Trial Discussion Thread #49 - 14.08.7, Day 39 ~final arguments~

[G.bng]

Or unless one party is loudly making their point while the other party is just giving them deadly looks and the silent treatment.

Lol !

So not sure about you, but for me, one partner talking AT their other half for around an hour, half an hour, or even 15 minutes for that matter, at those ungodly hours and loud enough to interfere with the neighbours' right to the peaceful enjoyment of their homes just so my OH can loudly making their point is a rant, diatribe, tirade, harangue, bluster, vociferation, nag, castigation, vituperation, or a speech or a lecture, but NOT, by any stretch of the imagination an argument. On the other hand a partner who stays in their presence just "giving the silent treatment" and ineffective "deadly looks", (ineffective since if the ranting goes on for an hour the ranter is clearly too wrapped up listening to themselves speak to notice!), needs serious professional help, (and if married a good divorce lawyer wouldn't come amiss too), to build up enough pride and self esteem to be able to escape.

And the ranting partner would also need professional help of course as they obviously haven't realised that browbeating your OH an hour at a time as if they were a miscreant teenager just ain't the best terms of endearment an' it just won't work.

 

[Feynman]

I love seeing OP in the live trial shot background behind Nel ..... OP looking small, powerless

I don't understand. Why would you love that?

 

[PrimeSuspect]

Lol !

So not sure about you, but for me, one partner talking AT their other half for around an hour, half an hour, or even 15 minutes for that matter, at those ungodly hours and loud enough to interfere with the neighbours' right to the peaceful enjoyment of their homes just so my OH can loudly making their point is a rant, diatribe, tirade, harangue, bluster, vociferation, nag, castigation, vituperation, or a speech or a lecture, but NOT, by any stretch of the imagination an argument. On the other hand a partner who stays in their presence just "giving the silent treatment" and ineffective "deadly looks", (ineffective since if the ranting goes on for an hour the ranter is clearly too wrapped up listening to themselves speak to notice!), needs serious professional help, (and if married a good divorce lawyer wouldn't come amiss too), to build up enough pride and self esteem to be able to escape.

And the ranting partner would also need professional help of course as they obviously haven't realised that browbeating your OH an hour at a time as if they were a miscreant teenager just ain't the best terms of endearment an' it just won't work.

I hope you can see the irony in your post, I certainly can.

Do you think perhaps OP had a permanent solution rather than seeking professional help for himself or the other party?

 

[PrimeSuspect]

I don't understand. Why would you love that?

We're on the last leg now :sigh: , remember Reeva is the victim here, not OP. If you have compassion for him, all well and good, but please don't expect others to.

He's in the dock for a reason, he killed Reeva Steenkamp.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Roux speaking of defense expert: "That there are two Oscars milady. He testified there are two Oscars."


Exactly, Mr. Roux, exactly.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

If Judge Masipa sets him free, society may expect unleashed Mr. Hyde.

(Would the Judge think that, if acquitted, he’d somehow instantly become a rehabilitated, kinder, gentler Oscar?!)

More than a few media profiles have noted the two very different sides of OP.

We suspect there’s much more dark history in OP’s closet, closely guarded from the media (like Tasha’s and the drunken boat crash).

We all want so badly to always see the hero, the good - it’s human nature ... but harsh reality forces us to look far deeper.

Odds are high that Oscar will not willingly control himself - it’s not in his nature. (VIP Room brawl proves this.) Society must protect itself from his kind.

Since the good docs at Westkoppies inexplicably seem to think he’s fine (hah, I’m sorry, I do not share their confidence*) - prison it must be.

To do otherwise is to count the days, the months, the years - till the next Oscar Pistorius headline.

* I'm not saying OP has a split personality (wtf do I know? lol) - but in my view, something is terribly wrong with him. Normal people do not murder their loved ones - or anyone ... then demand their bail conditions be lifted and then go partying. That is the domain of narcissists and sociopaths, IMHO.

“The work is commonly associated with the rare mental condition often spuriously called "split personality", referred to in psychiatry as dissociative identity disorder , where within the same body there exists more than one distinct personality. In this case, there are two personalities within Dr Jekyll, one apparently good and the other evil; completely opposite levels of morality. The novella's impact is such that it has become a part of the language, with the very phrase "Jekyll and Hyde" coming to mean a person who is vastly different in moral character from one situation to the next.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Jekyll_and_Mr._Hyde
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Jekyll_and_Mr._Hyde_(character)

 

[redheadedgal]

We're on the last leg now :sigh: , remember Reeva is the victim here, not OP. If you have compassion for him, all well and good, but please don't expect others to.

He's in the dock for a reason, he killed Reeva Steenkamp.

amen

 

[G.bng]

I hope you can see the irony in your post, I certainly can.

Do you think perhaps OP had a permanent solution rather than seeking professional help for himself or the other party?

Did I !?! Yeah, but I took yours a step further, only didn't dare in case the whole thread came crashing down on me. But taking it to an extreme there's more than a few got off of murder for extreme mental provocation.

 

[K.T]

Lol !

So not sure about you, but for me, one partner talking AT their other half for around an hour, half an hour, or even 15 minutes for that matter, at those ungodly hours and loud enough to interfere with the neighbours' right to the peaceful enjoyment of their homes just so my OH can loudly making their point is a rant, diatribe, tirade, harangue, bluster, vociferation, nag, castigation, vituperation, or a speech or a lecture, but NOT, by any stretch of the imagination an argument. On the other hand a partner who stays in their presence just "giving the silent treatment" and ineffective "deadly looks", (ineffective since if the ranting goes on for an hour the ranter is clearly too wrapped up listening to themselves speak to notice!), needs serious professional help, (and if married a good divorce lawyer wouldn't come amiss too), to build up enough pride and self esteem to be able to escape.

And the ranting partner would also need professional help of course as they obviously haven't realised that browbeating your OH an hour at a time as if they were a miscreant teenager just ain't the best terms of endearment an' it just won't work.

While I may nominally understand your post, I find it unclear what exact point you wish to make about the trial.

lol, there may be some quiet *sideeye* going on here too on my side

 

[JudgeJudi]

I thought I noticed Uncle Arnold and his wife smiling a number of times. I was so surprised that I changed my glasses to double check, and they were. What sort of a family is this? How smug, how absolutely arrogant. The definition of arrogant "offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride" and doesn't that sum them up well.

Aimee seemed to be praying and OP loves quoting from the bible. How about a little bible lesson, Oscar:

Let’s start with one of the 10 Commandments: “Thou shalt not kill.

There are six things that the Lord strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.
Proverbs 6:16-19

A trustworthy witness will not lie, But a false witness utters lies.
Proverbs 14:5

A false witness will not go unpunished, And he who tells lies will not escape.
Proverbs 19:5”

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it buddy.

 

[G.bng]

We're on the last leg now :sigh: , remember Reeva is the victim here, not OP. If you have compassion for him, all well and good, but please don't expect others to.

He's in the dock for a reason, he killed Reeva Steenkamp.

So sad PS because saying that it really does look like a confirmation that this is the just group think hate patrol. A cyber lynch mob. At least it doesn't draw blood but compassion, and I'm not speaking about OP here so don't knee jerk in, compassion it should be the last thing humanity get's rid of so that we can continue to be humanity.

 

[Feynman]

I am not an attorney and I am not familiar with SA Justice system…

… BUT as a learned individual on the evidence of this Trial, I am terribly disappointed with the content of the State's closing arguments and Nel's delivery of said arguments.

Hope Masipa will find it sufficient to convict OP of murder (dolus directus)… but now, I have serious doubts about that.

:maddening:

Thank you. I know from your previous posts you feel OP is guilty of knowingly killing Reeva, and so for you to say this shows rare critical thinking. I've really never understood the Nel fan club myself. I will admit I only watched an hour last night (I'm on the west coast of the US, 9 hours earlier than Pretoria time), but really, Nel's first hour was so disorganized and nonlinear and wandering - like he is most of the time IMO - I just turned the TV off and went to sleep. I think he is a poor advocate for the state's case. And, in fact, I still don't know what the state's case is exactly!

 

[K.T]

Quickly - about Scholtz's Weskoppies Report, I care about this trial but I care more about SA justice system. It is seriously very troubling how Scholtz is the head of Weskoppies psychological section but has made some odd reports on other defendants (see my previous post about advocate Barbie) and did not seem to comprehend co-author gender expert Lisa Vetten's study even though he quoted as their book as his domestic abuse academic SA source.

Shockingly, Scholtz gave his opinion about Pistorius being non-abusive in relationships without interviewing Samantha Taylor. As Nel's HOD states, this is the preceding relationship...this is important vital contextual psychological information about an accused psych framework.

Just can't state enough how unprofessional and seemingly biased this appears to be - Scholtz even used the words of a childhood headmaster/teacher to affirm the accused character - yet to not interview to the most important relationship partner who confirmed Pistorius was angry and whose behaviour was increasingly unbalanced, this is beyond troubling for a leading psychologist.

If you want to use the Phil Spector example: that's like a implying Spector's childhood teachers are more important than his recent ex who said he had a habit of physical threats. I doubt the 'two Oscars' hypothesis like the (disposed) GAD hypothesis from the other SA expert Vorster.

 

[Greater Than]

Agreed if talking about the State's version, albeit that said, what is the State's version as closing arguments are gone and we are where we were at the beginning when all have been assuring with how everything was going to be pulled together, explained in closings, but iirc in what I was referring to with my post, Nel was referring to OP screaming "as he had never done in his life before" precisely on the basis of OP's version. And in that, Nel was incorrect because on OP's version, and you are either ignorant of the law, blind, in denial, or whatever you want to call it, if you really think that Masipa is not going to test OP's version first to see if it could be possible, BUT ON OP's VERSION, the version the judge is obliged by law to test with the evidence first if there is a reasonable possibility that it could be true, in his version OP was screaming "like he never had in his life before" AFTER THE SHOTS and not, most definitely NOT, before them.

BIB - Of course she will! But which of his versions would you suggest she test? He has provided her with a smorgasbord of versions. Shall she choose Door Number 1? Door Number 2? or Door Number 3?

OP's testimony changed every time Nel challenged him on any uncomfortable reality. He was clearly trying to taylor his evidence as Nel unfolded his case, but unfortunately OP was not sharp enough to keep up. He just continued to offer information he had rehearsed that had nothing to do with Nel's specific questions which actually gave Nel more opportunities to drill holes into his ever-changing version. Then when he was unable to produce a reasonable answer - out came the emotional card. It happened far too many times to be coincidental.

There are two or three defenses he put to the court yet he was unable to articulate any of them in isolation, and blended the three when necessary.

If someone says two mutually exclusive things at different times, then obviously on one of those occasions he was lying. "I went out onto the balcony." "I did not go out on the balcony." Clearly one of those statements is a lie. Lies make for an unreliable witness, therefore less weight will be given to that testimony.

And you've gotta ask yourself, "Why would this person lie?"

Answer: "I'm fighting for my life!" - Oscar Pistorius

 

[jay-jay]

How many here think that OP will quietly "disappear" before Judge Masipa's verdict (or upon conviction, "disappear" before the appeals verdict)?

He KNOWS he's guilty as sin of murder.
KNOWS his testimony was unmitigated sh#t, the worst kind of total train wreck.
KNOWS he threw everyone but God under the bus.
KNOWS his Defense witnesses/experts sucked on multiple levels.
KNOWS he has forever lost the admiration and goodwill of many friends and the world.
KNOWS he has forever lost his previous career, income and status.
KNOWS his family’s influence and money can (legally) save him from only so much.

What’s he got left to lose except his freedom?

Africa is a massive continent.

Oscar has many local, regional and international “connections”, some arguably dubious, if not downright shady - and yes, still very staunch supporters.

For the right price, with the perfect plan, I think even Oscar Pistorius could “disappear”.

I do believe that OP’s family would do literally anything to prevent him from rotting in prison.

Then, of course, there’s the “final, permanent solution” to avoid prison - but I think OP is far too arrogant, contemptuous and unrepentant for that.

Do you really think OP will ever allow himself to be sent to prison?

I don't think he will ever try and disappear, Lux .. imo, for him, that would mean he was showing to people that he was guilty, and that is the opposite of what he wants people to think. It's similar to what my ex abusive partner always used to do whenever I called the police .. he just used to sit calmly and wait for them and I never used to understand why he didn't just abscond (it was my house, he didn't live there permanently) then I realised the reason why he was doing it was because he wanted to twist the whole thing around and make the police think that he was the innocent one, and it was me who was the crazy woman.

He was also equally as arrogant as OP (in fact he reminds me of him on so many levels, and probably the reason why I have become so interested in this trial .. I believe ex suffered from NPD, and was also a Jekyl and Hyde character .. sweet, caring, quiet, funny, intelligent one minute and then the next minute, the complete opposite of that .. he could turn at the drop of a hat, and you had to be walking on eggshells permanently because everything was all about him all the time, and 'one' must never upset him) .. but, at the end of the day that's exactly what he did was take his life because he couldn't live with the fact that his behaviour had lead him to lose absolutely everything .. in the end he had no money because he had drunk (and drugged) it all away, he lost his job, he did get in trouble with the police because of his violence towards me and my property/belongings (they weren't stupid and regardless of his attempts to make it look as if I was at fault, they are trained in this), lost me .. he had absolutely nothing in the end .. and believe it or not, these types hate themselves, they can't live with the shame of it all, plus they cannot handle the consequences of their actions, so it would not surprise me in the least if OP tried to end it all .. but that would only be at the point where all else has failed to get him off a guilty verdict and a jail sentence.

 

[LakesGirl]

Good morning websleuthers
Long time reader of this wonderful forum, but this is my first post. I had to create an account to say a huge Thank You to all you amazing people who have followed this trial and taken the time to transcribe and analyze for the rest of us unable to follow live
Special mention to Zwiebel, Trooper and Brit's Kate (many others but I can't remember all the names this early).
I've gone from truly hoping Oscar was innocent, at the start of the trial, to believing in his guilt 100%.
I'm just relieved I have finally caught up with the trial in time for closing and the verdict.
So, once again, thankyou all
Liz (in a bright and fresh Lancashire, England)

 

[jay-jay]

I agree. I'm also deeply disappointed that the State's closing wasn't stronger.

However, I imagine that, like the rest of us, the Judge and her assessors already have a pretty good idea of where they're heading in terms of verdict; in which case, the bottom line is that it doesn't really matter what is said, at this stage.

If they're still on the fence though, which I doubt, I don't think Nel's closing will have done the State too many favours.

And I'm worried that Milady seems genuinely sympathetic to OP.

I don't see how the state's case could've been any stronger, quite honestly there is so much evidence .. far more than in most cases (Nel even commented as such, and he deals with a lot of cases) and is unique in that respect .. there was so much evidence, it's overwhelming!

I agree with you re. Maspia though, but I'm still holding on to the hope she may just be appearing to favour OP in order to ensure he receives a fair trail and will not be able to appeal a guilty conviction.

 

[lithgow1]

So sad PS because saying that it really does look like a confirmation that this is the just group think hate patrol. A cyber lynch mob. At least it doesn't draw blood but compassion, and I'm not speaking about OP here so don't knee jerk in, compassion it should be the last thing humanity get's rid of so that we can continue to be humanity.

I am interested to know Gbng what higher human ideals such as 'compassion', 'humanity' and empathy you have seen displayed by Oscar Pistorius and his family? Little for the Steenkamps, as it's always all about Oscar, little for the victim, as he has lied about their relationship to bolster his attempt at a defence, no gratitude for Dr Stipp, who may have been placing his own life in danger by going to OP's house that night, no compassion at all for the man whose dog he shot. Seems to me you hold 'us' to a higher standard than you do the man who pumped four bullets through a door because a noise scared him, if his version were even true. So call me lacking in compassion but I'd rather save mine for more deserving souls than Oscar Pistorius.

 

[lithgow1]

Thank you. I know from your previous posts you feel OP is guilty of knowingly killing Reeva, and so for you to say this shows rare critical thinking. I've really never understood the Nel fan club myself. I will admit I only watched an hour last night (I'm on the west coast of the US, 9 hours earlier than Pretoria time), but really, Nel's first hour was so disorganized and nonlinear and wandering - like he is most of the time IMO - I just turned the TV off and went to sleep. I think he is a poor advocate for the state's case. And, in fact, I still don't know what the state's case is exactly!

Well in a nutshell isn't it that Pistorius knew it was Reeva Steenkamp behind that door and fired four shots to kill her and, even if he didn't know it was her, he knew that there was someone in that tiny cubicle, by his own admission, and that those four shots would almost unavoidably kill that 'Person X'. Can't see what is difficult to understand about that.

 

[jay-jay]

BIB - Of course she will! But which of his versions would you suggest she test? He has provided her with a smorgasbord of versions. Shall she choose Door Number 1? Door Number 2? or Door Number 3?

OP's testimony changed every time Nel challenged him on any uncomfortable reality. He was clearly trying to taylor his evidence as Nel unfolded his case, but unfortunately OP was not sharp enough to keep up. He just continued to offer information he had rehearsed that had nothing to do with Nel's specific questions which actually gave Nel more opportunities to drill holes into his ever-changing version. Then when he was unable to produce a reasonable answer - out came the emotional card. It happened far too many times to be coincidental.

There are two or three defenses he put to the court yet he was unable to articulate any of them in isolation, and blended the three when necessary.

If someone says two mutually exclusive things at different times, then obviously on one of those occasions he was lying. "I went out onto the balcony." "I did not go out on the balcony." Clearly one of those statements is a lie. Lies make for an unreliable witness, therefore less weight will be given to that testimony.

And you've gotta ask yourself, "Why would this person lie?"

Answer: "I'm fighting for my life!" - Oscar Pistorius

I think that was extemely poor judgement of the DT to have ever introduced the 'he is/I am fighting for his/my life' element .. (iirc it was Roux who said it first, then OP later) .. not only is it extremely disrespectful to Reeva's family and friends, but it is proof that they/OP will do anything to save his skin, including lying. If OP really did kill Reeva by mistake, there wouldn't be any need for that type of phraseology and all OP would need to have done was tell the simple truth, but he can't do that because that would mean admitting he did knowingly kill her during an argument that got out of control.

 

[jay-jay]

So sad PS because saying that it really does look like a confirmation that this is the just group think hate patrol. A cyber lynch mob. At least it doesn't draw blood but compassion, and I'm not speaking about OP here so don't knee jerk in, compassion it should be the last thing humanity get's rid of so that we can continue to be humanity.

If you ('one') have followed and watched the trial closely ( understanding all the elements of it correctly) then youbwill see that the evidence against OP is overwhelming. There is no 'cyber lynch mob' as you put it, it is a group of people who have followed the case, understand it, and find that OP's version/s of events cannot possibly be true.