Trial Discussion Thread #35 - 14.05.08 Day 28

[Greater Than]

Unless it's among his legal restrictions, he can speak to whomever he pleases unless what he says amounts to a crime. The prosecutor's office has already said they're not doing anything about it, so I guess it's not among his restrictions or a crime.

I don't know why he would have said those specific words to her. I only know that they aren't a threat and, to me, suggest innocence rather than guilt. Now if he'd said something like "better watch your back" or anything remotely similar, I'd understand the todo.

jmo

Regardless of any (or lack of) legal restrictions, it was class A STUPID to utter such accusatory and inappropriate words to one of the victim's best friends. It's high time he utilizes some self control and anger management techniques. He is on trial for murder, with a social worker testifying today how heartbroken he is for Reeva's family, and he has the audacity to say something like that?! We can't outlaw stupid, but we can certainly pass judgment based on it. MOO

 

[G.bng]

Agree. Why has Frank's presence at the house that night been omitted from the Trial?

Hypothetically, Frank could be used in an Appeal and Frank could say anything! I agree with your concern.

I would stake my life he can't be used in appeal without passing by jail at the same time because from what I have read he has made a statement to the police that he was asleep and heard nothing... that would be some serious perjury if he came later out of the woodwork to say he heard this, that and the other.

He's a poor labourer, he probable works like a slave for OP and imo he should be let be because he has no blame here just trying to carry on earning money... unemployment is very high in SA.

 

[Carmelita]

If he did say it, for arguments sake, why is he lying about it now?

And I don't agree that it lends credence to his version in any way. If he did this by pure accident, then he should be APOLOGIZING to her friends and family, not scolding them for being angry and suspicious.

I have been falsely accused of something before, and attacking the suspicious party does not help. And you actually have made me think of something interesting concerning guilt/innocence.

When I was in college and worked in a boutique, 600 bucks came up missing from the cash register. Only myself and one other employee worked that Sunday. The other worker had been there for a few years. I was new. The boss accused me because it made sense to him. He didn't know me. So he calmly told me that he was possibly going to fire me and said he was very disappointed.

He called a morning meeting and said the cops were going to come and interview the 2 of us. Did I verbally assault my boss and say he was 'way out of line' for even thinking I could do such a thing? No, that is what the long time employee said to him/ " How could you even think that?" she said angrily.

I told him I totally understood why he was suspicious and I had no problem with the investigation. [ she got busted for it that afternoon.]


And that is how I would expect an innocent suspect to react to Reeva's family and friends: with compassion. Why blame them for their intense grief and sorrow? His negligence and hotheaded irresponsibility killed Reeva. He should be asking for forgiveness, not scolding them for being suspicious of him.

Ok so I am to respond to a hypothetical statement made by Oscar and then why hypothetically would he lie about the hypothetical statement?

If he was hypothetically lying about it it could be for a myriad of hypothetical reasons.

I do not know how Oscar has acted toward Reeva's family, from what I understand they have not interacted with each other than Uncle Arnold inviting Reeva's family to a memorial. Reeva's family believes Oscar killed their daughter in cold blood, Oscar claims it was a terrible mistake, his words in court have been nothing but remorseful and respectful toward her family.

There is no middle ground for them to meet.

 

[toevlugsoord]

It is visible on video, clearly, that he leaned in and said something to her. What do you think he said? Did he say something nice, and she lied about it?

Did I miss the link to the video? I would LOVE to see it -- do you know where it is?

 

[Val1]

Yes and it's all a load of poppycock... see a post I just made upthread.

Is that per lawyer? Anyway, the whole subject arose because I questioned whether a state employee like Nel would earn the same as a private top of the line defence lawyer like Roux, since it was said that Nel is "getting paid large sums of money each day".

 

[G.bng]

Did defense state at all which of C or D missed? Or will Woolie be addressing that this morning?

It will be addressed presumably but so far we know A was first and hip, second was arm but don't know which bullet, and the other two one hit her hand and the other her head but which was last no guess.

 

[Carmelita]

BBM

It is not technically an accident. Even if he thought it was an intruder, his actions were highly unreasonable and negligent. He never looked to see where she was before shooting through a blind door.

An accident is driving off the road on a w et and stormy night. Manslaughter is driving impaired or with faulty brakes in a negligent manner. That is how this 'accident' unfolded, imo. With great negligence on his part.

And that is only if I give him the benefit of doubt, and don't assume he shot her in a jealous rage.

An accident is an unintended consequence, something not done on purpose. It is Oscars claim that he accidentally/mistakenly shot Reeva believing she was an intruder.


I agree 100% that there was great negligence on Oscar's part. I don't know that a defense attorney, an academic and Mi'Lady will agree.

 

[Val1]

The video doesn't prove he said something to her. He could have been muttering under his breath to himself, whispering, talking in a low tone when he leaned toward her, and she could have recoiled at his nearness.


I have no idea what he said.

Let’s say for arguments sake Oscar did say “How do you sleep at night?”

Doesn’t that point to the fact that Oscar does not understand how they can think he murdered Reeva in cold blood? Doesn’t it lend credence to his version that he mistakenly thought that Reeva was an intruder? Doesn’t it logically through inference indicate that Oscar thinks that the prosecution is not seeking justice for Reeva but vengeance for a horrific accident?

Perhaps, but otoh, how do you think the person who thought of RS as a sister would take that action from the very person she not only knows killed RS, but who is allowed to roam freely to the point that he feels comfortable enough, even in the court where he is under trial for that killing, to approach her for any reason(not to mention that until just recently she was on the list of witnesses that under his "freedom" conditions OP was not to interfere with)?

 

[katydid23]

Did I miss the link to the video? I would LOVE to see it -- do you know where it is?

I heard it being talked about on the Whoopwhoop audio but never saw it myself. But one of the panel members said it is clear from the video that he leaned in, mumbled and she stopped and reacted with surprise.

I hope it is released publicly.

 

[Fuskier]

RBBM

IIRC, it was his aunt who cradled his head in her lap. He's cradled and stroked a lot by several people leading me to post yesterday that he's afforded some very strange soothing or comforting gestures for a 27 year old man but that's just my opinion.

Agree. Hypothetically, their support is humanely kind, but there is a possibility that it may be reinforcing 'pre-existing' pathology. The victim position, the pleading I didn't mean to do it, I'm sorry, I'm disabled, feel sorry for me, I don't want to be here, get all these people off my back, I can't cope - It's a powerful projection. It may have worked in the past, but will the world yield or hold to account this time? Will an alleged murderer be exonerated due to these powerful, emotive influences? Let's see.
Question before the Court: Does it change 'intent'? This is for the Court to decide.

 

[DebinGA]

Roux estimated he'd call 11-14 witnesses, and Wolmarans is #11. During cross, Nel asked OP if he'd participated in a scream test, and OP answered, "Yes." Then Nel asked why Roux hadn't presented it during his direct and OP said, "I don't know." Dixon indicated Wolmarans was directing the sound tests on the gunbangs, so Wolmarans may present a OP scream test before Roux is done with him.

Roux has a psychologist who's attended the trial and consoled OP throughout, and who'll likely be called to talk about his supposed feeling of vulnerability. That will make 12 witnesses, and Roux promised to finish on Tuesday. But if Roux doesn't call an expert who can make a feasible case that the bedroom pics taken by police of the duvet, fans, jeans, bedside clutter were the result of police tampering with the scene, then OP's goose is well and truly cooked no matter which shot/injury came first .. imo.

 

[Val1]

Has anyone got written down the whole sequence fitting with the ear witnesses and other evidence that shows how the bats came first because the State's expert conceded, IIRC, that at least with one bat (the one with crack that stopped where the bullet hole was) the shot had to be first. And then there is the question, what were the first 3 bangs (3-5 Mr Stipp, I think) the Stipps heard?

I just can't account for these discrepancies to be able to believe bats were first, and of course it's only my opinion, but from how I see, and again it's only my opinion albeit much thought out at least, it is pie in the sky to think Masipa can determine bats then shots on the evidence so far. I have even wondered whether Nel might just change the State's case for the summing up albeit as CH seems to be pretty much in the bag he may not bother... Or he really believes it albeit that's not what he said when he let out that the State's case was bats first during Stipps cross but he said then something more or less to the effect that it was at that point of the evidence it was the State's case. I am baffled.

Not sure if it's complete with all the witnesses so far but as far as the one crack with the bullet hole, imo that crack could have been caused by OP by pulling the panel out after the bullet hole(as well as after the bat whacks that I believe preceded the bullets which also accounts for the earlier bangs the Stipp's heard), no bat hit needed for it since the chunk of door just above it could quite easily have already been knocked out, as per OP's testimony when he said he could see through the hole he'd made.

http://juror13lw.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/door-2.jpg

 

[toevlugsoord]

I heard it being talked about on the Whoopwhoop audio but never saw it myself. But one of the panel members said it is clear from the video that he leaned in, mumbled and she stopped and reacted with surprise.

I hope it is released publicly.

Thank you!!!
I will have to check out the Whoopwhoop thing.
I am really eager to see it!!!!!!!!

 

[MsMarple]

No I think people are allowed their emotions and I have no problem with Reeva's family and friends hating Oscar from here to eternity. I have no problem with them being unable to view the case dispassionately. But they are not suitable judges of the situation.

I don't even have a problem with Gina's sister making an unsubstantiated claim after the prosecution didn't have the best day. I do have a problem with people deciding that Kim's words are gospel are indisputable and I do have a problem with there being "witnesses" to the words being spoken as the witnesses to "the words spoken" have been made up out of thin air.

I agree that it's not good to jump to conclusions and just assume that OP is lying about Kim Myers' claim, and I'm willing to change my opinion or at least consider the possibility that she lied if someone posts links demonstrating her lying in other instances.

Without such evidence it's difficult to ignore the number of times OP has lied, both in and out of the courtroom and simply accept that Ms. Myers made something up because she is grieving her friend. As for witnesses, I'm not sure what you meant by them being made up of thin air. Did you mean the media made them up? The reports were vague but I thought a Bloomberg reporter heard it.

A couple of articles mentioned that police were reviewing video to see if OP was leaning over towards her or talking to her but I haven't found any verified results. It happened during a break so I don't know if cameras even captured any video.

ETA: There's video now? Anyone have a link? Apologies if someone's already done so - I'm way behind in reading the posts.

 

[PPKik]

Agree with this post. The content of ColonelMustard's post applies equally to this psychologist according to her behavior reported in msm IMO. Is she providing 'hands-on' support to Pistorious? If so, then this is a world away from a trained Clinical assessment and diagnosis of possible underlying character disorder and/or mental illness.
Any number of interactions can be called 'professional' when they are not. IMO the title 'psychologist' is no guarantee against a practitioner blurring the professional/personal boundary in highly emotive cases. These practice conundrums provide the rationale for practice training pathways, education, Supervision, Codes of Ethics, Codes of Practice and Professional Auspice organisations. There are standards which are internationally agreed upon benchmarks in operation. IMO this case may invoke much debate/discussion about professional standards around the world.

There is much to learn from the conduct of professionals and experts in this case IMO. This is my opinion only.

BBM

I could not agree more with you on the bolded sentences and the rest.

The Jodi Arias case was a perfect example of two so-called professionals (in the shrink racket) not only blurring professional lines with Arias, but in both cases, outright lying to make a buck.

It was a horrible and sickening thing to behold.

My comment is not to agree or disagree about this morning's testimony, but to agree that it is not uncommon for professionals (in the shrink field or anywhere else, for that matter) to blur lines between, truth, lies, professional standards, and money.

I'd say for many, the buck comes first, and I wish there were some way to weed these people out. It deeply affects my belief in a rotting system to know that the better shrink (J. Reid Meloy, e.g.), the better expert, the better lawyer, the better-heeled defendant, will often prevail at the expense of the truth.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I LOVE Nel....

"He shot her on the 14th, and on the 15th, he said he missed her? ":facepalm:

Any whatsapps when he goes to Cape Town where he says this? Methinks not.

 

[lithgow1]

Color me simple but could you point out the irony for me? Thanks you

The irony, as I see it Carmelita, is if you replaced the name 'Reeva' with 'Oscar' in the sentence it could be argued it applies to yourself and others who claim to be led by evidence and not emotion. No disrespect or anything - JMO.

In relation to this 'confirmation bias' I'd seen mentioned before I got to your reply here, my counterclaim is that I have yet to see anything but the most grudging admissions of any evidence not in OP's favour by those who say they are impartial and looking solely at the facts. To me, something about that speaks for itself.

Know what I'd love to see - someone who knows rugger all about this case to come read a few threads and comments, this thread included, and hear their thoughts on which posts/lines of argument seemed partisan and 'evidence avoiding' and which read as less so. Have a judge, or a jury, look at our 'evidence', as provided by our words, and come to their conclusions.

 

[Apollo]

Perhaps, but otoh, how do you think the person who thought of RS as a sister would take that action from the very person she not only knows killed RS, but who is allowed to roam freely to the point that he feels comfortable enough, even in the court where he is under trial for that killing, to approach her for any reason(not to mention that until just recently she was on the list of witnesses that under his "freedom" conditions OP was not to interfere with)?

I agree. He had no business saying ANYTHING to her.

 

[lithgow1]

No I think people are allowed their emotions and I have no problem with Reeva's family and friends hating Oscar from here to eternity. I have no problem with them being unable to view the case dispassionately. But they are not suitable judges of the situation.

I don't even have a problem with Gina's sister making an unsubstantiated claim after the prosecution didn't have the best day. I do have a problem with people deciding that Kim's words are gospel are indisputable and I do have a problem with there being "witnesses" to the words being spoken as the witnesses to "the words spoken" have been made up out of thin air.

Just a quick question if I may - do you believe, based on what you've read or heard, that OP said something to her? Doesn't matter what, just that he leaned in and appeared to say something that caused her to react? Thanks.

 

[JudgeJudi]

moments like these are when I know I am a trial lover.......come to remember now one of my favorite after school shows were Perry Mason reruns..........think I'll you tube that some time soon.



oooooooyaaahhh

we are back !!

Hahahaha. I'm old enough to have watched the originals when I lived in the US for a number of years. That's why I wanted to be a Della Street sort of person, and so I was, but unfortunately not for criminal advocates.