradicting testimony because he is so confused but then he makes matters worse by trying to make sense of the senseless.

One thing that stood out was when OP says he hit the door jam part and it hurt his hands. This is true and about the only truth in the whole thing.
He remembers this part well because it did happen and it hurt his hand. So poor OP missed the door and hit the hard part of the door jam and it hurt. That is why he remembers that so well and goes into great detail about that part.

All the other parts are him trying to tailor his story to keep him out of trouble.
It is amazing to listen to the hogwash.

And the fake crying is condensending. The judge should run over and look at his eyes and say "See no tears now stop that and just answer the questions".

 

[jay-jay]

I agree, a complete travesty.

It's a very difficult defence plea but the only one that could give OP an acquittal so I think it's the what they are going knowing CH is a given and Murder, even if by transferred intent of the intruder, much too likely. It became evident during OP's cross. "Pointing" not aiming, shooting at the "perceived danger" not at an intruder about to attack, not pressing the trigger, not realising he had pressed the trigger, etc.... and the two days of OP telling his personal story... and all his tears, vomits, etc. with a psychologist having to continually be soothing him, the four rapid shots with no break, etc. And a psychologist coming to testify to his state of mind obligatory for an "involuntary action" defence. A complete travesty if the judge buys it so Nel must refute it.

I don't see how the defence will ever be able to go for 'involuntary defence' .. not when the prosecution will be able to show that he killed Reeva with intent.

 

[nastasya]

An epiphany about OP, and what is at the root of everybody's sense that he murdered Reeva...

OP's own story is one of irrational, emotion based reactions triggered by the most insignificant event. The sound of a woman using the bathroom resulted in him grabbing his gun and shoot her four times through the toilet door.

That's OP's own version.

So knowing that in OP's own version he thinks it reasonable to kill his girlfriend because she got up to use the bathroom without telling him, it's not a far stretch to believe he could have done the same thing if Reeva would have triggered him in some inconsequential way.

Maybe she touched his neck. Maybe she wasn't giving him enough sympathy that he wanted or needed from whatever event happened that day.

Maybe she told him to man the *advertiser censored** up and stop feeling sorry for himself.

Who knows?

The point is if OP thinks his version is even close to reasonable, he's describing himself as somebody who would take an emotion based, irrational action - like intentionally killing Reeva because of some inconsequential thing she said or did that set him off.

 

[molly333]

This is great. Burger and Johnson, however, heard the shots at about 3:16 - 3:17. They were woken up by screams - some time after 3:00 and didn't hear the shots until after they had tried to call different security numbers a couple of times.

So they heard exactly what Dr. Stipp heard, minus the first 'gunshots.'

well, I'm afraid I'm settling into it was an accident, unless something new comes out. Hard to believe, I know, but Oscar is just a strange character who can go from zero to sixty if he thinks he is in danger, I guess.

Otherwise, he is a budding serial killer, because he hardly knew this girl, and she clearly was all starry eyed about him.

 

[BlueShoe]

I agree, a complete travesty.

It's a very difficult defence plea but the only one that could give OP an acquittal so I think it's the what they are going knowing CH is a given and Murder, even if by transferred intent of the intruder, much too likely. It became evident during OP's cross. "Pointing" not aiming, shooting at the "perceived danger" not at an intruder about to attack, not pressing the trigger, not realising he had pressed the trigger, etc.... and the two days of OP telling his personal story... and all his tears, vomits, etc. with a psychologist having to continually be soothing him, the four rapid shots with no break, etc. And a psychologist coming to testify to his state of mind obligatory for an "involuntary action" defence. A complete travesty if the judge buys it so Nel must refute it.

Good post. I agree with you. I may be way off base, but when Nel suddenly ended his examination of Oscar, I had the thought that maybe he was afraid Oscar would have a total breakdown, and then could get off on psychological grounds. Oscar was so close to this a number of times, and Nel then seemed to back away. I think Nel may believe he already has enough evidence and why push things if the outcome could be Oscar having to go for medical treatment instead of to prison.

 

[Emz73]

So they heard exactly what Dr. Stipp heard, minus the first 'gunshots.'

well, I'm afraid I'm settling into it was an accident, unless something new comes out. Hard to believe, I know, but Oscar is just a strange character who can go from zero to sixty if he thinks he is in danger, I guess.

Otherwise, he is a budding serial killer, because he hardly knew this girl, and she clearly was all starry eyed about him.

I don't think he meant to kill her, so I guess I mean an accident. But I do believe he knew she was behind the door. Serial killers are a whole different kettle of fish.

 

[molly333]

Good post. I agree with you. I may be way off base, but when Nel suddenly ended his examination of Oscar, I had the thought that maybe he was afraid Oscar would have a total breakdown, and then could get off on psychological grounds. Oscar was so close to this a number of times, and Nel then seemed to back away. I think Nel may believe he already has enough evidence and why push things if the outcome could be Oscar having to go for medical treatment instead of to prison.

I agree. I also think somebody told Nel to back off. Maybe even the Judge.

 

[zoran]

Good post. I agree with you. I may be way off base, but when Nel suddenly ended his examination of Oscar, I had the thought that maybe he was afraid Oscar would have a total breakdown, and then could get off on psychological grounds. Oscar was so close to this a number of times, and Nel then seemed to back away. I think Nel may believe he already has enough evidence and why push things if the outcome could be Oscar having to go for medical treatment instead of to prison.

Something happened with a note being passed to Nel just before the abrupt ending of the cross examination. He asked the judge for a minute to discuss that note with his team and then very quickly it was all over. I dont have a link to the timing but it did happen.

 

[TrueDetective]

Uh -- he's not an average joe? He's the equivalent of Vermuelen, only more qualified.

What's not credible about hearing gunshots and cricket bats at different distances? What's not credible about kick marks on the door and varnish and splinters on a sock?

Its totally lacking in credibility, actually incredible that such unscientific 'testing' was even put to court. Did you actually watch his testimony?
The defence should be ashamed. How anyone can even suggest it is credible is frankly ridiculous. It was a total shambles and if subsequent 'experts' are as unconvincing, lazy and amateurish; the defence case is in big trouble.