Trial Discussion Thread #47 - 14.07.8, Day 38

[Lyra500]

Actually it was the end of March 2013. The most annoying thing is imo I believe he already broke his new conditions when he left the country to go on "holiday" to Mozambique(it is a different country, correct?) in December 2013(where he met the reported new gf who not only supports him but whose family also doesn't see a problem with an alleged murderer consorting with their young daughter), I don't recall him having been invited to compete abroad for that.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-wins-appeal-over-1789654


http://heavy.com/news/2014/02/who-is-oscar-pistorius-girlfriend-leah-skye-malan/

Thanks for the correction - bail conditions overturned even sooner than I remembered! Outrageous really.



Yes - that foreign holiday was yet another example of special treatment. No wonder he is so arrogant and confident about walking away. I find it hard to believe he is correct this time though. It would be such a travesty.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

What is especially strange for me is that if ladders had been used, they would have needed assembling and then be laid against the wall at the bathroom windows in complete silence. When we have painters outside the noise is very apparent and we are double glazed which OP's house is not. That, together with the adjustment of the ladders, the clunk they make when they hit the wall and the noise as the ladders flex against the brickwork when being climbed indicates to me that OP didn't think through his alibi. Whilst a burglar would attempt to be quieter than general workmen I don't believe these ladders could have been lifted into place and used in the dead of night without creating a signficant noise factor .

EXACTLY!!! Thank you for making that very excellent observation!

(Which means that Reeva would have also heard the noise and commotion!)

Oscar's little scenario doesn't even include his two dogs outside, who would have been barking their heads off!

 

[geevee]

April 8, 2014, Session 3, 1:09:23 (SABC Digital News, You Tube):

"I woke up, Milady, in the early hours of the 14th of February, it was extremely warm in my room, um, I sat up in bed, I noticed that the fans were still running, and that the door was still open, although the lights had been switched off, um, Reeva, Reeva was still awake, or she was obviously not sleeping, um..."

Yes, I don't think Reeva was sleeping, or had ever gone to sleep, when OP woke up early that morning. Ums in the middle of statements always catch my attention.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Oscar Mystery #2,309 - Police found OP at the crime scene SHIRTLESS.

Bloodstains on his left arm clearly show he was wearing what appears to be a short-sleeved shirt. His torso is bloodless - how's that possible if he was holding a very bloody Reeva close to his body, her head on his shoulder?

WHY would he suddenly put on a shirt to confront an “intruder” - but not put on his LEGS?

I theorize that OP was wearing that shirt the entire time (if not his legs, too) and they never went to bed at 10pm. Remember - Reeva was dressed in day clothes - her black tank top and white shorts.

WHERE is his bloody shirt? OP had to get rid of it as massively incriminating evidence. (Did investigators even check his garbage, the trunks of his vehicles, the huge empty lot behind his house, the roof, the chimney, etc.?)

(On a side note, what normal guy would wear a sleeved-shirt - or any shirt or anything - to bed with a gorgeous woman, one he supposedly loved? Seriously.)

 

[zwiebel]

Barry Bateman appreciated this story so I thought you guys might: A man's being arrested in CT for stabbing a watermelon. Have to wish those same police were operating in South Africa - OP might have been in jail instead of shooting Reeva.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...r-stabbing-watermelon&p=10754434#post10754434

 

[Chelly]

No. Those bail conditions didn't even last a couple of months - they were all overturned by a judge in April 2013 as I recall. Another example of preferential treatment IMHO.

.....And preferential treatment during his psych evaluation as an out patient. Wonder if preferential treatment will continue to his prison sentence? Special cell, special food, special treatment for this special person. Just thinking about his sense of entitlement infuriates me!

 

[MeeBee]

Wow. Was this really your reply to minor4th saying the report was interesting to read? The fact is that the report could hardly have been more favourable to Oscar's case. And your summation is the twisting of a single measure among dozens. Like I said. Just wow.

Thank you. I'm pretty upset at the cherry picking and misrepresentation of a number on that scale. The psychologist also reported he is not a narcissist nor does he have the markers of an abusive, angry, or psychopathic man. If he had tested low in an empathy area that would be a red flag. I also read this:

"Spouse abusers are relatively high on the Dominance (DOM) scale."

I haven't been able to read the report for myself yet, but, again, if the trained psychologists think he does not observed the traits of an abuser, I'm going to guess he scored low on this scale, as well.

 

[jay-jay]

I found this link on Twitter among all of the other Oscar tweets:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...before-nightclub-fight-partygoers-allege.html

"Oscar Pistorius, the paralympian on trial for murdering girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, drank tequila shots, socialised with a known violent offender and had scantily-clad women sitting on his knee before the fight that led to him leaving a nightclub on Saturday night, it has been claimed.
The athlete confirmed he was at the VIP Room in the exclusive Johannesburg suburb of Sandton on Saturday night but denied being the cause of an altercation with a racing driver and clothes store owner named Jared Mortimer, saying Mr Mortimer had "aggressively engaged" him about his trial."
(snip)
"Another unnamed partygoer quoted by the Johannesburg Star newspaper said he witnessed the scuffle between Mr Mortimer and another "flat-out drunk" man he later identified as Pistorius as he passed him with a group of friends and allegedly flashed his middle finger. Meanwhile on Twitter, @aleshavr tweeted that Pistorius had "underdressed" women sitting on his lap at the VIP Room "on Sunday morning".
(snip)
"The Johannesburg Star newspaper said it had spoken to three other people who corroborated his allegations but asked to remain anonymous.
The racing driver claimed Pistorius tried to call him on Sunday morning but he ignored his calls. The athlete then tweeted a series of biblical quotations and pictures of himself with disabled children."
----------------------------------


Poor Oscar, all of these people collaborating and conspiring against him. Again.

:boohoo: :whine:

.

Yes, and at the end of the day it doesn't even matter whether any of the reports of him being drunk, flirting with women or indeed whether Mortimer aggressively approached him or not, the point is that it has been confirmed by Burgess that he was in this nightclub, that has not been denied by OP's PR person, and the point is he should not be going out clubbing full stop. Someone needs to remind him, his family, and his PR team that he is on trial for murder .. people on trial for murder do not go out clubbing, regardless of what actually happens while they are in the club. Even if that night had passed without incident, it would've beenwrong.

 

[pandax81]

Thank you. I'm pretty upset at the cherry picking and misrepresentation of a number on that scale. The psychologist also reported he is not a narcissist nor does he have the markers of an abusive, angry, or psychopathic man. If he had tested low in an empathy area that would be a red flag. I also read this:

"Spouse abusers are relatively high on the Dominance (DOM) scale."

I haven't been able to read the report for myself yet, but, again, if the trained psychologists think he does not observed the traits of an abuser, I'm going to guess he scored low on this scale, as well.

Warmth is 35. This means OP measures significantly low on this test, well outside the normal range, and in fact this is the standout result in terms of the numbers, no cherry picking needed.

The report states: "Warmth (WRM) - The WRM scale provides a measure of the extent to which an individual is empathic and engaging versus withdrawing, rejecting and mistrustful in interpersonal relationships. Item content involves being sociable, sympathetic, affectionate, and patient with others." BBM

The PAI manual states: "Assesses the extent to which a person is interested in supportive and empathic personal relationships. A bipolar dimension, with a warm, outgoing style at the high end and a cold, rejecting style at the low end." BBM

From interviews, Scholtz report says OP was described as "argumentative", "controlling" and "suspicious".

Sounds like a recipe for conflict and arguments in a relationship to me, and that it could come seemingly from nowhere at any time. Remember, messages were read out in court where Reeva was arguing with OP about him being "cold and stand-offish".

Remember, there was also a huge argument where Reeva was most upset that she had planned to tell OP she loved him, but then felt unable due to his behaviour. We know she planned again to tell him for the first time, and can assume she would have been very sensitive to any cold or rejecting behaviour on that evening. Remember, this was Valentines day and for Reeva at least a new dawn in the relationship - this can be a time where even normal people don't know how to react or start raising doubts or suspicions or ask about things from the past before accepting the commitment, sounds like OP would be more prone to this and a potential conflict. Remember, Reeva had told OP about planning and then withholding her "I love you", who's to say she wasn't forced to do this again, and the valentines card is in fact evidence of OP's motive not the the other way round...

Very interestingly, Scholtz writes "His style of conflict resolution is to talk through the situation or remove himself from the situation". To me, the implication is clear - if he perceives that the other person is not talking things through rationally and to his liking, ie a typical argument, then he cannot cope and instead has to leave. Why, what happens if he cannot or does not leave? I think we have found that out already unfortunately.

 

[Marfa Lights]

OP's aunt, Micki Pistorius, has been described as South Africa's top criminal profiler and the founding head of the South Africa Police Service's Criminal Psychology unit (holding a rank equivalent to colonel.) Does anyone knowledgeable about such evaluations think she would have been able to coach Oscar on how to respond during his psych evaluation and skew the results? (Outpatient status making this possibility so much easier!)

 

[kittychi]

OP's aunt, Micki Pistorius, has been described as South Africa's top criminal profiler and the founding head of the South Africa Police Service's Criminal Psychology unit (holding a rank equivalent to colonel.) Does anyone knowledgeable about such evaluations think she would have been able to coach Oscar on how to respond during his psych evaluation and skew the results? (Outpatient status making this possibility so much easier!)

BBM: It sounds unethical to me for her to do that. It may be unfair to make the accusation, however I would not be surprised if it happened since the family so far has pulled out all stops available to them.

 

[kittychi]

Wow. Was this really your reply to minor4th saying the report was interesting to read? The fact is that the report could hardly have been more favourable to Oscar's case. And your summation is the twisting of a single measure among dozens. Like I said. Just wow.

BBM: It will be interesting to see how much weight the judge gives the favorable aspects of this report. I am really looking forward to the judge's decision and her narrative explaining how she arrived there.

IMO there are so many apparent negatives outside of the clinical findings that I don't see how anything in that report will actually help Oscar in the end game.

My own opinion, of course.

 

[believe09]

LINK HERE

Pistorius, who is on bail during a break in his trial, suffers from an "escalating sense of loneliness and alienation," the family said in a statement on Tuesday night.
"This, we believe, is underlying some of his self-harming behaviour."

Is he a danger to himself or others?

 

[Jake18]

OP's aunt, Micki Pistorius, has been described as South Africa's top criminal profiler and the founding head of the South Africa Police Service's Criminal Psychology unit (holding a rank equivalent to colonel.) Does anyone knowledgeable about such evaluations think she would have been able to coach Oscar on how to respond during his psych evaluation and skew the results? (Outpatient status making this possibility so much easier!)

You'd think though, if they were aiming to skew the results they'd aim for something that would actually benefit OP from a diminished responsibility perspective. The most important outcome of the assessment is that he was found "sane" and thus criminally responsible and also found not to be suffering from any disorder. Otherwise, the last few witnesses would have painted a picture of a man with a significant physical disability (barely able to walk) with a heightened startle reflex partly due to this disability and all compounded by a life long debilitating anxiety disorder (GAD). All of which, somehow, resulted in the perfect storm of that night where OP was overly anxious, "startled" a lot and yet was unable to flee. Take away the GAD and it all falls apart a bit. Actually, even with the GAD it's a bit makeshift but the DT seemed to have little else.

 

[Paul Connelly]

OP's aunt, Micki Pistorius, has been described as South Africa's top criminal profiler and the founding head of the South Africa Police Service's Criminal Psychology unit (holding a rank equivalent to colonel.) Does anyone knowledgeable about such evaluations think she would have been able to coach Oscar on how to respond during his psych evaluation and skew the results? (Outpatient status making this possibility so much easier!)

She could have assisted had she known in advance which test he was facing next and had time sufficient time to go through them with him beforehand. I find this unlikely. Also, these tests have a range of inbuilt scales included to uncover instances of faking or evasiveness, denial, faking good (ie, lying). She would know which questions he needed to answer in a certain way to put him within the normal ranges. It is possible she could have influenced the results with sufficient coaching if, she knew what test was being done next. To what degree is impossible to quantify. If she tried to coach him on a range of tests, she'd more likely do more harm than good as it would most likely show up on the relevant scales.

However, it matters not in terms of the trial. He was found to be sane, he knew right from wrong on the night he killed Reeva. Even if he was coached and reduced otherwise elevated levels of narcissism, sociopathy or even psychopathy, to within the normal ranges, it remains that the judge still has to decide if, given the evidence, he reasonably probably knew it was Reeva in that toilet when he fired upon her and killed her. If so, it's premeditated murder. If she decides to accept his version that he didn't know then she has to ask was he entitled to think he was in danger because of a noise? If not, then it's murder. If the answer is yes, and she thinks it was culpable homicide, was his reaction proportionate to that of a "reasonable" man confronted with the same situation? According to the psychiatric and psychological evaluations, on the night he killed her he had no mitigating psychological factors. It's all down to the evidence presented to the court. On that alone will he stand or fall.

 

[Jake18]

She could have assisted had she known in advance which test he was facing next and had time sufficient time to go through them with him beforehand. I find this unlikely. Also, these tests have a range of inbuilt scales included to uncover instances of faking or evasiveness, denial, faking good (ie, lying). She would know which questions he needed to answer in a certain way to put him within the normal ranges. It is possible she could have influenced the results with sufficient coaching if, she knew what test was being done next. To what degree is impossible to quantify. If she tried to coach him on a range of tests, she'd more likely do more harm than good as it would most likely show up on the relevant scales.

However, it matters not in terms of the trial. He was found to be sane, he knew right from wrong on the night he killed Reeva. Even if he was coached and reduced otherwise elevated levels of narcissism, sociopathy or even psychopathy, to within the normal ranges, it remains that the judge still has to decide if, given the evidence, he reasonably probably knew it was Reeva in that toilet when he fired upon her and killed her. If so, it's premeditated murder. If she decides to accept his version that he didn't know then she has to ask was he entitled to think he was in danger because of a noise? If not, then it's murder. If the answer is yes, and she thinks it was culpable homicide, was his reaction proportionate to that of a "reasonable" man confronted with the same situation? According to the psychiatric and psychological evaluations, on the night he killed her he had no mitigating psychological factors. It's all down to the evidence presented to the court. On that alone will he stand or fall.

Great post!

 

[pandax81]

Respectfully snipped

it remains that the judge still has to decide if, given the evidence, he reasonably probably knew it was Reeva in that toilet when he fired upon her and killed her. If so, it's premeditated murder. If she decides to accept his version that he didn't know then she has to ask was he entitled to think he was in danger because of a noise? If not, then it's murder. If the answer is yes, and she thinks it was culpable homicide, was his reaction proportionate to that of a "reasonable" man confronted with the same situation?

With respect:

- The standard for guilt is beyond reasonable doubt, not reasonably probable.
- In judging a defence of putative self defence, whether the accused was entitled to believe he was in danger is not the question, the question is whether he did in fact believe he was in danger.
- If the judge thinks its culpable homicide, this is because she has already answered the reasonable person test, this is not a question to subsequently address.

And the biggie:

- it is OP's clear evidence that he did NOT fire in self defence, because he did not fire intentionally. My understanding of the evidence is he says he thought he was going to be attacked and as a result he underwent a temporary uncontrollable fear response where he was conscious, which he remembers, but where he was not in control of firing 4 shots through the door. This is the big question the judge will decide on IMO, and it will be the foundation to reject his whole story. The 2 unbelievable claims, this and finger not on the trigger in Tashas, destroy his whole credibility IMO.

 

[jay-jay]

LINK HERE



Is he a danger to himself or others?

Thanks for that link .. dear oh dear .. how much more of this self-serving, self-pitying crap are we going to have from this low life. Does he not realise that if perhaps he had not blasted Reeva to bits that night, he would not now be facing a murder trial. He has brought every single bit of this on himself, he had the choice that night whether to shoot or not, and he took that choice .. he has to suffer the consquences of that .. too bad .. it's nothing compared to what Reeva went through that night.

 

[Cherwell]

LINK HERE

Is he a danger to himself or others?

Ooooh! Not much sympathy for him in the comments below that article .........

I still have a nagging worry that money and influence are going to affect the outcome. If it does, I fear there will be great cause for regret.

 

[4MrsB]

This article regarding the Saturday night incident at The VIP room is interesting. Some comments added by Oscar's Uncle "Leo" (guess Uncle Arnold thought he would pass the media baton to someone else this time around). Also mentions a few more comments/details from Jared Mortimer.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/drunk-oscar-insulted-my-pals-zuma-1.1719802#.U8aNtcu9KSM

According to the OP PR person, Oscar was with a cousin, and oh, by the way she is a female (hmmm.."cousin"?)

A find it interesting that in the statements by OP's family, they point out that yes, Oscar was at a nightclub, but he was just sitting in a quiet little area, with his cousin, minding his own business when aggressively approached by this person.

As if he's sitting in the back sipping Earl Grey tea. Also....where in a nightclub such as this one, is a "quiet little area"? And who goes to a nightclub to sit in quiet? They had a BIG event there that night...a SUPERHERO SQUAD party. Most patrons dressed in superhero costumes. (OP probably thought he didn't need to dress as a superhero, since Oscar Pistorius already IS one.)

OP's Uncle states OP never said any of these things. Never criticized Pres. Zuma, etc. The statements this Jared guy claims OP made are interesting to me. If this guy wanted attention and wanted to make trouble for OP, why not say OP made awful remarks about the prosecutor, or Judge or even about OP's own defense team. The fact he states OP commented about Pres. Zuma (this guy is best friends with Zuma's son) and the SANDF seems like a random, off the wall comment if making it all up. IMO.

The article states OP got in another small exchange (with someone else) and then left with his "entourage". Maybe he has a lot of cousins!