Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #69 *Appeal Verdict*

Status
Not open for further replies.
What really infuriated me was the dreadful bullying by Roux of the ear witnesses, especially Michelle Burger and the Stipps, of them colluding with their partners. However, in Roux's eyes there was nothing wrong with OP listening to everything all the witnesses said and OP then tailoring his stories to accommodate that which didn't fit with his version/s. If I was the prosecutor I'd have loved to put this to him in no uncertain terms. The more I hear and read about him, the more I need a huge green bucket.

I in favour of even more law reform in this area - beyond what we already saw in the UK

A defendant with elite lawyers should be required to give a detailed police statement. If he does not - then it should count against him when he manufactures new aspects after hearing the state case.

e.g. the fans, screams, denim, blue light etc etc
 
You're right JJ. Ironically, it was this tailoring of evidence and his pathological inability to admit to any wrong doing whatsoever that led him to fall into the prosecutions trap.

The police psychologist, Major Bronwynn Stollarz played a blinder here in advising Nel to keep switching the themes of the cross-examination. Liars are often unable to work backwards. Witnesses are often coached to tell their story from start to finish, and this can make it difficult if during cross-examination when they are asked to repeat it out of order or in reverse and especially if the prosecutor keeps jumping from one theme to another. Stollarz had also researched all the background collateral information on Pistorius and knew he had a history of refusing to take responsibility and passing the blame on to others.

So right from the very beginning Gerrie Nel asks him to take responsibility for the death of Reeva knowing full well he won't because he can't. "You killed Reeva Steenkamp, didn't you?" he asked at the start of questioning. "You made a mistake? You killed a person. You killed Reeva Steenkamp. Say it. Say I shot and killed Reeva Steenkamp." He couldn't, instead he replied "I did, my lady."

Nel accused him of "not listening" to his questions and telling the court well "rehearsed answers" over and over. Pistorius told the court he was telling the truth and was under pressure because his life is "on the line".

"Please answer the questions, don't argue the case, you will get into trouble." From then on Pistorius was in defence and denial mode and never conceded a single admission of guilt. He blamed the police, his then non-existant GAD, his friends, his own father, even his own defence team. He was never to blame.

Then finally when Nel asks him if he intended to shoot at the person behind the door he denied that too and unstitched the whole defence so carefully worked out. Both at the beginning and end of the cross he could not bring himself to admit culpability of any kind. His hatred of Nel and his ego saw to that.

I know some people thought Nel was inferior to Roux during the trial but I think the PT had Pistorius sussed from the outset and let him hoist himself by his own petard. His hatred and contempt for Nel by the time Nel had finally and tortuously brought him to the crucial question was such that he was blind to the careful coaching of Roux and he was so determined not to concede a single thing to the loathsome Nel he ensured he would be forever remembered as a lying, cowardly, unrepentant murderer who would say anything and everything to save his own skin.

Paradoxically, his pathological inability to lose, his fear and loathing of weakness, his must-win mentality that had served him so well in his athletics trials was ultimately his undoing in the most important trial of all. His greatest strength was also his greatest weakness.

I tend to think that view was merely scoreboard journalism.

Nel destroyed OP on the stand - which was his key job

Between the lines, the 5 SC judges were deeply aware of that ("No one knew what his version was..")
 
I tend to think that view was merely scoreboard journalism.

Nel destroyed OP on the stand - which was his key job

Between the lines, the 5 SC judges were deeply aware of that ("No one knew what his version was..")

BIB: That's exactly right. When he couldn't even give a version himself, because he wanted all of them and more, what else is left to infer? I agree, they should have gone all in for PPD and thrown him on the mercy of the court during sentencing. His pathological inability to take any responsibility was his undoing. The subject matter notwithstanding, a sweet irony if ever there was one.

Thank heavens for the 5 SCA judges though, because he very nearly got away with murder.
 
I have 2 e-books of the authors Lisa and Nick, nice to see them on tis pic together with the dissolved-looking parents of Reeva. Thank you!
 
You're right JJ. Ironically, it was this tailoring of evidence and his pathological inability to admit to any wrong doing whatsoever that led him to fall into the prosecutions trap.

The police psychologist, Major Bronwynn Stollarz played a blinder here in advising Nel to keep switching the themes of the cross-examination. Liars are often unable to work backwards. Witnesses are often coached to tell their story from start to finish, and this can make it difficult if during cross-examination when they are asked to repeat it out of order or in reverse and especially if the prosecutor keeps jumping from one theme to another. Stollarz had also researched all the background collateral information on Pistorius and knew he had a history of refusing to take responsibility and passing the blame on to others.

So right from the very beginning Gerrie Nel asks him to take responsibility for the death of Reeva knowing full well he won't because he can't. "You killed Reeva Steenkamp, didn't you?" he asked at the start of questioning. "You made a mistake? You killed a person. You killed Reeva Steenkamp. Say it. Say I shot and killed Reeva Steenkamp." He couldn't, instead he replied "I did, my lady."

Nel accused him of "not listening" to his questions and telling the court well "rehearsed answers" over and over. Pistorius told the court he was telling the truth and was under pressure because his life is "on the line".

"Please answer the questions, don't argue the case, you will get into trouble." From then on Pistorius was in defence and denial mode and never conceded a single admission of guilt. He blamed the police, his then non-existant GAD, his friends, his own father, even his own defence team. He was never to blame.

Then finally when Nel asks him if he intended to shoot at the person behind the door he denied that too and unstitched the whole defence so carefully worked out. No PPD, just some unintentional, unexplained accident. Both at the beginning and end of the cross he could not bring himself to admit culpability of any kind. His hatred of Nel and his ego saw to that.

I know some people thought Nel was inferior to Roux during the trial but I think the PT had Pistorius sussed from the outset and let him hoist himself by his own petard. His hatred and contempt for Nel by the time Nel had finally and tortuously brought him to the crucial question was such that he was blind to the careful coaching of Roux and he was so determined not to concede a single thing to the loathsome Nel he ensured he would be forever remembered as a lying, cowardly, unrepentant murderer who would say anything and everything to save his own skin.

Paradoxically, his pathological inability to lose, his fear and loathing of weakness, his must-win mentality that had served him so well in his athletics trials was ultimately his undoing in the most important trial of all. His greatest strength was also his greatest weakness.

Great "essay" - thank you!

I remember: At one certain point Nel was so close, to have put OP himself into making a confession. I held my breath and then - nothing!! Nel suddenly broke off at this point and changed the subject. That's what I just did not understand (to this day). I desperately assumed that even he wanted to protect the accused.
 
I tend to think that view was merely scoreboard journalism.

Nel destroyed OP on the stand - which was his key job

Between the lines, the 5 SC judges were deeply aware of that ("No one knew what his version was..")

There's no doubt there was a lot of that going on before, during and even after the trial! TBH though I had in mind the contributors to this forum after the recent bail hearing where a number of posters were saying how disappointed they were with Nel throughout the case compared to Roux.
 
There's no doubt there was a lot of that going on before, during and even after the trial! TBH though I had in mind the contributors to this forum after the recent bail hearing where a number of posters were saying how disappointed they were with Nel throughout the case compared to Roux.

There is always a temptation to believe that "if only the case had been argued differently..." you would have got a different result

I tend not to believe in that.

Sometimes the Judge is just determined to reach a particular destination or makes mistakes

The Prosecutor cannot legislate for that.
 
Great "essay" - thank you!

I remember: At one certain point Nel was so close, to have put OP himself into making a confession. I held my breath and then - nothing!! Nel suddenly broke off at this point and changed the subject. That's what I just did not understand (to this day). I desperately assumed that even he wanted to protect the accused.

Thanks FG :) I remember that moment well it was very dramatic at the time and even though seconds it seemed to last for an age. I think Nel just realised he'd either frozen or was playing the drama queen and wanted to crack on with the cross-examination. Unlike those of us witnessing a live murder trial for the first time and influenced by TV dramas, Nel was surely too experienced to expect Oscar to simply crumble and confess. He afforded the accused the appropriate time and got back to work.

I can't imagine anyone less likely than Nel to protect the accused. I can only pretend to know how nerve wracking it must have been for you back then to doubt the intrepid Gerrie! ;)

He meant to destroy Pistorius on the stand and destroy him he did. He was as tenacious in prosecuting Pistorius as he was with Selebi despite the great personal cost to himself. His integrity was never in question. Just shows the pressure we were under watching it unfold. So much emotional energy invested - we were desperate for justice to be served.
 
I in favour of even more law reform in this area - beyond what we already saw in the UK

A defendant with elite lawyers should be required to give a detailed police statement. If he does not - then it should count against him when he manufactures new aspects after hearing the state case.

e.g. the fans, screams, denim, blue light etc etc

BIB, This would be so unconstitutional and would infringe on a client's right to fair representation. By introducing such a law, you'd essentially be creating a two tiered justice system where some defendants are treated differently than others. Justice is supposed to be blind.

How would you even go about determining which client has elite lawyers? Would you base it on hourly rate, years of experience, etc. There would be an argument against every situtation.
 
BIB: That's exactly right. When he couldn't even give a version himself, because he wanted all of them and more, what else is left to infer? I agree, they should have gone all in for PPD and thrown him on the mercy of the court during sentencing. His pathological inability to take any responsibility was his undoing. The subject matter notwithstanding, a sweet irony if ever there was one.

Thank heavens for the 5 SCA judges though, because he very nearly got away with murder.

BIB, this case isn't over yet, we still have the CC hearing next year.
 
There is always a temptation to believe that "if only the case had been argued differently..." you would have got a different result.

I tend not to believe in that.

Sometimes the Judge is just determined to reach a particular destination or makes mistakes

The Prosecutor cannot legislate for that.

Yes, I remember you making the same comment at the time and agreeing with you.

Nell did what he needed to do and did it well imo. Like you say he couldn't have known how Masipa was going to react or the fatal errors she would make. In the event he was vindicated by the SCA so no harm done.

It's good that you could comment from your experience and reassure people. It's easy and understandable for lay people to see a trial like that and only see the personalities and imagine the seemingly expensive, articulate, charismatic Roux was running rings around Nel.

I think strategically, his singular focus fared better than the "blunderbuss" tactics of Roux which as you said was ultimately his undoing at the SCA.
 
BIB, this case isn't over yet, we still have the CC hearing next year.

It's far wiser to get rid of a delusion than to grasp a truth. As Judge Judy is apt to say: "When your dog pisses up my leg don't try to tell me it's raining".
 
You're right JJ. Ironically, it was this tailoring of evidence and his pathological inability to admit to any wrong doing whatsoever that led him to fall into the prosecutions trap.

The police psychologist, Major Bronwynn Stollarz played a blinder here in advising Nel to keep switching the themes of the cross-examination. Liars are often unable to work backwards. Witnesses are often coached to tell their story from start to finish, and this can make it difficult if during cross-examination when they are asked to repeat it out of order or in reverse and especially if the prosecutor keeps jumping from one theme to another. Stollarz had also researched all the background collateral information on Pistorius and knew he had a history of refusing to take responsibility and passing the blame on to others.

So right from the very beginning Gerrie Nel asks him to take responsibility for the death of Reeva knowing full well he won't because he can't. "You killed Reeva Steenkamp, didn't you?" he asked at the start of questioning. "You made a mistake? You killed a person. You killed Reeva Steenkamp. Say it. Say I shot and killed Reeva Steenkamp." He couldn't, instead he replied "I did, my lady."

Nel accused him of "not listening" to his questions and telling the court well "rehearsed answers" over and over. Pistorius told the court he was telling the truth and was under pressure because his life is "on the line".

"Please answer the questions, don't argue the case, you will get into trouble." From then on Pistorius was in defence and denial mode and never conceded a single admission of guilt. He blamed the police, his then non-existant GAD, his friends, his own father, even his own defence team. He was never to blame.

Then finally when Nel asks him if he intended to shoot at the person behind the door he denied that too and unstitched the whole defence so carefully worked out. No PPD, just some unintentional, unexplained accident. Both at the beginning and end of the cross he could not bring himself to admit culpability of any kind. His hatred of Nel and his ego saw to that.

I know some people thought Nel was inferior to Roux during the trial but I think the PT had Pistorius sussed from the outset and let him hoist himself by his own petard. His hatred and contempt for Nel by the time Nel had finally and tortuously brought him to the crucial question was such that he was blind to the careful coaching of Roux and he was so determined not to concede a single thing to the loathsome Nel he ensured he would be forever remembered as a lying, cowardly, unrepentant murderer who would say anything and everything to save his own skin.

Paradoxically, his pathological inability to lose, his fear and loathing of weakness, his must-win mentality that had served him so well in his athletics trials was ultimately his undoing in the most important trial of all. His greatest strength was also his greatest weakness.

BRILLIANTLY WORDED, CHAPEAU!
Thank you!
 
I was talking about this with Paul C the other day

If you look back - the Plea Explanation is drafted very carefully to cover all bases

"... the occurrence was indeed an accident... "

I think this was deliberate - so the shooting was a mistake (accident) but also leaving it open that he fired unintentionally (accident)

IMO this was a tactical mistake from Roux as well as a blunder on the stand.

They should have gone all in on PPD

I've never been convinced that Pistorius went off brief and blundered on the stand. Imo, Roux knew that it would be tricky to establish PPD because of the closed door and four shots, which is why he avoided the issue of intent on the Plea Explanation, opting to leave things open by stating 'the discharging of my firearm was precipitated' as opposed to stating 'I discharged my firearm...'

It's also possible, of course, that Roux's hands were tied from the start because Pistorius refused to accept that he'd fired intentionally.
 
I've never been convinced that Pistorius went off brief and blundered on the stand. Imo, Roux knew that it would be tricky to establish PPD because of the closed door and four shots, which is why he avoided the issue of intent on the Plea Explanation, opting to leave things open by stating 'the discharging of my firearm was precipitated' as opposed to stating 'I discharged my firearm...'

It's also possible, of course, that Roux's hands were tied from the start because Pistorius refused to accept that he'd fired intentionally.


it does make you wonder doesn't it? I do recall reading that Roux had offered to plead Culpable Homicide as a plea bargain and Nel rejected it. I just cannot fathom the approach they eventually adopted if as you say Pistorius stayed on message throughout. I do still think they should have gone all in for PPD despite the inherent difficulties and at worst come away with culpable homicide. The blunderbuss approach was doomed to failure as evidenced by the SCA.
 
I've never been convinced that Pistorius went off brief and blundered on the stand. Imo, Roux knew that it would be tricky to establish PPD because of the closed door and four shots, which is why he avoided the issue of intent on the Plea Explanation, opting to leave things open by stating 'the discharging of my firearm was precipitated' as opposed to stating 'I discharged my firearm...'

It's also possible, of course, that Roux's hands were tied from the start because Pistorius refused to accept that he'd fired intentionally.

I am very tempted to agree with you on this Sherbert,but how does Roux's mistake with "double-taps" fit in to this?

I agree Roux must have been fully aware his actions did not meet PPD, and decided in advance it might only fly with disability fear factor thrown in - but how could Roux hope to claim double tap technique is an accidental shooting - it implies complete control.
 
I am very tempted to agree with you on this Sherbert,but how does Roux's mistake with "double-taps" fit in to this?

I agree Roux must have been fully aware his actions did not meet PPD, and decided in advance it might only fly with disability fear factor thrown in - but how could Roux hope to claim double tap technique is an accidental shooting - it implies complete control.

Indeed, it doesn't make sense. Maybe the plan was simply to see what the PT had and tailor the defence as they heard the evidence? I can't see any other rational explanation.
 
I think all the tea breaks didn't help the Prosecution either:

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/apr/11/judges-lenient-break

In relation to delays and delaying tactics do you recall that analysis the old poster AJDS did to piece together Roux's strategic delays to create time so that Dr.Vorster could meet with OP and his family and produce the GAD diagnosis.

He started a short WS thread on it during or just after the trial- it's there somewhere on the old threads page - very illuminating.

ETA Yes Paul -late commissioning of Vorster shows for me ( alongside their other experts who repeated their tests) that Roux was prepared to adapt as the trial unfolded and in relation to OP's poor testimony. ( Most commentators were unanimous on this. But incidentally, I don't recall any legal eagle other than Greenland saying that not making the defence explicit at the outset was against SA legal protocols.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
206
Guests online
2,990
Total visitors
3,196

Forum statistics

Threads
592,208
Messages
17,965,141
Members
228,719
Latest member
CourtandSims4
Back
Top